Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Need here in CT

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    15

    Need here in CT

    Why can't our Representatives do this here as well.


    http://www.heraldextra.com/news/loca...9774ac38d.html


    SALT LAKE CITY -- The Utah House of Representatives approved a bill that clarifies that a person cannot be charged with disorderly conduct for openly carrying a gun in public.

    On a vote of 50-21 the House approved a bill that strengthens a person's right to open carry and not be cited for simply having a gun where the public can see.

    "We have people that are legally carrying and committing nothing disorderly but being ticketed for disorderly conduct," Rep. Paul Ray, R-Clearfield, the bill's sponsor, said.

    The bill, if it had been a law then, would have prevented a situation that took place at Utah Valley University in 2010 in which a student was stopped by campus police for openly carrying his gun on campus.

    The student was hanging a banner at the school when fellow students noticed his gun. The students alerted campus police that a man had a gun on campus. Police asked him to conceal his weapon, which he did, until it was clarified whether open carry was allowed on UVU's campus. Under Ray's proposal the student wouldn't have been questioned because he didn't commit any questionable behavior.

    Democrats argued that carrying a gun in certain areas and at certain points in the day could be seen as a disorderly and wondered if the law was lessening gun restrictions too much.

    Rep. Brian King, D-Salt Lake City, wondered if a person walking into a convenience store in the middle of the night and openly carrying a gun might be considered threatening. While Rep. Carol Spackman-Moss, D-Salt Lake City, argued that if she went to a fast food restaurant or a movie theater with her grandchildren and she saw someone open carrying a gun, she would either leave or duck for cover.

    Gun activists in the House said the bill is protecting people who are doing something legal and argued that guns are no more a threat to the public than other weapons used to harm people.

    "A gun is no different than a knife, a gun is no different than a baseball bat," Rep. Michael Noel, R-Kanab, said.

    Rep. Chris Herrod, R-Provo, expressed his frustration for the need for such a law. He said that the Legislature had already set policy in this area and that local agencies needed to heed the Legislature's call on the matter.

    "Frankly, this bill should not be necessary," Herrod said. "I'm saddened that it has to be brought forward."

    The bill now moves on to be considered by the Senate.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    I don't understand the need to have a law that says you shouldn't be arrested for lawful activity.

    Rep. Chris Herrod, R-Provo, expressed his frustration for the need for such a law. He said that the Legislature had already set policy in this area and that local agencies needed to heed the Legislature's call on the matter.

    "Frankly, this bill should not be necessary," Herrod said. "I'm saddened that it has to be brought forward."
    ^ Exactly.

    Furthermore, I am not sure how much this bill really does other than clarify against silly interpretations of statutes. It does not appear to add any additional civil or criminal liability to the officer making the arrest.

    Our own disorderly conduct is as follows:

    Quote Originally Posted by Sec. 53a-182
    Disorderly conduct: Class C misdemeanor.
    (a) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person: (1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or (2) by offensive or disorderly conduct, annoys or interferes with another person; or (3) makes unreasonable noise; or (4) without lawful authority, disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons; or (5) obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or (6) congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a reasonable official request or order to disperse; or (7) commits simple trespass, as provided in section 53a-110a, and observes, in other than a casual or cursory manner, another person (A) without the knowledge or consent of such other person, (B) while such other person is inside a dwelling, as defined in section 53a-100, and not in plain view, and (C) under circumstances where such other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
    Jury Instructions

    Quote Originally Posted by Specific Intent
    Specific intent is the intent to achieve a specific result. A person acts "intentionally" with respect to a result when (his/her) conscious objective is to cause such result. What the defendant intended is a question of fact for you to determine. <See Evidence of Intent, Instruction 2.3-2.>
    So all that being said, I would suggest that an even better clause to our statute would be as follows:
    Quote Originally Posted by Sec. 53a-182
    Disorderly conduct: Class C misdemeanor.
    (a) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person: (1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or (2) by offensive or disorderly conduct, actively annoys or interferes with another person; or (3) makes unreasonable noise; or (4) without lawful authority, disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons; or (5) obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or (6) congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a reasonable official request or order to disperse; or (7) commits simple trespass, as provided in section 53a-110a, and observes, in other than a casual or cursory manner, another person (A) without the knowledge or consent of such other person, (B) while such other person is inside a dwelling, as defined in section 53a-100, and not in plain view, and (C) under circumstances where such other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
    Even though courts have made this language pretty damned clear:

    Quote Originally Posted by http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5964393357805156275&hl=en&as_sdt =2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
    In order to ensure that the mens rea language of 53a-182 passes constitutional muster, we therefore adopt the Kentucky court's gloss on the same statutory language. The intent denoted in 53a-182 (a) is the predominant intent as defined by the Kentucky Court of Appeals in Colten v. Commonwealth, supra. To paraphrase, in order to support a conviction for disorderly conduct, the defendant's predominant intent must be to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, rather than to exercise his constitutional rights.
    The concept of the reasonable person runs throughout the law and the concept of contemporary community standards has roots in obscenity law jurisprudence. Thus, this standard should ensure that a person of ordinary intelligence has reasonable notice of what the law permits or forbids.
    This case resulted in this note below the statute:

    Subdiv. (1) cited. 8 CA 153; Id., 517; 36 CA 625; judgment reversed, see 237 C. 613. Subdiv. (2) cited. 40 CA 643. Cited. 46 CA 661. Subdiv. (1) cited. Id. Subdiv. (2): Held unconstitutional on its face where conduct occurred prior to judicial gloss placed on statute. Id. Subdiv. (2) should be read and applied as follows: A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with the predominant intent previously defined or with reckless disregard for the risks of his or her conduct, the person, by conduct that is grossly offensive under contemporary community standards to a person who actually overhears it or sees it, disturbs or impedes the lawful activity of another person. 83 CA 724. There was sufficient evidence presented by the state and the court reasonably could have inferred on the basis of the size of defendants' belongings and their position on the sidewalk that defendants intended to cause inconvenience, annoyance and alarm and did obstruct sidewalk. 108 CA 146.
    Last edited by Rich B; 02-22-2012 at 11:28 AM.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Legilstures routinely do not re-write laws that have been clarified by the courts ... otherwise that's all that they would do !

