New Gun Ban in Bridgeport?

Yesterday, Bridgeport mayor (and convicted felon and failed Gubernatorial candidate) Joe Ganim signed some sort of city ordinance supposedly banning 3-D printed weapons and so-called “ghost guns” in Bridgeport. You can see the press conference in the video below, courtesy of DoingItLocal.com.

I say “supposedly”, because CCDL has not been allowed to see the actual text of the ordinance. CCDL President Scott Wilson requested a copy of it for review, and was told he needed to file a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request and pay a fee.

Seriously.

This is a city ordinance that may subject gun owners to fines or arrest. People who are carefully following all applicable state and federal laws may be committing a crime if they step foot in the largest city in Connecticut, and those people are not allowed to actually SEE the law in advance? I guess Bridgeport is taking a cue from Nancy Pelosi – you have to be arrested or fined for breaking the law before you can know what’s in the law.

So here is the request CCDL made:

Greetings,

I am asking for a copy of the “Ghost Gun” ordinance that was reportedly signed yesterday, and has been reported in several news outlets. I cannot find it available anywhere.

Please attach a copy of the text and/or a copy of the signed document.

Best Regards,
Scott Wilson

And here is the response from Mayor Ganim’s office:

Mr. Wilson,

The easiest way for you to get a copy is to go to the City website at bridgeportct.gov, select the FOI portal and submit a request. Should you have any questions, please contact me.

Regards,
Ed

Edward M. Adams
Senior Mayoral Advisor
Dir. of Gov. Accountability & Integrity
City of Bridgeport
999 Broad Street
Brideport, CT 06604
Telephone 203-576-7201

So, we have filed the FOIA, and will attempt to get our members a copy of the new ordinance via other faster means.

Dear President Scott Wilson

The City of Bridgeport has received your request as of: October 11, 2018. We are reviewing your request and will contact you in writing when the requested information is available. Your request has been given the reference number [redacted] for tracking purposes.

Please note that pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, this City is not required to answer questions; the City is required to provide copies of all non-exempt documents.

Also, please be aware there are statutorily authorized costs associated with responding to your request, as set forth in C.G.S. Section 1-212 and if the anticipated fee for the document(s) you requested is greater than ten dollars, the City will require a deposit of the estimated copying cost prior to copying.

Very truly yours,

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

Stay tuned!

11 thoughts on “New Gun Ban in Bridgeport?

  1. I would think that if it was an ordinance passed in city hall then it would be public record. Have someone in Bpt that is a member of this group go to city hall and read minutes of meeting. And see who voted to pass ordinance. I would not think it could be a law.

    • You should not be that surprised by now.

      Next is ammo.

      And retailers are helping that alone…with out of state retailers going well beyond what 18 USC 922 rules are…State laws don’t matter buying ammo from out of state–18 USC 922 is the ONLY thing that retailers need to follow.

  2. So much for this being the constitution state.
    Break the democrat stronghold in CT and
    Vote out the democrats!

    We need the vote in the city’s and this is a good way to get votes on our side in Bridgeport. Someone needs to paper that town with flyers, to get voters to understand this overreach. The only way Democrat’s will take the CCDL seriously is for the CCDL to get election results!
    Malloy won just the city’s to get re-elected the suburbs mean little in CT statewide elections

  3. All this from a criminal that became a mayor in CT’s largest city. This is part of why CT is in deep doo doo. Our votes in CT means nothing as long as this city is around. The only problem is we have to live with it. Makes me wonder how many votes they are going to find in another closet like the last time.

  4. If you listen to what Ganim said in the video , he stated that Bridgeport had no authority to pass any such laws (re: Dwyer v Farrell 1982) but instructed the chief of police to seize any such weapons found in Bridgeport . So there is no law , its an enforcement directive to do what police do every day .. The $250 fine sounds suspiciously dishonest (?) that is the max fine for littering in CT

  5. If you asked to just see the ordinance and they refused you access to just see it (a verbal request is all that is needed to inspect a record ~ heck, no IDing is needed either) then they likely committed a crime as this town has been ordered to promptly produce records by the FOI Commission in the past.

    CGS Sec 1-240 … makes it a CRIME to refuse to comply with an order of the FOI Commission.

    And , under CGS 1-211 .. a requester can demand that a record sought be attached to a email response…. and they certainly can do this.

    Again, violating the promptness provisions of the FOIA , a prior order by the FOI Commission, and violating the criminal provisions of 1-240.

    Call either: state police or chief states attny office, Kevin Kane or the local states attorney.

  6. The only ? would be (in respect to FOIA statutes) is WHO/WHAT AGENCY did you file you request with) because you have to serve the right agency for a request to be valid.

    And why are you redacting crap? Makes no sense.

  7. And this is easy to address. Its only a fine I believe.

    Walk up to police station with a bolt action AR made from 80% lower and slam it down, wait for your ticket and confiscation of gun….and you have a case to move forward with. Just remove and seal up the gas system or get a AR barrel w/o a gas hole drilled and you’ll be good to go. (don’t go up with an assault weapon).

Comments are closed.