connecticut gun control hearing threat text
AP Photo/Jessica Hill

She should have been arrested, but after pounding out a threatening text message, an anti-gun activist was merely ejected from a Connecticut Senate hearing on gun control. According to a photo of her text in progress, she wrote, “If I had a gun, I’d blow away Sampson and a large group of NRA.” Clearly, a red flag order would be in order for the unidentified woman.

Emotions ran high at the Monday hearing at the Connecticut statehouse. Folks from both sides of the gun control divide watched as legislators and witnesses debated several gun control bills in committee.

Then things went off the rails when one of the pro-gun folks noticed the woman’s text message.

Why are anti-gun activists so violent? The Daily Caller reported on the incident.

An unidentified woman was reportedly ejected from a Connecticut gun hearing Monday after she was spotted sending a text threatening to shoot a lawmaker and NRA members.

“If I had a gun, I’d blow away Sampson and a large group of NRA,” a photo of the text message-in-progress reads, according to a tweet.

The woman appeared to be directing her ire at Republican Connecticut state Sen. Rob Sampson, who describes himself as a Constitutional conservative and is an NRA “Defender of Freedom Award” recipient.

Several gun control measures were set to be discussed in Hartford on Monday before the Judiciary Committee, including:

  • An update to safe storage laws
  • A measure requiring anyone open-carrying a firearm to produce a permit if asked by police
  • A move to regulate “ghost guns” or 3-D printed firearms and components
  • A bill prohibiting cities and towns to enact their own firearms laws

Among those present at Monday’s hearing were activists on both sides of gun issues and the parents of Ethan Song, a teen who accidentally shot himself last year with a gun belonging to his friend’s father.

Just as police will make an arrest if someone jokes about a bomb at an airport, even jokingly suggesting that one would shoot people at a hearing on gun control should result in similar law enforcement action. Even though this woman’s wasn’t one bit funny.

 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

61 COMMENTS

  1. People who hate gun ownership are afraid of what THEY would do with a gun if they had one.

    Seen it over and over.

    • Yup. Its called “psychological projection”.
      “If you are a chronic projector you will experience a great deal of anxiety around other people, as well as other unpleasant emotions like anger, disappointment, resentment and prejudice on a daily basis.” -https://lonerwolf.com/psychological-projection/
      Sounds like a group we(TPOTG) are very familiar with, don’t it?

      • This is exactly the same with race baiters/decries. The only people that consistently talk about racism are racist

        • Indeed. Let me share a recent personal story here:

          I was a local grocery store picking up some things and I am standing in line waiting my turn to checkout. There is a big sign that says “Line Forms Here”. Thus I was waiting where the line forms, per the written instructions. This woman joins the line two customers behind me, she is African American/Black and appears to be around her late 30s. She obviously seems to be getting irritated at the wait, as we all were. She then demands “Why you standing the f*** back here?” I reply “The sign says to stand here.” She said “No it says ‘Line Forms Here'”. I respond “Well I’m following the sign and letting them checking out have space for them and their kids to do what they need to do so we can checkout sooner.” She demands “Just walk f***ing closer, mother****er”. Keep in mind the sign is 6 feet from the register, little more than the length of a grocery cart and I have been nothing but polite thus far. I reply, annoyed at her blatant disregard for social decency “It is not my fault you are an idiot who has no reading comprehension skills, you don’t have to be rude”. She rages “Who the f*** gave you the right to f***ing call people idiots. S***. F*** you”. I noted calmly and in a even tone “We all have the right to say whatever we want. The First amendment verifies that. I will stand up for your right to say f*** you all day but won’t stand for someone trying to take the same right from me. Hate it for you if you disagree, but thats how it is.” She yells back “Well f*** you and your trashy white a**”. At this point I was taken off guard and decided that no good would come from continuing this, luckily it was my turn to checkout. As I walked out the store and past her again I heard her mumble “Racist b****”. Funny as I never even mentioned race and am to young to even remember the relatively recent Rodney King riots, let alone be the cliche old white KKK neo-nazi. Race didn’t even cross my mind. Not to mention my best friend for nearly my entire life is black, and although few in number more than half of my past romantic interests were not white the words racist rings hollow.

          Those who think about racism are either severe victims or racist themselves. And the area I live it is no doubt the latter. Those who are victims would seek to better the situation, not act as if they are immune to doing it themselves.

    • They are infested with violent control fantasies, no question about it.

      If it had been an NRA member threatening (your favorite Democrat here) she would have had her guns confiscated and ordered to undergo a psych evaluation. PROOF POSITIVE of a double standard…

        • Or take her phone. After all she was clearly using it to plan domestic terrorism and violence. (Sarcasm)

          It isn’t so fun when that thing that is being regulated is something you actually care about is it Ms. Projecting Terrorist?

          Clearly a double standard though. If a person of the gun was to do something even remotely like this then he/she is a threat and treated as such even if the thing done was legal and non-threatening (like those fishermen in Florida last year), but if someone who is not a 2A supporter does something then they are simply told to leave without nary a reprimand.

    • Plain & simple liberals are mentally ill you can’t trust them with power & Definitely can’t trust them with sharp instruments…….Don’t even start with guns, we have already seen what they can do when they get a hold of a Black Gun……!

  2. So why was this psycho not arrested ? She have a get out of jail free card or what. Threatening to shoot inocent people is ok. Kids posting pictures of firearms online could get a year in jail. The left wonder why they are called tards , this is the answer.

    • Calling such Leftists “tards” is insulting to people with low intelligence levels for whom the original label was created.

    • Because she used the key word: “IF.” A conditional threat is not a criminal threat of harm. Moreover, she said that IF she HAD a gun, indicating she does not, which prevents her from carrying out her threat. If she had said instead, “I am going to take my husband’s gun and shoot Sampson…” then she would have been subject to arrest.That’s why.

      • “IF” implies a time frame as in IF I had a gun right NOW. No way to know if she has guns at home or not. no matter how many guns she has or doesn’t have has nothing to do with the statement she made. Since the left lies so much, it would come as no surprise to learn that many do in fact own multiple guns. No doubt this woman should have been arrested. Wonder how a statement like that would go over if made by a pro gun person!

      • She still interrupted an official proceeding, with or without the word IF. She should be in jail for what she did. It’s IMHO, as a retired peace officer, what she did was commit a Terroristic Threat (at least that’s how it’d be treated in Texas) in that her threat could cause the reaction of public safety personnel is considered a terroristic threat.

        The bigger question is, why is she unidentified? I can almost guarantee you if the roles were reversed, that person’s name would be known to everyone.

      • Probably correct. In addition, cops do not want to arrest someone at an event like this unless it is necessary (it was certainly not necessary here) and would rather just kick them out. The optics of handcuffing some lady for what she will claim is a free speech issue are terrible. Better to make a report and let the district attorney (a lawyer) decide if there is sufficient cause to proceed.

    • Red flag candidate, right there. Followed by a TRO from public places. Followed by a 72 hour medical hold pending mental evaluation.

  3. Wow talk about projection…legal gun owner’s/CCL folk are some of the most vetted folk anywhere😄

  4. Did you ever notice that the true violence stems from the left side 99% of the time? From assassinations to attempted murder to mass shootings! It most certainly gives credence as to why no liberals or democrats should own firearms! That woman is no exception. Yet the left continues to portray everyone on the right and gun owners as the real criminals or terrorists! Exactly what they are crying foul to cover up exactly what they are most guilty of!

  5. Wow I was worried that Florida was out-crazying CT on gun control lunacy. Glad to see us back on the board.

  7. She appears to have fulfilled all the requirements to be arrested under the Connecticut Legal Code:

    Universal Citation: CT Gen Stat § 53a-62 (2016)

    (a) A person is guilty of threatening in the second degree when: (1) By physical threat, such person intentionally places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury, (2) (A) such person threatens to commit any crime of violence with the intent to terrorize another person, or (B) such person threatens to commit such crime of violence in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror, or (3) violates subdivision (1) or (2) of this subsection and the person threatened is in a building or on the grounds of a public or nonpublic preschool, school or institution of higher education during preschool, school or instructional hours or when a building or the grounds of such preschool, school or institution are being used for preschool, school or institution-sponsored activities.

