Lenny Benedetto
Regular Member
imported post
send me a PM
send me a PM
-
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.
-
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.
OC in East Hartford
- Thread starter fatcat46
- Start date
imported post
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.
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.
GoldCoaster
Regular Member
imported post
There are two ways you are going to get an answer.
1. The AG is going to come out in a big televised press conference saying "The open carrying of pistols and revolvers in the State of Connecticut is 100% legal and barring any other provocative activity is not grounds for a breach of peace charge"
I won't hold my breath on a politician looking for higher office doing that.
2. People with access to a lawyer who is willing to do the footwork on a contingency basis will open carry and risk arrest. If they get arrested they say NOTHING. The arrests should be recorded ideally with video and at least audio and witnessed.
The police departments unlawfully arresting these people as well as the individuals acting under color of law will be prosecuted and held liable for violating the citizens rights and it will cost them $$ and they will take notice when they start costing their towns damages.
There are two ways you are going to get an answer.
1. The AG is going to come out in a big televised press conference saying "The open carrying of pistols and revolvers in the State of Connecticut is 100% legal and barring any other provocative activity is not grounds for a breach of peace charge"
I won't hold my breath on a politician looking for higher office doing that.
2. People with access to a lawyer who is willing to do the footwork on a contingency basis will open carry and risk arrest. If they get arrested they say NOTHING. The arrests should be recorded ideally with video and at least audio and witnessed.
The police departments unlawfully arresting these people as well as the individuals acting under color of law will be prosecuted and held liable for violating the citizens rights and it will cost them $$ and they will take notice when they start costing their towns damages.
Edward Peruta
Regular Member
imported post
I had to dust this off and repost it on my site.
This is the memorandum of law in support of the motion to dismiss that was presented to the Court in the James Goldberg case back in July of 2007.
It is still worth reading and may answer some quesitons.
http://www.ourrockyhill.com/Goldberg.Files/Memorandum%20in%20Support%20of%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss.htm
I had to dust this off and repost it on my site.
This is the memorandum of law in support of the motion to dismiss that was presented to the Court in the James Goldberg case back in July of 2007.
It is still worth reading and may answer some quesitons.
http://www.ourrockyhill.com/Goldberg.Files/Memorandum%20in%20Support%20of%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss.htm
Rich B
Regular Member
imported post
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?
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?
BizOwner
Regular Member
imported post
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.
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.
Edward Peruta
Regular Member
imported post
Rich B wrote:
On the Board of Firearms Permit Examiner's Website there is a link to their roster.
If you click on the link for rosters, and go to the last year you will see the cases listed. Here is a link to show you what I mean.
http://www.ct.gov/bfpe/cwp/view.asp?a=3598&Q=443218
But there are legal issues currently being litigated that may require hearings in a specified time frame.
Hope this answered your question, the board s currently assigning cases for January of 2011. But this WILL change.
Rich B wrote:
On the Board of Firearms Permit Examiner's Website there is a link to their roster.
If you click on the link for rosters, and go to the last year you will see the cases listed. Here is a link to show you what I mean.
http://www.ct.gov/bfpe/cwp/view.asp?a=3598&Q=443218
But there are legal issues currently being litigated that may require hearings in a specified time frame.
Hope this answered your question, the board s currently assigning cases for January of 2011. But this WILL change.
Edward Peruta
Regular Member
imported post
In September of 2007, I attended a Board of Firearms Permit Examiners meeting and asked questions. After my questiong the Board removed their FAQ section because there was no basis in the law that justified the answers.
It seems like a lifetime ago.
Part 3 Carrying/Transporting Handguns
Q36. Does my permit to carry pistols and revolvers permit me to carry it on my person?
A. Yes. However, mature judgment dictates that every effort should be made to make sure that no gun is exposed to view or carried in any manner that would tend to alarm people who see it. When your gun becomes visible so as to cause alarm, the police are called, and your permit to carry is placed in jeopardy of revocation.
Q37. Does my permit to carry pistols and revolvers permit me to carry a handgun anywhere, anytime?
A. No. Mature judgment dictates that no handgun be carried unless carrying the gun at the time and place involved is prudent and proper in the circumstances. For example, handguns should not be carried:[/b]
[/b]
1. Into a bar or other place where alcohol is being consumed.[/b]
[/b]2. In any situation involving stress such as an argument.[/b]
[/b]3.After consuming alcohol or any drugs other than those legally prescribed.[/b]
[/b]4. In any building where eitherStateSenate orState House of Representativesis located, or in which the office of any legislator, employee, or committee is located, or where a committee of the State Legislature is holding a meeting.[/b]
5. Any building residential or commercial whose owner prohibits handguns.[/b]
In September of 2007, I attended a Board of Firearms Permit Examiners meeting and asked questions. After my questiong the Board removed their FAQ section because there was no basis in the law that justified the answers.
It seems like a lifetime ago.
Part 3 Carrying/Transporting Handguns
Q36. Does my permit to carry pistols and revolvers permit me to carry it on my person?
A. Yes. However, mature judgment dictates that every effort should be made to make sure that no gun is exposed to view or carried in any manner that would tend to alarm people who see it. When your gun becomes visible so as to cause alarm, the police are called, and your permit to carry is placed in jeopardy of revocation.
Q37. Does my permit to carry pistols and revolvers permit me to carry a handgun anywhere, anytime?
A. No. Mature judgment dictates that no handgun be carried unless carrying the gun at the time and place involved is prudent and proper in the circumstances. For example, handguns should not be carried:[/b]
[/b]
1. Into a bar or other place where alcohol is being consumed.[/b]
[/b]2. In any situation involving stress such as an argument.[/b]
[/b]3.After consuming alcohol or any drugs other than those legally prescribed.[/b]
[/b]4. In any building where eitherStateSenate orState House of Representativesis located, or in which the office of any legislator, employee, or committee is located, or where a committee of the State Legislature is holding a meeting.[/b]
5. Any building residential or commercial whose owner prohibits handguns.[/b]
imported post
As always, Thank you Ed.
I had not seen this motion before.
http://www.ourrockyhill.com/Goldberg.Files/Memorandum%20in%20Support%20of%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss.htm
It is exactly what I have been looking for with regard to this breach of peace issue.
I constantly hear I know so and so and he said he knew so-and so and that person said "breach of Peace" BS.
You don't have to be a lawyer to read the Breach of Peace statute and understand it truly doesn't apply without intent and 1 of 6 other circumstances. The motion posted above is exactly the only logical interpretation of the statute. It is what I have been looking for. It is an educational tool for someone like the original poster to forward to his Police chief who tells him Breach of Peace charges will be applied along with a request to explain how they would apply. It is obvious that education is what we need to push.`
As always, Thank you Ed.
I had not seen this motion before.
http://www.ourrockyhill.com/Goldberg.Files/Memorandum%20in%20Support%20of%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss.htm
It is exactly what I have been looking for with regard to this breach of peace issue.
I constantly hear I know so and so and he said he knew so-and so and that person said "breach of Peace" BS.
You don't have to be a lawyer to read the Breach of Peace statute and understand it truly doesn't apply without intent and 1 of 6 other circumstances. The motion posted above is exactly the only logical interpretation of the statute. It is what I have been looking for. It is an educational tool for someone like the original poster to forward to his Police chief who tells him Breach of Peace charges will be applied along with a request to explain how they would apply. It is obvious that education is what we need to push.`
imported post
Ed, I just want to clarify for those following along.
What you have posted from the DPS above was wording REMOVED from theBOFPE (corrected statement)web site because it had no basis in the written statutes. Correct?
I don't want people looking at it and saying, yep, says right here...
This was REMOVED.
BTW, Ed I hoped to get a chance to introduce myself at the meeting last night. I was siting in the back of the room in the center isle, but you left before I got the chance to shake your hand. Thanks again.
Ed, I just want to clarify for those following along.
