Statement on Boughton Exploratory Committee

11/22/2016
For Immediate Release:

(Groton, CT) – The Connecticut Citizens Defense League (The state’s largest gun rights organization) release the following statement after Danbury mayor Mark Boughton announced the creation of an exploratory committee for the governor’s seat in 2018.

Statement from CCDL President Scott Wilson:

“Mark Boughton was a member of the gun control group “Mayors Against Illegal Guns”.
The Mayor also made several public statements about recently passed anti-gun laws that were very troubling to gun owners in Connecticut.

Mayor Boughton did finally severe his affiliation with MAIG towards the end of his last gubernatorial campaign because his being associated with gun control hurt his campaign. As far as CCDL can tell, there has been no outreach or attempt by the mayor to mend any fences. We must assume his position hasn’t changed in the last few years.

We hope that the mayor of Danbury is aware that gun owners do vote, and they do not forget.”

Wilson also stated:

“It would be an extremely difficult hurdle for any candidate to overcome a prior platform position that included gun control in a statewide election. Mayor Boughton would not just be campaigning in Danbury, but across the entire state”.

–End–

About the CCDL: The Connecticut Citizens Defense League was formed in 2009 by a small group of concerned citizens as a non-partisan organization to advocate second amendment rights in the state of Connecticut. Since their founding, the group has grown to over 25,000 members from across the state.

Thanks to this large supportive base, the CCDL has become a fixture at the state capitol, and well-recognized by committees that see firearms related bills.

As the go-to organization in the state they are consulted regularly by lawmakers who have questions and concerns about pending legislation or existing laws. For more information on the CCDL please visit http://www.ccdl.us

Press Contact:
Scott Wilson
president@ccdl.us
860-235-7490

Veterans Day

CCDL would like to thank all veterans for their service to our great nation. Without you, we would not be able to enjoy the freedoms we have.

veterans_day-1

It is the Soldier, not the minister
Who has given us freedom of religion.

It is the Soldier, not the reporter
Who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the Soldier, not the poet
Who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer
Who has given us freedom to protest.

It is the Soldier, not the lawyer
Who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the Soldier, not the politician
Who has given us the right to vote.

It is the Soldier who salutes the flag,
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag,
Who allows the protester to burn the flag.

   – Charles M. Province, U.S. Army

Ackert For House Minority Leader

11/09/2016
For Immediate Release:

(Groton, CT) – The Connecticut Citizens Defense League (The state’s largest gun rights organization) is addressing a growing concern over the House Republican current leadership’s lack of support for 2nd Amendment related matters.

CCDL President Scott Wilson States the Following:

“With the election of 2016 over, Connecticut citizens face the upcoming 2017 legislative session with no one in the leadership position in the House Republican Caucus that will look out for the rights of gun owners. It has been a serious sore spot for the twenty-five thousand members of our organization. We have a legitimate expectation that politicians who swear under oath to uphold the constitution will follow through. It is their responsibility”.

Wilson also Added:

“Gun owners like myself are tired of seeing elected officials such as Themis Klarides (114th District) go along with whatever gun control proposals that come along. We know that some of the incumbents and the newly elected freshmen that we have reached out to feel the same. House Republican caucus members have an opportunity to elect a new leader Thursday, and we certainly hope that they take that initiative. State Representative Tim Ackert (8th District) is challenging Klarides for the leadership position, and we feel that Mr. Ackert is a well thought out logical choice to fill that role “.

Press Contact:
Scott Wilson
president@ccdl.us

–End–
About the CCDL: The Connecticut Citizens Defense League was formed in 2009 by a small group of concerned citizens as a non-partisan organization to advocate second amendment rights in the state of Connecticut. Since their founding, the group has grown to over 25,000 members from across the state.
Thanks to this large supportive base, the CCDL has become a fixture at the state capitol, and well-recognized by committees that see firearms related bills.
As the go-to organization in the state they are consulted regularly by lawmakers who have questions and concerns about pending legislation or existing laws. For more information on the CCDL please visit http://www.ccdl.us

How We Did

These are unofficial election results. Some of these results may change after a recount. If you don’t think your vote counts, some of these were won or lost by less that 20 votes.

