Letter to the Chief of Police

LKB3rd · Sep 5, 2008

imported post

Anyone here can feel free to edit it and/or use this as a template to do similar things in your town.
The timing is also good because notice was just sent to every town in CT of the action pending in the New Britain Superior Court, for a declaratory judgement on open carry.

Disclaimer: Be sure you are aware of the ins and outs of this subject in CT, and realize that in some parts of the state, the police may insist on arresting open carriers. I'd recommend consulting with a lawyer, and having one on retainer. Even if you don't want to go out and do it, I'd think it might not be a bad thing to send a letter just to see what sort of response you get, but that is up to you all to decide for yourselves.
The (1) and (2) are footnotes, which don't work properly pasted here. Also, I've been sort of toying around with editing the language on "pistols or revolvers" because it gets sort of cumbersome to read, and might just change some parts to "handgun."

September 4, 2008

My Name
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXX CT XXXXX-XXXX
(860) XXX-XXXX

Chief of Police
XXXXXX Police Department

Re: Resident Inquiry

Dear Chief XXXXXX:

I am a resident of (my town) and hold a state permit to carry a pistol or revolver.(1) As a responsible state permit holder I have read the state laws applicable to state permits and firearms possession and have found that these laws do not prohibit me from openly carrying a pistol or revolver on premises where carrying a pistol or revolver is not otherwise lawfully prohibited by the premises’ owner or by law. The state Office of Legislative Research addressed this question and responded that there is no statute prescribing that firearms must be carried concealed.(2)

I plan to openly carry my pistol in the Town of (my town). By this letter I am requesting an opportunity to review a list of town properties and facilities where a state permit holder is prohibited from carrying a pistol or revolver. Even with this information however I am concerned that state permit holders in Connecticut have been subject to arrest for breach of peace or other offenses when a pistol or revolver is incidentally or accidentally exposed or intentionally carried openly. From discussing this matter with other permit holders and even police officers, I have learned that trained law enforcement officers in this state actively enforce a non-existent requirement that state permit holders conceal carry their pistols or revolvers.

In closing, I plan to openly carry my pistol in the Town of XXXXXX. In preparation, I have asked whether the Town of XXXXXX maintains a list of town properties and facilities where a state permit holder is prohibited from carrying a pistol or revolver and an opportunity to review the list if a list exists. Finally, I am seeking assurances that police officers employed by the Town of XXXXXX do not enforce an unlawful ban on the open carry of a pistol or revolver by a state permit holder.

I am familiar with your commendable efforts to reach out to the community by making yourself available to respond to residents’ questions and concerns. I believe that the concerns expressed in this letter, specifically that I may be arrested for exercising my right, as a state permit holder, to openly carry a pistol or revolver in the state, may be the concerns of many residents of the Town of XXXXXXX. I am requesting a meeting with you so that I may understand your position and the Town of XXXXXXX’s position on my plan to exercise my right to carry a pistol openly in the Town of XXXXXXXX.

I may be contacted at the address and phone number listed above or you may email me at LKB3rd@LKB3rd.com. I look forward to hearing from you and thank you for your public service.

Best regards,

LKB3rd

(1) I hold a state permit to carry a pistol or revolver issued pursuant to General Statutes § 29-28b.
(2) See http://www.ct.gov/bfpe/cwp/view.asp?a=1838&Q=418126&PM=1.

This is the letter that was sent on Saturday to all of the police departments:

http://www.ourrockyhill.com/Goldberg.Files/peruta_CoverLetter_082908.pdf

JUMPMASTER · Sep 14, 2008

imported post

I just sent this letter to my police chief. I'm also going to send a copy directed to the Chiefs of as many towns as I can afford postage.

September 14[suP]th[/suP], 2008

Chief Karen Krasicky

Plymouth Police Department

80 Main St

Terryville, Ct

06786

Dear Karen,

Subject: Open carry of pistols or revolvers

I am writing to you as a private citizen on behalf of myself and others similarly situated.

