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

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.

The Connecticut State Police have also acknowledged this, but then clouded the issue with a poorly worded ‘Training Memo’. This training memo goes on to say:

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://www.ctcarry.com/Join

Please donate to our organization: http://www.ctcarry.com/Donate

Support our organization: http://www.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

 

On January 6^th, 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

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 5^th, 14^th and 2^nd 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.

“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.

 “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

 

 

As the Connecticut General Assembly adjourned on June 3^rd, 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.

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 11^th 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

 

On March 11th, the Connecticut Judiciary Committee held a Public Hearing to discuss several bills in front of a standing room only hearing room that will impact our individual rights in Connecticut.

Senate Bill 650 – A bill seeking to remove due process from the restraining order process

House Bill 6848 - A bill seeking to remove due process from the restraining order process

House Bill 6962 – A government overreach seeking to criminalize gun owners for keeping their firearms accessible when in their homes.

These bills were widely and universally rejected by the advocates for individual rights that appeared at the hearing, including Connecticut Carry. More instructive in this hearing, though were the arguments from the proponents. At the end of the day, when the two sides had battled things out in front of the legislature, the proponents of the anti-rights bills were left with a singular refrain: “there is a lack of education about the risk warrant statute”. Interestingly, Connecticut Carry has been the sole organization to spend time and money to educate members of the public, state government and law enforcement about the Risk Warrant statute (CGS 29-38c) in Connecticut, which has been law for 15 years and has been discussed at length in both the media and in cases all over the state.

One of the things that struck the leadership of Connecticut Carry was the stunning display of ignorance of the Connecticut General Statutes by not only the Lt. Gov, her counsel and many members of the Judiciary Committee, but also the 'Domestic Violence Advocates' that were advocating for these anti-rights measures. We heard Representative Jeffrey Berger ask if permits can be issued to people subject to Restraining Orders, which is one of the most basic questions on the pistol permit application and is a disqualifier by statute (CGS 29-28(b)). The Governor’s General Counsel could not answer this either. We also watched in amazement as Attorney Buffkin, General Counsel for the Governor’s office, stated that she did not know why the current statutes involved Restraining Orders require a hearing within 14 days, a provision clearly entered into the statute to satisfy the requirement of due process.

Lt. Governor Wyman and her counsel stood fast, in the face of repeated questioning, by the idea that a 'transfer' to an FFL or the police would somehow only transfer possession and not ownership. This is false. They do not even understand the basics of the word that they use: 'transfer'. When a person transfers a firearm to an FFL, they transfer ownership. And it also means that if the property in question is defined under the CGS as a 'Large Capacity Magazine' or 'Assault Weapon', it cannot be transferred back. Ever. The same administration that rammed through the 2013 Gun Ban is now advocating for a way to confiscate those firearms from people on a single person's accusation with no legal method to get those firearms back.

With the ignorance on display in the hearing from the proponents of these bills, it should be no surprise that you could drive a large truck through the holes in their understandings of how firearms laws work in Connecticut. For instance, what do they plan to do against a domestic abuser who has unregistered firearms? There is no requirement in Connecticut for firearms to be registered, only new firearms bought in this state are subject to this provision. And the state database is horribly flawed and contains many, many errors. The bills rely on the honor system from people who abuse their domestic partners and the proponents believe might be homicidal.

This is the illusion of safety, not safety.

The truly sad part is that the facts do not matter to the proponents of these bills. Representative William Tong said at one point in reference to the overwhelming opposition he saw at the hearing "this does not have to be intellectually coherent". Well, yes, it does. We demand that. Legislation should not be based on emotional rhetoric Representative Tong.

"I would like to express my surprise and shock that Nancy Wyman, the Lt. Governor and her General Counsel Attorney Karen Buffkin would appear before the Judiciary Committee to testify in support of proposed firearms legislation that they know nothing about.  My concern extends to the lack of knowledge shown by members of the Judiciary Committee who clearly have NO working knowledge of existing laws, regulations, policies and practices regarding firearms" - Connecticut Carry Director of Legal Affairs Edward Peruta

"It is disappointing and downright pathetic that people are advocating against the basic tenets of law like due process and our individual rights. But it is absolutely despicable that they do so in the name of cases that would not have been helped by anything that they are proposing. Shame on the proponents of these bills and anyone who would further these bills." - Connecticut Carry President Richard Burgess

“"It was a pleasure representing the law abiding firearm owners of Connecticut by my appearance in front of the Connecticut Judiciary Committee on March 11, 2015.  Hopefully my testimony and answers to questions posed by members of the committee, will provide a better working knowledge of firearm issues on which the committee members may base any future firearm related decisions." – Attorney Rachel M. Baird

From the start of this election season, Connecticut Carry has received regular inquiries from media sources about who we will be endorsing for the 2014 election season. As our members know and we communicate regularly, we will not be endorsing candidates for the 2014 election.

One of the primary reasons for this is that there is no one to endorse. The current crop of political candidates range from downright horrible to only wanting to use us for our votes to absolutely delusional. During the votes on SB 1160, candidates that opposed SB 1160 did not stand up for individual rights, instead, they exercised self-preservation. They hemmed and hawed about how they had read the bill but did not think it would put in the right restrictions. There should have been one answer: ‘No’. There was no law that would have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre and there is no law that will stop a future event.

There is a mountain of work to be done before we will see candidates that represent the ideals of liberty loving Connecticut residents. Until we see those types of politicians, we cannot endorse candidates.

In addition, we are non-partisan. Instead of doing like many other organizations do that call themselves ‘non-partisan’ and default to listing everyone on their side of the aisle, we would require any candidate to meet our standards for the advocacy of individual rights no matter what party they did or didn’t belong to.

Since we are the zero compromise, pro-rights organization in Connecticut, we refuse to make allegiances or alliances with politicians that can and will turn their backs on our organization and members once they get into office. Instead, we hold politicians to the merits of their decisions. This can be seen in our ‘Never Forgive. Never Forget. Vote them out’ campaign as well as our ‘Unfit for Office’ campaign. These campaigns have been effective in educating our members and the public about politicians that have worked against our rights. We believe that education contributed to John McKinney’s crushing defeat in the primaries.

Citizens that want to get educated on who to vote for or against can visit our legislative site and view who voted for and against the 2013 Gun Ban.

http://www.ctcarry.com/Legislative/Legislators

We also offer this information in printed form for distribution:

http://www.ctcarry.com/Store/Product/48f030fb-931e-4b59-8323-d55f5506ec1a

“Connecticut residents need to remember that the only reasonable goal this election season is to send as many anti-rights politicians as possible to the unemployment line. We all must vote for whoever can best unseat the people who voted against the human right to self-defense in April, 2013. Luckily, they provided us with a list of who we should vote against in the form of the SB 1160 tally sheet.” – Connecticut Carry President Rich Burgess

 

 

 

By defeating John McKinney, candidate for Governor, in the primaries, Connecticut gun owners today declared John McKinney Unfit for Office. This goes hand in hand with Connecticut Carry's declaration that all legislators that voted for the 2013 Gun Ban are also Unfit for Office.

In the case of John McKinney, he not only voted for the 2013 Gun Ban, he was also an architect of it. For these reasons, it was extremely important to make sure that John McKinney was defeated early in the election process to show that politicians that vote for anti-rights bills will die a quick political death.

Connecticut Carry has released a list of politicians and their votes for the 2013 Gun Ban.

http://www.ctcarry.com/Legislative/Legislators

"We will not stop until all politicians that voted for the 2013 Gun Ban are in the unemployment line. Never Forgive, Never Forget. Vote them out." - Connecticut Carry President Rich Burgess

Summary Judgment, Connecticut’s first and only public television talk show focused on how the state is impacting your rights, will be moving to a new time slot. Summary Judgment will air weekly on Saturdays 6pm – 8pm. We will be accepting viewer call ins at (860) 721-8814.

If your cable provider is Cox Communication, you can watch the show live on channel 15 from the following towns:

Wethersfield

South Windsor

Manchester

Glastonbury

Newington

Rocky Hill

If your cable is provided by AT&T U-Verse, subscribers can access and view the program live by finding the show on Channel 99 under Wethersfield Community Television programs.

For anyone else, you can view the program live and participate in the program through live streaming at: http://sjtalkshow.com/Live

Find more information about Summary Judgment on the Summary Judgment website:

http://sjtalkshow.com

Or on social media:

http://facebook.com/sjtalkshow

http://twitter.com/sjtalkshow