Burnside's Police State

Disunion follows the Civil War as it unfolded.

Near dawn on March 24, 1863, Maj. Gen. Ambrose E. Burnside stepped off a train in Cincinnati. The tall, bald, magnificently bewhiskered soldier arrived from Washington to take command of the Army’s Department of the Ohio, an enormous command that encompassed Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois and most of Kentucky. His orders from the War Department were to collect troops and prepare to lead an invasion of eastern Tennessee. In the meantime, though, he also had to deal with the roiling antiwar politics of the Ohio Valley.

Burnside’s new billet offered redemption after failure at the head of the Army of the Potomac during the winter. The general had led the disastrous assaults on entrenched Confederate troops at Fredericksburg, Va., in December. Later, the “Mud March” fiasco, a failed attempt at a winter campaign, prompted feuding among the Army of the Potomac’s top commanders. President Abraham Lincoln finally removed him in late January 1863. But Lincoln liked the unassuming and sincere Indiana native and wanted him to have an active command. This new assignment was another chance to serve his country.

Library of Congress Gen. Ambrose Burnside

Burnside replaced Brig. Gen. Horatio G. Wright, who had commanded the Department of the Ohio since its formation in August 1862. Wright remained in Cincinnati for several days to ease the new man into command and teach him the lay of the land. The threat of a springtime Confederate invasion of Kentucky loomed, and the defense of the commonwealth took priority over offensive plans. More to the point, the restive states north of the Ohio River had to be quieted. Burnside learned from Wright that Ohio, Indiana and Illinois were cauldrons of violent resistance to the federal government.

Just as galling to these soldiers, anti-administration speech throughout the region was commonplace. Democratic speakers and newspapers heaped torrents of abuse on Lincoln, his policies and his generals. The Emancipation Proclamation continued to be a lightning rod for protest. The constant abuse, many officers and enlisted men believed, encouraged desertion and seriously weakened the armies in the field.

To put an end to it, Burnside had a solution. Three weeks after arriving in Cincinnati, on April 13, he announced General Orders 38, applying military authority to the regulation of all speech and publication in the department. “It must be distinctly understood,” he declared, “that treason expressed or implied will not be tolerated.”

Burnside’s order reflected the sentiments of many soldiers who blamed partisan — i.e., Democratic — speech for prolonging the war. Days before the order appeared, Brig. Gen. Jacob D. Cox, commander of the District of Ohio, noted in a speech that soldiers believed “that these enemies at home are more dangerous than those they meet in the field.” As Burnside himself publicly explained, his order was a declaration of military superiority over civil government in combatting disloyalty and policing the home front. “I am probably invested with a little more power than the majority of you in suppressing anything like treason, and acts that tend to create dissention.”

Burnside’s military edict against treasonous speech was only the latest military measure to fight the growing problem of resistance to the government in the North. Wright, his predecessor, had created a spy bureau made up of civilian detectives and soldiers detailed to roam the landscape and sniff out disloyalty and conspiracy. His Army detectives spied on groups who aided deserters and vowed resistance to the newly passed Enrollment Act. They also reported on sales of arms and ammunition to groups deemed disloyal and bent on violence. Wright also instituted a department-wide ban on the sale of firearms and ammunition in order to keep guns out of the hands of traitors.

General Orders 38 met with widespread approval from Republicans who dearly wished to muzzle their political foes. Troops applauded the measure, none more so than Brig. Gen. Milo S. Hascall, commander of the District of Indiana, who promulgated (with Burnside’s approval) a similar order specifically for his state. “All newspapers and public speakers that counsel or encourage resistance to the Conscription Act, or any other law of Congress passed as a war measure, or that endeavor to bring the war policy of the Government into disrepute,” would, he warned, be deemed violators of the order.

