Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 62

Thread: Open Carry Terry Stops Legal or not?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Willimantic/Windham
    Posts
    5

    Open Carry Terry Stops Legal or not?

    We've been having many discussions *on another gun forum* about being asked for ID & Permit when open carrying in a legal area. If stopped by LEO, are we required by law to produce the ID & Permit? Is there a specific Ct statute requiring us to comply? Terry Stop laws states LEO can not stop and request any ID. Open carrying is legal. But is a stop by LEO still considered a Terry Stop if you are open carrying legally, Can they by Ct statue stop you and ask? One of our members did get stopped and arrested for interfering because he refused to produce his documents. That case got kind of off tracked, turned into something else and faded away. No real conclusion. Ideas...verifyable legal ones? We know just being complacent and complying is the easy quick way out, but that's not what this is about. This is about our legal rights..

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    There is no stop & ID law in CT and no "stop a gun carrier to check his permit" law either.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    An officer requires reasonable suspicion of a crime before detaining someone. Open carry has nothing at all to do with it, since it is not crime. Whether you comply or not and to what degree you decide to comply or resist is up to you, and it is a risk you take.

    Read US v Black for how this kind of thing should be going. We have two examples of this being how Connecticut courts interpret our statutes so far, but we have not been able to publish opinions yet. We are working on it.

    http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions...d/115084.p.pdf
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Willimantic/Windham
    Posts
    5
    I understand the Terry Stop law and the fact that Ct has no stop and check law. But this has not stopped the Ct LEO from doing it anyway and getting away with it. I was trying to find any statutes specifically stating no stop and check for persons open carrying in Ct. The LEO in this state have stopped quite a few people, some I know open carrying and have asked/demanded their ID & Permit. Others have been threatened with arrest for interfering with an officer if they don't comply. I have not been stopped yet, but it is inevitably going to happen just by pure law of averages. Some LEO is going to approach me and ask/demand my info and want to hold my gun for his protection and I'm not comfortable with that. My personal feeling is that I don't want my name,address, gun type and serial number broadcast over the air so anyone with a scanner knows all my information. I don't wish to be complacent and comply just because it's easier, but I am retired and can't afford a lawyer either.... Being complacent just empowers them to continue illegal searches... Thanks for the replies..

  5. #5
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910

    Open Carry Terry Stops Legal or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by darkk View Post
    I understand the Terry Stop law
    there is no such thing.

    But this has not stopped the Ct LEO from doing it anyway and getting away with it. I was trying to find any statutes specifically stating no stop and check for persons open carrying in Ct.
    That isn't how laws work.

    If you want to challenge officers who are performing these stops, no problem. Make sure you have a defense fund with at least 20 grand set up. Then make sure you understand the law, case law, how to appropriately show non compliance (which can result in physical injury) and make sure you record the whole thing well and covertly.

    I told you above that people have effectively defended themselves against it. We are working to get the information out there. In the meantime , if you have the time, money and desire to give us another case to demonstrate with, by all means go for it. Otherwise, have some patience. We have been fighting this fight for years. None of it happened overnight.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ffld co.
    Posts
    337
    The first words out of your mouth should be: "Am I free to go?"

    When the officer states that you are NOT free to go, you are seized. Ask the officer to call his supervisor to the scene. Ask to call your lawyer using your cellphone right then and there. Good to have your lawyer on speed dial. Have your lawyer talk to the supervisor if possible. The more people involved, the better. Provide your name/DOB/permit (don't screw up here or you can end up with an obstruction charge), don't answer any other questions. Make sure you have the officer's name/badge number.

    IF the officer says "yes"...leave immediately without a word.

    Expect the officer to fire back with "you're carrying a gun around" or some other accusatory statement to try and bully you. These statements are CRUCIAL because they indicate the basis for what he believes to be the reasonable articulable suspicion he needs to contact you and detain you...remember them verbatim!

    Naturally, the officer will not want to answer your question, because it will cut off his opportunity to develop probable cause (which happens to be his job description). He'll have a harder time justifying your seizure if his seizure ("No you're not free to leave") happens BEFORE he observes a crime or criminal activity. Up to the point of answering that question, hopefully the only "act" you're engaged in is "open carry"...which is not illegal. So then, you'd be seized/under arrest for nothing.

    It's still sort of an open question as to whether OC can support reasonable suspicion in this particular geographic/judicial region...so it's best to get out of "Terry stop land" as quickly as possible by forcing an "arrest or release" with that question. The 4th Circuit says if OC is legal in the state it can't be reasonable to suspect crime just because you see a gun on a hip...but we aren't in the 4th, we're in the 2nd. The 2nd seems to take the opposite view...and it will take money to correct this misapplication of the law. Do you want to be the test monkey?

    It's a game of chicken...the cop will not want to state the magic words "you are under arrest" without probable cause...and he needs time, statements and observed actions by you in order to get there. If he is at all shaky on his knowledge of the law (or dishonest/unprofessional), he will dodge the question as much as possible and try to put the ball in your court. Even just the way you respond to his questions can be used against you, so be sure to be calm, measured, confident and non-argumentative. Physical contact BY the officer, blocking your path, surrounding by a number of officers can all indicate that you are seized and possibly under arrest. Make note of these things but DO NOT respond negatively and do not withold basic ID info.

    NOTE that what I have NOT said is to answer any questions. DON'T EVER ANSWER QUESTIONS aside from basic ID/permit info. "Why are you here?" "Are you one of those OC demonstrators?" "where are you going?" "why are you OC'ing?" your answers to these questions can easily be twisted into PC for arrest and will ruin your day. We've all seen those vids of the kid in Oregon who videotapes his encounters with cops...he always says he is trying to "raise awareness" and "normalize" OC...but the fact is that if he were in CT he'd be under arrest in a heartbeat for BOP and a CT judge would uphold it because he admits that his intention is to make a statement which could be construed as alarming. He wouldn't be under arrest for OC per se, he'd be under arrest for intending to cause alarm and not being licensed to do so and the charge would stick. The point being that he would be arrested for his RESPONSES TO QUESTIONING, and not the act itself.
    Last edited by CT Barfly; 08-30-2013 at 01:18 PM.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I just tell cops "ask me any question you want ... in court" they sometimes get all uppity .. oh well, better pissed off than pissed on ...

    Never answer ANY question is correct ... "where are you going? where are you coming from?" etc .. seemingly questions that cannot hurt you but actually can depending on other circumstances that you may not be aware of.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    104
    [QUOTE=CT Barfly;1978560]

    The first words out of your mouth should be: "Am I free to go?"

    Provide your name/DOB/permit (don't screw up here or you can end up with an obstruction charge),


    It's still sort of an open question as to whether OC can support reasonable suspicion .The 4th Circuit says if OC is legal in the state it can't be reasonable to suspect crime just because you see a gun on a hip...but we aren't in the 4th, we're in the 2nd. The 2nd seems to take the opposite view...and it will take money to correct this misapplication of the law. Do you want to be the test monkey?

    Make note of these things but DO NOT respond negatively and do not withold basic ID info.

    NOTE that what I have NOT said is to answer any questions. DON'T EVER ANSWER QUESTIONS aside from basic ID/permit info.
    --------------END QUOTE BARFLY-------





    You have no legal requirement to show your pistol permit, only carry it with you. Police have NO legal authority to frisk you for it. Please do not give out bad info, no matter how good your intentions are. In Ct there are no search and identity laws, other than when driving to show license insurance and registration. When stopped for open carrying you have no requirement to do anything. It is good to video tape, say with a cell phone camera and possibly clarify you are not free to leave, but the law all ready has established parameters on seizure, some times it's it better not to udder a word, or strategically speak, but talking in general can sinch the proverbial noose.
    Last edited by Good Citizen; 09-01-2013 at 09:35 AM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    38
    [QUOTE=Good Citizen;1979059]
    Quote Originally Posted by CT Barfly View Post

    The first words out of your mouth should be: "Am I free to go?"

    Provide your name/DOB/permit (don't screw up here or you can end up with an obstruction charge),


    It's still sort of an open question as to whether OC can support reasonable suspicion .The 4th Circuit says if OC is legal in the state it can't be reasonable to suspect crime just because you see a gun on a hip...but we aren't in the 4th, we're in the 2nd. The 2nd seems to take the opposite view...and it will take money to correct this misapplication of the law. Do you want to be the test monkey?

    Make note of these things but DO NOT respond negatively and do not withold basic ID info.

