Arm Your Family’s Protector
Buy a gun for Father’s day
North Branford, CT, June 18, 2016
Governor Malloy has called on Federal Firearms Licensees (gun stores) to close up shop for Father’s day. While this may make sense in a warped collectivist world where firearms are only used for bad, Connecticut Carry has a different message for the residents of Connecticut who ensure the safety of themselves and their family with firearms.
Connecticut Carry urges all Gun Stores in Connecticut to stay open for Father’s Day, and for all the citizens of Connecticut to go spend money at those stores. Let’s work together to make Father’s Day 2016 into the best sales day on record for firearms, accessories and ammunition.
Father’s day is about honoring Fathers and the work and sacrifice they make on behalf of their families. What better way to honor your spouse, Father, son or other loved one that works hard to protect your family and keep you safe than to take them to the gun store and buy them a new firearm, accessory, ammunition or a gift card for the same?
Connecticut residents need to stand up against Governor Malloy’s crackpot grandstanding and show him that we choose the right to bear arms. We will not be disarmed by the State of Connecticut to be left for dead when the next mass murderer chooses another soft target, made soft by out of control government edicts.
Shame on Governor Malloy for this publicity stunt and his continued attempts to keep the tools of armed self-defense out of the hands of the people who need them.
To help you find a gun store open tomorrow, here is a list:
- Harris Outdoors - Old Saybrook (open until noon)
- Greyson Guns - Orange (open until 6pm)
- Delta Arsenal - Wallingford (open 10am - 5pm)
- Connecticut Firearms and Tactical - Orange (open 10am - 5pm)
- Newington Gun Exchange - Newington (open 11am - 4pm)
- Cabelas - East Hartford (open 10-3 to purchase guns)
- Bass Pro Shop - Bridgeport (open till 7pm, handgun sales till 3pm)
- Connecticut Sporting Arms - North Branford (open 12-3pm)
If we missed your store, and you are open on Father’s day, you can feel free to post an ad on our Facebook page this weekend, and we will share it. For free.
Connecticut Carry Director Ed Peruta’s Response to 9th Circuit Decision
Comments about Peruta v San Diego En Banc Decision
Rocky Hill, CT, June 15, 2016
“The decision in Peruta v. San Diego could not have come at a better time, 5 months prior to a National Election of a new President of these United States.
As the lead named plaintiff in Peruta v. San Diego, I was not surprised at the decision and find myself losing faith in the process of resolving disputes through the judicial system.
As a 67 year old adult male, I was required to learn how to read and comprehend during my younger years while attending public schools, only to find myself being told that the words currently found in the Second Amendment do not mean what they say.
The Second Amendment and right of self-defense with a firearm, is a basic human right possessed by all law abiding, non-prohibited individuals, regardless of race, religion, political party, sex or sexual preference.
The issue of second amendment rights is now a topic of discussion on the national stage by those candidates seeking to become the next President of the United States.
Each of the current known presidential candidates whether Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or Independent will be seeking the office with the authority nominate people to and shape the future makeup of the United States Supreme Court for years if not decades to come.
It is without question that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in rendering the NEW Peruta v. San Diego case demonstrated the fact that they lost faith in, (and acted upon), their belief that the process where cases and issues are heard and determined by three judge panels is not a reliable place to resolve issues of great importance. This belief is found in the fact that two decisions on the same topic can be polar opposites of each other.
The untimely request to become involved by the California Attorney General together with the ANONYMOUS request to convene and hear the case de novo by an en banc panel of, (in this case), eleven judges was nothing more than a political move of such a magnitude that it may ignite the emotions of every firearm owner in the country in ways that cannot be expressed in this post.
The current Ninth Circuit decision and status of Second Amendment Rights in the western states, does nothing more than evidence that fact that three judge panels cannot be trusted to render valid legally correct decisions on issues with national ramification.
Personally I am beginning to understand the issues and emotions that were going through the minds of our forefathers, in the months leading up to, (and following), the events in Lexington, Massachusetts on the morning of April 19th 1775.
Fortunately I currently possess two carry permits for self-defense issued by Connecticut and Florida, (I did not renew my Utah permit), which are recognized through reciprocal agreements between a majority of the states or provision where no permits are required.
For the record, I was NOT asked by any state other than California to submit a reason to obtain a permit to carry a firearm. Connecticut and Florida took my applications, conducted a fingerprint based criminal history background check and issued the permits.
