Connecticut Carry - Press Release - Gun Violence Working Group delivers a divided pro

From: http://ctcarry.com/News/Release/b3acbbdb-4022-4d3c-88b5-79df2aa22d00

Gun Violence Working Group delivers a divided proposal

There is an absolute need for public hearings on such hotly contested issues where legislators are so clearly divided

Hartford, Connecticut, March 5th, 2013:

The Gun Violence Working Group of the Bipartisan Task Force on Gun Violence Prevention and Children’s Safety failed to deliver on the promised bipartisan consensus of proposals for new legislation today. Instead, they delivered two distinct lists, one serving the hardcore political anti-gun agenda that has become the hot topic of the media lately, and one that wasn’t much better, but at least left off the ridiculous out-right gun bans.

After all the talk of ‘compromise’ and ‘common sense’ from the committee and from the Task Force, it appears that one side stuck to their list of gun ban proposals that essentially parrot Governor Malloy’s proposals. These proposals include furthering the ‘Assault Weapons Ban’ and banning certain sized ammunition magazines.

These unconstitutional and ridiculous proposals are obviously political stunts to appease a fringe anti-rights element, but they continued to divide the task force and the public to a point where it is obvious that no actual consensus or reason can be had. The extreme gun ban proposals also made it clear that many legislators did not heed the advice of the thousands of people who testified at the last public hearing opposing such draconian edicts, nor did they listen to the countless emails and phone calls they have been receiving since this began.

Of particular concern is the fact that none of the gun ban proposals can be reasonably articulated to have a potential impact on a future massacre, since gun control laws historically have only disarmed victims and made gun violence worse, not better. Instead, the proposals only seem to penalize and victimize the law abiding citizens of Connecticut who have done nothing wrong and wish to defend themselves and their loved ones.

The Committee will now send their lists to the six ‘leaders’ of the Task Force for final consideration and recommendation.

A strong message was sent during the hearing and needs to be heard by all legislators:

There must be public hearings before any further action is taken.

It is only reasonable that the legislature, which is supposed to represent the people, hear from the people on the topics they are now trying to push forward.

The task force needs to publish the two lists with details of proposed implementations, deadlines and penalties for public consumption. They must then hold public hearings that give the public time to provide feedback on each recommendation that they wish to move forward in this process.

Anything less is unacceptable from our representative government.

More information on this issue can be found on http://ctcarry.com

Task force's proposals:

Republican:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/ASaferConnecticut/docs/Republican Consensus Proposal.pdf

Democrat:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/asaferconnecticut/docs/Democratic Consensus Proposal.pdf

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

The legislature can do whatever it wants. The purpose of the task force was for a bill for e-cert.

This means that there will not be any further hearings. I'll take them at their word for it right now, although I have spoken to Sharkey's aide several times to voice my opposition to an e-cert and his aide has stated that Sharkey is not so sure he would sign off on an e-cert.

I am going on the assumption that a judge will conclude that the need for such a bill process was an "emergency" (although its more likely that this will not happen but it would go all the way to our commie supreme court which may say "its OK") and that Sharkey will OK an e-cert.

Then you have 2 choices: 1) argue the law's provisions are unconstitutional or 2) argue that the other processes violated our rights during the processes of the law's creation

In respect the #2 I see several issues including:
1) lack of proper notice regarding many of the committee meetings & hearings
2) preferential treatment of the people from Newtown v. others in the state

In respect to the meetings in January of the task force, I will have filed 4 FIC complaints regarding the 28th Jan meeting, the 30th Jan meeting, the 13th FEB meeting, and the 5th of March meeting. I did not see anyone else file any complaints with the FIC in respect to our open meetings requirements. This would be in consideration of the 1st, lack of proper notice, issue. The FIC could null a law because of violations of our meeting rights ... I doubt that they would because of 1 litigant arguing .. 100 maybe. Seems like folks in CT are not willing to explore this avenue as little interest has been shown regarding the filing of FIC complaints (although they are free, no cost, to file). Has a 30 day requirement to file...so the January meetings are now out, although filing as an intervenor is still appropriate and available. My Jan 28th argument is unique as I refused to answer questions to gain entry into the bldg .. and my 30th Jan is somewhat unique as I am arguing that the opportunity to testify equates with being able to attend & only 60 folks signed up to speak outside of Newtown folks. But the Feb ones should apply to all.

The preferential treatment of Newtown people would have to be addressed via a court case in all likelihood. Courts have struck down laws because of just this reason in the past. If a court would do it for any law passed in this instance is unknown.

Rich B said:

These unconstitutional and ridiculous proposals are obviously political stunts to appease a fringe anti-rights element, but they continued to divide the task force and the public to a point where it is obvious that no actual consensus or reason can be had.

Click to expand...

Yes, the idea of the task force was to come up with ONE set of proposals .. not two. So, its interesting that they have this chasm of competing lists of proposals that violate our rights (both do IMO). Of course, I predicted that one set was not going to be offered before (I thought it would be zero, not two though).

And its clear that the Judiciary and Public Safety committees have been sitting on bills and not allowing public hearings about ones sitting on their agendas. My legislator is on the PS committee and I told him flat out that I do not anticipate his committee bringing bills to a public hearing .. he said that they'll continue as if the task force did not exist. Liar. Now what are these committees going to do? Continue to sit on bills? Then it may be too late (they have schedules to abide to).

And e-cert two bills? I see a legal problem with that ... but one to argue later if it happens.

next step

what can we do now, who do we have to call/email to have them stop from confiscating what is ours?

misty said:

what can we do now, who do we have to call/email to have them stop from confiscating what is ours?

Click to expand...

We are recommending people contact the 'leaders' of the Task Force currently.

Info here:
http://ctcarry.com/Announcement/Details/9b49c937-95de-4675-835f-9dfb9f1a4a09

misty said:

what can we do now, who do we have to call/email to have them stop from confiscating what is ours?

Click to expand...

Ones needed to sign an e-cert: Sen. Williams & Rep. Sharkey ... so contact them

Call & email ...

and your reps. too

And you can call the gov.

And you file FIC complaints bout the lack of meeting notice requirements