What you have posted from the DPS above was wording REMOVED from theBOFPE (corrected statement)web site because it had no basis in the written statutes. Correct?
I don't want people looking at it and saying, yep, says right here...
This was REMOVED.
BTW, Ed I hoped to get a chance to introduce myself at the meeting last night. I was siting in the back of the room in the center isle, but you left before I got the chance to shake your hand. Thanks again.
Edward Peruta
Regular Member
imported post
FOR THE RECORD:
The information posted was REMOVED from the Board of Firearms Permit Examiner's website NOT the DPS website.
DPS employee's were constantly and inproperlyquoting incorrect information posted on the Board's website and in September of 2007, following the James Goldberg incident, and after beingpresented with evidence showing that posted information was INCORRECT, the board took the entire frequently asked questions down.
I'm sorry I left the CCDL meeting early, I would have enjoyed meeting you as I do everyone that attends. But my grandchildren come first.
It is refreshing to have others who support what James Goldberg, Peter Kuck and others have been doing now for over two years.
FOR THE RECORD:
The information posted was REMOVED from the Board of Firearms Permit Examiner's website NOT the DPS website.
DPS employee's were constantly and inproperlyquoting incorrect information posted on the Board's website and in September of 2007, following the James Goldberg incident, and after beingpresented with evidence showing that posted information was INCORRECT, the board took the entire frequently asked questions down.
I'm sorry I left the CCDL meeting early, I would have enjoyed meeting you as I do everyone that attends. But my grandchildren come first.
It is refreshing to have others who support what James Goldberg, Peter Kuck and others have been doing now for over two years.
BizOwner
Regular Member
imported post
ESCH wrote:
:cuss:WHAT WAS THIS ATTACK ALL ABOUT?:cuss:All I did was try to give you insight on policies that were used over the years against gun owners. My second sentence was a disclaimer and I asked for someone to post the exact wording if they had it. "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."
Thank you Ed for posting what I was looking for.
Your comment "DPSrecommendations are not law." I believe I stated that with: "over the years many people have lost their right to a firearm over state policies not laws."
Your comment: "There is no law about carrying a gun with a permit in a bar." I have no idea what that was about.
Your comment: "Please do not spread false or misleading information." I stated: "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." Where is the false and misleading information? Read Ed's post, Ed had the exact wording, which I pulled from memory and I read mine multiple times and I can't figure out what is misleading. If I'm missing it please point it out to me.
Thank you Ed for the correction on DPS being Board of Firearms Permit Examiner's.
The wayI read your post about Breach of Peace, and a gun, I was under the impression you may have thought a gun had to be listed in the statute in order to be charged with BoP. The three key words in BoP are: inconvenience, annoyance or alarm.
Your comment: "Please do not make up laws we have enough trouble with that happening already." Ummmmm! What?:banghead:
Your comment: "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." Practice what you preach Junior. Life is to short to go around with all that hostility.
I would like to apologize for everyone that had to read my response, but this was not a case of difference in opinion. It was a blatantly slanderous andunwarrantedattack.
Here is the info I was looking for ESCH:This is not aLaw
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0369.htm
In Public
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. ”
For example, according to the board, handguns should not be carried:
1. into a bar or other place where alcohol is being consumed;
2. in any situation involving stress such as an argument;
3. after consuming alcohol or any drugs other than those legally prescribed; or
4. in any building, residential or commercial, whose owner prohibits handguns (http: //www. ct. gov/bfpe/cwp/view. asp?a=1252&q=254186).
Edit for link
ESCH wrote:
:cuss:WHAT WAS THIS ATTACK ALL ABOUT?:cuss:All I did was try to give you insight on policies that were used over the years against gun owners. My second sentence was a disclaimer and I asked for someone to post the exact wording if they had it. "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."
Thank you Ed for posting what I was looking for.
Your comment "DPSrecommendations are not law." I believe I stated that with: "over the years many people have lost their right to a firearm over state policies not laws."
Your comment: "There is no law about carrying a gun with a permit in a bar." I have no idea what that was about.
