http://www.newbritainherald.com/article ... 599484.txt
In the interest of getting to the bottom of this and finding out what we could do to fix whatever went wrong, we did some research.
Here is the video of common council meeting, trimmed to not include the non relevant parts of the meeting:
http://ctcarry.com/Document/Details/b8f ... 6be3941d29
That sure seems to be the same thing we are getting out of the news report, so the news report does not seem to be out of place or badly reported.
We were also able to obtain this roll call and resolution from the common council:
http://ctcarry.com/Document/Details/bef ... 50096aebcd
This is far more interesting. That resolution is garbage and there is no possible way for it to proceed.
I am including it here for easier discussion and analysis:
This resolution makes no sense. Even if it was adopted, it would seek to eliminate the need for a pistol permit inside New Britain city limits. There is no way for it to proceed.Resolution wrote:Sec. 16-80. Carrying concealed weapons
(a) No Any person shall be permitted to carry, or wear under his clothes, or conceal upon or about his person any deadly or dangerous weapon including, but not limited to any pistol or revolver, dagger, metal knuckles, razor, sling-shot, blackjack, sword or canegun. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to any person who is found with any such weapon or implement concealed upon his person while lawfully removing his household goods or effects from one place to another, or from one residence to another, nor to any person while actually and peaceable engaged in carrying any such weapon or implement from his place of abode or business to a place or a person where or by whom such weapon or implement is to be repaired, or while actually and peaceably returning to his place of abode or business with such weapon or implement after the same has been repaired.
(b) This section shall not apply to any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his duty.
The proper way to handle this would to repeal this entire section as none of it is necessary or useful. Barring that, adding a (c) clause with "This section shall not apply to anyone with a valid State or temporary Permit to Carry Pistols or revolvers" would at least accomplish what people have claimed is the aim of this resolution.
Something is very wrong with this resolution and the communications surrounding it.
This resolution is supposed to have another vote in a future council meeting. I would have to assume that the text of this resolution will change once someone who can read looks over it. With the stated purpose of the bill made to the council, I can't imagine it going well for unconcealed carriers.