Monday, April 1^st 2013 was indeed a bad joke for the citizens of Connecticut. The legislators announced their proposed legislation that aims to destroy the rights so many of us cherish in this state.

Several times and for several different occasions, thousands of critics of the proposed bills descended on the Legislative Office Building to express their opposition to the anti-rights rhetoric being discussed. They were opposed by dozens of people who sought to exploit victims of a terrible tragedy for political gain. Some people have no shame, particularly when it comes to the rabid fervor of exploiting tragedy to make further victims of law abiding citizens who have not hurt anyone.

The obvious ridiculousness of the disparity was quickly overshadowed by the outrageous nature of the proposal which, in addition to harming and insulting the citizens of Connecticut, clearly have nothing to do with the tragedy that befell Newtown. Instead of trying to address the nature of the horrific crime, the legislature has come up with proposals that clearly would not have prevented the massacre.

Danbury State's Attorney Stephen J. Sedensky clearly stated that there was no evidence that the murderer had ever failed a background check and no allegations have been made as to a criminal, violent or mental history that existed before the massacre. The background checks, safe storage and violent offender registry provisions of this proposal would all have been useless to the incident. The extra features in the firearm ban that the legislature is putting forth amounts to nothing that would have had any impact on the incident either. Indeed, it appears that the adults in the murderer’s household either had their proper permits or were in the process, negating the affect of any of the misguided permission slips in the propoal

The most startling absurdity comes from the legislature’s proposed magazine ban where they apparently think that criminals (like a mass murderer who just shot his mother in the head) will abide by the law suddenly and only load their 30 round magazines with 10 rounds. Amazingly, they also apply this to a law abiding citizen with a pistol permit (a state certified ‘good guy’) and dictate that the citizen must now only load their magazines in public with 10 rounds. By creating such a situation they give strong incentive for criminals to work in packs and to carry more firepower because they already know the upper limit of the potential defense that a citizen can be equipped with.

This bill might as well be known as the ‘Criminal Defense Act’, as the only possible lives it may save is a criminal who is posing an imminent threat of life or limb to a good citizen. It will certainly put the lives of a lot of good citizens at risk, and it will do absolutely nothing to prevent crime or senseless violence. We only need to look to Chicago for the consequences of such lunacy.

Connecticut’s legislators should be ashamed of themselves for such obvious deception and betrayal of the citizens of Connecticut by turning to the Emergency certification process to ram through a bill when the rest of their gun bans failed to make it through their legislative committees, destroyed by the public’s reactions to their proposed edicts. Indeed, they appear to be so ashamed and fearful of the public opinion against their betrayal that they refuse to even have public hearings on the proposal and instead seek to rush the vote as soon as the bill is written with no time to review it.

The voting scorecard from this bill will not be forgotten or forgiven. The citizens of Connecticut will hold those who vote in support of such tyranny accountable for their actions.

 

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:
http://www.ctcarry.com

In keeping with his word to produce documents regarding the search warrants used in the Newtown Massacre investigation, State’s Attorney Stephen Sedensky released about what everyone involved in the legislative discussions knew he would.

He released a one-sided list of only the weapons and equipment that the murderer and his mother possessed. In the releases, there is little or no mention about whether there were any mental issues diagnosed in the murderer’s history or any indication of whether this massacre could have been detected or prevented. Portions of the warrants where witnesses seem to discuss the murderer’s history are conveniently redacted.

The only focus and obvious intention of releasing the search warrants is to focus the narrative on the firearms instead of the actual legitimate questions about the murderer and his history and things that can actually be evaluated and fixed without endangering the rest of us in the process.

But this did not stop the media from talking about a ‘startling arsenal’ which consisted of only a few firearms and a mediocre amount of ammunition.

The media has apparently once again changed the definition of ‘arsenal’ to be 6 firearms, since that is all that was found. 1 shotgun, 3 rifles (two of which were bolt action) and 2 pistols. If this is an arsenal, than just about every gun owner in the state possess an armory.

Already we have reporters talking about ‘hundreds’ of rounds of .22LR ammunition, when .22LR ammunition is most commonly sold in its smallest divisions in 550 round boxes. In actuality, there were only 1026 rounds of center-fire rounds of ammunition, spread across 7 different types of firearms, 161 of those were shotgun shells.  Over 300 rounds of the ammunition were calibers that there was not even a matching firearm for, and therefore they had no way of utilizing.

This is hardly an ‘arsenal’ or shocking. In fact, most shooting sports enthusiasts would go through this amount of ammunition in a normal day at the range, although it would likely be a short day at the range. Many gun owners possess many times the amount listed here at any given time, since ammunition is cheaper when bought in bulk.

This inventory is not ‘startling’, it is hardly even significant.

Governor Malloy instantly expressed his ignorance and contempt for the gun owners of Connecticut by saying that the issue around large capacity magazines was clear, except he did not mention what we expected any of the unarmed individuals to do against a well armed murderer, regardless of whether or not he was changing a magazine or not. Indeed, towns around the state are opting to do the right thing and put people who can stop an attack in their schools instead of relying on silly ideas like gun bans to perform their magic for them.

The media also immediately sought to demonize gun owners and the NRA by stating falsely that there were NRA membership certificates found in the home. Since the NRA doesn’t issue such certificates for membership, these are pretty clearly the state required training certificates for Basic Pistol Safety. It is odd the media would try to make a negative of safety training, should all residents (well over 200,000 in number) who have taken the mandatory training get rid of their certificates so they are not likewise demonized or linked to the murderer?

This is another step along the way where we see people pushing an agenda who think nothing of exploiting the death of children to get their way.

The legislature should not move on any legislation until the full details of the investigation are released. The investigation of the Arizona massacre where Representative Giffords was shot has been released and it is bringing startling revelations about how much could and should have been done about the murderer before the massacre.

When will Connecticut be afforded the right to review this investigation completely so real reasoning can be applied to this situation?

Arizona investigation details: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/28/us/documents-2011-tucson-shooting-case-gabrielle-giffords.html

 

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

 

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:
http://www.ctcarry.com

 

Once again, thousands of pro-liberty activists descended on the Legislative Office Building in Hartford. They were met by a Public Safety and Security Committee that was mostly absent from the hearing, legislators that noticeably disappeared when Colt Manufacturing dropped off busloads of employees that filled the building. They were also met by handful of anti-rights activists who were quickly overwhelmed by the thousands of pro-rights activists in attendance.

This is not surprising. The January rally of pro-rights activists netted thousands of people that filled the entire back half of the Capitol Building. When the anti-rights activists later held a rally, they ended up with a quarter of the attendance, despite the inaccurate media reports to the contrary.

On Monday, there was a pro-liberty ‘Lobby Day’ where over three thousand activists showed up and tried to track down their legislators. The governor fled Hartford and instead lobbied in New London, avoiding the possibility of confronting people head on about the issues he wants to legislate against. But that is OK. The governor’s job is not to hear from or represent the people. Then again, his job is also not to develop or promote legislation either.

On Wednesday, there was an anti-rights ‘Lobby Day’ where ‘dozens’ of people showed up, although photos and video from the event showed approximately ‘a dozen’. These people were welcomed warmly by legislators, despite being in the clear minority. The bias is evident.

Today, March 14^th, thousands of people packed the legislative office building to express their pro-liberty stances. Very few anti-rights activists were present. This should be clear evidence of the public’s opinion about this issue.

The legislature and the governor are very incorrect that we are some sort of minority or ‘fringe of the fringe’. We are the majority, and we vote. We are the people who actually understand the issues and we will continue to be active and vocal about this issue. Legislators should be warned that they have awakened a lot of single issue voters and that those voters will be watching their coming actions very closely.  We will not succumb to your lies in the future. You will uphold your oath to uphold the state and federal Constitutions, and you will protect our rights.

 

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

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:
http://www.ctcarry.com

 

Connecticut Carry is disgusted at the grand standing of Senator Joan Hartley, who is the Chair of the Public Safety and Security Committee, in her grilling of Mossberg Vice President and Legal Counsel Joseph Bartozzi. In what is supposed to be an unbiased hearing where they are to learn from the public and from industry speakers; Senator Hartley chose instead to accuse Mossberg of creating products that are ‘only meant to kill’.

Senator Hartley later went on to grill both Mossberg and Mark Malkowski of Stag Arms, two very large, responsible and excellent firearms manufacturers in Connecticut, about their contributions to the National Rifle Association. This demonizing of our industry by attempting to demonize their involvement in pro-rights issues and organizations is unacceptable and ridiculous. What money a company or an individual contribute to a group devoted to protecting their rights is not only ‘none of their business’, but it is also easily found through a request to the NRA’s various charity organizations which Federal laws and tax code make freely available.

