Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Connecticut Carry - Announcement - Weston Gun Ban – Time to Start Writing

  1. #1
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910

    Connecticut Carry - Announcement - Weston Gun Ban – Time to Start Writing

    From: http://ctcarry.com/Announcement/Deta...c-d128803314bc

    Weston’s gun ban needs to be fought by the power of the pen

    Connecticut, January 10, 2013:

    After attending the police commissioner’s meeting, it is clear what we need to do going forward.

    • Write the selectmen. First Selectwoman Gayle Weinstein and Dennis H. Tracey III are the ones pushing this ordinance. Dennis Tracey wrote the bill. Let them know that their bill will fail to protect anyone and that they are in way over their heads and need to back out now.

    • Write the police commissioners. Thank them for their sober thinking on not rushing forward to discuss such a ridiculous bill. Express your concern for their police officers and public safety should this bill pass. Include plenty of statistics and thoughts about the costs and ramifications that will result from going forward with this bill.

    • Write the Police Chief. Police Chief John Troxell showed calm and rational thinking during the commission meeting and should be commended for not jumping on the gun ban bandwagon. Insist that he do his best to squash this bill, and tell him he has our support going forward to fight this bill or refuse to enforce it should it pass.

    Please remember to be calm, rational, polite and professional. But also remember how serious this issue is. The police commissioners and police department should be considered friendly right now. They did stand up to Gayle Weinstein and put this ordinance off, and the feeling in the room was that there was very little support for such a bill in Weston.

    Contact information here: http://ctcarry.com/WestonBan/Contacts

    If you have additional contact information that could be useful, please send it to me so I can share it with everyone.

    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Contact:
    Richard Burgess
    President
    Connecticut Carry, Inc
    Ph: 203-208-9577
    Email: rich@ctcarry.com
    http://ctcarry.com
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  2. #2
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Last edited by Rich B; 01-11-2013 at 12:34 PM.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    http://ctcarry.com/Document/Download...e-3619f890c7f9

    Link to talking points (previous link no good?)

    This is what the opposition will say regarding talking points:

    1) mag ban ... it will limit the mag to a maximum capacity of 10 rds ... so your 10rd larger caliber mag that can actually hold 20-30 .223 rds would be classified as a 20-30 rd mag, not 10. If a mag can hold 10+ rounds of ammo that the MAG is designed for or is able to accommodate, then its banned.

    2) A NY court has already ruled that the ARs are not protected under the 2nd amendment (the dissenting opinion says otherwise)

    3) storage requirement can be mandatory as our ordinance will allow for immediate use of a gun in the possession of the gun owner

    4) the town can regulate firearms, it is us who knows best


    I don't see reasonable arguments winning the day, although I agree with most of the talking points myself and have already discussed many of the points with my local legislators.

    I do see the argument that people from the region will band together to not allow the 2nd amendment to be tossed in the garbage by one town. And that the people of the region, not just Weston residents, will defend our natural rights. And that people in the region believe that the ordinances proposed are basically implies a gun grab is the goal of the Weston politicians. And that the ordinance proposed is an attack on the American people.

    A harder line needs to be taken IMO. The talking points need to be revised to address what officials will counter, some of which are stated above. Some of the talking points are easily shot down.

    An I would suggest that when people attend meetings that they bring their gun cases.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 01-11-2013 at 12:15 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    4

    Here's one little argument...

    I guess Selectman Weinstein feels she is special and doesn't have to follow the constitution or case law

    In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

  5. #5
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    http://ctcarry.com/Document/Download...e-3619f890c7f9

    2) A NY court has already ruled that the ARs are not protected under the 2nd amendment (the dissenting opinion says otherwise)

    .
    The US Supreme Court in "Heller" states otherwise/. It specifically states that weapons in "common usage" are protected. At about 15M or 16 million AR's in the US, I would suggest they are in "common usage"
    Last edited by hermannr; 01-11-2013 at 02:33 PM.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    The US Supreme Court in "Heller" states otherwise/. It specifically states that weapons in "common usage" are protected. At about 15M or 16 million AR's in the US, I would suggest they are in "common usage"
    I would agree BUT there is a NY federal district court ruling that says otherwise ... so this is what they will hang their hat upon ... and in Heller, they did not say that ARs are covered SPECIFICALLY..

    So, this is not a winning argument from the viewpoint of CT politicians...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •