Connecticut Carry - Press Release - Questioning the Competency and Credibility of Sen

Press Release

From: http://ctcarry.com/News/Release/91c98d17-6617-45e8-9521-c2eb5eb96198

Questioning the Competency and Credibility of Senators Blumenthal and Murphy

Letter sent to US House, Senate and FBI calls out unscrupulous attack on our rights

Hartford CT, August 8, 2013: In a letter dated August 5th, Connecticut Carry through Attorney Rachel Baird put the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate on notice that we are seeking an FBI investigation of criminal deprivation of rights under color of law with regards to statements made during a news conference held August 2nd.

In the news conference, Senator Blumenthal and Senator Murphy expressed interest in pursuing legislation at the Federal level to remove the right of citizens to bear firearms who have a temporary restraining order issued against them. Playing to ignorance and emotion, the first-term Senators tried to convey a message that somehow violent offenders are still allowed to own firearms. But what they were really doing is saying that the due process protected under the 5th and 14th Amendment of the United States is somehow a ‘loophole’.

A temporary restraining order (or ex parte restraining order) is an immediate protective order issued by a single judge. These orders do not require a crime to have been committed and they have a relatively low burden of proof, being easy to obtain. A temporary restraining order is simply an accusation, not proof or even probable cause of wrongdoing. If such cause existed, criminal statutes exist for such a purpose.

Current Federal and State law only prohibit the possession of firearms after a person subject to the order has been served notice of an order and has had a chance to be heard, at which time the order can be stayed and is no longer ‘temporary’, or it can be dissolved. The reason for the delineation in the laws for a hearing and notice is because a person cannot ‘be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law’ - 5th Amendment nor ‘shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law’ -14th Amendment. The Senators apparently wish to take the basic right of due process away by allowing a single judge to remove a person’s liberty and property with a single court order and no chance to be heard, and no crime alleged.

To further exacerbate the issue, Connecticut Carry has been following leads and working on cases of abuse by the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection under Commissioner Reuben Bradford, where citizens have been threatened with arrest if they did not turn their firearms over upon the issuance of temporary restraining order. The State of Connecticut has been doing this without the proper legal authority to do so, and it appears that Senator Blumenthal and Senator Murphy are now working to make these unconstitutional mandates by DESPP legal instead of properly representing the citizens of Connecticut. This conflict of interest is especially interesting since Senator Blumenthal is the former Connecticut Attorney General who oversaw such measures being implemented by the DESPP.

Senator Blumenthal and Senator Murphy’s motives here must be questioned, and with it, their competency and credibility. A good, hard look at each Senator’s commitment to the Constitution which they affirmed in their oath of office is also in order.

Read the letter here: http://ctcarry.com/Document/Download/c916ee24-5588-4c72-87fe-1c375c49eab0

Excellent read, Rich; hope to hell it gets the attention it deserves. This should certainly put gun owners at ease about telling the State Police to take a flying flip on a rolling donut if they have the unmitigated gall to attempt this crap again...

And DESPP cannot authorize one to break a law ~ if one has no pistol permit one cannot transport a handgun.

Typical DESPP letter ... full of dung

davidmcbeth said:

And DESPP cannot authorize one to break a law ~ if one has no pistol permit one cannot transport a handgun.

Typical DESPP letter ... full of dung

Click to expand...

timeout...what? what about 29-35's "formal pistol and revolver training" which is defined in the statute as relating only to the nature of the location???

CT Barfly said:

timeout...what? what about 29-35's "formal pistol and revolver training" which is defined in the statute as relating only to the nature of the location???

Click to expand...

