Another Public Hearing – March 15

Upcoming Public Hearing on Gun Bills
Wednesday March 15th

The Judiciary Committee will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 10:00 A.M in Room 2C of the Legislative Office Building (LOB), 300 Capitol Ave, Hartford. There will be two gun related bills, a reciprocity bill, and a show your papers bill. This is the same day as CCDL’s Legislative Breakfast.

We need members to show up in force to show our support. The people opposed to your rights plan to be there in large numbers.

Members are encouraged to give oral testimony on both these bills. Speaking order will be determined by a lottery system. Lottery numbers will be drawn from 7:30 A.M. to 9:30 A.M. in Room 2500 of the LOB. Speakers arriving after the completion of the lottery will have their names placed at the end of the speaker list.  

Please submit 50 copies of written testimony to the Committee staff no later than 9:30 A.M. in Room 2500 of the LOB. Testimony received after the designated time may not be distributed until after the hearing.

It is also very helpful to email your written testimony in Word or PDF format to JUDtestimony@cga.ct.gov a day or two before the hearing. Many legislators prefer to read your testimony online.

Testimony should clearly state your name and bills you are testifying on. The Committee requests that testimony be limited to matters related to the items on the agenda. Speakers will be limited to three minutes of testimony.

If you are unable to attend, but would still like to have your voice heard on these issues, please email your written testimony in Word or PDF format to: JUDtestimony@cga.ct.gov
Be sure to send a copy of your written testimony to your State Senator and State Representative.

Reciprocity:
Support: H.B.7259
AN ACT CONCERNING PERMIT AND CERTIFICATE TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER RECIPROCITY

To secure permit, certificate or license reciprocity between Connecticut and other states that have substantially similar standards for carrying a pistol or revolver.

Anti-Gun groups will be there opposing your rights. Here are some claims they will make that pertain to this bill:
1: We cannot risk allowing gun owners to come in from states where we have no oversight of gun permitting and 24/7 access to out-of-state permit information.
2: Law enforcement would have no way to verify whether the permit was valid and whether the gun owner is carrying legally.

The fact is, this bill would simply allow Connecticut to enter into agreements with other states to allow law-abiding CT permit holders to legally visit other states while carrying a firearm for personal protection. Permit holders from other states who have undergone scrutiny and background checks similar to Connecticut's would be able to visit our state for business or tourism without having to give up their right to self-defense. This is similar to how the your drivers license in valid in other states.
Right now, Forty-two other states (84% of our country) already have some form of reciprocity.

Show Your Permit:
Oppose: H.B. No. 6200
AN ACT CONCERNING THE PRESENTATION OF A PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER.

To require individuals who carrying a pistol or revolver to produce their permit upon request of a law enforcement officer if the firearm is visible to such officer

This bill removes the “reasonable suspicion of a crime” from the current statues that just passed in 2015, and allows police to stop and detain a law-abiding citizen if they are observed carrying a holstered sidearm. This bill will force the over 250,000 carry permit holders to produce their permits on demand if a police officer simply sees them just carrying a holstered sidearm. This is not only violating the 2nd Amendment, the 4th Amendment but also SEC. 7. of the Connecticut State Constitution, which says: “people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from unreasonable searches or seizures;”

Some of the claims anti-gun groups will make:
1: Police must consider anyone who is carrying a holstered sidearm as potential threat until they can assess whether the individual is legally allowed to carry a firearm in public.
2: Law enforcement needs this authority to assure public safety and diffuse situations that the public find threatening.

Key facts to help your testimony:

  • This is a bill that simply profiles gun owners. This bill allows police to stop, seize, and question people for no other reason than doing something that is lawful.
  • Open carry is permitted in over 40 states, including Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and all other New England states.
  • Up until 2011, there were certain cities in CT where you could only open carry.
  • A person carrying a holstered handgun that may be seen, in and of itself should not be interpreted as a person that is dangerous.
  • Carrying a firearm that may be visible is legal. Just like driving a motor vehicle is. Both activities have the potential to be dangerous, both are heavily regulated, and require a permit/license to engage in.
  • A police officer cannot lawfully stop a motor vehicle just to determine whether that person is licensed. Therefore, a police officer should not be allowed to lawfully seize someone for merely observing them carrying a gun to determine whether that person has a pistol permit.
  • Handguns in CT cannot be sold or transferred to anyone without a permit. Therefore, police should not stop, seize, detain, question and vet the person because that has already been done at the point of sale.
  • If there is no reasonable suspicion of a crime, people should not be stopped.