While Republicans cheered the orders, Democrats scolded the generals for unconstitutional infringements of the freedoms of speech and the press. Several Indiana Democratic editors mockingly wondered what Burnside meant by “implied treason.” In May, Hascall proceeded to arrest editors, shutter several newspapers and threaten others in his state as a demonstration of the term’s meaning. Many Democratic speakers and newspaper editors held their tongues lest they be arrested and imprisoned by the Army.

Democratic indignation soared. Many Democrats soon braved the threat of arrest and boldly criticized Burnside’s military edict. Speakers and editors lambasted the order as tyrannical, unconstitutional and merely the latest Lincoln administration travesty. The order quickly came to have the opposite effect from what Burnside had hoped: far from stifling dissent, Burnside’s order provided a rallying cry for antiwar partisans. Rallies throughout the region brought out thousands of energized Democrats.

One Democratic politician appears to have used his party’s reaction to Burnside’s edict to revive his political fortunes. Former Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Dayton, Ohio, defeated in his 1862 congressional race, had plans to run for governor in the fall of 1863. He tapped Democratic anger and attacked General Orders 38 in public speeches. Army officers dressed in civilian clothes recorded one of his speeches. Shortly afterward, troops surrounded Vallandigham’s Dayton house and battered down his door; they arrested him and hauled him away to headquarters in Cincinnati. Burnside promptly tried him by military commission for violation of the order. While Dayton dissolved in riot and half its downtown burned, the tribunal found Vallandigham guilty and sentenced him to military imprisonment, which Lincoln changed to exile in the Confederacy. Vallandigham’s arrest made him a martyr in the eyes of Ohio Democrats, who nominated him as their candidate for governor.

Explore multimedia from the series and navigate through past posts, as well as photos and articles from the Times archive.

While most Republicans took delight in military punishment for Democratic speech, one important Republican acted behind the scenes to put an end to Burnside’s order. From the outset, Indiana Governor Oliver P. Morton perceived both that enforcing the order was impractical and that Democrats gained more from it politically than Republicans. The month before he had disposed of the dangerous problem raised by the military arrest of a sitting Illinois Democratic judge, Charles H. Constable. The generals by their heavy-handed tactics were again interfering with political matters for which they had little aptitude. He traveled to Washington and lobbied the Lincoln administration to remove both Burnside and Hascall. He failed to have Burnside canned, but the War Department soon replaced Hascall.

Morton’s intervention with national authorities brought an end to Burnside’s policy of military arrests for speech. At the beginning of the military commission trial of a Democratic Indiana state senator arrested for disloyal speech, a messenger from Morton informed Burnside that the president and his cabinet disapproved of Burnside’s arrest of Vallandigham and the Army’s interference in political matters. Rattled by this startling news, Burnside telegraphed the president to offer his resignation, which Lincoln tersely declined, saying that the arrest had been foolish but the Cabinet would back him. The general promptly ended the policy of arrests and trials for disloyal speech, even freeing the Indiana state senator after the commission found him guilty.

While he discontinued arrests for speech, Burnside still aimed to silence critics. On June 1, he ordered the shutdown of The Chicago Times, the leading antiwar Democratic newspaper in the West. Reacting to Democratic clamor and protests from prominent Republicans, Lincoln initially ordered Burnside to rescind the order. But other Republicans who approved of Burnside’s move intervened, prompting Lincoln to waffle. He flip-flopped and ordered Burnside to keep the paper under lock and key. His message arrived too late. Burnside had already lifted the suppression order. While the general did not rescind General Orders 38, the suppression of The Chicago Times was to be his last major attempt to curb Democratic opposition in the Department of the Ohio.

Burnside blamed Governor Morton for the demise of his program for rigorous military intervention into civil affairs, one of the most notorious efforts to suppress speech and press freedoms in American history. “The civil law is too slow,” he groused privately. The general, who saw himself as supreme military governor over five states, greater than a mere state governor, believed the power of the Army should be employed to quell dissent. But the capable Indiana executive prevailed and kept the general at bay. In July, Morton again skillfully deflected Burnside’s efforts to declare martial law in Indiana during an extensive Confederate raid across the region.