Sec. 29-35. Carrying of pistol or revolver without permit prohibited. Exceptions. (a) No person shall carry any pistol or revolver upon his or her person, except when such person is within the dwelling house or place of business of such person, without a permit to carry the same issued as provided in section 29-28. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to the carrying of any pistol or revolver by any parole officer or peace officer of this state, or any Department of Motor Vehicles inspector appointed under section 14-8 and certified pursuant to section 7-294d, or parole officer or peace officer of any other state while engaged in the pursuit of official duties, or federal marshal or federal law enforcement agent, or to any member of the armed forces of the United States, as defined in section 27-103, or of this state, as defined in section 27-2, when on duty or going to or from duty, or to any member of any military organization when on parade or when going to or from any place of assembly, or to the transportation of pistols or revolvers as merchandise, or to any person transporting any pistol or revolver while contained in the package in which it was originally wrapped at the time of sale and while transporting the same from the place of sale to the purchaser’s residence or place of business, or to any person removing such person’s household goods or effects from one place to another, or to any person while transporting any such pistol or revolver from such person’s place of residence or business to a place or individual where or by whom such pistol or revolver is to be repaired or while returning to such person’s place of residence or business after the same has been repaired, or to any person transporting a pistol or revolver in or through the state for the purpose of taking part in competitions, taking part in formal pistol or revolver training, repairing such pistol or revolver or attending any meeting or exhibition of an organized collectors’ group if such person is a bona fide resident of the United States and is permitted to possess and carry a pistol or revolver in the state or subdivision of the United States in which such person resides, or to any person transporting a pistol or revolver to and from a testing range at the request of the issuing authority, or to any person transporting an antique pistol or revolver, as defined in section 29-33. For the purposes of this subsection, “formal pistol or revolver training” means pistol or revolver training at a locally approved or permitted firing range or training facility, and “transporting a pistol or revolver” means transporting a pistol or revolver that is unloaded and, if such pistol or revolver is being transported in a motor vehicle, is not readily accessible or directly accessible from the passenger compartment of the vehicle or, if such pistol or revolver is being transported in a motor vehicle that does not have a compartment separate from the passenger compartment, such pistol or revolver shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the carrying of a pistol or revolver during formal pistol or revolver training or repair.


Entire section..

The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to the carrying of any pistol or revolver by any parole officer or peace officer of this state, or any Department of Motor Vehicles inspector appointed under section 14-8 and certified pursuant to section 7-294d, or parole officer or peace officer of any other state while engaged in the pursuit of official duties, or federal marshal or federal law enforcement agent, or to any member of the armed forces of the United States, as defined in section 27-103, or of this state, as defined in section 27-2, when on duty or going to or from duty, or to any member of any military organization when on parade or when going to or from any place of assembly, or to the transportation of pistols or revolvers as merchandise, or to any person transporting any pistol or revolver while contained in the package in which it was originally wrapped at the time of sale and while transporting the same from the place of sale to the purchaser’s residence or place of business, or to any person removing such person’s household goods or effects from one place to another, or to any person while transporting any such pistol or revolver from such person’s place of residence or business to a place or individual where or by whom such pistol or revolver is to be repaired or while returning to such person’s place of residence or business after the same has been repaired, or to any person transporting a pistol or revolver in or through the state for the purpose of taking part in competitions, taking part in formal pistol or revolver training, repairing such pistol or revolver or attending any meeting or exhibition of an organized collectors’ group if such person is a bona fide resident of the United States and is permitted to possess and carry a pistol or revolver in the state or subdivision of the United States in which such person resides, or to any person transporting a pistol or revolver to and from a testing range at the request of the issuing authority, or to any person transporting an antique pistol or revolver, as defined in section 29-33.


Relevant sentence in section and highlighting need for permit; that's how the law is interpreted currently ... you need a permit. That's what several DAs have told me. I take their opinion to be controlling, not DESPP's, not a cops, but the highest law enforcement officer in the area(s).