<————————————————>


Here are some tips for providing testimony:
 Introduce yourself (state your name and related bills) and indicate whether you support or oppose the bill. Clearly explain your reasoning. It may be helpful to write your viewpoint out completely. Keep your remarks short, approximately three minutes. After your testimony ask if any Committee members have any questions.  See here for more tips.

If you are unable to attend, but would still like to have your voice heard on these issues, please email your written testimony in Word or PDF format to: JUDtestimony@cga.ct.gov

The Legislative Office Building is located at 300 Capitol Avenue, Hartford.

Please remember there are no weapons of any kind allowed inside the Capitol, Click here for the full list of prohibited items. (pdf)

Important weather information:
Please monitor weather conditions. There is a potential for a serious storm and the hearing could be rescheduled. CCDL will notify our members as soon as possible via email and social media if there is a cancellation. 

Legislative Action Alert

Action Alert!

The Connecticut General Assembly’s Judiciary Committee is actively considering two gun bills right now. One bill is pro 2nd Amendment and the other bill is anti-2nd Amendment.

Hundreds of our members have already sent letters to the committee members voicing their opposition to H.B. 6200 AN ACT CONCERNING THE PRESENTATION OF A CARRY PERMIT.

If you have not already sent an email to the committee members, please do so.

Even more important: If your legislator is a member of the Judiciary Committee, be sure to indicate that you are their constituent in your email.

Antigun extremists are already contacting state legislators. Committee members must hear from rational lawful gun owners.

Please take a moment to contact these key committee members. Copy and paste the email below, or for a greater impact draft your own.

There will be a public hearing scheduled soon (date & time TBD). When this happens, we will need members to attend the hearing and to submit testimony.

If you have any questions, email CCDL’s Legislative Coordinator Ray Bevis at legislative@ccdl.us


Dear Judiciary Committee Member,

As a fellow resident of Connecticut, I ask that you not support a bill that will allow police to profile and stop residents that are not under suspicion of a crime.

I urge you to support the firearm reciprocity bill. Forty-two other states already have some form of reciprocity. Legal firearm owners are not the ones committing crimes and are the true firearm safety advocates.

I urge that you:

OPPOSE H.B. 6200 AN ACT CONCERNING THE PRESENTATION OF A CARRY PERMIT.

SUPPORT AN ACT CONCERNING PERMIT AND CERTIFICATE TO CARRY A FIREARM RECIPROCITY

Thank you for your consideration

[Insert your name]


Send your email to each of the committee members below, or you may click here to open your email client prefilled out (may not work for everyone): EMAIL COMMITTEE

William.Tong@cga.ct.gov

Steven.Stafstrom@cga.ct.gov

David.Baram@cga.ct.gov

Jeffrey.Berger@cga.ct.gov

Christine.Conley@cga.ct.gov

Jeff.Currey@cga.ct.gov

Stephanie.Cummings@housegop.ct.gov

Patricia.Dillon@cga.ct.gov

Dan.Fox@cga.ct.gov

Bob.Godfrey@cga.ct.gov

Minnie.Gonzalez@cga.ct.gov

Stephen.Harding@housegop.ct.gov

Tony.Hwang@cga.ct.gov

Bruce.Morris@cga.ct.gov

Tom.ODea@housegop.ct.gov

Robyn.Porter@cga.ct.gov

Emmett.Riley@cga.ct.gov

Joseph.Serra@cga.ct.gov

Richard.Smith@housegop.ct.gov

 

HB6200 Update

THANK YOU, to the hundreds of members who took the time to respond to last night’s Action Alert.

Letting the Judiciary Committee members hear your voice in opposition to H.B.6200 ‘AN ACT CONCERNING THE PRESENTATION OF A CARRY PERMIT’ this early is key to letting the Committee know that gun owners in Connecticut are staying vigilant.

Unfortunately, the committee voted to raise this bill once again and move it closer to becoming law. The open carry bill was added to a long list of other bills which prevent it from being voted on individually. The vote passed by a voice vote, some committee members commented that their vote to raise isn’t necessarily their vote in support of any one bill on the agenda. Rep. Rob Sampson commented that the bill is unconstitutional on its face and should not even be on the agenda.

