Politix

Prev Next
Featured Quizzes
Politix Daily Headlines
Featured Debates
Issues

See all 17 issues

People
White House

See all people

AFTERMATH

Connecticut Police Chief Refuses to Allow Gun Show

'Out of respect and honor' for those who lost their lives in Newtown

Next>

by Dain Fitzgerald

Staff Writer t

Image: Republican American

Gun shows are sending a creepy vibe throughout New England in recent days, for obvious reasons, which is why one police chief in the region has refused to sign off on one.

Business Insider reports that the city of Waterbury, CT, has denied Westchester Collectors Inc. the opportunity to host a gun show next weekend at the behest of Waterbury Chief of Police Michael Gugliotti. It's a move that follows the cancellation of other gun shows scheduled in the state in recent days.

"I was thinking about what I need to do as a police chief during this type of crisis to ensure that our citizens are feeling safe and comfortable," Gugliotti told the press. "Out of respect and honor for those 26 folks that lost their life in Newtown, I made the decision then and there to send the promoter a message that I would not be signing any permit for any gun show until further notice."

But as BI's Abby Rogers points out, one gun show scheduled for Stamford, Connecticut - home of Adam Lanza's father - will be going ahead as planned this very weekend.

Via Business Insider.
Like this article? B Vote Up
?

Is Gugliotti doing the right thing?

View results

Comments (view in Forum)

  • bsking
    !
    The trouble is people like you who do not have a clue what you're talking about. please explain what the so called gun show loophole means to you...
  • o
    LikkerdySplit
    !
    @AceLuby
    'THAT'
    is total nonsense, read up on what you speak of sheep, otherwise dont speak
    there is no state in the nation in which gun shows do not perform background checks
    waiting periods on the other hand dont exist for gun shows OR regular shops in most states of our country, connecticut, bein a gun controllin state (aka - more gun violent) most likely does have some waiting restrictions
  • Post Removed by Moderators
  • o
    LikkerdySplit
    !
    @AceLuby second time i voted up somebody accidently, dang it
    ..... where you get this from? i know for a fact that in alabama, tennessee and georgia (easily 3 of the most pro-gun states) background checks ALWAYS happen at EVERY gun show, they really aint all that hard to do y'know, just gon be maybe a 15min wait and some paperwork
    is it law? i dont know, but they ALWAYS do em
    and mam i was born in chicago so i know damn well how good gun control is for the controlled
  • View all 10 replies >
  • u
    XLP
    !
    He knows the local situation and is in charge of security within his jurisdiction. May be a security issue / the area too emotionally charged. But, gun shows have absolutely nothing to do with the problem.
  • PoliticalSpice
    !
    The second amendment gives regulation of such matters to the stare. This is not a constitutional issue, and it's insensitive, to say tge least, to bring a gun show to conn. this soon after the massacre that occurred.
  • Quantummist
    !
    While I agree that such regulation is specifically held by the state the Federal Government has set precedent that it has such authority... So Your position that the 2nd Amendment gives regulatory control to the State would mean that the Federal Government is Not Given the authority to make regulations such as limits on what type of weapon, mag size ect. the States could allow... The Only Authority the Fed has in the matter is the Interstate Commerce aspect of sales and transport.. So if a Gun Manufacture wanted to build, market and sell Fully Automatic (real assault) weapons within the state the Federal Government Constitutionally has no say...
  • Quantummist
    !
    @PoliticalSpice .. Neither were cased cartridges, Bolt action rifles, center fire guns, High Carbon Steel gun barrels, revolvers, semi automatic weapons, cellulose Gun Powder..... So Are you taking the view that the Second Amendment Only applies to Flint Lock Black Powder Single Shot Firearms?
  • View all 20 replies >
  • MongoAPillager
    !
    suspend your rights for emotional reasons,seems like we have lost a multitude of rights by this method,i suspect the police chief is just looking for publicity and a pat on the back for being politically correct
  • PoliticalSpice
    !
    The second anendments specifically leaves regulation of arms to the states, this is not a constitutional issue, abd he acted within his discretion in doing this.
  • o
    Sharpshooter
    !
    @PoliticalSpice "The second anendments specifically leaves regulation of arms to the states..."

