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

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!

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!

Click to expand...

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!

imported post

Thanks Ed!

imported post

Add Parks to the list of nocarry areas.

imported post

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

imported post

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

imported post

http://ccdl.us/resources/documents/99-qis-that-legalq-carry-pamphlet

imported post

hibby76 wrote:

-New Britian?

Click to expand...

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).

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Blumenthal said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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 ??

imported post

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

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.

Click to expand...

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!)

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.

Click to expand...

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!)

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

Absolutely. The courts would be the second best solution.

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.)

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?

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

The law doesnt make that exception....

I'm guessing that:

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

Click to expand...

Is NOT referring to the CT Pistol Permit?

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.