Exiting from opencarry.org because of davidmcbeth's obsession

For the past six years I have logged on and posted what I hoped would be informative information or thought provoking questions.

I have spent the past six years gathering information and providing it to those who visit this message board.

Since January of 2012 I have tolerated and attempted to ignore in excess of 7,000 and close to 8,00 posts by David Godbout aka Davidmcbeth.

I now realize that posting factual information on this message board is impossible as long as it is tainted and attacked by Mr. Godbout.

I would like to thank the board moderators for all that they have provided and wish everyone on this message board the best in their quest for Second Amendment Rights.

I will be posting ALL of my information at www.ctgunrights.com, www.ctcarry.com or www.ctguntalk.com but cannot in good faith continue feeding the obsession of David Godbout.

Hopefully those of you who have taken advantage of the information and research posted on this message board will stop by one of the other websites.

I would especially like to thank John and Mike for providing me the oppurtunity to expand my knowledge of firarm issues and share what I have learned since my involvement in firaearm related cases.

I will spend my time as Attorney Rachel M. Baird's legal investigator and post when I can at the other sites.

Mr. David Godbout is obsessed with posting on this message board and I will not continue to feed his obsession.

Please visit www.ctgunrights.com when you get a chance.

Thank you all,

edperuta@ctgunrights.com

Oh good grief. Try "General Settings | Ignore List". It's there for your use.

If you can't deal with someone who is a little snarky, and verbose, how can you deal with the Real World?

I find David's stuff entertaining and those that aren't I just pass by.

Maybe the OP doesn't know about the ignore function? I was going to suggest the same thing. Hard for a particular user to get under your skin if you can't see their posts. Granted, you might still see their post as quoted text in another user's post, but surely that can't be an intolerable situation.

Ed, what in the world are you doing??

Put the troll on ignore (like many of us already have) and go about your business.

Ed Peruta will be a huge loss from this forum. I am very concerned, both for the forum and for the residents of Connecticut.

But I do know that Ed cares very much about the issues here in Connecticut and proper education in firearms laws. He has always spent quite a bit of time appealing to moderators and to the user (David Godbout) himself, including in person, to try and stop the obsessive and abusive spread of bad legal information on this forum. To date, nothing has been done with this and nothing has changed.

I have expressed the same concerns and have not yet seen a change. The 'last post' column of this forum is very concerning, especially when you go back a few pages of posts.

A lot of posts is not a bad thing. Spreading terrible advice and illegal information while encouraging others in Connecticut to follow you is a problem. Making law enforcement feel unwelcome on this forum is a bad thing. We have made so many strides here in Connecticut to the point that OC is barely even an issue anymore, and one man now is setting us back with users and with law enforcement.

Ed could ignore the troll, as I have tried, but we tried opposite paths and ended at the same results. Every post will be met with extremely unreasonable replies and disclosures (within minutes!) that hurt any chances of this being a good outlet for information. Ignoring the troll through software only means that we would not see the bad advice being spread to people that we have both put so much effort in educating, assisting and defending.

-Rich Burgess

Edward Peruta said:

I will spend my time as Attorney Rachel M. Baird's legal investigator and post when I can at the other sites.

Click to expand...

Good luck in your endeavors Ed ... we are both pro-2nd amendment people.

also, folks can look at my last 5 postings in CT forum .... judge for yourself the "conclusions" stated by Ed:

1)
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...-Connecticut-Weapons-Registry-Database-Online

2)
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...ding-assault-weapon-ban&p=1997836#post1997836

3)
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...ry-Replaced-by-Governor&p=1997681#post1997681

4)
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...ghter-recently-arrested&p=1996032#post1996032

5)
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...UT-FIREARM-DEALERS-quot&p=1995626#post1995626


Its well known that Ed does not like people who do not support his viewpoints and tries to just yell at folks to "beat them down" but when he runs into someone that is willing to provide facts that tend to show his conclusions are based on ideas instead of facts then he gets all in a huff.

Here is a comment that reflects upon one of my postings of recent history regarding a ctcarry member started thread:

Thanks, this is a friendly, none condocending answer to my concern about a comment. I appriciate your help and explination about how things work in Connecticut. I do have family in Mass.

davidmcbeth said:

Its well known that Ed does not like people who do not support his viewpoints and tries to just yell at folks to "beat them down" but when he runs into someone that is willing to provide facts that tend to show his conclusions are based on ideas instead of facts then he gets all in a huff.

Click to expand...

Funny; Ed's never yelled at me, and there are plenty of things we disagree on.

DDoutel said:

Funny; Ed's never yelled at me, and there are plenty of things we disagree on.

Click to expand...

Funny how Ed provided nothing but assistance to this poster and many others, while the user in question has done nothing but get himself and others into trouble.

http://ctcarry.com/NorwalkvDoutel/NorwalkvDoutel

Ed doesn't need anyone to defend him, or any of his actions. He is more than capable of doing so. But there are some foxholes that I would jump into, and some that I would not.

Rich B said:

I am very concerned, both for the forum and for the residents of Connecticut.

-Rich Burgess

Click to expand...

Your concern is unwarranted I assure you.

