Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Could someone help me with a summary of Conneticut's open carry laws?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Salt Lake, Utah, USA
    Posts
    36

    Post imported post

    I know that you can open carry with a pistol permit. Open carry without a permit is illegal, correct?

    Here are a few questions regarding someone with a pistol permit.
    Can I carry with a round chambered?

    Can I carry on k-12 school properties?

    Can I carry on Universities?

    What other locations can I NOT carry? Have I missed any?
    -Any place posted
    -Schools / Gov’t Buildings
    -Tribal Lands
    -New Britian?

    What are carry requirements/restrictions while in a vehicle?

    Thanks!



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Enfield, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    hibby76 wrote:
    I know that you can open carry with a pistol permit. Open carry without a permit is illegal, correct? Correct

    Here are a few questions regarding someone with a pistol permit.
    Can I carry with a round chambered? YES

    Can I carry on k-12 school properties? NO

    Can I carry on Universities? YES

    What other locations can I NOT carry? Have I missed any?
    -Any place posted Correct
    -Schools / Gov’t Buildings Only where the legislature is meeting
    -Tribal Lands Correct
    -New Britian? They might have an ordinance..but its worthless

    What are carry requirements/restrictions while in a vehicle? None if you have a permit

    Thanks!


  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    I know that you can open carry with a pistol permit. Open carry without a permit is illegal, correct? Correct

    Here are a few questions regarding someone with a pistol permit.


    Can I carry with a round chambered? YES

    Can I carry on k-12 school properties? NO

    Can I carry on Universities? YES except if you are a student you may be prohibited by the agreement to abide by the rules for students.

    What other locations can I NOT carry? Have I missed any?


    -Any place posted Correct


    -Schools / Gov’t Buildings Only where the legislature is meeting, any government/state buildings where posted, Veteran's Administration Properties,Post office properties etc.

    -Tribal Lands Correct


    -New Britian? They might have an ordinance..but its worthless

    What are carry requirements/restrictions while in a vehicle? None if you have a permit

    Thanks!


  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Enfield, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    Thanks Ed!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    76

    Post imported post

    Add Parks to the list of nocarry areas.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    74

    Post imported post

    Not just any parks, you mean state owned parks right?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    76

    Post imported post

    Yes, sorry. State Parks... which is why we do not visit them anymore.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Central, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    359

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Central, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    359

    Post imported post

    hibby76 wrote:
    -New Britian?
    Others have answered your other questions, but I think they missed the mark on New Britain.

    New Britain has a city ordinance that reads:
    Sec. 16-80. Carrying concealed weapons.
    (a) No person shall wear under his clothes, or conceal upon or about his person any deadly
    or dangerous weapon including, but not limited to any pistol,
    dagger, metal knuckles,
    razor, slingshot, blackjack, sword or canegun. The provisions of this paragraph shall not
    apply to any person who is found with any such weapon or implement concealed upon
    his person while lawfully removing his household goods or effects from one place to
    another, or from one residence to another, nor to any person while actually and
    peaceably engaged in carrying any such weapon or implement from his place of abode
    or business to a place or person where or by whom such weapon or implement is to be
    repaired, or while actually and peaceably returning to his place of abode or business
    with such weapon or implement after the same has been repaired.
    (b) This section shall not apply to any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his duty.
    (Code 1970, § 15-12)
    State law references: Similar provisions, G.S. § 53-206(a).
    http://www.new-britain.net/PDF/NB_ORDINANCES.PDF

    By reading the exemptions to this law, you'll notice that there is no exemption for anyone with a permit to carry issued either under CT law or the New Britain Ordinance in effect at the time dictating the issuance of local permits. New Britain doesn't put an outright ban on the carrying of handguns, they simply restrict the manner in which handguns can be carried. Since state law neither mandates the method of carry, nor prohibits towns from doing so, this ordinance can't be seen as "worthless." In fact, it must be viewed as mandating open carry. Violating this provision and concealing your firearm could subject you to a $90 fine (NB Ord. §1-15).

    I am not a lawyer, your mileage may vary, etc., etc.

    My recommendation is to read the laws yourself and make your own decisions.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Central, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    359

    Post imported post

    To expand on my previous explanation of the importance of New Britain's city ordinance I have this to add:

    There was a CT Supreme court decision that forces pre-emption in certain circumstances. This case is Dwyer v. Farrell. While I can't get a copy of the opinion, I did find this AG opinion from Blumenthal where he summarizes the important points and one from a case a few years later.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blumenthal
    A local ordinance is preempted by a state statute if it can be shown that the legislature intended to occupy the entire field of regulation on the matter or if the local ordinance irreconcilably conflicts with the statute. Dwyer v. Farrell, 193 Conn. 7, 14, 475 A.2d 257 (1984). The fact that the local ordinance does not expressly conflict with a statute will not save it, however, if the legislative purpose in enacting the statute is frustrated by the ordinance. Manchester Sand & Gravel Co. v. South Windsor, 203 Conn. 267, 273, 524 A.2d 621 (1987). Moreover, a municipality, as a creature of the state, can exercise only such powers as are expressly granted to it or such powers as are reasonably necessary to enable it to discharge its duties and carry into effect the objects and purposes of its creation. Dwyer v. Farrell , 193 Conn. at 11-12.
    http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?A=1770&Q=281352

    In writing the gun laws of the state, it's clear that the legislature intended to occupy the entire field of permit issuance and regulation of gun sales. Therefore, any local ordinances in conflict with state law are null and void.

