Newtown, Connecticut (courtesy Google Maps)

In the wake of the slaughter at Sandy Hook, in advance of the long-delayed official report on the crime, the Newtown, Connecticut legislative council has passed a new city ordinance. “The ordinance says no resident may shoot [recreationally] for more than four hours after police are notified and shooting is limited to one person at a time,” wcvb.com reports, illustrating the story with a shrine to the victims of the Newtown massacre. I am speechless.

140 Responses to BREAKING: Newtown, CT Passes The World’s Stupidest Firearms Ordinance

    • It doesn’t, and absolutely no one, including the city council that passed it, is claiming it does. It wasn’t about that, at all. This is like code enforcement, it just happens to be in OMG NEWTOWN.

      • What does it have to do with police being notified? Residents have to call and tell The Fuzz they are going to squeeze off some rounds at the range or what? I am certain Bonnie and Clyde wouldn’t give a crap and both would let loose with Tommy guns and B.A.R.’s.

        • From what I’ve read there are a lot of people who shoot on their property. Calling the police to notify them that you will be shooting on your property will enable them to handle the freak-out calls when someone dials 911 to report shooting. They know it’s someone target shooting and won’t need to respond. The four hour limit sounds like more of noise nuisance control and the single shooter makes it hard to confuse it with a gang shoot-out.

          Like Matt in FL said, it’s more of a code enforcement issue and if this was passed in a gun friendly town as a way of exercising neighborly courtesy no one would think anything of it.

        • If it is in the Town Limits, there is likely a “no discharging of firearms ordinances in the town/city limits though. If it were at the County level it would make more sense, however, calling the sheriff seems like a de facto way to get lists going.

    • Put in a closet, in the front hallway, and had to squeeze off two rounds in my Ramset, because i simply don’t havethe energy to drill through 3 inches of tile grout, concrete…

      No one took any notice of the #4 charge, Brown rounds used to set two 2.5 inch nails.

      But, it wasn’t “recreational” so, no report necessary, right?

      Oops, I am in Central Florida, 14 miles North of Orlando, and nobody even cares to investigate the sounds of AK-47 full automatic fire, often heard in the late evenings, here, in some of the large sub-divisions, less than a mile from city hall, two fire departments, and the Police station.

      Someone fires off a full magazine, and then, nothing, for a few days.

      I think it’s the sound of FREEDOM, even though it is probably into the air, and highly
      dangerous. Those idiots are lazy stupid morons.

      Everyone can drive a couple miles and fire into known swamp and savana hunting land, where it is open for miles, and can see, and know, that there are no homes, nor, people, in that direction. Shooting from a berm, into a berm as a backdrop is preferred.

    • Funny isn’t exactly the word I’d use. Much like the notion of a ‘hostile work environment’, all this is intended to do is further the hostility towards gun owners in hopes that they will give up and either move or get rid of their guns. Imbedded in there is a requirement to notify police of your intention to engage in target shooting. Is this a new requirement? Just another example of how our opposition attempts to create the slippery slope all the while denying that they are doing so. This is why we cannot relax with these people. There is no such thing as softball in this arena, everyday we’re playing hardball or we’re getting run over. There really isn’t any humor to be found in the sneaky ways they use to cut away, piece by piece, at our rights.

  1. Well, in their defense, they didn’t say anything about it being “for the children” or any such bullshit. There was a safety component in establishing the height of the backstop (10′ above the target), but this was really just a public nuisance ordinance. If it had happened literally anywhere else in the country besides Newtown, it wouldn’t have gotten a single line of news reporting. This exact same law probably wouldn’t even make the local paper in my town, or yours.

    • Those MORONS on the council may need a 10 foot high backstop, but anyone who shoots only needs a foot or three in reality. A 10 foot tall backstop is frankly INSANELY high! Especially if you own the woods behind the target and have it posted.
      This is the most moronic, idiotic and asinine thing I think I have heard since Chuck U Shroomer suggested we serialize ammunition!
      These council members need to get a freaking clue and a life!

  2. I had to drive up to Rhode Island this past week for a funeral, and I cringed at having to go through Connecticut – the land of stupid. Thankfully I had no reason to stop and spend any money there (and actually I even cost the state a few cents as my fuel inefficient truck added some wear to their highways and exhaust smoke to their air).

    • “Please lop the http:// off the front end of YouTube links when you paste them in, so they hotlink instead of embed. -Thanks”

      Thank You.

