Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: My Recent Correspondence with DPS

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1

    Post imported post

    May 4th 2010
    Subject: Clarification Regarding Guidelines for 2nd Amendment Rally of April, 10 2010

    Commissioner Danaher (CT Department of Public Safety),

    Were the guidelines set forth in the aforementioned document (attached) specific and exclusive to the 2nd Amendment Rally that took place at the State Capitol?
    Or, are they standing guidelines for State Troopers to utilize concerning properly permitted individuals carrying firearms in plain view?

    To further clarify, are properly permitted individuals who carry a handgun in plain view, unless otherwise prohibited by State Statute, within their rights to do so, and therefore not subject to arrest?

    Your timely clarification will serve to educate and ensure the safety of the citizens, as well as the brave Troopers of Connecticut.

    Thank You for your time sir.
    Respectfully,
    Max
    __________________________________________________ __________________
    IN LIEU OF COMMISSIONER DANAHER-I RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING FROM TROOPER HATFIELD
    __________________________________________________ __________________
    On May 6, 2010, at 10:47 AM, Hatfield, Thomas wrote:

    Sir,

    Thank you for your May 4, 2010 email asking: “[t]o further clarify, are properly permitted individuals who carry a handgun in plain view, unless otherwise prohibited by State Statute, within their rights to do so, and therefore not subject to arrest?”

    Under some circumstances, an individual who possesses a valid CT pistol permit may be subject to arrest for carrying his or her pistol exposed.

    Please be aware that our office does not issue legal advice to the public and this communication should not be construed as legal advice. To the extent that your May 4, 2010 email asks for legal advice, we strongly suggest that you consult with an appropriate attorney regarding specific factual scenarios related to carrying a handgun in Connecticut.


    Sincerely,

    Tpr. Hatfield

    Tpr. Thomas Hatfield Esq.
    Connecticut Department of Public Safety
    Legal Affairs
    (860) 685-8150 (Telephone)
    (860) 685-8354 (Facsimile)

    __________________________________________________ _____________________


    Trooper Hatfield,
    Thank you for your timely response, and more so for your service to the citizens of Connecticut.
    I am fully aware that you are not issuing legal advice.
    That being said, if you would be so kind, please elaborate.
    What statute requires that an individual who possesses a valid CT pistol permit must keep his or her pistol concealed, thus creating the circumstances under which he or she may be subject to arrest for carrying openly?

    Respectfully,

    Max

    __________________________________________________ ____________________

    On May 6, 2010, at 12:50 PM, Hatfield, Thomas wrote:

    Sir,

    C.G.S. §29-28 governs the issuance of handgun permits in Connecticut. The variables of how, where, and when handguns can be possessed each represent a constellation of circumstances too numerous to be reasonably enumerated, and we cannot elaborate on our previous answer without providing legal advice as to a factually deficient hypothetical situation.

    Again, we strongly recommend that you contact an appropriate attorney for the purpose of discussing particular circumstances of carrying a handgun in Connecticut.

    Sincerely,

    Tpr. Hatfield

    __________________________________________________ ______________________

    Trooper Hatfield,

    With all due respect, I must infer from your linguistic do-si-do that you (and by proxy the DPS) are unwilling to weigh-in on this legal gray area.
    I, in no way fault you personally, sir. You continue to have my full respect.
    However, by taking the position of not taking a position, the DPS negligently perpetuates a potentially tragic air of confusion amongst LEOs and citizens, and leaves open the high likelihood of unequal application of the law.
    Once again, thank you for your time, sir.

    With deep respect,
    Max

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

    Post imported post

    Very well done in my opinion.

    Good job and thank you.
    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
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    The double standard of what is published to a Police Agency and all State Police officers and members of the public is remarkable.

    Remember, the Second Amendment March memo was directed to ALL state police that may respond to the event.

    State police do not have any authority to issue directives to local officers.

    I can tell everyone that in speaking with a local Chief of Police today, the Goldberg article in the Courant and the Second Amendment March memo were discussed. I have been informed that there was much discussion at a recent meeting of the Chiefs.



  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    Edward Peruta wrote:
    The double standard of what is published to a Police Agency and all State Police officers and members of the public is remarkable.

    Remember, the Second Amendment March memo was directed to ALL state police that may respond to the event.

    State police do not have any authority to issue directives to local officers.

    I can tell everyone that in speaking with a local Chief of Police today, the Goldberg article in the Courant and the Second Amendment March memo were discussed. I have been informed that there was much discussion at a recent meeting of the Chiefs.

    Much discussion? Would that be more toward the leave people alone who exercise their rights, or more toward "let them try it in my town so I can break their balls."

Posting Permissions

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