    I have no ideas what amendment to which constitution you're referring to; If you're referring to The United States of America on planet earth you have it EXACTLY Backwards.

    I adore the revisionist nature of your arguments and admire your ability to simply ignore all fact and reason, replacing them with pure unadulterated fiction with a few keystrokes. Jules Verne and George Orwell would be in awe.
  • MongoAPillager
    !
    @PoliticalSpice @PoliticalSpice in that case i guess the federal gov can,t make any nationwide gun laws or decisions?so i guess we don,t have to worry about federal bans on "assault"weapons and such,thats good news!!,i still say He is just politically correct pandering,all discretion is,is arbitrary decision making
  • PoliticalSpice
    !
    @MongoAPillager I was not talking about federal regulation, i was talking about "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
    The amendment permits state regulation. The bill of rights was specifically adopted to limit the federal govt, not the states. The ptotection of these rights against state action began following with the adoption of the 14th amendment and is limited by the imvotporation doctrine of the s ct
  • View all 57 replies >
  • o
    Sharpshooter
    !
    His JOB is to enforce the laws, not pursue a personal political agenda. I believe they call what he is doing malfeasance. Were it MY show he and I would be discussing this in front of a judge.

    Malfeasance: ntentionally doing something either legally or morally wrong which one had no right to do. It always involves dishonesty, illegality, or knowingly exceeding authority for improper reasons.

    He is clearly exceeding his authority....

    Funny how liberals feel themselves above the law.
  • o
    woodtick57
    !
    Seems he was doing just that, enforcing the laws. does this permit for a show fit into the guidlines for such a permit? he thought "No".
  • o
    Sharpshooter
    !
    @woodtick57 His comment and denying the permit because the Chief in another community doesn't THINK it's appropriate is enforcing the law?
  • CharlesCT
    !
    Hunting and fishing used to be considered a sport. One time it meant survival for providing food. The American Natives had a beautiful ceremony when they killed what they needed to eat. Somehow this has gotten into a survival against our Government as the enemy. Killing people is not a sport, but is a game on videos. Fun -- "How many did you get? What was your score? Did you see his head crack open?" A father and son used to go out and hunt rabbits, birds, deer. Spend a day together. Out in the open with dogs and hounds. What happened? How did the NRA go from target practice and gun safety to defending our homes from the US Army? We vote. We don't fight the Army of the USA. A gun show? What does that mean?
  • MongoAPillager
    !
    Police quote:I was just sitting home, really just thinking about what I need to do as a police chief during this type of crisis to ensure that our citizens are feeling safe and comfortable"How about getting off your PC ass and go out and harass the criminals instead of the law abiding citizens
  • Dan_Tien
    !
    @MongoAPillager Oh, I see you got the additional "Sitting at home, etc" from another source. I have no evidence that his police department does not pursue and catch criminals. His intervention in denying a permit for a gun show may not have been effective in stopping gun crimes, but it was not intended to do so. It was a gesture of solidarity and sympathy for the families of victims of the shooting. Maybe someone should ask whether any of them appreciated the gesture or feel that it was unnecessary. I don't see how anyone's 2nd Amendment rights were violated, nor can I agree that any citizens were harassed because they were not issued a permit. There is no constitutional right to receive a permit for a retail event. He did not close any gun stores nor take away anyone's guns, just put a hold on gun shows in the area until further notice.
  • MongoAPillager
    !
    @Dan_Tien see KRKellys point of right to assembly down a little further.and what gives the police chief the right to make such decisions just because he wants some limelight.i am so sick of we must think of the poor weeping citizens ploy!! how about we do something useful,like have a gunshow in that town and offer free firearms to any one who no longer wants to be a victum,and yes i know what they are feeling,i have the weapon that ended my sisters life in my lockbox,the weapon was not guilty,the person who pulled the trigger was,and all the PC garbage in the world would not have stopped what happened or made it better
  • Dan_Tien
    !
    @MongoAPillager The process of applying for a permit includes the possibility that your application may be denied. The gun show in question was not an offer to give away free weapons to frightened people, it was profit motivated.

