romma
Member
It was amazing to be apart of such a gathering. http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=7f9c2579-f4e6-4de8-916e-e671d72a20e3 Montville — The Town Council was forced Monday night to remove from its meeting agenda a resolution calling for a public hearing on a proposed firearms ordinance after the turnout exceeded the capacity of council chambers.
After speaking with the fire marshal, council Chairman John Geary notified audience members who were standing that they would have to go into the hallway so the meeting could get started. “We're not going anywhere!” one man shouted.
Another chided the council for not conducting the meeting in a larger room, saying, “Were you that shortsighted and didn't think that people were going to show up?”
Geary threatened to cancel the meeting after the crowd refused to leave. Order was restored, however, once the council voted 6-1 to reschedule the meeting in a different location. No site or time for the meeting was set.
The capacity of the council chambers is 108. Scores more than that showed up for the meeting.
Raymond Occhialini, the town's fire marshal for 19 years, said it was the first time that a town meeting had to be canceled because the turnout exceeded the meeting room's capacity.
The proposed ordinance would prohibit any discharge of a firearm, CO2 gun, air gun, BB gun, sling shot or bow and arrow outdoors within 500 feet of an occupied dwelling or building that houses people, domestic animals or livestock. It also would prohibit the discharge of firearms in areas designated as nature preserves or conservancies, public parks or hiking trails, school grounds, public highways and any other public place.
Minors under 16 would be allowed to discharge weapons in an authorized shooting range and in the presence of a parent, legal guardian or qualified instructor.
Anyone who violated the ordinance would be fined $90 per violation.
The ordinance states that it does not “prohibit persons from exercising their constitutional rights with respect to gun ownership and self defense.”
•••••Guy Flatley, a resident who vehemently opposes the ordinance, said it was proposed after a neighbor complained to the mayor that Flatley fires a weapon in his back-yard target range.
“This is a neighbors' dispute,” said Flatley. “That's all it is. This ordinance takes our rights away. Nobody here is in favor of this ordinance. They all want to speak and share their views. They should drop the whole ordinance.”
But John Dufrat, the neighbor who complained to the mayor, said it was a matter of “public safety.”
Dufrat is the chief warden of the Milo Light Nature Preserve, which is adjacent to Flatley's property. He said that people who walk through the preserve could be at risk if a bullet strayed from the target range.
“It's common sense not to blast a weapon near someone's home,” Dufrat said.
Many in attendance Monday felt that the proposed ordinance would violate their constitutional rights.
“It ain't going to fly,” said resident Howard Riske Jr. “I'm opposed to it. Does this mean that the police department can't discharge their weapons?”
Another resident, Mark Henderson, said he felt the ordinance violated his constitutional right to bear arms.
“They (the council) knew this was going to happen,” Henderson said of the large turnout for the meeting. “They should have set this meeting in a bigger place. I'm here because I want to see this stopped before they take away more of our rights.”
Councilor Ellen Hillman said she, too, opposes the ordinance, which she said she considers unconstitutional. She said the ordinance is vague and needs to describe in more detail which weapons could not be discharged.
Mayor Joseph Jaskiewicz said that when he suggested the ordinance, it was never intended to take away people's constitutional rights.
“That was never the intention,” he said. “I've always seen it as a public safety issue.”
After speaking with the fire marshal, council Chairman John Geary notified audience members who were standing that they would have to go into the hallway so the meeting could get started. “We're not going anywhere!” one man shouted.
Another chided the council for not conducting the meeting in a larger room, saying, “Were you that shortsighted and didn't think that people were going to show up?”
Geary threatened to cancel the meeting after the crowd refused to leave. Order was restored, however, once the council voted 6-1 to reschedule the meeting in a different location. No site or time for the meeting was set.
The capacity of the council chambers is 108. Scores more than that showed up for the meeting.
Raymond Occhialini, the town's fire marshal for 19 years, said it was the first time that a town meeting had to be canceled because the turnout exceeded the meeting room's capacity.
The proposed ordinance would prohibit any discharge of a firearm, CO2 gun, air gun, BB gun, sling shot or bow and arrow outdoors within 500 feet of an occupied dwelling or building that houses people, domestic animals or livestock. It also would prohibit the discharge of firearms in areas designated as nature preserves or conservancies, public parks or hiking trails, school grounds, public highways and any other public place.
Minors under 16 would be allowed to discharge weapons in an authorized shooting range and in the presence of a parent, legal guardian or qualified instructor.
Anyone who violated the ordinance would be fined $90 per violation.
The ordinance states that it does not “prohibit persons from exercising their constitutional rights with respect to gun ownership and self defense.”
•••••Guy Flatley, a resident who vehemently opposes the ordinance, said it was proposed after a neighbor complained to the mayor that Flatley fires a weapon in his back-yard target range.
“This is a neighbors' dispute,” said Flatley. “That's all it is. This ordinance takes our rights away. Nobody here is in favor of this ordinance. They all want to speak and share their views. They should drop the whole ordinance.”
But John Dufrat, the neighbor who complained to the mayor, said it was a matter of “public safety.”
Dufrat is the chief warden of the Milo Light Nature Preserve, which is adjacent to Flatley's property. He said that people who walk through the preserve could be at risk if a bullet strayed from the target range.
“It's common sense not to blast a weapon near someone's home,” Dufrat said.
Many in attendance Monday felt that the proposed ordinance would violate their constitutional rights.
“It ain't going to fly,” said resident Howard Riske Jr. “I'm opposed to it. Does this mean that the police department can't discharge their weapons?”
Another resident, Mark Henderson, said he felt the ordinance violated his constitutional right to bear arms.
“They (the council) knew this was going to happen,” Henderson said of the large turnout for the meeting. “They should have set this meeting in a bigger place. I'm here because I want to see this stopped before they take away more of our rights.”
Councilor Ellen Hillman said she, too, opposes the ordinance, which she said she considers unconstitutional. She said the ordinance is vague and needs to describe in more detail which weapons could not be discharged.
Mayor Joseph Jaskiewicz said that when he suggested the ordinance, it was never intended to take away people's constitutional rights.
“That was never the intention,” he said. “I've always seen it as a public safety issue.”
