CT News Junkie | Second Amendment Activists Call On Gun Owners To ‘Recall’ Malloy

Social Networks We Use

Connecticut Network

Categories

Our Partners

Second Amendment Activists Call On Gun Owners To ‘Recall’ Malloy

by | Oct 27, 2014 11:32am
() Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Election 2014

Hugh McQuaid Photo

Scott Wilson

Connecticut Second Amendment advocates are looking to replicate the success of a 2013 recall campaign in Colorado that ousted two state lawmakers. Its organizer appeared in Hartford on Monday to rally gun owners against Gov. Dannel P. Malloy.

Members of the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, a gun rights group that boasts nearly 16,000 members, gathered on the steps of the state Capitol on Monday for a press conference calling on supporters to turn out to the polls during next week’s election.

Malloy’s defeat has been a priority for the group since the passage of sweeping gun control restrictions following the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. Scott Wilson, CCDL’s president, lamented that Connecticut’s constitution does not permit recall elections.

“What we do have is Election Day. Therefore, let us make Nov. 4, 2014, to be Connecticut’s recall election. Let’s finally end this bad chapter in our state’s history and remove Dan Malloy from office,” Wilson said.

CCDL brought in Timothy Knight, a gun rights activist who spearheaded the successful recall of two Colorado state senators who voted in favor of a gun control law.

Hugh McQuaid Photo “They said we were wasting our time, that it was impossible, that we were politically green — an undisciplined mob. But we beat the likes of Mike Bloomberg, Joe Biden, and even Bill Clinton made a robocall for little tiny state senate races in Colorado. But we won anyways,” Knight told the group.

His comments have some parallels in Connecticut’s gubernatorial race. A PAC founded by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has helped pay for $1.7 million in television ads supporting Malloy and former President Bill Clinton has twice appeared at rallies for the governor.

But here in Connecticut, the narrative gets more complicated than a simple effort to unseat an incumbent. The pro-Second Amendment vote may end up split between Tom Foley, a Republican running against Malloy for a second time, and Joe Visconti, a Republican-turned-unaffiliated candidate who collected thousands of signatures and petitioned his way onto the ballot.

CCDL has endorsed Foley as the candidate with the best chance of defeating Malloy. The two major party candidates have been essentially deadlocked in recent public polls. But Foley’s position on the gun control law has been vague. He has declined to call for a repeal of the bill, but has said he would sign a repeal in the unlikely event the state legislature passes one.

Meanwhile, Visconti, who is polling at 9 percent, has been more specific. He’s called for repealing provisions of last year’s gun control law, including its expanded assault-weapons clause and its ban on large-capacity magazines. Visconti collected many of the signatures that got him on the ballot from customers at local gun shops.

During a debate last week, Malloy encouraged gun rights advocates to support Visconti over Foley.

“Tom Foley has been dancing around issues for many months now. If you believe that I was wrong about guns, then this is the guy, Joe Visconti, that you should be voting for,” he said.

Knight and Sean Maloney, a gun rights activist from Ohio, declined to weigh in on who Connecticut Second Amendment supporters should choose.

“Our message isn’t picking and choosing between one candidate or the other because that’s not our fight. Our fight is to make sure that we, as patriots . . . at least make sure we do the right thing and exercise the rights that have been given to us,” Maloney said. “Tim and I are here to let you know that you have the ability to change and make a difference.”

Knight agreed they wanted gun owners to head to the polls.

“If you sit home, only tyranny wins and your voice is lost. So, whoever you vote for — just vote. Get out and vote. They’re your rights,” he said.

Wilson said he was confident gun owners would follow CCDL’s lead and cast ballots for Foley next week.

“They get it. They fully understand that [Visconti] can’t win and all he’s going to do is incite another Malloy” victory, Wilson said. “. . . I think a lot of the Second Amendment vote is looking to us as an organization for judgment guidelines and leadership.”

Wilson said CCDL members planned to be out in their communities, knocking on doors to support their endorsed candidates during the coming week.

Tags: , , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |

Comments

(24) Archived Comments

posted by: cnj-david | October 27, 2014  12:29pm

“Surrogates”?  Commonly defined as “a substitute, especially a person deputizing for another in a specific role or office”. 

