Couldn't wearing that badge be construed as impersonating a police officer.
Thread: Permit holder "badge"
I have on several occasions heard the argument that people who see individuals wearing a badge next to their holstered exposed firearm don't cause alarm.
Not wanting to create any annoyance or alarm, I took the time to think about what I could do to prevent people from fearing my firearm.
The problem in my opinion seems to be that we carry our permits out of site, ( in our wallets or purse) where the public can't see that we are legal to Carry Pistols and Revolvers.
So.... I have placed my order and will be obtaining my PERMIT HOLDER "BADGE" to mitigate any potential annoyance or alarm on the part of those around me when I am legally carrying my exposed holstered firearm.
Couldn't wearing that badge be construed as impersonating a police officer.
I was unaware it was my job to placate irrational fears of the public.
If you believe this is a good idea, might I suggest a "I am not a child molester" badge for when you are in the vicinity of a playground.
Could I interest you in a "I'm not a vicious dog" badge for your Pit Bull when you take him for a walk?
Maybe a "I'm not drinking and driving" badge to place on your car?
After all, if it's our prerogative to placate the public.....
Perhaps we also should carry handcuffs, a walky talkie, taser and have those neat looking blue emergency lights on top of our vehicles.
Last edited by Midwest; 06-18-2014 at 07:56 AM.
I am not a lawyer, I study the history of gun control laws.
I still have the old "Official Bikini Inspector" somewhere. I think I'll wear that today so that I don't alarm the masses when I ogle.
Oh and a third I just thought of is you might executed my some coward who's anti government.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
"The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1
Ohhh good grief Charlie Brown, NOT again!
Originally Posted by Primus
LMFAO @ OP
Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.
Tagged for entertainment value.
Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.
Purely for entertainment value, I'm going to entertain an answer.
Yes, because the only thing necessary to have probable cause for conviction of 'impersonating a police officer' is the presence of a shiny badge. That's why these guys dare not show their faces in public.
and why you keep seeing these people in the backs of police cars...
In the OP's case all that is necessary is to peruse his own State Code on the matter to see why a mere badge is insufficient to substantiate the charge.
Connecticut General Statutes 53a-130a – Impersonation of a police officer: Class D felony
(a) A person is guilty of impersonation of a police officer when he pretends to be a sworn member of an organized local police department or the Division of State Police within the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, or wears or displays without authority any uniform, badge or shield by which such police officer is lawfully distinguished, with intent to induce another person to submit to such pretended official authority or otherwise to act in reliance upon that pretense.
(b) Impersonation of a police officer is a class D felony.
Just more proof that Brownells has everything for the shooter.
"He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man
Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.
"No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
By wearing a badge, you will appear to be a LEO to the casual observer, who will probably not get close enough to read it. Since they will assume you are a Cop and one who is "blessed" by his locality to carry a firearm, the observer will not become "alarmed."
In that scenario, how does that advance the cause of normalizing the open carry of a properly holstered handgun by law abiding citizens?
I would NOT wear a badge when I openly carry, because I WANT people to see a normal, non=LEO person openly carrying and going about his business in a perfectly normal, boring way. If they ask about my carry, I have good answers for them. If they react negatively -- and no one has in the years I have been carrying here in Northern Virginia -- I also have good information for THEM.
Dressing up like a cop to avoid confrontation does nothing to normalize open carry.
Air Force Veteran
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearm Safety, Personal Protection
Maryland Qualified Handgun Instructor
Certified Instructor, Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc.
Member, Mt. Washington Rod & Gun Club
National Sporting Clays Association Certified Referee
...having worn a badge for a number of years, I didn't OC off duty and then hang my badge next to my gun...when not in uniform, it was in my best interests to be seen as a citizen only...open carry being legal where I lived then...
...when one carries a gun with a badge next to it...public perception IS that they're an LEO...and the response should a criminal see it while committing a robbery would be to open fire...do you really want to become a target while going into the convenience store to buy your smokes...with your wife or grandchild beside you? MUCH better to be seen as an armed citizen...often the presence of the gun is not observed...but the badge is a beacon...
...OP might be better served laying the badge away for great-grandkids to marvel over someday and say..."And back then, he was allowed to actually have a gun..."
Last edited by sheepdog; 06-18-2014 at 11:04 AM.
First, there is nothing illegal about wearing such an ornament in CT.
We should all get "Private Attorney General" badges ... lol
If the OP wishes to wear one, its up to him. I really do not see people bothering him.
As for keeping your permit in your wallet .. that's fine, not RAS to stop you and CT does not have a stop & ID statue.
And making people at ease around an OCer ... I don't think the badge will accomplish this but the OP is free to try anything.
I don't care one way or the other if a person would wear such a badge.
Regardless of what state you live in, this is a topic that will not go away.
SO HERE ARE MY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
This post is directly related to oral arguments in the case of Burgess v. Wallingford which involved legal open carry.
The Burgess v. Wallingford issue and case was discussed at www.SJTALKSHOW.com on Saturday night June 14th.
This Saturday night, the Burgess side of the oral argument may be played.
Anyone can enter the discussion and participate in the program which is streamed live in real time beginning at 5pm eastern on Saturday nights.
Please watch this video clip and pay attention, (during the first 30 minute), to the segment where the Second Circuit audio is played.
In response to the outrageous statements made to the court by the attorney representing the town of Wallingford, CT, I researched the topic, ordered the badge and will, (to prove a point), begin to wear it while openly carrying my 1911.
