OC in East Hartford

imported post

gluegun wrote:

Also this juicy tidbit from the Court of Appeals:
Subdiv. (1) cited. 8 CA 153; Id., 517; 36 CA 625; judgment reversed, see 237 C. 613. Subdiv. (2) cited. 40 CA 643. Cited. 46 CA 661. Subdiv. (1) cited. Id. Subdiv. (2): Held unconstitutional on its face where conduct occurred prior to judicial gloss placed on statute. Id. Subdiv. (2) should be read and applied as follows: A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with the predominant intent previously defined or with reckless disregard for the risks of his or her conduct, the person, by conduct that is grossly offensive under contemporary community standards to a person who actually overhears it or sees it, disturbs or impedes the lawful activity of another person. 83 CA 724. There was sufficient evidence presented by the state and the court reasonably could have inferred on the basis of the size of defendants' belongings and their position on the sidewalk that defendants intended to cause inconvenience, annoyance and alarm and did obstruct sidewalk. 108 CA 146.

Expression of political views found not to constitute disorderly conduct. 33 CS 93. Subdiv. (2): Failure of charge to limit application of section to "fighting words" deprived defendant of freedom of speech constitutional guarantee. 34 CS 689.

Run that one by him and see what he says.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/chap952.htm#Sec53a-182.htm

Click to expand...

I think if I keep bombarding him with legal quotes that he might get annoyed and that would not be my goal. I have a good relationship with him now and I want to keep it that way

imported post

gluegun wrote:

Also this juicy tidbit from the Court of Appeals:
Subdiv. (1) cited. 8 CA 153; Id., 517; 36 CA 625; judgment reversed, see 237 C. 613. Subdiv. (2) cited. 40 CA 643. Cited. 46 CA 661. Subdiv. (1) cited. Id. Subdiv. (2): Held unconstitutional on its face where conduct occurred prior to judicial gloss placed on statute. Id. Subdiv. (2) should be read and applied as follows: A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with the predominant intent previously defined or with reckless disregard for the risks of his or her conduct, the person, by conduct that is grossly offensive under contemporary community standards to a person who actually overhears it or sees it, disturbs or impedes the lawful activity of another person. 83 CA 724. There was sufficient evidence presented by the state and the court reasonably could have inferred on the basis of the size of defendants' belongings and their position on the sidewalk that defendants intended to cause inconvenience, annoyance and alarm and did obstruct sidewalk. 108 CA 146.

Expression of political views found not to constitute disorderly conduct. 33 CS 93. Subdiv. (2): Failure of charge to limit application of section to "fighting words" deprived defendant of freedom of speech constitutional guarantee. 34 CS 689.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/chap952.htm#Sec53a-182.htm

Click to expand...

My brain is a little fuzzy today.
Would someone please explain what we are reading here?

Thank you.

imported post

Douglas in CT wrote:

gluegun wrote:

Also this juicy tidbit from the Court of Appeals:
Subdiv. (1) cited. 8 CA 153; Id., 517; 36 CA 625; judgment reversed, see 237 C. 613. Subdiv. (2) cited. 40 CA 643. Cited. 46 CA 661. Subdiv. (1) cited. Id. Subdiv. (2): Held unconstitutional on its face where conduct occurred prior to judicial gloss placed on statute. Id. Subdiv. (2) should be read and applied as follows: A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with the predominant intent previously defined or with reckless disregard for the risks of his or her conduct, the person, by conduct that is grossly offensive under contemporary community standards to a person who actually overhears it or sees it, disturbs or impedes the lawful activity of another person. 83 CA 724. There was sufficient evidence presented by the state and the court reasonably could have inferred on the basis of the size of defendants' belongings and their position on the sidewalk that defendants intended to cause inconvenience, annoyance and alarm and did obstruct sidewalk. 108 CA 146.

Expression of political views found not to constitute disorderly conduct. 33 CS 93. Subdiv. (2): Failure of charge to limit application of section to "fighting words" deprived defendant of freedom of speech constitutional guarantee. 34 CS 689.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/chap952.htm#Sec53a-182.htm

Click to expand...

My brain is a little fuzzy today.
Would some explain what we are reading here, please?

