RIP Constitution State

A few hours ago the House passed SB1160 AN ACT CONCERNING GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND CHILDREN’S SAFETY, after the Senate passed it last night. Governor Malloy will sign it into law at noon today. At that point CT will have the most unconstitutional gun laws in the entire country. We’ll have more later on exactly what this will mean for gun owners. From listening to our legislators in Hartford discuss this, even THEY don’t know yet. But then, how could they be expected to? The bill was 138 pages long, and they didn’t even get to see it until a few hours before the sessions started.

I’ll also post more about some of the heroes and zero’s of all this. There were some real shining stars from both political parties. Some were not even gun owners themselves, but they understood the impact this bill would have on both their constituents and the Constitution.

Thanks to everyone who called, wrote, emailed, and showed up in Hartford. Your hard work was noticed. This is not the end, it is just the beginning of our fight. As mentioned we’ve been taking donations to help fund a legal challenge, and we will be doing just. We’re in this for the long haul, to protect the rights of not just current gun owners in CT, but future ones as well.

Carry On!

25 thoughts on “RIP Constitution State

  1. God Bless all that worked so hard to oppose this travesty. The fight is not over!

  2. Thank you all for the time spent monitoring this throughout the process. CCDL leadership deserves a commendation.

  3. Im making anouther donation to our cause to this site.CCDL scott pleaase dont give up we need to challange this in the courts.Im so sad that this happened and hope we can find a way to prove this is not legal. I still have some fight left lin me,know how I can help.I want to keep fighting until no stone is unturned.

  4. I will make another donation next pay period. Please keep
    Up the fight. I would also like to add that the morning DJ on 104.1 went on a rant cheerleading the gunlaws agreeing with some one that we don’t need “machine guns”
    Given the ignorance of this DJ I would suggest a boycott of 104.1

  5. I will be making a donation to this fund to challenge this abridgment to the citizens of Connecticut. As a law enforcement officer, I am appalled by the conduct of our United States senators, governor and many of the state legislators both republican and democrat. “A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.” – Edward R. Murrow

    Semper Fi!

  6. To Scott and the entire CCDL crew. You did a fantastic job in organizing, effort and performance. While we want Connecticut as “The Constitution State” and “The Arsenal of Democracy”, The new law means we will need some new names. I was at the Capitol yesterday and the CCDL logo was strong, proud and on display. We conducted ourselves with great reserve and presence over the last 90 days. Yesterday was just the first skirmish. It is now on to the rest of the battle and victory.

    As in any battle, the warriors must constantly renew themselves if they intend to achieve victory. Strategies must change, logistics and resupply must prevail and everyone must commit to a long and protracted effort to win. We must increase our membership, and fill our coffers with funds for the legal battle ahead. We must increase and strengthen our alliances and use logic versus the anger, sadness and the frustration we all feel today. The first votes are cast and so perhaps we need to take a stronger political stand especially focused on those who voted against our rights, liberty and freedom. We must determine the best way to use the courts to win back our rights. And most importantly, we have to keep the majority of the public and their opinion on our side. We have to be diligent in highlighting every instance in the media where the new law fails.

    As honest citizens and Patriots, we can and will ultimately win. That is how it is meant to be and will be if we stick to it.

    Gregg R. Nolan

    • I’m not sure if CCDL does an “after action review” or “lessons learned” so I want to offer my well-intentioned input. My intention is to help our side. I’m not a PR or strategy person so take it FWIW.

      The folks wearing green were always easily identifiable. This let the media seek them out and in video let them put out a consistent message. Our side, vastly outnumbering them, IMO was not as identifiable. A bunch of folks standing around who, unless they had signs, you couldn’t immediately tell which side they were on. If you saw 6 folks in green standing amid 1000 folks in orange (pick your color) then that would be a contrast.

