Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34

Thread: Connecticut state police want legislature to ban open carry in 2011

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

    Connecticut state police want legislature to ban open carry in 2011

    Hot off the copier at the Department of Public Safety

    I have as in past years at this time, just obtained via a recently filed Freedom of Information request, from the Department of Public Safety's proposal for mandating Conceal Carry in the 2011 legislative session.

    Here is the link to what I received today:
    http://www.ctgunrights.com/03.Political/2011/2011.Conceal.Carry.Proposed.Legislation.Yellow.pdf

    Every Second Amendment Firearm Advocate how intends to vote this November should ask the person they intend on voting for to state their position on this specific piece of proposed legislation.

    It might also be advantageous and a breath of fresh air to have the candidates who claim to support Second Amendment Rights challenge their political opponents to state their position on this specific piece of legislation.

    Every Right to Keep and Bear arms believe should begin planning for the 2011 legislative session.

    I have highlighted some interesting sections that are very revealing in light of the arrests and detainments that have occurred and seem to be increasing recently in CT.

    If you are interesting is supporting Second Amendment Rights on a monthly or one time basis here in Connecticut, please send an email with your true identity and contact information to the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen at info@ctsportsmen.com or to me at edperuta@amcable.tv so that I may provide the information should I find a group interested in administering a Firearms Civil Defense Fund in CT.

    FREEDOM IS NOT FREE, and you don't realize the value of a support group until you find yourself jammed up with members of law enforcement in some outrageous situation
    Last edited by Edward Peruta; 10-19-2010 at 08:33 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    I love it when LEOs tell me the law is 'vague'.

    There is nothing 'vague' about our law.

    Of course these are the same people who make statements about how we need a law to allow OC in the first place...

  3. #3
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Also, I love how DPS recognizes that we have a problem. OC is legal in CT and no one is doing the right thing to make sure all local police departments understand this.

    But then out of right field they decide the solution should be to eliminate OC. I notice at no point in that proposal do they give a reason why OC should be unlawful, they only bring up their own failure as a 'reason'.

  4. #4
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    The problem is the LEOs don't like the law, and they don't want to follow it.

    How else can it be that one party does NOTHING against the law, but still can get a "Breach of Peace" charge?

    How often does this hit the Hartford "RADAR"?

    Interesting to see how this is voted on after the election and if we have a chance to have our voices heard.

    Jonathan

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Britain, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by KIX View Post
    The problem is the LEOs don't like the law, and they don't want to follow it.

    How else can it be that one party does NOTHING against the law, but still can get a "Breach of Peace" charge?

    How often does this hit the Hartford "RADAR"?

    Interesting to see how this is voted on after the election and if we have a chance to have our voices heard.

    Jonathan
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    Also, I love how DPS recognizes that we have a problem. OC is legal in CT and no one is doing the right thing to make sure all local police departments understand this.

    But then out of right field they decide the solution should be to eliminate OC. I notice at no point in that proposal do they give a reason why OC should be unlawful, they only bring up their own failure as a 'reason'.
    With the exception of the date, this is the same piece of s*** that the DPS tried last year.

    'Vague', my ass!!

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    East Hartford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    112

    Angry 2011/Conceal.Carry.Proposed.Legislation

    Well. Here we go again the same crap. they never give up.

  7. #7
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711
    What CT group is ready to make this state agency power grab a signature issue? CCDL?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    When threats of arrest, detainments and Intimidation don't work

    What the Department of Public Safety is really saying in their proposal for a new law to force concealment of firearms.

    For years, members of Connecticut law enforcement have attempted to impose their personal beliefs without the benefit of any supporting law(s) on citizens who exercise their Second Amendment rights while possessing VALID PERMITS and CARRY HANDGUNS.

    On countless occasions some of which have been reported, exposed and discussed at great length on this message board or in the local news media.

    The record clearly shows that law abiding individuals have been detained, arrested or at least intimidated with the threat of arrest for Breach of Peace or Disorderly Conduct for the simple act of BEARING an exposed firearm for SELF DEFENSE.

