Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Back to OC in This Forum

  1. #1
    Regular Member brk913's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Plainville, CT
    Posts
    370

    Back to OC in This Forum

    It seems this forum lost sight of open carry issues which is what this forum is all about. To get us back on track I think everyone should be aware of what has happened in CT regarding OC over the last few months.

    The case of Scott Lazurek has made waves here in CT. Scott was arrested for refusing to show his permit after being stopped for openly carrying a handgun on a beach boardwalk in CT. He was one of two people stopped, the other showed his permit and was free to leave, Scott refused, standing on the principal that an officer in CT needs RAS to stop and ID an individual. Prior Federal courts have agreed that the simple act of openly carrying a handgun in a state that allows the OC of handguns does not amount to RAS, see Black v US as an example: http://www.fedagent.com/case-law-upd...ard-of-seizure

    Scott was arrested for Interfering with an Officer, they could not charge him with a gun crime as upon inventorying his possessions subsequent to arrest they discovered his valid Pistol Permit in his wallet. The state revoked his permit due to the arrest. Scott went to court and the prosecutor after reviewing the case offered a Nolle, Scott refused stating he would only accept a full dismissal as he should not have been stopped to begin with, the prosecutor after reviewing the laws eventually agreed and dismissed the case fully. You would think the story ends there but no, the state refused to return his permit even though a court had decided he broke no laws. So Scott waited over a year to receive his hearing before the Board of Firearm Permit Examiners.

    At the hearing a member of the Board asked Scott what he would do if presented with the same situation again and he firmly stated he would do the exact same thing, some members of the Board were taken aback by this but in the end Scott won and the Board ordered his permit to be reinstated.

    The state, now with mud on it's face, did not like that answer and appealed the Board's decision to the court system, to make a long story short the court upheld the Board's decision but in doing so the Judge added several personal opinions to his decision instead of just stating facts of law. One of those statements was that the prosecutor should have pushed the charges against Scott, that he felt the dismissal was wrong and what Scott did was in fact interfering with an officer (a direct disregard of prior federal court rulings). Read the entire ruling here: http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/Docum...mentNo=8953633

    After losing in court the state was going to appeal that decision but decided not to appeal, the main reason was because our legislature in CT took up the issue and snuck this little change into our statutes without a public hearing as far as I could tell:

    Sec. 2. Subsection (b) of section 29-35 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective October 1, 2015):

    (b) The holder of a permit issued pursuant to section 29-28, as amended by this act, shall carry such permit upon one's person while carrying such pistol or revolver. Such holder shall present his or her permit upon the request of a law enforcement officer who has reasonable suspicion of a crime for purposes of verification of the validity of the permit or identification of the holder, provided such holder is carrying a pistol or revolver that is observed by such law enforcement officer.

    Now, you would think that an officer would still need RAS prior to them stopping an open carrier but nope, our lovely law enforcement officers and their superiors have taken this new statute and determined that the mere sight of a firearm is RAS to stop, detain and ID to verify if the permit is valid, making being illegal the new default status of anyone seen openly carrying, you are now guilty and must prove yourself innocent on the street, again clearly flaunting prior federal court rulings.

    What happened to our 4th and 5th amendment rights....when are the people of CT going to wake up and see that every day they are giving away their liberties that brave men and women fought and died for? I believe Scott Lazurek is a Patriot for standing up for our rights and although he "won" his case it is a bittersweet result for the rest of us open carriers here in CT who have to live in fear that we to will be stopped and detained for no legal reason other than an officer feels he needs to check everyones permit. It's time to clear out the anti gun legislators in Hartford and repeal a lot of our erroneous laws, especially ones that violate Constitutional Rights.
    Member:, NRA Patron Life, NSSF, CCDL, CT Carry, MRPC and Bell City
    NRA Certified Instructor, Chief Range Safety Officer - Basic Pistol, Home Firearm Safety, Metallic Cartridge/Shotgun Shell Reloading - www.ctpistolpermit.com

  2. #2
    Regular Member Tactical9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Manchester, New Hampshire
    Posts
    132
    I agree with you completely.

    It certainly does seem that the new state agenda is to penalize open carriers (without making the act of open carry illegal). If the police don't see a pistol being carried (as in CC), they won't stop you to ask for your papers. If they do see one, well, they wish to make life difficult for the open carriers. Papers please.

    "It's time to clear out the anti gun legislators in Hartford and repeal a lot of our erroneous laws, especially ones that violate Constitutional Rights."

    It's been time for almost forty years now, if not longer. Unfortunately, the people voting the enemies of liberty into office vastly outnumber the liberty-loving folk in the state. The large cities in particular contribute to this problem.

    This was one of the many reasons why I left that state. In my opinion it couldn't be fixed from the inside, and I wrote it off as a lost cause that was heading for NY & NJ emulation. Choosing to move on to a liberty-minded state where I could try to make sure what happened there didn't happen here.
    Let a man never stir on his road a step without his weapons of war; for unsure is the knowing when need shall arise of a spear on the way without. -Hávamál 38

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,623
    Abandon hope all ye that enter here......

