New Gun Bills For January 20th

Sorry for the late post, I was a little busy earlier today.

Here’s the bills proposed today, January 20, 2017.
These are just the bills announced today. You can always see the full list of bills CCDL is tracking this year by clicking the “Pending Legislation” button near the top of the page, or bookmarking this link: www.ccdl.us/blog/2017-legislation

Proposed H.B. No. 6193 REP. SAMPSON, 80th DIST. ‘AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEFENSE OF A PERSON’S HOME, MOTOR VEHICLE OR BUSINESS’, to establish a rebuttable presumption in a self-defense claim that, when a person believes it necessary to use deadly force to repel an intruder, such belief is a reasonable belief.
REF. JUDICIARY

Proposed H.B. No. 6194 REP. SAMPSON, 80th DIST. ‘AN ACT REPEALING GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION ENACTED IN 2013’, to repeal gun control legislation enacted in 2013.
REF. JUDICIARY

Proposed H.B. No. 6200 REP. SIMMONS, 144th DIST.; REP. TONG, 147th DIST.; REP. FOX, 148th DIST. ‘AN ACT CONCERNING THE PRESENTATION OF A CARRY PERMIT’, to require individuals openly carrying to produce their permit if their firearm is visible and if requested by a law enforcement officer.
REF. JUDICIARY

Proposed H.B. No. 6263 REP. SKULCZYCK, 45th DIST. ‘AN ACT REPEALING CERTAIN GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION’, to repeal gun control legislation enacted in 2013.
REF. PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY

Proposed H.B. No. 6264 REP. DUBITSKY, 47th DIST.; REP. ACKERT, 8th DIST. ‘AN ACT EXCLUDING RIMFIRE TARGET PISTOLS FROM THE DEFINITION OF “ASSAULT WEAPON”‘, to exclude from the definition of “assault weapon” any rimfire target pistols that are designed for use in target shooting events at the Olympic games.
REF. PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY


CCDL is also going to try and start tracking more sportsmen related bills, since there is a lot of overlap between gun owners and sportsmen. So here are those bills we’re following.

Proposed S.B. No. 503 SEN. LEONE, 27th DIST. ‘AN ACT PROVIDING FOR DISCOUNTED HUNTING, TRAPPING AND FISHING LICENSES FOR CERTAIN VETERANS’, to promote activities that may assist rehabilitation and recuperation for veterans with service-connected disabilities.
REF. VETERANS’ AFFAIRS

Proposed S.B. No. 509 SEN. MINER, 30th DIST. ‘AN ACT REQUIRING THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TO ESTABLISH A DOVE HUNTING SEASON’, to allow dove hunting in Connecticut.
REF. ENVIRONMENT

Proposed S.B. No. 522 SEN. MINER, 30th DIST. ‘AN ACT AUTHORIZING BEAR HUNTING IN CONNECTICUT’, to authorize bear hunting in Connecticut.
REF. ENVIRONMENT

Proposed S.B. No. 524 SEN. MINER, 30th DIST. ‘AN ACT REQUIRING THE ADOPTION OF REGULATIONS TO ESTABLISH A LIFETIME HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSE’, to establish a lifetime hunting and fishing license.
REF. ENVIRONMENT

New Bills For January 19

Bunch of new bills today. The big one to watch looks like H.B. No. 6001, which appears to be another unconstitutional “show your papers” law. CCDL and it’s members have successfully defeated this bill multiple times in the past, but the gun grabbers never give up, and neither do we.

Remember, these are just the bills announced today. You can always see the full list of bills CCDL is tracking this year by clicking the “Pending Legislation” button near the top of the page, or bookmarking this link: www.ccdl.us/blog/2017-legislation

Proposed H.B. No. 5855 REP. SAMPSON, 80th DIST. ‘AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CARRYING OF HANDGUNS IN STATE PARKS AND FORESTS FOR PURPOSES OF SELF-DEFENSE’, to allow people to carry handguns in state parks and forests for self-defense.
REF. ENVIRONMENT

Proposed H.B. No. 5972 REP. DUBITSKY, 47th DIST.; REP. PAVALOCK-D’AMATO, 77th DIST. ‘AN ACT CONCERNING NONLETHAL DEFENSIVE INSTRUMENTS’, to allow persons to protect themselves using nonlethal defensive instruments in conformity with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Caetano v. Massachusetts.
REF. JUDICIARY

Proposed H.B. No. 6001 REP. STAFSTROM, 129th DIST. ‘AN ACT CONCERNING PRESENTATION OF A CARRY PERMIT UPON REQUEST’, to require the holder of a permit for the carrying of any pistol or revolver to present such permit upon request of a law enforcement officer.
REF. JUDICIARY

Proposed S.B. No. 299 SEN. OSTEN, 19th DIST. ‘AN ACT CONCERNING THE TRAINING OF SECURITY PERSONNEL’, to increase the minimum training requirements and establish continuing education training for armed and unarmed security officers.
REF. PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY


Since there is significant overlap between the hunting and gun owner communities, This year CCDL will also be posting select sportsmen related bills for information purposes. These will be listed separate from the gun bills. Here are today’s hunting bills.