  3. I’m confused by the “after the police are notified” part. Do you have to tell the cops that you’ll be recreationally shooting in CT?

  4. Not knowing quite what this ordinance meant, I decided to go to the source. There’s another message board I frequent that has a Newtown resident who posts frequently. So, if you’re shooting on private land, you have to notify the police that you’ll be shooting. Upon receiving notification, the police will send a cruiser to an area within one mile of your residence to monitor the shooting. They will sit there for up to four hours if need be.

    You can’t make this stuff up.

    • 12:00 PM: Hello, Newtown police? Expect some recreational shooting at XYZ address. Thank you.

      4:00 PM: Hello, Newtown police? Expect some recreational shooting at XYZ address. Thank you.

    • I hope nothing gets lost in translation between the property owner(s) and LEO and a S.W.A.T. team with A.P.C.’s show up. Their heads would implode if they heard the shooting at my families compound Memorial Day weekend, Independence DAy and Labor day. Of course the punks couldn’t have got within a mile of us.

    • I believe the notification part, because it’s stupid. I don’t believe the “officer will sit there” part without a citation, because it’s too stupid.

    • So… here’s how this latest ‘reasonable action’ is going to pan out.

      There will be more notifications at any one time than podunk PD can handle. Those people will shoot anyway. So now, you have people shooting guns without police supervision.

      6 months from now, the City Government will decide it’s too dangerous without po-po watching over you, so it will either become:

      A: No shooting until we have a sanctioned nanny available to watch over you gun degenerates. You can schedule your shooting times online with the Big Brother App.

      B: There aren’t enough coppers to watch all of you, so none of you will get to shoot.

      This is creeping incrementalism and how the law of (generally very intended) consequences works. Obo couldn’t be seen to actively go after the CMP, but if he indirectly cuts off all the guns and ammo it sells, whooops!

    • How would this affect hunting? If I have eight hours of hunting, do I call them twice?

      I joke, but this is that stupid. This reminds me of the law in New York that you can’t throw fish carcasses back in the water (or anywhere within 500′ of a shoreline…seriously, they’ll cite you a misdemeanor). Because you know, decaying fish in water is unnatural.

    • Don’t know exactly. Another story I read about it tried to have a link to the actual ordinance, but it was a dead link, and a search of the Newtown online ordinance listing turned up nothing. Probably hasn’t been published there yet. I’m interested to see the actual text.

      • At least as reported/written by wcvb it doesn’t sound like you have to notify the police, only that you may continue shooting for up to 4 hours after they’ve been notified :-).

        Of course I’m sure the actual ordinance isn’t written this poorly, but the new’s version certainly made me chuckle.

  5. Stupidest one passed? Maybe, but I think DiFis most recent AWB takes the trophy. Manchin-Toomey compromise for a close silver medal.

    • What? You don’t think that Feinstein’s bill allowing the Mini series of rifles from Ruger because they have a “legitimate sporting purpose” compared to a ak 47, even though they’re pretty much the same gun with the same magazine size and the only difference between certain guns being banned was purely cosmetics and all that is a good bill. Well, I guess you’re just a lowly plebian, and you never will.

  6. This is the opposite of open carry aimed at normalization.

    They want to make recreational shooting appear to be a strange, dangerous, and uncommon activity which always requires police involvement.

    • Someone from CT can fill us in, but in some NE states, there’s really no such thing as “city limits.” Even “in the country” you’re always within a township’s borders…no gaps from town to town. NY is this way. You’re never truly of a town/village/city because you’re always going to be in someone’s tax sights.

      It’s a shame. CT is actually quite a beautiful state. But all those great forests and streams attract too many squirrels and nuts.

  7. Striking a blow on regular folks as an act of superficial catharsis for the actions of psychotic killer. Sounds productive.

    They should instead have passed an ordinance that no school should have doors with glass window sections large enough for a man to fit through, and that said doors shall remain locked during the school day.

  8. My bet: They are testing an acoustic gun-shot geo-location system. There have been many versions and always a new one on the market.

  9. Ironically, Lanza would not have been in violation of this ordinance because he was not shooting recreationally. Regardless, it isn’t likely he would have notified them.

    • Also, the Sandy Hook shooter did not spend four hours doing the shooting.

      “Contact a doctor if you have a (shooting match) that lasts more than four hours.”

