An Architectural Atrocity
To the Editor:
I am writing to voice my support for the growing movement to stop the planned building to be located at 2 Riverside Ro...
One Step Further Along
A Path Of Public Communication
To the Editor:
This is a public thank you to Caren Wellman for her initiative in putting together the fir...
Share Newtown’s history with Newtown old-timers and newcomers alike by passing on photos of interest to The Newtown Bee. The Bee welcomes submission...
Newtown Students Receive John Hopkins University Recognition
Fraser-Woods school fifth grade student Julia DiMartino, St Rose fifth grade student Nadine Sun, an...
The Continued Influence Of Old Indian Trails On Transportation Systems
Connecticut, like all the Northeastern states, abounds in Indian place names and pathways...
Etching Artist Turns
To New A Medium
  To Color Her World
Â
Â
By Nancy K. Crevier
For Newtown artist DeAnn L. Prosia, there have been two events that hav...
Friday, October 1
Photography exhibition opening reception, 6–9 pm, The Blue Z Coffeehouse, 127 Main Street South, photographer Michael Florio ...
James J. Delohery III
Devoted To Family
James J. Delohery III, 60, of Brookfield, died at Danbury Hospital, September 26. He was the husband of Susan (Slat...
I fail to see the Newtown connection in this nonconstructive partisan letter which apparently seeks to scare local seniors. Mr. Epstein's letter does nothing to further the conversation around a legitimate policy issue in the future of Social Security which according to SSA.gov "if trust fund assets are exhausted without reform, benefits will necessarily be lowered," citing lower birth rates. This is an area where we need an open and objective, multi generational, national dialogue, not fear based political propaganda.
I agree, thank you Richard. The example given by Ms. Murray illustrates that this is a state issue, not a town issue. If the same case occurred in Connecticut the plaintiff would have sued the state of Connecticut, not the town of Newtown.
What fun to have stumbled across this write up. As a friend of one of the daughters I was fortunate to have visited with them many times in the early 80s in various locations. A wonderful, adventuresome family!
The state constitution permits the lawful carry of firearms after proof of training and background checks. Local ordinances do not preempt state statutes and passing an ordinance for a problem that is non-existent as per the Newtown Police Department will undoubtedly result in the town incurring legal fees unnecessarily. Please see attached link for numerous legal precedents where municipalities failed when their respective ordinances were passed. https://ballotpedia.org/Firearms_preemption_conflicts_between_state_and_local_governments
Law abiding citizens do not violate laws and infringement on the Second Amendment is not going to make any community safer. Enforcing existing laws is what should be the focus regarding gun violence along with addressing the mental health crisis.
Richard Fisher, DDS
Newtown, Connecticut