In my younger years, I believed to some degree that I was invincible and had the capability of defending myself from most aggressors and individuals looking to do me harm.
That all changed when I began to reside in a motor home and traveled across county between Connecticut, Florida and California in the fall and spring of each year.
Self-defense and my survival also began to become an issue during the periods that I, (often alone), responded to major breaking news events, (fires, accidents and homicides), in urban areas where most people would fear to tread during the day let alone at night or early morning hours.
The other factor which changed my lifestyle was the first of three heart attacks which gave me reason to believe that I would never again have the physical strength to defend myself if confronted by an aggressor intent of doing me harm or worse.
One way or the other, this issue will arrive at a final conclusion, where honest, law abiding, non-prohibited individuals will accept or reject the Ninth Circuit Court's understanding of Second Amendment rights and the individual right of self-defense and legal possession of a "Concealed Firearm".
Ultimately, the American people have to decide whether they want to take back their government from an elite class of individuals who are protected by bodyguards, governed and disciplined from a separate, gentler playbook and insulated from the economic vagaries that the rest of us face daily.
I would like to close by thanking the countless thousands of people who have supported and followed this case, and request that each one of you make a pro constitution decision while in the voting booth this November.
In the meantime, my support and voice will go to electing Donald Trump, the best candidate to shake up the system and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN in my lifetime.”
- Ed Peruta – Director of Legal Affairs, Connecticut Carry
Inquiries about the case should be made through Michel and Associates, P.C.: http://michellawyers.com/
Ed Peruta can be reached through Attorney Rachel M. Baird: http://rachelbairdlaw.com/
Orlando Club Massacre Steels Resolve in Connecticut
Connecticut Recommits to the Fight to Retain the Right to Armed Self Defense
Connecticut, June 13, 2016
In the wake of a horrible incident in Orlando, Florida, Connecticut Carry is once again reminded of the importance of its mission statement and Article 1, Section 15 of the Connecticut Constitution:
“Every citizen has the right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” - Article 1, Section 15 – Connecticut Constitution
We are also reminded of our own battles here in Connecticut to ensure that Connecticut residents are not disarmed by the State of Connecticut when going about their lives.
Residents of and visitors to Florida are restricted from defending themselves in an establishment that serves alcohol, the type of establishment that recently saw a massacre of innocent people in Orlando. Disarming people only enables this kind of bloodshed. Disarming the peaceable does not prevent violence. In this case, it is apparent that a rogue law disarmed the good and innocent people having a nice night out at the club. This law denied their innate and basic human right to armed self-defense. In contrast, that same law had zero apparent impact on the homicidal fanatic that decided to commit such an atrocity. Violating the law against firearms in an establishment that serves alcohol, he then proceeded to commit first degree murder against at least 50 people, and attempted murder against at least 50 more.
The only thing that will ever stop such a soulless and evil human being is a human being, or human beings, who have become resolute in their right to armed self-defense that then practice that right at the correct time.
Here at Connecticut Carry, our hearts go out to the victims and the families of the victims in Orlando, as we once again reaffirm and renew our fight to resist the State of Connecticut's attempts to disarm our good people. We employed that resistance during this legislative session, through the legislative process. This session, one of the bills we resisted was SB 20, which was a bill that reduced the legal Blood-Alcohol limit while carrying a self-defense firearm to .08 instead of the historical .10. That is a rather significant encroachment for anyone that wants to go out and have a good time, enjoying alcohol, but also wants to be able to defend themselves. An arbitrary number means the difference between 'legal' and 'illegal', but only if you are in possession of the means to defend yourself.
The Orlando massacre showcases another example of how the Connecticut legislature is working to make Connecticut residents less safe under the guise of ‘public safety’.
“Just because you want to go out and imbibe alcohol, does not mean that you should somehow lose your right to defend yourself or find yourself a helpless victim of a mass murderer. The lost and injured individuals in Orlando deserved better, and the residents of Connecticut deserve better. Shame on anyone that would disarm a person that has not infringed upon the rights of another person.” - Rich Burgess – President, Connecticut Carry
Manual of How to Harass Law Abiding Citizens
State’s Attorneys Release ‘How to Manual’ of Harassment
Rocky Hill CT, February 8, 2016:
On February 5th, Senior Assistant State's Attorney Timothy Sugrue published a memorandum to the Chief State’s Attorney’s Office detailing first what everyone in Connecticut should already know: The unconcealed carry of a firearm with a valid Permit to Carry Pistols or Revolvers is 100% lawful, and that police cannot stop a person carrying a firearm unconcealed (Open Carry) to demand their permit absent Reasonable Articulable Suspicion of a crime.
