Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Text of what CT DPS proposes regarding mandatory CONCEALMENT

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

    Post imported post

    I have taken the liberty to underline and make bold certain text in this documentthat I find interesting.




    AS TAKEN FROM THE DOCUMENT RECENTLY RECEIVED





    Summary of Proposal (Include background information)

    This new law would require that a pistol or revolver be carried concealed. With certain exceptions for peace officer, parole officers, corrections officers of this state and other states while engaged in official duties as well as federal marshals, agents, armed forces and licensed armed security guards in pursuit of their duties. Also included are the penalties for violations of this act.

    Reason for Proposal (Include significant policy and programmatic impacts)

    Connecticut’s firearms carry laws are vague in language as it pertains to carrying a pistol or revolver concealed. Recently, citizens have taken it upon themselves to test our statutes by carrying openly. In doing so, several arrests have been made under the Breach of Peace statues C.G.S. 53a-181, with those dispositions ending in nolle’s or dismissal, proving that these laws are inadequate in their detail. It is clear that there is a necessity for a concealed firearm law with more detail or, consequently, Connecticut may end up being a state where they carry exposed at all times as decided by case law.

    Significant Fiscal Impacts

    Municipal: None

    Federal: None

    State: Penalties would increase the general fund.



    (NEW) CARRYING A PISTOL OR REVOLVER CONCEALED. Exceptions. Definitions. Penalties.

    (a) Any person carrying a pistol or revolver, pursuant to the provision of section 29-35, shall conceal such pistol or revolver.

    (b) The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to the carrying of any pistol or revolver by any parole officer or peace officer or a uniformed corrections officer of this state, or parole officer or peace officer of any other state while engaged in the pursuit of official duties, or federal marshal or federal law enforcement agent, or to any member of the armed forces of the United States, as defined by section 27-103, or of this state, as defined by section 27-2, when on duty or going to or from duty, or a uniformed armed security officer licensed to carry a pistol or revolver while engaged in the performance of their official duties.

    (c) Concealed pistol or revolver means a firearm, that is a pistol or revolver that is covered or enclosed in any manner that an observer cannot determine that it is a handgun without removing it from that which covers or encloses it or without opening, lifting, or removing that which covers or encloses it. However, concealed handgun does not include a shotgun or rifle.

    (d) Any person who violates any provision of subsection (a) of this section shall: (1) for conviction of a first offense, be fined not less than five hundred dollars or more than two thousand dollars, and (b) be imprisoned not more than one year; and (2) for a subsequent conviction of this offense (a) be fined not less than two thousand dollars or more than five thousand dollars, and (b) be imprisoned not more than five years.




    My opinion:

    The Department of Public Safety knows that open carry is currently NOT prohibited in CT.

    The Department of Public Safety knows that there are PENDING CIVIL CASES that will clairify the existing statute and permit OPEN CARRY without fear of arrest or revocation.

    The department of Public Safety will attempt to sell this new statute on the belief that it will raise additional revenue for the general fund by imposing significant fines on those that open carry while exercising a state and federal Constitutional Right.

    The state has known and currently knows that using criminal chargesinsituationsof OPEN CARRY is not correct and has resulted inNOLLES and the DISMISSALof charges.

    DPS now wants to make the second OPEN CARRY offense a FELONY, which would prohibit any possession of a firearm.


    JOIN AND FINANCIALLY SUPPORT THE CONNECTICUT CITIZEN'S DEFENSE LEAGUE BYVISITING http://WWW.CCDL.US.

    Ed Peruta







  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cheshire, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    This is outlandish! How can it be possible that {"citizens have taken it upon themselves to test our statutes by carrying openly"} can be construed as testing the statutes. If there is no law against it, it is not in the statutes and therefore no one is testing anything.

    This proposal can not stand! The possible penalties for mere accidental exposure are ridiculous and un-constitutional.

