Connecticut Carry Response to Governor’s Domestic Violence Bill
A bill with no research and even less common sense
Hartford, CT, March 12, 2015:
On March 11th, the Connecticut Judiciary Committee held a Public Hearing to discuss several bills in front of a standing room only hearing room that will impact our individual rights in Connecticut.
Senate Bill 650 – A bill seeking to remove due process from the restraining order process
House Bill 6848 - A bill seeking to remove due process from the restraining order process
House Bill 6962 – A government overreach seeking to criminalize gun owners for keeping their firearms accessible when in their homes.
These bills were widely and universally rejected by the advocates for individual rights that appeared at the hearing, including Connecticut Carry. More instructive in this hearing, though were the arguments from the proponents. At the end of the day, when the two sides had battled things out in front of the legislature, the proponents of the anti-rights bills were left with a singular refrain: “there is a lack of education about the risk warrant statute”. Interestingly, Connecticut Carry has been the sole organization to spend time and money to educate members of the public, state government and law enforcement about the Risk Warrant statute (CGS 29-38c) in Connecticut, which has been law for 15 years and has been discussed at length in both the media and in cases all over the state.
One of the things that struck the leadership of Connecticut Carry was the stunning display of ignorance of the Connecticut General Statutes by not only the Lt. Gov, her counsel and many members of the Judiciary Committee, but also the 'Domestic Violence Advocates' that were advocating for these anti-rights measures. We heard Representative Jeffrey Berger ask if permits can be issued to people subject to Restraining Orders, which is one of the most basic questions on the pistol permit application and is a disqualifier by statute (CGS 29-28(b)). The Governor’s General Counsel could not answer this either. We also watched in amazement as Attorney Buffkin, General Counsel for the Governor’s office, stated that she did not know why the current statutes involved Restraining Orders require a hearing within 14 days, a provision clearly entered into the statute to satisfy the requirement of due process.
Lt. Governor Wyman and her counsel stood fast, in the face of repeated questioning, by the idea that a 'transfer' to an FFL or the police would somehow only transfer possession and not ownership. This is false. They do not even understand the basics of the word that they use: 'transfer'. When a person transfers a firearm to an FFL, they transfer ownership. And it also means that if the property in question is defined under the CGS as a 'Large Capacity Magazine' or 'Assault Weapon', it cannot be transferred back. Ever. The same administration that rammed through the 2013 Gun Ban is now advocating for a way to confiscate those firearms from people on a single person's accusation with no legal method to get those firearms back.
With the ignorance on display in the hearing from the proponents of these bills, it should be no surprise that you could drive a large truck through the holes in their understandings of how firearms laws work in Connecticut. For instance, what do they plan to do against a domestic abuser who has unregistered firearms? There is no requirement in Connecticut for firearms to be registered, only new firearms bought in this state are subject to this provision. And the state database is horribly flawed and contains many, many errors. The bills rely on the honor system from people who abuse their domestic partners and the proponents believe might be homicidal.
This is the illusion of safety, not safety.
The truly sad part is that the facts do not matter to the proponents of these bills. Representative William Tong said at one point in reference to the overwhelming opposition he saw at the hearing "this does not have to be intellectually coherent". Well, yes, it does. We demand that. Legislation should not be based on emotional rhetoric Representative Tong.
