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