Also,  I’d like to remind everyone that CCDL is a nonpartisan, single issue organization. We may endorse multiple candidates in the same race if they are both pro2A. We may endorse candidates that other organizations skip over because their chances of winning appear slim.
Please keep all these things in mind when you compare win/lose totals.

Winners in green. Losers in red.

CCDL 2016 Endorsed Candidate List

CT House:
District  Candidate Name  Towns Represented

8 Timothy J. ‘Tim’ Ackert – Columbia, Coventry, Tolland, Vernon
9 Richard Lion – East Hartford, Manchester
13 Mark Tweedie – Glastonbury, Manchester
23 Devin R Carney – Lyme, Old Lyme, Saybrook, Westbrook
24 Jim Sanders – New Britain, Newington
30 Chris Morelli – Berlin, Southington
33 Linda J Szynkowicz – Middletown
34 Melissa H. Ziobron – Colchester, East Haddam, East Hampton
35 Jesse D MacLachlan – Clinton, Killingworth, Westbrook
36 Bob Siegrist – Chester, Deep River, Essex, Haddam
37 Holly H Cheeseman – East Lyme, Salem
38 Lauren Shaw – Montville, Waterford
39 Andrew Lockwood – New London
40 John F Scott – Groton, Ledyard
41 Aundre P Bumgardner – Groton, New London
42 Mike France – Ledyard, Montville, Preston
44 Anne Dauphinais – Killingly, Plainfield
45 Kevin Skulczyck – Griswold, Lisbon, Plainfield, Sterling, Voluntown
45 Tracey Hanson – Griswold, Lisbon, Plainfield, Sterling, Voluntown
47 Doug Dubitsky – Norwich, Sprague, Franklin, Lebanon, Lisbon, Hampton, Chaplin, Canterbury, Scotland
48 Evan A. Evans – Colchester, Lebanon, Mansfield, Windham
49 Tony Fantoli – Windham
50 Pat Boyd – Brooklyn, Eastford, Pomfret, Union, Woodstock
52 Kurt Vail – Somers, Stafford
53 Sam Belsito – Ashford, Tolland, Willington
57 Christopher C Davis – East Windsor, Ellington
61 Tami Zawistowski – Suffield, East Granby, Windsor
62 Bill Simanski – Barkhamsted, East Granby, Granby, New Hartford
63 Jay M. Case – Colebrook, Goshen, Torrington, Winchester
64 Brian Ohler – Canaan, Cornwall, Goshen, Kent, Norfolk, North Canaan, Salisbury, Sharon,Torrington
66 David T Wilson – Bethlehem, Litchfield, Morris, Warren, Woodbury
68 Eric C. Berthel – Oakville, Watertown, Woodbury
70 Rosa Rebimbas – Naugatuck
73 Steve Giacomi – Waterbury
76 John E Piscopo – Burlington, Harwinton, Litchfield, Thomaston
77 Cara C Pavalock – Bristol
78 Whit Betts – Bristol, Plymouth, Terryville
80 Robert C. ‘Rob’ Sampson – Wolcott, Southington
83 Joseph Vollano – Berlin, Meriden
85 Serge G Mihaly – Wallingford
86 Vincent Candelora – Durham, Guilford, North Branford, Wallingford
88 Marjorie Bonadies – Hamden
89 Lezlye Zupkus – Bethany, Cheshire, Prospect
90 Craig Fishbein – Cheshire, Wallingford
99 Steve Tracey – East Haven
102 Chris Kelly – Branford
103 Andy Falvey – Cheshire, Southington, Wallingford
104 Joseph Jaumann – Ansonia, Derby
112 J.P. Sredzinski – Monroe, Newtown
113 Jason Perillo – Shelton
118 Rick Varrone – Milford
119 Pam Staneski – Orange, Milford
122 Ben McGorty – Shelton, Stratford, Trumbull
126 Anthony Pizighelli – Bridgeport
131 David K. Labriola – Naugatuck, Oxford, Southbury

