Open Carry in Connecticut

[Konacow]

I live here in Connecticut and saw the article about the gentleman at Starbucks that was open carrying. I have had spoken the Department of Enviromental Protection about open carry during hunting season and was told Connecticut is an open carry state. The Connecticut State Police says it is NOT, but the D.E.P. showed myself the state law and for fact Connecticut is an open carry state. The State Police and local police prefer you carry concealed, and I have been told if you don't you will be arrested for breach of peace. I asked how is that, when in fact the law says you can carry open, their answer was we can just do that. I told them they can NOT make laws up and said if you tried that the lawsuits would follow, well I guess the man in Old Saybrook will take them to task and make an example of them. There is an attorney in up state Connecticut that does cases like this and she is very good. I hope you do well with this case.

[KIX]

It's usually more a matter of if you get caught and get charged, many judges just nolle it.

Rich B is the guy you are talking about and is very active here on the forum.

You think that's bad, wait until you see a democrat CT House and Senate...... and new public safety commissioner... and...... well, you get the point.

Jonathan

[Alex.EastHartford.]

Hey Kix your breaking my heart. LOL. we got no support in ct NOW that democrat and senate are anti-gun runners. WATCH OUT GUN OWNERS THE FLOOD GATE'S ARE OPEN. RUN FOR COVER.

[KIX]

and our unqualified Attorney General.

Jonathan

[Rich B]

The Connecticut State Police says it is NOT, but the D.E.P. showed myself the state law and for fact Connecticut is an open carry state. The State Police and local police prefer you carry concealed, and I have been told if you don't you will be arrested for breach of peace.

What is the name of the CSP trooper who told you this and when did you speak to him?

There is an attorney in up state Connecticut that does cases like this and she is very good. I hope you do well with this case.

Are you speaking of Attorney Rachel Baird?

[Rich B]

It's usually more a matter of if you get caught and get charged, many judges just nolle it.

I think you mean dismissed. The State's Attorney in my case seemed to be very aware that they couldn't even get it far enough to have to nolle it.

[KIX]

More late night posting!!!!

My bad Rich, that is what I meant indeed!

Jonathan

[Konacow]

I don't remember the Troopers name but it was three years ago he told me I could not open carry but the DEP officer said I could, I thought there was going to be a fist fight between the two of them over the law. The DEP officer is correct, the Trooper needs to learn the law and should not be out working until he does.

What is the name of the CSP trooper who told you this and when did you speak to him?



Are you speaking of Attorney Rachel Baird?

[Rich B]

I don't remember the Troopers name but it was three years ago he told me I could not open carry but the DEP officer said I could, I thought there was going to be a fist fight between the two of them over the law. The DEP officer is correct, the Trooper needs to learn the law and should not be out working until he does.

Things have changed a lot in CT regarding open carry in the last three years. IMHO, one of the reasons these rumors persist is because we keep telling them.

"A cop told me..."

Rule #1: Never take advice from a LEO.
Rule #2: Never take advice from anyone who took advice from a LEO, but cannot identify that LEO.

Otherwise, they continue to win their war of threats and intimidation.

[dcmdon]

If you are handgun hunting, the requirement is that you carry openly. So the DEP officer's perspective might be a bit different. (Or maybe just better informed)

One other thing. DEP regs prohibit the carrying of a handgun while hunting with some other firearm. I don't know how constitutional that is but its in their regs.

Realize that many statutes allow the DEP to develop the specific regs on their own.

I know several people who carry a revolver while hunting with a muzzle loader. They consider it to be more humane if they have the sidearm to finish the animal off.
Its also protection in case whatever you shoot comes at you.



Don

[emsjeep]

I think you mean dismissed. The State's Attorney in my case seemed to be very aware that they couldn't even get it far enough to have to nolle it.

So...uhh...question then, in regards to your brief case and Goldberg's dismissal of criminal charges; An early dismissal is 1) not reported in any primary resource (like a West reporter etc.) and 2) Doesn't involve any or any substantial opinion written by a judge. So, my question is, how do you come to the conclusion that such a case is justifiably cited as either mandatory or persuasive primary or secondary authority? Perhaps I'm not looking at this correctly? Help me out here.

[dcmdon]

EMS,
My position has always been that multiple dismissals lays the ground work for a civil suit, which if the payout is large enough could have a deterrent effect on LEO's behaviors.

On a practical note, most cops, just want to keep the peace. If someone calls in a "man with a gun" complaint, he has to respond. If he knows the law, he can definitively tell the complainant that the OCer is acting within the law.

Often it doesn't take coercion, just information. I've given several LEOs I know links to the Hartford Courant Goldberg article, the NH Advocate article, the State PD memo from the 2nd A rally this spring, and Ed Peruta's site.