  10. I always liked the “notify” regs.
    Because the FD wont come to a house fire if you call them first and tell them you’re burning some brush. Because the PD wont come to a homicide scene if you call them and tell them you’ll be shooting first.
    Notification doesnt mean in the real world anything but it’s apparently really important. How much time can I buy myself if I call in recreational shooting when I want to kill some people? Four hours?

  11. Well, if it isn’t the dumbest its certainly in the running for the title.

    Can anyone explain a) what this means, b) what this is supposed to accomplish and c) how this will prevent another incident? Yeah, I didn’t think so.

  12. So people have to notify the police if they’re going to the range, and only one person can use the range at one time?

    Although there are some indoor ranges where I live, all of our outdoor ranges are in unincorporated rural areas a few miles outside city limits.

    I don’t really see how this would reduce the likelihood of something like the Sandy Hook shooting from happening. Seems like they’re just adding red tape for the sake of adding red tape.

  13. Just took a look at the article on wcvb.com. There’s no useful information in it at all. All they’ve given us is a tiny, useless tidbit of information crushed beneath a sensational OMG headline that implicitly blames law-abiding gun owners for the “26 people gunned down at middle school last year.” And here I was under the impression Sandy Hook was an elementary school.

    What a pathetic excuse for news. It’s no more than fact-ish, truthy pandering to a public that has its emotions on overdrive and intellect completely disengaged. But sadly, typical.

  14. Just took a look at the article on wcvb.com. There’s no useful information in it at all. All they’ve given us is a tiny, useless tidbit of information crushed beneath a sensational OMG headline that implicitly blames law-abiding gun owners for the “26 people gunned down at middle school last year.” And here I was under the impression Sandy Hook was an elementary school.

    What a pathetic excuse for news. It’s no more than fact-ish, truthy pandering to a public that has its emotions on overdrive and intellect completely disengaged. But sadly, typical.

  15. I can envision:

    “Someone called us 4 hours and ten minutes ago and told us that you were shooting. We didn’t feel the need to tell you, here’s your citation.”

  16. Ok enough all ready. Can we stop with; the Newton thing. Who cares what they do or how the liberal/socialist use them. Its getting very old.

  17. “shooting is limited to one person at a time”

    Does this cover shooters or shootees? After all, nobody really needs to shoot more than one person at a time.

  18. So they gave the police a reason and the authority to harass anyone that does recreational shooting now. They want to stop people from using guns, plain and simple. They’re going to make it a hassle to even think about a gun and then have the police harass you about it. It’s quite easy for cops to say “I wasn’t notified” as they write you a ticket or take you back to the station.

    • This is exactly the situation. It is straight from the gun ban lobby play book. With the lack of bans, make it exceedingly inconvenient for law abiding citizens to exercise the 2nd Amendment by any means necessary.

  19. It might be informative to look at google maps. If you look at the building density you will see that there are relatively few places within the town limits that one could safely shoot outdoors anyway. This is true of a large number of places in CT. While you might not expect it driving through the state, it is in the top 5 in terms of population density in the country, which means that in most cases it is simply not safe or practical to be shooting in your back yard. In some towns it is outright illegal to shoot recreationally (outdoors) for the same reason. In addition, you could easily look at it as a nuisance in terms of noise. Again, if your neighbors are right on top of you, it’s going to get pretty annoying if your entire Saturday is spent listening to gunfire (that you aren’t involved in producing) when you are wanting to, for example, sit outside with a book. As much as I enjoy shooting, when you are living in close proximity to your neighbors it’s necessary to take into account the impact of your actions on them.

    • No one is assuming people on .25 or .15 acre lots is setting up 10 ft berms and ranges in their back yards. Plus, it is assumed there are currently laws against discharging firearms in the City limits which makes your assessment moot, or are you saying there is a common problem with noise from recreational shooting in Newtown?. Otherwise, why would they have the “officer within a mile of the shooting” to listen aspect? This ordinance appears to apply to legal ranges whether on private property or open to the public. Furthermore, there aren’t many ranges in Newtown.

