New Britain. Gun rights. How ironic is that? In “old” Britain a resident cannot buy or own a firearm for self-defense. In New Britain (Connecticut not Papua New Guinea), a resident with a pistol permit can’t conceal carry his or her firearm. They have to display it openly. In the gun-aversive Constitution State (go figure) that’s like trying not to watch as Candice Swanepoel frolic under a waterfall as she shows off her body in a dazzling jeweled bikini. Where was I? Oh yes, that was before. Yesterday, the new Britain Common Council voted 13-0 to approve an ordinance allowing concealed carry. “New Britain was the last municipality in Connecticut requiring residents to carry legal firearms openly,” norwichbulletin.com reports. Winning? Well . . .
The ordinance was revised numerous times by city attorneys since June and was championed by Republican Alderman Willie Pabon. He compared New Britain to the West in the 19th century with gun owners walking the streets with their weapons on full display.
In theory. In practice I bet there wasn’t a single citizen amongst its population of 70k openly carrying a firearm in New Britain Connecticut. Not one. And there’s your bad news. I mean, here it is:
Police officials estimate the number of legal city gun owners to be in the “high hundreds.”
I bet there are hundreds of people getting high in New Britain. But I’m not so sure there are hundreds of residents with a carry permit—especially as it only allowed them to carry openly in their home city.
At least CT residents don’t have to submit three notarized letters of recommendation for their carry permit. Longest journey and all that.
Still better than Kalifornia. Just saying.
And Jersey, New York, Chicago, San Fran, DC,,,,,,,,
CT being land locked between NY, MA and RI is comparatively less gun averse. New London had a similar law that was removed earlier this year, glad to see New Britain the last of the hold outs is much like the rest of the state now.
The state law is clear, but there is nothing to force the city and towns to comply which absolutely BS!
They await the wolves that must come there eventually. I hope there are more than a couple of dozen sheep dogs. Or, maybe they all own rifles! You never know!
One of the founding fathers wrote a paragraph to the effect of:
A law without an enforcement provision is not a law, but merely a recommendation.
Candice Swanepoel was born to wear a bikini. What was this article about again?
I was born to wear Candice Swanepoel.
LMAO
Thnk goodness that my state (PA) has a state law preventing local towns and cities from making their own firearms laws. It would be an awful mess to try and travel thru a state where every little town and city had different laws for carrying and possession of firearms.
Exactly so, and let’s extend the principle. The Constitution creates national pre-emption, but control freaks just won’t let go.
Agreed.
National preemption is clearly stated in the 10th Amendment and section 1 of the 14th Amendment. However, if the federal government will not enforce their preemption upon the states (that hasn’t happened very often), then the states can and will do whatever they want.
This is why the Heller and MacDonald SCOTUS decisions have had little effect on the gun laws in Washington and Chicago. The feds have not forced them to comply with the SCOTUS decisions, so they are not complying.
At least CT residents don’t have to submit three notarized letters of recommendation for their carry permit.
Unfortunately, some towns still ask for them even though they’re not required by the state. My nephew is applying in his small town & they asked for the letters. I told him they weren’t necessary, but he just wants to do it the easy way like everyone else.
Robert the spin doctor said, “In “old” Britain a resident cannot buy or own a firearm for self-defense.”
That is a fact. Do you need a citation? Click here. Hey, what happened to my request for some factual basis for your previous comments? How’s that going?
Ain’t gonna happen Robert, the only facts he needs are made up in his head.
From your own link:
“Single-barrelled, double-barrelled shotguns, or those with a lever-action or, pump-action, or semi-automatic and fixed magazine capacity of no more than two cartridges are permitted on a Shotgun Certificate.”
I know I’m the one who NEVER provides stats or links or proof, but when you do it’s often not what you say it is.
You should have read a little further mikeybmumblers. Iwent to the same link and it says that since 1968 getting a gun for self defense is not a valid reason for the government to clear a potential gun owner.
Did you miss that or leave it out on purpose because it show’s that Robert’s not a “spin doctor”.
I did miss the part where Robert limited his extreme statement to “getting a gun for self defense.” I thought he just said “not allowed.”
jwm, its because mikeb# is the spin doctor of all spin doctors.FLAME DELETED
As jwm said, the government no longer accepts self defense as a valid reason to own a gun. I think hunting is the only way you can get a gun now a days over there?
Oh, really?
” I think hunting is the only way you can get a gun now a days over there?”
Maybe you should look into it and stop guessing.
I live in New Britain, Connecticut, and I OC about 80% of the time. I’ve had New Britain cops ask me ‘…shouldn’t that be covered?..’ and I tell them where to find accurate information about gun laws. I’ve seen some info that there’s 170,000 permit holders in this state and we have our share of gun-grabbing, whining assholes, but it’s not bad…
Comments are closed.