"I would like to express my surprise and shock that Nancy Wyman, the Lt. Governor and her General Counsel Attorney Karen Buffkin would appear before the Judiciary Committee to testify in support of proposed firearms legislation that they know nothing about. My concern extends to the lack of knowledge shown by members of the Judiciary Committee who clearly have NO working knowledge of existing laws, regulations, policies and practices regarding firearms" - Connecticut Carry Director of Legal Affairs Edward Peruta
"It is disappointing and downright pathetic that people are advocating against the basic tenets of law like due process and our individual rights. But it is absolutely despicable that they do so in the name of cases that would not have been helped by anything that they are proposing. Shame on the proponents of these bills and anyone who would further these bills." - Connecticut Carry President Richard Burgess
“"It was a pleasure representing the law abiding firearm owners of Connecticut by my appearance in front of the Connecticut Judiciary Committee on March 11, 2015. Hopefully my testimony and answers to questions posed by members of the committee, will provide a better working knowledge of firearm issues on which the committee members may base any future firearm related decisions." – Attorney Rachel M. Baird
2014 Election Endorsements
Connecticut Carry’s Endorsements for the 2014 Election
Hartford CT, September 2, 2014:
From the start of this election season, Connecticut Carry has received regular inquiries from media sources about who we will be endorsing for the 2014 election season. As our members know and we communicate regularly, we will not be endorsing candidates for the 2014 election.
One of the primary reasons for this is that there is no one to endorse. The current crop of political candidates range from downright horrible to only wanting to use us for our votes to absolutely delusional. During the votes on SB 1160, candidates that opposed SB 1160 did not stand up for individual rights, instead, they exercised self-preservation. They hemmed and hawed about how they had read the bill but did not think it would put in the right restrictions. There should have been one answer: ‘No’. There was no law that would have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre and there is no law that will stop a future event.
There is a mountain of work to be done before we will see candidates that represent the ideals of liberty loving Connecticut residents. Until we see those types of politicians, we cannot endorse candidates.
In addition, we are non-partisan. Instead of doing like many other organizations do that call themselves ‘non-partisan’ and default to listing everyone on their side of the aisle, we would require any candidate to meet our standards for the advocacy of individual rights no matter what party they did or didn’t belong to.
Since we are the zero compromise, pro-rights organization in Connecticut, we refuse to make allegiances or alliances with politicians that can and will turn their backs on our organization and members once they get into office. Instead, we hold politicians to the merits of their decisions. This can be seen in our ‘Never Forgive. Never Forget. Vote them out’ campaign as well as our ‘Unfit for Office’ campaign. These campaigns have been effective in educating our members and the public about politicians that have worked against our rights. We believe that education contributed to John McKinney’s crushing defeat in the primaries.
Citizens that want to get educated on who to vote for or against can visit our legislative site and view who voted for and against the 2013 Gun Ban.
We also offer this information in printed form for distribution:
“Connecticut residents need to remember that the only reasonable goal this election season is to send as many anti-rights politicians as possible to the unemployment line. We all must vote for whoever can best unseat the people who voted against the human right to self-defense in April, 2013. Luckily, they provided us with a list of who we should vote against in the form of the SB 1160 tally sheet.” – Connecticut Carry President Rich Burgess
John McKinney Eliminated from Election by Connecticut Gun Owners
Connecticut Gun Owners Tell John McKinney "You are unfit for office"
Connecticut, August 12, 2014:
By defeating John McKinney, candidate for Governor, in the primaries, Connecticut gun owners today declared John McKinney Unfit for Office. This goes hand in hand with Connecticut Carry's declaration that all legislators that voted for the 2013 Gun Ban are also Unfit for Office.
In the case of John McKinney, he not only voted for the 2013 Gun Ban, he was also an architect of it. For these reasons, it was extremely important to make sure that John McKinney was defeated early in the election process to show that politicians that vote for anti-rights bills will die a quick political death.
Connecticut Carry has released a list of politicians and their votes for the 2013 Gun Ban.
"We will not stop until all politicians that voted for the 2013 Gun Ban are in the unemployment line. Never Forgive, Never Forget. Vote them out." - Connecticut Carry President Rich Burgess
Summary Judgment Moves to a New Time Slot
Wethersfield CT, August 1, 2014:
Summary Judgment, Connecticut’s first and only public television talk show focused on how the state is impacting your rights, will be moving to a new time slot. Summary Judgment will air weekly on Saturdays 6pm – 8pm. We will be accepting viewer call ins at (860) 721-8814.