      • As you mentioned in another comment, there isn’t a “city limit”. There is only the town limit, so all ordinances need to apply everywhere in the town. As a result, the only limitation is a 500 ft radius to an inhabited structure. This limitation could conceivably be satisfied in a relatively small lot (1 acre). Also, from what information is available, this is not something that would apply to a hypothetical shooting range set up for the public, but is intended to regulate shooting on residential-zoned property. An open-to-the-public range would have a completely different set of issues to deal with. Long story short, my point is that there are practical reasons to want to regulate how shooting proceeds in a highly-populated area. Whether this ordinance does a good job of that is another issue entirely, and is something that can’t be commented on without being able to see the full text.

        • Town limit, city limit, big deal on the difference. There are very few of either that doesn’t have an ordinance against discharging a firearm in the City or Town Limit except in the case of self defense. Therefore, this ordinance is perplexing.

    • But I can mow my lawn, run my chainsaw, etc…..for the whole day and ruin your reading time. If it was designed to be a noise ordinance, a noise ordinance would have been in order.

        • That is already covered by other laws concerning negligent homicide / assault and other regulations. Also, I’m unaware of an epidemic of “over the berm shootings of innocents”. I’m trying to think of a single one in the last two decades.

        • Because it was written the day the ordinance passed? Are we supposed to go back and edit the title after a “suitable period of time” has gone by?

        • Danged if I know. I guess I was just wondering why the sudden surge of interest in a two-month old story; maybe there’s been a sudden influx of new readers or something.

          Plus it’s Sunday morning, and I ran out of other stuff to read and comment on. 😉

      • Well, to that end, there’s noise and then there’s noise. You could run a chainsaw outside my house all day and nobody’d care, but one gunshot (or firework) and my dog’s curled up in the darkest corner in the house.

        When we’re at my buddy’s house in VA and have a range day, the hours we shoot are limited not so much for the neighbors (likely as not, they’re shooting with us) but that they run a boarding kennel, and the gunfire stresses a lot of the dogs out.

  20. Seems like only a slight stretch to call this a bill of attainder. You wouldn’t get away with passing an ordinance saying nobody can pray more than four times a day while kneeling on a rug, and this isn’t substantially different from that.

  21. Free town provided security? All you have to do is write a letter to the police.

    “This letter is to inform you that I will potentially be shooting on my property everyday in the coming year. That shooting may occur anytime between 12:10am and 11:50pm. It will never exceed the allowable 4hr limit, but it may occur multiple times in any given day. I will look for a round the clock police presence in support of my planned shooting activities. The twenty minute break at midnight should be enough for a good coffee break.”

  22. Imagine this:
    In the wake of the slaughter at Sandy Hook, in advance of the long-delayed official report on the crime, the Newtown, Connecticut legislative council has passed a new city ordinance. “The ordinance says no resident may speak [recreationally] for more than four hours after police are notified and speaking is limited to one person at a time.”

    or this:

    In the wake of the slaughter at Sandy Hook, in advance of the long-delayed official report on the crime, the Newtown, Connecticut legislative council has passed a new city ordinance. “The ordinance says no resident may pray for more than four hours after police are notified and praying is limited to one person at a time.”

    or this:

    In the wake of the slaughter at Sandy Hook, in advance of the long-delayed official report on the crime, the Newtown, Connecticut legislative council has passed a new city ordinance. “The ordinance says no resident may read for more than four hours after police are notified and reading is limited to one person at a time.”

    There would be riots in the streets!

  23. I’m still waiting for that “official” report. This is the same state where they never caught the Connecticut River Valley Killer. (And his weapon of choice was a knife!) There were at least seven known victims in two states.

  24. F Newtown CT!
    Stupidest place on earth, wish that I’d never heard of it, Liberal bloody shirt waving bitches.
    Smitty

  25. This will save lives the next mass shooting because the mad man will miss more having been allowed to practice only 4 hours a day instead of 5.

  26. I don’t think this ordinance is trying to strip anyone of their rights, it’s a band-aid to make people feel ‘safe’ after the horrific events. It’s not going to make anyone any safer, and I think everyone knows that, it will make people feel better knowing that someone knows where the shots are coming from. I would bet that next to no incidents will have police sitting nearby for 4 hours on every call. Maybe in the beginning, but once they realize who is a responsible gun owner, they won’t bother. This will all fade away over time. What happened there is still a new wound, and people are still hurting from it.