      The folks on the other side had green signs. Even if you couldn’t read their signs, you knew what they wanted. Our folks often had no signs or really small print signs that you couldn’t read if you were more than 15 feet away. I brought a simple NO sign on a sheet of paper and you could see it from different floors. I ended up handing out several extras I had printed. Robert Crook actually told me the best place to stand to get legislators to see your sign is on the third floor (where most of us were) next to the bathroom area. He said many of the legislators use the bathroom prior to going into a long session. He was right. I was able to see a number of legislators (including mine who shook my hand). My rep was rated a D- by the NRA and CCS and yet he voted no against SB 1160. I consider that a small victory. Small victories eventually add up.

      In lieu of, or in addition to, “picking a color” maybe CCDL could at least have a simple downloadable NO sign or YES sign (as the case may be) that everyone could print out at home. The CCDL stickers are good, especially when worn during committee testimony, but are a bit small to be seen in a public gathering.

      The youtube videos that Palin Smith posts up really help tell our side of the story although he does include videos of tea party and libertarian interest (all of which I like, but they may not strictly be pro 2A issues). He seems to find his way to our events so I’m not sure if he’s already on someone’s notification list. CCDL should consider adding his youtube channel to their list of links.

      Tactics should change to fit the task. Yesterday I saw emotional folks on both sides yelling at each other. That doesn’t help our image. One gentlemen on our side was loudly challenging an equally strident green-coat lady and I saw the media cameras immediately pointing at them. I appreciate your intentions, but that didn’t help us. The lady wasn’t going to change her mind, and getting in her face just gave a poor image of us.

      I own hunting clothing, but I don’t wear it to the Capitol. Of course you can dress how you want. But aren’t you trying to influence others to vote your way? When I first met my legislators many months back, I did not wear my CCDL or NRA stickers. I wanted them to not be able to size me up right away and give me a canned reply. I could tell one was uncomfortable that I didn’t say up front where I stood. I asked them probing questions to see what they were really thinking and then I reasoned with them and we came to the same conclusions.

      Some folks in the comments section of the blog (which I view as a forum of sorts) have good ideas. One commenter, “David,” appears to know a lot about the FOI regulations and how to lodge complaints. He should be contacted about teaching others about this at a CCDL meeting.

      Speaking of a forum, does CCDL prefer us to converse through their Facebook page or through these comments (which can get disjointed)?

      The busses from Cabelas are great at getting our folks to the Capitol and I thank the NRA, CCDL, and Cabelas for them. They typically stop at 5pm. It’d be good if there was a “late bus” pick up after 5pm. NBC30 noted that when SB 1160 passed, most of the pro 2A folks had left and there were cheers from the green-coats. This may have been due, in part, to the last bus run being at 5pm.

      Anyway, that’s a first pass. I welcome others to post up what they see as being a good practice or what could be improved for next time. Thanks again.

  7. I want to thank not only everyone who’s participated in this fight so far, but I also want to recognize some of the terrific legislators I watched yesterday. I like to email the legislators as they are giving testimony because I know they’re checking their emails in session as they’re stuck there for hours and it’s my last chance to influence them. Last night I sent 35 emails just to the folks that were in session and many of them emailed me back (even the ones I disagreed with).

    I’d like to thank the following:

    Rep. Sampson
    Rep. Ackert
    Rep. Carter
    Rep. Adinolfi
    Rep. Mikutel
    Rep. Miner
    Rep. Ziobron
    Rep. LeGeyt (my guy, he didn’t speak, but he voted no when the time came)
    Rep. Smith
    Rep. O Neill
    Rep. Buck-Taylor (who I didn’t take as pro 2A, but she did the right thing)
    Sen. Markley
    Sen. Guglielmo
    Sen. Witkos (my guy, he did great)
    Sen. Linares
    Sen. Welch
    Sen. Kissel

    I’m sure there are others deserving of our support. If you can, email these folks (every one) and tell them thank you.

    Of special mention were the zealous anti 2A crowd: Rep. Alexander, Rep. Phil Miller, Rep. Aresimowicz and the sellouts Rep. Cafero and Sen. McKinney. I emailed them all as well.