Maverick9 said:

Oh good grief. Try "General Settings | Ignore List".

Click to expand...

I did not know about that feature. Wonder if I could ignore my own posts.....

Rich B said:

Funny how Ed provided nothing but assistance to this poster and many others, while the user in question has done nothing but get himself and others into trouble.

http://ctcarry.com/NorwalkvDoutel/NorwalkvDoutel

Ed doesn't need anyone to defend him, or any of his actions. He is more than capable of doing so. But there are some foxholes that I would jump into, and some that I would not.

Click to expand...

Ed does need someone to defend himself though, right? ... doesn't he have a case pending in superior court?

http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=6335389

Classic Ed behavior noted in the case's complaint and touched on in the court's memo...

And he has previously posted his antics at DESPP HQ .. yelling and screaming at them over a FOIA request. I just file a FOIC complaint ... and will argue before the commission there.

I'll make my arguments .... I have made it known that I think that the BFPE should be eliminated to allow people to address improper denials before a judge instead of the goof balls at the BFPE (and as it turns out ~ Malloy is stacking the deck with antis who's plan is to not allow folks their day in court ~~ and these antis will be making rulings that the courts are reluctant to overturn~because the law almost requires them to).

Rich, you need to hitch your horse to a new wagon ... not mine ~ its clear that you do not support all my positions in respect to gun control as I support the concept of no laws in respect to guns should be on the books (I share this concept with millions of other libertarians).

Rich B said:

Ed Peruta will be a huge loss from this forum. I am very concerned, both for the forum and for the residents of Connecticut.

But I do know that Ed cares very much about the issues here in Connecticut and proper education in firearms laws. He has always spent quite a bit of time appealing to moderators and to the user (David Godbout) himself, including in person, to try and stop the obsessive and abusive spread of bad legal information on this forum. To date, nothing has been done with this and nothing has changed.

I have expressed the same concerns and have not yet seen a change. The 'last post' column of this forum is very concerning, especially when you go back a few pages of posts.

A lot of posts is not a bad thing. Spreading terrible advice and illegal information while encouraging others in Connecticut to follow you is a problem. Making law enforcement feel unwelcome on this forum is a bad thing. We have made so many strides here in Connecticut to the point that OC is barely even an issue anymore, and one man now is setting us back with users and with law enforcement.

Ed could ignore the troll, as I have tried, but we tried opposite paths and ended at the same results. Every post will be met with extremely unreasonable replies and disclosures (within minutes!) that hurt any chances of this being a good outlet for information. Ignoring the troll through software only means that we would not see the bad advice being spread to people that we have both put so much effort in educating, assisting and defending.

-Rich Burgess

Click to expand...

I understand, but you and I both know that part of being on the internet means we may be alongside or counter to trolls like the one who upsets Ed - whether they give good advice or bad. IMHO, it's clear to anyone who has spent any time on here at all that the troll is a troll.

Ed's taking his ball and going home is a poor choice IMHO.

BB62 said:

I understand, but you and I both know that part of being on the internet means we may be alongside or counter to trolls like the one who upsets Ed - whether they give good advice or bad. IMHO, it's clear to anyone who has spent any time on here at all that the troll is a troll.

Ed's taking his ball and going home is a poor choice IMHO.

Click to expand...

I agree that it is a poor choice, but I fully understand it. I cannot fathom why John and Mike did not ban that troll long ago.

However, I don't ignore the troll. I don't bother reading most of its tripe. I don't open threads it starts unless I notice one of the many posters whom I respect responding. Then I start by reading their response to see if anything else in the thread might be worth my time. If it responds in a thread in which I am participating, I glance over its post to see if it is making one of its uninformed pronouncements on the law so I can alert folks to the possibility of being misled down a garden path and right into jail.

I will point out its BS and bluster often enough to make sure that no newbie ever gives it one second of credibility.

I occasionally report its stuff to the staff in the hope that they will one day come to their senses and ban this thing.

Either putting this troll on ignore or taking a course of action similar to mine would be far more effective than leaving. I don't know the OP, but if he detests this troll, he's gotta be a stand-up guy and an asset to OCDO. If the troll is motivating others to leave OCDO, John and Mike ought to give a second thought to banning it.

JMO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

eye95 said:

I will point out its BS and bluster often enough to make sure that no newbie ever gives it one second of credibility.

Click to expand...

I can tell you that we have fielded quite a few calls to our main line and responded to emails from people new to the scene who read his posts here and were wondering if they should follow his advice.

After being shown the audio of the results of his tactics (which he was very much against me making available to the public) they quickly understand why that would be a bad idea.

The thing to understand here is that Ed and Connecticut Carry help people and are actually there to see cases through. When you follow advice from Ed, he is on your side to get the issue resolved.

Not all advice is created equal. Giving bad legal advice to people in public and then leaving them to figure it out for themselves is pathetic.

Rich B said:

I can tell you that we have fielded quite a few calls to our main line and responded to emails from people new to the scene who read his posts here and were wondering if they should follow his advice.

After being shown the audio of the results of his tactics (which he was very much against me making available to the public) they quickly understand why that would be a bad idea.