    Instead our legislature is busy figuring out how to drain us dry (red light cameras etc)

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    108
    Seems to me we only have to look at the Goldberg vs. Glastonbury case to show how much we need a similar statute.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Skinnedknuckles View Post
    Seems to me we only have to look at the Goldberg vs. Glastonbury case to show how much we need a similar statute.
    Goldberg was arrested for Breach of Peace, not Disorderly Conduct.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    Goldberg was arrested for Breach of Peace, not Disorderly Conduct.
    I'm not a lawyer, so it seems like a difference without a distinction. I guess then we need both. Issue as I understood he was legally OC and a patron got upset just because he was OC, and the upset patron alone was the cause of the arrest and charge. Maybe there was more I didn't understand.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Skinnedknuckles View Post
    I'm not a lawyer, so it seems like a difference without a distinction. I guess then we need both. Issue as I understood he was legally OC and a patron got upset just because he was OC, and the upset patron alone was the cause of the arrest and charge. Maybe there was more I didn't understand.
    No patron called. It was the manager. The manager was not 'upset', they were a permit holder who was taught erroneously that you had to conceal. The manager called the police to ask if you need to conceal.

    Breach of Peace and Disorderly Conduct are two different laws and the police tend to use both of them as a 'catch all' for arresting people for things they don't agree with but that are not illegal.

    Neither charge in the state of Connecticut are applicable to someone simply not concealing their firearm. People who argue they do apply ignore the plain text of those statutes and the very clear court decisions defining the terms of the two statutes.
    Last edited by Rich B; 02-24-2012 at 10:26 AM.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  8. #8
    Regular Member brk913's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Plainville, CT
    Posts
    370
    Quote Originally Posted by Skinnedknuckles View Post
    Issue as I understood he was legally OC and a patron got upset just because he was OC, and the upset patron alone was the cause of the arrest and charge.
    That sounds more like the incident at the pool hall in Wallingford eh Rich?

  9. #9
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by brk913 View Post
    That sounds more like the incident at the pool hall in Wallingford eh Rich?
    In very vague terms, yes, more so than Goldberg's case, certainly.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    No patron called. It was the manager. The manager was not 'upset', they were a permit holder who was taught erroneously that you had to conceal. The manager called the police to ask if you need to conceal.

    Breach of Peace and Disorderly Conduct are two different laws and the police tend to use both of them as a 'catch all' for arresting people for things they don't agree with but that are not illegal.

    Neither charge in the state of Connecticut are applicable to someone simply not concealing their firearm. People who argue they do apply ignore the plain text of those statutes and the very clear court decisions defining the terms of the two statutes.
    Didn't Goldberg lose both in the original case and on appeal? If so, then it is the judges who "can't read".

  11. #11
    Regular Member brk913's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Plainville, CT
    Posts
    370
    Quote Originally Posted by Skinnedknuckles View Post
    Didn't Goldberg lose both in the original case and on appeal? If so, then it is the judges who "can't read".
    He did not lose the criminal case the Judge dismissed the Breach of Peace charge. It is the civil case against the town he lost.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by brk913 View Post
    It is the civil case against the town he lost.
    Has not won != lost. From what I have heard, the case is not yet done.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  13. #13
    Regular Member brk913's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Plainville, CT
    Posts
    370
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    Has not won != lost. From what I have heard, the case is not yet done.
    I know he appealed the dismissal of his suit but I heard the Federal Judge upheld the dismissal of his civil suit against the town. If true I think that part is over unless he can appeal the appeal (did I just type that?). However, my reply to the poster who said the Judge didn't read the BOP statute stands, the Judge read it and agreed, you cannot be charged with BOP for simply OC.
    Last edited by brk913; 02-27-2012 at 04:24 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by brk913 View Post
    I know he appealed the dismissal of his suit but I heard the Federal Judge upheld the dismissal of his civil suit against the town. If true I think that part is over unless he can appeal the appeal (did I just type that?). However, my reply to the poster who said the Judge didn't read the BOP statute stands, the Judge read it and agreed, you cannot be charged with BOP for simply OC.
    The appeals court did uphold the qualified immunity. That isn't really what you describe, and yes, you can appeal and appeal by going to the higher court level.

    If you actually read the decisions of the courts they are pretty silly and are ripe for appeal.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    connecticut
    Posts
    125
    Its just sad in America when you have to pay to prove your innocence. The simple fact that even the judges wont acknowlage the LEO wrongdoing is very very disappointing.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by smokeyburnout View Post
    Its just sad in America when you have to pay to prove your innocence. The simple fact that even the judges wont acknowlage the LEO wrongdoing is very very disappointing.
    A cop arresting you w/o good cause PC, etc. is committing a crime ... arrest him ! Citizen's arrest.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •