• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Conflicting info on Open Carry

Skinnedknuckles

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
108
Location
Connecticut
Sometimes, reading too much does not lead to more understanding. A case in point:

On the CT Judicial Branch Library site about Firearms Law (http://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/law/firearms.htm) in their "Summary of Gun Legislation" (http://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/law/firearms.htm) they still state what I heard in my NRA course

The permit to carry handguns allows people to carry them openly or concealed, but mature judgment, says the Board of Firearm Permit Examiners, dictates that (1) “every effort should be made to ensure that no gun is exposed to view or carried in any manner that would tend to alarm people who see it. . .[and] (2) no handgun should be carried unless carrying the gun at the time and place involved is prudent and proper in the circumstances.”

However, at the excellent ctcarry.com site an article on open carry (http://ctcarry.com/Permits/Unconcealed) says

BFPE states in no uncertain terms that open carry is legal and goes further to admonish an officer out of Fairfield for arresting someone for open carry

Did BFPE change their stance since the Law Library article or were they misquoted, or what? Thanks for any information.

BTW, while I'm asking silly questions, the statutes refer to a prohibition to carry firearms when disallowed by "by the person who owns or exercises control over the premises". Is there any standard how that prohibition should be conveyed? I know that if you are orally told carry is not allowed and don't leave you would be in violation, but what about signage standards?
 
Last edited:

brk913

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2007
Messages
370
Location
Plainville, CT
Years ago someone at the Board allowed that statement, (1) “every effort should be made to ensure that no gun is exposed to view" to appear on their website. It never carried the weight of law and has since been removed (several years ago in fact). There is no confusion, OC is 100% legal in CT (with a permit).

ETA: In CT there is no signage standard or notification requirement standard for places that prohibit weapons.
 
Last edited:

Freiheit417

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Messages
167
Location
Connecticut
The permit to carry handguns allows people to carry them openly or concealed, but mature judgment, says the Board of Firearm Permit Examiners, dictates that (1) “every effort should be made to ensure that no gun is exposed to view or carried in any manner that would tend to alarm people who see it. . .[and] (2) no handgun should be carried unless carrying the gun at the time and place involved is prudent and proper in the circumstances.”

This information is still on the BFPE site, but references OLR 2007-R-0369. http://www.ct.gov/bfpe/cwp/view.asp?a=1838&Q=477482
See this link though>> http://www.ct.gov/bfpe/cwp/view.asp?a=1253&Q=456516 This references OLR 2008-R-0238 which came out afterwards.

1. Is there any statute prescribing that firearms must be carried concealed?

The answer is no. The law does not address this issue. But, with limited exceptions, it is illegal to carry a handgun, whether concealed or openly, without a permit, except in one's home or place of business (CGS § 29-35(a)).


Did BFPE change their stance since the Law Library article or were they misquoted, or what? Thanks for any information.

They did not misquote, but it's my understanding that the BPFE has stated much more recently that it is unequivocally legal.

BTW, while I'm asking silly questions, the statutes refer to a prohibition to carry firearms when disallowed by "by the person who owns or exercises control over the premises". Is there any standard how that prohibition should be conveyed? I know that if you are orally told carry is not allowed and don't leave you would be in violation, but what about signage standards?


“[T]he issuance of a permit to carry a pistol or revolver does not thereby authorize the possession or carrying of a pistol or revolver in any premises where the possession or carrying of a pistol or revolver is otherwise prohibited by law or is prohibited by the person who owns or exercises control over such premises” (CGS § 29-28(e)).

There is nothing else in the CGS providing standards for the method of communication. It is purely subjective. Some may see this as a good thing, while others may feel the subjectivity just invites an officer to inject his or her opinion into the matter. If it is not communicated in a manner that would come to the attention of the average person, has it been communicated at all? :rolleyes:
 

Edward Peruta

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
1,247
Location
Connecticut USA
Mature Judgement

To openly carry:

In the late summer or early fall of 2007, I attended a BOFPE meeting and asked the board to justify the statement regarding "MATURE JUDGEMENT" along with other statements found on their website.

The board at the time listened, researched the issue and removed the "MATURE JUDGEMENT" statement along with all the other freqently asked questions from their website.

You will still find references in historical documents on the internet, but rest assured, the board now understands that carring openly is legal.
 

Skinnedknuckles

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
108
Location
Connecticut
Thanks to all for the responses. I thought it was just out of date information but I wanted to be sure.

Since the Summary is still an active link on the Law Library site, is there any way to ask them to either remove or update the link or make the document as "historical"?
 
Top