Please explain this to me.......1500 feet?

Chapter 231. FIREARMS
[HISTORY: Adopted by the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Woodbridge 5-2-1983 as Ch. 5, Art. II, of the 1983 Code; Editor's Note: This ordinance was originally adopted by the Special Town Meeting 8-11-1947 and amended by the Town Meeting 5-16-1960. amended 12-12-2000, effective 1-12-2001. Subsequent amendments noted where applicable.]

GENERAL REFERENCES
Fireworks — See Ch. 242.
§ 231-1. Policy and purpose.
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 on private property that abuts or adjoins Town-owned land. In furtherance of these goals, this chapter is amended and restated as follows.
§ 231-2. Restrictions on discharge of firearm, crossbow or longbow.
No person shall discharge any firearm, air gun, air rifle or crossbow or longbow 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 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.
§ 231-3. Town property.
No hunting or target shooting or any other activity involving the discharge of a firearm, air gun, air rifle or crossbow, longbow or other weapon shall be permitted on any Town-owned property. The possession of any loaded firearm, air gun, air rifle or crossbow, longbow or other weapon on Town-owned property shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this section.
§ 231-4. Penalties for offenses.
Editor's Note: Amended at time of adoption of Code (see Ch. 1, General Provisions, Art. II). Any violation of § 231-2 or 231-3 of this chapter shall be a violation punishable by a fine of not more than $100 or imprisonment for not more than 30 days, or both.

I think the Woodbridge ordinance is really meant to prohibit hunting on town owned land and to make target shooting safe. They are not saying that you are prohibited from hunting on private property in Woodbridge. I think the 500 yard thing may be a typo on their part as the state hunting regulations specify 500 feet. With the exception of the town of Westport which has a specific state statute restricting hunting, my understanding is that based on case law, the Commissioner of DEEP is the only authority that can control hunting and fishing in Connecticut.

Woodbridge can control target shooting by local ordinance. We have nothing to do with target shooting so that activity is outside our Commissioner's statutory authority to control.

I know the town of Orange has some type of town ordinance where you are supposed to get permission or notify the police department before you hunt.

Here's some info from an OLR report: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/rpt/2011-R-0137.htm (there's also info about firearm possession and use in the report)

Several courts have considered whether state law preempts local regulation of hunting, including State v. Brennan (3 Conn. Cir. Ct. 413, 216 A.2d 294 (1965)) and Kaluszka v. East Hartford (60 Conn. App. 749 (2000)).

In Brennan, the court held that the town of Westport, which was granted the power to regulate hunting within the town by special act, had no power under the special act to regulate hunting over navigable waters adjacent to the town. The court found that the state has preempted the field of regulating and encouraging the hunting of wildlife on public and private lands and waters (Id., 417).

In Kaluszka, the Appellate Court upheld a lower court decision that (1) an East Hartford ordinance was invalid to the extent it operated to regulate hunting and (2) the state has occupied the field in the area of hunting regulation. According to the trial court:

The comprehensive nature of the state hunting statutes and regulations, when considered along with the comments and actions of the General Assembly in its consideration of provisions that would have delegated power over hunting regulation to the towns is ample evidence of the legislature's intent. Accordingly, it is the opinion of the court that the town has no authority to regulate hunting on federal, state or private property within its borders. . . .Furthermore even if the court were to hold that the state has not occupied the field of hunting regulation, the hunting regulation provisions of § 13-33 are in conflict with the state statutes and are therefore preempted (Kaluszka v. East Hartford, 46 Conn. Sup. 588, 596, 597 (1999).

60 Conn. App. 749 (2000)
MICHAEL KALUSZKA
v.
TOWN OF EAST HARTFORD ET AL.
(AC 19554)

Appellate Court of Connecticut.
Argued September 25, 2000.
Officially released November 14, 2000.

Landau, Schaller and Callahan, JS.

Janis M. Small, corporation counsel, for the appellants (defendants).

Ralph D. Sherman, for the appellee (plaintiff).

750*750 Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendants, the town of East Hartford (town) and its mayor and chief of police,[1] appeal from the judgment rendered by the trial court in this declaratory judgment action. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly decided that the legislature has preempted municipalities from regulating hunting within their boundaries and that § 13-33 (b) (5) of the code of ordinances of the town of East Hartford[2] conflicts with General Statutes § 26-27c.[3] We affirm the 751*751 judgment of the trial court for the reasons set forth in the court's comprehensive memorandum of decision.

