An open letter to the Senators and Representatives of CT
The “Constitution State’s” state constitution says: “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” (Article I, SEC. 15)
The Hartford Courant front page on Thursday Jan 17th indicated that Connecticut is behind the proposals adding additional restrictions to arms ownership by the President.
I am not in favor of the proposals and neither are most people I know. The
author provides no facts backing up his opinion that "Connecticut"
supports them.
Our state representatives (Senators and House members) have a duty and take an oath attesting to their responsibility.
You swore: "You do solemnly swear (or affirm) that you will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the
State of Connecticut, so long as you continue a citizen thereof; and that you
will faithfully discharge, according to law, the duties of the Office of State
Senator/Representative to the best of your abilities; so help you God."
I believe each of you has taken this oath. As a result I would ask that:
firearms.
asking is it effective? Will it do harm? Would it have had an impact on
the tragedies in Connecticut in the last 10 years? Does the restriction of
freedom inherent in all laws outweigh the benefits in a time tested
environment?
they reflect your educated, informed opinion?
infringed? Is your position in conflict with the State and Federal
Constitution?
I have not read any proposal before you that, if enacted, would have changed the outcome of the recent spate of senseless killings.
I am a law-abiding citizen and responsible gun owner.
I am saddened by the tragic events in Newtown, Connecticut, but I believe that efforts to impose new restrictions on me and other lawful and responsible owners like me are a misguided result and does not reduce the potential of a similar tragedy happening again. It is playing to fear.
Are you aware that violent crime with firearms has declined since the Federal "assault weapons ban" expired in 2004? If you have a question regarding the
efficacy of any aspect of a proposal did you seek an informed opinion?
Your focus should be on strengthening mental health care, improved reporting of a person’s threat potential and improving the quality of data supporting NICs checks (National Instant Criminal Background Check System). Do NOT pass more gun laws; instead, work to enforce the more than 20,000 gun laws already on the books.
I am your constituent and I vote. Please represent me.
I ask what is the legislature doing other than promoting a platform of more restrictions on legal firearm ownership?
If it is the standard to pass something "that may save
even one life" you are fooling the public and yourself and that is
shameful. With similar logic can we expect that more restrictions should be put
forward raising the driving age to 21, Connecticut recently experienced a 42%
increase in driving fatalities (319 people in 2010 were killed in CT) or
licensing owners of backyard swimming pools (600 children drowned in 2009 in
the US) or licensing trampolines or imprisoning adults who have carelessly left
poisons under the kitchen sink that are ingested by children or prosecute
people who have allowed unsecured proscription medications to be stolen from
homes by thieves and teenagers. We cannot continue to pile on ineffective law
and generally restrict our freedoms when any activity or incident causes harm. Yet
this is the natural progression of law and legislation. This is not the legislative
philosophy I wish to govern my life or guard my liberty. Note that the state
and federal constitutions offer no protection for these subjects and pursuits
but we expect that common sense should prevail.
Please use your good sense to not be bullied by those souls who would chose "pseudo" security at the expense of freedoms especially those that are constitutionally protected. Think it through and always walk away when the promoter of a solution requires “immediate” action. They are usually selling emotionally charged bunk. Represent me well.
David Stahelski
Madison CT
Whether I agree or disagree with Mr. Stahelski, I do appreciate him putting himself out there by posting something thoughtful and interesting. Please keep the discussion focused on the issues relating to gun control, as Mr. Stahelski did, and do not deteriorate into personal attacks or those comments will be removed. For those who might have trouble with that concept ... just review your comments before posting and considering removing any sentences that include the word "you." Thanks.
If politicians fail to protect our 2nd amendment rights and fail to follow their oath of office like New Yorks they will not have Obama to protect them politically at the polls in 2014. The backlash will be fierce just ask Al Gore and the Dem senate and Congress after the last useless assault weapon ban,. Many of these gun manufacturers are here in Connecticut. There jobs will be gone.We have a long gun history here and hundreds of thousands of law abiding voters do not believe in what some big city leftist mayors are recommending. Guns are just a cold piece of steel . The two people responsible for this tragedy are dead. A madman and a mom who failed to keep her guns away from him. So politicians listen to the anti gun fanatics hysteria at your own risk, You could be unemployed in 2014.
Also, what do you mean by the "false bravado of hiding behind the 2nd ammendment?" I note parenthetically that "false bravado" is redundant. In any event, why does insisting that one's Constitutional rights be observed constitute "bravado?" The Bill of Rights was incorporated into the Constitution to restrict the power of government, and to protect the minority from the majority, for example, if a majority of citizens wishes to ban guns owned by a minority. If there were bills introduced in the State Legislature which restricted worship, or which would close down websites or newspapers, would it constitute "false bravado of hiding behind the [First] Amendment” to point out that these laws violate our Constitution?
In general, if a neighbor in our neighborhood hears another neighbor screaming in fear or pain, I hope they call the police. Our neighborhood is not the kind of neighborhood where you would want anyone but the experts wielding a gun in a difficult or dangerous situation that requires split second decision making. One of the big rules of shooting a gun, if I remember correctly, is that you always want to know what's behind whatever you are shooting at ("be sure of your target and what's behind it")... right? In our neighborhood, our houses are close together and it's no place for anyone but the cops to have a gun, IMO. In neighborhoods where the houses are further apart ... dunno how people feel ... but if the houses are so far apart where you don't have the issue of maybe hitting a sleeping baby next door ... are the houses so far apart you couldn't hear someone scream?
Some of these gun discussions have gotten way out of hand. I would like this one to stay on target. If that is not appealing to you, you are welcome to go discuss this elsewhere ... there are plenty of options as this topic is being discussed on many sites. And thanks to the many people who are staying on topic and focusing on the issues, rather than each other.
A University of Chicago Study revealed that in 1993 approximately 700,000 police killed 330 innocent individuals, while approximately 250,000,000 private citizens only killed 30 innocent people, a per capita rate for the police, of almost 4000 times higher than the population in general. If one includes only the 80,000,000 gun owning citizens, the police have only a 1200 times higher accidental shooting rate than the gun-owning population in general. According to a study by Newsweek magazine, only 2% of civilian shootings involve an innocent person being shot (not killed). The error rate for police is 11%. You are more than 5 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. But, when you consider that citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as do police every year, it means that, per capita, you are more than 11 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. Source: http://actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml
For those who might have trouble with that concept ... just review your comments before posting and considering removing any sentences that include the word "you." Thanks.
I did not know Ms. Hamburg, and don't know anybody who did. Will the proposed new "sensible" gun laws, state and federal, make the next Barbara Hamburg more or less safe?
http://durham.patch.com/articles/gun-owners-rally-in-hartford-in-support-of-second-amendment Why wont the Madison Patch post it?