    NOTE that what I have NOT said is to answer any questions. DON'T EVER ANSWER QUESTIONS aside from basic ID/permit info.
    --------------END QUOTE BARFLY-------





    You have no legal requirement to show your pistol permit, only carry it with you. Police have NO legal authority to frisk you for it. Please do not give out bad info, no matter how good your intentions are. In Ct there are no search and identity laws, other than when driving to show license insurance and registration. When stopped for open carrying you have no requirement to do anything. It is good to video tape, say with a cell phone camera and possibly clarify you are not free to leave, but the law all ready has established parameters on seizure, some times it's it better not to udder a word, or strategically speak, but talking in general can sinch the proverbial noose.
    Don't forget to verbally assert your right to remain silent. It's a must, otherwise your silence can be held against you in court.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ffld co.
    Posts
    337
    [QUOTE=Good Citizen;1979059]
    Quote Originally Posted by CT Barfly View Post

    The first words out of your mouth should be: "Am I free to go?"

    Provide your name/DOB/permit (don't screw up here or you can end up with an obstruction charge),


    It's still sort of an open question as to whether OC can support reasonable suspicion .The 4th Circuit says if OC is legal in the state it can't be reasonable to suspect crime just because you see a gun on a hip...but we aren't in the 4th, we're in the 2nd. The 2nd seems to take the opposite view...and it will take money to correct this misapplication of the law. Do you want to be the test monkey?

    Make note of these things but DO NOT respond negatively and do not withold basic ID info.

    NOTE that what I have NOT said is to answer any questions. DON'T EVER ANSWER QUESTIONS aside from basic ID/permit info.
    --------------END QUOTE BARFLY-------





    You have no legal requirement to show your pistol permit, only carry it with you. Police have NO legal authority to frisk you for it. Please do not give out bad info, no matter how good your intentions are. In Ct there are no search and identity laws, other than when driving to show license insurance and registration. When stopped for open carrying you have no requirement to do anything. It is good to video tape, say with a cell phone camera and possibly clarify you are not free to leave, but the law all ready has established parameters on seizure, some times it's it better not to udder a word, or strategically speak, but talking in general can sinch the proverbial noose.
    Going to respectfully disagree:

    Sec. 53a-167a. Interfering with an officer: Class A misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of interfering with an officer when such person obstructs, resists, hinders or endangers any peace officer, special policeman appointed under section 29-18b, motor vehicle inspector designated under section 14-8 and certified pursuant to section 7-294d or firefighter in the performance of such peace officer's, special policeman's, motor vehicle inspector's or firefighter's duties.

    (b) Interfering with an officer is a class A misdemeanor.

    This statute has been held by a trial court to require people to provide ID...but was reversed on appeal. IMO people should not try to stand their ground on the ID issue. The court needs only a Terry stop to make this possible. See State v. Aloi BELOW Rich B's post.
    Last edited by CT Barfly; 09-03-2013 at 01:08 PM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by CT Barfly View Post
    State v. Aloi.
    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP86/86ap42.pdf
    The defendant’s statement that ‘‘this isn’t Russia’’ cannot reasonably be interpreted to be a threat of violence to the officer. Construing § 53a-167a strictly,8 we conclude that the legislature did not intend the failure to identify oneself instantly and the voicing of declaratory statements, such as ‘‘this isn’t Russia,’’ to constitute interference or obstruction under
    § 53a-167a. No trier of fact, therefore, could reasonably have concluded that the defendant’s conduct violated § 53a-167a. We therefore reverse the defendant’s conviction under § 53a-167a
    The judgment of conviction of interfering with an
    officer is reversed and the case is remanded with direction to render judgment of acquittal of that charge
    Well. My eyes are rolling...

    Especially with two cases being dismissed on these very grounds in very recent history.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by CT Barfly View Post
    The first words out of your mouth should be: "Am I free to go?"
    I favor politely refusing consent to the encounter itself as the first thing. "No offense, officer. I know you're just doing your job, but I don't consent to an encounter with you."

    We have quite a few reports over the years of cops dodging the question, "Am I free to go?"

    By politely refusing consent to the encounter itself at the very outset, you are throwing the legal ball into his court. Now, he must have reasonable, articulable suspicion (RAS) to continue the encounter. (See Terry v Ohio and subsequent cases.)

