Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Email to the Attorney General's Office

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    his email was sent to the Office of the Attorney General following a series of emails between his office and GOLDCOASTER.

    From: Ed Peruta
    [mailto:edperuta@amcable.tv]
    Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 6:01 PM
    To: 'Patricia.Sullivan@po.state.ct.us'
    Cc:
    rbaird@rachelbairdlaw.com
    Subject: Clarification of State Statute

    Ms. Patricia Sullivan,


    My name is Edward A. Peruta, and I am in receipt of an email sent by you over the signature of Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.

    As you might be aware, I am the plaintiff in a personal case currently on appeal in our state appellate court regarding the topic of openly carrying a firearm while in possession of a valid state “PERMIT TO CARRY PISTOLS AND REVOLVERS”.

    I am providing a copy of this email to my personal attorney and assure you that this correspondence has been sent in my capacity as an active member of the media.

    To say the least, I am disappointed in the response provided to this citizen by the Attorney General.

    For the Attorney General of Connecticut or a member of his staff to advocate the existence and/or enforcement of a law that is ambiguous and confusing to current valid pistol permit holders leaving them at risk of arrest, imprisonment or revocation for legal activity is at best a sad day in Connecticut.

    During the past two legislative sessions, attempts have been made to have the Legislature amend the statutes to mandate concealment by valid permit holders has failed. The most recent attempt was submitted by the Commissioner of Public Safety in a letter dated February 28, 2009 where he clearly states that the law is “ambiguous”.

    Mr. Blumenthal once enjoyed my respect and admiration as a defender of the law and rights of citizens. Sadly after witnessing his position on this topic, that is no longer the case.

    In an attempt to obtain the Attorney General’s opinion and position on this topic, I request if possible, a sit down interview with Mr. Blumenthal or prior notice of all planned news conferences like those sent to other members of the media.

    If Mr. Blumenthal does not have a schedule of open news conferences, I would like a copy of his speaking schedule from this date through the end of 2009.

    Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter,



    Edward A. Peruta
    American News and Information Services Inc.
    Rocky Hill, CT. 06067
    860-978-5455









    ----- Forwarded Message ----

    From: "Sullivan, Patricia" <Patricia.Sullivan@po.state.ct.us>

    To: (Redacted for privacy)

    Sent: Friday, September 4, 2009 2:59:36 PM

    Subject: FW: Request for clarification.


    Reply from Attorney General Richard Blumenthal

    Dear Mr. (Redacted for Privacy):

    Pending litigation does not prohibit any person -- including a legislator -- from seeking legislation to clarify an issue. You are correct that the Department of Public Safety does not establish the law on carrying weapons, but the Department must enforce the law to the best of its ability. Indeed, whether a gun carried in plain sight constitutes a criminal violation may depend on the circumstances existing in that situation. Although you are seeking clarity on this issue, the legality of how a permittee carries a firearm will on all likelihood require a factual assessment by law enforcement officials.

    I wish I could be more helpful.

    Many thanks, and warmest regards.

    Sincerely,

    RICHARD BLUMENTHAL



  2. #2
    Regular Member Lenny Benedetto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    VP of CCDL, Inc., ,
    Posts
    470

    Post imported post

    Track him down Ed, he cant hide from your questions forever!!!
    The Connecticut Citizens Defense League is a non-partisan, grassroots organization devoted to advocating rights affirmed by the Constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Connecticut. We are especially dedicated to protecting the unalienable right of all citizens to keep and bear arms, for the defense of both self and state, through public enlightenment and legislative action.
    Join Here: http://www.ccdl.us/membership

  3. #3
    Regular Member romma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Southeast, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    333

    Post imported post

    There are corn kernels in that poop somewhere!

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    The only way this stuff gets resolved is by more folks open carrying and the practice getting in the news.

    In very state, before the practice became common, some law enforcement folks contended open carry was illegal in some made upway or another.

    Oddly, CT folks need to open carry more if they want the right to open carry to be clearly established in society.

    Do so often as you can but only in the most clearly peaceful and un-intrusive ways possible, like public picnics, in your own neighborhood, in the company of your family, etc. so that there is the least possibility of provoking a legal reaction by anti-open carry nuts who desparatel are seking a legal holding to ban open carry in Connecticut.

    Open carrying at bars, health care discussion events, "protests," etc. is exactly the opposite of what should happen now in Connecticut.

