Wednesday, April 27, 2016

From a Victim's Point of View - Open Letter to the CT Legislature

Photo from
Dear legislators,

Earlier this year I was the victim of an ex parte restraining order.  My neighbor executed a viscous retaliatory attack against me for having complained to animal control about their barking dogs.

Nearly half of all temporary restraining orders are dismissed, and after hearing the evidence, the judge dismissed this application.  My neighbor clearly abused the judicial system, seeking revenge. 

Had HB 5054, AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE been in effect at the time, I would have been required to surrender my firearms without the benefit of due process.  It is, on its face, an unconstitutional denial of one's due process rights.

As it was, the temporary order caused me tremendous emotional distress and consumed a huge amount of my time in preparing a defense.  Not only that, state resources were wasted that could otherwise have been spent protecting those who truly are at risk.  (What is needed, is a way to penalize those who abuse the system!)

Therefore, I expect you to oppose this bill.

It too, violates due process rights and contains identical language from HB 5054.
Worse yet, the bill is a disturbing and disgraceful attempt to make law abiding gun owners look like they somehow support human trafficking!  Therefore, I expect you to oppose HB 5623 as it is written.

HB 5408, AN ACT CONCERNING THE PRESENTATION OF A CARRY PERMIT violates a person's rights under the 4th Amendment to be free from unreasonable searches.

A Feb 15, 2016 memorandum from the OFFICE OF THE CHIEF STATE’S ATTORNEY titled, "Open-Carry": Enforcement of General Statutes § 29-35 (b) as Amended”, clearly states; “By itself, without more, merely observing a person openly carrying a handgun does not give rise to criminal suspicion because doing so is lawful in Connecticut by persons who possess a pistol permit.

“In this regard, openly carrying a gun is legally akin to driving a motor vehicle; both activities are potentially dangerous, heavily regulated, and require a permit/license to engage in. Just as a police officer cannot lawfully stop a motor vehicle based merely on observing a person operating one, in order to determine whether that person is licensed, the officer cannot lawfully seize a person merely on observing him openly carrying a gun in order to determine whether that person has a pistol permit.”

Therefore, I expect you to oppose this bill.

HB 5409, AN ACT CONCERNING APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR A TEMPORARY STATE PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR A REVOLVER will help establish uniform criteria for local permit issuing authorities across the state.  As it is, there seems to be a hodgepodge of requirements varying from location to location and based on prejudices of local authorities.

Therefore, I expect you to support this bill.

Very truly yours,

William Boylan

Thanks to Ray Bevis and the CCDL for remaining on top of this issue and keeping us informed


  1. Our Middletown rep, Matt Lesser voted "no" on 5054. Thank you, Matt.

  2. Addendum: I sent him a letter relating a personal experience with a malicious TRO levied against me. He was interested enough to inquire back to me for more information. I'd like to think the letter I sent him actually had an impact; Lesser isn't exactly known to be 2A friendly. Thank you again, Matt.

  3. I was wrong. Lesser voted in favor of the bill. I mis-read the spread sheet.

    This link shows how the legislature voted. My mistake was reading the vote to the right of the name, instead of the left.


Authors of comments and posts are solely responsible for their statements. Please email for questions or concerns. This blog, (and any site using the blogger platform), does not and cannot track the source of comments. While opinions and criticism are fine, they are subject to moderator discretion; slander and vile attacks of individuals will not to be tolerated. Middletown Insider retains the right to deny any post or comment without explanation.

Popular Posts