After receiving a legal opinion from Town Attorney David Grogins, entertaining input from numerous residents, and nearly two hours of deliberation February 17, the Legislative Council voted 7-5 to send a proposal to ban the open carry of firearms on town property to its Ordinance Committee.

Councilman Ryan Knapp, who chairs the ordinance panel, was among the strongest opponents of the motion. Knapp, along with council member Cathy Reiss repeatedly voiced concerns about such an initiative at the local level, suggesting open carry firearms restrictions should be regulated through statewide legislation.

Council members Andy Clure, Dan Wiedemann, and Phil Carroll joined Knapp and Reiss opposed to moving the proposal to committee, but they were outvoted.

During public participation, former Newtown school board member and attorney Andrew Buzzi pointed out that similar local initiatives in other states had failed because those states preempted towns from regulating firearms. Referring to the legal opinion, Buzzi said Grogins could not predict if the courts would uphold such an ordinance passed in Newtown.

Buzzi did note that the opinion showed this type of ordinance is uniformly struck down, and he included all precedents.

“He gave you the facts — now exercise your judgement with the facts in mind,” Buzzi said, adding the council is bound to act in consistency with state law. “And there is no support for the ordinance in law — regulation must be done at the state level.”

Sandy Hook Elementary School social worker and resident Miranda Pacchiana told the council that towns have a right to ban open carry based on residents’ collective needs and desires. She said many if not all town residents have been traumatized in some way as a result of the 12/14 tragedy, and even her own family members expressed a desire to live in a place where they would not have to fear being shot.

“Gun violence changed our lives,” she said. “Seeing a gun on a stranger evokes more trauma or heightened feelings. It’s more intimidating for Newtowners.”

‘Personally Intimidated’

Helen Earnshaw said she was personally intimidated during a local rally she attended when “gun carriers walked into our group,” and she personally saw their firearms “in open coats.”

Alex Villamil said it is the council’s job to review ordinance proposals.

“We owe it to [12/14] survivors to make our town a safe space,” he said. “Keep weapons concealed.”

Adam Pacchiana said he also witnessed an intimidating gathering of participants in a Labor Day Parade who were open carrying sidearms. He supported considering the ordinance because, “We want to protect our neighbors and children in town.”

David Nault spoke on behalf of all gun owners saying he does not believe in open carry, but he never saw the type of intimidation that was cited by other residents in this and earlier forums discussing the reasons for considering the ordinance.

“If they are being intimidated, it’s something for the Newtown Police Department to take care of instead of an ordinance that puts more rules on gun owners who are probably not doing anything wrong to begin with,” he said.

Don Lococo said an open carry situation has the potential of contributing to a violent confrontation, and that upgrading ordinances “can be used legally in defense of our small town.”

Eric Paradis said armed with the legal opinion, it was “time for ordinance committee to do their work.”

Once all town residents spoke, Council Chairman Paul Lundquist allowed Middlebury resident, physician, and NRA pistol instructor Walter Kupson a few moments. Kupson reminded the council, “It’s not the gun you see you need to worry about — it’s not a threat to you. It may be [that] an asset protecting my life is protecting your life.”

Holly Sullivan, president of the Connecticut Citizens Defense League (CCDL) said as a Southbury resident, she spends a lot of time shopping and banking in Newtown.

“We are part of this community — we’re neighbors,” Sullivan said. “I’ve attended NSSF rallies and I am appalled at the comments.” She said such an ordinance would have an adverse impact on gun owners, and if it is eventually recommended and passed, she had “no doubt the ordinance will be challenged in court.”

Legal Challenge Likely

That was also a concern expressed by all of the dissenting council members. And even Grogins admitted that because of Newtown’s tragedy, he thought a motivated individual or group would not only try to legally challenge the ordinance, but may be inclined to take it all the way to the US Supreme Court, if necessary.

“Or the argument could be made that it would inhibit the opposition,” he added.

Grogins said his “short opinion,” which was heavily influenced by the 2014 opinion of colleague David Dobin, illustrated that Connecticut municipalities have only the authority the state has given them by law.

“In this case, there is no specific authority granted to towns to regulate firearms,” Grogins said, adding that “there are no laws that preempt regulation by local authority,” either.

About an hour into the discussion, Reiss made the first motion to dismiss taking up the ordinance, citing concerns that it would expose the town to legal exposure.

Grogins said a legal challenge would likely come from someone defying any codified ordinance, if passed, who would be issued a summons for a violation and then challenge the ordinances legality in Superior Court, or it could come in the form of a larger constitutional challenge.

Either way, the town would be party to the action, Grogins said, and would be compelled to defend its actions to whatever court those challenges proceeded to.

“You could spend $100,000 on a case like this,” the town attorney said. “It could be appealed to appellate and the state supreme court — and also could go to federal court if someone decides there is a federal violation. I’m not sure how you would try this case, but it would not be inexpensive, because it will likely be challenged by a group that wants to make a point.”

After further discussion, Reiss modified her motion to not send the ordinance to committee, and it failed 7-5 with the same council representatives — Knapp, Clure, Carroll, Wiedemann, and Reiss — in favor.

In turning to a motion to refer the ordinance to committee, council member Chris Smith said he was looking forward to looking at it and any compelling research the committee develops.

However, Knapp questioned what more research it could do since a legal opinion and all the options and possible outcomes were already on the table.

“I don’t see a need [for it] relative to the risks and cost/benefit,” Knapp said. “This should be handled at the state level.”

Legislating Peoples’ Feelings?

Wiedemann said he did not see any concerns rising to the level of a public safety issue, and therefore the proposal was not an appropriate issue for the committee to take on.

“We’re being asked to legislate peoples’ feelings,” he said.

Councilman Dan Honan disagreed, saying, “There is no reason for someone to see someone carrying and be retraumatized.”

His colleague Chris Eide concurred.

“Mental health is a thing,” he said. “It’s possible someone could see an open carry firearm and be affected.”

Carroll described enacting such an ordinance as “trampling some peoples rights for other peoples feelings.”

Lundquist said, “We’re still looking at addressing a local problem with a local ordinance,” adding that if it was eventually recommended, he would “still vote no if it doesn’t solve a problem. If it is addressing feelings, doesn’t pass the bar.”

“The legal opinion is we can do this and there might be a challenge. But that is true of every ordinance,” Lundquist added. “A firm has offered pro bono to help the town [which] helps mitigate financial risk.”

Council member Jordana Bloom, who was a vocal supporter of the ordinance throughout the consideration process, said, “You need to let us do our job and do the research. We have a public mandate. We have people who are afraid. Saying there’s no public safety issue is disingenuous.”

Council Vice Chair Judit DeStefano, who made the final motion to send the ordinance proposal to committee, recognized that “concerns on both sides are genuine. What’s more important — gun owner rights or feelings of intimidation and trauma? I don’t want a fear of litigation to drive this — if it’s the right thing to do, it’s the right thing to do.”

With that, a roll call vote quickly affirmed the proposal would be sent to committee with DeStefano, Eide, Bloom, Honan, Smith, Lundquist, and council member Alison Plante all supporting it.