• 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.

State Police OPEN CARRY Training Bulletin requested

E

Edward Peruta

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
1,247
Location
Connecticut USA
To: All Connecticut residents who posses a valid Permit To Carry Pistols and Revolvers

Information has been provided to www.ctgunright.com and www.ctcarry.com that the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection issued and circulated a Training Bulletin regarding the topic of OPEN CARRY in CT.

Information provided by a very reliable source leads me to believe that this Training Bulletin is approximately 3 pages in length and was circulated within the past several weeks.

Based on the information provided to me regarding the content of this Training Bulletin, I believe that it will further document the postions taken by many individuals on this message boarrd that OPEN CARRY HAS BEEN AND IS legally permitted in CT.


The following emailed FOI requestwas made late last night to obtain the Training Bulletin as soon as possible so that it may be shared with everyone on this message board.

From: Edward Peruta [mailto:edperuta@amcable.tv]
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 10:32 PM
To: 'reuben.bradford@ct.gov'; 'Alexandre, Henri'; 'terrence.oneill@ct.gov'
Cc: 'Rachel Baird'; 'Rich Burgess'; BOFPE Susan Mazzoccoli
Subject: Freedom of Information Request for Prompt Access to Public Records


Commissioner Bradford,

It has come to my attention today April 28[SUP]th[/SUP] that your department has recently issued and circulated a TRAINING BULLETIN regarding OPEN CARRY of Pistols and Revolvers by those in possession of a Valid Permit to Carry.

As you must be aware, this topic has been discussed and researched by countless individuals and members of law enforcement throughout the State of Connecticut.

I have and do believe that every individual who possesses a Valid Permit to Carry should be informed of your agencies position of this topic.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST FOR PROMPT ACCESS TO A PUBLIC RECORD.

With this is mind, I request PROMPT ACCESS to ANY and ALL training bulletins or directives regarding the topic of individuals carrying pistols or revolvers while in possession of a Valid Permit to Carry.

In the event that you or your legal staff have no knowledge of this reported training bulletin, I would like you to include the Commanding Officer of each of your barracks so that the reported document may be provided in a prompt manner.

I am prepared to present myself to you or anyone you designate on Monday April 29[SUP]th[/SUP] to review and possibly obtain the requested public record.

I authorize the Office of Attorney Rachel M. Baird or Richard Burgess to act in my behalf in this matter.

Please notify me at your earliest convenience so that I may make the appropriate plans to have someone at your headquarters.


Respectfully,

Edward A. Peruta
American News and Information Services Inc.
860-978-5455
 
S

smokeyburnout

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
125
Location
connecticut
After reading the memo it looks to me like they are telling officers that its ok to ask for your permit and if you refuse to show it that they can arrest you for interfering with an investigation.
 
S

Skinnedknuckles

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
108
Location
Connecticut
smokeyburnout said:
After reading the memo it looks to me like they are telling officers that its ok to ask for your permit and if you refuse to show it that they can arrest you for interfering with an investigation.
Click to expand...

Sounds that way to me, too. Seems to make us a "must identify" state if we open carry, since carrying without your permit on your person is an infraction, similar to driving without your license on your person. The difference is that they can't stop you just to check your license, as a general rule, I believe (IANAL).

Ed, thanks for getting this document. It does set a standard we can use.
 
Rich B

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
Stop and identify is not the law in Connecticut, but this is simply the next stage of the fight. The line has moved forward. Lets take a moment and breath before we spend all our time worrying about the next step.
 
davidmcbeth

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
what was the purpose of getting and releasing this memo? When was this memo issued? Another great job of not DATING documents.

A citizen should not put too much weight into this document. It will mean nothing in court and it was not intended for that purpose.

This memo is obsolete.
 
S

Shawn Mitola

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
138
Location
Shelton
davidmcbeth said:
what was the purpose of getting and releasing this memo? When was this memo issued? Another great job of not DATING documents.

A citizen should not put too much weight into this document. It will mean nothing in court and it was not intended for that purpose.

This memo is obsolete.
Click to expand...

I think I have to disagree with you. The document may not be dated but it is numbered #2013-01 I believe that makes it an official document which WOULD stand up in court and also would be traceable by that number.
 
Rich B

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
Shawn Mitola said:
I think I have to disagree with you. The document may not be dated but it is numbered #2013-01 I believe that makes it an official document which WOULD stand up in court and also would be traceable by that number.
Click to expand...