Thank you.

Click to expand...

Douglas it is a ruling from the court of appeals on Disorderly Conduct

imported post

The Chief of Police that fatcat has a good report with said that in the "lawfully open carrying/man with a gun" situation proposed, "Disorderly Conduct" would be more in line with the grounds used to arrest the open carrying individual.

The snippet you quoted from me was an annotation of the law citing a State Appellant Court ruling stating that for the following portion of disorderly conduct to apply, there must be "the predominant intent previously defined or with reckless disregard for the risks of his or her conduct, the person, by conduct that is grossly offensive under contemporary community standards to a person who actually overhears it or sees it, disturbs or impedes the lawful activity of another person."

Sec. 53a-182. Disorderly conduct: Class C misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person: ... (2) by offensive or disorderly conduct, annoys or interferes with another person; or

Click to expand...

Disorderly conduct can't apply to a lawful open carry situation if a mwag call is made because the State Appellant Court has expressly defined what is meant by intent/reckless disregard with regard to the statute. Lawfully going about your business does not apply.

ETA: Court citation of the law is available directly below the text of the statute: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/chap952.htm#Sec53a-182.htm

imported post

Let's keep all this in it's proper context. None of it applies if there in no complaint. Someone needs to complain that they saw my gun. Then the LEO has to make a judgement call as to weather arrest or not.

imported post

Absolutely.

imported post

Lenny Benedetto wrote:

Douglas in CT wrote:

gluegun wrote:

Also this juicy tidbit from the Court of Appeals:
Subdiv. (1) cited. 8 CA 153; Id., 517; 36 CA 625; judgment reversed, see 237 C. 613. Subdiv. (2) cited. 40 CA 643. Cited. 46 CA 661. Subdiv. (1) cited. Id. Subdiv. (2): Held unconstitutional on its face where conduct occurred prior to judicial gloss placed on statute. Id. Subdiv. (2) should be read and applied as follows: A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with the predominant intent previously defined or with reckless disregard for the risks of his or her conduct, the person, by conduct that is grossly offensive under contemporary community standards to a person who actually overhears it or sees it, disturbs or impedes the lawful activity of another person. 83 CA 724. There was sufficient evidence presented by the state and the court reasonably could have inferred on the basis of the size of defendants' belongings and their position on the sidewalk that defendants intended to cause inconvenience, annoyance and alarm and did obstruct sidewalk. 108 CA 146.

Expression of political views found not to constitute disorderly conduct. 33 CS 93. Subdiv. (2): Failure of charge to limit application of section to "fighting words" deprived defendant of freedom of speech constitutional guarantee. 34 CS 689.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/chap952.htm#Sec53a-182.htm

Click to expand...

My brain is a little fuzzy today.
Would some explain what we are reading here, please?

Thank you.

Click to expand...

Douglas it is a ruling from the court of appeals on Disorderly Conduct

Click to expand...

Thanks Lenny...
But, what does it mean?

The parts about "judicial gloss" and "Contemporary Community Standards" has me confused.
Somehow, my tiny little brain can't seem to put 1 and 1 together here and see that they add up to 2.:lol:

imported post

fatcat46 wrote:

Let's keep all this in it's proper context. None of it applies if there in no complaint. Someone needs to complain that they saw my gun. Then the LEO has to make a judgement call as to weather arrest or not.

Click to expand...

Agreed...many see writings on forums and consider that as matter of law. Here we are just discussing whether Disorderly Conduct could possibly pertain to any arrest for OC....and this we can all plainly see is not just cause for an arrest or prosecution.
The arrest could still occur however the town/state case would not hold water with this or ANY charge that we can tell..

OC is not a charge that will be upheld in any court in Ct, with lawful and safe OC

imported post

Fatcat46 and Lenny:
Thank you for 'splaining it.

imported post

"Judicial gloss" seems to mean that they've taken what was written in the statute and reworded it so it makes sense and isn't as vague. So the statute won't read the way they're interpreting it, but that's what the judiciary says it means.

There's another posting that I think went into great detail about a "contemporary community standard" so I'll refrain from discussing that.

ETA: Forum post on defining a "contemporary community standard" http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum14/25946.html

imported post

fatcat46 wrote:

Let's keep all this in it's proper context. None of it applies if there in no complaint. Someone needs to complain that they saw my gun. Then the LEO has to make a judgement call as to weather arrest or not.

Click to expand...

The officer himself can be the complaintant. Not that that makes any difference. Hard for him to say an exposed gun is scary when he has an exposed gun on his side also.

imported post

I finally wend back to the Deputy Police chief and said:

There a few words in the ordinance make me question it's validity in the
situation we have been discussing. Let me see if I can explain.

The words "when, with intent" in the first sentence kind of throw me
off. In the situation we have been discussing there in not intent to do
any of the things that follow in the description. So I wonder how a
person gets charged with that if there weapon is observed by another
individual?


Is it an EHPD policy that if a complaint is filed, by someone seeing a
gun on another person, that the responding office is to automatically
arrest the individual? I hope not! If there is perhaps that needs to
change. Or is it a judgment call by the responding officer, after some
investigation into the complaint is performed, as to whether an arrest
should be made?



I'm trying to compare this to a noise complaint. With a noise complaint
I think an office would first investigate the situation. If it was
deemed the noise was too loud, the officer would probably ask the
offending party to turn the volume down, not immediately arrest them. Do
you see where I'm going with this? Just because someone complains
shouldn't automatically end with an arrest, at least not in the
situation of seeing someone's gun on there hip. Of course if a person
was blatantly whipping it around or intentionally, there's that word
intent, doing something that was threatening, then I could see a
different out come.



I guess I still need some help understanding how this all goes down."

Here is his response:

"Intent is not the word to concentrate on here Fran it is the next part "recklessly creating a risk thereof". In the legal world recklessly means 'aware of but consciously disregarding'. In this case the argument would be that you should recognize that carrying a gun will cause alarm but you do it anyway.

Using this information an officer COULD arrest for Disorderly or Breach.
No, the only MUST arrest is one of domestic violence. And even if you think a warning might be the best first move you run the risk of being arrested. "

I guess I'll just have to try it and see what happens. Some day!

imported post

I see you are in EH..if you want to start somewhere you can OC into Cabela's...you are safe from arrest there...I have opencarried there..friends of mine have..never an issue..

imported post

oh, cool! thanks.

imported post

Regarding the Chief's lame version of Disorderly Conduct, this is what they're teaching all Pennsylvania police officers (both State and municipal) (http://www.lildobe.net/PAFOA_Docs/MPOTEC_OC_Update_2009.pdf):

[align=left]Question #3- What can police legally do when they observe a person engaging in open carry?[/align]
[align=left][/align]
[align=left]Answer #3- In most cases, the police cannot engage the person in anything other than a mere encounter. Unless the person engaged in lawful open carry is in violation of a specific State or Federal firearm prohibition or is carrying in a restricted area (For example: prohibitions contained in §6105, possession by a minor §6110.1, possession on school property §912, possession in a court facility §913, carrying in Philadelphia §6108, carrying in a vehicle, carrying during a declared state of emergency §6107), the officer would not have specific reasonable suspicion of criminal activity merely based on observing a person engaged in open carry. Therefore, a stop and frisk or any other seizure would not be legally justified[/align]
[align=left]

Click to expand...

[/align]
[align=left]Since the open carry of firearms is, in itself, not illegal (as long as you have a Connecticut license), disorderly conduct would require some actions other than the aforementioned legal activity to qualify as disorderly. If intent is involved as part of the complaint, it is the government's job to prove such intent, not the citizen's job to prove lack thereof.[/align]

imported post

but they can still arrest you and let it play out in court!

imported post

fatcat46 wrote:

but they can still arrest you and let it play out in court!

Click to expand...

And that is certainly my concern as well.

imported post

but they can still arrest you and let it play out in court!

Click to expand...

This is true, and they can also be sued. There are presently two federal lawsuits against police agencies for harassing open carriers (neither case ever got to the arrest phase). The first occurred in Dickson City, outside of Scranton (http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/06/11/dickson-city-incident-update/)

and other occurred in Allentown (http://paopencarry.org/forum/another-oc-lawsuit-filed-member-truecrimson-files-against-t-130.html).