BFPE stated open carry is indeed legal

I will post audio when I get it (though Ed Peruta and I are in competition for who gets it first!).

Essentially, not only did they tell a local issuing authority they can't revoke a permit purely because of open carry, they told them they can't charge someone with breach of peace for doing so.

The argument we've all used before about it not being the OC'ers problem if someone feels threatened was also mentioned.

They were, indeed, unanimous (5-0) on the issue.

Jonathan

Was the media present or have they been alerted?

I am not sure how significant this is, but it couldn't hurt anything.

The BFPE saying open carry is legal seems like it would have all the legal relevance as when they had it posted that people should conceal.

It is comforting that we know that they will not maintain a revocation based purely on open carry though, although I think we all knew that anyway.

Who was the local issuing authority?

Rich B said:

I am not sure how significant this is, but it couldn't hurt anything.

The BFPE saying open carry is legal seems like it would have all the legal relevance as when they had it posted that people should conceal.

It is comforting that we know that they will not maintain a revocation based purely on open carry though, although I think we all knew that anyway.

Click to expand...

I think it's good that the BFPE acknowledged that OC is fine, and that they took a position supported by state law (or lack of, in this case). Maybe 'the word' will get out to local PD's that they'll get slapped down and be made to look stupid if any of them try this 'breach of peace' s***.

Open Carry case out of Fairfield

beanoboy7 said:

Who was the local issuing authority?

Click to expand...

FAIRFIELD PD was the arresting department.
Audio will be posted when obtained

We have all been waiting a long time for the right case to be heard where for the Connecticut Board of Firearms Permit Examiners to make such a ruling.

The real shame comes from the fact that the appellant was forced to take Accelerated Rehabilitation because he didn't have the funds to continue to fight the charges in the Criminal System.

Another reason to have a fund in place to assist innocent owners of firearms.

When the audio is posted you will hear the appellant's reasons for taking the deal.

Ed Peruta

Edward Peruta said:

FAIRFIELD PD was the arresting department.
Audio will be posted when obtained

We have all been waiting a long time for the right case to be heard where for the Connecticut Board of Firearms Permit Examiners to make such a ruling.

The real shame comes from the fact that the appellant was forced to take Accelerated Rehabilitation because he didn't have the funds to continue to fight the charges in the Criminal System.

Another reason to have a fund in place to assist innocent owners of firearms.

When the audio is posted you will hear the appellant's reasons for taking the deal.

Ed Peruta

Click to expand...

Is "Accelerated Rehabilitation" like defered adjudication where if one is not arrested or charged with another crime in a specific timeframe then the charges disappearl?

JoeSparky said:

Is "Accelerated Rehabilitation" like defered adjudication where if one is not arrested or charged with another crime in a specific timeframe then the charges disappearl?

Click to expand...

Yes, once successully completed no record of even the arrest.

Board audio of the Revocation for OPEN CARRY and the facts regarding Alnasir Sultan

Here is the link to the audio of the full hearing. A shorter version with only the deliberations and votes will be posted later today.

http://www.ctgunrights.com/06.Audio/Fairfield.Opencarry.Legal.MP3

A travisty of justice took place and cost Alnasir Sultan several thousands of dollars in legal fees that eventually made him accept a deal from the courts.

This case is a perfedct example of why we need to establish a fund to fight injustice regarding our rights to KEEP and BEAR armsin CT.

Let this be a lesson to those who are wrongly charged with crimes for legal conduct.

Always contact an attorney familiar with firearm laws and NEVER make a deal when your NOT GUILTY.

Ed Peruta

Good strong language used there about departments not knowing the laws.

It would sure be nice if the members of the board would petition the Attorney General for a declaratory ruling to the same effect so that it could be handed to every police department in the state. They admit that police departments don't know the laws and they have the proof that police officers are purposely twisting those laws to suit their beliefs. It is in the interest of the board, the PDs and the state to get clear language out to the PDs to stop wasting time and money.

The problem in the past has been that no matter what you show a local PD, they say "the DPS has no jurisdiction over us" and "that is fine, we will let the courts and BFPE decide". They know how much it costs to defend yourself and they know how long it takes to get a permit back. And it costs them nothing (so far).

In this case, I don't even see how this guy needed a permit. He was on his own property. And the same police who have been arguing so far are going to continue their arrogance and say "that is because he was in his home, not in a [starbucks|mall|movie theater|university|etc]".

Hats off to the BFPE for their hard work and speaking the truth, but I am skeptical that this is going to change the minds of anyone just yet. If Mr. Sultan had not taken his plea deal, I would say he has a slam dunk case now with teaching the Fairfield PD a lesson. But unfortunately, I doubt that is going to happen now.

What a shame. I wish him luck in future endeavors and I am glad the board ruled in his favor.

Good work on capturing this audio guys.

What made this great is the "chill" in the room when the board members not only brought it up, but voted unanimously.

Ed and I looked at each other and I think we were giggling like school children. Finally, to have it said with a few issuing authorities in the room. There is a benefit here that I haven't heard mentioned.

These are the officers that have to defend their local department on a revocation (usually the same officer from each town). So, now that a few have gotten the idea, it "may" make it less likely that they will just drive across state to defend something that, in the end, will end up getting dropped.

As far as the accelerated rehabilitation goes, I think there is one sad caveat. As a firearms owner, Mr. Sultan will not get the same chance in the future if he ever needs it for anything. As I understand it, you only get one bite at that apple and then it's gone.

Jonathan

yeah I wish I could have seen the look on their faces when the board told them that NO crime had been committed and that they are ashamed that they even prosecuted those charges. I Love it.

Shawn Mitola said:

yeah I wish I could have seen the look on their faces when the board told them that NO crime had been committed and that they are ashamed that they even prosecuted those charges. I Love it.

Click to expand...

It is a TERRIBLE shame that the victim of the UNWARRANTED PROSECUTION has to deal with the AR on this also.... and the associated implications! If the prosecutor was one of strong ethics he should petition the court for this victim to be completely ABSOLVED of this event and made whole as if the prosecution NEVER HAPPENED!

I like the statement just because a gun makes someone uneasy that is there own problem.

customcreationllc said:

I like the statement just because a gun makes someone uneasy that is there own problem.

Click to expand...

Heh. I say this all the time and people just look at me funny. I have even had forum members on another forum say that it means that I am pushing gun rights back because I don't think that my rights are subject to the whims and phobias of others.

*sigh*

The best 25 seconds of the hearing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9geV7WMxPw

Jonathan

I stood up and cheered.

I was listening to this on headphones at work and got a few stares for my outburst. Outbursts are not that uncommon here but still .

I do want to ask however, if the witness for the town (I forget the officers name) will take any of the boards CLEARLY POSITIVE statements back to headquarters with him and explain to his brethren why their appeal failed? That would be the lesson learned if any.

Media Silence

It would be nice if this appeared in the print/tv news, thereby "educating" the masses.

I talk to the media from time to time with the 2A work I do and now..... at least I have a recording and a quote I can issue on the topic.

Either way, it is a win (even if it isn't a huge one).

Jonathan

Joeygee23 said:

It would be nice if this appeared in the print/tv news, thereby "educating" the masses.

Click to expand...

I have been spreading it out there pretty thick already.

That and the attention my case is starting to get (working with at least one reporter right now) should further assist in getting the word out.

Lets not forget though, the word has been 'out there' for a long time now. There are departments and officers that will not listen to anyone and will not follow the law until they start seeing penalties for not following the law.

We all need to get behind the numerous cases that Ed Peruta and Attorneys Baird and Hall are working on right now and get these cases to show the police that there will be penalties for ignoring the law.