    Every gun owner whether or not they hold a carry permit or not needs to wake up and vigorously oppose this legislation. Every law abiding individual who believes in the constitution should also do the same.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    This proposal makes the assumption that there was an intent to force concealment of handguns when the licensing scheme was approved by the legislature. That assumption has not been proven and the CT DPS should not be acting in such an irresponsible manner.

    The Supreme Court will soon rule on the meaning of Bearing Arms. We know that at least one SC Justice believes that Open Carry is the right and that concealment is a priveledge. IMHO CT would not have such an offensive statute for long if it were to enact it.

    Perhaps one could argue that the unintended consequence of forced concealment would be long gun open carry by those that believe that open carry is a right.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  4. #4
    Regular Member Lenny Benedetto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    VP of CCDL, Inc., ,
    Posts
    470

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    This proposal makes the assumption that there was an intent to force concealment of handguns when the licensing scheme was approved by the legislature. That assumption has not been proven and the CT DPS should not be acting in such an irresponsible manner.

    The Supreme Court will soon rule on the meaning of Bearing Arms. We know that at least one SC Justice believes that Open Carry is the right and that concealment is a priveledge. IMHO CT would not have such an offensive statute for long if it were to enact it.

    Perhaps one could argue that the unintended consequence of forced concealment would be long gun open carry by those that believe that open carry is a right.
    Thundar,

    My main concern is that this garbage could actually become a bill and pass well before the Supreme Court comes to any conclusion over the issue.
    Many Lawful Ct gun owners could be eye deep in legal expenses or worse, sitting in prison.

    This is something that cannot pass!!!! No matter what!!!
    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

  5. #5
    Regular Member turbodog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Independence, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    So they admit the reasoning behind this law isn't public safety, but strictly for monetary gain. They get to make instant criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens, allowing them to then impose fines for their "criminal" behavior.

    Ever since the courts decided to allowed municipalities to confiscate private land in the guise of economic development, it should be no real surprise that government will move on to stripping citizens of other rights in the name of the dollar.
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    Him: "I carry my gun concealed"
    Me: "You're not very good at it"
    Him: "What do you mean?"
    Me: "I know you have a gun"
    End of conversation.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    24

    Post imported post

    Edward Peruta wrote:


    JOIN AND FINANCIALLY SUPPORT THE CONNECTICUT CITIZEN'S DEFENSE LEAGUE BYVISITING http://WWW.CCDL.US.

    Ed Peruta





    After reading the latest proposal, it was more than enough for me.

    Ifilled out my CCDL application on line today.I have also mailed to CCDL a $500.00 contribution. Starting Dec. 1, 2009 I will contribute $100.00 a month for a minimum of 5 months. Unfortunately I will not be able to attend alot of meetings due to business. But, will help out when I can.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    , Florida, USA
    Posts
    28

    Post imported post

    BizOwner wrote:
    Edward Peruta wrote:
    JOIN AND FINANCIALLY SUPPORT THE CONNECTICUT CITIZEN'S DEFENSE LEAGUE BYVISITING http://WWW.CCDL.US.

    Ed Peruta
    After reading the latest proposal, it was more than enough for me.
    Let me be the first to pass along my sincere thanks and appreciation. This next legislative session is going to be a tough political battle for us. We have put in a lot of work in the "off season" and we are prepared to put up significant resistance.

    Thank you,

    Justin
    Carry On!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Stratford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    646

    Post imported post

    BizOwner wrote:
    Edward Peruta wrote:


    JOIN AND FINANCIALLY SUPPORT THE CONNECTICUT CITIZEN'S DEFENSE LEAGUE BYVISITING http://WWW.CCDL.US.

    Ed Peruta





    After reading the latest proposal, it was more than enough for me.

