Debate over a resolution regarding the possession of guns on school grounds by concealed-carry permit holders produced partisan sparks during the July 11 meeting of the City Council’s Ordinance Committee.

In a heated exchange, Democratic Citywide Councilman Steve Stycos and Republican Council Vice President Michael Favicchio of Ward 6 sparred over whether the resolution was properly before the committee – and whether the council’s Republicans had purposely sidestepped its consideration.

“I don’t think it’s properly on the calendar. We created a rule so that we wouldn’t get, month after month, the same matters, and this one has already been decided previously,” said Favicchio, who serves as the committee’s chairman.

“You guys have a really bad history on this issue, of delaying, maneuvering, postponing, tabling, not seconding, and so now is this the latest trick?” Stycos countered.

The resolution – which called on the General Assembly to support the Safe Schools Act – had originally been scheduled to appear on the Ordinance Committee’s June agenda, although that meeting was canceled due to a lack of a quorum. The measure was sponsored by Ward 1 Councilwoman Lammis Vargas and cosponsored by Ward 3 Councilman John Donegan.

The Safe Schools Act sought to prohibit concealed-carry permit holders from carrying firearms on school grounds, with exemptions for law enforcement personnel and security guards. It did not pass the General Assembly prior to the legislature’s adjournment.

The introduction of the new resolution by Vargas and Donegan came following a contentious May debate over an earlier resolution asking state lawmakers to adopt a package of gun-control measures – specifically, a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and the prohibition of concealed-carry permit holders from having concealed weapons on school grounds.

The Ordinance Committee rejected that resolution on a 4-2 vote at the May meeting. Vargas and Ward 2 Councilman Paul McAuley, the committee’s two Democrats, voted in favor of the three-part resolution, while the body’s four Republicans – citywide Councilman Ken Hopkins, Edward Brady of Ward 4, Chris Paplauskas of Ward 5 and Favicchio – were opposed.

During the July 11 meeting, Vargas acknowledged that “there’s really not much that we’re able to do at this point” in terms of the Safe Schools Act due to the legislature’s adjournment. Said she intends to reintroduce the resolution next year.

In a Facebook post at the time of the June Ordinance Committee meeting’s cancellation, Vargas said she was “extremely frustrated” that consideration of the resolution would be postponed but added regarding the quorum issue: “I understand things happen of which at times we have no control over.”

Donegan – who is traveling and was not present for the July 11 committee meeting – previously said he was “disappointed” with the earlier meeting’s cancellation but that it was his understanding that the lack of the quorum was due to “legitimate reasons.”

During the July 11 meeting, Stycos also said he was “disappointed” – and he suggested the council’s Republican members had actively avoided the issue.

“I still don’t know why the last Ordinance Committee meeting was canceled,” he said.

“We didn’t have a quorum,” Favicchio replied.

“We didn’t have a quorum. That wasn’t due to the Democrats,” Stycos said.

Stycos continued: “So, we have here a track record of people who apparently feel very strongly about gun rights but are afraid to stand up and be counted … [and] pull all these little maneuvers that are not democratic that were never pulled on you when the Democrats were in the majority.”

He later added: “Keep it up, and I can speak for myself that I will be pursuing the gun issue, and I hope that you’ll have the courage to stand up for your conviction rather than hiding behind your desk and these silly rules.”

Favicchio strongly pushed back against Stycos’ assertion and reiterated his view that the resolution sponsored by Vargas and Donegan had, in effect, already been considered as part of the measure rejected in May.

“I’m not scared to talk about it … There’s nothing on the calendar about concealed-carry permits [at the General Assembly] … There’s no such bill at this time,” he said.

He added: “I think the content of this one is exactly the same, it is part and parcel of the original resolution … This is much more narrow, but it still concerns the same [issue].”