Don_6b51d3_1483643.jpg
 
davidmcbeth

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Shawn Mitola said:
I think I have to disagree with you. The document may not be dated but it is numbered #2013-01 I believe that makes it an official document which WOULD stand up in court and also would be traceable by that number.
Click to expand...

Believe me ... this document is not your friend ..
 
S

smokeyburnout

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
125
Location
connecticut
I still think this is a document advocating the violation of 4th amendment rights. Sounds like 1step forward and 2 steps back.
 
Rich B

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
smokeyburnout said:
I still think this is a document advocating the violation of 4th amendment rights. Sounds like 1step forward and 2 steps back.
Click to expand...

So the line used to be that people (and some cops) thought that BoP was totally fine to arrest people for. And they did on occassion.

Now the line is that the most they will do is request your permit.

Where is the step back?


Now we need to fight the permit request issue. That is the new line. We all know it is not reasonable per Terry, Hiibel and others, but that is what the fight is about.
 
S

smokeyburnout

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
125
Location
connecticut
I see it as a step back when you have to give up one right to excersize another. I understand that its good that they are acknowledging that it is lawful to OC in Connecticut but are basicly giving their officers a way to backdoor that acknowledgment by forcing people to give up their rights. After all, what change has been made if at the end of the day they drempt up a different reason to arrest you for the same act just under a different charge?
 
Rich B

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
smokeyburnout said:
I see it as a step back when you have to give up one right to excersize another. I understand that its good that they are acknowledging that it is lawful to OC in Connecticut but are basicly giving their officers a way to backdoor that acknowledgment by forcing people to give up their rights. After all, what change has been made if at the end of the day they drempt up a different reason to arrest you for the same act just under a different charge?
Click to expand...

That doesn't make sense. You would have been arrested, permit or not before. Now you can choose to preset your permit or fight it.

I don't think you have thought this through at all. How can they just arrest you for the same act but for a different charge now? You can just supply your permit if you don't want to challenge it.

And further, at the end of the day, you can still just not OC. Just like before.
 
davidmcbeth

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
smokeyburnout said:
I still think this is a document advocating the violation of 4th amendment rights. Sounds like 1step forward and 2 steps back.
Click to expand...

It is exactly that .... and would be used to thwart 1983 claims ... unfortunately, we likely cannot see draft records that ended up with this being the final one ... our FOIA act exempts "drafts" but if the final one is meant to violate our rights maybe we can get the drafts ...

I'll shoot off a follow-up FOI if nobody else wants to.
 
S

smokeyburnout

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
125
Location
connecticut
Rich B said:
That doesn't make sense. You would have been arrested, permit or not before. Now you can choose to preset your permit or fight it.

I don't think you have thought this through at all. How can they just arrest you for the same act but for a different charge now? You can just supply your permit if you don't want to challenge it.

And further, at the end of the day, you can still just not OC. Just like before.
Click to expand...

It's not that you would have been arrested before its that you could have. The same as now. Just under a different pretense. I was stopped before this memo came out and wasnt arrested. I suppose we will just have to see how it plays out. In reading the memo i just see another reason for a cop to arrest you even if its illegal
 
S

smokeyburnout

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
125
Location
connecticut
Which would make it another reason to hassle you for OC and force you to give up a right to excersize another.
Would you feel better if they put out a memo saying its not against the law to speak your mind in public but if you refuse to id yourself you could be arrested? How is this any different?
They realize that OC is legal but in the same breath say its fine to demand your permit. To me that's wrong and if you don't see how that's wrong then im sorry. And to say all you have to do is cc on a website titled opencarry.org is nonsence.
 
Rich B

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
smokeyburnout said:
Which would make it another reason to hassle you for OC and force you to give up a right to excersize another.
Would you feel better if they put out a memo saying its not against the law to speak your mind in public but if you refuse to id yourself you could be arrested? How is this any different?
They realize that OC is legal but in the same breath say its fine to demand your permit. To me that's wrong and if you don't see how that's wrong then im sorry. And to say all you have to do is cc on a website titled opencarry.org is nonsence.
Click to expand...

Well ok then. Clearly you are right. Going from being arrested straight off to simply being IDed and let go is going backwards.

I guess this is the twilight zone and I didn't realize it.

Good luck out there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top