September 22, 2020

Montville Residents Storm Council Chambers. Say NO To Anti-Gun Ordinance

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

More than 175 people, angry at the idea that the town is looking at taking away their 2nd Amendment rights, stormed the town council chambers last night in Montville, Connecticut. Yesterday I brought you the story of how the town, spurred on by one man, was proposing an ordinance to ban guns within town boundaries, including water pistols or squirt guns as I called them as a kid.

But many of the residents, mostly who live outside the town itself, would have nothing to do with such an ordinance and thusly decended upon the town hall in protest at last night’s council meeting.

Law enforcement officers had to remove many of the people because the chambers only holds just over 100 people.

The mayor, Joseph Jaskiewicz, was surprised at the number who turned out.

“I knew it would be crowded, but not this many people,” Jaskiewicz said. “There are a lot of people who do not live in town. It was never my intent to be taking rights away from people. That is not the intent of this ordinance.”

I’m sorry Mr. Mayor but taking away people’s right to own and use a gun IS taking away rights. Besides that, why don’t you make public a copy of the content of the proposed ordinance? The NRA has tried unsuccessfully to get a copy so how are we to know what the ordinance really says?

John Dufrat, chief warden at the Milo Light Nature Preserve, is the one responsible for this mess. He became concerned because a resident living near the preserve had been target shooting. What Dufrat says the ordinance will do and what one council member says doesn’t seem to agree. Dufrat says:

“The proposed ordinance would not ban the ownership, use or transportation of any firearm within town,” he said. ” It simply seeks to establish some common sense safety guidelines.”

The town doesn’t need an ordinance for the concerns of Mr. Dufrat. It simply needs the police chief, Lt. Leonard Bunnell, to stop by the home of this target shooter and make sure that safety precautions are being taken and that noone is in danger of being accidently injured. But I don’t think this is what the police chief has in mind either by these comments.

“They need to address some safety issues and what will be in the best interest of the community, while at the same time considering Second Amendment rights,” Bunnell said. “I think the ordinance does that.”

“While at the same time considering the Second Amendment”? Are you crazy? Why is it never “while at the same time upholding the Constitutional rights of the Second Amendment”, guaranteed the people?

Nothing was resolved at last night’s meeting because council members wisely voted to reschedule the meeting in a couple weeks and hold it at a larger facility. We’ll keep you posted.

Tom Remington

Share