• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The Goldberg transcript and Decison of 09.17.10

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
You might want to tell this to all the LEO officals in CT who seem to have no problem with it. And this case here will just justify even more, in there eyes anyways.

Who are all of those LEOs to whom you confirm? I have only had one issue with LEOs in all of my time OCing and despite them being massively uninformed and biased, they still knew better than to use breach of peace as a charge.

Add to this that the state police have been put on warning in writing since the second amendment rally and I don't see the evidence of what you are asserting.
 
Last edited:

aadvark

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,597
Location
, ,
There is strong anti-Firearms precedent throughout most of The New England States to begin with.
Connecticut Citizens most probably are not accustomed to seeing someone Armed Legally.
I sincerely doubt that The Second Federal Circuit Court of New York will see it any differently.

However, under Connecticut Law, Open Carry of a Loaded handgun while in Public is Legal, provided; the possesor has a Valid License to do so.

Connecticut Law 53a-181(6) says: '... [A] Person commits Breach of Peace in the Second Degree when... [He] creates a Public and Hazardous or Physically Offensive Condition by any Act which such Person is not Licensed or Privileged to do. For purposes of this section, 'Public Place' means any Area that is used or held out for use by the Public whether Owned or Operated by Public or Private Interests.

Open Carry of a Loaded Pistol, in New England, could well be held out to be a 'Hazardous and Physically Offensive Condition', but the Statute enumerates Persons who are... Licensed... as exempt.

Connecticut Law 29-35(a) says: '...No Person shall Carry any Pistol or Revolver upon His or Her Person, except when such Person is within the Dwelling House or Place of Business of such Person, without a Permit to Carry the same Issued as provided in section 29-28.'

Conneticut Law 29-28, Authorizes the Possesion of a Pistol or Revolver by a Person with a Permit, Issued, pursuant to Authority of, Connecticut Law.

Acquiring a Permit, pursuant to the same, should give rise to the exception listed under 53a-181(6), as that Person would be Licensed or Privileged to create the Disturbance, hence: 'Man with a Gun'.
 
Last edited:

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
Connecticut Citizens most probably are not accustomed to seeing someone Armed Legally.

I have to agree strongly with this statement since I hear it more than I should have to.

People see police officers walking around armed legally all the time.

People do not see criminals walking around all the time armed (especially not openly carrying holstered firearms).

More and more people are seeing legally permitted people walking around open carrying a firearm.

Nothing in that sentence holds truth.
 

aadvark

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,597
Location
, ,
Rich B:

Please do NOT make a Liar out of me.

I only said what I said because I sincerely doubt you would recieve the same type of Public Response had this occured elsewhere in our Country, say: 1. Western States, 2. Southern States, or 3. Alaska.

aadvark
 
Last edited:

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
Please do NOT make a Liar out of me.

No one can 'make a liar out of you'.

I only said what I said because I sincerely doubt you would recieve the same type of Public Response had this occured elsewhere in our Country, say: 1. Western States, 2. Southern States, or 3. Alaska.

Citation needed.

1. California is having major OC and 2A struggles.
2. There are more states in 'the north' that OC friendly than 'the south'. http://www.opencarry.org/opencarry.html
3. There are idiots in Alaska as well. http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?78215-Gun-Unfriendly-in-Delta-Junction
 
Last edited:

Leverdude

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
265
Location
Norwalk, Connecticut, USA
There is strong anti-Firearms precedent throughout most of The New England States to begin with.
Connecticut Citizens most probably are not accustomed to seeing someone Armed Legally.
I sincerely doubt that The Second Federal Circuit Court of New York will see it any differently.

However, under Connecticut Law, Open Carry of a Loaded handgun while in Public is Legal, provided; the possesor has a Valid License to do so.

Connecticut Law 53a-181(6) says: '... [A] Person commits Breach of Peace in the Second Degree when... [He] creates a Public and Hazardous or Physically Offensive Condition by any Act which such Person is not Licensed or Privileged to do. For purposes of this section, 'Public Place' means any Area that is used or held out for use by the Public whether Owned or Operated by Public or Private Interests.