I HAVE NO NEED FOR A BADGE, AND HAVE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS SUCCESSFULY DEBATED THE OPEN CARRY ISSUE WITH MEMBERS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT.
I have been and am currently a major supporter and advocate of OPEN CARRY, and challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
I have in the past and currently do OPENLY CARRY my 1911 or other firearm.
I do not fear any member of the public or law enforcement while openly carrying my firearm.
But the badge will create an interesting discussion topic for law enforcement and their attorneys once it becomes known.
Last edited by Edward Peruta; 06-18-2014 at 05:25 PM.
Why did you choose to originally misrepresent your motivation or intended goal? The latter explanation seems far more reasonable than the former.
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
You have to live in the State of Connecticut and deal with decisions of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to truly understand the reasoning behind my post.
In Connecticut, the law permits an individual with a valid permit to Carry OPENLY or CONCEALED, plain and simple.
Yet individuals are harassed, stopped, detained and arrested for doing exactly what the law permits.
The judges in our courts are in OPEN REBELLION against Heller and McDonald, and finding any way they can to protect rogue untrained members of law enforcement from civil exposure for their actions.
I hope this answers your question.
REST ASSURED, law enforcement will be more concerned about people LEGALLY wearing badges then they are about people carrying firearms with VALID PERMITS.
IF GOVERNMENT CAN MAKE SUCCESSFUL LEGAL ARGUMENTS THAT BADGES JUSTIFY OPEN CARRY, THEN THEY SHOULDN'T BITCH WHEN PRIVATE CITIZENS BEGIN TO WEAR THEM.
Last edited by Edward Peruta; 06-20-2014 at 01:53 AM.
Peruta v. San Diego which is a concealed carry case in which YOUR attorney argued that California has a constitutional right to ban Open Carry. YOUR attorney also "warned" the court of appeals that if you did not prevail in getting your California concealed carry permit that would entail overturning both the California law banning Loaded Open Carry as well as the overturning of California's Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995 which YOUR lawyer said would be "drastic." I, unlike you, think that both the California Loaded Open Carry ban and California's Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995 should be overturned. My lawsuit, which the NRA and your fellow plaintiff the California Rifle and Pistol Association opposes, seeks to overturn California's Open Carry bans which is a necessary first step to overturning much of the Gun Free School Zone law.
YOUR lawyer speaks for you. If he wasn't accurately representing your position then you had two options: 1) Fire him or 2) remove yourself from the case.
At this late stage of the litigation, door number 2 is the only option you have left. Fortunately, it is easy to do. All you have to do is to instruct YOUR attorney to inform the court of Appeals that you are no longer a plaintiff in the case and that the case should now be stylized as Laxson v. San Diego. It is a simple procedure, all it requires is a one paragraph letter to the Clerk of the Court. No motions, no briefs, no oral arguments. Just a simple letter.
After all, even YOUR attorney says that the odds are two to one that you are going to lose before the en banc panel. All that you will then have left is a futile concealed carry cert petition and we all know how eager the Supreme Court is to grant a concealed carry case.
For as long as you are a plaintiff in Peruta v. San Diego you, yourself, is the proof that you oppose Open Carry. YOUR lawsuit says that you oppose Open Carry and has said that you oppose Open Carry for years now.
Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
"[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2816.
Mr. Charles Nichols President
California Right to Carry,
You and your organization have published information that states in part: "Proof that Ed Peruta opposes Open Carry"
The word "PROOF" is a word that leads people to believe you have HARD FACTS to back up your claim that I oppose Open Carry.
What you and your organization posted in nothing more than an attempt to promote your case and your organization.
Given the fact that you and your organization previously submitting a misleading press release to www.thetruthaboutguns.com claiming that I park my 16 ton 40 Ft. Country Coach Motor Home at my sister's home in San Diego without checking your facts was the first HARD EVIDENCE that you don't know what you're talking about.
I don't have a sister but do have a sister-in-law.
The driveway at her home is double wide and no more than 12 feet from the curb line to base of their home's garage door.
You also made inaccurate claims regarding my ability to obtain a CCW in San Diego County (as a part time resident), even though the issue was resolved in writing to my satisfaction between my attorneys and the County.
Now you again post inaccurate statements with a claim that somewhere in the text of your post, there is "PROOF" that I oppose Open Carry.
You have taken my complete and public opposition to "UNLOADED OPEN CARRY" as opposition to "OPEN CARRY".
I have ALWAYS supported OPEN CARRY where it is legal to do so, and believe that it is the most basic way to obtain the full effect of carrying a firearm for self defense.
Your desire to seek recognition for your law suit and possible support for your organization has in my opinion effected your moral compass.
My legal team and the organizations they advocate for, have provided me with excellent representation in my quest to acquire a CCW in California.
I don't have to worry about your misrepresentations and disinformation here in the Connecticut section because I have a very solid record and reputation on the topic of OPEN CARRY.
To say that I oppose OPEN CARRY is a total fabrication based at best on incorrect information and beliefs.
If you were to read and research the background of the Torrington and Wethersfield Police OPEN CARRY MEMOS in the beginning of this Connecticut Section, you would know that they began with an encounter I had with Torrington Police Lt. Mike Emanuel at a doughnut shop in an Exxon gas station while I was OPENLY carrying my holstered firearm.
So... If I may be so bold to ask, please do your homework or keep your fingers off the keyboard when attempting to explain MY CCW CASE or MY OPEN CARRY BELIEFS.
Last edited by Edward Peruta; 06-19-2014 at 05:49 PM.