Carry in CT DMV buildings?

Freiheit417 said:

I surely hope it doesn't go in that direction....


The goal in starting this thread was to establish:

1) That DMV's in CT are still not posted "No Weapons/Firearms"

and

2) That no new laws have been enacted prohibiting carry in said places


Given the latest DMV "reforms" that were passed this year, I wanted to make sure that weapons prohibitions did not get quietly inserted.

These questions have been answered - many thanks again.

Click to expand...

You don't have to worry about me hijacking your thread.
I voiced my opinions and will keep it moving...
Hope you get it figured out...
By the way, I'm still allowed to OC on the train

beanoboy7 said:

It's what I've always been told. Unless you have permission from someone in the building farearms on state property isn't a good idea. Just like carrying on school property.

I wish prohibited carry places was simplified, such as having a sign posted which few places have posted.

Click to expand...

It is simple. VERY SIMPLE. The problem is that so much bad info has been passed and repeated that people just keep passing the wrong info.

The statutes are simple. The state prohibits carry in the following places:

1) in or on school property
2) anywhere the legislature is meeting (see the statute for details)
3) anywhere a property owner or controling authority has prohibited. (Including verbal requests to leave)

Thats it. Nothing more. At least according to state law. The feds don't like guns in post offices. I also believe they don't like them in any federal buildings, but don't hold me to that.

In sumary: carry whereever you want, whenever you want, however you want, except in primary or secondary schools.

Don

dcmdon said:

It is simple. VERY SIMPLE. The problem is that so much bad info has been passed and repeated that people just keep passing the wrong info.

The statutes are simple. The state prohibits carry in the following places:

1) in or on school property
2) anywhere the legislature is meeting (see the statute for details)
3) anywhere a property owner or controling authority has prohibited. (Including verbal requests to leave)

Thats it. Nothing more. At least according to state law. The feds don't like guns in post offices. I also believe they don't like them in any federal buildings, but don't hold me to that.

In sumary: carry whereever you want, whenever you want, however you want, except in primary or secondary schools.

Don

Click to expand...

Agreed to an extent, but the problem with CT is #3. There is no language in the statutes outlining what constitutes reasonable notification that a property owner/controller has prohibited firearms. Is "No Weapons Allowed on Premise" printed in microscopic font on the back of an admission ticket legal notification? How about a "no firearms" rule posted on a company's website with no actual sign on the door?

Several states have laws that specify proper notification:

For example in Texas, a business must post a PC 30.06 compliant sign to keep out CHL holders who are armed.

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Article 4413(29ee), Revised Statutes, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
(c) In this section:
(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).
(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Article 4413(29ee), Revised Statutes (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

Don't get me wrong though, Texas' carry laws overall are certainly far from ideal. I think Wisconsin's language regarding carry and trespass may be a better model. I believe theirs provides immunity to businesses that DO NOT prohibit carry on the premise. I suspect liability has much to do with some businesses prohibiting carry. I know it's wishful thinking, but if CT could somehow get immunity in the law, some companies may not be as likely to prohibit.


The CT DMV's do have TONS of other signs on the door and inside. I must have spent 15 minutes reading all of them. "Don't lean on or stand in front of this counter" was a good one...
Harassing DMV employees is prohibited, and posted too. :lol:

But alas, there were none prohibiting the lawful carry of firearms. Woo hoo!

Actually, the presence of a sign isn't even enough.

There was a situation in CT where an OCer was asked to remove a gun in a town hall durring a public meeting of some sort. He refused.

A few days later when entering the town hall he noticed a "no guns" sign had been posted. He tracked down the author of the sign to be a person with no authority over real estate or other facilities.

It was eventually taken down if I remember correctly.

dcmdon said:

Actually, the presence of a sign isn't even enough.

There was a situation in CT where an OCer was asked to remove a gun in a town hall durring a public meeting of some sort. He refused.

A few days later when entering the town hall he noticed a "no guns" sign had been posted. He tracked down the author of the sign to be a person with no authority over real estate or other facilities.

It was eventually taken down if I remember correctly.

Click to expand...

This situation (or very a similar one) happened in Plymouth, CT. "JUMPMASTER" posted on this, unless you are referring to a different incident.

A sign did go up afterwards and is still there. I think there may indeed be some question as to who has authority over the town hall/police station building in Plymouth. Nevertheless, the sign remains AFAIK unless it has been removed in the last couple weeks.

If JUMPMASTER is reading, perhaps he could speak to this better. I have read his excellent postings on OCDO regarding the incident as well as his letter(s) to the editor in the town newspaper. I would love to hear if there are any updates.

Thanks for the specific information. If I remember right, he continues to openly carry into the building.

beanoboy7 said:

Rich,
Isn't the DMV state property? Isn't that a BIG no-no?

Click to expand...

How would we know what is state property?
I would have always assumed DMV was a state owned.

I know State parks and state buildings.
Is town buildings considered state like the town hall, town library etc.

What about state colleges like West Conn, UCONN, Naugatuck Tech etc.
are those state property?
I know private colleges are OK to carry.

What about state rest stops
or even state roads. How far do they take state property.

Anything else a normal person might not consider state property or assume is state property?

Thank you
~Justin

customcreationllc said:

How would we know what is state property?
I would have always assumed DMV was a state owned.

I know State parks and state buildings.
Is town buildings considered state like the town hall, town library etc.

What about state colleges like West Conn, UCONN, Naugatuck Tech etc.
are those state property?
I know private colleges are OK to carry.

What about state rest stops
or even state roads. How far do they take state property.

Anything else a normal person might not consider state property or assume is state property?

Thank you
~Justin

Click to expand...

There is no law against carrying on state property in general. Please re-read the thread. This is explained.

Rich B said:

There is no law against carrying on state property in general. Please re-read the thread. This is explained.

Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing that up.
I was under the impression it was all state land but I read it again it is DEP and State forests.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0472.htm



Then I saw this
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0547.htm

The DEP regulation is intended to affect hunters. To that end, the presence of a handgun is prima facia evidence of hunting. I'll dig up the regulation this evening. (I don't believe its actually a statute)

The net net of this is that if you are carrying a 6" barreled Colt Python, while dressed in cammo and are found at 5:00 AM with a big HID spot light, you are in trouble.
If you are hiking with your kids, making lots of noise , in the middle of the day with your 1911, nobody will suspect you of hunting out of season, without a license, etc.

If anyone can help me with the regs or statutes here, I'd appreciate it.

Statutorily, you are only prohibited by state law from carrying
1) in or on the property of primary or secondary schools
2) any place the state legislature is meeting
3) anywhere where the owner or person controlling a piece of property does not want you carrying. This can be expressed as a sign out front or a verbal request. It doesn't matter how, if the owner asks you to leave, you must.

Don

Rich B said:

There is no law against carrying on state property in general. Please re-read the thread. This is explained.

Click to expand...

http://www.ctguntalk.com/smf/concealed-and-open-carry-in-ct/where-not-legal-to-carry/

See this is why I though all state land was gun free.
No one corrected me.

customcreationllc said:

http://www.ctguntalk.com/smf/concealed-and-open-carry-in-ct/where-not-legal-to-carry/

See this is why I though all state land was gun free.
No one corrected me.

Click to expand...

Consider your company. That is the same site that believes (and argues passionately) that OC is not legal or possible (or whatever their ridiculous assertion of the day is).

I cc'd in the DMV last week. I didn't see any signs posted or anything.