    However, the state does not mandate the method of carry and expressly allows the owner/administrator of a property to prohibit carry in that location. In my opinion, this means they have not occupied the entire field of carry methods.

    Under this interpretation, towns are able to enact local ordinances prohibiting a particular method of carry or any carry on limited areas of town owned property (e.g. town hall or town parks). They could not enact an ordinance prohibiting any carry, however, because this would frustrate the legislative intent of the carry laws.

    ETA: In the interest of full disclosure, there is at least one lawyer (Ralph Sherman) who I know would not agree with my understanding of pre-emption.
    June 2, 2002
    September 2002
    June 12, 2002

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Naugatuck Valley , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    41

    Post imported post

    Hay Gluegun, I read this as a Open carry ordnance also. That is if you have a Connecticut pistol permit and it is valid. This Ordnance is like a Speed trap but for Pistols. But who am I ??

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Central, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    359

    Post imported post

    Same as me: a concerned citizen trying to understand your responsibilities under the law.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    12

    Post imported post

    gluegun wrote:
    In writing the gun laws of the state, it's clear that the legislature intended to occupy the entire field of permit issuance and regulation of gun sales. Therefore, any local ordinances in conflict with state law are null and void.

    However, the state does not mandate the method of carry and expressly allows the owner/administrator of a property to prohibit carry in that location. In my opinion, this means they have not occupied the entire field of carry methods.
    I suppose the counter argument would be that since the legislature expressly allows an owner to prohibit carry on their property, and did not expressly allow an owner to restrict the manner of carry, we can conclude that it was their intent to occupy the field of carry methods.

    That is, since they left an opening for owner/administrators of a property to prohibit carry, if they intended to allow restrictions on the method of carry, they would've left an opening for that, and they did not. They could've included language to allow owners to "prohibit carry or otherwise restrict the method of carry" on their property, or similar.

    Do you happen to know if this is Ralph Sherman's interpretation?

    I honestly don't know which interpretation is correct, but this is probably how I'd argue if I were charged with one of these ridiculous laws. I guess it'll take a braver person than I to be a test case on something like this.

    (None of this is legal advice!)



  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Central, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    359

    Post imported post

    lcatct wrote:
    gluegun wrote:
    In writing the gun laws of the state, it's clear that the legislature intended to occupy the entire field of permit issuance and regulation of gun sales. Therefore, any local ordinances in conflict with state law are null and void.

    However, the state does not mandate the method of carry and expressly allows the owner/administrator of a property to prohibit carry in that location. In my opinion, this means they have not occupied the entire field of carry methods.
    I suppose the counter argument would be that since the legislature expressly allows an owner to prohibit carry on their property, and did not expressly allow an owner to restrict the manner of carry, we can conclude that it was their intent to occupy the field of carry methods.

    That is, since they left an opening for owner/administrators of a property to prohibit carry, if they intended to allow restrictions on the method of carry, they would've left an opening for that, and they did not. They could've included language to allow owners to "prohibit carry or otherwise restrict the method of carry" on their property, or similar.

    Do you happen to know if this is Ralph Sherman's interpretation?


    I honestly don't know which interpretation is correct, but this is probably how I'd argue if I were charged with one of these ridiculous laws. I guess it'll take a braver person than I to be a test case on something like this.

    (None of this is legal advice!)

    I do not. The only information I could gather about his position is from the snippets provided at the links I gave above. I suspect it is not his position and that his position is that since the state went to great lengths to define the permit process and definitions of firearms and carrying of dangerous weapons or implements, etc. that they have occupied the entire field of firearms.

    The town referenced in the article seems to take my position. That there are smaller fields within firearms that the state has not totally occupied.

    Again, I'm working on limited information and I'm not a lawyer, just a legal aficionado.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    12

    Post imported post

    gluegun wrote:
    The town referenced in the article seems to take my position. That there are smaller fields within firearms that the state has not totally occupied.
    While disagreement on whether or not the state has occupied all fields within firearms is possible, I doubt any of us disagree about the best remedy: we need the legislature to come in and clarify, and say no to the current patchwork of silly local laws.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Central, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    359

    Post imported post

    Absolutely. The courts would be the second best solution.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Naugatuck Valley , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    41

    Post imported post

    Why do the Police, take offense to open transparency? But they want you to go under the microscope every time we deal with them?
    Times are changing and Police must be put into the light of day, also our laws need to change on this matter. We are all treated like second class citizens when dealing with them. How Sad is this. (give them a badge and a gun and everything changes, they believe the rules do not apply to them.)

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    On K-12 property, if you are picking up your child and never leave the car isn't it ok to have a pistol on you?

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    771

    Post imported post

    vitamin wrote:
    On K-12 property, if you are picking up your child and never leave the car isn't it ok to have a pistol on you?
    Sec. 53a-217b. Possession of a weapon on school grounds: Class D felony. (a) A person is guilty of possession of a weapon on school grounds when, knowing that such person is not licensed or privileged to do so, such person possesses a firearm or deadly weapon, as defined in section 53a-3, (1) in or on the real property comprising a public or private elementary or secondary school, or (2) at a school-sponsored activity as defined in subsection (h) of section 10-233a.

    (b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to the otherwise lawful possession of a firearm (1) by a person for use in a program approved by school officials in or on such school property or at such school-sponsored activity, (2) by a person in accordance with an agreement entered into between school officials and such person or such person's employer, (3) by a peace officer, as defined in subdivision (9) of section 53a-3, while engaged in the performance of such peace officer's official duties, or (4) by a person while traversing such school property for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting or for other lawful purposes, provided such firearm is not loaded and the entry on such school property is permitted by the local or regional board of education.

    (c) Possession of a weapon on school grounds is a class D felony.

    The law doesnt make that exception....

    I'm guessing that:

    knowing that such person is not licensed or privileged to do so


    Is NOT referring to the CT Pistol Permit?
    States dont have rights. People do.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Central, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    359

    Post imported post

    I can reply with the exact explaination I got from DPS, but the short answer is no.

    'Licensed' in legal terms means 'permitted' or 'allowed'. It does not mean to be in possession of a permit. Also, if you view the legislative history, you'll see that permit holders were at one time allowed to carry on K-12 grounds, but that exemption was removed.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Central, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    359

    Post imported post

    gluegun wrote:
    I can reply with the exact explaination I got from DPS, but the short answer is no.
    To follow up on my previous post here is the legal definition of "license" as reported by law.com:
    1) n. governmental permission to perform a particular act (like getting married), conduct a particular business or occupation, operate machinery or vehicles after proving ability to do so safely or use property for a certain purpose. 2) n. the certificate that proves one has been granted authority to do something under governmental license. 3) n. a private grant of right to use real property for a particular purpose, such as putting on a concert. 4) n. a private grant of the right to use some intellectual property such as a patent or musical composition. 5) v. to grant permission by governmental authority or private agreement.
    It can mean a physical certificate, but the definition likely meant by the legislature is permission via 1).

    Here's the legislative history for carrying a weapon on school grounds:
    P.A. 98-129 amended Subsec. (a) to add element that the person know that he is not licensed or privileged to possess a weapon on school grounds and deleted former Subsec. (b)(1) that had made provisions of Subsec. (a) inapplicable to the lawful possession of a firearm by a person holding a valid state or local permit to carry such firearm, renumbering the remaining Subdivs. accordingly, and deleted provision that had authorized boards of education and supervisory agents of private schools to prohibit the possession of firearms by students in or on school property or at a school-sponsored activity;
    The provision allowing permit holders to carry on school grounds was removed in 98.

    Here's what DPS told me:
    The reference to the word "licensed" in subsection (a) of 53a-217b does not refer to the possession of a valid Connecticut State Permit to Carry. A history search of the statute revealed that language in subsection(b) of 53a-217b specifically allowing the carrying of handguns on school grounds by valid permit holders was removed from the statute in 1998. This, in effect brought 53a-217b into alignment with section 29-28, and thus requires persons wishing to possess weapons on school grounds to obtain permission from the board of education or authorized school officials.
    I can provide a PDF of the actual letter they sent if someone REALLY wants it.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    Ok, I was talking to a co-worker a few days ago who told me it was ok in CT if you stay in your car because it is your property, like how people can drink and smoke in their cars here where it would otherwise not be legal to. He is older so I'll update him on it.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1

    Post imported post

    Living in the car should be ok in CT, unless your doing anything illegal in the car.

    Cheers!
    Resamith


    --Edited --Rule Violation--







  24. #24
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910

    Post imported post

    Resamith wrote:
    Living in the car should be ok in CT,
    Sure, but why would you want to live in the car?
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Central, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    359

    Post imported post

    Rich B wrote:
    Resamith wrote:
    Living in the car should be ok in CT,
    Sure, but why would you want to live in the car?
    It's a spammer. Just ignore.

Posting Permissions

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