Now, that the committee voted to raise H.B.6200, the Legislative Commissioners’ Office (LCO) will draft the bill into the legal language. Once this happens we will prepare for the public hearing and public testimony stage of the process. A public hearing can happen anytime between now and the middle of March. No date has been set yet.

CCDL will continue to monitor this and keep our members updated on a public hearing date.

TIP: Start to prepare your written testimony for the hearing now and save it. Feel free to use some of the sample letters provided in last night’s Action Alert. You can also sign up through the Connecticut General Assembly website to track H.B.6200 yourself.

Carry On!
Ray Bevis
CCDL Legislative Coordinator

For more information:
Bill H.B. 6200
https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&which_year=2017&bill_num=6200

Connecticut General Assembly website
https://www.cga.ct.gov

CCDL ACTION ALERT! Antigun Bill

Immediate Help Needed:

Our 2nd Amendment and 4th Amendment rights are once again being threatened here in Connecticut. The Connecticut General Assembly’s Judiciary Committee is considering raising a bill again to declare ‘open season’ on those who lawfully carry firearms. They want to allow police to stop, detain and demand permit holders to identify themselves even if all they are doing is legally carrying a firearm.

This bill (should it become actual law) will force carry permit holders to produce their permits on demand if a police officer simply sees you carrying a firearm. They want to eliminate the current law which requires a police officer to have reasonable suspicion of a crime before they can stop a permit holder and investigate.

We are asking CCDL members to contact these key members of the Judiciary Committee and request that they do not to raise this bill. This proposed law eliminates current protections against undo potential harassment.

Most police officers simply wish to investigate legitimately suspicious activity, and not harass someone who is merely carrying a firearm and minding their own business. Law enforcement officers should not be allowed to stop and frisk law-abiding citizens who are not suspected of criminal activity.

Important Note:
Police right now currently do have every right to ask individuals to produce and show a carry permit. They simply do not have the authority to demand it without someone acting in a suspicious manner. This is a very important distinction that protects your 4th amendment rights.

Please send an email tonight, and ask these legislators to OPPOSE H.B.6200
Ask them to not allow police to stop and detain lawful residents without probable cause.

Sen. Doyle, Co-Chair (prefers mail form emails)

Rep. Tong, Co-Chair

Sen. Kissel, Co-Chair

Sen. Winfield, Vice Chair (prefers mail form emails)

Sen. McLachlan, Vice Chair

Rep. Stafstrom, Vice Chair

Rep. Rebimbas, Ranking Member

Rep. Simmons

Rep. Fox

If you need suggestions on what to write, we’ve got some sample letters you can use for ideas. Click here: Sample Letters

If you have any questions, contact CCDL’s Legislative Coordinator:
Ray Bevis
Phone 860-800-2235
Email legislative@ccdl.us

Gun-Seizure Law Makes Us Less Safe

The following is a guest post by Brooke Cheney.
Brooke is a competitive shooter (IDPA), certified Range Safety Officer, certified firearms instructor, and an active CCDL member. She owns A Great Start Shooting School in Harwinton, CT.
This article was originally published in the Republican-American newspaper.

_________________________________________________________________


Even if they’ve never set foot in a courtroom, Americans know they have the right to “tell it to the judge.” This fundamental right, known as the right to due process, is the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. It’s a right our Colonial ancestors didn’t enjoy. As subjects of the British crown, they routinely were abused by government agents who brought false, baseless charges against innocent people. Our ancestors had no right to tell their side of the stories, face their accusers or demand evidence of crimes.

Today, Connecticut lawmakers are debating a bill that would take us back to the days when the government trampled our rights and freedoms. Under House Bill 5054 and others, the government could seize a person’s firearms without giving him a chance to tell his side of the story or face his accuser in court. He wouldn’t even have to be accused of a crime. Under this bill, a law-abiding citizen could be forced to hand over his firearms based solely on a brief statement by an accuser. Innocent people would have no right to defend themselves before being deprived of property and due process.

Our Constitution is under assault. Gun-control groups are trying to undermine our freedoms and chip away at our constitutional protections. Supporters of H.B. 5054 claim they want to protect victims of domestic violence by taking firearms from the accused. However, under this proposal, there is no way to know if they are taking the guns away from the abuser or the abused.

As a firearms instructor, I have heard many stories of women choosing to become educated with firearms to defend themselves against their abusers. This bill could leave victims of domestic violence defenseless. A better approach would be to change the attitudes and behaviors of the abusers, and promote measures enabling victims to defend themselves.

