Editor's note: This meeting report was modified at 10:15 am on November 5 to correct or remove content that was incorrectly attributed to members of the Jr. Newtown Action Alliance.

* * * * *

Emotions were high as approximately 70 members of the public came out to an October 26 Legislative Council Ordinance Subcommittee meeting concerning a proposed ordinance to ban open carry of firearms on town-owned property.

With Election Day looming, the subcommittee’s primary concern was a recommendation that the incoming Legislative Council — which will have a maximum of five incumbents out of the 12 seats if all are re-elected — continue to consider the ordinance.

“I think we’ve done a lot of work on this as a commission,” said subcommittee member Chris Eide. “We’ve discussed this, done the research, and we should recommend how we’re leaning as a commission.”

The idea of introducing new gun ordinances began last year, when the Newtown Action Alliance (NAA) submitted three ordinances for the Police Commission to consider.

The NAA website states the group welcomes advocates, along with families of victims and survivors of gun violence, “who are working to transform the tragedy of 12/14 into meaningful action to end gun violence through the introduction of smarter, safer gun laws, and broader cultural change.”

The Police Commission informed the NAA that the Legislative Council was the town body that needed to look at the ordinances. Last December, the council decided to consider just one of the ordinances — the one restricting open carry on town-owned land.

In February, after lengthy debate, the council sent the proposal to its Ordinance Subcommittee for review.

As a vote was called during the most recent meeting, committee member Kathy Reiss opposed the recommendation in a 3-1 vote. Eide, Chris Smith, and Jordana Bloom supported the recommendation to incoming council members who will be officially seated as of December 1.

“I don’t think this is something we can legally do, and I can’t support something that is illegal,” Reiss said.

Reiss said that Town Attorney David Grogins has found no support for the idea that such a ban would hold up to legal challenge, and while there are two Connecticut towns that ban firearms on town property, neither has faced a legal challenge on the issue yet.

Reiss said what she has heard from the public during meetings she has attended, is there is “no issue.”

“I have not seen people open carry,” said Reiss. “As a legislative body, do we make an ordinance when there is no issue? We keep saying we have to define the issue, but I think we’ve defined that there is no issue.”

Council Chairman Paul Lundquist, who is not an Ordinance Subcommittee member but sat in on the meeting, said there will be a recommendation for the Ordinance Subcommittee to continue work on the issue at a subsequent council meeting.

Where it might go from there is unclear.

“It will be totally up to the next council if anything at all happens,” said Lundquist.

Lundquist said while there has been “no sudden compulsion” for gun owners to open carry on town-owned property, it “comes down to Newtown is different” due to the 12/14 tragedy, a point he believes should compel the future council to take up the matter.

“It’s a tangible issue,” Lundquist said.

“This is not coming from a place of fear, but a place of trauma,” said Eide. “In this town in particular, there are people who cannot be around open carry. If people do not feel safe [not carrying] a firearm, they can wear a jacket. People in Newtown should have places free of images that would be traumatic to them.”

Smith said he was hoping for a solution that would satisfy constituents on both sides of the issue.

“One group says they do not feel safe to not be able to carry a firearm, and the other does not feel safe when they see a gun,” said Smith. “Banning open carry gives police another tool to manage situations. We can tell people they can carry, but only concealed. I’ve not heard a reason yet why that does not make sense.”

The next council meeting is scheduled for November 3, the day after Election Day.

Questions With The Chief

The Ordinance Subcommittee invited Police Chief James Viadero to the meeting so they could ask him questions regarding the ordinance.

When asked what the police can do currently when there is someone open carrying a firearm, Viadero said that every situation was different and given two different scenarios, he may give two completely different answers.

“The burden is probable cause,” said Viadero, “which is the belief that a crime is about to be committed by a person with fear of imminent injuries. We have to deal with facts, not emotions.”

The police can not even approach a person to ask if they have a permit for open carry unless they have a reason to believe the person does not, or may be about to commit a crime. And when on private property, whether a gun is allowed or not is up to the property owner — so local businesses could ask patrons to not open carry firearms.

Smith said without the ordinance, there is “no recourse for people who feel their First Amendment rights are being infringed” when on public property.

“In our town, we have people dealing with very real trauma,” said Smith.

Reiss asked Viadero how many instances of problems with people open carrying have been investigated in town. Viadero said since 2016, he has only heard of two reported instances: one at Starbucks and one at Caraluzzi’s. The first instance at Starbucks was a rally of individuals advocating for open carry, while the second was an individual who entered the business open carrying, and the owner called asking what the laws were concerning that.

Bloom asked what the police response is if they receive a complaint about an individual open carrying. Viadero said that officers would be dispatched to assess the situation.

The chief said officers would observe the individual from a distance, but if there is no observable criminal activity they could not stop, detain, or check for a permit. If an officer does inquire if the individual has a permit, the individual is not obliged to answer.