In angry frustration, Burnside’s staff officers turned a portrait of the governor that hung in their Cincinnati headquarters upside down. The irony of their symbolic protest appears to have escaped them.

Follow Disunion at twitter.com/NYTcivilwar or join us on Facebook.

Sources: William Marvel, “Burnside”; Craig D. Tenney, “To Suppress or Not to Suppress: Abraham Lincoln and the Chicago Times,” Civil War History 27 (September, 1981); Stephen E. Towne, “Killing the Serpent Speedily: Governor Morton, General Hascall, and the Suppression of the Democratic Press in Indiana, 1863,” Civil War History 52 (March, 2006); Stephen E. Towne, “Worse than Vallandigham: Governor Oliver P. Morton, Lambdin P. Milligan, and the Military Arrest and Trial of Indiana State Senator Alexander J. Douglas during the Civil War,” Indiana Magazine of History 106 (March, 2010).

Stephen E. Towne is an associate university archivist at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis and the editor of “A Fierce, Wild Joy: The Civil War Letters of Colonel Edward J. Wood, 48th Indiana Volunteer Infantry Regiment.”

View the original article here

The Early Word: Calamity

April 07

The White House says a threatened filibuster by Republicans on gun control was an affront to the families of the children who died in a school shooting in Connecticut.

April 06

Dan Pfeiffer, senior adviser to President Obama, is on the Sunday shows, talking about North Korea, the budget, immigration and gun control.

April 06

Political news from today’s Times and a look at the president’s weekly address.

April 05

Scott Brown, who just turned down a chance to run again for the Senate in Massachusetts, is hinting that he might hop over the state line and challenge Senator Jeanne Shaheen in 2014.

April 05

Senators Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Donnelly of Indiana announced their support Friday.

View the original article here

Obama Pauses From Fray to Raise Money for 2014

WASHINGTON — As he battles to advance legislative priorities on gun control and taxes, President Obama opened a multimillion-dollar fund-raising drive Wednesday in the hope of winning a friendlier Congress for his final two years in office.

With a two-day swing through the money corridors of Northern California, Mr. Obama began fulfilling a promise to Congressional Democrats to use the power and prestige of his office to fill their coffers for the 2014 election in a way he did not during his first term.

The president was the headliner at the first two of four big-dollar events Wednesday night and planned to appear at two more Thursday before returning to Washington. Although his approval rating is stuck below 50 percent in many polls, Mr. Obama remains a top draw for wealthy Democratic patrons, particularly in the supportive realms around San Francisco.

“Two thousand twelve was a referendum on the president, so the president had to campaign for himself,” Representative Steve Israel of New York, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said in an interview. “Two thousand fourteen is going to be a referendum on House Republican obstruction, and so the president is now helping House Democrats.”

The president returned to the campaign trail while making a high-profile effort to court Republican lawmakers. He has taken Republican senators to dinner, and is scheduled to have another dinner with Senate Republicans next week after releasing his long-delayed budget plan.

Such dual-track efforts are common for presidents of both parties, but this one could complicate Mr. Obama’s outreach on issues like deficit reduction and immigration.

“My hope is that we’re going to see more and more Republicans who say, you know what, I didn’t come here just to fight the president or demonize Nancy Pelosi, I came here to get some stuff done,” Mr. Obama said at one of the Wednesday night fundraisers, where he was flanked by Mrs. Pelosi, the House Democratic leader. “But, realistically, I could get a whole lot more done if Nancy Pelosi is speaker of the House.”

Mr. Obama’s choice of hosts likewise opened the president to criticism. His first reception Wednesday was at the San Francisco home of Thomas F. Steyer, the hedge fund billionaire, and his wife, Kat Taylor, where 100 guests each paid between $5,000 and the $32,400 legal maximum. After that, the president was headed to the San Francisco home of the billionaire philanthropists Ann and Gordon Getty, who had invited 75 people to write checks for $32,400.