She also sought to demonize manufacturers like Sturm Ruger by trying to ascertain whether they donated to the Newtown victim’s funds. As if the manufacturers of firearms have a duty or responsibility to donate a portion of their corporate treasury to the victims of a madman which they had nothing to do with. These are inflammatory and biased comments that have no place in our legislature.

Senator Hartley should be ashamed of her ridiculous statements and accusations that only seek to demonize and segregate a portion of our population in Connecticut. Guns are not at all only meant to kill. A vast majority of guns never kill anyone or anything and most likely never will. A vast majority of gun owners have never killed anyone or anything and hope that they never have to use their firearm to injure or to take the life of someone else who is trying to hurt them.

Senator Hartley’s insensitive and generalized comments about an entire industry and portion of Connecticut residents are unacceptable and she owes an apology to the gun owners and gun manufacturers of Connecticut.

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

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:
http://www.ctcarry.com

 

Serious questions about the sobriety of the discussions taking place in the Connecticut Legislature are being asked by our members and by the public at large. One of the main focuses of these questions is why the legislature is even considering the topic of magazine bans or magazine limitations.

Proposing magazine bans in this state brings forth a huge variety of questions that need to be answered before even considering a proposal, but it is clear that the legislators supporting and proposing these kinds of bills are not considering these questions and the impacts that will follow. They have instead made it a point to propose every ridiculous manner of gun ban that they could dream up with no consideration of the impacts of such bills.

The legislature needs to consider:

• If they think the citizens do not need certain weapons or certain sized magazines in their possession, why does Law Enforcement? If these are ‘weapons of war’, then what war is Law Enforcement waging and against whom? Will those Law Enforcement officers turn in their magazines and abide by the same laws when they are not on duty?
   
• How many rounds in a magazine or in your home defense weapon is ‘enough’ when multiple attackers enter your home with firearms and start shooting you?
   
• How can a 30 round magazine be too much in a single person’s hands against home invaders when multiple police officers commonly need well over thirty rounds (in some cases 41 rounds) to stop a criminal with a fake gun?
   
• Why has violent crime continued to decrease steadily nationwide since the 1994-2004 Federal Assault Weapons Ban sun-setted? Why was there no appreciable effect on violent crime during the Federal ‘Assault Weapons Ban’?
   
• Why do these magazines suddenly need to be limited when they have existed for many decades and violent crime has been decreasing since the 80’s?
   
• Why did school shootings become more common after the Federal government implemented an ‘Assault Weapon Ban’ and the ‘Gun Free School Zone’ laws? Why continue failed policies?
   
• Will the legislators take personal responsibility and legal liability if they pass a magazine capacity limitation law and someone is found dead with their firearm empty after trying to defend themselves against an attacker who did not follow the law?
   
• Do criminals commonly follow laws? Why would a criminal bent on invading a home, committing a rape or murdering someone care more about a law against their firearm magazine than the violent felony they are committing?
   
• Why would anyone place a premium on following a law that restricts their magazine capacity and seeks to make them less capable of their defense against criminals than their life or the lives of their loved ones?
   
• Since the DC v Heller decision in 2008, when SCOTUS ruled that firearms in ‘common use’ such as M16s (the select-fire, full auto version of the civilian AR-15) could not be banned constitutionally, and the McDonald v Chicago case in 2010 incorporated this into applying equally to the states, what gives the Connecticut legislature the idea that they have the power to implement such legislation?
   
• Where does the State of Connecticut, which is in a financial crisis, plan to obtain the financing necessary to defend the legal challenges that will come if they were to pass these laws?
   
• Where will State of Connecticut get the money to enforce these overreaching laws when the Connecticut State Police are underfunded and understaffed and their background checks are heavily backlogged?
   
• Are the legislators who are supporting such proposals ready to be honest with their constituents that they are pushing an agenda and willing to make the tax payers of Connecticut pay for their mistakes through court decisions? Do they have any shame in gambling with other people’s money to push an agenda that hurts people?

 

If the legislature would like to discuss these issues or get answers to these questions, Connecticut Carry would be happy to assist.

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

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:
http://www.ctcarry.com

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://www.ctcarry.com.

