Connecticut Carry

In keeping with his word to produce documents regarding the search warrants used in the Newtown Massacre investigation, State’s Attorney Stephen Sedensky released about what everyone involved in the legislative discussions knew he would.

He released a one-sided list of only the weapons and equipment that the murderer and his mother possessed. In the releases, there is little or no mention about whether there were any mental issues diagnosed in the murderer’s history or any indication of whether this massacre could have been detected or prevented. Portions of the warrants where witnesses seem to discuss the murderer’s history are conveniently redacted.

The only focus and obvious intention of releasing the search warrants is to focus the narrative on the firearms instead of the actual legitimate questions about the murderer and his history and things that can actually be evaluated and fixed without endangering the rest of us in the process.

But this did not stop the media from talking about a ‘startling arsenal’ which consisted of only a few firearms and a mediocre amount of ammunition.

The media has apparently once again changed the definition of ‘arsenal’ to be 6 firearms, since that is all that was found. 1 shotgun, 3 rifles (two of which were bolt action) and 2 pistols. If this is an arsenal, than just about every gun owner in the state possess an armory.

Already we have reporters talking about ‘hundreds’ of rounds of .22LR ammunition, when .22LR ammunition is most commonly sold in its smallest divisions in 550 round boxes. In actuality, there were only 1026 rounds of center-fire rounds of ammunition, spread across 7 different types of firearms, 161 of those were shotgun shells.  Over 300 rounds of the ammunition were calibers that there was not even a matching firearm for, and therefore they had no way of utilizing.

This is hardly an ‘arsenal’ or shocking. In fact, most shooting sports enthusiasts would go through this amount of ammunition in a normal day at the range, although it would likely be a short day at the range. Many gun owners possess many times the amount listed here at any given time, since ammunition is cheaper when bought in bulk.

This inventory is not ‘startling’, it is hardly even significant.

Governor Malloy instantly expressed his ignorance and contempt for the gun owners of Connecticut by saying that the issue around large capacity magazines was clear, except he did not mention what we expected any of the unarmed individuals to do against a well armed murderer, regardless of whether or not he was changing a magazine or not. Indeed, towns around the state are opting to do the right thing and put people who can stop an attack in their schools instead of relying on silly ideas like gun bans to perform their magic for them.

The media also immediately sought to demonize gun owners and the NRA by stating falsely that there were NRA membership certificates found in the home. Since the NRA doesn’t issue such certificates for membership, these are pretty clearly the state required training certificates for Basic Pistol Safety. It is odd the media would try to make a negative of safety training, should all residents (well over 200,000 in number) who have taken the mandatory training get rid of their certificates so they are not likewise demonized or linked to the murderer?

This is another step along the way where we see people pushing an agenda who think nothing of exploiting the death of children to get their way.

The legislature should not move on any legislation until the full details of the investigation are released. The investigation of the Arizona massacre where Representative Giffords was shot has been released and it is bringing startling revelations about how much could and should have been done about the murderer before the massacre.

When will Connecticut be afforded the right to review this investigation completely so real reasoning can be applied to this situation?

Arizona investigation details: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/28/us/documents-2011-tucson-shooting-case-gabrielle-giffords.html

More information on this issue can be found on http://ctcarry.com.

Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.
 

Contact:
Richard Burgess
President
Connecticut Carry, Inc
Ph: 203-208-9577
Email: rich@ctcarry.com
http://ctcarry.com

Once again, thousands of pro-liberty activists descended on the Legislative Office Building in Hartford. They were met by a Public Safety and Security Committee that was mostly absent from the hearing, legislators that noticeably disappeared when Colt Manufacturing dropped off busloads of employees that filled the building. They were also met by handful of anti-rights activists who were quickly overwhelmed by the thousands of pro-rights activists in attendance.

This is not surprising. The January rally of pro-rights activists netted thousands of people that filled the entire back half of the Capitol Building. When the anti-rights activists later held a rally, they ended up with a quarter of the attendance, despite the inaccurate media reports to the contrary.

On Monday, there was a pro-liberty ‘Lobby Day’ where over three thousand activists showed up and tried to track down their legislators. The governor fled Hartford and instead lobbied in New London, avoiding the possibility of confronting people head on about the issues he wants to legislate against. But that is OK. The governor’s job is not to hear from or represent the people. Then again, his job is also not to develop or promote legislation either.

