So glad to see at least one of you stayed mature about this discussion. Was there even a need for this? All others have asked for is where you got the information from. If you spent all that time then you should be able to spit out those sources.
Hate to say this but water isn't wet.
Everything so far is here:
http://www.ctguntalk.com/testforum/YaBB.pl?num=1282748123/60
and here:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...our-Permit-Thoughts-on-drivers-license./page2
If you don't care to read it...not my fault. Perhaps you haven't seen it, but the people here, blatantly misrepresenting what has thus far transpired have both read and responded to the evidence that they claim was never posted. I am sorry that they have misled you.
Additionally, State v. Zapadka, 873 A.2d 270 (Conn.Super. 2004) finds that the general and unqualified purpose of Section 29-35 is to “to restrict the possession of unlicensed handguns in the public sphere.” Not concealed possession, not open possession, not possession in a vehicle, simply [public] possession. A license is required, in this state, for all forms of carry and possession [in the public sphere]. 29-38 (weapons in vehicles) violations are joint and subsidiary to 29-35 violations and the appeals courts have recently upheld cases factually similar to Lizotte and Williams
supra (that is, people in possession of handguns in vehicles) where they have been charged and convicted of both 29-35 and 29-38 for simple possession in the vehicle. State v. Slade, 905 A.2d 689 (Conn.App. 2006). "Testimony that the revolver found underneath seat of vehicle occupied by defendant was loaded, the hammer cocked, and the revolver was a double action revolver, was sufficiently relevant to be admissible in trial for carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit, possession of a weapon in a motor vehicle, and criminal possession of a revolver; testimony helped establish knowledge, carrying, and possession elements contained in the offenses. C.G.S.A. §§ 29-35(a), 29-38(a)."
On the other hand, here is something you may be interested in, seeing as I have to do all of your research for you:
State v. Wylie, 525 A.2d 528 (Conn.App. 1987).
"While the mere fact that an officer has been informed that a person is carrying a weapon
may not of itself constitute grounds to frisk that person, in light of the fact that it is not illegal to carry a weapon with a permit, the defendant's flight and subsequent movements concerning the weapon would make it reasonable for the officer to consider him “dangerous.” See Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 153, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 1926, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972)."
By no means conclusive, it is
dicta, but a good point to start, if you ever intend on doing any actual research.
I'm not here to prove one side or the other, I want the truth, or the most likely and most correct representation of it. Hence, I am more than happy to post opposing evidence I find in the course of research...what actual work have you done?
However the court in Wylie also says:
"What might be unreasonable when an officer merely suspects that a minor offense has been committed is not unreasonable when, as here, officers have reason to fear that a suspected criminal is armed. The nature of the crime under investigation, the degree of suspicion, the location of the stop, the time of day, the reaction of the suspect to the approach of police are all facts which bear on the issue of reasonableness.” Where the "degree of suspicion" in open carry is knowledge to a near and absolute certainty, the balance is further tipped in this test.
State v. Hernandez, W.L. 5863243 (Conn. Super. 2004).
The only point in this is that your right to OC and your rights while OC'ing aren't necessarily protected to any substantial degree...so be warned and be careful in making your INFORMED choice to OC.
