Support For The Three Town Gun Ordinances
To the Editor:
As a proud Second Amendment gun owner, I write in support of the three proposed gun ordinances being presented to the Legislative Council. 70 percent of we gun owners believe in reasonable regulations, and the proposed ordinances are more than reasonable. As a lawyer, I can affirm that the proposals are legal and well thought out.
The first ordinance prohibits firearms on town property. What could be more logical than that? The only reason to carry firearms to town property and meetings is to intimidate opponents (if you are at Town Hall… leave the piece in the locked glove compartment of your vehicle).
The second ordinance is to restrict carrying firearms during public demonstrations. Again, seems pretty logical and legally valid. The open carry of firearms at demonstrations is simply intended as intimidation. Unfortunately, as we have seen, intimidation exceeds politics and shooters kill innocent protesters. And, they do nothing to stop White Nationalist vandals.
The third ordinance restricts an open carry of long rifles but not handguns. My boys and I have multiple long guns. The fact that we are barred to carrying long guns but not handguns is bothersome. Firearms don’t belong on town property, period. So why distinguish one for the other? Ban both.
Hope this helps clarify the issue for people.
Jim Gaston and Family
18 Main Street, Newtown December 4, 2020
Editor's Note: Consideration of these ordinances is on the agenda for the December 2 meeting of the Legislative Council.