On Wednesday, there was an anti-rights ‘Lobby Day’ where ‘dozens’ of people showed up, although photos and video from the event showed approximately ‘a dozen’. These people were welcomed warmly by legislators, despite being in the clear minority. The bias is evident.

Today, March 14^th, thousands of people packed the legislative office building to express their pro-liberty stances. Very few anti-rights activists were present. This should be clear evidence of the public’s opinion about this issue.

The legislature and the governor are very incorrect that we are some sort of minority or ‘fringe of the fringe’. We are the majority, and we vote. We are the people who actually understand the issues and we will continue to be active and vocal about this issue. Legislators should be warned that they have awakened a lot of single issue voters and that those voters will be watching their coming actions very closely.  We will not succumb to your lies in the future. You will uphold your oath to uphold the state and federal Constitutions, and you will protect our rights.

More information on this issue can be found on http://ctcarry.com.

Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.
 

Contact:
Richard Burgess
President
Connecticut Carry, Inc
Ph: 203-208-9577
Email: rich@ctcarry.com
http://ctcarry.com

Connecticut Carry is disgusted at the grand standing of Senator Joan Hartley, who is the Chair of the Public Safety and Security Committee, in her grilling of Mossberg Vice President and Legal Counsel Joseph Bartozzi. In what is supposed to be an unbiased hearing where they are to learn from the public and from industry speakers; Senator Hartley chose instead to accuse Mossberg of creating products that are ‘only meant to kill’.

Senator Hartley later went on to grill both Mossberg and Mark Malkowski of Stag Arms, two very large, responsible and excellent firearms manufacturers in Connecticut, about their contributions to the National Rifle Association. This demonizing of our industry by attempting to demonize their involvement in pro-rights issues and organizations is unacceptable and ridiculous. What money a company or an individual contribute to a group devoted to protecting their rights is not only ‘none of their business’, but it is also easily found through a request to the NRA’s various charity organizations which Federal laws and tax code make freely available.

She also sought to demonize manufacturers like Sturm Ruger by trying to ascertain whether they donated to the Newtown victim’s funds. As if the manufacturers of firearms have a duty or responsibility to donate a portion of their corporate treasury to the victims of a madman which they had nothing to do with. These are inflammatory and biased comments that have no place in our legislature.

Senator Hartley should be ashamed of her ridiculous statements and accusations that only seek to demonize and segregate a portion of our population in Connecticut. Guns are not at all only meant to kill. A vast majority of guns never kill anyone or anything and most likely never will. A vast majority of gun owners have never killed anyone or anything and hope that they never have to use their firearm to injure or to take the life of someone else who is trying to hurt them.

Senator Hartley’s insensitive and generalized comments about an entire industry and portion of Connecticut residents are unacceptable and she owes an apology to the gun owners and gun manufacturers of Connecticut.

More information on this issue can be found on http://ctcarry.com.

Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.
 

Contact:
Richard Burgess
President
Connecticut Carry, Inc
Ph: 203-208-9577
Email: rich@ctcarry.com
http://ctcarry.com

Serious questions about the sobriety of the discussions taking place in the Connecticut Legislature are being asked by our members and by the public at large. One of the main focuses of these questions is why the legislature is even considering the topic of magazine bans or magazine limitations.

Proposing magazine bans in this state brings forth a huge variety of questions that need to be answered before even considering a proposal, but it is clear that the legislators supporting and proposing these kinds of bills are not considering these questions and the impacts that will follow. They have instead made it a point to propose every ridiculous manner of gun ban that they could dream up with no consideration of the impacts of such bills.

The legislature needs to consider:

• If they think the citizens do not need certain weapons or certain sized magazines in their possession, why does Law Enforcement? If these are ‘weapons of war’, then what war is Law Enforcement waging and against whom? Will those Law Enforcement officers turn in their magazines and abide by the same laws when they are not on duty?
   
• How many rounds in a magazine or in your home defense weapon is ‘enough’ when multiple attackers enter your home with firearms and start shooting you?
   
• How can a 30 round magazine be too much in a single person’s hands against home invaders when multiple police officers commonly need well over thirty rounds (in some cases 41 rounds) to stop a criminal with a fake gun?
   
• Why has violent crime continued to decrease steadily nationwide since the 1994-2004 Federal Assault Weapons Ban sun-setted? Why was there no appreciable effect on violent crime during the Federal ‘Assault Weapons Ban’?
   
• Why do these magazines suddenly need to be limited when they have existed for many decades and violent crime has been decreasing since the 80’s?
   
• Why did school shootings become more common after the Federal government implemented an ‘Assault Weapon Ban’ and the ‘Gun Free School Zone’ laws? Why continue failed policies?
   
• Will the legislators take personal responsibility and legal liability if they pass a magazine capacity limitation law and someone is found dead with their firearm empty after trying to defend themselves against an attacker who did not follow the law?
   
• Do criminals commonly follow laws? Why would a criminal bent on invading a home, committing a rape or murdering someone care more about a law against their firearm magazine than the violent felony they are committing?
   
• Why would anyone place a premium on following a law that restricts their magazine capacity and seeks to make them less capable of their defense against criminals than their life or the lives of their loved ones?
   
• Since the DC v Heller decision in 2008, when SCOTUS ruled that firearms in ‘common use’ such as M16s (the select-fire, full auto version of the civilian AR-15) could not be banned constitutionally, and the McDonald v Chicago case in 2010 incorporated this into applying equally to the states, what gives the Connecticut legislature the idea that they have the power to implement such legislation?
   
• Where does the State of Connecticut, which is in a financial crisis, plan to obtain the financing necessary to defend the legal challenges that will come if they were to pass these laws?
   
• Where will State of Connecticut get the money to enforce these overreaching laws when the Connecticut State Police are underfunded and understaffed and their background checks are heavily backlogged?
   
• Are the legislators who are supporting such proposals ready to be honest with their constituents that they are pushing an agenda and willing to make the tax payers of Connecticut pay for their mistakes through court decisions? Do they have any shame in gambling with other people’s money to push an agenda that hurts people?

If the legislature would like to discuss these issues or get answers to these questions, Connecticut Carry would be happy to assist.

More information on this issue can be found on http://ctcarry.com.

Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

Contact:
Richard Burgess
President
Connecticut Carry, Inc
Ph: 203-208-9577
Email: rich@ctcarry.com
http://ctcarry.com

The Gun Violence Working Group of the Bipartisan Task Force on Gun Violence Prevention and Children’s Safety failed to deliver on the promised bipartisan consensus of proposals for new legislation today. Instead, they delivered two distinct lists, one serving the hardcore political anti-gun agenda that has become the hot topic of the media lately, and one that wasn’t much better, but at least left off the ridiculous out-right gun bans.

After all the talk of ‘compromise’ and ‘common sense’ from the committee and from the Task Force, it appears that one side stuck to their list of gun ban proposals that essentially parrot Governor Malloy’s proposals. These proposals include furthering the ‘Assault Weapons Ban’ and banning certain sized ammunition magazines.

These unconstitutional and ridiculous proposals are obviously political stunts to appease a fringe anti-rights element, but they continued to divide the task force and the public to a point where it is obvious that no actual consensus or reason can be had. The extreme gun ban proposals also made it clear that many legislators did not heed the advice of the thousands of people who testified at the last public hearing opposing such draconian edicts, nor did they listen to the countless emails and phone calls they have been receiving since this began.

Of particular concern is the fact that none of the gun ban proposals can be reasonably articulated to have a potential impact on a future massacre, since gun control laws historically have only disarmed victims and made gun violence worse, not better. Instead, the proposals only seem to penalize and victimize the law abiding citizens of Connecticut who have done nothing wrong and wish to defend themselves and their loved ones.

The Committee will now send their lists to the six ‘leaders’ of the Task Force for final consideration and recommendation.

A strong message was sent during the hearing and needs to be heard by all legislators:

There must be public hearings before any further action is taken.

It is only reasonable that the legislature, which is supposed to represent the people, hear from the people on the topics they are now trying to push forward.

The task force needs to publish the two lists with details of proposed implementations, deadlines and penalties for public consumption. They must then hold public hearings that give the public time to provide feedback on each recommendation that they wish to move forward in this process.

Anything less is unacceptable from our representative government.

More information on this issue can be found on http://ctcarry.com.

Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.
 

Contact:
Richard Burgess
President
Connecticut Carry, Inc
Ph: 203-208-9577
Email: rich@ctcarry.com
http://ctcarry.com