The law exempts from the permit requirement Connecticut parole and peace officers; other states' parole or peace officers on official business; federal marshals and law enforcement officers; legally appointed and certified motor vehicle inspectors performing their official duties; U.S. Armed Forces members on, or going to or from, duty; and members of a military organization on parade or going to or from a place of assembly. It also exempts anyone carrying a handgun (1) in its original package from the point of purchase to his or her home or business place, (2) as merchandise, (3) for repair or when moving household goods, (4) to or from a testing range at a firearm permit-issuing authority's request, or (5) to a competition or exhibit under an out-of-state permit (CGS § 29-35).

Any nonresident with a valid out-of-state gun permit may apply directly to the DESPP commissioner for a Connecticut gun permit (CGS § 29-28(f)). Also, bona fide nonresidents permitted to possess and carry handguns in their home state may transport handguns in Connecticut without a Connecticut permit for the purpose of (1) participating in competitions, (2) participating in formal handgun training at a locally approved or permitted firing range or training facility, (3) taking the firearm for repair, or (4) attending meetings or exhibitions of organized gun collectors (CGS § 29-30). And nonresidents may transport handguns without a Connecticut permit through Connecticut for lawful purposes in accordance with federal law if they are not otherwise prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing guns and are transporting them between states where they can legally possess and carry them (CGS § 29-38d).

from: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0001.htm

From office of legislative research ...

And finally, DESPP is not asking one to carry to a range but to bring to their non-range facilities in the letter.

29-35 is horribly written ... it is currently interpreted as generally of one needing a permit to carry it out of you dwelling's 4 walls.

davidmcbeth said:

The law exempts from the permit requirement Connecticut parole and peace officers; other states' parole or peace officers on official business; federal marshals and law enforcement officers; legally appointed and certified motor vehicle inspectors performing their official duties; U.S. Armed Forces members on, or going to or from, duty; and members of a military organization on parade or going to or from a place of assembly. It also exempts anyone carrying a handgun (1) in its original package from the point of purchase to his or her home or business place, (2) as merchandise, (3) for repair or when moving household goods, (4) to or from a testing range at a firearm permit-issuing authority's request, or (5) to a competition or exhibit under an out-of-state permit (CGS § 29-35).

Any nonresident with a valid out-of-state gun permit may apply directly to the DESPP commissioner for a Connecticut gun permit (CGS § 29-28(f)). Also, bona fide nonresidents permitted to possess and carry handguns in their home state may transport handguns in Connecticut without a Connecticut permit for the purpose of (1) participating in competitions, (2) participating in formal handgun training at a locally approved or permitted firing range or training facility, (3) taking the firearm for repair, or (4) attending meetings or exhibitions of organized gun collectors (CGS § 29-30). And nonresidents may transport handguns without a Connecticut permit through Connecticut for lawful purposes in accordance with federal law if they are not otherwise prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing guns and are transporting them between states where they can legally possess and carry them (CGS § 29-38d).

from: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0001.htm

From office of legislative research ...

Click to expand...

I asked OLR for clarification on that point and they never got back to me...wonders never cease...but LOOK AT THE LAST SENTENCE!!!!!!

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the carrying of a pistol or revolver during formal pistol or revolver training or repair."

SO, as long as you're at a range, nonresidents are OK by law. They simply can't carry a gun in their waistband after they leave.

CT Barfly said:

I asked OLR for clarification on that point and they never got back to me...wonders never cease.

Click to expand...

OLR does not respond to citizens for the most part - they are a resource for legislators ... contact your legislator and he would then contact them if he wishes.

I've had success getting responses back from OLR this way but be forewarned: if you do not write a letter specifying specifically what you wish to review, you may get an answer back from left field.

davidmcbeth said:

OLR does not respond to citizens for the most part - they are a resource for legislators ... contact your legislator and he would then contact them if he wishes.

I've had success getting responses back from OLR this way but be forewarned: if you do not write a letter specifying specifically what you wish to review, you may get an answer back from left field.

Click to expand...

Thanks david. I appreciate your patient insight, in sharp contrast to the vitriolic responses I get from the peanut gallery in here.