Your comment: "Please do not spread false or misleading information." I stated: "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." Where is the false and misleading information? Read Ed's post, Ed had the exact wording, which I pulled from memory and I read mine multiple times and I can't figure out what is misleading. If I'm missing it please point it out to me.
Thank you Ed for the correction on DPS being Board of Firearms Permit Examiner's.
The wayI read your post about Breach of Peace, and a gun, I was under the impression you may have thought a gun had to be listed in the statute in order to be charged with BoP. The three key words in BoP are: inconvenience, annoyance or alarm.
Your comment: "Please do not make up laws we have enough trouble with that happening already." Ummmmm! What?:banghead:
Your comment: "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." Practice what you preach Junior. Life is to short to go around with all that hostility.
I would like to apologize for everyone that had to read my response, but this was not a case of difference in opinion. It was a blatantly slanderous andunwarrantedattack.
Here is the info I was looking for ESCH:This is not aLaw
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0369.htm
In Public
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. ”
For example, according to the board, handguns should not be carried:
1. into a bar or other place where alcohol is being consumed;
2. in any situation involving stress such as an argument;
3. after consuming alcohol or any drugs other than those legally prescribed; or
4. in any building, residential or commercial, whose owner prohibits handguns (http: //www. ct. gov/bfpe/cwp/view. asp?a=1252&q=254186).
Edit for link
imported post
Biz owner, My reply is thatreferences you postedare outdated, not based in fact anderroneous information. I have researched this and found what you posted to be incorrect as presented as policy or having legal merrit.
The reference that you post from a "faq" section of a web site is not a policy. This was simply an opinion which carried no weight whatsoever and when challenged was removed. It no longer exists on any official web pages or legal documents. For you to reference it would be like referencing the world is still flat.
Please do not use that misinformation when discussing open carry policies. It is misleading and incorrect. I stand by that. I am offering you correct knowledge you seem to not want. You seem content to not stay current in you knowledge and beliefs. If that is the case feel free. But why do you insist on misleading others to believe in untruths and old factless, erronious, and invalid information?
From your post:
"Your comment: "Please do not spread false or misleading information." I stated: "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." Where is the false and misleading information? Read Ed's post, Ed had the exact wording, which I pulled from memory and I read mine multiple times and I can't figure out what is misleading. If I'm missing it please point it out to me."
I am pointing it out to you. This is false information. It has been removed. Contact the BOFPE and they will not tell you this information. This is not a "policy."It was wrong then, It is wrong now. You reference it as if it is correct information. That is misleading, Correct?
You made this statement, as you claimed to answer my question.
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.
The OLR report you reference in your second post (Circa 2007), is also outdated and contains a reference to the same erronious BOFPE opinion which has since been removed. As a reference it is simply a report which hasreferenced incorrect information. A current OLR report which specifically states open carry is not illegal is here:
http://www.ct.gov/bfpe/cwp/view.asp?a=1838&Q=418126&PM=1
This report is presented with correct facts presented to the principal analyst Veronica Rose. Same person who wrote the previous report with incorrect opinions provided to her.
BOFPE does not say this. It is not a correct answer to my question. At one point an incorrect opinion was posted on the web site "faq"page as to what someone "hoped" or wanted the lawto be. Not what the statutes are. Again when challenged, this was found to have no basis in reality or statute and removed. Please refrain from referencing it in the future as any policy or truth, as it is not. That would again be misleading, Correct?
At this point I think we can agree too much incorrect information has been posted through the years. To keep spreading outdated incorrect misleading information is part of the problem we have with people not understanding their rights, Correct? If so, we should not do so and be part of the problem, Correct? We should educate and give correct information which would be becoming part of the solution, Correct?
You finished you post with this comment.
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.
Ed was kind enough to post how "Breach of Peace" does not come into play with this link.
[url]http://www.ourrockyhill.com/Goldberg.Files/Memorandum%20in%20Support%20of%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss.htm[/url]
Your statement of "how the breach of peace charge comes into play" is again misleading. The charge was proven to not "come into play" with the motion to dismiss. There was no basis for the charge. So, it had no merrit and did not apply.