That is detailed on page one of the memorandum. But the memorandum goes on for 5 more pages describing how police in Connecticut can still get away with harassing and detaining citizens not breaking the law. Instead of doing what the State’s Attorney’s office should have done long ago, and clarifying the issue as we have requested, they went on to add to the confusion that police departments experience. Clarifying the issue only needed the first page’s response, nothing else. But this document was not created to clarify, it was created as a handbook for harassment.
And so, the illegal harassment and detainments of law abiding citizens carrying firearms in a manner prescribed by the law will likely continue by departments that are politically motivated to do so.
“The State’s Attorney’s Office has made it clear that they will put their collectivist politics over the need for them to perform their job as advocates of the law. Mentioning mass shootings and the fear-based political climates that their collectivist ilk have manufactured to describe how police should interact with law abiding members of the population is the height of propaganda.” – Connecticut Carry President Rich Burgess
Governor’s Bill HB 5054 Repeats Anti-Due Process Nonsense
Response to Malloy’s Continued Attack On Due Process
Hartford CT, February 6, 2016:
Governor Dannel Malloy has once again announced that, through his emotional puppet Lt. Gov. Wyman, he will pursue legislation that would erode the right to due process in Connecticut, as well as the rights of the citizens of Connecticut to armed defense. His first effort towards this end for this legislative session will be HB 5450.
Evident in the last legislative session, Malloy and Wyman’s proposal was to prohibit possession and confiscate the means to armed defense from anyone accused of any number of alleged ‘crimes’ in domestic violence situations without any due process; whether it be before a judge, jury or with any public transparency. This would also cast a broad net to sneakily and permanently confiscate the weapons and magazines that Malloy and the legislature sought to ban in the 2013 Gun Ban, as once they are transferred from the owner, they cannot be transferred back to the owner.
In the last legislative session in 2015, we watched as Governor Malloy, Lieutenant Governor Wyman and complicit members of the legislature were ‘educated’ on how Temporary (Ex Parte) Restraining Orders are supposed to work, how things currently work, and why what they want to achieve is not only unconstitutional, but dangerous. Unfortunately, ‘educated’ is likely the wrong word to use, as it appears that the teachings were largely over their heads, or were aimed at people that had already made up their mind to be malicious and hurt the innocent people of Connecticut.
A major issue that we have noticed with these bills is that the politicians supporting them usually have no actual knowledge about the topics they are trying to address. In 2015, this was apparent as legislator after legislator got reprimanded in public testimony for their lack of understanding of the Risk Warrant Statute (CGS 29-38c) which already addresses the problems described by Malloy and Wyman, while still allowing for due process. And it has been in place for 16 years.
“Governor Malloy has made it clear that he expects to confiscate arms and property from Connecticut residents without oversight, means of appeal or basic due process. His proposals to confiscate arms from people in Connecticut with nothing more than an accusation in the form of a Temporary Restraining Order is very dangerous and disturbing. Connecticut Carry will do everything within its purview to stop Malloy from implementing these plans.” – Connecticut Carry President Rich Burgess
“Because the Risk Warrant statute already addresses removing firearms from people determined to be a threat to themselves or others, and provides for due process protections of their rights, modifying the procedures for restraining orders would be unnecessary and harmful to lawful, non-dangerous citizens of Connecticut.” – Connecticut Carry Director Matthew Tyszka
Media and State Confuse the Open Carry Issue
A simple concept becomes clouded and treacherous
Bridgeport Connecticut, January 18, 2016
A common refrain anytime the state or local police in Connecticut screw up and arrest, detain or harass law-abiding citizens is that ‘the law is confusing’. There is no better example of this at play than in cases involving unconcealed (open) carry of handguns in Connecticut. Time and time again, we see police officers, paid and sworn to know and uphold the law, who have no idea what the law is. Or worse, they don’t care what the law is and will make up their own laws in the absence of laws that they want on the books.
