Confused about carry issues in New Britain and New London

If New Britain have an ordinance (16-80) and New London have an ordinance (14-11), how often do permit holders get "jammed" on these ordinances?

I'm not sure if I goofed up on this one or not since I found out, but man....... how can this even be legit. Not that McDonald would apply here, per se, but it seems like a good time to challenge it.

What happens if you get caught?

How does this affect permit holders getting permits in their towns?

If your a resident, how do you carry? Package gear like a rifle and then put your "kit" together out of town?

Curious,

Jonathan

Open carry!!!

That's exactly how I read into it!

Statutes said concealed......

Jonathan

I got family in New Britain and i open carry with no problem.POLICE TOOK NOTICE BUT KEEP GOING ON THERE MERRY WAY. Enjoy it CARRY ON!!

My guess is that you will not be fined for concealed carry. I know of one instance where the police where outside the police station with an individual and watched that individual place their handgun in a concealed holster and cover it up.

The ordinance is outdated and likely not enforced. However, it should be brought to everyone's attention and as law abiding citizens we should respect the laws that are still on the books.

I agree with ya on that.

But, it seems that the only way to comply is open carry.

Jonathan

KIX said:

I agree with ya on that.

But, it seems that the only way to comply is open carry.

Jonathan

Click to expand...

Jonathan,
I agree and we will all just have to do what is legal.

I'll keep Martha Dean's phone number handy in case I need a lawyer!!!!

Jonathan

KIX said:

I'll keep Martha Dean's phone number handy in case I need a lawyer!!!!

Jonathan

Click to expand...

Martha has been very busy lately (Lots of campaigning).
I will be calling Attorney Craig Fishbein if I get in any trouble...besides there is a chance that he may actually be there when it happens...LOL!!

Lenny Benedetto said:

Martha has been very busy lately (Lots of campaigning).
I will be calling Attorney Craig Fishbein if I get in any trouble...besides there is a chance that he may actually be there when it happens...LOL!!

Click to expand...

I have him on speed dial in my phone.

Your state pistol permit is valid in New Britain and New London

Connecticut has no pre-emption statute, but we do have pre-emption under case law. That means the state statutes about carrying handguns pre-empt any local ordinances. The anti-carry ordinances may still exist, but they are not enforced. I do believe the police are aware of the pre-emption. So your state permit is valid despite any local ordinances.

Atty. Ralph D. Sherman said:

Connecticut has no pre-emption statute, but we do have pre-emption under case law. That means the state statutes about carrying handguns pre-empt any local ordinances. The anti-carry ordinances may still exist, but they are not enforced. I do believe the police are aware of the pre-emption. So your state permit is valid despite any local ordinances.

Click to expand...

Would this then mean that a local ordinance prohibiting carry inside a town building is not valid either?

Obviously I'm not an atty, and Ralph is, so I'm just speculating.

A town has a right as a property owner to ban guns inside. The law does allow for that.

Thoughts.?

Don

p.s. Ralph, thanks for weighing in. We've spoken in the past. I's good to see you on this forum.

Good question

Good question, Rich B. Yes, the law does allow for property owners to ban firearms from their property, but does not prescribe punishment for it or allocate that action as a specific crime in the Penal Code. Not that I can see, at least. So how would someone be charged, if they brought a permit and a gun into a place where the private property owner doesn't allow it? That's one of my unanswered questions. I know of a case, mentioned in Ed Peruta's log from the SFLU, where someone carried a concealed handgun into one of the casinos, not having seen the sign which wasn't visible at the time, and still was arrested, and not for breach of peace.

The other factor to consider is that town buildings are not private property. They are public property. I wonder, too, about some town's prohibitions against having weapons on outdoor Town property, like parks. The consensus of OCDO CT lawyers and non-lawyers seem to think such prohibitions would hold up in court, but I have to wonder. Is there case law on this? Obviously if the State thinks it can validly prohibit carry in State parks, it doesn't have a problem with banning carry in some public areas.

dcmdon said:

A town has a right as a property owner to ban guns inside.

Click to expand...

Who owns the property? Certainly not 'the town'. The taxpayers bought it, paid for it, and have control over it and the people they hire to manage it.

Johnny W said:

Obviously if the State thinks it can validly prohibit carry in State parks,

Click to expand...

Even the state admits that the only way they can prohibit carry in State Parks is by the 'owner' of the property banning it.

They question then comes down to who is the owner? The capital police found out that they don't have the legal authority necessary during the 2nd amendment march. Why then would the commissioner of the DEP have this sort of legal authority over the State Parks property?

Ohio got it right

Interesting this discussion has popped up here before, I also brought it up over the summer, I think.

But, just came across nranews.com...... interesting.

Link to my blog because I had already deleted the direct youtube link when I embedded the code.........

http://ctgunsafety.com/?p=77

Jonathan

Johnny W said:

Good question, Rich B. Yes, the law does allow for property owners to ban firearms from their property, but does not prescribe punishment for it or allocate that action as a specific crime in the Penal Code. Not that I can see, at least.

Click to expand...

There is a punishment listed in the state statutes, see Sec. 29-37.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/Chap529.htm#Sec29-37.htm

Sec. 29-37. Penalties. (a) Any person violating any provision of section 29-28 or 29-31 shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than three years or both, and any pistol or revolver found in the possession of any person in violation of any of said provisions shall be forfeited.

(b) Any person violating any provision of subsection (a) of section 29-35 may be fined not more than one thousand dollars and shall be imprisoned not less than one year or more than five years, and, in the absence of any mitigating circumstances as determined by the court, one year of the sentence imposed may not be suspended or reduced by the court. The court shall specifically state the mitigating circumstances, or the absence thereof, in writing for the record. Any pistol or revolver found in the possession of any person in violation of any provision of subsection (a) of section 29-35 shall be forfeited.

(c) Any person violating any provision of subsection (b) of section 29-35 shall have committed an infraction and shall be fined thirty-five dollars.

Seems the Ohio example can apply here. I wonder if the ruling would have been the same pre McDonald and Heller, but it is a decent one nonetheless:

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=14596

Jonathan