    I am personally aware of open carry incidents in Glastonbury, Enfield, Farmington/West Hartford, Plainville, Waterbury, Wallingford, Old Saybrook and Newington.

    In the proposed legislation that follows, I have read between the lines and offer a different reason for the proposal being made to the 2011 legislative session.

    I have read the words in their proposal, but this is what I hear in my head:

    We the honest members of law enforcement, have tried to impose our beliefs on, refused to answer questions from, and attempted on several occasions to intimidate and threaten, those that carry their firearms openly in Connecticut without success.

    We the honest members of law enforcement now find ourselves in the position of needing the legislature to enact new legislation to force these defiant and rebellious law abiding citizens from BEARING their weapons openly. If legislation is not enacted soon, these defiant rebellious law abiding citizens will force us to obey the law and accept what they are doing by court orders.

    If you give us the law we request, we will generate revenue for the state's general fund through the penalties imposed for violations.




    PROPOSED LEGISLATION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

    Summary of Proposal (Include background information)

    This new law would require that a pistol or revolver be carried concealed. With certain exceptions for peace officer, parole officers, corrections officers of this state and other states while engaged in official duties as well as federal marshals,agents, armed forces and licensed armed security guards in pursuit of their duties.

    Also included are the penalties for violations of this act.


    Reason for Proposal (Include significant policy and programmatic impacts)

    Connecticut's firearms carry laws are vague in language as it pertains to carrying a pistol or revolver concealed. Recently, citizens have taken it upon themselves to test our statutes by carrying openly. In doing so, several arrests have been made under the Breach of Peace statues C.G.S. 53a-181, with those dispositions ending in nolle's or dismissal, proving that these laws are inadequate in their detail. It is clear that there is a necessity for a concealed firearm law with more detail or,consequently, Connecticut may end up being a state where they carry exposed at all times as decided by case law.

    Significant Fiscal Impacts
    Municipal: None
    Federal: None
    State: Penalties would benefit the general fund.
    Last edited by Edward Peruta; 11-05-2010 at 05:40 AM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    terryville, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    110
    I would not be completely upset if ct ended up as one of those states that carried openly all the time

  10. #10
    Regular Member KennyB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Mountain Top
    Posts
    87

    Exclamation

    Is anyone really surprised by this? The state police have tried to ban OC in the past. With the elections coming up, maybe they think good ole George Jepsen will win the election for state AG, and Dan Malloy winning as Governor. Two of the WORST Democrats with a F rating from the NRA. Yes my friends, this is a pivitol point in our State for gun rights. Also, not only is OC in danger in CT, but CC. Did anyone see the new commercial from George Jepson attacking Martha Deans support of the 2nd Amendment by (god forbid) teaching gun safety to kids??? He has said he's PROAD of his F rating from the NRA. I can't see him stoping at OC. God help us............
    Last edited by KennyB; 10-20-2010 at 10:15 AM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    East Hartford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    112

    Cool

    Why not make the permit say."STATE OPEN or CONCEALED to carry Pistols and Revolvers. and both side of law will be happy.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.EastHartford. View Post
    Why not make the permit say."STATE OPEN or CONCEALED to carry Pistols and Revolvers. and both side of law will be happy.
    It already says the same effect. So does the law. Why doesn't the DPS work with the AG and get notice out to police chiefs all over the state instead that they must follow the same rules that they issued the state police during the second amendment rally?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    I love it when LEOs tell me the law is 'vague'.
    I love it when they hand us victory ...on a silver platter!

    Last edited by Phssthpok; 10-20-2010 at 03:50 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Enfield, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    313
    I see this going....nowhere..depending how elections turn out I guess...but getting this out of the Judiciary Comm is not going to be easy for the fascists who believe in this..

    I put my money on this, even if proposed, will not even be voted on..

  15. #15
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Peruta View Post

    I have read the words in their proposal, but this is what I hear in my head:

    We the honest members of law enforcement, have tried to impose our beliefs on, refused to answer questions from, and attempted on several occasions to intimidate and threaten, those that carry their firearms openly in Connecticut without success.

