• 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.

Where cant I carry?

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
So we're still waiting on the citation with a link stating that it is unlawful to enter state property armed while working on a state contract.

Well this is the executive order:

http://www.ct.gov/opm/lib/opm/olr/wpv/exc16.pdf

I am not 'up' on the ins and outs of executive orders honestly.

That each agency must prominently post this policy and that all managers
and supervisors must clearly communicate this policy to all state
employees.


Looks like a good reason to never work for the State. Not like anyone should need another one...
 
Last edited:

dcmdon

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
469
Location
Old Saybrook, CT
Based on the language, it appears that the state recognizes that they must disclose the presence of this policy, for it to have any legal authority.

So again, we're back to my original point. If there's no notification, you are clean.
 
Last edited:

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
And it appears that they are aware that they must inform the workers for it to have any legal authority.

If I am reading it correctly it also does not even attempt to indicate that the employee will be arrested for carrying a weapon, only that they can be dismissed and the weapon confiscated.

Looks like a typical mess.
 

dcmdon

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
469
Location
Old Saybrook, CT
Well, if they have been properly notified and its properly documented, then they could be punished under 29-28(e). Which as BRK913 pointed out could be up to 3 yrs.
 

brk913

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2007
Messages
370
Location
Plainville, CT
I'm still waiting for the citation that says that it is unlawful to enter state owned property armed while working for a company on a state contract.

Here you go: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0547.htm This executive order still stands and Executive Orders carry the weight of law, they need no statute number attached, therefore it is a violation of 29-28 because as I said it is prohibited by law.

ETA: I posted this without reading beyond the post where you requested a cite, I see Rich already found it for you. I worked as a state contractor but not at a state owned facility so I was allowed to carry. I still disagree regarding your opinion on notice in CT if someone just wants to ban firearms from their property, the law in CT does not mandate notification and again without notification you would have a great affirmative defense but you could still be charged under 29-28 (e) and have to explain it to the court...just because you have not heard it happening does not mean it has not. This would not be criminal possession of a firearm it would be a violation of 29-28 (e) so the jury instructions posted do not apply in these situations.
 
Last edited:

dcmdon

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
469
Location
Old Saybrook, CT
Here you go: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0547.htm This executive order still stands and Executive Orders carry the weight of law, they need no statute number attached, therefore it is a violation of 29-28 because as I said it is prohibited by law.

ETA: I posted this without reading beyond the post where you requested a cite, I see Rich already found it for you. I worked as a state contractor but not at a state owned facility so I was allowed to carry. I still disagree regarding your opinion on notice in CT if someone just wants to ban firearms from their property, the law in CT does not mandate notification and again without notification you would have a great affirmative defense but you could still be charged under 29-28 (e) and have to explain it to the court...just because you have not heard it happening does not mean it has not. This would not be criminal possession of a firearm it would be a violation of 29-28 (e) so the jury instructions posted do not apply in these situations.

Thats fine. However, its well established that notification is required before someone is in violation of 29-28(e).
Please see the text of the actual executive order: http://www.ct.gov/opm/lib/opm/olr/wpv/exc16.pdf

Your example is simply an example (hundreds of which exist in the state) of a property owner/controller prohibiting armed entry.
The order explicitly requires that any employees/contractors be notified; an explicit acceptance that notification is required for this prohibition to have any legal authority.

So maybe we're arguing about nothing.

I'm not arguing that the order is not valid. But it requires notification.

I'm also guessing that you would agree that notification is required for it to be valid. True?
 
Last edited:

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
And here is another thing to consider (just to throw the thread off-tilt a little more):

Some businesses will tell you that they don't care if you carry a gun, but you can't carry it unconcealed. That was the outcome of the pool hall I was arrested at. No sign, just causing problems one at a time for people.

How that can be enforced within the laws, I don't know, and I believe there are shades of unconstitutionality all over our laws on these issues.
 

dcmdon

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
469
Location
Old Saybrook, CT
And here is another thing to consider (just to throw the thread off-tilt a little more):

Some businesses will tell you that they don't care if you carry a gun, but you can't carry it unconcealed. That was the outcome of the pool hall I was arrested at. No sign, just causing problems one at a time for people.

How that can be enforced within the laws, I don't know, and I believe there are shades of unconstitutionality all over our laws on these issues.

Based on my reading of your pool hall arrest documents, the problem was the cops.

The person who controlled the pool hall was ok with you OCing once you explained yourself. And if I remember right, you offered to leave or conceal if he required.

The thing that gun people need to recognize is that when your right to self defense conflicts with a private property owner's right to control their own property, property rights win simply because you have the option to go to another pool hall. However, they need to NOTIFY you. Whether its with a sign or simply a verbal request to cover up or leave.

Private property owners can be arbitrary and capricious as to who they allow entry to. He could have given you a pink hat and said that if you wanted to OC, you needed to wear a pink hat. All perfectly legal.

I think we both agree that if the same situation happened today, there would not be an arrest.

I do think there are some constitutional issues at play when the state restricts entry under 29-28(e) simply because the state is a monopoly and you can't take your government business to another government.
 
Last edited:

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
Based on my reading of your pool hall arrest documents, the problem was the cops.

The person who controlled the pool hall was ok with you OCing once you explained yourself. And if I remember right, you offered to leave or conceal if he required.

Well I of course agree. That is why the police are defendants and the pool hall owner is not.

However, the pool hall owner has made it clear to me that he doesn't care if I carry in there as long as it is concealed. So the question becomes, how does that effect everyone else?

However, they need to NOTIFY you. Whether its with a sign or simply a verbal request to cover up or leave.

I honor property rights in either case, but the latter leaves a lot to be desired and is some odd legal area.


Private property owners can be arbitrary and capricious as to who they allow entry to. He could have given you a pink hat and said that if you wanted to OC, you needed to wear a pink hat. All perfectly legal.

Not entirely, but that is not at all what I am referring to nor am I arguing it.

I think we both agree that if the same situation happened today, there would not be an arrest.

Considering I was not arrested by the Lt at the memorial day parade directly afterwards that made contact with me, I would tend to agree.

I do think there are some constitutional issues at play when the state restricts entry under 29-28(e) simply because the state is a monopoly and you can't take your government business to another government.

I think that is the reason we see the executive order instead of an actual statute.
 
Top