A tragic case in New Jersey illustrates the folly of gun-control laws. Carol Bowne, 39, of Berlin, N.J., was stabbed to death by her ex-boyfriend. Bowne had applied for a firearms permit in an attempt to defend herself — months before she was attacked. Bowne was granted a restraining order, but she knew it was only a piece of paper and would not protect her if her ex-boyfriend chose not to abide by it. But New Jersey’s gun-control laws prevented her from being able to defend herself.

This tragedy also shows that if you take away guns from domestic abusers, they will find other weapons, or acquire firearms illegally.

H.B. 5054 is part of the fear-based agenda Connecticut lawmakers have adopted in recent years. In 2013, they imposed a ban on magazines with capacities greater than 10 rounds, banned all new general-purpose sporting rifles (a measure that was found ineffective because of the rarity of crimes committed with these rifles based on the federal assault-weapons ban of 1994), and imposed registration on all of the state’s existing rifles — while ignoring the suggestions from the FBI’s multi-year study on how to prevent school shootings.

H.B. 5054 is ripe for abuse by angry, bitter domestic partners, unhappy neighbors or coworkers, anyone who just doesn’t like you. Our lives can be messy, and motives are not always clear. But what is clear is our right under the Constitution to defend ourselves against an accuser and tell our side of the story.

I urge Connecticut’s lawmakers to reject H.B. 5054, no matter how well-intentioned the proponents are.

_________________________________________________________________

NOTE: The Judiciary Committee will be debating this and other related bills this coming Monday, March 28th. We urge members to call or email members of the committee and tell them not to strip domestic violence victims of their ability to defend themselves from violent abusers without the opportunity to tell their side of the story to a judge.

ALERT! Email NOW!

Did you submit your testimony for today’s public hearing?
Why not? You still have time. Testimony may be emailed up until 10am today.
Don’t know what to write?
Don’t know where to email it?
Just don’t have the time? Maybe this will help you. COPY & PASTE this letter below, fill in your information & email it to JUDtestimony@cga.ct.gov by 10:00am today.
MAKE SURE YOUR VOICE IS HEARD!
________________________________________________________________
14 March 2016

Dear Judiciary Committee members;

I’m a resident of Connecticut and wish to voice my opposition to the following raised bills;

H.B. 5054 ‘AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE’

H.B. 5623 ‘AN ACT CONCERNING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING’

H.B. 5622 ‘AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF ERASED RECORDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS A SUITABLE PERSON TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER’

S.B. 429 ‘AN ACT CONCERNING SERVICE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS’

I ask that all members of the committee not support these bills.
Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
[INSERT: your name]
[INSERT: address (optional)]
[INSERT: town, CT zip]
[INSERT: phone # (optional)]

Partial Victory – Still Work To Do

The wording just got finalized and posted for SB650 and HB6848. Because of your testimony, emails, phone calls and visits, both bills have been amended.

S.B. 650
Amendment A:
if the court issues an ex parte order against a respondent who is a peace officer as defined in section 53a-3, such hearing shall be held not later than five days from the date of the order.

Amendment B:
(d) If a state permit or temporary state permit for the carrying of any pistol or revolver is revoked because the person holding such permit is subject to an ex parte order issued pursuant to section 46b-15, as amended by this act, or 46b-16a, upon expiration of such order, such person may notify the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection that such order has expired. Upon verification of such expiration and provided such person is not otherwise disqualified from holding such permit pursuant to subsection (b) of section 29-28, the department shall reinstate such permit.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/TOB/s/pdf/2015SB-00650-R02-SB.pdf

The Gov. Bill 6848 has the same wording of amendment B added.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/TOB/h/pdf/2015HB-06848-R01-HB.pdf

At least on paper, this appears to be at least a partial victory, but we must not get complacent.

  • These bills STILL violate “due process“.
  • There is also still no provision for the return of lawfully owned firearms, magazines and ammunition, especially those that are now banned under Governor Malloy’s unconstitutional Public Act 13-3.
  • The bill and the amendment still “revoke” your permit. This may seem like splitting hairs, until you go to renew your CT permit, move to another state, or apply for a non-resident permit in another state. On the CT permit renewal form it asks “Have you had a firearms permit, permit application or eligibility certificate of any kind from ANY jurisdiction in the United States denied, suspended or revoked?”
    Most other states include similar language. This means, despite a court finding a lawful gun owner innocent of the accusations in an ex parte restraining order, he/she’s record will be forever marred by the event; in essence forced to defend themselves anew every few years come renewal time.

