CCDL Response to Norwich Bulletin

The following has been submitted by CCDL President Scott Wilson to the Norwich Bulletin in response to an editorial published a few days ago.

________________________________________________________________

In response to the April 25th editorial: “Responsible gun owners want to make a difference to do what’s right” I submit the following to address some of the points made by the writer of that op-ed.

First off, Tim McGraw is free to perform anywhere and anytime that he so chooses, and for whatever cause he desires. Tim is accountable to his fan base, not us. Repeat: No matter how misdirected his intentions may be, he is free to perform at the Sandy Hook Promise event in July.

The point that the Connecticut Citizens Defense League is making is this:
We believe that it is not at all clear who this event will actually benefit. To say the event is “for the children” or “for the community” is very vague. Is the event being held for mental health support? Is it being held to benefit the families of victims directly? Is the event being held to support all people who reside in Sandy Hook, Connecticut? We know that the benefit is not for the families directly; or at least not all of them. We also know that this concert will not benefit most of the people from Sandy Hook at all. So is it going to the cause of implementing gun control at the state or federal level? We suspect the real answer to whom the concert benefits lies in this last question more so than the others.

By the way, we use the term “gun control” to reflect an honest element to what is really going on. Sandy Hook Promise and similar ilk learned some time ago that the phrase “gun control” has made decent folks run away from these people; and rightfully so. Gun control proponents have adapted their language to hide their agenda, so they now use phrases such as “gun safety” instead. I know most reading this will be shocked to hear that such well-intentioned people could employ such deceitful tactics; but they do.

One of the other false claims in the editorial I am responding to is that we somehow want guns in dangerous hands. The bills in question (Senate Bill 650 and Governor’s Bill 6848) would remove firearms from individuals without being able to respond to any claims made by an applicant for a Temporary Restraining Order. In some instances, the subject of to one of these orders may never see their firearms again because of loopholes in state law. Even many advocates for these bills support the return of firearms and the reinstatement of pistol permits to respondents upon the vacating of a “TRO” that has been issued without merit. Yet the Judiciary Committee in Hartford has been unrelenting in its course so far. And we are supposed to go along and not speak in opposition to violations of due process and the seizure of private property without any basis or proof of wrong doing? What a very Marxist notion indeed.

As far as blocking or ending “gun violence” or any violence for that matter; that is impossible. But, for the sake of argument, most of our members (me included) have publicly argued for violent criminals to be punished by lengthier sentences and ending early release programs for this segment of society. We have also called for increased penalties for criminals who ‘straw purchase’ or steal firearms and then sell them to other criminals. These ideas are real solutions to at least minimize violence to a significant degree.

The author of this editorial also overlooks the effectiveness of CCDL. Prior to the rising tide of the post Sandy Hook era, CCDL has had a track record legislatively since the organization’s founding in 2009. We were instrumental in defeating an earlier magazine ban. Prior to that we actually had anti-gun language stripped out of a DPS bill right smack in the middle of a public hearing. We also fixed ordinances in towns that affected lawful carry of firearms and initiated a favorable declaratory ruling that has helped pistol permit applicants across the state immensely.

Also we were able to help end the runs for governor by Mayor of Danbury Mark Boughton and Senate Minority leader John McKinney; both who had publicly opposed gun rights. Admittedly, Tom Foley was not savvy enough to defeat the anti-gun incumbent.

While we cannot take all of the credit, we certainly helped with flipping 10 seats to pro 2A House members. Not bad for our first legislative cycle in which we were seriously engaged, with hundreds of active volunteers embedded in campaigns. Readers of the Bulletin should also know that CCDL currently leads a legal challenge against the State of Connecticut. We are calling into question to the constitutionality of Public Act 13-3 which was rammed through by politicians in the dark of night while using questionable ‘Emergency Certification’ maneuvers. We have the finest of law firms and legal minds working for us to overturn this injustice (Shew v. Malloy). We believe that ultimately we will win because we are the ones who stand by the principles that this state and this country was founded on. We take our rights seriously, and will not lay down for anybody.

At the end of the day this whole issue is about much more than Tim McGraw, isn’t it? It is really about the time honored and ongoing struggle between people who support ALL constitutional rights (not just some of them), and people that seek to impose their will on others; and where whatever ends they use, somehow justify their means.

So who are the real extremists in this story? Is it Tim McGraw, Sandy Hook Promise, the writer of the editorial in question, or all of them? At the very least, it’s two of these three in my opinion.

Scott Wilson
President
Connecticut Citizens Defense League, Inc.

12 thoughts on “CCDL Response to Norwich Bulletin

  1. 74 yrs old, shooting since about 8yrs old .Long, Long time NRA member, member of bell city rifle club and competed with the pistol team. I vote on that one issue, the 2nd amendment. However I think it’s ignorant, stupid, ridiculous for police not to be able to demand to see a pistol permit… Go ahead let gang members , etc just go about their way. You show a drivers license no problem with me showing a permit if it was every day.
    This is what turns people off to the NRA… I don’t blame them.

    • Lawrence: There are several major differences between showing your drivers license and the proposed law requiring you to show your permit.
      1: First and foremost, you have no RIGHT to drive a car. It’s a privilege, whereas you do have a right, protected by state and federal constitution, to bear arms. So right off the bat, you are comparing apples to oranges. Try comparing it against other rights, like the right to free speech, the right to own property, or the right to travel freely. Would you support having to show a permit to post on the internet whenever the authorities asked? How about having to prove ownership of anything you own whenever asked? Would you like to be stopped for just walking down the street and asked for your papers? Sounds like Nazi Germany, doesn’t it? Yet, if that law passes, suddenly you become a second class citizen. Police aren’t even allowed to ask suspected illegal immigrants for ID, yet you, as a 74yr old gun owner will now be legally allowed to be stopped any time, any place, for any reason and required to present ID. Even if you are not carrying a gun.
      Second: When you applied for your DL, you agreed to allowing police to check your drivers license. It was a condition you have to agree to if you want to drive. You didn’t agree to any such thing when you got your gun permit.
      Third, even with a car, the police can NOT just stop you for no reason at all and ask you for ID. They have to have a reasonable suspicion you are breaking the law. If this law passes, all gun owners are automatically considered guilty of not having a permit, and it’s up to you to prove otherwise, even if you have done no wrong. Sorry Lawrence, that’s not how the American justice system is supposed to work.

    • Lawrence Jackson, that’s off-topic. What does Scott Wilson’s essay have to do with showing your pistol permit? Furthermore, this is CCDL. If you have an issue with the NRA, tell it to them, not us. I think you might have posted your comment to the wrong blog.

  2. Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 3:00 PM
    > To: Scott Jackson
    > Cc: Christopher Lyddy
    > Subject: Need for a quick call
    >
    > Chris and i would like to speak to you about potential meeting with sandy hook families
    >
    > We have some technical questions for you
    >
    > Can you set a time we could talk about this ASAP
    >
    > Txs
    > Alice
    >
    > Sent from my iPhone
    >
    > Alice Forrester,PhD
    > Executive Director
    > Clifford Beers Clinic

    • above is an email .. describing an illegal meeting being set up between the laughable Sandy Hook Advisory Commission members to meet secretly, behind closed doors, in violation of our open meeting laws. That commission was a joke meant only to attack our natural right to own guns. My (our) right to own guns has not changed at all – all freemen (not just “responsible gun owners”-whatever than means-it means nothing to me) have the right to own and carry guns. My rights are trying to be oppressed by our politicians but my rights have not changed one bit. I don’t care what anyone says about our rights, including an entertainer. Our rights are not negotiable. I think CCDL has been very gently supporting our RKBA..firm but polite IMO. CCDL should continue to do so; after all, the politicians in this state have the losing position of trying to oppress our rights. Their corruption cannot be hidden, as much as they try to hide it. There has been a recent barrage of attacks in the media from liberals attacking CCDL ~ so CCDL must be doing something right.

  3. Kudos to Scott Wilson for a fine letter clarifying the point that the 2nd Amendment gives the “Right” and not a “privilege” to bear arms. As I have been in law enforcement for a few years, I still feel that responsible persons carrying a weapon either on their job or when in public, do not pose a problem but can prevent one if the situation arises. There never will be a policeman stationed outside your front door to instantly respond for a life-threatening event. It is re-active not pro-active.
    Well done,sir!

    • Only those that support laws to take away our gun rights get instant police protection. Don’t believe it? See Freedom of Information Commission case #2013-423 filed by Ed Pureta seeking records of special details sent to protect those who spoke out and demanded new gun laws back in 2013. And you don’t want a cop at your door, Mr. Gun Owner.

Comments are closed.