Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Goldberg to be Argued November 21st

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Connecticut USA

    Goldberg to be Argued November 21st

    Attorney Rachel M. Baird argued the Goldberg v. Glastonbury case before and a three judge panel, (Newman, Winter and Katzman), at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York on November 21, 2011.

    Each side was given 10 minutes to state their case.

    In preparation Attorney Baird prepared a lengthy presentation and as expected questions from the three judges began approximately 60 seconds into her presentation. Attorney Rachel Baird concentrated on stating the issues in the case during the first sixty seconds at the podium.

    Attorney Baird attacked the "TERRY STOP" reasoning of the District Court judge.

    The audio from the Second Circuit arguments was recived on November 28th, and copied for posting at

    This is a link to the audio, please excuse the quality:

    This is the beginning which summarizes the case being argued.

    An affirmation of the district court’s ruling by this Court will carve out a newly created 4th Amendment standard that allows police officers to detain, search, and arrest individuals engaged in entirely lawful conduct solely because others express annoyance or alarm at that conduct.
    No matter what opinion is held about firearms, what is not prohibited by law cannot be criminal, and it cannot be reasonably argued that an individual’s right to Fourth Amendment protections is diminished and the authority of the government expanded just because the lawful conduct at issue involves a firearm.

    Mr. Goldberg lawfully possessed a holstered and secured pistol on June 21, 2007, in a Chili’s restaurant.

    There was no indication that he was engaged in, about to engage in, or had engaged in unlawful conduct.

    The Connecticut Constitution plainly guarantees him the right to bear arms and he held a valid permit issued by the state to carry his pistol openly or concealed at the time.

    [Art. 1, 15: “Every citizen has a right to bear arms of himself and the state.”]


    Because Mr. Goldberg was detained, searched, and arrested for his lawful conduct on June 21, 2007, an action was brought alleging violations of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

    He brings this appeal from the Ruling of the district court finding that the detention, search, and arrest did not violate the Fourth Amendment because Mr. Goldberg’s conduct created a risk that those in the restaurant would feel threatened.

    At the district court, we argued that arresting individuals for lawfully carrying a pistol solely because it annoys or alarms others is no different than condoning the arrest of people of color simply because white people are annoyed or alarmed when people of color are observed in all-white neighborhoods.
    When lawful conduct subjects an individual to arrest based on how others feel about that conduct then the lawful conduct in effect becomes unlawful because to engage in that lawful conduct risks detention and arrest.

    The Goldberg Exception to the Fourth Amendment in Connecticut created by the decision grants the police authority to detain and arrest any individual lawfully carrying a pistol simply because someone expresses annoyance or alarm at the conduct.

    The concept that an individual lawfully in possession of a firearm may be detained and arrested because someone is annoyed or alarmed by firearms creates an annoyance and alarm exception to the Fourth Amendment which otherwise requires a warrant, articulable suspicion, or probable cause.

    We argued to the district court that if the voting populace of Connecticut elects representatives who have the will to amend the state statute to prohibit open carry and/or to require concealed carry then the law will be changed, but until that time, no matter whether a restaurant manager or anyone else finds open carry annoying or alarming, such conduct is legal and cannot subject the individual to detention and arrest.

    In fact, as provided in a Rule 28j letter to the Court, the state police have proposed such an amendment to the state legislature for the 2012 session because the laws are inadequate in their detail to prosecute individuals for openly carrying a pistol when in possession of a valid state permit.

    The Court and the parties agreed at oral argument that Mr. Goldberg had not alleged Second Amendment claims. But the Court made the case about bearing firearms when it held tantamount to its decision the involvement of a firearm.

    Without support in the record, the Court stated that it is illegal for the majority of people in CT to carry a pistol into Chili’s or possess it openly and presumed that the vast majority of people in CT who carry a pistol on their side do not necessarily have a permit.
    Last edited by Edward Peruta; 11-29-2011 at 05:16 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Connecticut USA

    Goldberg v. Glastonbury Arguments made

    The Second Circuit has heard the arguments in the Goldberg v. Glastonbury case and a request has been made fo the audio.
    The arguments went well, and now we wait for the court to issue their decision.

    More when it is known.

  3. #3
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    , ,

    Can't wait to hear the audio.


    Jonathan - tracking all the local issuing authority, DPS and other insanity with permit issues - my blog and growing list of links useful to gun owners (especially in Connecticut).

    Rich B: My favorite argument against OC being legal in CT is "I have never seen someone OC in CT".
    I have never seen a person drink tea from a coke bottle while standing on their head, that doesn't mean it is illegal.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Thanks for keeping us up to date Ed.

    BTW, I was annoyed and alarmed at the original judge's reasoning and ruling. Can I file charges against him?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts