No question anymore why metal detectors were up in Jan 13 to harrass us

-------- Original message --------
From: "Tracy, James" <James.Tracy@cga.ct.gov>
Date:
To: All Legislators <Legislators@cga.ct.gov>,All Staff <CGAStaff@cga.ct.gov>
Subject: The Gun Violence Prevention Working Group Public Hearing




The Gun Violence Prevention Working Group of the Bipartisan Task Force on Gun Violence Prevention and Children's Safety is conducting a public hearing at 10:00a.m. in room 2C on Monday, January 28. Due to the sensitive nature of this hearing, a decision has been made to utilize metal detection for all visitors entering the hearing. All legislators and all staff with proper ID badges will be able to enter and exit room 2C through either entrance without going through the metal detector. All visitors will enter 2C through the south entrance (near room 2600) after they have gone through the metal detector. Visitors that leave and want to reenter room 2C will need to go through the metal detector again.



Please contact me should you have any questions.



Jim Tracy
Executive Director
Joint Committee on Legislative Management
Legislative Office Building, Room 5100
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
(860)240-0100

So what? They will know that you are lawfully armed. Besides, it's not like they are following you around with a metal detector...right?

Hmmm - the "memo" doesn't state that those legally carrying will be refused entry.

Grapeshot said:

Hmmm - the "memo" doesn't state that those legally carrying will be refused entry.

Click to expand...

They already have signs on the doors.

I was denied entry because I refused to be searched via a metal detector and package scanner.

I don't think that they can require such searches under our current laws.

So, first step..get a ruling on the metal detector/package scanner/dogs searches.

Second step, bring my gun to the legislative office building. And file a new complaint when denied access to "open" meetings.

DHS and Capitol Police already did an audit and found that even w/o these searches the security was "adequate" ... so I don't even think it would pass 4th amendment hurdles ... these types of checkpoints rely on courts taking judicial notice that they are required but in this instance the gov't has shown that they are not.

As to guns being allowed...I did note to the court that in several states that guns are allowed into the legislative office buildings and into meetings.

It should be a fun legislative session coming up.

I didn't see where it said you will not be allowed a firearm either, but can they keep someone armed out? is it illegal to carry there?

papa bear said:

I didn't see where it said you will not be allowed a firearm either, but can they keep someone armed out? is it illegal to carry there?

Click to expand...

Yes, its now illegal to carry there. But our FOI open meeting laws have this:

Conn. Stat. 1-225(e):
(e) No member of the public shall be required, as a condition to attendance at a meeting of any such body, to register the member’s name, or furnish other information, or complete a questionnaire or otherwise fulfill any condition precedent to the member’s attendance.

And our state constitution notes:
Art. III, Sec. 16: SEC. 16. The debates of each house shall be public, except on such occasions as in the opinion of the house may require secrecy.

So by being searched are you providing "other information" or "fulfill any condition" ? Then searches are not allowed under Connecticut law IMO...when attending a meeting. Go there to meet with your legislator? That's not a meeting under the Act's definitions but certainly to go to a committee meeting or a session of either house of the general assembly certainly would be a meeting as defined by our FOI law.

Just sit down and enjoy your hearing..

Further information -

I contacted the Chief of the Capitol Police and the legislative leaders. None can highlight any law that allows them to have the checkpoints at the legislative building.

Without any lawful authorization, the check points are illegal.

And violate CGS Sec. 53a-96, unlawful restraint, a crime, a misdemeanor...

Sec. 53a-96. Unlawful restraint in the second degree: Class A misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of unlawful restraint in the second degree when he restrains another person.

(b) Unlawful restraint in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

The case State of Connecticut v. Albert Lopez, Appellate court, 93 Conn.App. 257, states that restraint "'Restraint' means to restrict a person's movements...a threat is sufficient to interfere..."

Update - talked to legislative attny Dallas Dodge today

He argued that courthouses have searches. I noted to him that courthouses are exempt from our FOI laws and that they had found a need for searches whereas DESPP & US DHS did not find a need at the capitol complex for searches.

He then argued that metal detectors are not searches. I corrected him & he agreed that are indeed searches.

He then argued that the legislature can make its own rules. I stated that this does not mean that they are exempt from our FOIA laws nor the 4th amendment. He took issue with the FOIA laws....but this argument was previously made and was lost several months ago before the FOI Commission and they never appealed the finding that they are subject to the FOI Act provisions.

Its a typical ploy of legislative attorneys to plead separation of powers. In respect to FOIA laws...that separation does not apply.

When I told him that there were no safety exemptions under the open meeting laws and that the legislature tried to allow for metal detectors and all attempts to pass a law to allow searches were rejected by the legislature, Mr. Dodge had no response.

So I asked him to provide me with actual authority (he thought that the joint rules granted this but the joint rules are silent on this subject.

So far, no legislator, the Capitol Police, nor OLM has provided any citation to authority for these metal detectors. And likely will never do so because it does not exist.

I see some 53a-96 complaints a-coming.