    Refusing consent to the encounter itself at the outset removes all doubt, closes all doors, to any question about whether it was a consensual encounter. As long as the cop can fudge the idea that you remained consensually, he has the door open to not needing RAS. As long as the cop can muddle whether the encounter is consensual, he can afford to have shaky or non-existent RAS. The really smart cops know this. They know they need the citizen's cooperation in answering questions and so forth, so its to their advantage to make an encounter seem consensual, just so the target cooperates.

    Under my approach, if the cop asks even one more question after I refuse consent to the encounter, I just move immediately to "Why am I being detained?" It cannot possibly be a consensual encounter--the first thing I said was to refuse consent to the encounter. So, it necessarily must be a detention (or custodial arrest). Then, just liberally apply:

    "Am I free to go?"
    More, "Why am I being detained?"
    "I won't answer questions."

    Also, unless identity refusal is well protected, I would go ahead and provide it just to avoid arrest. If arrested, there's a very good chance your recording will magically disappear from the memory card. "Yes, your honor. He did have a voice-recorder. It was not turned on."

    And, if you want to get creative, you can always ask "When will I be free to go?" Every once in a while a dumb cop will answer that by confessing to a rights violation. For example, "You can go as soon as you tell us what you're doing with that gun." Coercion to make you waive the 5A right to silence that you already invoked earlier. Such comments make nice ammunition when recorded.
    Last edited by Citizen; 09-03-2013 at 12:24 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ffld co.
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    Well. My eyes are rolling...

    Especially with two cases being dismissed on these very grounds in very recent history.
    This is wonderful to hear, but of little comfort to individuals having to fight the charges...that costs money and time and can easily be solved by providing ID. Tell us whether a wrongful arrest claim will be filed...I'm ALL ears. If the State Police are directing their officers to sniff for Interfering violations, asking for ID is just another trap question. There's little to gain by witholding...and potentially a huge hassle if you do. You're trying to draw a bright line in a grey area...while I am recognizing the grey area for what it is and letting people decide whether they want to dance in it.
    Last edited by CT Barfly; 09-03-2013 at 12:40 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910

    Open Carry Terry Stops Legal or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by CT Barfly View Post
    This is wonderful to hear, but of little comfort to individuals having to fight the charges...that costs money and time and can easily be solved by providing ID. Tell us whether a wrongful arrest claim will be filed...I'm ALL ears.
    There are none so blind as those who won't see.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ffld co.
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I favor politely refusing consent to the encounter itself as the first thing. "No offense, officer. I know you're just doing your job, but I don't consent to an encounter with you."

    We have quite a few reports over the years of cops dodging the question, "Am I free to go?"

    By politely refusing consent to the encounter itself at the very outset, you are throwing the legal ball into his court. Now, he must have reasonable, articulable suspicion (RAS) to continue the encounter. (See Terry v Ohio and subsequent cases.)

    Refusing consent to the encounter itself at the outset removes all doubt, closes all doors, to any question about whether it was a consensual encounter. As long as the cop can fudge the idea that you remained consensually, he has the door open to not needing RAS. As long as the cop can muddle whether the encounter is consensual, he can afford to have shaky or non-existent RAS. The really smart cops know this. They know they need the citizen's cooperation in answering questions and so forth, so its to their advantage to make an encounter seem consensual, just so the target cooperates.

    Under my approach, if the cop asks even one more question after I refuse consent to the encounter, I just move immediately to "Why am I being detained?" It cannot possibly be a consensual encounter--the first thing I said was to refuse consent to the encounter. So, it necessarily must be a detention (or custodial arrest). Then, just liberally apply:

    "Am I free to go?"
    More, "Why am I being detained?"
    "I won't answer questions."

    Also, unless identity refusal is well protected, I would go ahead and provide it just to avoid arrest. If arrested, there's a very good chance your recording will magically disappear from the memory card. "Yes, your honor. He did have a voice-recorder. It was not turned on."

    And, if you want to get creative, you can always ask "When will I be free to go?" Every once in a while a dumb cop will answer that by confessing to a rights violation. For example, "You can go as soon as you tell us what you're doing with that gun." Coercion to make you waive the 5A right to silence that you already invoked earlier. Such comments make nice ammunition when recorded.
    I like it..."I do not consent to this encounter" for the win!

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ffld co.
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    There are none so blind as those who won't see.
    Nine year old decision and the CSP still train their officers to sniff for BOP and Interfering. That says to me that refusing to provide ID can STILL make the encounter much less favorable to a citizen...with little benefit.