This week, a great example of that police ignorance and arrogance popped up in Bridgeport, Connecticut. A man standing in a Subway restaurant trying to order his meal was stopped and detained by the Bridgeport police department. The police officer, later joined by his equally ignorant, but more aggressive Sergeant, harass the man and coerce the employees at the restaurant to ask the patron to leave. The police did indicate that the man was not doing anything illegal, that the call for service did not originate from the restaurant that he was attempting to patronize, and then, that they let him leave the restaurant without arrest.
In other articles and press releases in our archives, we have previously explained that, in the past, many police departments, including Bridgeport, have seen nothing illegal in their actions, actions motivated by their ignorance of or disregard for the specific language of Connecticut laws. In the past, Torrington confirmed that our educational message about the precise language and correct interpretation of the laws has been received by them. Wethersfield has confirmed the same.
If an individual purposefully refuses to produce such a permit, or properly identify themselves, then they may be subject to arrest for Interfering with an Officer, CGS 53a-167a, if the elements of that crime are present. – State Police Training Memo
Some State’s Attorneys have purportedly made comments to media organizations that a person's reluctance to automatically melt into subservient compliance and immediately whip out an ID somehow justifies an arrest, simply because a person, especially a law-abiding citizen, is not thrilled with the idea of being put on the spot or if the person refuses to show a permit while carrying openly. However, despite the wording of this memo, where it clearly dances around the issue and explains that you still have to have the other elements that constitute ‘Interfering with and Officer’, that memo was issued in 2013. Now, this is 2016.
Media has also played a role in obfuscating the "open carry" issue by stating that the laws were somehow confusing, even though the prevailing Connecticut Laws are startlingly clear on this issue. Various misleading statements have also clouded the recent Bridgeport incident by claiming that there was a caller from the Subway restaurant. Another claim was that "open carry" is somehow a new law, or interviewees were citing the state police memo, or local police, or quoting attorneys that have not read the law. All media should be more responsible by actually performing full research and then reporting only based on complete research.
In 2015, PA 15-216 was passed to address these issues. Before the Public Act, police implicitly needed Reasonable Articulable Suspicion of a crime to detain and demand identification from someone carrying unconcealed per Terry v Ohio and Hiibel v. Nevada. After the Public Act, we now have state law that explicitly demands that police have Reasonable Articulable Suspicion of a crime to detain and demand identification from someone carrying unconcealed.
Such holder shall present his or her permit upon the request of a law enforcement officer who has reasonable suspicion of a crime for purposes of verification of the validity of the permit or identification of the holder, provided such holder is carrying a pistol or revolver that is observed by such law enforcement officer. – PA 15-216
Another video, purportedly from the same day, shows another Bridgeport police officer apparently following the man into other stores and harassing him. When State or local police interpret what happened in Bridgeport as being a lawful use of police force it demonstrates that they are derelict in their duty. Any attempt to arrest, penalize or further harass someone in this kind of situation will be met with defense from the citizens of Connecticut.
The police behavior of harassing citizens who are carrying firearms legally, in the cited videos, is out of line for the Bridgeport Police Department, but sadly, not completely unpredictable. In fact, earlier the same month, that same police department settled with Michael Rearden to the tune of $30k for putting Mr. Rearden in a cage for 6 hours when he was observed carrying lawfully in a vehicle. In Mr. Rearden’s case, he showed his permit upon the first request. In the Subway Restaurant incident, the man refused to show his pistol permit since the police refused to establish their Reasonable Articulable Suspicion per PA 15-216. This is not the first time that police in Connecticut have failed to correctly apply Connecticut Law in their duties as police officers when it comes to this issue, nor is it the first time that they have been accurately informed of the law.
Connecticut Carry has been contacted by multiple police departments since the incident, as well as media outlets. Connecticut Carry has, and will continue to disperse proper information based on laws, case law, court decisions, and real data, to the media, police departments, and state agencies, per our mission statement.
In fact, Connecticut Carry has offered free training and seminars to any police department that will agree to attend training on these, or other issues. After all, educating our police serves to help everyone in this state, and makes Connecticut a safer place for our citizens and for our police.