Your original post if intended to help is noble. All your referenced material to be used to inform others of their rights, is a one time (posted on a web page opinion) mistake by someone else. There are no personal attacks intended. There is a desire to put an end to information thatI see on multiple web sites, information provided by local law enforcement, and personal interactions with fellow citizens that is not factual.
I will not argue that in times past (and throughout history) people have been wrongly arrested, I cannot argue that local authorities may not know all laws as they are not lawyers. I cannot argue that uninformed citizens may have, in the past, not stood up for their rights. History will show this and with thatyou are correct.
Those days I hope are now coming to an end with the spreading of information and fact. We all need to be part of that solution.
Biz owner, My reply is thatreferences you postedare outdated, not based in fact anderroneous information. I have researched this and found what you posted to be incorrect as presented as policy or having legal merrit.
The reference that you post from a "faq" section of a web site is not a policy. This was simply an opinion which carried no weight whatsoever and when challenged was removed. It no longer exists on any official web pages or legal documents. For you to reference it would be like referencing the world is still flat.
Please do not use that misinformation when discussing open carry policies. It is misleading and incorrect. I stand by that. I am offering you correct knowledge you seem to not want. You seem content to not stay current in you knowledge and beliefs. If that is the case feel free. But why do you insist on misleading others to believe in untruths and old factless, erronious, and invalid information?
From your post:
"Your comment: "Please do not spread false or misleading information." I stated: "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." Where is the false and misleading information? Read Ed's post, Ed had the exact wording, which I pulled from memory and I read mine multiple times and I can't figure out what is misleading. If I'm missing it please point it out to me."
I am pointing it out to you. This is false information. It has been removed. Contact the BOFPE and they will not tell you this information. This is not a "policy."It was wrong then, It is wrong now. You reference it as if it is correct information. That is misleading, Correct?
You made this statement, as you claimed to answer my question.
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.
The OLR report you reference in your second post (Circa 2007), is also outdated and contains a reference to the same erronious BOFPE opinion which has since been removed. As a reference it is simply a report which hasreferenced incorrect information. A current OLR report which specifically states open carry is not illegal is here:
http://www.ct.gov/bfpe/cwp/view.asp?a=1838&Q=418126&PM=1
This report is presented with correct facts presented to the principal analyst Veronica Rose. Same person who wrote the previous report with incorrect opinions provided to her.
BOFPE does not say this. It is not a correct answer to my question. At one point an incorrect opinion was posted on the web site "faq"page as to what someone "hoped" or wanted the lawto be. Not what the statutes are. Again when challenged, this was found to have no basis in reality or statute and removed. Please refrain from referencing it in the future as any policy or truth, as it is not. That would again be misleading, Correct?
At this point I think we can agree too much incorrect information has been posted through the years. To keep spreading outdated incorrect misleading information is part of the problem we have with people not understanding their rights, Correct? If so, we should not do so and be part of the problem, Correct? We should educate and give correct information which would be becoming part of the solution, Correct?
You finished you post with this comment.
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.
Ed was kind enough to post how "Breach of Peace" does not come into play with this link.
[url]http://www.ourrockyhill.com/Goldberg.Files/Memorandum%20in%20Support%20of%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss.htm[/url]
Your statement of "how the breach of peace charge comes into play" is again misleading. The charge was proven to not "come into play" with the motion to dismiss. There was no basis for the charge. So, it had no merrit and did not apply.
Your original post if intended to help is noble. All your referenced material to be used to inform others of their rights, is a one time (posted on a web page opinion) mistake by someone else. There are no personal attacks intended. There is a desire to put an end to information thatI see on multiple web sites, information provided by local law enforcement, and personal interactions with fellow citizens that is not factual.
I will not argue that in times past (and throughout history) people have been wrongly arrested, I cannot argue that local authorities may not know all laws as they are not lawyers. I cannot argue that uninformed citizens may have, in the past, not stood up for their rights. History will show this and with thatyou are correct.