    Standing on a refusal to ID can result in arrest though the charge may eventually get dropped. We already know that LEOs enjoy special protection when they make mistakes...I simply wouldn't counsel anyone to get into a situation where that could be a problem.

    What is the benefit of taking that specific risk?

    I take CITIZEN'S "no consent" approach to be the better one rather than "AIFTG"...thanks for that. I'm open to learning.
    Last edited by CT Barfly; 09-03-2013 at 01:06 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910

    Open Carry Terry Stops Legal or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by CT Barfly View Post
    Considering that your advice matches mine, that is to provide ID...we differ on the reasoning. Standing on a refusal to ID can result in arrest though the charge may eventually get dropped. We already know that LEOs enjoy special protection when they make mistakes...I simply wouldn't counsel anyone to get into a situation where that could be a problem.

    What is the benefit of taking that specific risk?

    I take your "no consent" approach to be the better one rather than "AIFTG"...thanks for that. I'm open to learning.
    You are not citing where I have told anyone to provide ID or where I agree with any of your other assertions.

    You are also going out of your way to confuse me with other posters apparently.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ffld co.
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    You are not citing where I have told anyone to provide ID or where I agree with any of your other assertions.

    You are also going out of your way to confuse me with other posters apparently.
    Sorry, mixed up with Citizen.

    I wouldn't call that "going out of [my] way"

    Fixed.

    I wouldn't counsel people to get arrested just to have their day in court to get charges dropped...most folks aren't civil rights crusaders. The goal is always to terminate the encounter WITHOUT arrest. Opening up another front in the "war" is not exactly practical.
    Last edited by CT Barfly; 09-03-2013 at 01:12 PM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910

    Open Carry Terry Stops Legal or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by CT Barfly View Post
    Sorry, mixed up with Citizen.

    I wouldn't call that "going out of [my] way"
    I would. Our names and avatars look nothing alike, and you quoted my post without his.

    Slow down a bit. Quality is preferable to quantity on this forum.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ffld co.
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    I would. Our names and avatars look nothing alike, and you quoted my post without his.

    Slow down a bit. Quality is preferable to quantity on this forum.
    Corrected and fair, Rich.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910

    Open Carry Terry Stops Legal or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by CT Barfly View Post
    I wouldn't counsel people to get arrested just to have their day in court to get charges dropped...
    I haven't seen anyone do so.

    I wouldn't stand on head in the middle of the street...

    What is the relevance?

    Why did you cite the Aloi case as if it went the opposite way or had relevance?
    Last edited by Rich B; 09-03-2013 at 01:20 PM.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by CT Barfly View Post
    We've all seen those vids of the kid in Oregon who videotapes his encounters with cops...he always says he is trying to "raise awareness" and "normalize" OC...but the fact is that if he were in CT he'd be under arrest in a heartbeat for BOP and a CT judge would uphold it because he admits that his intention is to make a statement which could be construed as alarming. He wouldn't be under arrest for OC per se, he'd be under arrest for intending to cause alarm and not being licensed to do so and the charge would stick.
    That's quite a remarkable leap you've made there. Care to back it up with a reference or citation?

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    That's quite a remarkable leap you've made there. Care to back it up with a reference or citation?
    Oh, I think most understand he's more giving his sour opinion of how the law is enforced rather than what the law is.

    Just subtract for hyperbole.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    That's quite a remarkable leap you've made there. Care to back it up with a reference or citation?
    It isn't only a drastic leap. It is completely untrue. People think they are experts on the topic when they have not even studied the cases that are ongoing at this very moment.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ffld co.
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    I haven't seen anyone do so.

    I wouldn't stand on head in the middle of the street...

    What is the relevance?

    Why did you quote the Aloi case as if it went the opposite way?
    CGS website lists a litany of cases where the charge is brought and later found to be appropriate or inappropriate based on various attendant facts.

    If I see that a trial court upholds a charge, that's enough to give me pause...even if they get reversed later...the State will always argue ALL of the attendant facts (which of course will then have to be found by the court/jury)...which will result in a charge and "let the courts sort it out."

    By telling people they can simply refuse to identify it's opening a can of worms that doesn't need to be opened. If someone is stopped for OC, they should keep it about OC and ONLY OC.

    After Sandy Hook, how do you think a trial court would react to a person's failure to produce the LTCPR?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •