View Full Version : Gun Ordinance Passes, After Much Debate

03-23-2010, 08:52 PM
Gun Ordinance Passes, After Much Debate

TOLLAND - With a room full of residents opposing the measure, the town council Tuesday approved an ordinance regulating where guns can be legally fired in town.
Council members Frederick M. Daniels, Craig R. Nussbamn, Jack Flynn and Harvey R. Gilbert voted in favor of the ordinance. Council members Dale M. Clayton, April C. Teveris and MaryAnn Delaney Tuttle voted against.

Daniels said he believes the ordinance addresses homeowners' rights to feel safe on their property.

"I do think it is the right thing to do," Daniels said.

Teveris said she is philosophically opposed to the ordinance. "It's just bad legislation," Teveris said. "It should be terminated right now."

Under the ordinance, discharging a firearm outdoors within 250 feet of a building without the building owner's permission is prohibited; and minors under 18 years of age are prohibited from discharging firearms unless under the supervision of their parents, guardians, an adult 18 years or older, or a qualified instructor.

The ordinance is modeled after regulations in Avon, South Windsor and Stamford,and
has modifications based on comments from the Rockville Fish and Game Club, and
comments from Tuesday's meeting.

Audience members voted 71-2 against the ordinance in a straw poll after the public
hearing. John Durand, of Sugar Hill Road, said he's disappointed that the town took the
time and effort to craft an ordinance.

"What we have here is a feel-good piece of legislation that doesn't really do anything,"
Durand said. - Hartford Courant

CCS Comments sent by e-mail:
This ordinance is a matter of Preemption which has many precedents in law. The standard is in virtually all court cases is: The town is a creature of the state and may not restrict what the state allows. Or “when a statute and an ordinance deal with a matter of state–wide concern and they conflict, the statute prevails regardless of the provisions of the special act.” It is clear to allow any town to create separate laws would create a chaotic “Balkanisation” of state efforts to police and control the issue. There is no room in the state scheme for local ordinances. Since any local ordinance can affect hunters form other than that locale who are aware of state statutes/regulations, but not local ordinances - this is a matter of state-wide interest. We discuss these restrictions in conflict w/statutes below to preclude any sportsmen at a later date being arrested for violating these provisions and requiring a court case.
Sec. 53-203. Unlawful discharge of firearms. Any person who intentionally, negligently or carelessly discharges any firearm in such a manner as to be likely to cause bodily injury or death to persons or domestic animals, or the wanton destruction of property shall be fined not more than two hundred fifty dollars or imprisoned not more than three months or both. (Ord Sec (e) needs further clarification relating to “put down an otherwise injured animal” - Dept of Agriculture Statutes.)
Sec. 53-204. Hunting or discharging firearm from public highway. Any person who hunts or discharges any firearm from any public highway shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars. This section shall not apply to any law or conservation enforcement officer in the performance of his duty. Enforcement officers of the Department of Environmental Protection are empowered to arrest for the violation of the provisions of this section. (Hunting is permitted under this statute at any distance from a road, street or highway but no from those byways. (Ord Sec (b) requires 250 feet distance for firearms and permission from neighbors within that distance; Current DEP Regulations call for a minimum 500 foot distance from buildings or those occupied by livestock. We also question whether town police are allowed to enforce this Ord provision)
Sec. 53-206. Carrying of dangerous weapons prohibited. (b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to (b)(5) the carrying of a BB. gun by any person taking part in a supervised event or competition of the Boy Scouts of America or the Girl Scouts of America or in any other authorized event or competition while taking part in such event or competition or while transporting such weapon to or from such event or competition; and (6) the carrying of a BB. gun by any person upon such person's own property or the property of another person provided such other person has authorized the carrying of such weapon on such property, and the transporting of such weapon to or from such property. (Ord Sec (a) & (b) dealing with air rifles/pistols conflict with this statute
Sec. 53a-3. Definitions. (19) "Firearm" means any sawed-off shotgun, machine gun, rifle, shotgun, pistol, revolver or other weapon, whether loaded or unloaded from which a shot may be discharged; (Ord Sec (a) conflicts with this state statute definition.)
Sec. 26-38. Hunting by minors. (a) Any person over the age of eighteen years who holds a firearms hunting or archery hunting license may, while hunting with firearms or bows, be accompanied by not more than two minors between the ages of twelve and sixteen years who may hunt with firearms or bows if such minors hold a junior firearms hunting or junior archery hunting license, and provided such person and such minors shall not carry more than one gun or bow each. Such licensee shall be responsible for the observance by such minors of all game laws and regulations made by the commissioner. No provision hereof shall affect the right of persons over the age of eighteen years exempt from license requirements to be accompanied by a minor, provided the other provisions hereof shall be observed. (See Ord Sec (a) requiring 21 years, and prohibiting the discharge of firearms.)
While the following relates only to hunting and the impetus for this Ordinance may not be that, the drafters should be aware of the following statute:
Sec. 26-67c. Complaints re hunting in proximity to certain areas. Hearing. Records to be kept by law enforcement officials. Report to General Assembly. (a) The Commissioner of Environmental Protection shall maintain a record of all written complaints received by the department of violations of the regulations concerning hunting in proximity to buildings occupied by persons or domestic animals or used for storage of flammable or combustible materials or the regulations regarding shooting towards persons, buildings or animals. The commissioner shall hold a hearing at least once annually, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 54, at which changes in such regulations for particular localities shall be considered. The commissioner may amend such regulations for a particular locality where he finds that: (1) The physical setting of a particular locality presents an unreasonable risk that hunters may violate the regulations regarding hunting in proximity to buildings occupied by persons or domestic animals or used for storage of flammable or combustible materials or the regulations regarding shooting towards persons, buildings or animals or (2) a record of documented complaints reveals that violations of such regulations occur with significant frequency.
(b) The chief law enforcement official for each municipality, or his designee, shall maintain a record of all complaints received by such official in each calendar year regarding any potential hazard to public safety related to any hunting activity and shall submit such record to the Commissioner of Environmental Protection annually. Such record shall be maintained separately from all other records of complaints received by such official. After an investigation of any such complaint, if the chief law enforcement official determines that a particular hunting activity in a particular location poses a hazard to public safety, he shall submit a written report of such determination to the Commissioner of Environmental Protection.
(c) On or before February 1, 1995, and annually thereafter, the Commissioner of Environmental Protection shall submit a report to the joint standing committee of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to the environment which sets forth for the preceding year ending December thirty-first the number of complaints received and investigations conducted along with the action taken.

03-24-2010, 05:47 PM
Again some half witted idiots passing ordenances that conflict with state law. It says that anyone under 18 can't shoot a gun without supervision but state law says that a person 16 years old can hunt game without supervision.This Daniels says it's for the good of the residents. He must be a democrat. The straw poll was 71 to 2 against this. Really shows how much they listen to the people. I don't see how this can stand and it makes me mad that they couldn't do better than this.:icon_butt::icon_butt::icon_butt:

03-24-2010, 08:18 PM
Those type of people get a little power and it goes to their heads they only push their own agenda. Hate to say it, but the only way to change it is from the inside, Good people need to get involved. Most of those council members have nothing better to do but to show every one else what they can do and most of them feel they can do whatever they want. It is amazing that these "smart" people can be so ignorant, as they try to convince the rest of us that what they do is in our best interest. Kinda like the health care bill.

03-24-2010, 09:03 PM
more unnecessary laws that force honest citizens to break laws.
Glad I live in a CT town where there are minimal local laws/rules/restriction. I can shoot guns all day long on my land and have 50 cows, pigs, and chickens without land acre limits. wierd, and no-one gets shot. although it does smell like manure and the roads get covered with chicken shat when they are furtilizing the fields. - it keeps the democrates away.

Although not directly related, The largest single private employeer in the state (P&W) has told Jodi Rell last Thursday, on NPR radio, that he will move all operations out of this state due to the high taxes (caused by the ultra high-on-the-hog Government).

03-24-2010, 09:32 PM
So, the public voted in the straw poll 71-2 against the proposal, yet the town council passed it anyways??? Come November, that public better remember this, and fire those dummies. The elected officials work for us, and if they fail to do the job we (the majority) want them to do, we have to replace them. Voting for our elected officials is the strongest weapon we have, and we need to use it.

03-25-2010, 06:59 AM
The one thing I have noted at least in my town is all the people
complaining about everything but I never see them VOTE.I look
at the total number of people in my town and then the number
that went to the pole's to vote.We need less crying and more voting.JMO

charlie wade
03-25-2010, 09:03 AM

03-25-2010, 05:17 PM
I got a visit from my brother yesterday. I haven't seen him in over two years. He moved to Florida. Stays there over the winter and here during the summer. He was telling me he changed his address to Florida. The house they bought there was being paid for out an annuity they have The $1200 payment they were making cost them about $2,000 a month because of the taxes. In Florida they don't have income tax and all this other crap. He says he saved a bundle by changing his address.
Also he was saying you don't need a concealed carry permit to carry a handgun in your vehicle as long as it's in a case, glovebox or console. Something like that. You need the permit if you want to carry it on your person for self defense. Sure as heck isn't like around here.
Sooner or later I think that the politicans here will wake up and realize that there is nobody left in the state because they taxed them out and didn't provide any jobs to pay their taxes. Afterall that seems to be their answer for everything. Want to do this? Oh well institute a tax. With only so much money we can only pay so much taxes. Of course the feds aren't any better. I see this new health care bill says that if you don't buy insurance you will be taxed extra as a penality. If you can't afford the insurance how are you going to be able to afford the tax?