 

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:
http://www.ctcarry.com

 

During the public hearing for the Gun Violence Prevention Committee on January 19^th, 2013, Owner and Operator Chris Fields of King 33 LLC invited the legislators present at the hearing to train with King33 and the qualified training crew there. King 33’s training is widely accepted in Connecticut as some of the best training Connecticut has to offer. King 33 offers many types of training, but one of their most popular training offerings is ‘force on force’ with Simunitions.

Force on force means real, live humans training against real, live humans. This is the only way to understand how you and your opponent will respond when an ‘incident’ is in full swing. Force on force training allows the trainees to experience high stress situations that enhance their response and abilities when faced with lawful use-of-force scenarios.

Simunitions are essentially safe paint projectiles that are fired from real weapons platforms; they are only modified to make sure that they cannot fire deadly rounds for safe and realistic training.

The training that King 33 offers and has offered to the legislature (and recently to Governor Malloy and his staff as well) is considered state of the art. It is widely regarded across the country as the de facto standard for learning how to deal with dynamic situations that involve people attacking other people. SWAT teams and military members use this training to learn how to enter a building and secure it. Citizens use this training to learn how to defend their homes against intruders. Teachers use this training to learn how to protect themselves and their students. Law enforcement uses this training to respond to critical threats at schools and in other high value places.

Certainly, before advocating on behalf of any ‘school safety’ or ‘gun violence prevention’ proposals to the legislature, it would be helpful for the committee to pause and go get trained on how law enforcement would respond to such a situation and how a person might defend themselves and others in the same situation. Before releasing what Governor Malloy called ‘well thought out’ and ‘common sense’ measures in his proposal, it would have made sense for him to attend realistic training on the subject.

But the legislators and the governor all ignored the offers. Therefore, they are clearly not qualified to assess the problem and recommend solutions to the problem.

There is still time. The legislators and the governor can still pause in their decision making processes and attend the training that King 33 is offering. Then they can make informed decisions about their proposals.

Connecticut Carry stands ready to coordinate or to raise any funds necessary to offset any cost that King 33 incurs from the implementation of this training. The legislators and the governor have no reason to not attend this training except a motivation to stay uninformed about the issues lest the truth find its way through to their consciences. The informed citizens of Connecticut certainly expect our representatives in government and our Governor to know what they are talking about before making decisions about their rights; especially their right to defend themselves. Many citizens in Connecticut understand the principles that King 33 is ready and capable of disseminating, why aren’t our public officials?

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

Chris Fields has formal experience working in Army Special Forces and has also provided private security in hostile environments across the world. With over 10 national and international deployments in training and in combat under his belt, Chris Fields is uniquely qualified to train and advise citizens on methods to defend themselves in violent encounters. Chris Fields recruits only the best trainers in their fields of expertise at King 33 Training.

King 33 LLC can be found here: http://www.king33training.com/

King 33 LLC
860.276.9742

Southington, CT

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:
http://www.ctcarry.com

Huffington Post Report Christina Wilkie decided to join MSNBC’s ‘Heckling Hoax’ and double down on a lie by publishing the second article with the Huffington Post that tries to claim that citizens at a legislative public hearing ‘heckled’ the father of a victim of the Newtown Massacre.

Reporter Wilkie demonstrated her lack of ethics and rationality by stating in her article that “gun rights activists in the audience at that hearing shouted "Second Amendment!" at Heslin when he questioned why civilians should be permitted to carry military-style assault weapons”. The reporter also attached a maliciously edited video with the title ‘Gun Activists Heckle Father of Sandy Hook Victim’. The video, edited in an extreme manner, does not show the father asking a hypothetical question to the members of the public hearing and their respectful silence. It only shows his affirmation that their silence to his question indicates defeat, at which point a few people call out that the ‘second amendment’ would be a potential reason that people should be able to posses the firearm he is advocating for a ban of.

The reporter was contacted about this issue and the only reply received with regards to her atrociously misleading article was:

I simply explained what happened. Heslin questioned and members of the audience shouted "Second Amendment." This event was not a townhall or an open forum, where audiences are expected to pipe up. It was a hearing, and he was testifying. His question was rhetorical. At no point did I accuse anyone of "heckling."

This response is despite the fact that the article linked in this article has a title of “Neil Heslin, Father Of Newtown Victim, Heckled By Pro-Gun Activists (VIDEO, PHOTOS)” and the video embedded in this article has a title of “Gun Activists Heckle Father of Sandy Hook Victim”. Ms. Wilkie appears to be unwilling to accept the responsibility for her unethical behavior.

