Concealment is proposed again for the 2012 Legislative Session

Edward Peruta · Oct 27, 2011

Today I obtained the State Police proposal to mandate Conceal Carry in CT during the 2012 Legislative Session.
Whether it make it beyond OPM and the Governor's office is still a question.
I have attached a PDF copy to this post.

More will follow

Rich B · Oct 27, 2011

So once again, they can not point to any actual public safety concern.

Ctclassic · Oct 27, 2011

Very troubling indeed...

dogsandhogs · Oct 27, 2011

This proposal would open up the "printing" can of worms.

You can almost taste the elitism and animosity when reading that document.

smokeyburnout · Oct 27, 2011

I like how it says many have been arrested for breach of peace and all have been nollied or found not guilty and that is the problem they site as eason to change it. LMAO!! Well we see it is perfectly legal and have falsely arrested people for it so now we wanna back peddle and make it illegal and while were at it throw in that it will add to the state's general fund and adolf malloy will definately approve.

::: Side note::: I've seen residents actually throw papers and such at malloy and boo him during a parade. Funniest thing I have ever seen and goes to show his approval ratings.

smokeyburnout · Oct 27, 2011

Sorry to dbl post but who would we contact to voice our opinions to about these proposals?

LQM · Oct 28, 2011

Letters already sent.

I already posted my two state reps with letters.

I see no ambiguity at all. The language is not vague because concealment is not one of the conditions listed in the statute. So if you arrest someone and it gets thrown out because it was not a violation of law, what's the problem? Isn't that how it is supposed to work? Or is it that you want to justify these unlawful arrests? They make their own point moot by stating "those dispositions ending in nolle's or dismissal."

Smokeyburnout, you can go to the ct.gov site to find your representative and state senator.

Edward Peruta · Oct 30, 2011

One persons RESPONSE

Let’s examine EXACTLY what is being said in this legislative proposal Submitted by the State Police for the 2012 Legislative Session.

I am not shocked that this proposal is being resubmitted for consideration.

The Administration of the Connecticut State Police and certain local law enforcement agencies have found that their arrogant and unlawful attempts to create new law through intimidation, confrontation(s), detention(s) and unlawful arrest(s) are now being challenged by a growing number of individuals and attorneys in Connecticut.

For the past several legislative sessions we have been lucky to have individuals who prevented this concept from becoming law.

The state is using the delays in court to buy the time needed to move this type of legislation through the system.

With the current federal lawsuits working their way through the courts, you can now understand why those proposing these laws are repeatedly attempting to do so before the court(s) rule on their illegal conduct.

I have taken the verbage from the proposal and offered my personal opinions on the contents:

If you agree, please consider making contact and providing contact information to edperuta@ctgunrights.com.

FROM THE PROPOSAL TO MANDATE CONCEALMENT IN THE 2012 SESSION:

Summary of Proposal (Include background information)

QUOTE: “This new law would require that a pistol or revolver be carried concealed.”

My understanding: There currently is NO requirement to conceal your firearm.

QUOTE: “With certain exceptions for peace officer, parole officers, corrections officers of this state and other states while engaged in official duties as well as federal marshals, agents, armed forces and licensed armed security guards in pursuit of their duties.”

My understanding: Those that proposed this legislation clearly seek to exempt themselves while offering NO exemptions to law abiding citizens for inadvertent unintentional exposure of their firearm.

QUOTE: “Also included are the penalties for violations of this act.”

Reasons for Proposal (Include significant policy and programmatic impacts)

QUOTE: “Connecticut firearm carry laws are vague in language as it pertains to carrying a pistol or revolver concealed.”

My understanding: Law enforcement including those that propose this legislation have chosen to consider the current law VAGUE simply because it DOES NOTprohibit what they desire.

QUOTE: “Recently, citizens have taken it upon themselves to test our statutes by carrying openly.”

My understanding: To the contrary, it is very apparent that certain members of law enforcement have taken it upon themselves to “TEST” various statutes by threatening and arresting
law abiding individuals for Breach of Peace, Disorderly Conduct, Reckless Endangerment, etc.) in their misguided attempt to mandate concealment which the law clearly fails to mandate.

QUOTE: “In doing so, several arrests have been made under the Breach of Peace statutes C.G.S. 53a-181, with those dispositions ending in nolle’s or dismissal, proving that these laws are inadequate in their detail.”

My understanding: The only inadequacy evidenced by the nolles and dismissals is the fact that those who made the arrests were improperly trained in the application of Connecticut State Laws regarding the legal carrying of firearms by those with a valid permit.

QUOTE: “It is clear that there is a necessity for a concealed firearm law with more detail or, consequently, Connecticut may end up being a state where they carry exposed at all times as decided by case law.”