    The good news is that my understanding is that permits have not recently been revoked for open carry due in part to a legal opinion by the Connecticut Board of Firearm Permit Examiners on their web site at http://www.ct.gov/bfpe/cwp/view.asp?...18126&PM=1:

    SNIP

    --

    "GUN PERMIT-RELATED QUESTIONS


    1. Is there any statute prescribing that firearms must be carried concealed?

    The answer is no. The law does not address this issue. But, with limited exceptions, it is illegal to carry a handgun, whether concealed or openly, without a permit, except in one's home or place of business (CGS § 29-35(a))."


  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Griswold CT, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    196

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Oddly, CT folks need to open carry more if they want the right to open carry to be clearly established in society.

    Do so often as you can but only in the most clearly peaceful and un-intrusive ways possible, like public picnics, in your own neighborhood, in the company of your family, etc. so that there is the least possibility of provoking a legal reaction by anti-open carry nuts who desparatel are seking a legal holding to ban open carry in Connecticut.

    Open carrying at bars, health care discussion events, "protests," etc. is exactly the opposite of what should happen now in Connecticut.
    I concur.

  6. #6
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    Stupid question: if your state constitution clearly states you have a RIGHT to bear arms,
    and,
    the supreme court has made it quite clear a right cannot be attached to a licensing process,
    how can it be you must first apply for a permit to exercise a right?
    What Supreme Court decision are you talking about?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Griswold CT, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    196

    Post imported post

    Common sense such tell that a right does not require a licence.

    A privledge yes, but not a right!

    Pistol Permits need to go away!

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    Stupid question: if your state constitution clearly states you have a RIGHT to bear arms,
    and,
    the supreme court has made it quite clear a right cannot be attached to a licensing process,
    how can it be you must first apply for a permit to exercise a right?
    What Supreme Court decision are you talking about?
    Murdock v. commonwealth of PA.

    http://www.constitution.org/ussc/319-105a.htm

    Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105
    A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution.”

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Griswold CT, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    196

    Post imported post

    Murdock v. commonwealth of PA.

    http://www.constitution.org/ussc/319-105a.htm

    Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105
    “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”
    Excellent, who wants to take the State of CT to court?

    Shall we start raising funds and find a lawyer for this purpose?



    I want my money back!




  10. #10
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    DKSuddeth wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    Stupid question: if your state constitution clearly states you have a RIGHT to bear arms,
    and,
    the supreme court has made it quite clear a right cannot be attached to a licensing process,
    how can it be you must first apply for a permit to exercise a right?
    What Supreme Court decision are you talking about?
    Murdock v. commonwealth of PA.

    http://www.constitution.org/ussc/319-105a.htm

    Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105
    “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”
    huh? Why are you quoted text with a court citation where that opinion does not contain this text?

    Please do not spread misinformation on this web site - cite to authority accurately.


  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    DKSuddeth wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    Stupid question: if your state constitution clearly states you have a RIGHT to bear arms,
    and,
    the supreme court has made it quite clear a right cannot be attached to a licensing process,
    how can it be you must first apply for a permit to exercise a right?
    What Supreme Court decision are you talking about?
    Murdock v. commonwealth of PA.

    http://www.constitution.org/ussc/319-105a.htm

    Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105
    “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”
    huh? Why are you quoted text with a court citation where that opinion does not contain this text?

    Please do not spread misinformation on this web site - cite to authority accurately.
    fixed for accuracy.

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    DKSuddeth wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    Stupid question: if your state constitution clearly states you have a RIGHT to bear arms,
    and,
    the supreme court has made it quite clear a right cannot be attached to a licensing process,
    how can it be you must first apply for a permit to exercise a right?
    What Supreme Court decision are you talking about?
    Murdock v. commonwealth of PA.

    http://www.constitution.org/ussc/319-105a.htm

    Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105
    A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution.”
    OK, here's hoping a future post-second amendment incorporation court might follow Murdock on gun carry licensing.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Griswold CT, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    196

    Post imported post

    Any chance the NRA would take this on?



  14. #14
    Regular Member Lenny Benedetto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    VP of CCDL, Inc., ,
    Posts
    470

    Post imported post

    The NRA is as the state of Ct is when it comes to OC. Their opinion is not to be found!!! They seem to never take a stance on this subject. My guess is that they would ignore any request to take action...I could be wrong, but I don't think that I am.
    The Connecticut Citizens Defense League is a non-partisan, grassroots organization devoted to advocating rights affirmed by the Constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Connecticut. We are especially dedicated to protecting the unalienable right of all citizens to keep and bear arms, for the defense of both self and state, through public enlightenment and legislative action.
    Join Here: http://www.ccdl.us/membership

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Griswold CT, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    196

    Post imported post

    THE LOVER wrote:
    The NRA is as the state of Ct is when it comes to OC. Their opinion is not to be found!!! They seem to never take a stance on this subject. My guess is that they would ignore any request to take action...I could be wrong, but I don't think that I am.
    ??

    This is about the permit process, not OC.

    Permits need to go away...for OC and CC. (especially OC though)

  16. #16
    Regular Member Lenny Benedetto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    VP of CCDL, Inc., ,
    Posts
    470

    Post imported post

    This thread started out with Ed dealing with the emails between Goldcoaster and the AG about OC.

    The thread might have been hijacked to talk about the permit process, but I thought that you were still talking about the original theme of this thread.

    My guess is with either subject the NRA would not lift a finger. They always want help from us yet they only seem to back us when it can benefit them with positive publicity.

    On the issue of getting a permit I am for having to get one! I dont care if this makes me unpopular in this thread, in the past I have stated many times possibly on OC.org but definitely on other forums.

    I had very little training when it came to handguns before I decided to get my permit. The NRA basic course taught me many safe practices with my handguns. Without the permit process requiring this training, I and many others would NEVER bother taking a training course.

    I am a much SAFER gun owner because of the permit process here in Ct...the things that I would like to see change is the price of the course and the cost of the permit.


    The Connecticut Citizens Defense League is a non-partisan, grassroots organization devoted to advocating rights affirmed by the Constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Connecticut. We are especially dedicated to protecting the unalienable right of all citizens to keep and bear arms, for the defense of both self and state, through public enlightenment and legislative action.
    Join Here: http://www.ccdl.us/membership

  17. #17
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834

    Post imported post

    THE LOVER wrote:
    On the issue of getting a permit I am for having to get one! I dont care if this makes me unpopular in this thread, in the past I have stated many times possibly on OC.org but definitely on other forums.

    I had very little training when it came to handguns before I decided to get my permit. The NRA basic course taught me many safe practices with my handguns. Without the permit process requiring this training, I and many others would NEVER bother taking a training course.

    I am a much SAFER gun owner because of the permit process here in Ct...the things that I would like to see change is the price of the course and the cost of the permit.
    per the bolded part, why did it take the state demand to be trained in order for you to seek training when you KNEW you were not trained by yourself?

  18. #18
    Regular Member Lenny Benedetto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    VP of CCDL, Inc., ,
    Posts
    470

    Post imported post

    DKSuddeth wrote:
    per the bolded part, why did it take the state demand to be trained in order for you to seek training when you KNEW you were not trained by yourself?
    Your statement of "Trained by yourself" is ridiculous when it comes to guns!

    Reading things in books or magazines is a good start (No internet back then) However to think that you are trained without actually using the handgun, ranges only allow people with proper training certificates to shoot. and I don't live in the woods so no backyard shooting at my house.

    Now if this state allowed anyone that was of age to legally carry a handgun with no proper training, how many people would actually sign up for a course that today can cost $120 in Ct. My guess is not many.

    Since this is hypothetical I cannot supply data to back this up, and if you think about it, even in states allow for carry without a permit there would be no reliable data. You could get data on the number of people actually trained by the NRA or other trainers, however you will never have an accurate number of people that actually carry
    The Connecticut Citizens Defense League is a non-partisan, grassroots organization devoted to advocating rights affirmed by the Constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Connecticut. We are especially dedicated to protecting the unalienable right of all citizens to keep and bear arms, for the defense of both self and state, through public enlightenment and legislative action.
    Join Here: http://www.ccdl.us/membership

  19. #19
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834

    Post imported post

    THE LOVER wrote:
    DKSuddeth wrote:
    per the bolded part, why did it take the state demand to be trained in order for you to seek training when you KNEW you were not trained by yourself?
    Your statement of "Trained by yourself" is ridiculous when it comes to guns!

    Reading things in books or magazines is a good start (No internet back then) However to think that you are trained without actually using the handgun, ranges only allow people with proper training certificates to shoot. and I don't live in the woods so no backyard shooting at my house.
    not what I meant, but that's my fault for not being clearer.

    what I was getting at is why did you wait for the state to demand you get trained instead of seeking it out on your own beforehand, like going to handgun classes and ranges, etc.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Lenny Benedetto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    VP of CCDL, Inc., ,
    Posts
    470

    Post imported post

    DKSuddeth wrote:
    THE LOVER wrote:
    DKSuddeth wrote:
    per the bolded part, why did it take the state demand to be trained in order for you to seek training when you KNEW you were not trained by yourself?
    Your statement of "Trained by yourself" is ridiculous when it comes to guns!