It needs no “surrogates”, but here in Connecticut the now unfortunately inaptly named “Constitution State”, the Second Amendment surely needs protection from Malloy.

The second Amendment to the constitution limits the powers of government with regards to arms.  Malloy’s trampled all over that, along with his trampling of the Freedom of Information act that used to be respected as a role model in Connecticut.

Visconti can’t win and Foley isn’t going to undo the damage that Malloy’s done to our rights—but another term of Malloy will mean more rights lost in the name of “common sense”.

November 4th, I’m voting against Malloy - by voting for Foley.

I’ll also be voting against every one of my representatives who voted for that shameful “emergency certification” gun control legislation, regardless of who their opponent is, regardless of which party their opponent is affiliated with.

November 4th, 2014 - Exercise your right to vote.

posted by: SocialButterfly | October 27, 2014  12:49pm

Scott Wilson has it right:
“Let’s finally end this bad chapter in our state’s history and remove Dan Foley from office.” Amen.

posted by: whatsprogressiveaboutprogressives? | October 27, 2014  2:01pm

Danny did utilize the emergency certification clause during the assault weapons bill as this did not allow for public comment, thereby allowing for a speedier pass through the g.a. Now that it’s law and we saw the confusion and chaos playout last year up to December 31st, just one day prior to the new bill taking effect, I wonder why Danny hasn’t pressed for a crack down on those who did not register their hardware? I mean, certainly they need to be be categorized as felons as the bill dictates. Could it be that because this year was an election year he doesn’t want to touch it until post election? How cynical of me to think such thoughts.

posted by: bob8/57 | October 27, 2014  2:44pm

bob8/57

A day of reckoning is coming… for firearm fanatics and their we hate American democracy rhetoric.

posted by: shinningstars122 | October 27, 2014  5:00pm

shinningstars122

It is clear public opinion does not fall on the side of the CCDL.

I have really been surprised by the lack of effort to get their message out.

Not that I am complaining.

Since the NRA gave Foley an “F” no dark money has flooded into Connecticut for this issue.

Even in the Waterbury Republican there has been no real coordinated effort on the editorial pages, well except for the the weekly drive-by Obama/ Malloy is a socialist blah blah letter to the editor, but the CCDL has not even had print advertising in that paper.

If they thought they could appeal to moderates well they clearly messed that up.

This “rally” seems too little to late.

Plus the gender gap against Foley is at 19% and I don’t think all the CCDL members will take one for the “team” and vote for Foley anyways.

The lesser of two evils will not work for these folks.

@WPAP I believe it was the Legislature who did the emergency certification not the Governor.

As for your “what if” scenario of the law not being enforced I think that is completely unsubstantiated.

If any police chief in the state knew someone was blatantly violating this law they would do their job and enforce it.

I think most people did what the law required and got grandfathered.

No big deal there folks the black vans and helicopters never showed up in the middle of the night…but for your computer, smartphone, and privacy well you all don’t care about those real violations anyways.

posted by: Mopar | October 27, 2014  7:15pm

Mopar

I have no idea what shinningstars122 is talking about, wishful thinking maybe? The only F ratings the NRA gave out in the gubernatorial election are to Malloy and Wyman. Foley and Somers got a B and an A. The NRA has also had boots on the ground here for months.
But ya know what? Scratch that. No NRA. No CCDL. No 500,000 pissed off gun owners. Nothing to see here, move along. Malloy has such a huge lead you really don’t even need to vote.

posted by: Orangie | October 27, 2014  7:45pm

“...the rights that have been given to us”?  Even a big 2nd amendment guy like Tim Knight doesn’t understand what an inalienable right is.

posted by: ASTANVET | October 27, 2014  8:58pm

Not to nit pick, but this is not a 2A issue - the National Legislature did not make this law ... i.e. congress shall make no law that XYZ…  this is an infringement on the CT constitution by the CGA and the governor - but let’s not say it’s a 2A argument… that is just not the case, and it diminishes the sovereign powers of the States.  Lots of incorporation doctrine people out there preaching that the FED is always the villain or the savior.  I just wish the facts would be portrayed clearer.

posted by: redlady | October 27, 2014  11:01pm

Recall!  We need that in CT, and not only for the 2ndA rights we take for granted, but for some of the other junk our state legislature and governors shove down our throats.  Recall, YES! If we get enough conservatives into the GA this time around we might just have a chance…...

posted by: shinningstars122 | October 28, 2014  4:45am

shinningstars122

@Mopar I live in the NW rural part 0f the state and I have never ever seen one representative from the NRA, or even the CCDL this entire election season campaigning to the general public about their position.

The bottom line is the NRA have not supported Tom Foley nor this issue like they could have in CT.

The outside money simply never came.They have never run TV ads or even had Wayne LaPierre ever set foot in our state.

Plus half-a- million voters on this issue?

Where are you getting that number?

So is it me who is just dreaming here?

This election will be about the economy and the direction forward not the 2nd Amendment.

posted by: GBear423 | October 28, 2014  5:45am

GBear423

We are ALL protected by The US Constitution, this most certainly is a 2A fight.

That SB1160 also tramples across the State Constitution makes it even more necessary to undo the damage.

You cite the 1st Amendment, that protects (not gives) our Rights to speech, religion, assembly and petitioning the government to address grievances. Congress will pass no law that will establish religion or prohibit exercise those Rights.  Does that mean Connecticut can declare that speaking of conservative ideas and criticizing the governor is a punishable offense?  No, we are protected from that nonsense.

The 2nd Amendment reads essentially the Right to Keep & Bear Arms shall not be infringed. period. Not by Congress, nor any State government.

What liberals should understand, is that they wish the government to take away guns, and that the 2A does not matter in this time.  Then its a matter of time before they come around to controlling speech, because lets face it, speech is more deadly than a gun, speech can incite riots, and rebellions, it must be restricted, controlled. Then the 1st Amendment will seem archaic and out of date.  We already see this with liberal politicians attempting to pass laws that control the radio and tv.

posted by: Orangie | October 28, 2014  6:28am

It IS a 2A issue.  Don’t confuse the 1st amendment language, “Congress shall make no law…” with the 2nd amendment, “...the right of the people…shall not be infringed.”  The framers were meticulous in their wording and even punctuation. The difference is subtle but significant.

posted by: Joebigjoe | October 28, 2014  7:01am

Visconti should realize that he got signatures to send a message, and not signatures for him to re-elect Dan malloy.

Get ready to have to buy special liability insurance for being a gun owner in the next 4 years if Malloy wins. he has to give the anti gun people something for standing behind him should he win.

posted by: Breeze | October 28, 2014  7:38am

You have to feel sorry for the NRA gun toters. It’s almost impossible to buy a gun now and even if you could, there’s hardly any guns left to buy.

posted by: ASTANVET | October 28, 2014  9:48am

Not to quibble, but it is not 2A, the Constitution, and the bill of rights were part of a compact of things that the national government could, or more usually could NOT do - establish a religion, infringe on firearms, quarter soldiers etc… the incorporation doctrine and the mis-use of federal courts has so erroded the rights of the states that it is no wonder that people confuse the issue.  Incorporation is being taught in law schools, and assumed as original intent.  It is not.  Dodge city could legally and justifiably confiscate guns from cowboys within the city limits… CT has a consitutional right to bear arms “SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” that is the issue at hand - I’m not saying the State cannot regulate it, but it is a question of the reasonable effect that regulation would have on people to make free choices and choose to defend in accordance with their ideals.  If you are not a large person, and don’t have a lot of upper body strength, maybe an AR15 is a good choice for home defense.  Should the state limit the number of rounds in a handgun or rifle because of a political interest group?  From experience, when you need more than 10 rounds, you’re REALLY going to want them.  Plenty of stories out there of multiple assailants B/E into homes.  But i do believe it’s a state issue, not a federal issue.

posted by: Breeze | October 28, 2014  11:00am

Love the dissertation on the Bill of Rights. Spare us. Have you heard of the 14th amendment which makes the bill of rights (most of it) applicable to the states? So, yes, state gun laws have to pass the supreme court’s 2nd amendment constitiional test. Translation: this is a second amendment issue.

posted by: Orangie | October 28, 2014  5:39pm

I’ve only been here a short time, but I can already tell that I will rarely agree with Breeze… this is one of those times.  Its called Incorporation and yes, it comes from the 14th amendment.  “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

posted by: OhLookBarges | October 28, 2014  11:03pm

Cleetus the slack-jawed yokel and the rest of the gun nuts ought to realize that this isn’t 1776 anymore.