The thing to understand here is that Ed and Connecticut Carry help people and are actually there to see cases through. When you follow advice from Ed, he is on your side to get the issue resolved.

Not all advice is created equal. Giving bad legal advice to people in public and then leaving them to figure it out for themselves is pathetic.

Click to expand...

I have not heard of this audio. Can you link it here? Thanks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Rich B said:

I can tell you that we have fielded quite a few calls to our main line and responded to emails from people new to the scene who read his posts here and were wondering if they should follow his advice.

After being shown the audio of the results of his tactics (which he was very much against me making available to the public) they quickly understand why that would be a bad idea.

The thing to understand here is that Ed and Connecticut Carry help people and are actually there to see cases through. When you follow advice from Ed, he is on your side to get the issue resolved.

Not all advice is created equal. Giving bad legal advice to people in public and then leaving them to figure it out for themselves is pathetic.

Click to expand...

What advice is that Rich that you have taken "many calls"? See, you spout off general statements w/o specifics....usually meaning your position has no merit.

In the BFPE hearing, my strategy was to frustrate the board and to present all aspects of the rubbish that is the board and the permitting process. I do this occasionally with administrative bodies .. depending on the body.
I certainly accomplished my goals of frustrating the board. You just don't like what I did 'cause the board members are your "buddies".

It's folks at ctcarry that don't understand the law and admin procedures and don't support gun rights.

Just look at the last 5 threads that I linked ... you berate people asking simple questions.

If people are calling ctcarry for legal help, God help them.

Excuse me, I thought I was at the Open Carry Discussion board. Instead, I've wandered into the 'Bunch of Old Biddies Throwing their Skirts Over Their Heads Board'.

Still, mildly interesting...if you're a drama queen fan.

eye95 said:

I have not heard of this audio. Can you link it here? Thanks.

Click to expand...

Sure.

Original hearing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thc0M_ZdK80

Reconsideration hearing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke7Uhu_ZUSM

Spoiler, he is laughed out of both. This was using the same advice he gave to permit applicants on this very forum for quite a long time. He even advised that we give that advice out to permit applicants as well. He still gives this advice publicly when people ask, despite him knowing what the results are.

Maverick9 said:

Excuse me, I thought I was at the Open Carry Discussion board. Instead, I've wandered into the 'Bunch of Old Biddies Throwing their Skirts Over Their Heads Board'.

Still, mildly interesting...if you're a drama queen fan.

Click to expand...

Actually, the above is the only post (apart from those by the subject troll) that I would classify as being "drama queenish." The irony is thick.

If you don't like that which you think is drama queenish, don't participate, or else you become exactly that which you decry.

Rich B said:

Sure.

Original hearing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thc0M_ZdK80

Reconsideration hearing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke7Uhu_ZUSM

Spoiler, he is laughed out of both. This was using the same advice he gave to permit applicants on this very forum for quite a long time. He even advised that we give that advice out to permit applicants as well. He still gives this advice publicly when people ask, despite him knowing what the results are.

Click to expand...

An what specifically are you objecting to regarding my legal arguments?

You think that the DESPP form needs to be completed in every section? Even the BFPE Secretary said no in respect to their questionnaire that has similar sections. And case law also says no.

You think that the commissioners can ask questions of litigants? No, the procedure outlined in 29-32b states:
The board, while such appeal is pending, may request such additional information from the appellant and from the issuing authority as it deems reasonably necessary to conduct a fair and impartial hearing, and shall require of the issuing authority from whose decision or action the appeal is being sought a statement in writing setting forth the reasons for such failure, refusal, revocation or limitation. limits the board's ability to ask questions to a pre-hearing time period. No where does it say that the commissioners can ask witnesses questions...read up on other admin bodies and those that can ask questions have this power written into the statues governing the admin body processes.

Think a DD-214 can be required? I say no, because it is not a relevant record and the UAPA disallows irrelevant records.

The list goes on and on. I may be wrong about some things and right on others. That's why we have hearings, to make that determination.

The basic premise of my application and appeal of the denial was that: if one has his gun rights, one should be issued a permit. Period.

And this opinion matches the appellate court decision in the Illinois Moore's decision.

It seems as if ctcarry does not like the Moore decision but prefers people to "play the illegal game" that the state has people play.

And the BFPE issued out an expected decision: denied because I did not complete the application.

People going before an admin board in CT should note: the record made in the admin hearing is the ONLY record a court will consider ... so I always recommend making objections and presenting evidence as much as possible to preserve your rights upon an appeal to the courts.

One can either:
a) play the game according to rules made up by an admin agency outside of the authority granted to it by the legislature
or b) demand that you get a fair hearing (mandated by law - see Grimes v. Conservation Comm. of the town of Litchfield, 243 Conn. 266) in accordance with the procedures mandated by our legislature

ctcarry chooses (a) while I choose (b).

Its quiet simple: ctcarry either does not understand the law or wants people to toss their rights away in the interest of "playing nice" with their friends (who are now GONE for the most part) on the board.

After Malloy does what he wants with the board ... ctcarry may change their viewpoint to mine.

We should not have to be "nice" and beg for permission slips on our knees....ctcarry thinks we should.