    We the honest members of law enforcement now find ourselves in the position of needing the legislature to enact new legislation to force these defiant and rebellious law abiding citizens from BEARING their weapons openly. If legislation is not enacted soon, these defiant rebellious law abiding citizens will force us to obey the law and accept what they are doing by court orders.

    If you give us the law we request, we will generate revenue for the state's general fund through the penalties imposed for violations.
    I've been saying essentially the EXACT same thing when talking to my friends this week.

    I was thinking how to say this with a little "tact" if I had the opportunity to address the folks in Hartford, but my English/Irish sarcasm always creeps in!!

    Jonathan
    www.ctpistolpermitissues.com - tracking all the local issuing authority, DPS and other insanity with permit issues
    www.ctgunsafety.com - my blog and growing list of links useful to gun owners (especially in Connecticut).

    Rich B: My favorite argument against OC being legal in CT is "I have never seen someone OC in CT".
    I have never seen a person drink tea from a coke bottle while standing on their head, that doesn't mean it is illegal.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Norwalk, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    265
    They really need to think this out. As it stands you need a permit to carry, transport or hunt with a handgun in CT. Basically you need a permit for ANY legal use of a handgun beyond keeping it in your home or place of business.
    They call it a carry permit but its not really. So I'd think that if they made our permits CC permits they would need to change the law so that the permit was only needed to CC.
    OC & transporting etc couldn't require a CC permit. If a person wants to hunt squirrels with their 22 revolver a CC permit wouldn't be sensible.

    I guess I'm saying maybe we should push for more sensible laws such as are found in most other states in regards to our permit system & handgun regulation. I think the problems go beyond LEO misunderstanding of the law.
    In many ways the laws just dont make sense.

    Why do we need a permit to carry (or eligibility certificate) in order to buy a handgun? They determine your legal eligibuility immediately before you buy it with the NICS check.

    Why do I need a permit to carry to take a handgun I'm not carrying to a range for practice?

    How can I possible have a right to keep & bear arms if a permit is needed for ALL modes of carry? While I disagree with it I can see the logic in a CC permit IF OC is unhindered. But if all modes of carry require a permit then RKBA is not a right but a privilege.

    Ed, you should have my info already. If you dont let me know & I'll get it to you.

    P>S>

    I just sent an E-mail to a state rep & senator.
    If I get responses I'll post them here.
    Last edited by Leverdude; 10-26-2010 at 08:36 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    4

    Need to reduce gun laws.

    I have been going back and forth with the State Police and the D.E.P. about open carry and it seems the State & local police don't understand the laws of Connecticut, they need a course on them. They don't understand this is an open carry state and try to make up their own laws, this needs to be stopped.
    Quote Originally Posted by Leverdude View Post
    They really need to think this out. As it stands you need a permit to carry, transport or hunt with a handgun in CT. Basically you need a permit for ANY legal use of a handgun beyond keeping it in your home or place of business.
    They call it a carry permit but its not really. So I'd think that if they made our permits CC permits they would need to change the law so that the permit was only needed to CC.
    OC & transporting etc couldn't require a CC permit. If a person wants to hunt squirrels with their 22 revolver a CC permit wouldn't be sensible.

    I guess I'm saying maybe we should push for more sensible laws such as are found in most other states in regards to our permit system & handgun regulation. I think the problems go beyond LEO misunderstanding of the law.
    In many ways the laws just dont make sense.

    Why do we need a permit to carry (or eligibility certificate) in order to buy a handgun? They determine your legal eligibuility immediately before you buy it with the NICS check.

    Why do I need a permit to carry to take a handgun I'm not carrying to a range for practice?

    How can I possible have a right to keep & bear arms if a permit is needed for ALL modes of carry? While I disagree with it I can see the logic in a CC permit IF OC is unhindered. But if all modes of carry require a permit then RKBA is not a right but a privilege.

    Ed, you should have my info already. If you dont let me know & I'll get it to you.