Proposed H.B. No. 5858 REP. SAMPSON, 80th DIST. ‘AN ACT AUTHORIZING LIFETIME HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSES’, to allow for the purchase of lifetime hunting and lifetime fishing licenses.
REF. ENVIRONMENT

Proposed S.B. No. 284 SEN. DUFF, 25th DIST.; REP. CAMILLO, 151st DIST. ‘AN ACT CONCERNING CECIL’S LAW’, to deter the taking of big-game animals as hunting trophies.
REF. ENVIRONMENT

New Gun Bills For January 18

Just 2 gun-related proposed bills for today.

Remember, you can always see the full list of bills CCDL is tracking this year by clicking the “Pending Legislation” button near the top of the page, or bookmarking this link: www.ccdl.us/blog/2017-legislation

That page will also show the official position of the CCDL Executive Board on bills once we have one.

Proposed H.B. No. 5813 REP. SKULCZYCK, 45th DIST. ‘AN ACT CONCERNING THE LOCATIONS OF FIREARMS TRAINING FACILITIES’, to limit the locations of state firearms training facilities and to direct the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection to conduct a study regarding its firearms training needs.
REF. PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY

Proposed S.B. No. 144 SEN. GUGLIELMO, 35th DIST. ‘AN ACT APPROPRIATING FUNDS TO EQUIP THE STATE POLICE WITH FIREARMS’, to provide the state police with rifles.
REF. APPROPRIATIONS

New Gun Bill For January 16th

Just one new proposed bill for today.

You can always see the full list of bills CCDL is tracking this year by clicking the “Pending Legislation” button near the top of the page, or bookmarking this link: www.ccdl.us/blog/2017-legislation

Proposed H.B. No. 5769 REP. FLOREN, 149th DIST. ‘AN ACT CONCERNING ELIGIBILITY FOR A PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER’, to provide that any applicant for a state or temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver be disqualified from receiving such permit if such applicant has been convicted of a criminal offense in another state or subdivision of the United States, the essential elements of which are the same as a disqualifying criminal offense for such permit under section 29-28 of the general statutes.
REF. PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY

New Bills For Friday the 13th

Just a few new bills today. Remember, this are only proposed bills at this time. They will be referred to the appropriate committees where they may undergo significant changed before going for a vote, or they may be killed completely. Even the good ones need to be watched carefully.

These are just the bills announced today. You can always see the full list of bills CCDL is tracking this year by clicking the “Pending Legislation” button near the top of the page, or bookmarking this link: www.ccdl.us/blog/2017-legislation

Proposed H.B. No. 5597 REP. SKULCZYCK, 45th DIST. ‘AN ACT PROVIDING FIREARMS TO THE STATE POLICE’, to provide the state police with rifles.
REF. APPROPRIATIONS

Proposed H.B. No. 5672 REP. SAMPSON, 80th DIST. ‘AN ACT RECOGNIZING LICENSES TO CARRY FIREARMS ISSUED BY OTHER STATES’, to recognize permits or licenses to carry a firearm issued by other states that have substantially similar standards for carrying a firearm.
REF. PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY

Proposed H.B. No. 5673 REP. SAMPSON, 80th DIST. ‘AN ACT CONCERNING APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR A TEMPORARY STATE PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR A REVOLVER’, to specify uniform criteria for an application for a temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver.
REF. PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY

Proposed S.B. No. 118 SEN. BOUCHER, 26th DIST. ‘AN ACT CONCERNING THE SALE OF AMMUNITION AT GUN CLUBS AND FIREARM RANGES’, to permit gun clubs and firearm ranges to sell ammunition for use at such club or range.
REF. PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY


Since there is significant overlap between the hunting and gun owner communities, This year CCDL will also be posting select sportsmen related bills for information purposes. These will be listed separate from the gun bills. Here’s today’s hunting bill.

Proposed H.B. No. 5614 REP. CUMMINGS, 74th DIST. ‘AN ACT ALLOWING SUNDAY HUNTING ON PRIVATE LANDS’, to allow Sunday hunting on private lands.
REF. ENVIRONMENT

Here We Go! 1st Gun Bills Of 2017

The 2017 Connecticut state legislative regular session started January 4th and Adjourns June 7th. The first few days are mostly formalities, but now we’re starting to see the first proposed gun bills coming out. Remember, these are just proposed bills right now, but this is the best time to kill the bad ones and prevent them from moving ahead, or voice your support for the good ones.

CCDL is also going to try to start tracking more sportsmen related bills, since there is a lot of overlap between gun owners and sportsmen. You’ll see those bills listed after the gun bills.