On Thursday morning, the president is due in nearby Atherton for a brunch for 30 guests paying $32,400 apiece at the home of Mark W. Heising, founder of a private equity investment firm, and his wife, Liz Simons. Then Mr. Obama is due at the Atherton home of John D. Goldman, a Levi Strauss heir, and his wife, Marcia, for a reception for 250 donors paying between $1,000 and $20,000 each.

The Republican National Committee posted a video mocking Mr. Obama for calling on the wealthy to pay more in taxes and then hitting what it called “Billionaires’ Row” to collect big campaign checks.

“On the campaign trail, Obama’s favorite applause line was attacking the very people he’s now begging for campaign cash,” Reince Priebus, the party chairman, said in a statement. “Hypocrisy at its finest. Barack Obama has his priorities completely backward — prioritizing billionaires over the taxpayers who demand and deserve a budget.”

Republicans were not the only ones protesting Mr. Obama’s fund-raising trip. The Sierra Club and other environmental groups picketed outside the Getty home to press him to reject the Keystone XL pipeline, the latest of several such demonstrations.

“Americans are showing up by the thousands to tell the president in person: ‘You must be bold on climate. You must reject Keystone XL,’ ” said Michael Brune, executive directorof the Sierra Club.

Mr. Obama may get that message even more directly from Mr. Steyer, who retired last year from Farallon Capital Management. Mr. Steyer, an environmental advocate, is such an ardent foe of Keystone that he recently threatened to broadcast ads against a Senate candidate in Massachusetts unless the candidate renounced support for the pipeline.

The events Wednesday night were to benefit the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Mr. Obama promised to hold eight fund-raisers for the group this year, including two with its Senate counterpart. He appeared at only two fund-raisers for the committee in 2009 and one in 2011. The Thursday events will be for the Democratic National Committee.

View the original article here

Midterm Elections Unlikely to Alter Party Balance

Well, get used to the combination of a Republican House with a Democratic Senate and White House. It’s likely to remain that way for the next four years, not just two.

And oddly enough, that might just help Washington lower the partisan temperature and strike a few compromises for a change.

The campaign for midterm elections in 2014 has begun. Late Wednesday, President Obama travels to California to raise cash for the Democratic National Committee and his party’s House campaign arm.

But chances that Democrats can gain the 17 seats needed to recapture control of the House appear remote. Republicans have better prospects of picking up the six seats they need to regain the Senate – but not drastically better.

After midterm “wave elections” in 2006 and 2010, the calmer outlook this time reduces the stakes of electoral competition next year. That, in turn, may expand opportunities for bipartisan action on such issues as immigration, modest gun control measures and deficit reduction.

“We’re going to maintain our majority,” Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House majority leader, said in an interview. But with Mr. Obama not going anywhere either, he added, “I’m committed to seeing ways we can work with this White House, knowing full well we have big differences.”

“I think what you’re seeing emerge now is an appetite for achievement,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic whip, who is a solid favorite to win re-election next year. “We want to do some things – or at least try – on a bipartisan basis.”

The ideological and political gap between the parties remains wide in any event. But the lure of seizing control of the House or Senate, and winning the presidency, has widened that gap in recent years by injecting all-or-nothing electoral drama into virtually every high-profile dispute.

In 2006, Democrats used unhappiness over the Iraq war, the Bush administration’s handling of Hurricane Katrina and other Republican setbacks to recapture House and Senate majorities. When the financial crisis hit two years later, they captured the presidency.

In 2010, House Republicans used continued economic weakness and a backlash against Obama administration policies to create their own comeback wave. Last year Senator Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, set his sights on winning control of the Senate and ensuring Mr. Obama’s defeat.

As it turned out, voters last November preserved the existing balance of power. Odds favor their doing the same next time.