Open Carry of a Loaded Pistol, in New England, could well be held out to be a 'Hazardous and Physically Offensive Condition', but the Statute enumerates Persons who are... Licensed... as exempt.

Connecticut Law 29-35(a) says: '...No Person shall Carry any Pistol or Revolver upon His or Her Person, except when such Person is within the Dwelling House or Place of Business of such Person, without a Permit to Carry the same Issued as provided in section 29-28.'

Conneticut Law 29-28, Authorizes the Possesion of a Pistol or Revolver by a Person with a Permit, Issued, pursuant to Authority of, Connecticut Law.

Acquiring a Permit, pursuant to the same, should give rise to the exception listed under 53a-181(6), as that Person would be Licensed or Privileged to create the Disturbance, hence: 'Man with a Gun'.

Actually most of New England is fine with OC. Ignoreing CT (Where I agree most people are brainwashed against it) VT has zero gun laws, no permit required fr anything. If you own it you can carry it loaded ect, exception being loaded long guns in vehicles. NH & Maine require a permit only to carry concealed, you can carry openly without a permit. Factoreing in CT where its only legal I think because our politicians are morons, you have 4 out of 6 states where OC is legal.
I figure eventually CT will be similar to NH or ME where OC is legal but most people obtain a permit to carry concealed. Requireing concealment with our current laws wouldn't work for a number of reasons. Hunting being one. I shoot small game with a rimfire 22. I NEED a permit to do this. If my permit requires I conceal my hunting arm I'm not sure how I could comply.

But thats enough of that. I'm going to go sit in a tree with a bow & wait for a deer to walk by.
 
Last edited:

Edward Peruta

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
1,247
Location
Connecticut USA
More facts to digest regarding this case

Now that everyone has had the oppurtunity to read the transcript of the hearing held on Friday, take the time to read the transcript of the actual 911 and dispatch clips that were provided by Glastonbury P.D.

I have highlighted certain areas of the transcript to point out some major issues.

The first is why did Glastonbury P.D. hang up on a 'MAN WITH A GUN" call.


CLIP A - Recorded on 21-Jun-2007 at 22.28.51 ()ULCUB4G00462246) Verified against original WAV clip

FEMALE DISPATCHER: 911. What is the address of the emergency?

LAURA: 2855 Main Street, Glastonbury. I just -- I don't know if it's an emergency. I have a guest sitting at take-out with -- and I believe he's got a 9-millimeter strapped to his side. Just sitting there. He ordered some food. Is there anything -- such thing as a nonconcealed carry permit?

FEMALE DISPATCHER: I do not know. Hold on one moment. Okay? Who am I speaking with?

LAURA: My name is Laura.

FEMALE DISPATCHER: Okay. Laura, can you hang on just one second?

LAURA: Sure.

CLIP B - Recorded on 21-Jun-2007 at 22.29.40 ()ULCVG)W00462246) Verified against original WAV clip

FEMALE DISPATCHER: All right, Laura. We're going to have somebody come over and check it out for you. Okay?

LAURA: Yeah. I mean he's not causing any trouble, but it's just kind of weird, you know?

FEMALE DISPATCHER: Okay. We'll send somebody over to check it out if it makes you feel better. Okay?

LAURA: Thank you.

FEMALE DISPATCHER: Yup.

LAURA: Bye.

FEMALE DISPATCHER: Bye.

CLIP C Recorded on 21-Jun-2007 at 22.30.21 ()ULCWD2100962246) Verified against original WAV clip

MALE DISPATCHER: 352.

OFFICER: 352.

MALE DISPATCHER: You start heading for Chili’s and I’ll try and get you another car … Caller there reports a person, a male, at the take-out area, apparently displaying in a holster a 9-millimeter. She says he's just sitting there, so -- and they didn't want to approach to find out about it. The Chili's, in the take-out area.


CLIP D - Recorded on 21-Jun-2007 at 22.31.01 ()ULCX@OG00962246) Verified against original WAV clip

OFFICER: 10-4

OFFICER: 376. I'm clear.

MALE DISPATCHER: 10-4, 376. Can You back him up.


CLIP E Recorded on 21-Jun-2007 at 22.31.17 ()ULCXPLW00962246) Verified against original WAV clip

OFFICER 219: 219. I'm gonna clear and respond.

CLIP F - recorded on 21-Jun-2007 at 22.31.27 ()ULCXZ#W00962246) Verified against original WAV clip

OFFICER: F4, 219. (Dispatcher seems to have asked unit 219 to go to Frequency 4 and there are no recordings)

CLIP G - Recorded on 21-Jun-2007 at 22.31.49 ()ULCY@-100962246) Verified against original WAV clip

OFFICER: 352. Do we have a description on the male?

MALE DISPATCHER: Stand by, we'll try to get that information. The person that was calling us was quite upset.

CLIP H - Recorded on 21-Jun-2007 at 22.32.01 ()ULD!#N100462246) Verified against original WAV clip

(Dialing.)

(Ringing.)

RECORDING: Thank you for calling Chili's in Glastonbury. For to-go, please press one. For call ahead waiting, please --

(Beep.)

(Ringing.)

CHILI'S EMPLOYEE: Thanks for calling Chili's in Glastonbury. Nancy. Can I help you?

FEMALE DISPATCHER: Hi. Glastonbury Police Department calling. Is Laura there?

CHILI'S EMPLOYEE: Sure. Hold on a second, please. Laura?

LAURA: Hi. This is Laura.

FEMALE DISPATCHER: Hi, Laura. Glastonbury police calling you back.

LAURA: Yes.

FEMALE DISPATCHER: Can you give me a description of the man that's sitting there?

LAURA: I have his credit card. I don't want to go over there because the dumb waitress that just answered the phone said "Laura, it's the police on the phone for you," and he --

FEMALE DISPATCHER: I caught that, yes. (DISPATCHER GIGGLES) Okay. Can you -- did you see him?

LAURA: Yeah. He's paid by credit card.

FEMALE DISPATCHER: Okay. Can you tell me what he looks like? Is he a white man? Black man – Hispanic man

LAURA: He's white --

LAURA: He's white. He's wearing a pair of like fatigue pants. He's wearing a tan shirt. He's about -- not a tan shirt, but some kind of writing on it. Somewhat paramilitary, but not really paramilitary; you know what I mean?

FEMALE DISPATCHER: Okay.

LAURA: And he's probably about five-ten and slender.

FEMALE DISPATCHER: Okay.

LAURA: And I can't believe I'm -- I'm not positive it's a gun. I'm pretty sure. It's just that it's being carried openly that's

freaking me out because --

FEMALE DISPATCHER: Oh, okay. Well, we've got an officer waiting in the lot for another officer to arrive to come in. Okay?

LAURA: Okay. Sounds good. Thanks.

FEMALE DISPATCHER: Okay.

LAURA: Bye.

FEMALE DISPATCHER: Bye.

CLIP I - Recorded on 21-Jun-2007 at 22.32.40 ()ULD!WC100962246) Verified against original WAV clip

OFFICER: (Unintelligible.)

MALE DISPATCHER: 4 to 352. We're trying to get that initial complainant back on the phone.

OFFICER: That's fine, 352. Wait until we get some units up here.

CLIP J - Recorded on 21-Jun-2007 at 22.33.04 ()ULD#C3W00962246) Verified against original WAV clip

OFFICER: 10-4

CLIP K - Recorded on 21-Jun-2007 at 22.33.55 ()ULD$FNG00962246) Verified against original WAV clip

FEMALE DISPATCHER: Units en route to Chili's. It's a white male wearing fatigue pants, a tan shirt with some sort of writing on it. She states he looks possibly – possibly related to the military. She said he's five ten and slender.

CLIP L - Recorded on 21-Jun-2007 at 22.34.16 ()ULD%!CW00962246) Verified against original WAV clip

OFFICER: 352. 10-4.