    • I forgot to add Rep. Fleischmann to the zealous anti 2A list. He said last night he was disappointed he couldn’t offer an amendment on outright banning of magazines, but that he was looking forward to “expanding the universe of possibilities in the years to come.” And we’re accused of paranoia in thinking this law is just a first step? They’ve declared it to be!

      • Oops, my bad if that’s the case. I saw him offer a motion to “divide the question” allowing a separate vote on the bill’s parts. His motion failed. I didn’t realize he then voted yes.

  8. Most People Don’t Know Much About Second Amendment History
    Posted 2 Hours Ago by Common Constitutionalist filed under History, Police State, Politics, Second Amendment

    The first line to Sam Cookes’ song “Wonderful World” goes like this: “Don’t Know Much about history.” And that’s the way liberals want to keep most of the nation. History’s a great teacher, but too many of us found it boring. But it comes in handy when we’re trying to protect our freedoms.

    Knowing some history about what our founders thought about what it means to “bear arms” can go a long way to shut the mouth of someone who does not know much about history.

    In 1999, Texas U.S. District Judge, Sam Cummings ruled in a domestic abuse case that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual the right to keep and bear arms.
    There was naturally blowback from this decision. His detractors claimed he neglected to follow usual judicial practice. You see, his sin was not citing legal precedent to support his decision.

    That one sentence clearly defines a major problem in this country, run by pinhead lawyers — so full of arrogance that they think themselves and their court decisions superior to the Constitution and the founders. By citing only court precedent instead of original intent one bad decision leads to another and so on.

    Some legal pinheads might cite the Supreme Court case U.S. v Miller (1939) wherein the court ruled the Second Amendment’s “obvious purpose . . . was to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of the state militia.” In the early 1980s, the Illinois Supreme Court as well as the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that there was no right for individuals to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment.
    I’m no constitutional scholar or great jurist with an army of researchers, but I can read.

    So did the framers intend the Second Amendment to encompass an individual’s right to carry guns for self-protection? It turns out they, the founders, had plenty to say on the subject.

    The first state Declaration of Rights to use the term “bear arms” was Pennsylvania in 1776: “that the people have a right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state.” Pretty clear. No ambiguity there.

    Noah Webster of dictionary fame was certainly in a position to know what the Second Amendment phrase “bear arms” meant. A prominent Federalist, he wrote the first major pamphlet in support of the Constitution when it was proposed in 1787, in which he stated:
    “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed.”

    Again, pretty straightforward, but one might expect that of a wordsmith. In fact, in Webster’s famous dictionary, first published in 1828, “bear” is defined as “To wear; to bear as a mark of authority or distinction; as to bear a sword, a badge, a name; to bear arms in a coat.”

    Continuing to the word “arms,” we find this definition: “weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.” So according to Webster, “bear arms” is to carry or wear weapons openly or concealed. Further, Webster defines “pistol” as a “small firearm, or smallest firearm used… small pistols are carried in the pocket.”
    I bet most Americans don’t know this much about gun history in America.

  9. Shouldn’t Sen. Bye be on that list as well given that she tried to force the whole self defense insurance requirement on us?

    • Yep. My list was just from who I saw on CT-N last night that made an impression on me. It’s not meant to be a list of yays and nays or something comprehensive. I’m sure there’s other legislators who are with us and even more who aren’t.

  10. Obama: Constitution ‘Constrains’ Me
    4 April 2013

    In his pursuit of overarching gun control legislation in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre, President Barack Obama has been dogged. He’s been relentless. He’s been demagogic, too, whether flanking himself with schoolchildren (the implication being that his political opponents don’t care about dead kids) or suggesting that if just one life can be saved by his legislation, we ought to buy into it wholeheartedly (a proposition that would justify almost any sort of government overreach).

    But on Wednesday, President Obama took his gun control push a step further: He admitted that only the Constitution stands between him and full gun confiscation.

    Rejecting concerns that new background checks might be a prelude to gun seizures, Obama suggested that worries about gun seizures were empty, and were only designed to feed “into fears about government. You hear some of these folks: ‘I need a gun to protect myself from the government. We can’t do background checks because the government’s going to come take my guns away.’ The government’s us. These officials are elected by you. … I am constrained as they are constrained by the system that our founders put in place.”