I will say that after reading and re-reading...if a New Yorker with a restricted home/sport/hunting carry permit comes in, it would seem he's OK as 29-35 doesn't specify the type of carry permit.

CT Barfly said:

Thanks david. I appreciate your patient insight, in sharp contrast to the vitriolic responses I get from the peanut gallery in here.

I will say that after reading and re-reading...if a New Yorker with a restricted home/sport/hunting carry permit comes in, it would seem he's OK as 29-35 doesn't specify the type of carry permit.

Click to expand...

well they could not have written 29-35 any more confusingly ... but I did speak personally to 3 DAs and several police chiefs at their offices regarding the transport of handguns to a range by CT residents who do not have permits ... they all said you cannot transport a gun to a range w/o a permit, period.

Out of state people can, limited to the conditions of the act of course.

Plus 29-35 is an exception ... so is this an affirmative defense ... and one cannot be compelled to take an exception.

So I think that a permit should be issued to anyone about to possess because we have a right to practice ~ and that any condition beyond just the right to possess is not mandatory in nature in respect to issuing out a permit by the issuing authority (ie no safety training can be required [Heller II highlighted that safety training cannot be required prior to purchase which is a basic right, like shooting or practicing is a basic right per Ezell v. Chicago] is my viewpoint when I "combine" the court opinions of Heller II and Ezell federal cases).

I see nothing wrong or "a waste of time" to post concerning the gun laws we are subjected to...new case law is made all the time that could affect the current legal viewpoint.

Plus discussion can show errors of peoples' thought processes. Hey, I could be wrong .. I would much rather have a discussion and find that out here than in court.

davidmcbeth said:

well they could not have written 29-35 any more confusingly ... but I did speak personally to 3 DAs and several police chiefs at their offices regarding the transport of handguns to a range by CT residents who do not have permits ... they all said you cannot transport a gun to a range w/o a permit, period.

Out of state people can, limited to the conditions of the act of course.

Plus 29-35 is an exception ... so is this an affirmative defense ... and one cannot be compelled to take an exception.

So I think that a permit should be issued to anyone about to possess because we have a right to practice ~ and that any condition beyond just the right to possess is not mandatory in nature in respect to issuing out a permit by the issuing authority (ie no safety training can be required [Heller II highlighted that safety training cannot be required prior to purchase which is a basic right, like shooting or practicing is a basic right per Ezell v. Chicago] is my viewpoint when I "combine" the court opinions of Heller II and Ezell federal cases).

I see nothing wrong or "a waste of time" to post concerning the gun laws we are subjected to...new case law is made all the time that could affect the current legal viewpoint.

Plus discussion can show errors of peoples' thought processes. Hey, I could be wrong .. I would much rather have a discussion and find that out here than in court.

Click to expand...

David, your experience with DA/LEO matches mine, but I remain skeptical of their understanding and application of the law as it is drafted. My opinion remains that DA/LEO understanding is plainly mistaken with respect to possession and transport and that had the legislature wanted to prohibit transport as these entities would have you believe, they would not have carved out the exception in the first place. I would like to bring this up to the BFPE to get their opinion.

CT Barfly said:

David, your experience with DA/LEO matches mine, but I remain skeptical of their understanding and application of the law as it is drafted. My opinion remains that DA/LEO understanding is plainly mistaken with respect to possession and transport and that had the legislature wanted to prohibit transport as these entities would have you believe, they would not have carved out the exception in the first place. I would like to bring this up to the BFPE to get their opinion.

Click to expand...

I see such an exception to be unnecessary ... you have the right to transport to practice. It should not be an affirmative defense at all. And they cannot limit it to where they think its proper either (approved place).

But we have 29-38 ... noting the penalties ... so the state does require a person to have a permit if they do not wish to be arrested and tried...

And I gave the BFPE the opportunity to rule on this point ~ they decided not to. I don't like the board....for more reasons than that. I'll be re-applying soon. I did not pay there $70 BR chk fee last time ... and I will not this time