CT Senate:
District  Candidate Name  Towns Represented

2 Theresa Tillett – Hartford, Bloomfield, Windsor
6 Charles Paonessa – Berlin, Farmington, New Britain
7 John A. Kissel – East Granby, Enfield, Granby, Somers, Suffield, Windsor, Windsor Locks
8 Kevin D Witkos – Avon, Barkhamsted, Canton, Colebrook, Granby, Hartland, Harwinton, New Hartford, Norfolk, Simsbury, Torrington
13 Len Suzio – Cheshire, Meriden, Middletown, Middlefield
14 Pat Libero – Milford, Orange, West Haven, Woodbridge
16 Joe Markley – Cheshire, Prospect, Southington, Wolcott, Waterbury
18 Heather Somers – Griswold, Groton, North Stonington, Plainfield, Preston, Sterling, Stonington, Voluntown
19 Barbara Crouch – Columbia, Franklin, Hebron, Lebanon, Ledyard, Lisbon, Marlborough, Montville, Norwich, Sprague
19 Catherine A. ‘Cathy’ Osten – Columbia, Franklin, Hebron, Lebanon, Ledyard, Lisbon, Marlborough, Montville, Norwich, Sprague
20 Paul M Formica – Bozrah, East Lyme, Montville, New London, Old Lyme, Old Saybrook, Salem, Waterford
22 Elaine Hammers – Bridgeport, Monroe, Trumbull
29 John French – Brooklyn, Canterbury, Killingly, Mansfield, Putnam, Scotland, Thompson, Windham
30 Craig A Miner – Brookfield, Canaan, Cornwall, Goshen, Kent, Litchfield, Morris, New Milford, North Canaan, Salisbury, Sharon, Torrington, Warren, Winchester
31 Henri R Martin – Bristol, Harwinton, Plainville, Plymouth, Thomaston
32 Robert J. ‘Rob’ Kane – Bethlehem, Bridgewater, Middlebury, Oxford, Seymour, Southbury, Roxbury, Washington, Watertown, Woodbury
33 Art Linares – Chester, Clinton, Colchester, Deep River, East Haddam, East Hampton, Essex, Haddam, Lyme, Old Saybrook, Portland, Westbrook
35 Tony Guglielmo – Ashford, Chaplin, Coventry, Eastford, Ellington, Hampton, Pomfret, Stafford, Tolland, Union, Vernon, Willington, Woodstock

US House:
District  Candidate Name

1 Matthew Corey
2 Daria Novak
2 Dan Reale
3 Angel Cadena
5 Clay Cope

US Senate:
Candidate Name

Dan Carter

TOTALS
WIN = 46
LOSE = 33

Elections – November Meeting Cancelled

The November 8th election is an important one for gun owners, especially here in Connecticut. It is imperative that all CCDL members and supporters vote for pro2A candidates in this election. This election is so important, that WE HAVE CANCELLED OUR NOVEMBER 8th MEETING.  We ask that our members use the time they would have spent attending the meeting to help out one of our endorsed candidates instead.

There are also still plenty of opportunities to help pro2A candidates get elected.
Candidates still need people to help wave signs, work the polls, and various other last minute tasks that can mean the difference between winning and losing. Check out CCDL’s list of endorsed candidates, find one or two in your town or close by, and volunteer to help. It’s fun, it’s easy, and it’s great being around like-minded people. Be sure to tell them CCDL sent you!
CCDL Endorsed Candidates:
http://ccdl.us/blog/2016-candidate-endorsements/

Important Election Week – Members Update

The November 8th election is an important one for gun owners, especially here in Connecticut. It is imperative that all CCDL members and supporters vote for pro2A candidates in this election.

If you are not yet registered to vote, there is still time to register, but you MUST hurry. The deadline for voter registration is tomorrow, November 1st. Online registration is simple, just go to the following link and follow the directions:
https://voterregistration.ct.gov

If you are not sure if you are registered or not, you may check here:
http://www.dir.ct.gov/sots/LookUp.aspx

You may also register in person with the registrar of voters in your town or city. Offices are usually located in your town hall, and will be open from 9am until 8pm on November 1st to accommodate any last minute registrations.