    I know that this issue seems to only get attention from both ‘extreme’ sides of the debate, but I think that in many instances, these extremes aren’t helping anything, even their own views. The one side that wants little to no regulations could benefit from some as well. The loophole that allows basically anyone to purchase with little to no background checks and walk away that day with a firearm is one that should be cleaned up. That can eliminate people that have spotty records from being lawful gun owners skirting background checks. This is a law that protects lawful, safe gun owners and the general public from potentially sketchy people maybe trying to hide something from their past and/or on criminal records. Sure, some non-sketchy people might be rejected with this law, but no law is perfect, and I, personally, would rather play it safe.

    The other side that wants an all out ban on all guns is insane, and is nothing more than an odd, irrational pipe dream that makes no sense. While peoples intentions are good, they are illogical and rob responsible gun owners of their rights and also fail to acknowledge that in some capacity, guns are necessary.

    What it comes down to, I guess, is that ‘guns are everyone’s constitutional right, regardless’ views, and the ‘all guns, and their owners are pure evil’ aren’t helping anyone views, and that there is a common ground that can be achieved if people are willing to listen reasonably. Anti-gun people need to acknowledge that people are going to own guns and get over it. They probably know many owners and are unaware of it. Anti-gun-law people need to realize that some new/modified laws aren’t there to strip you of your right to own/carry, they are there to protect the public and to prevent guns from getting in the wrong hands, and therefore lessen the number of irresponsible, yet legal, owners.

    Sorry for being so long-winded, but I felt the need to try and be as clear as possible. Hopefully I came across that way. FYI I am not a gun owner, nor do I want to be, but feel that responsible owners have the right to own.

    • The ordinance is making it inconvenient and potentially intrusive for recreational shooters. How is it inconveniencing the gun ban supporters?

      • It’s not inconvenient to them, I agree. Much like the gun show loophole law, it’s far from perfect, and there will be inconveniences. I think this will pass over time, though, and no one will be bothered with it. Give it time, and it will pass. Like Kyle said, there likely aren’t may places to safely shoot recreationally, so hopefully not many people will be affected by this.

      • @Ralph: And there is the worthless response that helps no one. Nice work. Here I am, trying to have an useful conversation, and here comes Ralph with the comeback of the year. Kudos.

        • David, you can’t have a _useful_ conversation trying to make excuses for a feel good law that does nothing to prevent any crime at all, much less mass murder, and only succeeds in further marginalizing law abiding citizens who just want to be left alone.

          Here’s an example. Free speech has limits, like yelling fire in a crowded theater, or libel/slander. We are now seeing the equivalent of registries for anyone who owns a megaphone, or runs a website, or I suppose this law we’re discussing would be the equivalent of “police must be notified in advance of anyone wishing to have a conversation about politics in a residential or commercial area, and may be present to stop dangerous or prohibited speech. No such speech shall be more than four hours in duration after police are notified.”

          You’re trying to have a conversation. It’s not useful. And Ralph summed up everything in just a few short and entertaining words.

    • “…Anti-gun people need to acknowledge that people are going to own guns and get over it.”

      Exactly, this is just what we’ve been trying to get across. Unfortunately, there seems to be a tendency for anti-gunners everywhere to assume righteous indignation through mandatory ignorance, much like plugging their ears and yelling “La la la” when we try to speak. I for one am glad you said what you did.

      • @Jus Bill: Thank you for understanding. I agree with the ignorance of opposite views (on both sides), it’s getting old and getting nowhere. I wish both sides could both speak rationally AND listen, it could work wonders. Although I’m not an owner nor plan to be, I respect people’s right to if done responsibly. You don’t have to participate in order to respect something. I am a big advocate for ‘tail to snout’ use of animals

        And although I might catch hell for this, I do think some regulations are good to have. Some (current ones) are probably worthless, and some new ones might be in order (this is speculation, I am basing this on many archaic out of date laws still in use). I’m not looking to make it impossible to own a gun, just filter out some people who might not be the best people to own for the safety and well being of everyone, owners or non-owners.

        Something minor like a refresher course every few years, similar to having a drivers license or similar, would be helpful and not a huge burden (financially or otherwise) on the owners. It is a potentially deadly weapon, so I think it would only be fair that people are up to snuff with using and rules & regulations. I’m probably in the minority here, but being open & transparent is the only way anything can be accomplished.

        • I would counsel you to closely review the pertinent laws and regualtions (and associated fees and time away from work requirements) for your area before you go any further with this, as you’ve already made some erroneous assumptions. I think you’ll find upon closer examination that our concerns are well founded.