Please join our organization: http://ctcarry.com/Join
Please donate to our organization: http://ctcarry.com/Donate
Support our organization: http://ctcarry.com/Store
“The idea that we are still hearing about misinformed and malicious police and state agencies in Connecticut is an indictment against the entire anti-rights executive branch of Connecticut government that has a duty to train their employees. It cannot get any simpler or clearer: There is no law stipulating how you carry your handgun if you have a Pistol Permit. There is no lawful way for a police officer to demand your permit unless he has Reasonable Articulable Suspicion. Case closed.” – Rich Burgess, President, Connecticut Carry
When Seconds Count the Police Are Ten Minutes Away
Terrifying 911 Call Describes Unarmed Helplessness During Home Invasion
Litchfield County CT, January 7, 2016:
On January 6th, 2016 the Patel home invasion and murder case began in the Litchfield Country Courthouse. Connecticut Carry Director and American News and Information Services President Edward Peruta was on hand to video tape the trial after a hard fought battle for transparency in the court concluded just a day earlier.
But why would a court not want public transparency?
As it turns out, ten minutes of 911 call from the mother of the shooting victim give a possible reason. The home invasion, which was carried out on August 6, 2012, in Sharon Connecticut found the victim’s mother zip-tied with her son Luke dead from multiple gunshot wounds pleading with the dispatcher for police and an ambulance for ten minutes. At approximately 6 minutes into the call, she exclaims that ‘she doesn’t have a gun and couldn’t defend herself’ in an audible display of despair.
Politicians who are protected by armed security details like Governor Malloy, the Connecticut General Assembly and Connecticut’s Federal Representatives and Senators continually tell the public that this kind of thing doesn’t happen. That people do not need firearms to defend themselves, and worse, they create infringements on the right to armed self-defense for the citizens in Connecticut.
Connecticut Carry’s stance is clear:
Every citizen has the right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
– Article 1, Section 15 – Connecticut Constitution
There is, of course, no guarantee that a firearm and training would have prevented this law-violating, deliberate home invasion and murder. However, the regret that somebody did not have the means to defend themselves and their loved one(s) is something that should never be inflicted by government edict. And no person should ever have to sit for ten minutes waiting for help from armed felons. This is all the more egregious in a state government run by a man whose son has plead guilty of shockingly similar crimes to what happened in Sharon Connecticut. Perhaps there is a reason why that same politician wants people unarmed in their homes, as a horrible and immoral way of protecting his loved ones.
“Evil is real. The right to armed self-defense is about people being able to use force to defend themselves against that evil. We watch in horror as that evil slaughters unarmed people over and over. We insist upon, and will aggressively defend, our right to armed self-defense.”
– Connecticut Carry President Rich Burgess
"Every elected official should listen to this audio clip."
- Connecticut Carry Director of Legal Affairs Ed Peruta
Response to Malloy’s Watch List Executive Order
Unconstitutional End Run Around Legislature Will Not Go Unchallenged
Hartford CT, December 10, 2015:
Today Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy made an announcement that he would declare an executive order that would prevent anyone that is on yet-to-be-named, secret ‘watch lists’ from exercising their right to armed self-defense by purchasing or carrying a firearm.
The very idea that Governor Malloy seeks to remove constitutional rights without due process using these secret ‘watch lists’ is despicable and unconstitutional. The concept goes against not only against the 5th, 14th and 2nd amendments to our U.S. Constitution, it also goes against the Connecticut Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 and Article 1, Section 15.
These ‘watch lists’ have not been vetted, are not public and are not based on Probable Cause or even Reasonable Articulable Suspicion. Every citizen should have major concerns about any politician who wishes to remove constitutional rights by executive edict simply by putting someone on a list. These confidential lists have zero transparency as no one can see whether they are on the list, why they are on the list, or how to get removed from the list. That doesn’t stop the government from listing over 1 million people on their lists, however. Those lists have included people like Senator Ted Kennedy and others who obviously have no ties to terrorism.
Such a reckless and unmeasured edict would violate Connecticut citizens’ rights to armed self-defense as well as due process.