Once oft-repeated and tired memes like “muh freedoms” are scrapped and we interpret the Constitution rationally, then the mainstream can move on from the nutjobs

posted by: ASTANVET | October 29, 2014  7:19am

Ya’ll can move on from guys like me just fine.  I wish you all well.  Just don’t try to use the force of govmnt to push your views on guys like me.  You want your liberal utopia, why don’t you keep it to yourselves.  And by the by, you all should know that the 14th was passed to make sure that the civil rights act of 1866 was not ignored and slavery was effectively ended.  That has little to do with the previous amendments, however it is a good illustration as to how incrimentalism from a good intention can lead to utter chaos.  But yeah, i’m just a hillbilly…

posted by: redlady | October 29, 2014  3:12pm

OhLookBarges, “muh freedoms” are your freedoms, friend.  They are our freedoms. You may think man is different today than from 1776, but you will have a hard time convincing some of us of that.  Morality crosses all generations; it makes no difference whether a man (or woman, for that matter) is driving an ox and plow or a Prius…the Constitution is written for all ages to remain free. Calling names when arguing your point proves something - it’s more about shoving that old tired thought down peoples’ throats than it is to give a sane reason why we should be willing to watch our constitutional rights be taken from us without a whimper.  Shocker:  a lot of sleepy folks are just now coming around to realizing what’s going on and they don’t like it. Thank God (yes, I said God)

posted by: Breeze | October 29, 2014  6:25pm

The second amendment debate isn’t about whether to abolish the second amendment. I’ve yet to meet anyone who advocated a prohibition on all guns. But that’s what the NRA zealots would have you believe, that the 2nd amendment is under attack.  That’s a little like saying the first amendment is under attack simply because the supreme court uses a three prong test (place, time and manner) to determine whether speech is constitutionally protected.  The second amendment, like the first, is not an absolute right. You cannot yell fire in a movie theater if there’s no fire.

Is there anyone that thinks there should be no limits on what constitutes legal arms? How about cannons and tanks? The debate is not about IF we support the second amendment, it’s about where to draw the line between personal freedom and public safety. Universal background checks, limits on magazines, and bans on cannons and tanks are reasonable checks on personal freedoms.

At some point you the zealots have to acknowledge that it’s not 1776 and the government is not the King of England. Just in case, though, remember: one if by land, two if by sea.

posted by: Joebigjoe | October 29, 2014  6:50pm

1776? One never knows when history will repeat itself but we know it will. It always does.

But lets take your 1776 argument and say that you’re right. One thing that was certain at that time and hasnt changed is the God given right to defend yourself and your family. That was and is a given. Do you disagree?

Since you do agree then one would also have to say that as long as potential bad guys have certain weapons, you as a law abiding citizen should have the right to legally purchase those weapons.

If you cant and you are at the mercy of bad guys that can, how does that make sense?

I could say “Lock up the bad guys pretty much forever” but then the same anti gun people fight for them to be out. Your choice. If you really want gun control lock these people up and throw away the key, but you won’t. Everyone has an excuse in your world.

posted by: Breeze | October 30, 2014  7:03am

Joe - in case you haven’t noticed, the United States has a lot of people under lock and key. Our society is hardly lax in that department. I doubt you really want to have your taxes raised to pay for more prisons.  Your argument is that if bad guys are allowed to use cannons, so should the rest of us? And if bad guys use bombs, what about poor old Joe? I know your jealous, but that’s the difference between law abiding and law breaking. Bad guys “get” to have all the fun.

posted by: Joebigjoe | October 30, 2014  8:56am

No Breeze the US has alot of the wrong people under lock and key, and we dont put the right people there for long enough and we give them too many rights when they are there.

You must live in some alternate reality. Yes if bad guys attacking good innocent people with cannons was what was occurring then yes I should be allowed to defend with a cannon or similar.

Why would you ever think its a good idea for bad people to out gun or out weapon the innocent? Have you ever cracked a history book?