his response to my letter condemning the new ordinance.
My Follow up email.Shawn,
Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your concerns on the proposed ordinance and sharing with me your thoughs.
The City of Shelton already has a ordinance (# 833 )approved by the Board of Alderman on December 14, 2007 which does prohibit various weapons. This ordinance at the public hearing in 2007 had no one form the public was opposed to that ordinance.
The Shelton Open Space Ordinance #833 (found here) already prohibits much of what is discussed: "Hunting, trapping, archery, discharging firearms, paintball guns, air guns or use of any weapon on or into any city Open Space area is prohibited. Hunters crossing City Open Space areas to gain access to private or state property may proceed through City Open Space areas only with an unloaded firearm." This ordinance at the public hearing in 2007 as I already stated had no one from the public who was opposed to that ordinance. I was not the author of #833
CT state Statute 53a-217b is already a class D felony. That state statute pertains to Possession of a weapon on School grounds.
Really the only thing at issue is the public buildings
This ordinance say nothing about the rights of CT state pistol permit holders from being able to carry their licensed firearms on Shelton public spaces. The paragraph you have quoted pertains to the discharging of firearms, and specifically calls out hunters "Crossing" public land but says nothing about the rights or CT state pistol permit holders carrying their holstered firearm on Shelton public spaces. In the strictest interpretation of Ord #833 I think you'd have a hard time convincing a judge that someone violated the ordinance since it does not specifically call out permit holders. Hunting licenses hold much fewer restrictions than permit holders. Is it your belief that Ord #833 restricts the right of citizens in possession of a CT state pistol permit from carrying their licensed firearms on Shelton public lands? If so then Perhaps you should reexamine that thought. The wording certainly does not lend to that belief. I believe that no one apposed Ord #833 because of what I have stated earlier no lawyer or judge would be expected to believe that the wording of this ordinance was meant to extend to CT pistol permit holders since it specifically calls out hunting only and or the discharging of firearms. I wasn't aware Shelton had a serious problem with people running around shooting guns for no reason. Ord #833 was obviously meant to restrict hunting on Shelton land and as such I find no fault with the Ordinance. I do find fault when you attempt to apply it to legal gun owners carrying licensed, permitted, and holstered firearms for self defense. This kind of interpretation is a clear violation of the 2nd amendment and should Ord #833 be applied in that manner then it will be challenged in court as well.
I also have to ask again for an answer to my question of what benefit does this ordinance serve the public? Who will stand to be protected by it? Is it your belief that if some mad man decided to bring a firearm or other deadly weapon into one of these weapon free zones that he would be deterred by the fact that he was breaking the law? I restate my opinion that ordinances like these do nothing to protect anyone and only serve to disarm law abiding citizens and restrict our 2nd amendment rights.