Woodbridge Ordinance

In the interest of safety, and in recognition of the increased density of population throughout the Town of Woodbridge, it shall be the policy of the Town to discourage the use of firearms in the Town, and to prohibit hunting of any kind on Town owned land, particularly Town owned land dedicated to passive recreational use or land preserved for open space. It shall further be the policy of the Town of Woodbridge to encourage private landowners to strictly comply with State regulations regarding the use of firearms on private property and to refrain from permitting hunting on private property, particularly an private property that abuts or adjoins Town owned land. In furtherance of these goals, the Town of Woodbridge Firearms Ordinance is amended and restated as follows:

No person shall discharge any firearm, air gun, air rifle or cross-bow or Long-bow in the Town in such a manner or under such circumstances as to place any person or property in jeopardy of injury therefrom. The discharge of any of said weapons within Five Hundred (500) Yards of any dwelling or building accessory thereto, or any person not in the company of such person carrying said weapon, or without a permit as required by State Statute or Regulation, shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this section.

No hunting or target shooting or any other activity involving the discharge of a firearm, air gun, air rifle or cross-bow, long-bow or other weapon shall be permitted on any Town owned property. The possession of any loaded firearm, air gun, air rifle or cross-bow, long-bow or other weapon on Town owned property shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this section.

Sec- 3 - Violations and Penalties
Any violation of Section I or 2 of this Ordinance shall be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than One Hundred ($100) Dollars or imprisonment for not more than Thirty (30) Days, or both.

The town has the right to prohibit hunting on its land - the "no shooting" provision is contrary to state law if no exceptions are made. The town was not allowing hunting previously, except to "special people" we understand, so little has changed except establishing policy.

Urging landowners to prohibit hunting is unenforceable and clearly an emotional, not a reasonable or factual response to an accident/illegal hunting accident.

Prohibiting the discharge of firearms and other hunting implements IN THE TOWN, is too broad and impacts on the Pistol Permitting Process and the right to self defense. It is also contrary to the Dangerous Weapons statute which allows the use of air rifles/ BB guns and would disallow archery practice on privately owned lands, of which the Town has no control. All these are contingent upon placing "any person or property in jeopardy of injury." we wonder who would make this determination and such actions are already covered under statutory law.

Increasing the 500 foot State requirement for firearms hunting from buildings to 500 yards is clearly exceeds the town's authority. This is exactly the type of local excess of law for which the Coalition sued East Hartford and won. Further, it totally ignores the no distance requirement for bowhunting and demonstrates little knowledge of air gun range.

The possession of any loaded firearm on Town owned property restriction is an offshoot of the "Guns in Public Buildings" law we have defeated for the past two years in West Hartford and in the Legislature. There are no state restrictions on the carrying of loaded handguns except in the Capitol, Legislative Office Building , other places the Legislature meets or buildings posted "no guns" by the owner. The town has no authority for sweeping legislation.

In conclusion, in our opinion, the Town has the authority to pass ONLY the first sentence of the Preamble. The remainder is preempted by the state and illegal.

Many times Town Fathers will pass illegal ordinances requested by one or more residents or to CYA as a method of "solving the problem" - real or perceived. Most of these ordinances are NOT enforced, and when enforced and the town loses in court, the Town can then say "we tried." The Coalition is currently coordinating with state authorities to preclude such illegal actions. Should that fail, we'll be looking for an aggrieved party to become a plaintiff is suing Woodbridge - and we'll win.

It is interesting to note, many other towns are developing special hunt programs for public land to control the deer population. With this ordinance Woodbridge town fathers may face other more vocal citizens with real problems as these legislatively established no-management zones become a haven for poachers and high deer populations causing increased deer-car collisions and homeowner damage.

We applaud Ms Cooper for her testimony and involvement in opposition to this ordinance.