    I refuse to go easily or quietly.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    06076
    Posts
    66
    I will comply, but I will not cooperate.

    "Such holder shall present his or her permit upon the request of a law enforcement officer"

    I will present it, but I will not hand it over. Look but don't touch and I won't say a word. Once presented and verified "Officer, am I free to go?"

    Sound about right to anyone else?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Louisville ky
    Posts
    101
    I don't understand what the new statute does. It still says the permit holder must show id when the officer has suspicion a crime has been committed.
    Merely open carrying is not suspicion of a crime.

    So what did the new statute fix?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Louisville ky
    Posts
    101
    CT is horrible state as of late. I can't believe the people there put up with such blatant violations.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    06076
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by travr6 View Post
    CT is horrible state as of late. I can't believe the people there put up with such blatant violations.
    Some of the people are here because that is where their career has them. All I can say is that it is better than NYS where I came from. Trust me, I don't like CT and I will be leaving as soon as possible. At least I have a permit now and I can carry any way I damn well please. It ain't much, but until the masses get their heads out of their asses it isn't going to change. 1-2 years max is all I have left here. Full vestment in my 401k and i'm out.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Louisville ky
    Posts
    101
    I am constantly baffled how the people in the northeast where a lot of the founders and revolutionaries were have such little concern for their rights.
    I was sickened by the people of Boston during the marathon bombing. The way they just cowered and allowed the police to walk over them was pathetic. In a city known for fighting tyranny.

    I have traveled every state in the continental u.s. except the north east.
    I want to see the old revolutionary war sights. I want to visit the white house to see the declaration and constitution. I want to see the statute of liberty.
    But these states sicken me how anti 2nd amendment they are that I don't want to give them my tourism dollars.
    Last edited by travr6; 09-21-2015 at 09:25 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    06076
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by travr6 View Post
    I am constantly baffled how the people in the northeast where a lot of the founders and revolutionaries were have such little concern for their rights.
    I was sickened by the people of Boston during the marathon bombing. The way they just cowered and allowed the police to walk over them was pathetic. In a city known for fighting tyranny.

    I have traveled every state in the continental u.s. except the north east.
    I want to see the old revolutionary war sights. I want to visit the white house to see the declaration and constitution. I want to see the statute of liberty.
    But these states sicken me how anti 2nd amendment they are that I don't want to give them my tourism dollars.
    NYC isn't that great. A few hours and you'll be sick of it. Read about the rest in books or watch the history channel. The only thing good left here is the skiing and even that has turned to crap in the last 5-10 years. There is nothing much here worth visiting besides the Adirondack Park. Leave your guns at home though, the bears need to eat too.

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by travr6 View Post
    I have traveled every state in the continental u.s. except the north east.
    Merely visiting doesn't quite do justice. Live among the urbanized masses of the NorthEast for a while to really come to realize some of the massive problems with the culture.

    I suspect it has to do with being so highly urbanized. Something about city living with its obvious and constant reliance on government services for day-to-day living seems to breed freedom hating liberals. Oh, they love what they call "freedom" including social and legal acceptance of every sexual perversion one can imagine--most ironically, coupled with a very strong hatred of religiously motivated polygamy--freelove, hippy polyamorous relationships are cool, but that religiously motivated polygamy is just wrong. But they hate guns, freedom of movement, keeping what you earn, etc.

    We described Boston as "cold...and we're not talking about the weather." I have summarized the New England urbanized thusly: "They wouldn't know which end of a cow to feed and which end to shovel up after. But they are experts in range management. Just ask them."

    I recall an Antebellum New Englander traveling to the South (when such travels were fairly rare). He wrote of his experience and among the things he found most condemning of the South was that he saw some fences in disrepair. Wish I could remember the source.

    Some very good traits from New England including strong work ethic, and a willingness (at one time) to unabashedly accept religiously inspired morals have as much sway in public life as values inspired by any other belief system.

    Today, I most admire Bostonians for their willingness to be themselves. "This ain't New York" is a common answer to complaints such as why the subway ("T") doesn't run all night. There is much I don't like of their culture--even as I have some dear friends who live there. But I admire the way they don't apologize for that culture. They like it and don't care if outsiders don't.

    If the rest of us adopted a bit more of that attitude, the East and Left coast media and DC politicians might not have such an easy time imposing unwanted cultures on us.

    Back on topic, I was amused as I attended annual Patriot Day celebrations that the very location where the shooting war started over attempts to confiscate private guns, now imposes harsher gun control on its citizens than King George ever tried to do.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  11. #11
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    Merely visiting doesn't quite do justice. ...

    If the rest of us adopted a bit more of that attitude, the East and Left coast media and DC politicians might not have such an easy time imposing unwanted cultures on us. ...
    It may very well be the media and politicians, but I have found that it is Bostonians et al, moving in next door, to be the root cause of the epidemic that is liberalism. But, of course, I do not speak for all southerners and those in flyover country.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

Posting Permissions

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