School grounds

To ALL Connecticut Posters on This Forum:

I Merely Cited Specific State Statutes that I Located within a Select Period of Time, from a Brief Review of State Law.

Since I am not from Connecticut, I Started from Scratch in My Review of Connecticut Law concerning Firearms, and Found that Connecticut Sub-Divides Firearms into Three Catagories: 1. Assualt Weapons, under its' Penal Codes, Pistols/Revolvers, under its' Public Safety Codes, AND 3. All other Firearms, Generally.

Please Excuse My Incompetance to Accurately Review Connecticut Law in Reference to The Statutes that I may Full-Well have Missed, per My Explanation that I provided under Sentence 1 of This Post.

aadvark

*** I will Review ALL Posts made in Reference to My Post, in a 'Good-Faith' Effort to Accurately Cite Connecticut Law should I, again, Rely on that Information on any Post on This Forum that I hereto Reference in The Future. ***

JoeSparky said:

Federal law makes no distinction as to hours of use for the school ormulti-use or even an old unused boarded up waiting to be demolished school.... can't carry without a permit within 1000 feet OF THE PROPERTY.

Click to expand...

The federal law is not the problem as its essentially never been used to prosecute anyone.

Its the CT law that I'd worry about. The CT law is specific to the facility, not its use.

This kinda came up today in capitol testimony.

I was there in support of a few bills, specifically preemption. A police chief said that if we had preemption, then the local towns would have their hands tied. "it would effect where people could carry a gun, like school grounds".

Man, I was ticked off at the blatant lies!

I called him on it when it became my time to speak. Times like this, I wish it was parliament!

Jonathan

KIX said:

"it would effect where people could carry a gun, like school grounds".

Man, I was ticked off at the blatant lies!

I called him on it when it became my time to speak. Times like this, I wish it was parliament!

Click to expand...

Great job. These guys either:

1) Don't have even a basic understanding of our laws and legal system.
2) Have run out of anything important to argue about and simply wish to lie.

Rich B said:

Great job. These guys either:

1) Don't have even a basic understanding of our laws and legal system.
2) Have run out of anything important to argue about and simply wish to lie.

Click to expand...

I'll take Door #2, Monty.

Rich B said:

Well there would be a distinction in a case like this. If no one saw the firearm, I doubt there would be an issue whether you are breaking the law or not. If you are carrying openly, I am fairly certain there will be an issue.

Click to expand...

THe problem with this situation is that say something goes down. No, he wouldn't be a victim; but afterwards he would be a victim of the judicial system. He would have a felony charge and the loss of his permit. Even if he saved 100 lives. That's why we fight to change these laws. Getting rid of the victim zones is what is needed. Until then you have to walk a thin line of not being a victim to a BG or the Local/Federal Government.

protect our rights said:

THe problem with this situation is that say something goes down. No, he wouldn't be a victim; but afterwards he would be a victim of the judicial system. He would have a felony charge and the loss of his permit. Even if he saved 100 lives. That's why we fight to change these laws. Getting rid of the victim zones is what is needed. Until then you have to walk a thin line of not being a victim to a BG or the Local/Federal Government.

Click to expand...

I agree 100%. However the old adage of "I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6" may apply here.

I do not advocate breaking laws though. I agree these laws need to be repealed though, I don't think anyone here will be disagreeing.