For many years it was believed by civilians and law enforcement that a person issued a Connecticut Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers pursuant to Connecticut General Statute 29-28 had to carry his or her firearm concealed. Connecticut State Law is silent on this issue. There is no law that states that a weapon must be carried concealed whether partially or wholly. For many years’ law enforcement and firearms instructors have relied on literature published by the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners (BOFPE) that said “every effort should be made to ensure that no gun is exposed to view or carried in any manner that would tend to alarm people who see it.” This information was removed from the BOFPE frequently asked questions section on its website after a vote of the board on 12/13/07 because no one could substantiate the source. The information was also quoted in an Office of Legislative Research paper published on 5/21/07 under 2007-R-0369, it stated:

[size=[font="Times New Roman"]The permit to carry handguns allows people to carry them openly or concealed, but mature judgment, says the Board of Firearm Permit Examiners, dictates that (1) “every effort should be made to ensure that no gun is exposed to view or carried in any manner that would tend to alarm people who see it. . . [and] (2) no handgun should be carried unless carrying the gun at the time and place involved is prudent and proper in the circumstances. ”[/font]][/size]

[size=[font="Times New Roman"]For example, according to the board, handguns should not be carried: [/font]][/size]

[size=[font="Times New Roman"]1. into a bar or other place where alcohol is being consumed; [/font]][/size]

[size=[font="Times New Roman"]2. in any situation involving stress such as an argument; [/font]][/size]

[size=[font="Times New Roman"]3. after consuming alcohol or any drugs other than those legally prescribed; or[/font]][/size]

[size=[font="Times New Roman"]4. in any building, residential or commercial, whose owner prohibits handguns[/font]][/size]

[size=[font="Times New Roman"][/font]][/size]

Some law enforcement officers have used these recommendations to charge a permit holder, who either chooses to carry a pistol or revolver openly or has allowed a portion of his firearm to become exposed, with Breach of the Peace. It has been decided in many courts that an overreaction by one person to another person’s lawful conduct cannot establish the elements of breach of the peace. For instance if a person was walking peacefully down Main Street with a holstered weapon or conducting business in a store which did not prohibit the carrying of a weapon that person could not be legally charged with breach of the peace.

Much of this information came to light during the arrest of James Goldberg last summer at a Chili’s restaurant in Glastonbury. Details and the outcome of this arrest can be found at www.ourrockyhill.com

I request that you review this letter and ensure that all Plymouth Police Officers and Dispatchers are aware that the carrying of a pistol or revolver openly by a permit holder who is engaged in peaceful behavior is not against the law.

Sincerely yours,

LKB3rd · Sep 16, 2008

imported post

I had meeting yesterday with the Chief or Police, and the Deputy Chief of Police.
I got a good impression of them both, and they were very open in discussing the matter with me.
I want to keep the details of meeting private, out of respect to them both, but basically, he said that openly carrying was 100% legal in Connecticut, by people with a carry permit, but depending on the situation, "breach of the peace" might apply if people became "alarmed or threatened." He told me that if no one called about it, they would not stop me, but if they did call, they would respond and assess the situation depending on the factors involved. He didn't say that they would definitely charge "breach of the peace," but he didn't say that they wouldn't

LQM · Sep 16, 2008

imported post

LKB3rd wrote:

I had meeting yesterday with the Chief or Police, and the Deputy Chief of Police.
I got a good impression of them both, and they were very open in discussing the matter with me.
I want to keep the details of meeting private, out of respect to them both, but basically, he said that openly carrying was 100% legal in Connecticut, by people with a carry permit, but depending on the situation, "breach of the peace" might apply if people became "alarmed or threatened." He told me that if no one called about it, they would not stop me, but if they did call, they would respond and assess the situation depending on the factors involved. He didn't say that they would definitely charge "breach of the peace," but he didn't say that they wouldn't.

Hmmmm... Sounds to me like if someone makes the call, you may well get charged. The mere fact that the call is made is reason enough to state that you caused "someone" to "become alarmed or threatened." Once called, for some reason, the Police feel they "need" to do something.

In another post I mentioned how the Officer, after investigating and making the determination that you are legal, and in the commission of no crime, just bids you good day. Your summary, while still positive, leaves me thinking my idyllic scenario won't happen yet. I may be mistaken, by all means correct me.