    Reading things in books or magazines is a good start (No internet back then) However to think that you are trained without actually using the handgun, ranges only allow people with proper training certificates to shoot. and I don't live in the woods so no backyard shooting at my house.
    not what I meant, but that's my fault for not being clearer.

    what I was getting at is why did you wait for the state to demand you get trained instead of seeking it out on your own beforehand, like going to handgun classes and ranges, etc.
    Copied from my last post
    ranges only allow people with proper training certificates to shoot. and I don't live in the woods so no backyard shooting at my house.


    So when I decided that I wanted to carry for protection. I took the NRA basic pistol safety course!

    Why is that so hard to understand?

    Should I have been trained before I had an interest in handguns or carrying for protection??

    And if I could legally carry without a permit would I have ponied up the cash for the training course? Probably not..and most WOULDN'T they and I would put the training money into another gun or holster or any other costs involved with owning guns.

    Just stating my honest opinion.
    The Connecticut Citizens Defense League is a non-partisan, grassroots organization devoted to advocating rights affirmed by the Constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Connecticut. We are especially dedicated to protecting the unalienable right of all citizens to keep and bear arms, for the defense of both self and state, through public enlightenment and legislative action.
    Join Here: http://www.ccdl.us/membership

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155

    Post imported post

    Former Nutmegger here, now residing in Pennsylvania. Here, there is no requirement whatsoever for one to have any training at all in order to either own or carry a firearm (handgun, rifle, shotgun), or to get a license to carry concealed. Here, it is viewed as a Personal Responsibility to get training, and, rightfully so, the State holds you personally responsible if you are not aware of the laws or proper handling of a firearm and screw up.

    Some people are better trained than others, others you can have take all the training classes you can think of and you still wouldn't trust them with anything more dangerous than a butter knife. How many negligent discharges do the police have? So much for training.

  22. #22
    Regular Member atrule's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Yalesville, , USA
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    I used to think of a redeeming quality for the pistol permit. The only redeeming quality I could think of is that you go through some course.

    However, now, I don't think this is even a good thing. The one day course is so basic, it has little long term value. The pistol permit requirement discourages people from trying it out without a big initial commitment. Consequently, there are fewer active gun owners. What this causes is less gun education over all, and it is more of a hassle to get it.

    I agree with Statkowski, and other friends from out of state with more of a gun culture. They seem to intrinsically have more knowledge and safety than average gun owner in Connecticut. I believe it is because they are around them so much more.

    I suppose it is like a car. We don't have any compunction to drive a huge piece of power equipment with the power of several sticks of dynamite in the gas tank. We don't worry when kids are on the street with them going by. Why? Because it is part of the background of living. It isn't that way with guns here. It is somewhat that way in other gun culture places like Vermont, W. Virginia, etc. Since it is kinda part of the back ground in those places, they don't even think of safety, they just somehow intrinsically have it in their heads. That is far safer than the permit process that we have to get safety. Especially with so few gun owner/operators.

    It didn't used to be this way in Connecticut. It is just years of left-wing hyper-apron-strings, of which I am sad to admit, I am a victim of. However, I am recovering. ;-)

    Not all gun ranges require a pistol permit to shoot there. I have brought friends.

    As far as training. It is expensive now. And, I would not like to pay $120.00 for that simple class. Although, I would if there were no other way. But, if there were more people around, you can go to the range and ask a neighbor. Most the time I go the the range, I am always asking things of strangers, and learning a lot. That's more effective than a class, and cheaper too. When you get started off like this, you begin to compile a bunch of questions, and are better about to vet out the appropriate class for you. I bet more going to the range and seeing things would/does make more demand for other safety/defense classes.

    Finally, Mr. LOVER, I have to say, you are not unpopular in my book. I don't agree with you (now), but I think your thought was very much worthy of mentioning. It stirred thought in my head, and we discussed a little bit of the economics of gun safety classes. I am very glad you brought it up. And, because of that, I LOVE you very much just the way you are. ;-)

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155

    Post imported post

    One last bit of info from the Keystone State: There are approximately 9,131,130 residents age 21 or over. Out of this, approximately 627,409 (6.9% of the adult population) possess licenses to carry firearms (LTCFs = required for concealed carry or carry in a vehicle; no license required for open carry). All of this with no training requirement. And very little blood running in the streets, or shoot-outs over parking spaces. No license required to purchase or own a firearm.

    A number of us gun owners wrote to our elected state officials and to the State Police, and finally the annual police training throughout the state is mentioning that open carry is legal, is not disorderly conduct or terroristic threatening (we have no brandishing or inducing a panic law), and is not, on its own, a reason to stop and hassle a citizen.

    I would recommend all Nutmeggers keep hammering away at the Attorney General, the State Police, and the elected state officials.

Posting Permissions

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