• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Email to the Attorney General's Office

Edward Peruta

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
1,247
Location
Connecticut USA
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

 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
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 [url]http://www.ct.gov/bfpe/cwp/view.asp?a=1838&Q=418126&PM=1[/url]:

SNIP

--

[font=Verdana,Arial,Geneva]"GUN PERMIT-RELATED QUESTIONS[/font]


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))."
 

uskrusader

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
196
Location
Griswold CT, Connecticut, USA
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.
 
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
2,269
Location
baton rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

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?
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
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?
 
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
2,269
Location
baton rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

During my decades of reading, there was a supreme court decision which said as much. No, I cannot, off the top of my head, recall the name of the case in question, but that's pretty much the gist of the decision.
Shame we don't have a site attorney who should/would know these things.
 

DKSuddeth

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
833
Location
Bedford, Texas, USA
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.”
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
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.
 

DKSuddeth

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
833
Location
Bedford, Texas, USA
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.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
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.
 

Lenny Benedetto

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
470
Location
VP of CCDL, Inc., ,
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.
 

uskrusader

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
196
Location
Griswold CT, Connecticut, USA
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)
 

Lenny Benedetto

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
470
Location
VP of CCDL, Inc., ,
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.
 

DKSuddeth

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
833
Location
Bedford, Texas, USA
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?
 

Lenny Benedetto

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
470
Location
VP of CCDL, Inc., ,
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
 
Top