Newtown, CT Puts Time Limits on 2nd Amendment

Screen Shot 2013-09-10 at 11.17.40 AM

Apparently the city leaders in Newtown, CT have a different version of the 2nd Amendment than what I have seen on the Bill of Rights.

Newtown, CT has passed a new city ordinance against recreational target shooting.
It seems the powers that be in that city feel there should be a limitation on howlong someone can shoot and how many people may shoot at a range at a time.
This decision came down at at a city meeting after more than 200 hours of testimony .

According to the new ordinance, no resident in that city can be shooting for more than four hours after notification of the Police Department, and that shooting is limited to one person at a time.

Target backstops are required and must be 10 feet above the target. No shooting is allowed within a half-mile of a school, and there are set distances between properties.

The aim of the ordinance is target and recreational shooting. It does not affect hunters or professional law enforcement or military officers. Gun salutes for memorial events and tributes are also allowed.

I wonder when and if any residents will legally challenge this new ordinance or if they will all just bend over and take it.

Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • Ken Wright

    What happened to practice makes perfect. Don’t these goons realize that training is an intricate part of training and GOOD gun safety.

    • John Fah-q Smith

      Nope… they don’t care, they just want the 2A so limited that it is a pain to be a firearm owner.

  • Freddie

    So if you are not a resident, you can shoot fro as long as you want.

  • Lewtheprof

    I’m about as a purist kind of second amendment guy there is,,, but that said, four hours of the kind of noise which comes from even one shooter using some of the higher energy rounds of ammo, when your neighbor’s “range” is but hundreds, even thousands of feet away, is truly a bit much to expect anyone to be too very tolerant of. The article seems deceptively devoid of directly worded details that otherwise keep insinuating from “between the lines,” and that is; that this is meant to address (regulate) the existence of ersatz “firing ranges,” such as those set up at the back of rural properties, those with (unfortunate) close proximity to schools and even other rural residents, and those which have a person, or worse, persons there shooting from dawn to dusk. So far as I can tell, the regulations enacted to ensure safe, sane operation of that same said kind of “gun range” and a measure of enforced civility (for those who apparently have demonstrated none) are all reasonable,, and look as I might, I can’t find any sort of “infringement” being placed directly upon the 2nd amendment rights of the shooters at those sorts of ranges.. Or am I missing something much more sinister going on here?

    • Warlord

      Stop pretending and come out of the gun control closet… If you truly love guns, the sound of a firearm being fired would be music to your ears. “shall not be infringed” is a pretty clear cut wording… STOP INFRINGING!!!!

  • Tom Beaman

    Control for control’s sake………..

  • Travis McCabe

    and why can someone only shoot for 4 hours? and how does that Help anything?

  • mcrognale

    Easy, shoot for four hours. Disassemble and clean your guns. Shoot 4 more hours. Why do you have to notify anyone? This is just another stupid law, promulgated by stupid people affecting the stupid people who elected them.