Those days I hope are now coming to an end with the spreading of information and fact. We all need to be part of that solution.
fatcat46
Regular Member
imported post
ESCH wrote:
The breach of peace charge statement he made was in regard to a citizen being upset , scare or whatever over the fact that they saw my gun, who then called the PD and complained. At that point a breach of peace charge COULD be levied. Would they is any body's guess. I would not be a breach of peace if no one complained. However, I will read this a few time and if it makes sense to me I will contact him. I want to stay on his good side so I don't want to bug him.
ESCH wrote:
ESCH,
The breach of peace charge statement he made was in regard to a citizen being upset , scare or whatever over the fact that they saw my gun, who then called the PD and complained. At that point a breach of peace charge COULD be levied. Would they is any body's guess. I would not be a breach of peace if no one complained. However, I will read this a few time and if it makes sense to me I will contact him. I want to stay on his good side so I don't want to bug him.
imported post
Fatcat,
If you re-read the stuff Ed posted you will see that the point folks are trying to make is that even if someone calls in, that is not enough (legally) for the officer to arrest on. I.e. Someone getting scared over a lawful action is not Breach of piece, and will not stand up in court.
Unfortunately, we live in a society where police can arrest for anything they want. Fortunately, we live in a society where the judicial system is used to make sure the law enforcement officers do the right thing (and punish them if they do not do the right thing).
So the letter (or call) back to your police chief should inform him that there is no legal grounds toward Breach of Peace if the OCer is acting legally. There must be some form of erratic behavior, or intent to harm for Breach of Peace. Someone getting scared is not enough. Therefore, would your police chief change his position on the topic given that information.
Fatcat,
If you re-read the stuff Ed posted you will see that the point folks are trying to make is that even if someone calls in, that is not enough (legally) for the officer to arrest on. I.e. Someone getting scared over a lawful action is not Breach of piece, and will not stand up in court.
Unfortunately, we live in a society where police can arrest for anything they want. Fortunately, we live in a society where the judicial system is used to make sure the law enforcement officers do the right thing (and punish them if they do not do the right thing).
So the letter (or call) back to your police chief should inform him that there is no legal grounds toward Breach of Peace if the OCer is acting legally. There must be some form of erratic behavior, or intent to harm for Breach of Peace. Someone getting scared is not enough. Therefore, would your police chief change his position on the topic given that information.
imported post
Thank you Dwayner79,
That is my point. Breach of Peace has to start with "intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person:"Someone being upset about something is not reason for anything other than the responding officer to inform the person "alarmed" that the situation is completely normal and lawful.
By the statute breach of peace, there has to be "intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof" and on top of that 1 of 6 specific actions to take place.
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.
Thank you Dwayner79,
That is my point. Breach of Peace has to start with "intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person:"Someone being upset about something is not reason for anything other than the responding officer to inform the person "alarmed" that the situation is completely normal and lawful.
By the statute breach of peace, there has to be "intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof" and on top of that 1 of 6 specific actions to take place.
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.
Lenny Benedetto
Regular Member
imported post
Great question and very well worded. We all know the answer!! Lets make sure that others do too!!!
Great question and very well worded. We all know the answer!! Lets make sure that others do too!!!
imported post
It has to be specifically worded without loopholes. I have written it about 20 different times and each time I found a way to answer it with a maybe or possibly. This way seems pretty tight. I am not a lawyer, but I understand my limitations with regards to the game.
I am sure the grammer of it is incorrect
. Should have paid more attention is school.
The question of the day is...
Is it possible to recklessly alarm someone with threatening behavior by simply carrying an exposed legally permitted firearm in a lawful way?
It has to be specifically worded without loopholes. I have written it about 20 different times and each time I found a way to answer it with a maybe or possibly. This way seems pretty tight. I am not a lawyer, but I understand my limitations with regards to the game.
I am sure the grammer of it is incorrect
. Should have paid more attention is school.The question of the day is...
Is it possible to recklessly alarm someone with threatening behavior by simply carrying an exposed legally permitted firearm in a lawful way?