If your cable provider is Cox Communication, you can watch the show live on channel 15 from the following towns:
If your cable is provided by AT&T U-Verse, subscribers can access and view the program live by finding the show on Channel 99 under Wethersfield Community Television programs.
For anyone else, you can view the program live and participate in the program through live streaming at: http://sjtalkshow.com/Live
Find more information about Summary Judgment on the Summary Judgment website:
Or on social media:
Connecticut Carry Responds to ‘Will You Stop This?’ Video
Releases Transformative Video With a Worthwhile Message
North Branford CT, July 31, 2014
Connecticut Carry has released on its You Tube channel a transformative video meant as a commentary to the ‘Everytown for Gun Safety’ video campaign ‘Will You Stop This?’. In their graphic video, the anti-rights group inadvertently provide an advertisement for women to be armed while arguing that citizens should be less armed. The video shows an enraged man kicking down a door, taking a child and pulling a firearm on the defenseless woman in what appears to be her own home. If the woman was armed, the video could have a very different ending; a positive one instead of the negative one that was portrayed.
As women all over the state of Connecticut are arming themselves and seeking firearms and self-defense training, Connecticut Carry felt it was appropriate to transform this video into an educational message for women everywhere:
“Refuse to be a victim. Get Armed. Get Trained.”
That is a positive and empowering message that stands a chance of saving lives instead of the gun bans and restraining orders advocated by anti-rights citizen disarmament groups. Studies like the Kleck study have shown that annually there may be up to 2.5 million defensive gun uses. Only 8% of those actually involve gun fire to stop the threat. Guns save lives.
Connecticut Carry cares for all of its members and the public alike. We want women to be safer, and that means that women have the means and the ability to defend themselves against violent criminals who do not obey laws or restraining orders. As the nation saw in Castle Rock v Gonzalez, a restraining order cannot replace lawful self-defense.
“We see and hear from women and men alike on a regular basis that have an immediate need for a firearm to defend themselves against violent criminals in domestic situations. We find it shameful that Connecticut residents end up having to wait 2 years or more in some cases to get a pistol permit to be able to lawfully defend themselves.”
- Connecticut Carry President Rich Burgess
“This video is a great exercise of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech. This is speech that is far too important to be restricted in any way.”
- Connecticut Carry Director Edward Peruta
“Everytown for Gun Safety has made the best NRA commercial I have seen in a long time. What better argument could be made through a 30 second video for being armed and trained in using force with a capable tool?”
- Connecticut Carry Director Raymond Johansen
Watch the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3VCqyHRC2g
Connecticut Bar Association’s Support of 2013 Gun Ban is Deplorable
Connecticut Carry Calls for Public Denouncements of Proposal
New Britain CT, July 18, 2014
Connecticut Carry has been made aware that the Connecticut Bar Association (CBA) has proposed to its members that the CBA wishes to file an Amicus, or ‘friend of the court’, Brief in the case of Shew v Malloy in support of the defendant, the State of Connecticut. Ironically, the section of the CBA which has brought this topic for this called “Human Rights and Responsibility”, with their mission being:
“This section focuses on the enforcement, protection, and development of legal protections, which safeguard the rights of individuals”
By proposing to support the 2013 Gun Ban in Connecticut, they have chosen to attack ‘the rights of individuals’ instead of safeguarding those rights. By choosing this stance, they also imply that the 2013 Gun Ban somehow supports ‘Human rights’, even though there is no more of a basic or important human right than the right to self-defense, which they advocate opposing with their proposal. They also inversely imply that the amici on the other side of the issue, including the International Law Enforcement Education and Trainers Association (ILEETA), Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund (LELDF), Law Enforcement Action Network (LEAN), current and retired state and local law enforcement officers, and the Attorney Generals of 23 states are somehow against human rights by opposing the 2013 Gun Ban, a de-facto infringement on individual rights.