    So you are sick of sympathy for "poor weeping citizens"? Does that mean that you would not have been offended if someone had taken the opportunity to sell guns outside your sister's funeral? Maybe with a big sign "Don't be a Victim like the Woman Inside! Buy a Handgun Now! Financing Available! Limited Time Only!" Step right up.
  • View all 21 replies >
  • KRKelly
    !
    And what about the First Amendment...isn't there something in that about "freedom of assembly?" To start to criminalize the free exercise of a constitutional right because of an incident is wrong. We need to start a discussion on mental health. Looking at the attackers in the Congresswoman Giffords incident, the CO movie attack and the Shady Hook attack, ALL have definative mental disorders.
  • PoliticalSpice
    !
    The first rational argument so far for the decision to not allow the show, I don't quiet agree as I think regulation of firearms by state govt is provided for in the second amendment, but the free sssembly/free association argument has some validity. The thing is freedom to assemble is long recognized as being subject to regulation ad to time, place and manner, and at this time, so soon after the school shootings, in this place, close to the town it happened in, the police have the fiscretion on whether or not to grant the permit.
  • russ
    !
    THANK YOU!! Those who have committed mass murders are the extreme cases of dysfunction and there's alot more of them out there. Restricting gun sales will do nothing to diminish the problem. As long as so many unstable people walk the streets, there will be tragedies. Knives can still cut, ammonium nitrate can still go boom and, oh yeah, guns can still walk across the border or be fabricated by greedy machinists. There is no majic bullet (uh-oh) but a good start would be to completely restructure the mental healthcare system. Back in the 50's and 60's, most perpetrators would be in a state hospital. However, treatment was indeed often barbaric and advocacy groups influenced patients release leading to many unfortunate consequences. I'm not suggesting everyone with eccentricity be locked away but I do endorse more stringent criteria be established.
  • u
    RobertJHarsh
    !
    Most New Yorkers who own guns and keep quiet about it head to gun shows in Virginia. I was at one years in Richmond and the parking lot was full of cars with New York plates.
  • puppybrownie
    !
    How about if we refuse to allow moonbat moms who allow their mentally ill offspring access to weapons , from raising these misfits. There is a need to protect the citizens by locking these people up.
  • u
    jonzo
    !
    2nd amendment is saying, that it is necessary to the physical security of all individual states (pointedly NOT for the security of THE federal government) to set in stone the principal that states cannot take away a citizens right to have and use guns. Perhaps this is an artful avoidance of the implication that the federal government was attempting to control which state populations could and which other state populations could not bear arms. Does it not also remove that ability from the individual states, of independently restricting their own residents from keeping and bearing arms - thus ensuring a level playing field across all states. Seems like it was the ultimate goal of the founding fathers, to establish a country that gave the citizens the right, in the gravest extreme, to get together and reform the government outside the pre-established context, and ensuring that the population retained the right to be armed, ensured that citizens of all states retained the teeth of that right, on through time. Like, if it all went to crap, citizens could band together and power cycle the whole deal. How that applies to the population density and info age today, don't know. Seems to me that federal level background checks at the gun shows of all states, if done clean, would likely help to reduce gun crime.
  • u
    dkpayton
    !
    WATERBURY, Conn.(TheBlaze/AP)— The police chief in a Connecticut city has halted permits for gun shows, saying he’s concerned any firearms purchased there might one day be used in a mass shooting. Considering the furor raging on both sides of the gun control debate, this action will certainly capture attention.

    The Republican-American reports that Waterbury Police Superintendent Michael Gugliotti imposed a moratorium the day after the Dec. 14 killings of 20 children and six educators at a grade school not far away in Newtown.

    He says he’s concerned a gun used in a future mass shooting could be traced to a purchase made at a show in Waterbury
    come on politix you left this part out of the story....
  • DARSB
    !
    The city can issue permits or not. I'm more interested in what sort of gun show organizer thinks it's appropriate to sell Bushmasters just three weeks after one was used to murder first graders.
  • u
    dkpayton
    !
    darsb in 2011 there was 39 kids killed by baby sitter thats 19 more kids than killed in conn .so when do you want to ban baby sitters.this is F.B.I. imfo and yes i have the link
  • R Load more comments...