Hmmm cops w/mags carrying 10+ rds can now be arrested?

Stupid law....they make cops exempt while on duty.

Technically, an exemption is not an "exemption" unless its plead in court (as it can be waived) AND it requires them to be on duty ... how are you supposed to know? Another thing they have to prove as an affirmative defense if arrested/Indictment ....

Affirmative defenses do not exist outside a court proceeding .... just spit-balling the goofy nature of this stupid PA 13-3 law.

They're exempt when off duty according this: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/BA/2013SB-01160-R00-BA.htm

Exemptions from the Ban

The following may possess, purchase, or import LCMs:

1. members or employees of DESPP, police departments, DOC, or the Armed Forces (service members) (a) for use in the discharge of their official duties or (b) when off duty;

2. employees of a NRC licensee operating a nuclear power plant in Connecticut for providing security services at the facility, or any person, firm, corporation, contractor, or subcontractor providing security at the facility; or

3. in-state manufacturers of LCM that manufacture or transport LCMs in Connecticut for sale here to exempt persons and entities above or for sale out of state.

larch said:

They're exempt when off duty according this: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/BA/2013SB-01160-R00-BA.htm
.

Click to expand...

That's correct .. but a claim of an exemption is an affirmative defense - it does not exist until plead in court. That's my point.

the cop needs to prove two things: 1st) he is a cop and 2nd) he's on duty

larch said:

They're exempt when off duty according this: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/BA/2013SB-01160-R00-BA.htm

Exemptions from the Ban

The following may possess, purchase, or import LCMs:

1. members or employees of DESPP, police departments, DOC, or the Armed Forces (service members) (a) for use in the discharge of their official duties or (b) when off duty;

2. employees of a NRC licensee operating a nuclear power plant in Connecticut for providing security services at the facility, or any person, firm, corporation, contractor, or subcontractor providing security at the facility; or

3. in-state manufacturers of LCM that manufacture or transport LCMs in Connecticut for sale here to exempt persons and entities above or for sale out of state.

Click to expand...

I don't understand how this came about. I re watched the debate and detailed repeated explanation of the proposed law and specifically the sparing between Minor and Fox. Fox explained in black and white terms, that they(pd) were NOT exempt off duty and furthermore had to abide by the same rules the general public. period.

There are a couple other contradictions that have arose from explanation on the floor, to the written published interpretation of this unconstitutional law.

So lets say hypothetically your in court defending yourself from something that arose from this new law and as luck would have it, the law was explained in great detail as to it's meaning and interpretation before being voted in.(which it was)
You present this "supporting evidence" in your favor contradicting ct's written explanation of the law. Who wins??

I can see many of these "contradictions" being explored, Not just the leo issue.

I just asked an uncle who is a Ct police officer about this part of the new law, He said Ct police as sworn officers are never off duty, even when off duty pretty much exempting all police from the Hi-Cap Mag Law. I didn't argue but would like to see where it says this.

I think that motormax highlighted that the law allows cops to carry off-duty ... so I think that this thread is a dead duck. Sorry...

davidmcbeth said:

I think that motormax highlighted that the law allows cops to carry off-duty ... so I think that this thread is a dead duck. Sorry...

Click to expand...

A misunderstand has been corrected regarding this law and cited for clarification.

OP has requested that this thread be locked - request granted.