There are also still plenty of opportunities to help pro2A candidates get elected.
Candidates still need people to help wave signs, work the polls, and various other last minute tasks that can mean the difference between winning and losing. Check out CCDL's list of endorsed candidates, find one or two in your town or close by, and volunteer to help. It's fun, it's easy, and it's great being around like-minded people. Be sure to tell them CCDL sent you!
CCDL Endorsed Candidates:
http://ccdl.us/blog/2016-candidate-endorsements/

Member Meeting – October 11th

CCDL holds its monthly general membership meeting at 7:00pm on the 2nd Tuesday of each month at the Elks Lodge in Middletown, CT.

Our next meeting is Tuesday, October 11, 2016.

All CCDL members are welcome and encouraged to attend. We have a request from the property owners to please do not park on the grass when attending the meeting.

Meeting Agenda

  • November Elections
  • Candidate Forum:
    ∙ Joseph Vollano – House District 83
    ∙ Chris Kelly – House District 102
  • State Senator Joe Markley discusses critical election information
  • Poker Run wrap up
  • CCDL PAC update
  • Election volunteer efforts

NOTE: This is the last CCDL meeting before the elections!
Election Day is Tuesday, November 8th.
There will be NO November CCDL meeting, because we hope ALL our members will be busy that day helping to elect Pro2A candidates.

Merchandise
We sell CCDL merchandise at the meeting, buy it there and save on shipping.
We also sell limited edition items that are not available in our online store. For hunting season we have camo/blaze hats, $25 each.
We still have patches, pins, and magnets (perfect to put on your car, gun safe, or refrigerator). We also sell the car decals in assorted colors and sizes that you can’t get online.

Food Drive
CCDL collects canned goods/non-perishables at all our meetings to be donated to local charities. Please bring non perishables to the meeting. If everyone that attends brought at least one canned good we would be helping to feed MANY!

Middletown Elks
44 Maynard St
Middletown, CT 06457
October 11, 2016 7:00pm-9:00pm
Please park in the event lot to the left of the building (looking at it from Maynard St) and enter the upstairs banquet hall at the front of the building. please do not park on the grass!!


View Larger Map

New OLR Report

Elections matter, and unless we win, the carry laws we now exercise may be at risk. This very recent report by the state Office of Legislative Research is an indicator that the firearm carry laws in CT are potentially up for debate in the 2017 session of the Connecticut General Assembly.

While we do not know for certain which state official requested this report, we are certain it was not someone that is friendly towards the 2nd Amendment.

____________________________________________________________________


olr-2016-r-0164
PERUTA V. SAN DIEGO
By: Veronica Rose, Chief Analyst


ISSUE
You asked for a summary of Peruta v. San Diego (824 F.3d 919), in which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether the 2nd Amendment includes the right to carry concealed firearms in public.

SUMMARY
The 2nd Amendment states that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed” (U.S. Const. Amend. II). By a seven to four margin, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Peruta v. San Diego (824F. 3d 919) that the 2nd Amendment “does not preserve or protect the right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public” (Peruta at 924).

In this case, residents of two California counties were denied a license to carry concealed firearms because they did not show good cause under their counties’ policies to carry concealed firearms. They sued, contending that the good cause requirement as defined by the counties’ policies violated their right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment, holding that the counties’ policies do not violate the 2nd Amendment. A divided Ninth Circuit three-member panel initially reversed the decisions but the Ninth Circuit later granted rehearing by the full court (en banc).

On rehearing, the en banc court conducted similar historical analysis as the U.S. Supreme Court conducted in Heller (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)) and McDonald (McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)). The court said that “an overwhelming majority of the states to address the question. . . understood the right to bear arms, under both the Second Amendment and their state constitutions, as not including a right to carry concealed weapons in public” (Peruta at 936). Given the volume and consistency of historical data on the question, the court held that the “Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public” (id. at 924).

Like the U.S. Supreme Court did in Heller, the court left unanswered the question of whether the 2nd Amendment protects some ability to carry firearms in public (id. at 927). The court expressly stated that the 2nd Amendment “may or may not protect, to some degree, a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms in public. But the existence . . . and scope of such a right, are separate from and independent of the question presented here.”

According to the principal dissent, members of the general public have a constitutional right to carry firearms outside of the home for self-defense, and California’s restrictions on open and concealed carry, considered together, violate the 2nd Amendment.

BACKGROUND
With some exceptions, California’s current statutory scheme generally prohibits anyone from carrying concealed firearms (loaded or unloaded) in public. One exception allows concealed carry under a license (Cal. Penal Code §§ 25850, 26350, 25400.) To obtain a license, an applicant must (among other things) show “good cause,” as determined by the county sheriff or police department, as applicable (Cal. Penal Code §§ 25655 & 26160).

San Diego County defines “good cause” as “a set of circumstances that distinguish the applicant from the mainstream and causes him or her to be placed in harm’s way. Simply fearing for one’s personal safety alone is not considered good cause.” Yolo County does not define good cause but the county’s policy requires valid reasons for requesting a license and gives examples of what would be considered good cause and what would not. “Self-protection and protection of family (without credible threats of violence)” are not considered good cause. On the other hand, “victims of violent crime and/or documented threats of violence” would satisfy the good cause requirement.

CASE FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 2009, plaintiffs Edward Peruta, a resident of San Diego County, and Adam Richards, a resident of Yolo County, were denied licenses to carry concealed firearms because they did not show good cause under their respective county’s policy. Along with other plaintiffs, they brought separate suits, challenging the denials on 2nd Amendment grounds.

The district court, in each case, granted summary judgment in favor of the counties, holding that their policies were constitutional (Peruta v. Cty. of San Diego, 758 F.Supp.2d 1106 (S.D. Cal. 2010); Richards v. Cty. of Yolo, 821 F.Supp.2d 1169 (E.D. Cal. 2011)). In upholding the counties’ restrictions, the district court relied on the fact that, at the time the counties denied the concealed weapons permits, it was legal to carry handguns openly in California under the Penal Code § 1203(g).

Plaintiffs appealed, and while the appeal was pending, California repealed its open carry law and enacted broad legislation prohibiting open carry of handguns in public locations. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, in Peruta, found San Diego County’s policy unconstitutional, holding that the 2nd Amendment requires that “the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home” (Peruta v. Cty. of San Diego, 742 F.3d 1144, 1172 (9th Cir. 2014)). In arriving at its decision, the panel considered the change in California law, which had the effect of generally prohibiting individuals from carrying handguns—whether loaded or unloaded—in public locations. Based on the Peruta decision, the Richards panel held Yolo County’s policy unconstitutional (Richards v. Prieto, 560 F App’x 681 (9th Cir. 2014)).

The Ninth Circuit subsequently granted a rehearing by the full court.

MAJORITY OPINION
The question before the en banc court was whether the 2nd Amendment protects someone’s ability to carry concealed firearms in public. Plaintiffs contended that (1) the 2nd Amendment guarantees the general public at least some ability to carry firearms in public; (2) California’s restrictions on concealed and open carry of firearms, taken together, violate the 2nd Amendment; and (3) there would be sufficient opportunity for public carry of firearms to satisfy the amendment if the good cause requirement for concealed carry, as interpreted by the sheriffs, were eliminated (Peruta at 927).

Like the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald, the en banc court engaged in extensive historical inquiry. It conducted an extensive review of firearm regulations as they existed in England before the 2nd Amendment was ratified. Likewise, it analyzed concealed carry laws that predated the Constitution and post-Amendment state court decisions.