These are just the bills announced today. You can always see the FULL list of bills CCDL is tracking by clicking the “Pending Legislation” button near the top of the page, or bookmarking this link: www.ccdl.us/blog/2017-legislation

Proposed H.B. No. 5513 REP. SAMPSON, 80th DIST. ‘AN ACT ESTABLISHING A TAX CREDIT AGAINST THE PERSONAL INCOME TAX FOR THE PURCHASE OF A GUN SAFE’, to establish a tax credit, not to exceed one hundred fifty dollars, against the personal income tax for the purchase of a gun safe for a taxpayer’s personal use.
REF. FINANCE, REVENUE AND BONDING

Proposed H.B. No. 5570 REP. SAMPSON, 80th DIST. ‘AN ACT REMOVING VOLUNTARY ADMISSION TO A HOSPITAL FOR PSYCHIATRIC DISABILITIES AS A REASON TO DENY A FIREARM PERMIT OR CERTIFICATE’, to encourage a person to voluntarily admit himself or herself to a hospital for psychiatric disabilities by not disqualifying such person from receiving a firearm permit or certificate based solely on such voluntary admission.
REF. PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY

Proposed H.B. No. 5571 REP. SAMPSON, 80th DIST. ‘AN ACT CONCERNING FIREARMS DURING A CIVIL PREPAREDNESS EMERGENCY’, to prohibit the Governor or any municipality from restricting lawful possession of a firearm or ammunition during a civil preparedness emergency.
REF. PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY

Proposed S.B. No. 73 SEN. WITKOS, 8th DIST. ‘AN ACT CONCERNING THE POSSESSION OF HIGH-CAPACITY MAGAZINES BY RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS’, to allow retired law enforcement officers to possess high-capacity magazines.
REF. PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY

Proposed S.B. No. 74 SEN. KISSEL, 7th DIST. ‘AN ACT PROHIBITING LOCAL REGULATION OF FIREARMS’, to prevent the regulation of firearms by municipalities.
REF. PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY


Proposed H.B. No. 5495 REP. ACKERT, 8th DIST. ‘AN ACT WAIVING HUNTING LICENSE FEES FOR BOW AND ARROW HUNTERS WHO ARE SIXTY-FIVE AND OLDER’, to waive hunting license fees for certain senior citizens who hunt by bow and arrow.
REF. ENVIRONMENT

Proposed H.B. No. 5499 REP. SKULCZYCK, 45th DIST. ‘AN ACT AUTHORIZING SUNDAY HUNTING ON PRIVATE LANDS’, to allow Sunday hunting on private lands.
REF. ENVIRONMENT

Help Needed – Olympic Competition Pistols in Jeopardy

Action Needed (Deadline January 13th):
The Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP) has proposed regulatory language regarding pistols commonly used for Olympic competition. The purpose of the regulation is to identify and designate certain pistols as being designed of use in Olympic competition. Without such a designation, these pistols are considered to be “assault weapons” by the State, and regulated and restricted as such under Public Acts 13-3 and 13-220.

CCDL is asking our members to submit a brief comment for the purpose of helping potential Olympians legally obtain certain firearms that are required for training and competition.

Currently there are two issues with proposed regulatory language that would likely affect would-be Olympians. The language in question is here:

53-202b-5(a)

6. The name of the organization for which the purchaser competes in target shooting events at the Olympic Games;

9. A requirement that the applicant attach evidence of participation, or an intent to participate, in target shooting practice and events sanctioned by the International Olympic Committee and USA Shooting, or any subsequent corresponding governing board for internal shooting competition in the United States.

How You Can Help:
The DESPP currently has an open period for the public to comment on these proposed regulations.
Please click on this link to the comment page: https://eregulations.ct.gov/eRegsPortal/Search/Comment?TrackingNumber=PR2016-020

  • Fill out your Name, Email Address and Town.
  • In the Comments section, copy and paste all of following text in full and press Submit:

As referenced in proposed language Sec. 53-202b-5(a) 6
This section would simply create one more obstacle for target shooters who wish to train and possibly participate in national and international sanctioned competitions to have access to the required type of firearm. Please delete this section from proposed regulatory addition.

As referenced in proposed language: Sec. 53-202b-5(a) 9
Please modify the State Agencies Regulations to allow that persons who wish to train with Olympic Match Pistols not be required to produce evidence of participation by either the International Olympic Committee, USA Shooting or other entities. A personal affidavit signed by an interested party should be sufficient. This should be deemed logical, on the premise that without access to these types of pistols in the first place, a person cannot suitably train and obtain the skills needed to qualify for such national or international competitions.

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

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)

Meeting Reminder – May 10th

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, May 10, 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

  • Legislative Wrap Up

  • Discussion on litigation against the State (Shew v Malloy)

  • Guest Speaker – Christian Ragosta, NRA Grassroots Field Coordinator

  • Candidate Forum (candidates TBD)

  • Family Picnic (volunteers needed)

  • Poker Run discussion (volunteers needed)

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
May 10, 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