• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Connecticut Carry - Reminder - Weston gun ban meeting

SWY

New member
Joined
Jan 4, 2013
Messages
5
Location
Weston
Reminder: Weston Gun Ban meeting tonight at 7:30 pm.

We need to make a final push and help the residents of Weston in stopping this nonsense.

http://ctcarry.com/Announcement/Details/6b8344ab-d497-4e89-8c8d-fe826dbc83e8

I'm a Weston resident, and I'll be there along with other Weston residents that believe in the rule of law/US and CT Constitutions. The focus of our elected officials should be on improving school security, and not restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens. Fortunately, many others here feel the same way.
 

motoxmann

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
760
Location
Middletown, CT
I'm attempting to attend tonight, but it will depend on when I actually finish the day's work. not taking the motorcycle this time if I do go lol
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
They may mention my FOIA request .. you know "a person is trying to find out our capabilities" aspect.

Right now, the FIC has continued the hearing in this FOIA request to February. So this matter is not resolved.

And DESPP has written a directive letter under CGS 1-210(d) that notes that handgun information should be disclosed so the issue before the FIC is one of the rifles that were shown in a video that the town allowed a newspaper organization to record and then promptly put on youtube.

And DESPP acknowledged in their letter that they did purchase the rifles (duh?!).

So if anyone wants the video, I can email it to them .. shoot me a PM and I'll send it to you. I have offered this before and no one was interested ... I would show the video at the town meeting and say "why can't I have the guns and magazines that YOU have ... what? Why are you trying to disarm me so that I can offer no resistance to any potential or future paramilitary attacks by your police force?"
 

SWY

New member
Joined
Jan 4, 2013
Messages
5
Location
Weston
They may mention my FOIA request .. you know "a person is trying to find out our capabilities" aspect.

Right now, the FIC has continued the hearing in this FOIA request to February. So this matter is not resolved.

And DESPP has written a directive letter under CGS 1-210(d) that notes that handgun information should be disclosed so the issue before the FIC is one of the rifles that were shown in a video that the town allowed a newspaper organization to record and then promptly put on youtube.

And DESPP acknowledged in their letter that they did purchase the rifles (duh?!).

So if anyone wants the video, I can email it to them .. shoot me a PM and I'll send it to you. I have offered this before and no one was interested ... I would show the video at the town meeting and say "why can't I have the guns and magazines that YOU have ... what? Why are you trying to disarm me so that I can offer no resistance to any potential or future paramilitary attacks by your police force?"

At least at the CT Town level, I believe the most effective approach is to focus on facts--SCOTUS ruling on fundamental rights and types of arms covered by the 2nd Amendment, the requirement that any government actions impacting a fundamental right has to be tightly (and demonstrably/evidence-based) linked to a vital government interest and be narrowly tailored to the problem at hand in the least restrictive manner, and finally (and probably most effective and "real" to town leaders) that the cost of inevitable litigation (and the high likelihood the litigants would succeed on Constitutional bases) cannot be justified. On the State level focusing on the SCOTUS rulings are the best defense, but I'm convinced that Hartford is going to pass these absurd and ineffective laws and it will take years of court cases for all or most of these restrictions to be struck down on constitutional grounds. On the National level, I don't see any gun control regulations (other than mandatory background checks and improved reporting of mental disabilities to NICS) getting through Congress. All just my opinions, of course.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
At least at the CT Town level, I believe the most effective approach is to focus on facts--SCOTUS ruling on fundamental rights and types of arms covered by the 2nd Amendment, the requirement that any government actions impacting a fundamental right has to be tightly (and demonstrably/evidence-based) linked to a vital government interest and be narrowly tailored to the problem at hand in the least restrictive manner, and finally (and probably most effective and "real" to town leaders) that the cost of inevitable litigation (and the high likelihood the litigants would succeed on Constitutional bases) cannot be justified. On the State level focusing on the SCOTUS rulings are the best defense, but I'm convinced that Hartford is going to pass these absurd and ineffective laws and it will take years of court cases for all or most of these restrictions to be struck down on constitutional grounds. On the National level, I don't see any gun control regulations (other than mandatory background checks and improved reporting of mental disabilities to NICS) getting through Congress. All just my opinions, of course.

For some it is the best approach ... for others, different approaches work. Clearly the selectman feel that the ordinances ARE OK per the 2nd amendment though ... otherwise they would not propose them. For the selectman, I think that talking to the 2nd amendment violations would likely fall on deaf ears.

Talking about the reality of the passage of such ordinances .. like it may entice an attack on a school .. turn law abiding citizens into criminals, etc. may hit their consciousness more... factual and opinion based on logic.

Also, there have been no SCOTUS rulings specifically saying that ARs are OK or that standard mags are OK, etc. Even though one could easily come to these conclusions based on current SCOTUS rulings. I think that the "dangerous weapons" noted in Heller I are actually focusing on chemical and biological weapons, not AR15s. Take away or limit firearms and crazy people will turn to chemical and biological weapons more than they do now. Or simple bombs, the poor man's disposable device.
 
Last edited:
Top