In response to this proposal, Attorney Rachel M. Baird of Torrington, CT wrote a scathing letter to the Connecticut Bar Association, which she is a member of. Attorney Scott D. Camassar of the law firm Stephen M. Reck, LLC and Attorney Martha Dean have joined in Attorney Baird’s criticism of the Connecticut Bar Association, bringing up very valid and critical points about the goals of the CBA and their understandings of what the CBA was supposed to stand for.
But, as Connecticut Carry is pointing out, this is not the Connecticut Bar Association’s first foray into advocating against the right to self-defense. In a letter dated 03/12/2013, the Connecticut Bar Association recommended that the legislature pass edicts that later became the basis for SB 1160, otherwise known as the 2013 Gun Ban. In their letter, they advocated on behalf of:
· Universal background checks (registration)
· The banning of ‘assault/military style weapons’ to civilians.
· The banning of the sale of ‘high capacity magazines’ to civilians.
In the letter, they also support Governor Malloy’s gun ban proposals of that time and call them ‘common sense’ which is a sardonic term used by other anti-rights groups to imply that individual rights are somehow not ‘common sense’. They go on to say that they ‘strongly endorse’ the Governor’s proposals, which became SB 1160 that we now live under.
The Connecticut Bar Association joined the world’s bulwark of human rights, China in their declaration about gun bans. By taking the same stance as the communist Chinese government took in "Human Rights Record of the United States in 2011", which was released by the State Council Information Office of the People's Republic of China in May of 2012, the Connecticut Bar Association has made their stance against individual rights and for collectivism clear.
Interestingly, Judge Covello, the Federal District Court judge that dismissed the Shew v Malloy case on summary judgment is a proud member of the Connecticut Bar Association, as declared in his judicial biography. Connecticut Carry must ask whether Judge Covello’s association with the Connecticut Bar Association tainted his decision-making in this case and whether this behavior on the part of an organization that he is a proud member of should mean that he recuse himself from all subsequent firearms-related cases.
The brief that is being proposed by the Connecticut Bar association is against the appeal of Judge Covello’s decision. This kind of conflict of interests is both unbecoming of a ‘professional organization’ like the bar association and it is unbecoming of a sitting Federal judge.
Connecticut Carry has posted a list of the members of the CBA’s “Human Rights and Responsibility” on our website. We urge our members and other concerned members of the public to review the list and strongly reconsider doing any business with anyone on the list. In addition, any member of the Connecticut Bar Association should not be considered a friend of individuals rights unless and until they make a public declaration against this proposal by the Connecticut Bar Association. If you are doing business with an attorney that has not publicly come out against this proposal, please make sure you let them know why you will no longer be able to do business with them.
Connecticut Carry to Attend the 2014 NRA Annual Meeting
Indianapolis, Indiana, April 25, 2014:
In keeping with our organizational focus on making sure we have the most educated resources both in Connecticut Carry and in Connecticut, Connecticut Carry will be attending the 2014 NRA Annual Meeting. Connecticut Carry Director Edward Peruta (of Peruta v San Diego) will be accompanying Connecticut Firearms Attorney Rachel M. Baird to the 2014 NRA Annual Meeting in Indianapolis from April 25th - 27th. Individuals and organizations that will be at the convention and would like to arrange a meeting should get in contact with Connecticut Carry (firstname.lastname@example.org) to make arrangements.
About Attorney Rachel M. Baird (http://rachelbairdlaw.com):
Since opening her office in Torrington, Ms. Baird has represented individuals charged with crimes throughout Connecticut in its Part A (most serious crimes) and Part B state courts. She has also filed federal civil actions against companies, agencies, and towns.