I respect your decision to keep the conversation private. Perhaps we can discuss it over an adult beverage sometime.

LQM

LKB3rd · Sep 17, 2008

imported post

I had a look at the "breach of the peace" statute.

§ 53a-181. Breach of the peace: Class B misdemeanor.

(a) A person is guilty of breach of the peace when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:

(1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior in a public place; or

(2) assaults or strikes another; or

(3) threatens to commit any crime against another person or his property; or

(4) publicly exhibits, distributes, posts up or advertises any offensive, indecent or abusive matter concerning any person; or

(5) in a public place, uses abusive or obscene language or makes an obscene gesture; or

(6) creates a public and hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which he is not licensed or privileged to do.

(b) Breach of the peace is a class B misdemeanor.

GoldCoaster · Sep 17, 2008

imported post

LKB3rd wrote:

I had a look at the "breach of the peace" statute.

§ 53a-181. Breach of the peace: Class B misdemeanor.

(a) A person is guilty of breach of the peace when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:

(1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior in a public place; or

(2) assaults or strikes another; or

(3) threatens to commit any crime against another person or his property; or

(4) publicly exhibits, distributes, posts up or advertises any offensive, indecent or abusive matter concerning any person; or

(5) in a public place, uses abusive or obscene language or makes an obscene gesture; or

(6) creates a public and hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which he is not licensed or privileged to do.

(b) Breach of the peace is a class B misdemeanor.

Click to expand...

Where is the intent? that would be where my defence would concentrate on should something like this happen to me for one. The rest of the definitions don't really apply unless you are doing something stupid like patting your side arm and saying "shut up or I'll shoot you"

A holstered weapon with no overt actions of a hostile nature don't constitute a breach of peace. I'm hoping Goldberg brings this into sharp focus for the state.

dbernor · Sep 17, 2008

imported post

A holstered weapon with no overt actions of a hostile nature don't constitute a breach of peace.

But, that situation boils down to a "He Said / She Said" event.

In this state, who would the Officer be more likely to believe? The person openly carrying a sidearm or the person that called the police?

While it's obviously skewed and sucks, I bet the cop will take the non-armed persons statements as fact.

GoldCoaster · Sep 17, 2008

imported post

dbernor wrote:

A holstered weapon with no overt actions of a hostile nature don't constitute a breach of peace.

Click to expand...

But, that situation boils down to a "He Said / She Said" event.

In this state, who would the Officer be more likely to believe? The person openly carrying a sidearm or the person that called the police?

While it's obviously skewed and sucks, I bet the cop will take the non-armed persons statements as fact.

I don't disagree with your guess but it will come down to facts in the end and it won't be up to a police officer to believe one way or another. If it goes to trial, the state would have the burden of proof put on them that a breach of peace was comitted. If they can't, then the department and the officer become actionable due to false arrest and other violations of rights.

dbernor · Sep 17, 2008

imported post

GoldCoaster wrote:

dbernor wrote:

A holstered weapon with no overt actions of a hostile nature don't constitute a breach of peace.

Click to expand...

But, that situation boils down to a "He Said / She Said" event.

In this state, who would the Officer be more likely to believe? The person openly carrying a sidearm or the person that called the police?

While it's obviously skewed and sucks, I bet the cop will take the non-armed persons statements as fact.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with your guess but it will come down to facts in the end and it won't be up to a police officer to believe one way or another. If it goes to trial, the state would have the burden of proof put on them that a breach of peace was comitted. If they can't, then the department and the officer become actionable due to false arrest and other violations of rights.

Right, but from incident to trial could be 2 years. And during that time you have had your permit seized, weapons possibly as well, and a ton of press, possible incarceration (wrongful but possible).

Just seems like all the cards are stacked against us in this freaking state.

LKB3rd · Sep 17, 2008

imported post

GoldCoaster wrote:

LKB3rd wrote:

I had a look at the "breach of the peace" statute.

§ 53a-181. Breach of the peace: Class B misdemeanor.