    Ifilled out my CCDL application on line today.I have also mailed to CCDL a $500.00 contribution. Starting Dec. 1, 2009 I will contribute $100.00 a month for a minimum of 5 months. Unfortunately I will not be able to attend alot of meetings due to business. But, will help out when I can.
    Thank you very much Bizowner, welcome to the CCDL, and if you can find time to visit us, please do we'd love to have you.

  9. #9
    Regular Member romma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Southeast, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    333

    Post imported post

    We have a serious fight on our hands when a State agency such as DPS continually attempts to create laws to suit their wishes,instead of serving the public by enforcing the laws.

    Nothing like these peoplepushing it's citizens around while getting paid full time with nice benefits such as state of the art health-care, sick pay andretirement paid for ironically by us. While we always have to fight from behind.

    Where is the State agency that fights on our behalf??

    BizOwner, thanks for joining, and contributing to the cause...



  10. #10
    Regular Member Lenny Benedetto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    VP of CCDL, Inc., ,
    Posts
    470

    Post imported post

    BizOwner,

    Thank you for the VERY Kind donation!

    Hopefully we will get to meet you at one of our meetings soon.


    To all,

    Remember that there is strength in numbers, especially when the time comes to go to Hartford and address our lawmakers about the problems that we have with these issues.
    The more people that attend, on our side, the BIGGER the statement we actually make....STRENGTH IN NUMBERS!!!


    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

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    Who wrote this proposed legislation? We need names. Why is it this sort of thing is always proposed without anyone knowing who is behind it. The people who write these things need to be called out. The public needs to know names. These people need to be directly contacted by the public who disaproves of this garbage.

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

    Post imported post

    Can you carry in the CT statehouse or building where they hold hearings? might be nice to speak against this bill while open carrying if you can carry there.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Lenny Benedetto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    VP of CCDL, Inc., ,
    Posts
    470

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Can you carry in the CT statehouse or building where they hold hearings? might be nice to speak against this bill while open carrying if you can carry there.
    Easy answer

    NO!
    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

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

    Post imported post

    ESCH wrote:
    Who wrote this proposed legislation? We need names. Why is it this sort of thing is always proposed without anyone knowing who is behind it. The people who write these things need to be called out. The public needs to know names. These people need to be directly contacted by the public who disaproves of this garbage.
    Coming from

    DPS
    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
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    Here individual emails and email chains that were sent to me after my FOI request.

    I put them over on www.ctgunrights.com in the forum, butthey will get more exposure here until the traffic on the CTgunrights website picks up.

    I'm sure there are more documents that I could have obtained, but you have to be rational if you expect to received what your looking for in a prompt fashion.

    Sgt. Seth Mancini in the Legal Affairs Unit was very helpful with this request.

    Concealment was suggested in 2008, suggested and submitted in 2009 and is now suggested and as yet not submitted for the 2010 legislative session.

    The Connecticut Citizen's Defense League and individuals now have a pretty good lead time to organize and get their act together to address this proposal.


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Turner, Chelsea
    To: Spellman, Steven
    Cc: Duncan, Nora
    Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 1:31 PM
    Subject: FW: Department of Public Safety 2010 legislative proposals

    Thanks Steve!

    ________________________________________
    From: Spellman, Steven
    Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 3:13 PM
    To: Henry, Jean E.; Turner, Chelsea
    Subject: Department of Public Safety 2010 legislative proposals
    Jean and Chelsea – attached please find DPS legislative proposals for 2010 session and index of same. steve



    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Mancini, Seth
    To: Edward Peruta
    Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 10:48 AM
    Subject: RE: FOI Request for information on proposed 2010 legislation


    Mr. Peruta:

    Based on our discussion last night, attached please find two emails responsive to your request. One email is from LTC Arciero to Steve Spellman and includes all of the legislative proposals from the Bureau of Support Services (which includes SLFU). The other email is from Steve Spellman to OPM, and includes all of the formal proposals that DPS sent up. As you will see, there were some that were proposed at the lower level that were not ultimately included in the proposal from the agency.