In 2007, when M. Peter Kuck, the longest serving member of Connecticut's Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, retained Ms. Baird to file an action challenging on due process grounds the delay period between the revocation or denial of a handgun permit and an opportunity for hearing before the Board, Ms. Baird's practice was in civil rights, criminal defense, and general trial litigation. Shortly after she accepted Mr. Kuck's case, James F. Goldberg was arrested at a Chili's restaurant in Glastonbury for open carry of a handgun. Through these cases and others brought to her office, she became aware of the clarity lacking in Connecticut's firearms laws and its chilling effect on the lawful conduct of firearms owners. In 2008 another case followed, involving Connecticut's Risk Warrant statute which allows law enforcement to obtain a warrant to seize firearms when a person poses an imminent danger to himself or others. By statute (and the Fourth Amendment) the warrant precedes the seizure; in practice, however, law enforcement first takes the firearms by "voluntary consent" or for "safekeeping" and then, only after the unlawful seizure, obtains a warrant to "seize" the firearms from the department's evidence room. A Connecticut appellate court condoned this practice in a 2010 decision causing confusion among law enforcement and havoc in the courts that Ms. Baird often uses to challenge Risk Warrants on procedural grounds.
Ms. Baird represents individuals in criminal and civil courts throughout Connecticut and Massachusetts and has argued appeals before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York. She is accredited by the Department of Veterans Affairs to represent veterans in agency proceedings. The National Rifle Association Civil Rights Defense Fund have funded three cases filed by Ms. Baird in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.
In addition to her admission to the Connecticut Bar, Ms. Baird is licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. She is admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut and the District of Massachusetts. In 2005, the Connecticut Bar Foundation selected Ms. Baird to the James W. Cooper Fellows program which requires "demonstrated superior legal ability and devotion to the welfare of the community, state, and nation, as well as to the advancement of the legal profession. "
About Connecticut Carry Director Ed Peruta (http://ctgunrights.com):
In addition to his work in Connecticut, including sitting on the board of directors for Connecticut Carry, Mr. Peruta is a plaintiff in the case of Peruta v. San Diego which arose from his failed application to obtain a Concealed Carry Permit from the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department. Mr. Peruta filed a federal cause of action alleging Second Amendment violations against the County in the denial of his permit application based on unconstitutional restrictions imposed on the right to carry outside the home.
On February 13, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided in a landmark decision that Mr. Peruta (and Californians) do not need to show 'good cause' in making application for permits, effectively forcing California counties to become "shall issue" instead of "may issue" jurisdictions.
The Battle for Rights Takes to Social Media
Connecticut Carry Engages Anti-rights Groups Online
North Branford CT, April 4, 2014:
Anti-rights groups have decided to try and protest the April 5th pro-rights rally in Hartford, Connecticut. In doing so, they have taken to calling pro-rights groups ‘the KKK’, ‘bullies’, ‘intimidating’, ‘threatening police’ and other vulgar lies. In response, Connecticut Carry has launched a counter-protest using the same medium, Thunderclap. The goal is to beat the anti-rights groups at their own social media game while taking the high road.
Using the anti-rights own social media tool against them, Connecticut Carry has engaged them by creating its own Thunderclap campaign which has, so far, completely out paced the anti-rights groups, almost 2 to 1. Our campaign almost instantly replaced the anti-rights campaign in terms of trending and stayed there for the course of the campaign. In a mad scramble to try and save face, the anti-rights groups have tried to accuse Connecticut Carry of somehow ‘cheating’ by engaging its national support base, despite Thunderclap being a national social media tool. Ironically, as Connecticut Carry supporters have pointed out, the anti-rights groups have been appealing to a national audience since they started their campaign. Of course, when these things were pointed out, posts were deleted to cover this up.
Of even more interest is who is supporting each group. With Connecticut Carry being supported mostly by individuals in a showing of grassroots support, the anti-rights groups have gone the opposite direction being supported mostly by national anti-rights groups and millionaire communist propagandists.
Instead of showing the overwhelming support that they claim to have, anti-rights groups have shown exactly what we have been accusing them of: Astroturfing.
“Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g. political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participant(s). It is a practice intended to give the statements or organizations more credibility by withholding information about the source's financial connection.” – Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing)
This kind of tactic will never override the broad public opposition for their anti-rights bills, however. Liberty is both popular and contagious. That these groups would even dare to defy a concept like individual liberty is both absurd and outrageous. While the governor and legislature was able to hide this fact on April 4th 2013 by ignoring the massive public outcry against gun bills in favor of ‘emergency certification’, the same advantage does not currently exist. And this has the legislators, the governor and the anti-rights groups running scared. Already, we have seen several anti-rights legislators decide not to run again, and the anti-rights groups have announced ‘Super PACs’ to try and funnel more national anti-rights money into Connecticut. If these groups had the broad public support that they claim, they would not need these astroturfing options.
Regardless of their corporate sponsors, Connecticut Carry remains unwavering in its opposition to the 2013 Gun Ban. The coalition of 30 anti-rights groups still remain impotent, lacking in public support and they need to lie about gun owners to get anyone to pay attention to them.
President Rich Burgess had this to say of the battle:
“To date, this will be the anti-rights groups largest thunderclap, and we would like to say ‘You are welcome’ for giving them even a shred of attention. Usually people just ignore the indignant whine of anti-rights groups, but Connecticut and the nation are about to hear the roar of those who support liberty.”
People can view, join or share Connecticut Carry’s Thunderclap here: https://www.thunderclap.it/projects/10251-connecticut-chooses-liberty
To Officials of the State of Connecticut: Either Enforce or Repeal 2013 Anti-gun Laws.
It’s time for the State to enforce the tyranny they passed or repeal it entirely.
Rocky Hill CT, March 3, 2014:
A recent media tidal wave based on false reports and bad journalism has proven a few things about the 2013 Gun Ban: people from Connecticut and around the nation are tired of being threatened; are ready to make a stand; and the State of Connecticut does not have the stomach to enforce the edicts and laws with which they threaten gun owners.
For years, Undersecretary Michael Lawlor, the upper levels of the State Police, and Governor Dannel Malloy have sought to disarm those whom they fear. The laws they passed show that they fear constitutionally and lawfully armed citizens. Despite thousands of gun owners showing up at each legislative session expecting to be heard by their ‘representatives’, government officials seized upon public panic related to the Newtown Massacre, as a means to exert legislative and executive fiats intent upon disarming gun owners who have harmed no one. The Connecticut Executive and Legislative branches showed their cowardice when they installed metal detectors and armed guards at the entrances to the Legislative Office Building (LOB) only for firearms-related hearings.
Gun hating officials now have their laws on the books in Connecticut. They dreamed up those laws, in their tyrannical dystopias, but it was NOT the majority of the public that supported such laws. Despite all the severe legal language that the government passed, there is still no open discussion of enforcing those tyrannical laws, as they stand. Throughout the Legislature and the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP), there is only talk of "amnesty" and possibly boiling the frog at a slower rate.
It comes as no surprise that the talks of relaxing enforcement expectations go along with legislators trying to get past their re-election deadlines. If the anti-gun laws they passed are so good for everyone in this state, then why are elected officials requesting increased security, both at the LOB and at their private homes? The anti-gun legislators and officials are scared to implement their tyranny because they know that they did not have any sort of ‘consent of the governed’. Those officials violated their oaths of office, as the Executive and Legislative branches of our Connecticut government overstepped their moral and constitutional responsibilities by passing those laws: they acted and voted contrary to our Rights and against our Constitution.
Now, State officials look down the barrel of the laws that they created, and it is very probable that they now tremble as they rethink the extremity of their folly. Connecticut Carry calls on every State official, every Senator, and every Representative, to make the singular decision: Either enforce the laws as they are written and let us fight it out in court, or else repeal the 2013 Gun Ban in its entirety.
As many media sources have pointed out, there is very little compliance with the new edicts, and there is absolutely no way for the State to know who is obeying the law or not. State officials have made their bluff, and Undersecretary Lawlor has made his position clear, that the State will enforce the laws. We say: Bring it on. The officials of the State of Connecticut have threatened its citizens by fiat. They have roared on paper, but they have violated Principle. Now it's time for the State to man-up: either enforce its edicts or else stand-down and return to the former laws that did not so violently threaten the citizens of this state.