    P>S>

    I just sent an E-mail to a state rep & senator.
    If I get responses I'll post them here.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Konacow View Post
    I have been going back and forth with the State Police and the D.E.P. about open carry and it seems the State & local police don't understand the laws of Connecticut, they need a course on them. They don't understand this is an open carry state and try to make up their own laws, this needs to be stopped.
    Who in the state police did you talk to and when?

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    4

    Rich

    Rich, I talked to a State Police woman and she doesn't even know how to read the law. It is sad to know that these people are LEO's because they can't uphold the law or don't want uphold the law or want to make up laws.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Konacow View Post
    Rich, I talked to a State Police woman and she doesn't even know how to read the law. It is sad to know that these people are LEO's because they can't uphold the law or don't want uphold the law or want to make up laws.
    Who is this 'State Police woman'?

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Fairfield County, CT
    Posts
    156
    This is just great. So if this goes through and I'm carrying concealed (which I usually do for personal reasons, I do fully support anyone's right to open carry however as per the law) and my shirt/coat rides up unintentionally I could be charged with fines ranging from $500-$2000 plus possible jail time (and I'll go out on a limb here and venture that I would have my permit rescinded due to the whole suitability nonsense...).

    I guess it's time to write our representatives (who don't seem too 2A friendly) and plead with them to consider all angles before putting this proposal through...
    Last edited by Sgt. Kabukiman N.Y.P.D.; 12-06-2010 at 05:06 PM.
    Minds are like parachutes. Just because you lost yours doesn't mean you can borrow mine...

  22. #22
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    ... Recently, citizens have taken it upon themselves to test our statutes by carrying openly. In doing so, several arrests have been made under the Breach of Peace statues C.G.S. 53a-181, with those dispositions ending in nolle's or dismissal, proving that these laws are inadequate in their detail...
    Ummmm... no. The fact that the final disposition was either dismissal or nolle prosequi means that the arbitors of justice; the Courts and prosecuting attorneys think you're being a bonehead bringing such charges before them. In the civilian world it's called "here's a hint, leave law abiding people alone."

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    This just received from CT via email

    PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY
    Firearms and the Second Amendment
    The 2nd Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms separate and apart from military service, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010). The decisions have led to numerous 2nd Amendment challenges to gun regulation across the country. The legislature may review the state's gun laws, including registration requirements, background checks, waiting periods, and limitations on handgun possession, to determine if they are susceptible to such challenges.
    Read OLR’s reports: http://search.cga.state.ct.us/dtsearch_olr.html or go to the ctnewsjunkie url above.

    2008-R-0578, Summary of D.C. v. Heller
    2010-R-0314, Summary of the recent McDonald v. Chicago Gun Case
    2007-R-0369, Summary of State Gun Laws

    Confidentiality of Gun Permit Holders’ Names and Addresses
    A shooting at The Hartford Distributors warehouse that left nine people dead raised questions about the law that makes the names and addresses of gun permit holders confidential. The legislature may address the issue this year.

    Electronic Defense Weapons
    Increasingly, police are using electronic defense weapons, including Tasers, that are intended to be a non-lethal alternative to deadly force. The legislature may look at creating statewide standards governing the use of the weapons in light of (1) the increasing number of Taser-related deaths and injuries, (2) police departments’ increasing use of the weapons, and (3) the aggressive marketing of the weapons to the civilian market.
    Read OLR’s report:
    2007-R-0068, Taser Use Guidelines

  24. #24
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Peruta View Post
    Confidentiality of Gun Permit Holders’ Names and Addresses
    A shooting at The Hartford Distributors warehouse that left nine people dead raised questions about the law that makes the names and addresses of gun permit holders confidential. The legislature may address the issue this year.
    It is very alarming if they are considering making this information public. This needs to be fought against.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    The Connecticut Firearms Board of Examiners SURELY WANTS The Conneticut Legislature to do away with Open Carry, Licensure Confidentiality, etc..
    However, The Real Question is whether or not The Connecticut Legislature will actually take up the Matter.
    Is The Connecticut Legislature Liable to do so?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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