    As we discussed, I did receive other emails from Steve, but these two contain all of the relevant proposals in one place. I will be in the office next week in the event you have follow-up questions.

    Seth Mancini

    _______________________
    Sgt. Seth G. Mancini, Esq.
    Commissioner's Staff


    CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission (and any attachments accompanying it) is privileged, confidential and intended only for the individual or entity named. If you or your office is not the intended recipient, the dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy all copies of this transmission. Thank you.
    ________________________________________
    From: Edward Peruta [mailto:edperuta@amcable.tv]
    Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 10:22
    To: Spellman, Steven
    Cc: Atty Rachel M. Baird; Mancini, Seth
    Subject: FOI Request for information on proposed 2010 legislation

    Mr. Spellman,

    Please provide prompt access to any documents that currently exist regarding suggestions or recommendations for proposed legislation in the upcoming 2010 legislative session.

    It is my understanding that the process for suggesting legislation for the upcoming session begins in the late summer.

    I am also sending this to Sgt. Seth Mancini in the Commissioner’s office.

    Because of the delays involved in receiving answers via U.S. Mail, I request that we communicate via email.

    Respectfully,

    Edward A. Peruta


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Arciero, Christopher
    To: Spellman, Steven
    Cc: Izzarelli, Samuel ; Vitale, Deborah
    Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 2:44 PM
    Subject: FW: PROPOSALS 2010 Legislative Session

    Steve- OAS is available to discuss the specifics. Thx Chris

    From: Vitale, Deborah
    Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 2:48 PM
    To: Arciero, Christopher
    Cc: Izzarelli, Samuel
    Subject: PROPOSALS 2010 Legislative Session
    Importance: High

    Sirs:
    As we discussed, these are the responses to your request for any proposals pertaining to the 2010 Legislative Session.
    A copy of SPHQ 2009-175 and responses from BC & T and BSS are attached. Grants did not have anything to propose.
    Note: The deadline for submission to Steve Spellman is September 8th. R/S, Deb

    From: Bonker, Colleen
    Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 11:31 AM
    To: dps.messagecenter@po.state.ct.us
    Cc: Vitale, Deborah; bill.freeman@po.state.ct.us; Bartush, Bette; Henion, Ed; Spellman, Steven
    Subject: PROPOSALS 2010

    Please send an SPHQ to SPALL
    Thanks,
    Colleen
    Colleen S. Bonker
    Executive Secretary to
    Commissioner John A. Danaher III
    Department of Public Safety


  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    Lenny Benedetto wrote:
    ESCH wrote:
    Who wrote this proposed legislation? We need names. Why is it this sort of thing is always proposed without anyone knowing who is behind it. The people who write these things need to be called out. The public needs to know names. These people need to be directly contacted by the public who disaproves of this garbage.
    Coming from

    DPS
    DPS is not what I was looking for. Which person actually put pen to paper and wrote this down. Not every person who works for DPS had a say in this. It is either one person or a very small group who meet behind closed doors hidden from sunlight who come up with this stuff. It is certainly not done out in the open in any kind of public forum.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Lenny Benedetto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    VP of CCDL, Inc., ,
    Posts
    470

    Post imported post

    You might try contacting any of the people that are on the emails that Ed posted.

    They may be helpful with supplying an actual name.
    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

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    24

    Post imported post

    Lenny Benedetto wrote:
    BizOwner,

    Thank you for the VERY Kind donation!

    Hopefully we will get to meet you at one of our meetings soon.



    Your welcome. Cannot attend tonites meeting, but I have the Dec. meeting on my calender. Will see you all in Dec.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    Sorry you couldn't make the meeting. Things are really picking up. I believe there was about a 30% increase in turnout from last month! Getting close to needing a bigger room!

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    39

    Post imported post

    I would love to make the meetings, but both my wife and I have previous commitments on Tuesdays - I can't make everything.

Posting Permissions

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