“Governor Malloy lost his efforts in the legislature to have a list of people that would be denied constitutional rights without oversight or due process. Now he has decided to push a more extreme effort using the wake of a massacre that could not have been prevented with his proposal. And he does this by bypassing and disrespecting our constitution and the legislative process.” - Connecticut Carry President Rich Burgess
“The governor does not have the constitutional authority to deny a state and federal constitutional right. A firearm purchased for use in the home is a core constitutional right and shall not be infringed by Malloy or his mentor Barack Obama. If Governor Malloy believes that if you have done something to make it on these watch lists, then you should not be able to purchase a gun. If you have done something so bad as to be on these lists, why let that person run around free? Arrest them if you have probable cause. ” – Connecticut Carry Director of Legal Affairs Edward Peruta
“This is McCarthyism at its worst. A secret, undocumented list with no way to know how you got on it or how to get off of it. It is just ludicrous.” – Connecticut Carry Treasurer Don Mei Jr.
“This is a knee jerk reaction that will have no impact to crime, violence or the acts of terrorists. A flawed database is a horrible standard to deprive people of their rights to freely travel or possess tool in the furtherance of self-defense. Malloy and his ilk are demonstrating that they don’t care to protect the citizens of Connecticut, only their grandstanding and political posturing to further an agenda of civilian disarmament. Due process and constitutional protections be damned.” – Connecticut Carry Director of Education Ray Johansen
“SEC. 8. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have a right to be heard by himself and by counsel; to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted by the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process to obtain witnesses in his behalf; to be released on bail upon sufficient security, except in capital offenses, where the proof is evident or the presumption great; and in all prosecutions by indictment or information, to a speedy, public trial by an impartial jury. No person shall be compelled to give evidence against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall excessive bail be required nor excessive fines imposed. No person shall be held to answer for any crime, punishable by death or life imprisonment, unless on a presentment or an indictment of a grand jury, except in the armed forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger.” – Article 1, Section 8 – Connecticut Constitution
“SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” – Article 1, Section 15 – Connecticut Constitution
Redundant and Ignorant Bill is Quashed at Last Minute
Connecticut Carry Stands behind Legislators Who Opposed SB 650
Hartford CT, June 6, 2015:
As the Connecticut General Assembly adjourned on June 3rd, it was clear that SB 650 had been abandoned and left to wither on the vine. SB 650, which sought to make criminals of regular gun owners that had been accused, without due process or hearing if they did not surrender their self-defense tools was abandoned by Democrats and Republicans alike in the Senate.
Connecticut Carry and the state’s leading firearms law experts like Attorney Rachel Baird have sought to publically educate the legislature regarding the pre-existing ability of the state’s judicial and executive branch to confiscate firearms from people that pose a verified threat to another individual. Instead, many in the legislature have instead invested themselves into following the lies of the anti-rights lobby that seeks to spread these kind of cookie cutter bills across the country since they failed on a Federal level.
The one essential truth of SB 650 is that it would have destroyed the rights of individuals to defend themselves with contemporary tools if they are accused of violence by any single person, including the person that is initiating violence against them. A domestic abuser would only need to know the law to have law enforcement disarm their victim to prepare for their violent attack.
Connecticut Carry adamantly opposes any such prohibition or idea, as the only thing that definitively protects a victim of violence is the armed means of defense that they have close at hand. However, in this case, the legislation sought to do the complete opposite by disarming victims of domestic violence, which is completely unacceptable and reprehensible.
Connecticut Carry would like to extend extra thanks and recognition to Senator Joe Markley, who took a stand against this bill, and even introduced an amendment to try and bring the repeal of the 2013 Gun Ban to a vote. This was a courageous move by Senator Markley and we appreciate his fortitude in attempting to set right what has gone horribly wrong in Connecticut. We hope that Senator Markley and other colleagues of his will continue and expand upon his gesture.
The Anti-Rights Groups Desperately Play Their Emotion Card
Gabby Giffords Brought in to Turn Intellectual Arguments into Emotional Pleas
Hartford CT, March 18, 2015:
Demonstrating that this year's push for automatic confiscation of firearms from anyone accused by a single party of being a threat to anyone else is nothing but a short sighted and ill-researched push by the anti-rights lobby, and playing into the instruction by Representative William Tong that "this [bill] does not have to be intellectually coherent" . Gabby Giffords, the anti-rights crusader has come to Connecticut.
Notably joining her in the media coverage were Governor Malloy, Representative Sharkey and the surviving Jackson family, victims of a deranged, bipolar lunatic murderer.
Appearing in front of the press, Giffords said: "Dangerous people with guns are a threat to women,” But the fact is, that dangerous people are, by definition, dangerous to everyone. Genders don't stop vicious animals or violent, bipolar criminals. And restraining orders and laws certainly don't stop them either.
