Lenny Benedetto
Regular Member
imported post
send me a PM
send me a PM
I am fascinated as I read through all the material on the site Ed has linked to.
One major question has popped up to me. Does anyone know the current wait time for a hearing in case of the revocation of a permit?
To ESCH
I would be curious to find out if you could, why the police chief believes a "Breach of Peace" charge applies to someone legally open carrying a firearm they are licensed for?
I will try to answer your question. I can't find the exact wording in my files, so if someone has it please post or correct me, I'm doing this from memory.
Dept. Public Safety would make policies with wording "Mature Judgement Dictates" no carrying in a bar, or in a stressful situations, you must carry your firearm in a way not to cause alarm or panic to the general public.
If someone saw your gun i.e. Goldberg case and said they were scared, alarmed then you were charged with breach of peace. Goldberg is not a isolated incident, over the years many people have lost their right to a firearm over state policies not laws.
There is alot more to the Goldberg case than someone just seeing his gun, but it gives you a idea how the breach of peace charge comes into play.
Biz owner, DPSrecomendations are not law. Further there is no posted "policy" or recomendation at all for what you are suggesting. I can't find what you mention anywhere. I have listed the "breach of peace" state statute. All the wording is there. There is no law about carrying a gun with a permit in a bar. Please do not make up laws we have enough trouble with that happening already. Istill do not understand why people insist on not knowing things when the laws are right there for people to read.Please do not spread false or misleading information. When posting information please post references which pertain. This is why we have such a problem here in CT. I honestly am not trying to be arguementative but try to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.For far too long people have been acting under the assumption of things. Because of this, we nowhave local authorities who are not educated inwhat the laws are. They go by what they think they are. They are cops and not lawers sosome of it is understood. Our goalshould be and is to educate whomever nessesary to protect our rights.
BizOwner wrote:To ESCH
I would be curious to find out if you could, why the police chief believes a "Breach of Peace" charge applies to someone legally open carrying a firearm they are licensed for?
I will try to answer your question. I can't find the exact wording in my files, so if someone has it please post or correct me, I'm doing this from memory.
Dept. Public Safety would make policies with wording "Mature Judgement Dictates" no carrying in a bar, or in a stressful situations, you must carry your firearm in a way not to cause alarm or panic to the general public.
If someone saw your gun i.e. Goldberg case and said they were scared, alarmed then you were charged with breach of peace. Goldberg is not a isolated incident, over the years many people have lost their right to a firearm over state policies not laws.
There is alot more to the Goldberg case than someone just seeing his gun, but it gives you a idea how the breach of peace charge comes into play.Biz owner, DPSrecommendations are not law. Further there is no posted "policy" or recomendation at all for what you are suggesting. I can't find what you mention anywhere. I have listed the "breach of peace" state statute. All the wording is there. There is no law about carrying a gun with a permit in a bar. Please do not make up laws we have enough trouble with that happening already. Istill do not understand why people insist on not knowing things when the laws are right there for people to read.Please do not spread false or misleading information. When posting information please post references which pertain. This is why we have such a problem here in CT. I honestly am not trying to be arguementative but try to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.For far too long people have been acting under the assumption of things. Because of this, we nowhave local authorities who are not educated inwhat the laws are. They go by what they think they are. They are cops and not lawers sosome of it is understood. Our goalshould be and is to educate whomever nessesary to protect our rights.
ESCH,Fatcat,
Since it seems you have a great open line of communication with your police chief, I have a request.
Here is the CT statute for "Breach of Peace"
Sec. 53a-181. Breach of the peace in the second degree: Class B misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of breach of the peace in the second degree when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person: (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 such other person's 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 such person is not licensed or privileged to do. For purposes of this section, "public place" means any area that is used or held out for use by the public whether owned or operated by public or private interests.
I would be curious to find out if you could, why the police chief believes a "Breach of Peace" charge applies to someone legally open carrying a firearm they are licensed for? There is no intent to cause alarm. There is no threatening. No fighting, no assault, no posting of abusive material, no obscene jestures, and not creating an offensive condition of which one is licensed to do so. I don't see where the charge applies.
This is where we need an answer. The horse has left the barn on wether or not open carry is legal. We all know it is. We need the Police departments to admit Breach of Peace is not a valid charge to harass someone with who is lawfullygoing about their business.The state statute does not apply to the senario we propose of going about our business in a lawful manner even if someone doesn't like it. What if someone didn't like the tatoos on another person and were offended? Would that be "Breach of Peace?" No. What if someone didn't like the color of car you drive and thought it was offensive? Would that be Breach of Peace? No.
We need this question answered. It would be of great service if you could keep the line of communication open and propose that question. Thanks for your work so far. It is already of great service to your fellow citizens.
The question needed to be asked is:
Doesacomplaint to law enforcementof being alarmed of a person,openly carrying a legally permitted firearm while going about lawful activities, providegrounds for a breach of peace arrest simply because of the complaint of being alarmed.