Hi,My name is Rich Burgess. I am part of some of the 'gun rights movement' here in Connecticut.I think many people have given up on us considering our neighbors, but we have an active gun community here. I am currently working on issues with regards to Open Carry, and we have people working on our permitting process and other things that are currently being abused here.Recently a local paper has picked up on this and gave a pretty good and fair article (for journalists in traditional media). I thought you might like to share this with your readers. It certainly is a good primer about what is going on here and we could use whatever help and/or attention we can get.These are actually all the same article, but are distributed all over the state and they have different and separate comment systems:If you find yourself interested in any of the incidents listed in the article, I would be happy to get you whatever info you need.Thank you,Rich Burgess
I guess I'm one of those "neighbors" who have helped folks write off the Northeast for gun rights, being from the Volksrepublik and all. I'll affirm Rich's experiences - people are completely and utterly batshit insane when it comes to guns and gun owners in general in this area. I applaud Rich for having the intestinal fortitude to challenge the status quo and for dealing with the legal headache caused by upsetting the sheep. He's been arrested, albeit with charges dropped, had his permit revoked, his gun confiscated, all for daring to open carry - something that is perfectly legal in CT.
Anyways, just wanted to post this to show that not everyone in the northeast is a bedwetting liberal handwringer when it comes to guns and gun ownership. There are plenty of good folks fighting the good fight against overwhelming odds here - and in a sense, we're the front lines in the 2A battles. Places like DC and Chicago have already served as platforms upon which to secure pro-2A legal victories. MA, CT, and other "may issue" states provide a second tier beyond total bans, and may I offer that MA might make an excellent "next step":
Our permitting system is "may issue" - the local licensing authority (traditionally the Chief of Police) has the final be-all, end-all say in who gets or doesn't get a Class A or B LTC (License to Carry, although only an unrestricted Class A allows that, but that's for another time). There is a "shall issue" (given regardless of Chief's opinion as long as the requester meets all criteria) FID card that covers shotguns and low-capacity longarms, but pistols and high capacity longarms are governed by the Class A/B licenses.
Here's the rub: You cannot own a pistol without a Class A or B permit. You cannot own an AR-15 style rifle - even an AWB-compliant AR-15 style rifle - without a Class A or B permit. The two types of weapons most commonly used by our armed forces (handguns and self-loading rifles) require a permit to own in MA that can be denied for any reason whatsoever. For no reason other than not liking the cut of your jib, the local licensing authority can deny your permit request and you cannot buy, carry, or own a single pistol or high capacity semi-automatic longarm. Any reason whatsoever.
It's hard to see how something like this can be considered Constitutional using any sense of the word.
That is all.
Anyways, just wanted to post this to show that not everyone in the northeast is a bedwetting liberal handwringer when it comes to guns and gun ownership. There are plenty of good folks fighting the good fight against overwhelming odds here - and in a sense, we're the front lines in the 2A battles. Places like DC and Chicago have already served as platforms upon which to secure pro-2A legal victories. MA, CT, and other "may issue" states provide a second tier beyond total bans, and may I offer that MA might make an excellent "next step":
Our permitting system is "may issue" - the local licensing authority (traditionally the Chief of Police) has the final be-all, end-all say in who gets or doesn't get a Class A or B LTC (License to Carry, although only an unrestricted Class A allows that, but that's for another time). There is a "shall issue" (given regardless of Chief's opinion as long as the requester meets all criteria) FID card that covers shotguns and low-capacity longarms, but pistols and high capacity longarms are governed by the Class A/B licenses.
Here's the rub: You cannot own a pistol without a Class A or B permit. You cannot own an AR-15 style rifle - even an AWB-compliant AR-15 style rifle - without a Class A or B permit. The two types of weapons most commonly used by our armed forces (handguns and self-loading rifles) require a permit to own in MA that can be denied for any reason whatsoever. For no reason other than not liking the cut of your jib, the local licensing authority can deny your permit request and you cannot buy, carry, or own a single pistol or high capacity semi-automatic longarm. Any reason whatsoever.
It's hard to see how something like this can be considered Constitutional using any sense of the word.
That is all.
3 comments:
I still say y'all need to move to the USA and get out of that people's republik... :-)
"Welcome to the party, pal!!"
Seriously, to paraphrase soon to be ex rep Phil Hare: "They don't worry about the Constitution on this."
I escaped NY during the Clinton administration and now I have a wide variety of handguns, high-capacity mags, multiple rifles with bayonets and even one rifle that's a felony in just about every state to the north of me.
The dreaded Remington Speedmaster 552. It's a high-powered rifle that holds up to 20 rounds in its integral tube magazine.
Only 15 if you use .22L for extra high-power.
Actually I'm happy I left NY. I never would have thought about that rifle and sometime between when I was 14 and got it and today, it became a felony.
Post a Comment