As this week’s fund-raising jaunt suggests, Mr. Obama is lending his energies to Congressional Democrats now that he no longer has to campaign for himself. But history and circumstance argue strongly against Democrats retaking the House.

Since voters tend to blame the White House incumbent for their discontents, the president’s party has lost House seats in all but three midterm elections in the past century. The number of times the president’s party has gained 17 seats in a midterm election: zero.

Democratic campaign operatives say they will defy history and gain at least a few seats. Among other factors, they point to strong fund-raising and the Republican Party’s national image problems.

But district lines drawn after the 2010 census circumscribe their opportunities. Charlie Cook, a political handicapper, estimates that fewer than 30 Republican-held seats are even at risk, and Democrats themselves have slightly more in jeopardy.

The midterm electorate tends to be heavier than in presidential years with older voters and whites – both important Republican constituencies. In Senate races, Republicans once again boast an auspicious map of possibilities.

View the original article here

Rubio, Amid Planning, Is Yet to Commit on Immigration Bill

Given the disdain some conservatives reserve for Republicans who consort publicly with Democrats, he had reason to be.

The next time Mr. Rubio is likely to appear with his colleagues in the eight-person bipartisan group could be an even bigger moment, when its members officially introduce joint immigration legislation this month. The probable tableau seems ready-made for problems in the 2016 Republican presidential primary fight in which many expect Mr. Rubio to partake: images of Mr. Rubio, smiling and celebrating alongside Democratic senators and maverick Republicans as he claims co-authorship of an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws that many Republicans will reject.

And so the question percolating on Capitol Hill has become: Will Mr. Rubio, an up-and-coming young conservative elected on a 2010 Tea Party wave, ultimately sign onto the immigration bill that he has been helping to draft ever since the November election?

“We have to see if the Boy Wonder plays ball or not,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, a pro-immigration group.

For now, the answer — among members of the bipartisan group, immigration watchers and even Mr. Rubio’s own staff — is a tentative yes, even with Mr. Rubio increasingly urging caution about racing ahead with any immigration measure as the unveiling draws nigh.

“We understand Marco is not going to be rushed into anything,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and a member of the group. “But we don’t doubt his commitment to seeing this through at all.”

In recent days, Mr. Rubio has begun to sound nervous again when it comes to the immigration legislation. He sent a letter to Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, counseling against “excessive haste” in changing immigration law. On Sunday, just moments before two of his fellow bipartisan group members were set to appear on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” he released a statement that warned, “No final agreement on immigration legislation yet.”

Mr. Rubio finds himself in an extremely delicate position as a rising conservative hero and a proponent of immigration law changes. As much as the fate of the bipartisan group’s legislation hangs on Mr. Rubio, who is perhaps the only member of the group with the conservative credentials to sell the plan to skeptical voters, the fate of Mr. Rubio’s ambitions for higher office are also inextricably bound up with the immigration legislation and his base’s reaction to it.

So far, Mr. Rubio has seen early success wooing grass-roots Republican voters. When he joined the bipartisan group late last year, after Mitt Romney lost the presidential election in part because he was overwhelmingly rejected by Hispanic voters, Mr. Rubio quickly went on a one-man blitz of conservative news media outlets, explaining his guiding immigration principles and winning plaudits from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

“The argument is that it’s not conservative policy to have 11 million illegal immigrants in this country,” said Phil Musser, a Republican consultant and former executive director of the Republican Governors Association. “By showing up and by boldly deciding to engage people who have had their fingers in their ears on this issue, he’s been able to decalcify a process that’s been stuck for a long time.”

He and his staff have studied the mistakes of the last attempt at immigration overhaul, in 2007, and have tailored their pitch to address conservative concerns. Mr. Rubio stresses that strict goals for border security must be met before any illegal immigrants can be put on a path to citizenship. And he talks of refining the current system — from increased enforcement to a workable plan for future legal immigrants — saying he wants to ensure the country does not face another wave of illegal immigrants down the road.