    (b) Threatening in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor, except that a violation of subdivision (3) of subsection (a) of this section is a class D felony.

    • Old Guy in Montana,

      If the lady was sending a text message to a friend, she is not actually threatening anyone. Rather, she is venting. It is analogous to statements like, “I am going to kill that guy!” where someone is angry and venting and has no actual intention to literally kill someone.

      Even if she was sending out a message to a publicly visible social media platform, I believe it still falls short of a threat. As above, she can easily argue that she was venting and her statement was hyperbole. It is no different than people who have made vague statements about politicians, rope, and lamp poles.

      • I would tend to agree. However the fact that she said it, even in a moment of anger, shows that she’s at least somewhat open to the action.

        This wasn’t an academic discussion where we can say she has zero intent or want. She might stop short of doing it but she’s not entirely opposed to the idea of violence against those with whom she has a political disagreement.

        Abelard’s discussions of sin back in the early 12th Century are a remarkably insightful look at how the mind works in these cases. Made all the more remarkable by his noting of it in like 1120AD.

      • Possibly.

        When you make a generic statement “I’d like to kill that guy” it can be viewed as venting…it is treated differently under some jurisdiction’s laws when you name a specific person (Sampson) or group (NRA)…that specific, directed threat is what takes it from rhetorical venting to an actionable threat.

        Do you believe that if the text had been sent by a pro-gun attendee that the same actions would have transpired – mere ejection from the Senate chambers?

        The current Red Flag Laws uniformly deny any 4th Amendment rights and protections by not requiring a Court issued Warrant…which Warrant shall be issued only on evidence of Probable Cause. I would hope that the CT Courts will issue a Warrant to inspect her demesnes for weapons, to wit, firearms with which she could / would carry out her stated desire. There is more actionable evidence linking her to a possible, future crime then there has been for the majority of the firearm owners who have been “SWATted” by the same laws that members the Left are, apparently, not subject to.

        • Oh, by all means she should be the target of the “red flag” laws that she cherishes and enjoy the spectacle of watching cops tear her home apart looking for hidden firearms.

    • Good thing she wasn’t apprehended by Bolivar, MO officers. They may have felt threatened and shot her.

      BOLIVAR, Mo. – A Missouri man battling Stage 4 cancer said police targeted him and searched his hospital room for marijuana and he has the incident on camera.

  9. So she wants to use the implement she wants banned. Sorry, I’m confused. And if she is an ERPO supporter lets have the LEOs execute a no knock order in the middle of the night and rummage through her house to make sure she isn’t planning an attack and see how much fun she has.

    • I’m guessing she, like quite a few other liberals, was trying to do some edgy satire and thought she was a lot brighter about it than she was. It’s about on the same level as yelling “I LOVE me a jager BOMB” at the airport to make a point.

  10. Police and life member of the NRA here. Make your first shot count liberal, you will only get one.

  11. Yes, this woman certainly should have been arrested. Why she wasn’t makes for interesting speculation. Additionally, If some PRO GUN person had shot their mouth off, threatening to assault anti gun legislators, I suspect that such person or persons would quite quickly have been taken into custody, and rightly so. Seems however that “what is good for the goose, is not good for the gander”, one is left wondering why.

  12. Very simple,Anti 2 nd. amendment/Anti Constitution/Un American types are emotional basket cases . They are ruled by feelings rather than thought and reason and assume that all Americans are the emotional basket cases they are,thus the irrational fear of arms in a free society of America.

  15. Just another reminder that it is never about the guns. It’s about you. These people despise you and would kill you without remorse given the chance.

  17. 1) Doesn’t she say the sweetest things, bless her heart.

    2) I feel that the locale previously known as the Constitution State had more than its share of unconstitutional laws. Who thought that more were needed?