    • Now wait a minute why do you call person to person sales, gun show sales a loophole? By/when doing so you imply that that the only reason to do so is to skirt the law. People have the right to sell what they own to someone else without government intervention and fees!! I do not have to check to see if the person buying my car has any drunk or impared driving citations on their record or any restraining orders ever in their life( people do run over other people with their cars you know). So that statement is such crap it makes me cringe. If a person with a record that would not allow them a lawfull gun purchase realy wants one he can still get one!! We all know this is fact. So to add more fees, more government oversight, more regulation, more delay and potential for a national registry and claim it is just common sense as it will help keep guns out of criminlas hands is just wrong. To say that if a few worthy folks get denied then so be it and we should all agree to this or be considered extremists is also crap. Your right to know where gun shots are coming from and feel safe does not overide my right to shoot on my property that I pay taxes on. Can I demand that the police go to your home to monitor your get together and ensure you only consume so many alcholic beverages in a given time frame you know just so I can feel better that there might be an impact on possible drunk driving accidents? I do not need oversight by the police and be told how to do it and for how long. What needs to happen is the out right bullshit ordinances , executive orders and draconian laws being passed in the guise of common sense when no common sense is involved need to be ignored. We need a true national civillian militia of common non governmental patriots” a well regulated militia” that can respond when needed to protect those who would stand up and say “no more” even if standing up is against those who are currently in power. Your rights as an anti do not trump my rights as a pro ( gun rights ) Put up some, seriously, common sense soulutions and justify them and maybe I’ll listen but what I’m hearing and seeing now does not meet those standards and I will not concede to crap to make anyone feel I’m reasonable.

      • And here’s another BS “loophole” that’s being demonized:
        They would make it illegal for me to posthumously will my guns to my heirs.

        Perhaps they would bring me back from the dead to fine me? That would certainly be a bad thing; I would not rest easy.

    • You want “common ground”? Gun ownership is a right. You complaining about it is also your right. Just as I cannot stop you from complaining you cannot stop me from owning. If I make laws to minimize your complaining, you will complain that you have the right to complain. You will prevail because you do have that right, no compromise about it. Same goes for my right to own. If I cannot legally shut you up, you cannot legally force us to compromise either. Simple.

      If you do not need some kind of license or permit to speak your mind, I do not need one to own my gun. If there is no limit on how much you opine, there is no limit on how many guns I may have, etc…..words have influenced plenty of death and destruction in this world.

  27. It seems to me (though I’m not an attorney) that it should be simpl to overwhelm the police response with very little organization and that in the event the police are not able to respond to allow the ordinance to be obeyed it would become an ‘undue burden’ on the citizen making it unenforceable on it’s face and thus doubly unconstitutional.

    I’m particularly amused by the possibilities presented by being forced to fire singly as this would seem to open a first amendment challenge as a violation of the right to assembly. Further, I wonder if this applies to the salutes commonly given at military funerals because the unintended consequences of this sort of utterly absurd law can often be quite far reaching.

    Lastly, It would seem that such an ordinance may be an over reach on it’s face and thus open to legal challenge even before anyone’s rights are abrogated directly by the obvious flaws and holes in the law.

    I’m reminded of an incident here a decade or so ago in which someone threw a lit pyrotechnic into a fireworks store, touching off a conflagration that resulted in several deaths. In the aftermath there were those who protested the selling and use of fireworks, to the degree that there was one individual eventually and repeatedly arrested for trespass and assault as his indignation over what he saw as a conspicuous inflammatory and unnecessary reminder of the death of his relative.

    Needless to say his pain was understandable but his coping mechanism of attempting first to abrogate the rights of basically everyone else in the community then to enforce his own brand of strong arm ‘justice’ to end a common and largely harmless practice were not only the height of foolishness but also contemptible.

    This ordinance would seem to be in the same vein, and we hope to see it defeated as surely as the absurdity about the fireworks was here.

  28. The real question is why it took so long for the police to arrive at the school when they were only a few miles away. That is what Newtown should be looking into.

  29. I remember watching that city council meeting online for as much as I could.

    There should be some sort of recourse when the constituents feel they have been betrayed by their council. Like… a recall…

  30. A sign should be posted on the roads leading out of Newtown:
    “Will the last sane person who left please come back and turn off the lights.”

  31. Also banned- gunning your engine at a stop light, or using hot glue guns. Staple guns may still be used, as long as they don’t take more than seven staples at a time.