On September 2, 1997, the plaintiff, Michael Kaluszka, commenced a declaratory judgment action against the defendants seeking to have § 13-33 of the code of ordinances of the town of East Hartford declared invalid to the extent that the ordinance regulates hunting and to enjoin the mayor and the chief of police from enforcing § 13-33 to the extent that such ordinance regulates hunting that is otherwise lawful under state statutes and regulations. The plaintiff is a resident of the town and has a valid hunting license issued by the department of environmental protection (department). The plaintiff alleges that § 13-33 operates to regulate and prohibit hunting within the town, except as specified in § 13-33 (b) (5). He further alleges that General Statutes § 26-3 et seq. authorizes the commissioner of the department to regulate hunting in the state. He also alleges that the town does not have the legal authority to regulate hunting and that the mayor and chief of police are charged ex officio with enforcing the ordinance.

After the pleadings were closed, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that the town lacked authority to enact the disputed ordinance. The defendants objected to the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and filed a cross motion for summary judgment with affidavits, claiming that § 13-33 is a firearms regulation ordinance and that the prohibition of § 13-33 does not apply to hunting areas that comply with state regulations and have been approved by the 752*752 chief of police. The court rendered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, declaring that the legislature has preempted municipalities from regulating hunting and that § 13-33 is invalid to the extent that it operates to regulate hunting. The defendants appealed.

On the basis of our examination of the record and briefs, we are persuaded that the judgment of the court should be affirmed. The issues regarding the underlying dispute were resolved properly in the trial court's thoughtful and comprehensive memorandum of decision. See Kaluszka v. East Hartford, 46 Conn. Sup. 588, 760 A.2d 1282 (1999). Because that memorandum of decision fully addresses the arguments raised in this appeal, we adopt it as a proper statement of the facts and the applicable law on those issues. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. See East v. Labbe, 54 Conn. App. 479, 480-81, 735 A.2d 370 (1999), aff'd, 252 Conn. 359, 746 A.2d 751 (2000); In re Karrlo K., 40 Conn. App. 73, 75, 668 A.2d 1353 (1996).

The judgment is affirmed.

[1] The mayor is Robert M. DeCrescenzo and the chief of police is James Shay.

[2] Section 13-33 of the code of ordinances of the town of East Hartford provides in relevant part: "(a) No person shall discharge any firearm, rifle, CO2 gun, air gun, BB gun, sling shot, or bow and arrows, within the Town.

"(b) This Section shall not apply to the following circumstances ... (5) In an area recommended as a hunting area by the State and approved by the Chief of Police. Such area shall be posted as required by the Chief of Police and may be closed at any time by the Chief of Police...."

[3] General Statutes § 26-67c provides: "(a) The Commissioner of Environmental Protection shall maintain a record of all written complaints received by the department of violations of the regulations concerning hunting in proximity to buildings occupied by persons or domestic animals or used for storage of flammable or combustible materials or the regulations regarding shooting towards persons, buildings or animals. The commissioner shall hold a hearing at least once annually, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 54, at which changes in such regulations for particular localities shall be considered. The commissioner may amend such regulations for a particular locality where he finds that: (1) The physical setting of a particular locality presents an unreasonable risk that hunters may violate the regulations regarding hunting in proximity to buildings occupied by persons or domestic animals or used for storage of flammable or combustible materials or the regulations regarding shooting towards persons, buildings or animals or (2) a record of documented complaints reveals that violations of such regulations occur with significant frequency.

"(b) The chief law enforcement official for each municipality, or his designee, shall maintain a record of all complaints received by such official in each calendar year regarding any potential hazard to public safety related to any hunting activity and shall submit such record to the Commissioner of Environmental Protection annually. Such record shall be maintained separately from all other records of complaints received by such official. After an investigation of any such complaint, if the chief law enforcement official determines that a particular hunting activity in a particular location poses a hazard to public safety, he shall submit a written report of such determination to the Commissioner of Environmental Protection.

"(c) On or before February 1, 1995, and annually thereafter, the Commissioner of Environmental Protection shall submit a report to the joint standing committee of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to the environment which sets forth for the preceding year ending December thirty-first the number of complaints received and investigations conducted along with the action taken."

500 yards from Town owned property is BS. A lot of private land parcels are even not 500 yards wide. That would mean that you could not hunt on your own land even with a bow.

Woodbridge is home to a number of active antis who are part of a state wide movement to get all hunting banned.