“His emphasis on strong border security and enforcement is a big deal, and I think the Democrats are finally beginning to get that, and I think that is because of his strong leadership and communication skills,” said Mel Martinez, a former Republican senator from Florida who was part of the failed 2007 attempt at an immigration overhaul.

View the original article here

For Democrats, a Rare Force Commanding in Cowboy Boots

Had she not followed her grandfather’s instructions, Ms. Guerra, now a Democratic strategist, might have gone down a different path. Now 31, she recalls how voting in that local election — though she cannot remember what was on the ballot — started her on a journey that has included leading the bruising but successful recent campaigns of two state senators and a state representative.

Of her grandfather’s instructions, she said, “I just remember him yelling names at me, he was a couple of booths down.” She remembers thinking, “This is embarrassing.”

Her former employers say Ms. Guerra is a force behind the scenes, and more than a mere up-and-comer for the state’s beleaguered Democratic Party. She is viewed by some in the party as a rare weapon for progressives in a conservative stronghold.

Part of Ms. Guerra’s drive comes from a lack of patience with Democrats who think the party’s time will eventually come.

“We’ve been in this holding pattern for so long, like we have to wait until ‘this’ year before Texas turns blue,” she said. “I just think, I am not getting any younger. I don’t want to wait for it to happen. I just want to make it happen.”

The second of five children, Ms. Guerra was raised by her mother and her grandparents.

Her mother held a number of odd jobs, including part-time work at an Army surplus store, before landing a job at the state’s Health and Human Services Commission. She eventually joined the state employee’s union and became enthralled with Democratic politics.

Ms. Guerra, a graduate of Texas A&M University, said her mother’s passion, along with lessons in elections and politics from her grandparents, steered her toward her current path.

She became a field worker for the Texas Democratic Party, then eventually joined Representative Chris Turner, Democrat of Grand Prairie, when he was working for former United States Representative Chet Edwards. She became a consultant for Mr. Turner’s campaign when he decided to run for the Texas House.

Her latest victory came this month, when she helped propel State Senator Sylvia Garcia, Democrat of Houston, to victory. Ms. Garcia defeated Representative Carol Alvarado, a fellow Houston Democrat, in a special election that began late last fall and started with a field of eight candidates.

“We were both interviewing each other,” Ms. Garcia said. “I was looking for the right manager, and I think she was looking for the right candidate, and I think it was just the right match.”

“I saw her handle more than one problematic issue on the campaign to where you saw she was chiquita, pero picosa,” Ms. Garcia said, using a phrase meaning small but spicy. (Ms. Guerra is barely 5 feet tall in her signature cowboy boots.) “You saw where she was there to protect me as a candidate, there to protect our campaign.”

Ms. Guerra joined Ms. Garcia’s team a week after leaving the victorious campaign of State Senator Wendy Davis, Democrat of Fort Worth, who survived a challenge from former Representative Mark Shelton, Republican of Fort Worth, in the most expensive state Senate race of 2012.

Ms. Davis said Ms. Guerra was one of several people the senator interviewed, and though she lacked experience in a race of similar size and expense, Ms. Davis was soon won over.

“Despite how unassuming she can be, she was not at all afraid to ask for the job and assure me with tremendous confidence that she knew she was capable of doing it,” she said. “It’s a pretty rare quality for a person of her age, and for a woman, and probably even more rare for a woman of that age who is a Latina. But she has a tremendous self-confidence, and I think that’s one of the things that keeps her very happy to be behind the scenes.”

Ms. Davis came to believe her decision when she saw how Ms. Guerra commanded her field workers.

View the original article here

After Other States’ Moves, Connecticut Is Still Working on Stricter Gun Law

In January, New York passed the first comprehensive gun legislation in the wake of the killings. On Wednesday, Gov. John W. Hickenlooper of Colorado signed bills mandating sweeping new restrictions on the sales of firearms and ammunition there.