OFFICER: Going in, Captain.

OFFICER: 376. Copy.

CLIP M - Recorded on 21-Jun-2007 at 22.35.14 ()ULD(7EW00962246) Verified against original WAV clip

OFFICER: 360. We're back out of the woods. The area check was negative.

MALE DISPATCHER: 10-4, 360.

OFFICER: 352. Is the person still in the building?

MALE DISPATCHER: We do not have them on the line. We would call them back. They were when we called.

OFFICER: 10-4 I’m standing by.

OFFICER: 219 arrival.

MALE DISPATCHER: 10-4, 219.

CLIP N - Recorded on 21-Jun-2007 at 22.36.13 ()ULD)LB100962246) Verified against original WAV clip

OFFICER: 376, 98.

MALE DISPATCHER: 10-4, 376.

CLIP O - Recorded on 21-Jun-2007 at 22.39.08 ()ULD2G-W00962246) Verified against original WAV clip

OFFICER: 219. We have this party in custody.

MALE DISPATCHER: 10-4, 219.

CLIP P - Recorded on 21-Jun-2007 at 22.45.41 ()ULDA28100962246) Verified against original WAV clip

OFFICER: 352, Baker.

MALE DISPATCHER: 10-4, 352.

OFFICER: 376, come in 10-2 --

unintelligible). What's going on? Zero.

OFFICER: 22:45.

OFFICER: What's going on (unintelligible).

OFFICER: What's going on (unintelligible).

CLIP Q - Recorded on 21-Jun-2007 at 22.47.32 ()ULDCO5G00962246) Verified against original WAV clip

OFFICER: 316, 1071.4

OFFICER: 22:47.

CLIP R - Recorded on 21-Jun-2007 at 22.48.31 ()ULDD}9100962246) Verified against original WAV clip

OFFICER: It's 9, 10, 2.

OFFICER: (Unintelligible.)

OFFICER: 360, I'm not finding any information for that party. That 18's negative.

 
Last edited:

Thos.Jefferson

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
288
Location
just south of the river, Kentucky, USA
The judge is a LIAR

That's why the so called "judge" wouldn't allow the 911 tape/transcript into evidence.He blatantly lied about the girl being so damned scared she couldn't even describe the guy. This is just un-flipping-believable! Surely there has to be a recourse available to get this idiot removed from the bench. Every single ruling he has ever made should now be in question.
 

stacks04

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
110
Location
terryville, Connecticut, USA
It appears to me a little education about the laws to the chili's staff would have been much better outcome for the police dept in the long run and chili's, if they so chose to maintain their anti gun rhetoric just put no guns allowed (because were pussies) signs up on every entrance. Thus avoiding this in the future. It would force concealed carry but atleast the staff and police could make a better judgement call next time weather to take action or not.

It also appears that had the dispatcher known the laws this all would have been averted. The initial question by the Laura,

"Is there anything -- such thing as a nonconcealed carry permit?"

should have been met with yes open carry of firearms in ct is legal. Then based on the tone of the Laura party, the story would have read, ok then that settles it. He just ordered food and not causing any trouble. Thanks for the clarification.
 

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_R._Underhill

He was nominated by U.S. President Bill Clinton

Scary:
Judge Underhill teaches a course on Federal Courts as an adjunct professor at University of Connecticut School of Law.

http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Stefan_Underhill

On the recommendation of U.S. Senators Christopher Dodd and Joe Libermann, Underhill was nominated to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut by President Bill Clinton

http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=639
 
Last edited:

Johnny W

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
60
Location
CT
My thoughts

I hate to be the first to argue about something fairly trivial in the wake of something so important, but I believe it should not have gotten that far, and I have yet to see anyone account for a law that proves otherwise.

James Goldberg should have been able to reply "Yes, I have a permit" and the police should have left him alone after witnessing no crime and after the manager of Chili's could not articulate a specific crime.