We must continue to contact our legislators (see this post for more info). Thank them for the language in Amendment B, but continue to voice your concern for the issues that have not been addressed yet.


Shameless plug: CCDL is leading a federal lawsuit to overturn 13-3. We have assembled a legal team comprised of some of the very best 2nd Amendment lawyers in the country. Such a lawsuit is extremely expensive, and to date we’ve spent in the area of $600,000, and it’s projected to cost us at least another $1 million. CCDL is an all volunteer, not for profit organization. We don’t even charge a membership fee! (If you are not already a member, join here.)
We also don’t have some foundation or billionaire ex-mayor giving us cash. This lawsuit is funded solely by people like you and I who support the right to keep and bear arms. If you would like to donate directly to the litigation fund, you may do so here. http://ccdl.us/blog/donate/

Defeat SB650 and HB6848

The following is another guest post by John Sturmer. John is the principal owner of JJ Firearms Training, LLC. He is also a Certified Firearms Instructor, Range Safety Officer, Glock Armorer, and a CCDL Member.
________________________________________________________________

At our last CCDL Meeting on April 14, Ray Beavis and I spoke about what it would take politically to defeat SB650 and HB6848. We have been lucky so far in that all Republicans on the Judiciary Committee voted against it, but sadly it was given a “Joint Favorable” recommendation, and will now advance. As you know, many Republicans voted FOR Senate Bill 1160 in 2013, and although we have seen all Republicans on the Judiciary committee vote against this bill, I have little faith that ALL Republicans will follow suit.

Remember… We need legislators from BOTH parties to vote against SB650 and its House counterpart in order to defeat it. There are 64 Republicans. 76 votes are needed to kill it in the House. The good news is that 10 Democrats voted against SB1160… 8 of them are still there, one lost his seat to a pro 2A Republican, and one is Steve Mikutel’s former district. Representative Mikutel if you don’t know was a better friend to CCDL than many Republicans are. I have included a list, if you live in any of these districts it is absolutely critical that you reach out and we keep these votes on the right side. There were also 20 Republican house members who voted FOR SB1160. 6 of them are on the Judiciary Committee, and all voted against this bill.

Take the following actions

  • Find your legislator and their contact info at: www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/cgafindleg.asp
  • Reach out to the chairman of your town committee, of your party. Attend a meeting if possible.
  • Find the website for your party’s state central committee. Every town has a representative. Reach out to them and let them know how you feel about these bills.
  • When you e-mail your legislator make sure to include the bill number and the fact that you oppose it clearly in the subject. They may not read your individual e-mail, but the primary driver of their vote is the consensus of their constituents. The overwhelming majority of these legislators are everyday people that just want to “do the right thing”. Sometimes they need a little help knowing what the right thing is.

The following Democratic Representatives voted “NO” on SB1160, and are still sitting members… it is critical that you reach out to them if you live in their district:
Buddy Altobello – 82nd altobello@cga.ct.gov
Theresa Conroy – 105th Theresa.conroy@cga.ct.gov
Louis Esposito – 116th Lou.Esposito@cga.ct.gov
Ed Jutilla – 37th Ed.Jutila@cga.ct.gov
Douglas McCrory – 7th Douglas.mccrory@cga.ct.gov
Frank Nicastro – 79th Frank.Nicastro@cga.ct.gov
Danny Rovero – 51st Danny.Rovero@cga.ct.gov
David Zoni – 81st David.Zoni@cga.ct.gov

Additionally – the following Republican representatives, while the voted “Yes” on 1160, voted “No” in the Judiciary Committee. We need to keep every Republican Vote, so if you live in one of these districts, PLEASE e-mail and call:
Bill Aman – 14th – bill.aman@housegop.ct.gov
Christie Carpino – 32nd – Christie.carpino@housegop.ct.gov
Tom O’Dea – 125th – tom.odea@housegop.ct.gov
Arthur O’Neill – 69th – Arthur.oneill@housegop.ct.gov
John Shaban – 135th – john.shaban@housegop.ct.gov
Richard Smith – 108th Richard.smith@housegop.ct.gov

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.