(a) A person is guilty of breach of the peace when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:

(1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior in a public place; or

(2) assaults or strikes another; or

(3) threatens to commit any crime against another person or his property; or

(4) publicly exhibits, distributes, posts up or advertises any offensive, indecent or abusive matter concerning any person; or

(5) in a public place, uses abusive or obscene language or makes an obscene gesture; or

(6) creates a public and hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which he is not licensed or privileged to do.

(b) Breach of the peace is a class B misdemeanor.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Where is the intent? that would be where my defence would concentrate on should something like this happen to me for one. The rest of the definitions don't really apply unless you are doing something stupid like patting your side arm and saying "shut up or I'll shoot you"

A holstered weapon with no overt actions of a hostile nature don't constitute a breach of peace. I'm hoping Goldberg brings this into sharp focus for the state.

As far as I can tell, intent or recklessness causing inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm has to be accompanied by one of the 6 listed things. I am not a lawyer, but laws are supposed to be written so that shmoe's such as myself can understand them.
Creating annoyance, inconvenience or alarm in and of itself does not appear to qualify for a "breach of the peace" charge.

LQM · Sep 17, 2008

imported post

dbernor is right. I will have been charged, possibly incarcerated, and lost both my permit and my firearm – simply because "someone" called. Even though I've committed no crime and I know it, the cop knows it, and the Chief believes I have the right to carry; that call has to be answered.

In the mean time, even though I may be exonerated, I've had to hire a lawyer, deal with the bad press, quite possibly lost my job, and as a result fallen behind in all my financial affairs, just because I exercised a privilege according to the State issued permit. But we could "what if" all day long.

Lets not absolve the arriving officer of any duty here. He or she too has to exercise discretion and judgement. The outcome will be determined by him or her. Talking to some police officers in my own circle I gather the attitude is to arrest everyone and let the judge sort it out. This I disagree with, but I'm not in law enforcement. I don't envy them their jobs. Every day, people are lying to them. They have to go places and do things you or I wouldn't do, and in some cases I can understand their "arrest everybody" thinking. They want to go home too.

LQM · Sep 17, 2008

imported post

LKB3rd wrote:

GoldCoaster wrote:

LKB3rd wrote:

I had a look at the "breach of the peace" statute.

§ 53a-181. Breach of the peace: Class B misdemeanor.

(a) A person is guilty of breach of the peace when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:

(1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior in a public place; or

(2) assaults or strikes another; or

(3) threatens to commit any crime against another person or his property; or

(4) publicly exhibits, distributes, posts up or advertises any offensive, indecent or abusive matter concerning any person; or

(5) in a public place, uses abusive or obscene language or makes an obscene gesture; or

(6) creates a public and hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which he is not licensed or privileged to do.

(b) Breach of the peace is a class B misdemeanor.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Where is the intent? that would be where my defence would concentrate on should something like this happen to me for one. The rest of the definitions don't really apply unless you are doing something stupid like patting your side arm and saying "shut up or I'll shoot you"

A holstered weapon with no overt actions of a hostile nature don't constitute a breach of peace. I'm hoping Goldberg brings this into sharp focus for the state.

Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, intent or recklessness causing inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm has to be accompanied by one of the 6 listed things. I am not a lawyer, but laws are supposed to be written so that shmoe's such as myself can understand them.
Creating annoyance, inconvenience or alarm in and of itself does not appear to qualify for a "breach of the peace" charge.
I e-mailed Chief DeCarlo telling him that I wanted to be sure to conduct myself lawfully, and am not understanding which one of the numbered actions would apply to someone openly carrying a handgun, with a permit. I haven't heard back yet.

We are of like minds (that's scary, eh?) That's the kind of clarification I'm looking for.
LQM

scorpioajr · Sep 17, 2008

imported post

LQM wrote:

Talking to some police officers in my own circle I gather the attitude is to arrest everyone and let the judge sort it out."

Unreal. makes one feel as though they have no rights at all... i mean, this isn't just a off-the-cuff remark. You obviously got his from "The Horses Mouth". unacceptable. IMO.

GoldCoaster · Sep 17, 2008

imported post

ProtectedBy9mm wrote:

LQM wrote:

Talking to some police officers in my own circle I gather the attitude is to arrest everyone and let the judge sort it out."

Click to expand...

Unreal. makes one feel as though they have no rights at all... i mean, this isn't just a off-the-cuff remark. You obviously got his from "The Horses Mouth". unacceptable. IMO.

Funny story - somewhat related.

I was waiting on the train platform of the station in the town where I work waiting to come home today and was hanging out with some of that towns finest who commute to work. One of them was annoyed that he didn't bring his backpack so that he could put his piece in it and take off his light jacket (since he was hot). The other cops told him, just put the tee shirt over it and take the jacket off. He wound up doing this but you could tell it wasn't his preference. I piped up "well when the DPS comes out with their notice that open carry is legal in this state you won't have to worry about covering up"

The results of Goldberg versus DPS et al cannot come soon enough

dbernor · Sep 18, 2008

imported post

What was their response to your comment?

GoldCoaster · Sep 18, 2008

imported post

dbernor wrote:

What was their response to your comment?

I don't think the particular cop I said this to knew anything about open carry. One of the others had said he "thought" that guns had to be concealed in CT. I challenged him to find any reference to it in the statutes. I haven't heard back

JUMPMASTER · Sep 18, 2008

imported post

It's time to stand up for what is right. The fact is open carry is legal. Do not allow the local and state police create a Police State by trying to enforce and create their own laws. They are in place to serve the people. The same people that elected the legislatures to propose, pass, and enact laws. The State Legislative body did not makeopen carry against the law nor didthey require carrying concealed only. It's not up to the police to take their own stance on the matter. It's time we come together and tell the police to stop the bullying and harassment.

Edward Peruta · Sep 22, 2008

imported post

TO ALL FOLLOWING THE GOLDBERG CASE.

THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY TODAY (SEPTEMBER 22ND), SENT NOTICE TO ATTORNEY RACHEL BAIRD THAT JAMES GOLDBERG'S PERMIT TO CARRY PISTOLS AND REVOLVERS HAS BEEN REINSTATED.

A PDF COPY OF THE LETTER AND A LINK TO THE LETTER IN WEBPAGE FORMAT MAY BE FOUND AT WWW.OURROCKYHILL.COM

MR. GOLDBERG MADE NO CONCESSIONS AS PART OF THIS REINSTATEMENT.

JUMPMASTER · Sep 22, 2008

imported post

Edward Peruta wrote:

TO ALL FOLLOWING THE GOLDBERG CASE.

THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY TODAY (SEPTEMBER 22ND), SENT NOTICE TO ATTORNEY RACHEL BAIRD THAT JAMES GOLDBERG'S PERMIT TO CARRY PISTOLS AND REVOLVERS HAS BEEN REINSTATED.

A PDF COPY OF THE LETTER AND A LINK TO THE LETTER IN WEBPAGE FORMAT MAY BE FOUND AT http://WWW.OURROCKYHILL.COM

MR. GOLDBERG MADE NO CONCESSIONS AS PART OF THIS REINSTATEMENT.

So they held his permit as punishment for the past 15 months? What does the line about "further incidents" mean?

Gray Peterson · Sep 22, 2008

imported post

JUMPMASTER wrote:

Edward Peruta wrote:

TO ALL FOLLOWING THE GOLDBERG CASE.

THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY TODAY (SEPTEMBER 22ND), SENT NOTICE TO ATTORNEY RACHEL BAIRD THAT JAMES GOLDBERG'S PERMIT TO CARRY PISTOLS AND REVOLVERS HAS BEEN REINSTATED.

A PDF COPY OF THE LETTER AND A LINK TO THE LETTER IN WEBPAGE FORMAT MAY BE FOUND AT http://WWW.OURROCKYHILL.COM

MR. GOLDBERG MADE NO CONCESSIONS AS PART OF THIS REINSTATEMENT.

Click to expand...

So they held his permit as punishment for the past 15 months? What does the line about "further incidents" mean?

Sounds like A) A way for them to deny him standing in his federal lawsuit, especially in light of Heller and B) Threaten to revoke his license if he dare open carry.

Letter to the Chief of Police

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member - Moderator