    Watching the Star Wars prequels needs police notification because one of the characters is named Nute Gunray. You can’t watch said movies for more than four hours at a time, or you have to call 911 again.

  32. Hasdubral: I don’t think the law is useful at all, all I am saying is let the law that next to no one will likely observe, draw no attention to it, and it will fade into the sunset. The less people read about it, the less people will do anything with/about it. Like I said, if it makes people who’ve been through hell feel better/safer for a little while, then let it go. If it sticks and people are being harassed, then it’s time to make a stink.

    In regards to registries, do you have a drivers license? Drive a car? You are on a registry. It shouldn’t be made public, but a registry of gun owners isn’t the end of the world. Nothing more, nothing less. A car is useful and everyone’s legal right, and there is a registry. No big deal, unless you have something to hide. And I’m pretty sure websites have registered owners, as well.

    • Here’s the problem, it’s still on the books. If there was a law passed that said the practice of Islam was a crime, but it was understood that nobody would enforce it, would that be acceptable? How about a law just saying you can’t read the Koran in public? Or a law saying you can’t wear traditional garments associated with Islam? A registry of Muslims? None of this is right, but there are probably many people who would feel safer if it happened.

      The difference with a driver’s license and a firearms license is subtle. You don’t need a license to own a car, at least in my state. You only need one to drive on public roads, which are owned by the public through whatever government agency is responsible for their construction and maintenance. You don’t need a license to drive on private property, such as a racetrack or off road if you own enough land to make it worthwhile.

      There are laws covering acceptable use in normal circumstances for cars on public roads. Some of these say things like you can’t intentionally drive off the road wherever you feel like it. However, in an emergency situation, these really don’t apply. To carry a gun around is like owning a car, in my mind. You’re not operating it (firing it) out in public during normal circumstances. This is what private land, private shooting ranges are for.

      There is no appropriate parallel between driver’s and firearms licenses, because there is no appropriate non emergency situation where you would be going around town shooting at things. And at the risk of sounding like a member of the tinfoil hat brigade, the fundamental difference between cars and guns is that guns are the last line of defense of liberty. I don’t think the world is ending here in America, but that’s not because it can’t happen. It’s because of Americans.

      • Actually, there is no parallel between a gun and a car because possession of a car is not identified in the founding docments of our country as an inalienable right derived from “the Almighty,” while a gun is. That’s where the antigun argument in the US fails existentially on its own lack of merit.

        • #1, I suggest you read the 9th Amendment and get back to us on that; #2, I really wish I had a time machine to put you in so you could tell George Washington, Sam Adams or Andy Jackson that riding their horses were a privilege and you were a city bureaucrat there to limit said privilege. #3, if you notice, the Bill of Rights is technology neutral in that it doesn’t specify “arms” in the 2nd or how people communicate in the 1st Amendment or how religion is practiced. That said, people that try to make Gov the givers of privilege or determine that email and cell phones are covered under peoples “papers and effects” are playing a very dangerous game into the hands of tyrants.

      • “And at the risk of sounding like a member of the tinfoil hat brigade, the fundamental difference between cars and guns is that guns are the last line of defense of liberty. ”

        This is a total non-sequitur. What in the world makes you associate those of us who know the Constitution from a roll of toilet paper with this “tinfoil hat brigade” of yours?

    • Having a car is not a right. A car’s an item of chattel (physical property) to be bought and sold at will by anyone with money. Driving said car is a privilege that is documented and can be revoked by the state at will. Driving is also not a right.

      • Actually, it is under the 9th Amendment. You can buy one without a background check if you have cash money just like you could a horse and buggy in 1775. .

    • David have there been any court rulings that have said a car registry etc. is illegal? No, so it is ok to have them under the law. Also no one feels that at this time it will be used to come after those cars later to take them away. There have been rulings telling the govn’t they can not have a gun registry and yet they keep trying to backdoor their way to having one. Thus proving that they do not care about the rule of law if it is not convenient then they ignore it or find a way around it. We saw what happened in england and australia with registries and they did lead to confiscation so it is not paranoia to not want one. We cannot keep our military secrets safe from the chinese or other enemies retailers can not keep our finacial records private so why do you think anyone would feel a registry that is ” NOT for public consumption” is going to stay that way. They can not keep any of our electronics records safe so why should a gun registry be different. If we say hey I do not want to be on somenes watch list we’re somehow suspect in our motives. Do you realy believe a law that is enacted is just going to be ignored by those whose job it is to enforce and it will just fade away? Even if not enforced for a while when a ” friend ” of the da or police chief complains that a home owner was shooting and the law was not followed they have a tool for selective enforcement / harrasment. If it is such a crap ordinence then even non gun owners like you need to stand up and say hey what are you doing this serves no purpose and we need to focus on real solutions to the issues at hand. If you do not there will be a day when something you cherish or expect a sa rigth will be taken and there will be no one to help you stand up for those rights.