    This is deeply frightening language. The notion that government tyranny is impossible in an elective republic is insanity of the first order. Hitler was elected chancellor. Mussolini manipulated his way into power through constitutional means. Hamas was elected in the Gaza Strip. Mohammed Morsi and his thuggish Muslim Brotherhood were elected in Egypt. If rights are dependent on votes — if we only have a right to bear arms because a majority of the population elects politicians who say we have a right to bear arms — then we have no rights at all.

    The point of rights is to guarantee them against government. That is why the founders stated that rights descend not from government — not from “us,” as Obama would have it — but from God or nature. And in truth, Obama feels the same way about rights he thinks are universal, including the so-called right to same-sex marriage or the right to abortion. Reverse Obama’s argument by stating that radical feminists worry about a complete ban on abortion, but that feeds into fears about government, which after all, is only “us.” Would Obama agree with this? Or would he say that true rights cannot be violated, even by a majority vote?

  11. dose this mean my gun can have unlimited evil featues now? looking for any bright spot here…

  12. The Second Amendment got attacked this week from three sides, leaving gun owners scrambling to find safe ground. While President Obama has lost momentum for federal gun-control laws, he has picked up victories with his allies in blue states and at the United Nations.

    After Thursday, Connecticut should consider changing its state nickname from the “Constitution State” to the “Unconstitutional State” after Gov. Dannel Malloy signed an extremely restrictive gun-control law. The bill passed the state House Thursday morning and the Senate on Wednesday.

    Before the Newtown tragedy, the Brady Campaign determined that Connecticut was the fifth highest-rated state for restrictive gun-control laws. Adam Lanza ignored those laws — such as including stealing the guns, carrying them without a permit and violating the federal “gun free” school zone — in his evil mission to murder school children and teachers.

    Connecticut lawmakers decided that its current “assault weapon” ban, which had a two-characteristic test, was not severe enough, so all semi-automatic rifles with one scary-looking feature are illegal. The bill cites 100 specific makes and models that are banned, such as the AR and AK.

    There is a new eligibility certificate required before purchasing or receiving a long gun, which is defined as any firearm that is not a pistol or revolver. These certificates cost $35 and are issued by the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection, but there is no time limit on how long the application process can take.

    Also, buying or even transferring a long gun — such as a father passing down his shotgun to his son — requires a background check and registration. The penalty for violating this provision could be a felony. Connecticut expanded the category of citizens who are permanently prohibited from having a rifle or shotgun to include those who have been convicted of misdemeanors including possession of as little as one-half ounce of marijuana or “unlawful restraint.”

    Starting Oct. 1, a gun permit or a new “ammunition certificate” will be required to buy ammunition and magazines. Standard magazines that are considered “large capacity” — which is over 10 rounds — will be illegal. The penalty for a first-time offense of possession of this magazine, purchased before Jan 1., 2014, will be a $90 fine. The penalty will be a class D felon for subsequent offenses or for magazines obtained after that date,

    Below the Mason-Dixon line, Maryland may have to change its state nickname from the “Free State” to the “Disarmed State” since only the law-abiding will be affected by its new gun-control law. After months of intense pressure from Gov. Martin O’Malley, the state House passed Wednesday a radical new gun-control law. The Senate is expected to pass it Thursday, and it will then be signed by Mr. O’Malley.

    Read more:

    Read more:

  13. I wouldn’t register anything until you absolutely have to. Reason, Litigation may change some of this or overturn what they have done, not to mention, let them sweat !

  14. S.B. No. 1160

    Why don’t the name the Bill for what it really is?


    Let me know where I can buy bumper stickers and window decals: Connecticut The Anti- Constitution State

  15. Pingback: Enfield Town Chair To Skip GOP Dinner | CCDL Blog

  16. Pingback: Gov. Malloy in Torrington – April 17th | CCDL Blog

Comments are closed.