According to the court, “the history relevant to both the Second Amendment and its incorporation by the Fourteenth Amendment lead to the same conclusion: the right of a member of the general public to carry a concealed firearm is not and never was protected by the Second Amendment” (Peruta at 929).
The court stated the following:
1. Under English law, the carrying of concealed weapons was consistently prohibited since at least 1541.
2. Concealed carry was consistently forbidden in the American colonies and was consistently forbidden by the states (with the sole and short-lived exception of Kentucky) both before and after the Civil War.
3. In the years after the adoption of the 2nd Amendment but before the adoption of the 14th Amendment, the state courts that considered the question nearly universally concluded that laws forbidding concealed weapons were consistent with both the 2nd Amendment and their state constitutions.
4. “In the decades immediately after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, all of the state courts that addressed the question upheld the ability of their state legislatures to prohibit concealed weapons” (Peruta at 939).
5. The U.S. Supreme Court (Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)) unambiguously stated in 1897 that the 2nd Amendment protection does not extend to the carrying of concealed weapons. . . . and “the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons” (Peruta at 939, 940).

Given the volume of and consistency of state court rulings, the en banc Peruta court held ”that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms does not include, in any degree, the right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public (id. at 939).”
The court further stated that:
Because the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public, any prohibition or restriction a state may choose to impose on concealed carry—including a requirement of “good cause,” however defined—is necessarily allowed by the Amendment. There may or may not be a Second Amendment right for a member of the general public to carry a firearm openly in public. The Supreme Court has not answered that question, and we do not answer it here (id. at 939).

The court also stated that:
even construing the Second Amendment as protecting the right of the general public to carry a firearm in public, and even assuming that California’s restrictions on public open carry violate the Second Amendment so construed, it does not follow that California’s restrictions on public concealed carry violate the Amendment (id. at 941, 942).

In a separate concurring opinion, Judge Graber wrote that even assuming “the Second Amendment applied to concealed carry of firearms in public, the challenged laws and defendants’ actions survive heightened scrutiny and did not violate the constitution” (id. at 945). Judge Graber was joined in the dissent by Judge McKeown and Judge Thomas.

THE DISSENT
To the seven-member majority, the only legal issue was whether carrying concealed firearms is, in itself, a 2nd Amendment right as the right has been traditionally understood. But the four dissenting judges said the full legal context should have been considered.

According to the main dissent, by Judge Callahan, Heller “addressed concealed carry restrictions and instructed that those restrictions be evaluated in context with open-carry laws to ensure that the government does not deprive citizens of a constitutional right by imposing incremental burdens” (id. at 946, citing Heller, 554 U.S. at 629).

Judge Callahan said members of the general public have a 2nd Amendment right to carry firearms in public for general defense, and (1) “any fair reading of Heller and McDonald compels the conclusion that the right to keep and bear arms extends beyond one’s front door,” and (2) the history of the 2nd Amendment indicates that the right to bear arms applies outside the home (Peruta at 946, 947).

He said that “in the context of California’s choice to prohibit open carry, the counties’ policies regarding the licensing of concealed carry are tantamount to complete bans on the Second Amendment right to bear arms outside the home for self-defense, and are therefore unconstitutional” (id. at 950). But, according to Callahan, “even if the counties’ policies in light of the California laws prohibiting open carry were not tantamount to complete bans, the proper remedy would be to remand to the district courts” (id. at 951). Judge Smith concurred in a separate opinion.

In addition to the four-judge dissent, dissenting Judge Silverman wrote a separate dissent, joined by Judge Bea. He argued that the near-total refusal of some counties to issue carry permits could not pass any form of scrutiny. According to this dissent, licensed carry may or may not reduce violent crime in a statistically significant way, but it certainly does not increase crime; licensees are far more law-abiding than the general population.

VR:bs

You may download a copy of the OLR Report here: OLR Report – Peruta v San Diego (pdf)

Poker Run Tomorrow

Don’t forget! The CCDL Poker Run is tomorrow! The weather is looking like a great autumn day, so come on out and enjoy a nice ride or drive followed by food, music and prizes.
See details here: http://ccdl.us/blog/poker-run-2016/
Note, the post has been updated with directions to each stop and a map.
See you there!