      • Actually, I think some states have registration fees that are excessive and are an ulterior motive of ‘tax and spend’ and “force people to public transit.”

    • “A car is useful and everyone’s legal right, and there is a registry. No big deal, unless you have something to hide.”

      Owning a car is as much a right as owning any other piece of tangible personal property, but the registry only applies to vehicles used on public roads. If you are only going to use it on private property, no registration is required.

      The other problem with that analogy is nobody has ever used a vehicle registry to come take away all the Corvettes, because they’re too dangerous and nobody really needs a Corvette anyway and it’s for the children. More specifically, nobody has ever used a vehicle registry to tell all the people who own red Corvettes with chrome wheels that those vehicles have now been deemed too dangerous and they have to surrender them, but that blue Corvettes with silver painted wheels are still OK. Nobody has ever used a vehicle registry to tell all the people who own one-ton dually diesel Ford pickups that they can’t have them anymore, because nobody needs that much towing capacity, but that half and 3/4 ton pickups are acceptable. (For now, but we’ve got our eye on you 3/4 ton guys. We know that you’re just skating by on the sub-one-ton loophole, and we’re going after that in the next legislative session.)

      The gun registry::car registry comparison is so incredibly full of holes that knocking it down isn’t even sporting anymore, it’s just tiresome.

      Oh, and as far as “something to hide” part goes, here’s where I get rude. Take that and insert it rectally. How about we run all your internet traffic past a government monitor? It’s really no big deal, unless you have something to hide. How about we require you to report where you go and to whom you speak to the government from now on? It’s just to keep us all safer, and it’s really no big deal, unless you have something to hide. You don’t have anything to hide, do you?

    • Well, if you have nothing to hide then it’s perfectly fine for the government to read all your emails, snail mail, have access to your bank account, credit card statements, health files, etc.

      After all, you have nothing to hide, right?

      Then tell us the truth about everything. Your deepest, darkest secrets. Or do you have something to hide?

      Are you going to commit a thoughtcrime? That is not doubleplusgood, you know?

      • I think any judge etc. that thinks it is o.k. to read emails etc. without a warrant is an ass-hole and/or tyrant. The 4th Amendment says people have a right to be secure in their papers and effects. That doesn’t specify technology anymore than the 1st and 2nd Amendment does. Otherwise, they would have said Quill Pen and Ink on Parchment. It is assumed to be private when a letter is placed in an envelop and mailed in the mail, so why should an email be any different?

    • Why not just let the government know all about what you do and have. Give us all a break. It won’t harm? Why don’t you call the police and tell them you have an AR15 if you want to be a hero. Go ahead. Think things out before you regurgitate nonsense.

      • When they were courtmartialing Bradley Manning, and hounding Ed Snowden into hiding, howcome nobody said that to Our Glorious Beloved Infallible Commissar? “If you’re not doing anything wrong, you should have nothing to hide!”

        But no, I guess that only applies one way.

  33. Just to be clear about compliance…if a woman is out jogging and is attacked by a rapist, should she tell the rapist to ‘hang on a minute” and call the police to inform them that she is about to discharge a firearm? just wondering….

    • That’s not recreational.

      In some European countries that would be the evil gun mind-controlling the woman into murdering the attacker. Certain very far left wing parties and criminal rights activists would cry and protest against the woman.

      Think I’m exaggerating?

      This case happened a few years ago in Germany. Some youth tried to rob another guy with a knife. The guy resisted, in the scuffle the would be robber ate his own knife and died. Police and prosecution decided it was justified self defense…. It doesn’t end here. Soon activists and the rest of the usual suspects started protesting against that evil guy who dared to defend himself against a robber who threatened to kill him. It went so far that the victim of the robbery had to move to a different town to escape the constant harassment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *