CT News Junkie Article

Not a great one, but not without some merits, I guess:

http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.ph...wners_to_carry_weapons_openly..._technically/

The BOP statute has bothered me for a long time, I would like Lawler to read it again and explain to me how a permit holder can be charged with BOP even if someone has a panic attack over it. The statute reads:

Sec. 53a-181. Breach of the peace in the second degree: Class B misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of breach of the peace in the second degree when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person: (1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior in a public place; or (2) assaults or strikes another; or (3) threatens to commit any crime against another person or such other person's property; or (4) publicly exhibits, distributes, posts up or advertises any offensive, indecent or abusive matter concerning any person; or (5) in a public place, uses abusive or obscene language or makes an obscene gesture; or (6) creates a public and hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which such person is not licensed or privileged to do. For purposes of this section, "public place" means any area that is used or held out for use by the public whether owned or operated by public or private interests.

(b) Breach of the peace in the second degree is a class B misdemeanor.

OK, so let's say I have intent (as that is the main precursor to being charged under this statute), what other part am I violating? The only part that could possibly apply to an openly carried firearm is section 6 "a public and hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which such person is not licensed or privileged to do." Am I not licensed to carry a firearm? Does that not explicitly exempt me from being charged under this statute? I have asked this of many people and most agree in the end a Pistol Permit is your license to create such a situation.

The BFPE also disagrees with Lawlor. Lawlor is full of it.

Rich, may I add the shhhhhhhhhh part??

Rich B said:

Not a great one, but not without some merits, I guess:

http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.ph...wners_to_carry_weapons_openly..._technically/

Click to expand...

Who gives a flying rat's ass what Lawlor thinks??

As a great philosopher once said 'opinions are like ********; everyone has one' and his isn't supported one bit by state law. His opinion, that is.

And this guy is the '...states top criminal justice official..? Where'd he get his law degree, a cereal box?? I'd like to see this buffoon try and have me arrested for OC. Worst mistake of his life!

Just read this before coming here, and I'll tell ya, I just about spit coffee all over my monitor at that moron's comments, as well as those of the idiot at DPS. "Good Question!" It's frickin' settled law in this state, they've been slapped down enough to prove it, but it appears DPS never learns a thing. If you don't like a law, work to get it changed; but until that time, the law is what it is, and says what it says, regardless of what some buffoon at DPS likes or dislikes notwithstanding. Oh, I forgot; am I supposed to be sweetness and light with lawless bureaucrats and LEO's? Am I in danger of offending their delicate sensibilities? Hardball is the only way to play against these types; it's the only way the play against us, usually under color of law. This is why it pissed me off to find that Rachel hadn't commented on the truth of the matter. A little counterpoint would have been most welcome in this article. I'm betting they never really tried to contact her for comment.

DDoutel said:

Just read this before coming here, and I'll tell ya, I just about spit coffee all over my monitor at that moron's comments, as well as those of the idiot at DPS. "Good Question!" It's frickin' settled law in this state, they've been slapped down enough to prove it, but it appears DPS never learns a thing. If you don't like a law, work to get it changed; but until that time, the law is what it is, and says what it says, regardless of what some buffoon at DPS likes or dislikes notwithstanding. Oh, I forgot; am I supposed to be sweetness and light with lawless bureaucrats and LEO's? Am I in danger of offending their delicate sensibilities? Hardball is the only way to play against these types; it's the only way the play against us, usually under color of law. This is why it pissed me off to find that Rachel hadn't commented on the truth of the matter. A little counterpoint would have been most welcome in this article. I'm betting they never really tried to contact her for comment.

Click to expand...

I would've been disturbed if my attorney commented on pending litigation. This ain't the OJ Simpson trial.

I understand Attorney Baird not commenting, but I am not exactly hard to reach, and I guarantee you I could give Lawlor a run for his money.

That article was awful he was all over the place in the article who taught him how to right, I couldn't even grasp what side he was on for most of it.

I couldn't follow why would you be arrested for bringing a snake into a restaurant?
I'm pretty sure poisonous snakes are illegal along with other dangerous animals in this state but I could be wrong never looked up the laws.

Why is there a breach of peace for someone feeling uncomfortable, then I think everyone in the pool hall should be arrested for breach of peace that pool cue could be used as a weapon, and that could scare me. I think they should have nerf pool cues.

How much simpler do they need to make it just enforce the laws for what they say don't try to make your own.


I wish the money from the law suit comes out of the cops pockets not the tax payers.

How quickly the stupid people come out of the woodwork...

...and to celebrate the state sponsored infringement of rights:

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...ctors-in-Ct.&p=1595505&viewfull=1#post1595505

Rich B said:

...and to celebrate the state sponsored infringement of rights:

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...ctors-in-Ct.&p=1595505&viewfull=1#post1595505

Click to expand...

Be nice Rich, or someone at Starbucks will read that and piss in your coffee on Saturday!

As far as Undersecretary Lawlor goes, I wouldn't paper-train a puppy with a hardcopy of his 'opinions'.

customcreationllc said:

I couldn't even grasp what side he was on for most of it.

Click to expand...

That is so refreshing and I think we need more of that. We need more, actual news reporting. Present the facts and let the reader decide. I suppose that the author does not really know the law and could not rebut the remarks by Lawlor and Vance. He did, however, seek both sides and got not response from attorney Baird. I also would likely not respond and would recommend that my client also refrain. The judge and (maybe) jury will sort it out for you and that is the only opinion that matters.

customcreationllc said:

I wish the money from the law suit comes out of the cops pockets not the tax payers.

Click to expand...

If these lawsuits continue and we work hard to make it known that opencarry is legal and cannot be an antecedent for BOP arrests, officers will no longer be able to shield themselves behind qualified immunity. It just takes some time to get there.