Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: "Man Charged With Threatening Westfarms Clerks With Gun"

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    49

    Post imported post

    I just saw this in the Hartford Currant ... What's your take on this?

    Man Charged With Threatening Westfarms Clerks With Gun

    The Hartford Courant

    April 14, 2010

    FARMINGTON
    A Simsbury man was charged with second-degree breach of peace and second-degree threatening after police say he showed a handgun he was carrying to two clerks at Westfarms mall.

    Police said Jay Ginewsky, 67, was properly licensed to carry the five-shot, .38-caliber pistol he had tucked in his belt. But when he lifted his shirt and showed it to two clerks at the mall about 4 p.m., one clerk was so alarmed that she called 911.

    Police said Ginewsky was upset with Nordstrom, a store at the mall, and said something about it to a clerk at a kiosk in the mall's center court, then showed the gun. He also showed the gun to a clerk at the Nike store, police said.

    When police arrived they quickly disarmed Ginewsky and took him into custody. He was later released without having to post bail. Police kept the handgun and Ginewsky's permit, and referred him to the state Board of Firearms Permit Examiners.

    —David Owens

    LINK: http://www.courant.com/community/far...,6162976.story

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

    Post imported post

    If the facts in the story are to be believed, he deserved to lose his permit and firearm and deserves any charges that follow.

    What a stupid thing to do. That makes us all look bad.
    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

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    49

    Post imported post

    I was feeling the same way. I just thought I was alone on the fact that this seems to be the mentality of the people we carry to protect from.

    I was just shocked to read that he was a permit holder. I thought we all are level headed. But I guess there is always the exception.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910

    Post imported post

    cbnlnk121 wrote:
    I was just shocked to read that he was a permit holder. I thought we all are level headed.
    As much as we would like to believe that, it would be a ridiculous assertion. The only thing we can do is try and make sure that the good outweighs the bad at all times.
    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

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Plymouth, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    241

    Post imported post

    I will not comment on the actions of the gentleman but rather the actions of the police. They had no authority to seize his permit unless it was invalid. They could have sent a request to Commissioner Danaher to have the permit revoked. The Commissioner upon his investigation is the only one with the authority to revoke a permit. Why would the local police refer the guy to the BFPE? Until he receives a revocation letter from Commissioner Danaher he still has a valid permit and can still carry. Of course now that he doesn't have a permit he can be ticketed for $35 for failure to carry his permit on his person.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    I agree competely with Jumpmaster.

    If anyone brandishes their weapon in a treatening manner, they should be arrested for Breach of Peace.

    Having said that, Breach of Peace is not by itself a disqualifying factor for a permit to be revoked, and local or state police are required to submit the facts to DPS/SLFU with any request for revocation of same.

    I believe the police were correct in taking the weapon during an arrest, and the courts can deal with it's return or destruction depending on the outcome of the criminal charge(s).

    I think it's stupid to draw attention to your weapon when having a dispute with a sales clerk.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Britain, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    I take any firearms-related newsin the Hartford Courant with a grain of salt; they've proven over the years not to beunbiased when it comes our right to keep and bear arms.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Rich B wrote:
    SNIP What a stupid thing to do. That makes us all look bad.
    That is a littlelike saying someone who takes offhis shoes and stinks up the room with smellyfeetmakes all shoe-wearers look bad.

    Do pot-bellied men with sleevelessshirts make everyone else whowears a shirt look bad?

    Would I be wiseto expect anothergent to behave a certain way justhe and I both wear trousers?

    As long as we assign some special "us-ness" to gun misbehavers, the anti-gunners will be happy to oblige us.

    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Hamden, CT, , USA
    Posts
    101

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Rich B wrote:
    SNIP What a stupid thing to do. That makes us all look bad.
    That is a littlelike saying someone who takes offhis shoes and stinks up the room with smellyfeetmakes all shoe-wearers look bad.

    Do pot-bellied men with sleevelessshirts make everyone else whowears a shirt look bad?

    Would I be wiseto expect anothergent to behave a certain way justhe and I both wear trousers?

    As long as we assign some special "us-ness" to gun misbehavers, the anti-gunners will be happy to oblige us.
    Couldn't have said it better myself. Good Job!

  10. #10
    Regular Member atrule's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Yalesville, , USA
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    The context of how the clerks saw the gun is not clear from the article. If when he tucked in his belt, did he say to the clerks, "don't be alarmed, I am lawfully carrying a fire-arm. I need to adjust my belt and you may possibly see my fire-arm."?

    Don't be so quick to make judgments. In fact, since he was released without bail, it might indicate that something like the outlined possibility above is what happened. In which case, he was very responsible for doing it that way, while the clerks freaked.

    Be careful about making judgments without context.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    As long as we assign some special "us-ness" to gun misbehavers, the anti-gunners will be happy to oblige us.**
    That sounds great in a utopian dream, but unfortunately here in reality it is the case. We are all judged based on the actions of one another and we all have a responsibility to one another to promote the good in the cause and condemn the bad.
    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

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    terryville, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    110

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Rich B wrote:
    SNIP What a stupid thing to do. That makes us all look bad.
    That is a littlelike saying someone who takes offhis shoes and stinks up the room with smellyfeetmakes all shoe-wearers look bad.

    Do pot-bellied men with sleevelessshirts make everyone else whowears a shirt look bad?

    Would I be wiseto expect anothergent to behave a certain way justhe and I both wear trousers?

    As long as we assign some special "us-ness" to gun misbehavers, the anti-gunners will be happy to oblige us.
    with all due respect citizen, in this state your vue is wrong. i agree with you in a different state like arizona, but not ct. just think of the traditional gang banger holding his gun sideways, blastin caps in yo ### and killin someone. that guy no matter the gang, race, enemy, or target will be the "representitive" of all gun owners. the news will blast his face, then a picture of a gun, then say gun 400 times in the 15 second news clip. making sure only the word gun is remembered being involved with a shooting. the sheep here suck it up like a baby on the tit. the sheep cant mentally distiguish a bad guy from a good guy with a gun.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Rich B wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    As long as we assign some special "us-ness" to gun misbehavers, the anti-gunners will be happy to oblige us.
    That sounds great in a utopian dream, but unfortunately here in reality it is the case. We are all judged based on the actions of one another and we all have a responsibility to one another to promote the good in the cause and condemn the bad.
    When we say "we are all judged" we make it look more comprehensive than it really is. We overlook the other part of the equation--the most important part: who is doing the judging?

    Not everyone who reads a news article or sees a TV news segment judges all CCW permit holders on the basis on misbehaver. I would hazard a guess and say that most people would not judge negatively all CCers because one was an idiot. Any individual person will have an emotional reaction to this or that occurence thatcauses an automatic identification of two things that are not identical; but feew have somany emotional reactions that automatically identify almost everything with everything else. Those who do are in institutions for the most part. This is all just a fancy way of saying plenty of people can and do differentiate, or more precisely they do not automatically draw an identificationor similarity where none exists.

    There are people who would judge all gun owners dangerous because of the misdeeds of a few. I think they are few in number. Otherwise, the Brady Bunch would get a lot more traction than they do.

    In any event, I would not worry about it, which was the unstated thrust of my first post. Our concern should be educating and activating those are not so nutty as to draw identifications or similarities where none exist. Plenty more of those people around.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Posting Permissions

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