I still have yet to see anywhere in CT state law where it requires you to hand over any physical identification to a LEO when you are not breaking a law.



But what's the point of a permit, then? I think most people feel that the police should be able to stop and ask for information, which citizens should be required to give. This feeling doesn't have a basis in law, which creates much of the disconnect between "reasonable" and "legal", some of which we can see in the judge's statements. Maybe there really is no point to a permit, if the police can't ask for it unless you've already probably committed a crime with your gun, and that crime can't be simply carrying it somewhere not prohibited by law.

I wonder what the outcome would have been if someone called and said "There's a man with a fishing pole and a fish, and I'm afraid!" The vast majority of CT residents don't have fishing permits, so it's entirely likely that a person with a fishing pole and a fish has been fishing illegally. Would police be justified in responding to such a call, and asking for the possible fisher's permit? And in temporarily seizing the fishing pole in case the suspect uses it against the police?

This argumentation about police temporarily taking a person's weapon and handcuffing the person is a very slippery slope. Why don't they handcuff everyone, in case people find a weapon at hand like a piece of furniture? Or even if the person doesn't have a weapon but fights bare-handed? Where's the line? If the police can handcuff people when they ask them questions, for their own safety, can they just indiscriminately handcuff everyone because everyone is a potential danger?

In a way I feel sorry for the police. If they respond as they should, meaning that the dispatcher informs the caller that unless the person is making threats using the gun or is unsafely handling the gun there isn't a problem and that's the end of the matter, then the media will be all over them for not responding to calls about possible armed criminals. If they respond as many people would like and show up to harrass someone acting legally and responsibly, they violate laws and rights. No real winning solution for them, there.

Like the issue of suitability, this vagueness in law or in the understanding of law that says the context of an action when perceived by "reasonable" people is creating a big problem. If the law were even clearer than it is, and the relevant statutes were updated to say that mere possession of a weapon, visibly or not, is not sufficient to constitute assault or threatening, it would help prevent a lot of these cases. Yes, I know that's like printing "Caution, hot drink" on a coffee cup, but that's apparently the kind of society we're in nowadays.

Perhaps we also ought to print things like "if someone does something which scares you, get out, or at least get a hold of your emotions and ask that person to stop, realizing that they might not." Having fear is not the same as being threatened. I think Ed Peruta's statement about Muslims makes that point very clear. The presence of a Muslim is enough to make some people afraid because of their ignorance, in just the same way and for the same reason that guns do for other people. I hope that Ms. Baird, or whoever argues this case on appeal, brings up that example because it's even more analagous than the "black person in a white neighborhood" idea.

I have to wonder about the judge's reasoning when he implies that Goldberg should have left his gun in the car rather than taking it in to the restaurant. There is, of course, the common sense logic that we who are familiar and comfortable with guns would bring up, that since Chili's is apparently a place where armed criminals have repeatedly caused trouble it's a good place to be armed and that one could find the need to defend oneself in an instant in any place. Aside from that, even the judge would have to admit that the act of drawing his firearm in his car to put it away, if observed by someone, would be definite reason to call 911 and a definite breach of peace. So by this logic, apparently everyone who carries a firearm needs to also carry a sort of changing booth which allows them to disarm without causing alarm.

I completely agree with Ed that the solution to this legal ambivalence is more clarification of the laws. If even respected judges can't see through their emotions on these topics, we need to make it so clear that they can't deny what the law says. Perhaps that's futile, given the kinds of irrational fears some people have about guns.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Twisted logic, statist appologist in black robes. This wasn't even close.

Since most people in CT do not have an endorsement to drive motorcycles, can police randomly pull over motorcyclists to see if they are properly licensed to operate a motorcycle?
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
I've only seen motorcyclists pulled over for speeding.

Bingo, yes we have a winner. Carrying a firearm is not RAS, any more than riding a motorcycle is RAS. :banana:

What a sorry day for the men and women in black robes when false logic is used to sanction the abrogation of fundamental rights.:uhoh:
 

Edward Peruta

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
1,247
Location
Connecticut USA
Top