My understanding: This last paragraph of the 'REASONS" only goes to confirm what I believe and have attempted to advocate to others. The courts may be the best and only place to CLAIRIFY, REESTABLISH and OBTAIN our firearm rights and find the answers we have been repeatedly denied.

downeyj80 · Oct 30, 2011

If i recall correctly, from the proposal, under fiscal impacts it reads as follows:

"Municiple- none
Federal- none
State- penalties will increase general fund."

I read the proposal several times before, as well as when I wrote my rep, just to make sure that I have this correct. I am interpreting this as a way to move around educating the general public about firearms law, the police trying to make what THEY want law, and a way to decrease the states deficit. I can't seem to recall any of the reason in the proposal for public safety. We should not be punished for someones ingorance towards firearms/carry laws. YMMV

GoldCoaster · Oct 30, 2011

Idiotic DPS

How much does it cost to house a prisoner and administrate that for a period of up to a year? Would the max fine of $2000 cover it? I doubt it.

This needs to be fought but via representatives as well as by testimony at the LOB when it comes up. Hopefully the wheels of justice on the federal cases move a little more swiftly before these elitists at the DPS worm they way into the statutes.

JohnnyO · Oct 30, 2011

This Proposal has to be one of the most serious attacks on gun owners yet.

I can see it now. One 'Oops' and you are getting a $500 - $2000 fine. Then the "Suitability' card will be played on you and goodbye Carry Permit.

If for some reason you escape the loss of your permit after the 'first offence' and God forbid you get snagged a second time, hello FELONY! Goodbye to all gun rights plus the CT Legislature gets the added benefit of eliminating a voter who typically would vote against them and their communist policies.

Edward Peruta · Oct 30, 2011

Frivilous Defense to buy time

Former Commissioner John Danaher, (Now a sitting State Judge), Lt. Fox, Retired Sgt. Darren Edwards and Retired Trooper Michael Beal met in the Commissioner's office on January 3, 2009 and discussed the Open Carry situaiton and the lawsuits that were in progress at the time. The Commissioner and Lt., (Now Capt.), Fox stated their belief regarding the time it would take for the Federal cases to move through the courts.

The state has been stalling these cases to use the time so they can introduce this type of legislation.

Former Commissioner John Danaher is scheduled to give a sworn DEPOSTION on the afternoons of December 1st and December 16th.

I can assure you that he does not expect some of the quesitons that will be asked of him while he is under oath.

I'm also sure he will state "I CAN'T REMEMBER" on numberous occasions when confronted with tough questions.

I'm also sure he will disclaim any knowldege of the process under which people operated with his authority as the Commissioner.

Time will tell.

hermannr · Oct 30, 2011

I am not a lawyer, and I am not a resident of Connecticut, and as I see no law against OC, but you have LE that wants to enforce such....I have a question for you that are residents:

Why do I always hear about a suit in FEDERAL Court? IMHO: you should be in STATE court and sue them under your own STATE constitution, in particular Article 1 sections 7, 9, and 15.

This happened years ago in ID (way back in 1908) and WA, the court rulings were from state court, and now we do not have these kinds of problems, except for and occational rogue cop that does not think anyone but cops should OC. You know, the exclusive elite club stuff.

Edward Peruta · Oct 30, 2011

State v. Federal

The state courts SUCK when it comes to obtaining justice in CT.

Our Constitution is extremely clear regarding "BEAR" and the permit does NOT contain the word CONCEAL.

It's only a matter of time.

customcreationllc · Oct 31, 2011

Anything I can do the help fight this? E-mails etc.

Lenny Benedetto · Nov 2, 2011

GoldCoaster said:
This needs to be fought but via representatives as well as by testimony at the LOB when it comes up.

+100

This is how we will defeat this kind of BS legislation, if we need to.
This same thing has been proposed by DPS for the last couple of years. Yet it has never made it to the house floor.

KIX · Nov 4, 2011

Edward Peruta said:
The state courts SUCK when it comes to obtaining justice in CT.

Our Constitution is extremely clear regarding "BEAR" and the permit does NOT contain the word CONCEAL.

It's only a matter of time.

I recently heard one of the heads of (I think CalGuns) say they can't wait to get out of state court so they can focus on the federal case because they KNOW they will not get justice at the state level.

Jonathan

hermannr · Nov 8, 2011

Interestingly, CeaseFire seems to have made banning OC a legislative priority..even here in WA where we can basically OC with impunity.

Concealment is proposed again for the 2012 Legislative Session

Edward Peruta

Regular Member

Attachments

Rich B

Regular Member

Ctclassic

Regular Member

dogsandhogs

Regular Member

smokeyburnout

Regular Member

smokeyburnout

Regular Member

LQM

Regular Member

Edward Peruta

Regular Member

downeyj80

New member

GoldCoaster

Regular Member

JohnnyO

New member

Edward Peruta

Regular Member

hermannr

Regular Member

Edward Peruta

Regular Member

customcreationllc

Regular Member

Lenny Benedetto

Regular Member

KIX

Regular Member

hermannr

Regular Member