  18. Hard to stop reckless hate. She should have arrested and spent the night I’m lockup.

    She would be wishing for a gun for a much different reason.

  20. “If I had a gun, I’d blow away Sampson and a large group of NRA”

    Yeah, and if she had balls, she’d be king.

  21. theyre no longer our countrymen
    theyve developed an enemies list
    and were on it
    their goal is our elimination
    this is what hillary alluded to when she called us irredeemables
    as in not worth keeping around
    we must think and act accordingly
    theres no going back now

    • Rendition, enhanced interrogation, and survivors herded into the showers for delousing.

      Who will do the wet-work? ANTIFA will perform the role of the Einsatzgruppen and the Dirlewanger Brigade.

    • “If ye love wealth better than liberty,
      the tranquility of servitude
      better than the animating contest of freedom,
      go home from us in peace.
      We ask not your counsels or your arms.
      Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
      May your chains set lightly upon you,
      and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”
      Samuel Adams said that over 200 years ago. Still seems pretty relevant today though…

  22. From all I’ve seen, Liberals are full of blood-lust. They want to kill gun owners as much as they want to abort babies and celebrate it.

  23. Appears to me to be a clear “Red Flag” situation that the Connecticut State Police should investigate immediately.

  24. All those people who claim to be against guns and violence aren’t really against them at all. They are ok with them, as long as those guns and violence are used to enforce their agenda and they can pay somebody else to do the dirty work. Oh, and they don’t want to watch.

  25. That’s I believe in “Red Flag” Laws for DemoCRAPS, SJWs, LibTARDs, ANTIFA, or anyone who identifies as a DNC constient…Because Liberalism is a Mental Healthcare crisis…It produces dangerous and insane people who are infected with it…Also, includes Post Traumatic Trump Derangement Syndrome, Snowflakes ❄, etc…

  27. Thank goodness she was ejected, she may have burned to death in the crash had she not . In some instances seat belts do not save lives

  29. She should have been held as soon as she left the room. There is no difference. It WAS/IS a threat toward others and should answer for it.

  30. Nobody needs an AR-49 full auto tactical assault machinegun with bayonet clips for self defense. Yeah, it feels cool, like driving a Ferrari. But only the rich should have Ferraris. All you Jonny Sixpacks, buy a shotgun! Its more like an Amish horse and buggy, which is where the Green New Deal is taking us anyway. Just get you a doublebarrel shotgun, and shoot it wildly off the porch in any direction when being home invaded.

    Joe Biden built my hotrod!

  32. What none of you realize in CT is: The Legislator for 30yrs has been run by lawyers and Judges, who in law make up rules, despite their lack of intelligence… and ..wait for it…make up laws they deem we need.

    The people don’t vote in laws in CT, the corrupt lawyers who are elected to represent us do. The ANTIGUN LOBBY IS BUT A CANARY IN THE COAL MINE HERE IN CT. The majority of the laws are pushed from the bench on private agendas they develop in empty court houses.

    How is it Judges and Prosecutors get to write the law?? In CT/Corrupticut it is a CESSPOOL of attorneys and the BAR ass. Its stinks like a real association. With HB 494, in 2014, from the time it was passed in the house to the time it hit the Senate floor it was re written by Judge Solomen, Carrol and Bozzuto, the girl friend of the ANTIGUN HATE-MUNGER: Donna Anischik Grossman OF WINDSOR, CT (she is employed by Hamilton Sunstrand/Hamilton Standard) who are responsible for the F35 flight control systems and other systems for the fighter.

    So how is a so called patriot working for the defense of our nation such a firearms hater, she is the girlfriend of EX-Judge Elizabeth Bozzuto every CT Judge is a democrate and hates guns, they are ok with police shooting innocent victims (young minority children), but hates the free public from having the equal protection.

    Its ….DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO…Judges in CT use the state constitution to wipe their a$$es, and burn the US constitution to keep their 10 rental properties from freezing their minority habitats in the winter.

    This is the anti law, and anti constitution state, and is run by rich white judges…

Comments are closed.