At the very least it has started a discussion within these PDs. No coercion, just education. So while I'm not challenging your assertion that multiple dismissals do not have any weight of law, they do have the ability to sway LEO opinion.

Don

[KIX]

As I understand it, it's not the "man with a gun" issue. it's essentially all 911 calls need to be answered, period. I believe that is a mandate somewhere on the books.

I've seen in the news whenever they do those "when to call/when not to call 911" articles. They almost always mention that once 911 is called, someone has to show up.

Not the most commons sense all the time, but....... probably a zero tolerance thing.

In public, all the LEO really needs to do is ask the person making the complaint.... did he threaten anyone? He has the right and leave it at that.

People just don't WANT to communicate though.

Jonathan

[emsjeep]

EMS,
My position has always been that multiple dismissals lays the ground work for a civil suit, which if the payout is large enough could have a deterrent effect on LEO's behaviors.

On a practical note, most cops, just want to keep the peace. If someone calls in a "man with a gun" complaint, he has to respond. If he knows the law, he can definitively tell the complainant that the OCer is acting within the law.

Often it doesn't take coercion, just information. I've given several LEOs I know links to the Hartford Courant Goldberg article, the NH Advocate article, the State PD memo from the 2nd A rally this spring, and Ed Peruta's site.

At the very least it has started a discussion within these PDs. No coercion, just education. So while I'm not challenging your assertion that multiple dismissals do not have any weight of law, they do have the ability to sway LEO opinion.

Don

How would one go about citing unreported dismissals? I have every resource any legal practitioner would have, but had I not come to THIS website, I wouldn't even know about the cases...and I certainly can't cite OCDO in my brief....?

[Rich B]

EMS,
My position has always been that multiple dismissals lays the ground work for a civil suit, which if the payout is large enough could have a deterrent effect on LEO's behaviors.

The thing to keep in mind (which I don't really think you are missing, mind you) is that we don't need to prove anything with dismissals. The law is very clear, that is why all the cases are being dismissed and it is also why the DPS issued their memo to the state police and why DPS is trying to make a statute to ban open carry.

They know they lost the FUD war, now they need an actual law, not just police threats and intimidation.

[Rich B]

As I understand it, it's not the "man with a gun" issue. it's essentially all 911 calls need to be answered, period. I believe that is a mandate somewhere on the books.

I would like to see a citation for this. Even if they 'have to respond', they certainly don't need to make contact with anyone, and they definitely do not need to detain/arrest anyone. Simply observing the situation is more than enough. This is where other OC states have settled. That is where Connecticut should be expected to get to.

We need to get police departments to educate the dispatchers to ask the correct questions, and police officers to know the law and not try to enforce laws that don't exist.

[emsjeep]

I would like to see a citation for this. Even if they 'have to respond', they certainly don't need to make contact with anyone, and they definitely do not need to detain/arrest anyone. Simply observing the situation is more than enough. This is where other OC states have settled. That is where Connecticut should be expected to get to.

We need to get police departments to educate the dispatchers to ask the correct questions, and police officers to know the law and not try to enforce laws that don't exist.

Warren v. D.C and its progeny at the state levels have more or less absolved police of liability in cases of negligent investigations. I would be interested in anything that contradicts this concept as well.

[brk913]

Warren v. D.C and its progeny at the state levels have more or less absolved police of liability in cases of negligent investigations. I would be interested in anything that contradicts this concept as well.

I know about the DC case, the court stated the PD have no duty to protect an individual only the community as a whole, however, Police in Torrington were not absolved of negligent investigation and enforcement in this case...

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/vaw00/thurmanexcerpt.html

[emsjeep]

The thing to keep in mind (which I don't really think you are missing, mind you) is that we don't need to prove anything with dismissals. The law is very clear, that is why all the cases are being dismissed and it is also why the DPS issued their memo to the state police and why DPS is trying to make a statute to ban open carry.

They know they lost the FUD war, now they need an actual law, not just police threats and intimidation.

The alternative (or maybe corollary) issue is whether they are deliberately dismissing to AVOID creating precedent. Whatever the actual argument is, it seems that they have done everything possible to PRESERVE their ability to arrest for OC by bringing exaggerated and even inappropriate charges. The point being, simply, if you OC you may be subject to arrest or detention and if you are that YOU will have to set the precedent. Previous dismissals provide ostensibly and actually no substantial degree of legal protection. The fact that departments are making selective policy shifts based on Goldberg is 1) a gift and 2) because they want to retain the ability to arrest and do so by strategically avoiding adjudication of the issues that their conduct raise.