But in Connecticut, which became the epicenter of the debate over guns, legislative leaders have yet to introduce a bill to address gun violence and mental health issues. They continue to meet daily, and now expect introduction around the first week in April.

The result, to some, has been a perplexing process in a state traumatized and galvanized by the killings, where opinion polls show overwhelming support for new gun legislation, and where Democrats control the governor’s mansion and both houses of the General Assembly and thus have the ability to pass whatever they want. But legislators say that given the state’s relatively moderate politics, with a culture of bipartisan lawmaking and a new House speaker who made a commitment that both parties would be involved in writing gun legislation, the process has played out in a largely familiar way.

Some Democrats, including Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, and gun control advocates have expressed frustration with the pace. But the House speaker, Brendan Sharkey, a Democrat presiding over his first session, said he was confident that Democratic and Republican legislators could agree soon on comprehensive gun legislation. And, citing a statement by New York’s governor, Andrew M. Cuomo, that his state’s new limits on ammunition magazines were unworkable and needed to be modified, Mr. Sharkey said Connecticut legislators were wise to take the time to get their legislation right.

“My mantra at the beginning was it is important to act quickly, but it is more important to act intelligently,” Mr. Sharkey said in an interview.

He added, “I’m personally very confident that what we produce will give Connecticut the strongest gun safety legislation in the country when we’re done.”

After the tragedy, Connecticut created a somewhat confusing process, with one commission established by Governor Malloy to research guns, violence and mental health issues and a separate task force set up by the legislature.

Republicans and Democrats on the legislative task force agreed on many elements of a gun-control package but offered separate reports. Both sides called for universal background checks, greater safe-storage requirements and more requirements for buying ammunition. Only Democrats called for expanding the existing assault-weapons ban to cover a broader array of weapons and for a ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

But Democratic and Republican leaders indicated that the fact they were still talking was evidence that those two elements could be part of bipartisan legislation. And Larry Cafero, the House Republican leader, said passing legislation roughly four months after the shootings would be extraordinary given the complexity of the issues.

Colorado’s legislation came eight months after the mass murder in Aurora, Colo., last summer, Mr. Sharkey noted.

Alluding to New York’s experience, Mr. Cafero said, “To be the first out of the blocks and get it wrong is not a success as far as I’m concerned.”

Legislative leaders have largely kept their deliberations private. But one aspect discussed is whether to have multiple bills, with one able to gain broad support and another dealing with issues like assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines that would have a harder time attracting bipartisan agreement. That approach now seems unlikely, people close to the deliberations said.

If there is support for a ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines, the next question is whether it should apply just to their sale or also to their possession, meaning that those people who now own them would have to dispose of them. The commission appointed by Mr. Malloy, in an interim report, recommended the ban of the “sale, possession or use” of magazines with more than 10 rounds.

Mr. Cafero last week also sharply criticized the State Police for a briefing about the Sandy Hook case it delivered this month at a law enforcement convention in New Orleans. The Daily News, quoting someone who had attended the convention, reported on details of the crime that have not been disclosed to legislators or the victims’ families. Among the details was that the gunman, Adam Lanza, had compiled a large spreadsheet of mass murders and the weapons used in them.

Mr. Cafero said lawmakers should have all appropriate information as they work on legislation before they finish.

Mr. Malloy echoed Mr. Cafero’s disappointment with the leak, and directed the Office of the Chief State’s Attorney to release additional information on the investigation by next Friday.

But, perhaps indicating some limits to bipartisanship and frustration with the progress made, the governor said in a statement that “the vast majority of people in Connecticut can agree on some simple, common-sense things we can do — right now” and that legislators should by now have all the information they need to proceed.

“What more does Mr. Cafero need to know before he’s finally ready to take action?” Mr. Malloy said.

View the original article here