If those things did stop vicious murderers, then Lori Jackson's sister, Kacey Mason would not have a cause to recall at the press conference "the many security steps Lori had taken to protect herself, but Gellatly still obtained a gun from out of state, invaded Merry Jackson's home and shot the women.". Interestingly, nobody at the conference mentioned that the ex parte restraining order issued against the vicious attacker did order him to surrender all of his firearms and ammunition. It also did not mention that notice of the order failed, which would render the current proposed bills useless as well, something that the Jackson family openly admitted at the March 11th Judiciary Public Hearing.
But whether or not he turned in his firearms or ammunition, the claim by the state is that he went to Virginia and bought his handgun there. This is, of course, a violation of Federal law. So that is another felony law that did not protect the Jacksons on that day. In addition, a security system, panic buttons and phone calls to police also did not protect the Jacksons.
That we do not advocate for continuing those silly measures is only a sign that we pay attention to what protects victims and wish to help protect more people in Connecticut from violent attackers. The sole fact of the matter is that the only thing that could have protected the Jacksons that day was equal or overwhelming force on their behalf. When trying to protect someone from a deranged lunatic bent on homicide, there is no secret; the only thing that is going to stop him is deadly force. In this case, when you have two women and a young child trying to stop that homicidal lunatic, the best tools for that job are firearms.
But the collectivist system that they are now lobbyists for failed them that day. No one advocated common sense like having the tools to defends themselves and the training to make it happen. No one advised them that they had the ability to use a Risk Warrant against the lunatic that they knew was bent on doing them harm. And that is a shame. An innocent life was lost, another life seriously injured and many lives impacted by the state's inactions and prejudices.
That kind of ignorance and prejudice is not at all difficult to find in Representative Brendan Sharkey's rhetoric. "It's not immediate," Sharkey said of the existing law. "It's not something that enables a victim who believes he or she is in imminent peril to be able to remove the guns from someone's home immediately. The purpose of this legislation is to say that when a victim is in front of a judge and obtains a temporary restraining order, that is the moment when you want to ensure that the guns are removed from the situation on a temporary basis."
Is Sharkey that ignorant of the law, despite having the facts pushed on the Judiciary Committee in a marathon public hearing on March 11th? Or is he simply lying for a bill that he supports to curry favor with Governor Malloy? When he says a Risk Warrant is not 'immediate', despite the fact that a Risk Warrant has no statutory time limitation like the bill he champions does, and the law he champions gives an offender 24 hours to voluntarily surrender their firearms as opposed to a Risk Warrant where the police just go and confiscate the firearms as soon as the warrant is issued, how can Rep. Sharkey honestly say that these bills are somehow more 'immediate' than the Risk Warrant statute (CGS 29-38c)? When he says that is the 'moment' that the guns should be taken from the person an ex parte order is issued against, is he ignorant of the bill he is supporting, or is he lying and trying to deceive the public that the bill specifically gives 24 hours after the order is issued for the person to surrender their firearms?
"Malloy defended his proposal, saying that it will soon be unacceptable in Connecticut, as in several other states, to take action and remove guns when someone is able to come forward, admit to being victimized and ask for help."
Malloy, however, did not mention that police around the state, including his State Police have been illegally confiscating firearms and threatening felony arrest on anyone issued a Temporary Restraining Order for years. When caught and called out on this unlawful and reprehensible behavior, Malloy suddenly started a push to make legal the actions of the State Police, instead of holding them accountable as was recommended to the FBI.
Malloy also did not mention the lies that Lt. Governor Wyman, his general counsel Attorney Buffkin as well as the other anti-rights lobbyists that were present at the March 11th Judiciary Committee hearing told about 20 states having this law in place. We are also confident that they have not yet provided the statistics about those supposed 20 states (which are now just 'several') having lower domestic violence because of this kind of law as opposed to Connecticut. And they never will, because that is ludicrous logic with zero factual basis.
"The anti-rights groups and politicians are clearly worried by the utter slap-down that they received in the March 11th Judiciary Public Hearing. Their anti-rights bankrollers like Bloomberg must be applying a lot of pressure for them to call in a completely irrelevant and ignorant emotional prop like Gabby Giffords." - Connecticut Carry President Rich Burgess