Viadero was asked about what it means to “brandish” a weapon, and he answered that a large variety of behaviors could be met with different charges, depending on an individuals exact behavior. Among them are reckless endangerment, disorderly conduct, threatening, and brandishing.

“We’d have to look at the conduct and see what applied,” said Viadero.

The Public Debate

The meeting started off with members of both the Newtown Action Alliance (NAA), and the Jr. Newtown Action Alliance (Jr. NAA) including past and present Newtown High School students who were survivors of the 12/14 tragedy, getting up to advocate for passage of the ordinance.

Maggie LaBanca said she was eight years old and at Sandy Hook School during 12/14 — her best friend, who was seven at the time, was one of the victims. She said she has been living with “paralyzing fear” since the incident.

“A gun does not raise security, it only stimulates fear,” said LaBanca. “We do not need to be victimized, we do not need to relive our trauma. We need to feel safe.”

Jr. NAA member Naiya Amin addressed the idea that the ordinance was coming from a place of fear.

“It’s not fair to equate fear of [an] item to the paralyzing fear we feel,” said Amin.

Amin said that more of their group wanted to attend the meeting to speak, but did not feel safe due to how “aggressive” some opponents to the ban have acted.

Don Lococo of the NAA said the group has been “fighting for an ordinance in Newtown for years.”

“Some of the people in our group who have graduated from Newtown left with the idea that they could leave Newtown better than it was before, to ban open carry on public property at rallies,” said Lococo. “They have been unsuccessful. We’re looking for a resolution. We’ve told you what could happen and how it could happen. The Ordinance Subcommittee is not touching on what we are dealing with.”

Lococo said that at previous meetings, many people opposing the open carry ban have been stating “all sorts of things that are not relevant to what we’re talking about.”

Disappointed By Delays

Madeline Richard of the Jr. NAA said she was disappointed by the delays in getting the ordinance through.

“Here we are three years later, still pleading for action,” said Richard.

Richard said the idea that the town could not legally pass an ordinance banning open carry on town-owned property is “a blatant lie,” and that there are ”precedents in other towns.”

Richard also said there is a “big need for preventative laws.”

“We don’t want to face another tragedy to convince us we have to do something,” said Richard.

Maya Longo said she felt guns “serve no purpose” in public. While she felt it was a hard thing for her to say, she doesn’t want to take away people's guns, she “just [doesn’t] want to see them.”

Liv Doescher of the Jr. NAA said she was a survivor of the 12/14 tragedy, and that she “struggles with so many issues,” including those affecting her school work and her “overall well-being.” She took umbrage to the idea that the ordinance was about “hurt feelings.”

“To say it is about hurt feelings is absurd,” she said.

Resident Andy Buzzi said he was “always pleased to see a public meeting so well attended” and “especially pleased to see young people.” However, he noted that, “the purchase, sale, possession, and manner of carrying firearms is a matter of state law.”

“Municipalities have failed in every instance in which they have tried to restrict those rights,” said Buzzi. “It is not noble or heroic to disregard the process and seek to pass laws that exceed your authority.”

Mary Ann Jacob, a former eight-year member of the Legislative Council, said she was one of the principle authors on a previous ordinance to address the issue of people discharging firearms on properties where there is not enough space to do so safely.

“There was a lot of public participation,” said Jacob. “My takeaway was that both sides of the issue have a lot more in common than differences.”

Resident Chris Paradis said her objection to open carry is that it is “unnecessary in the best case” and “intimidating” to others. In the worst case it is “dangerous.”

“There is no benefit to having open carry, only risk,” said Paradis.

Resident Elise Beasley, who moved to Newtown with her husband from Florida, said her husband served in the Navy as a firearms instructor and “even he does not understand why open carry is needed here.”

“I have no problems with guns themselves, but don’t see the need to open carry,” said Beasley. “[Those who want to open carry] need to understand how aggressive carrying a gun feels to people who do not have them. They have to understand the impact of a gun on people.”

Resident Robyn Lynch said she does not want to take people’s guns away.

“If you feel the need to protect your home, so be it,” said Lynch. “If you feel the need to hunt to get food for your family, so be it. But state statute says that guns are not permitted on any property where the property owner does not allow them. Why should Newtown municipal property be any different?”

Resident Ken Lockwood said he was “saddened to see people afraid,” but he also hates “to see people’s rights taken away because others are afraid.”

“I think we should leave things as they are,” said Lockwood.

Resident Pat Troy said that when the government takes away a right, it was usually impossible to get it back. He said he understood the fear of some in the community, but he has “never been in a town where laws were passed based on hurt feelings.”

“We’re creating a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist,” said Troy.

The town currently owns somewhere between 2,900 and 3,000 acres of land, which includes parks, the Fairfield Hills campus, properties with other municipal buildings such as the Police Department, all the way down to properties the town has had to take over due to tax delinquencies and small parcels of land given as open space in subdivisions.

The Ordinance Subcommittee last met on the issue in July, where the committee took no action on the issue other than to direct members to continue research into the matter.

Reporter Jim Taylor can be reached at jim@thebee.com.