Connecticut Carry has advised the reporter to take the time to actually watch the video of the hearing and retract and apologize for their misinformation in the article, but no response has been received to this request as of this press release. Honest reporting on the actual events would be a significant change compared to the horrendous and fallacious characterization of the events that Ms. Wilkie presents.

It is shameful that Christina Wilkie, The Huffington Post, MSNBC and several other media sources have chose to capitalize on this tragedy with such an extreme lack of honesty and ethics.

At least some reporters have retracted their previous statements, showing at least a bit of shame and responsibility for their actions.

The article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/27/neil-heslin-assault-weapons-ban-newtown_n_2774598.html

The full video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvT9peqTM5E

Slate’s retraction: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/01/29/neil_heslin_father_of_slain_6_year_old_jesse_lewis_heckled_by_gun_rights.html

MSNBC caught maliciously editing video: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/msnbc-airs-sandy-hook-fathers-416977

MSNBC’s article very weakly corrected with the full video: http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/29/neil-heslin-father-of-slain-6-year-old-heckled/

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:
http://www.ctcarry.com

Since the Newtown Massacre, Governor Malloy has promised that the gun control agenda he has been pushing would be done in a bi-partisan manner in the legislature. Along the way we have seen all manner of reckless behavior from the legislature and from the administration including a rush to try and use an ‘emergency certification’ to push through bills without proper public hearings. Today, the Governor released a set of proposed legislation that he intends to be pushed through the legislature. This would also circumvent the task force and advisory panels currently assigned to provide legislative recommendations on these issues.

This is a clear attempt at an abuse of the Governor’s office and of the separation of powers in our government. Laws and legislation should come from the legislature and be from the people of Connecticut. There is a clear interest in keeping the enforcement arm of the government from also deciding the laws. The laws are supposed to be decided on by the people.

We must reason that the Governor is feeling the pressure from the 100:1 turnout against his agenda at the legislature for public hearings and the overwhelming public opinion in Connecticut that the proposed bills are not welcome. Perhaps he is feeling the fleeting emotional crisis of the citizens of Connecticut and he knows that he won’t be able to take advantage of emotion as leverage against our rights for much longer. It is clear that his administration does not want to ‘let a good crisis go to waste’.

The proposals that Governor Malloy makes are full of unconstitutional and unenforceable edicts.

• District of Columbia v Heller has already established that firearms in ‘common use’ are not subject to bans. They equated common use specifically with ‘military use’, so the Governor’s insistence on the repeated lie that the AR-15 is a military weapon is in line with his not understanding the case law out there.
   
• The ‘high capacity magazines’ he seeks to ban and confiscate are not ‘high capacity’, they are standard capacity. They are also in common use, and the Governor should know better than to think that the government can institute ex post facto bans. At the very least, the state would have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to compensate every gun owner for every magazine they turn in.  Connecticut does not have the money necessary to implement such a ban.
   
• ‘Safe storage’ laws are unconstitutional. Ask New York state. Their law was deemed by the New York Supreme Court to be ‘unenforceable’ since it was unconstitutional to require residents to keep all of their firearms locked up. (Colaiacovo v Dormer - 2008)
   

Instead of haphazardly throwing his gun banning agenda around, Governor Malloy should be paying attention to our proposal to open up the background check systems and make them freely and readily available to the public. He might actually meet some of his stated goals without having to make the residents of the State of Connecticut spend millions of dollars fighting his laws in Federal court.

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

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:
http://www.ctcarry.com

Connecticut Carry will host a conference at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Cromwell on February 10^th from 9am until 1pm. Our primary speaker, Attorney Rachel M Baird, of the The Law Office of Rachel Baird in Torrington Connecticut, will speak about risk warrants and firearms seizures in the state.

Attorney Joseph Corradino, the Chairman of the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners will discuss our current appeals process in Connecticut as well as pistol permit suitability decisions.

Connecticut Carry Director Ed Peruta and President Rich Burgess will present some information about our permit process in Connecticut and about some of the issues in our permit system that we are working on currently.

Attorney Rachel M. Baird can be found here: http://www.rachelbairdlaw.com/

The Board of Firearms Permit Examiners can be found here: http://www.ct.gov/bfpe/site/default.asp

More information on this conference can be found here: http://www.ctcarry.com/seminar

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:
http://www.ctcarry.com