There is nothing that will so completely destroy faith in those edicts faster than the State-provoked chaos and violence that will be required to enforce the 2013 anti-gun laws. Connecticut residents should not have to live in perpetual fear of "the jack boot" coming down on them. Unenforced, frequently repeated threats fall on deaf ears. By passing laws that they cannot or choose not to enforce, State officials tell the public that this State is ignorant, immoral, blind, and impotent in its legal and decision making processes. The passage of such foolishly conceived, insufferable laws is an affront to every law-abiding citizen. Every official who supports such legal foolishness mocks our State and the Constitution they swore to uphold.
If the state does not have the stomach to enforce these laws, then the legislature has until May 7th, 2014 to completely repeal these immoral edicts and let the residents of Connecticut return to their rightfully owned property and former exercise of constitutional rights and practices without any threat of State violence.
“From Governor Malloy, to Undersecretary Lawlor to DESPP, Commissioner Schriro, and Lieutenant Cooke of the firearms unit, and including Lt. Paul Vance, the state needs to shit, or get off the pot. The fact is, the state does not have the balls to enforce these laws. The laws would not survive the public outcry and resistance that would occur.” - Connecticut Carry Director Ed Peruta
If officials of the State of Connecticut opt to get ‘froggy’ (jumping on citizens) and start to enforce the new laws (as officials have claimed a desire to do), Connecticut Carry stands ready to do whatever it takes and whatever it can do to represent and defend anyone impacted by the State’s violence.
“As citizens of Connecticut, we have a right to bear arms. With that right comes responsibility. The responsibility to stand in defense of ourselves and our fellow citizens is paramount.” – Connecticut Carry President Rich Burgess
Peruta v San Diego
Connecticut’s Ties to the Big Win in California
Rocky Hill, CT, February 24, 2014:
Gun owners all over California, and throughout the nation, are rejoicing over the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturning the previous rulings in Peruta v San Diego in favor of the right to bear arms. Peruta v San Diego is a landmark case that follows and expands upon the 2008 DC v Heller decision.
In Heller, SCOTUS (the U.S. Supreme Court) ruled that owning a firearm is a fundamental and individual right. Later, in McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the court affirmed that this right applied to all citizens of all states, under the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. Peruta v San Diego makes clear that this right also applies outside the home, contrary to what many anti-rights activists have opined.
The Peruta decision makes clear that states and municipalities cannot deny their citizens the right to bear arms any more than they can deny their citizens the right to possess arms. In San Diego, citizens were denied their right to bear arms through the ‘good cause’ requirement of their concealed carry licenses. The ‘good cause’ requirement is an arbitrary and capricious requirement that gave local governments, in practice, the ability to deny the right to bear arms to all citizens except those that were politically connected or financially influential.
The man behind the San Diego case, Mr. Edward Peruta, is Connecticut Carry's own Director Edward Peruta. Mr. Peruta has been a longtime advocate against government corruption, and a supporter of equal rights, particularly in the field of gun rights. Connecticut Carry (a 501(c)(4) non-profit devoted to defending and promoting the right to bear arms) was formed in large part around Ed’s advocacy and wise guidance in the area of firearms laws. Now, the 9th Circuit has handed down a landmark decision upholding the right to bear arms in Mr. Peruta’s case, creating an affirmation that Mr. Peruta’s fight has never been in vain.
As Mr. Peruta pointed out, the California case and his efforts here in Connecticut are closely related:
“It was my prior knowledge of firearms laws and issues that got me to file suit in California. My experience with Attorney Rachel M. Baird prepared me to take action against San Diego in 2009. The rest is history.” – Edward Peruta
Connecticut Carry is fortunate and proud to have such a visionary and influential individual on our leadership team.
Inquiries about the case should be made through Michel and Associates, P.C.: http://michellawyers.com/
Ed Peruta can be reached through Attorney Rachel M. Baird: http://rachelbairdlaw.com/