I remember a few years ago hearing or reading about a guy who unknowingly drove onto school property in CT. I think it was in the Willamantic area. He was lost or trying to get his bearings and just pulled off the road. A local LEO pulled in and as the story went just happened to ask him if he had any weapons in the car. He was pinched for bringing a weapon onto school property. Resolution unknown.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
2 steps forward.....one step back
- Thread starter Shawn Mitola
- Start date
I remember a few years ago hearing or reading about a guy who unknowingly drove onto school property in CT. I think it was in the Willamantic area. He was lost or trying to get his bearings and just pulled off the road. A local LEO pulled in and as the story went just happened to ask him if he had any weapons in the car. He was pinched for bringing a weapon onto school property. Resolution unknown.
datank55
Regular Member
I would be willing to bet that if you left your car running in the middle of a playground and walked away, you wouldn't lose your drivers license as a result. And let's remember that driving a car is a privilege, not a gaurenteed constitutional right. Carrying a firearm is not a privilege.
for someone who fancies them self slightly smarter than the average bear when it comes to law I did not know about this.... you learn something new everyday.
are you implying with this that there is a good chance the jury would let him off?
MKEgal
Regular Member
Does CT follow federal law?brk913 said:
The federal "GF"SZ says it's legal for someone with a license to carry on school property & in the buildings.
There are states that have more restrictive laws.
dcmdon
Regular Member
Separate statute. No exemption for permit holder.
Also unlike the fed law which prohibits within 1000 ft and is therefore unenforcable, the ct only applies to actually being on school property. I'll cite the statute later. I'm on my phone now.
Also unlike the fed law which prohibits within 1000 ft and is therefore unenforcable, the ct only applies to actually being on school property. I'll cite the statute later. I'm on my phone now.
A case for jury nullification:
http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2009/10/13/a-case-for-jury-nullification/
Jury nullification is a two edged sword:
http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/04/0412.html
Perhaps to avoid being fired - maybe they gave him a "choice."
BTW - why do you keeps deleting your posts.:question: - Inquiring minds wish to know.
dcmdon
Regular Member
As a parent and a gun owner, nullification would not work on me. I'd be rip sh$& pissed at him. Although prison is certainly not appropriat, a few hundred hours of community service would be.
He did something illegal that truly IS incredibly stupid, but without malace. It's a fine line to walk. I think the fact that he was not charged with having a gun in a school (a felony) shows a reasonable acknowledgement that there was no malace.
He did something illegal that truly IS incredibly stupid, but without malace. It's a fine line to walk. I think the fact that he was not charged with having a gun in a school (a felony) shows a reasonable acknowledgement that there was no malace.
Last edited:
What this proves is we need legislation that says your vehicle is your property, no matter where it is. If you store your firearm, locked in your vehicle (even a vehicle safe) then you're safe from persecution (intended word).
Jonathan
Jonathan
Rich B
Regular Member
Rich B
Regular Member
Rich B
Regular Member
Sometimes you and I end up dancing on the same head of the coin.
My point was to the topic at hand about on school grounds and how an inclusive law would be a good thing. If you're point was not on school grounds, then state so..... we don't need to dance. Either way, dancing really isn't in my DNA, so to speak.
Jonathan
My point was to the topic at hand about on school grounds and how an inclusive law would be a good thing. If you're point was not on school grounds, then state so..... we don't need to dance. Either way, dancing really isn't in my DNA, so to speak.
Jonathan
Rich B
Regular Member
My point was:
I would rather the effort is spent to get rid of silly areas where we are not allowed to carry, thus keeping people from having to needlessly manipulate or handle their firearms to begin with.
Making it safe to store firearms in cars on school property doesn't really enhance safety. Getting rid of silly statutes that make invisible lines where people need to disarm would enhance safety.
dcmdon
Regular Member
Rich and Johnathan. Unless the definition of "posses" does not include having it in your car while driving on school property, you can not bring even an unloaded gun onto school property in the trunk of your car.
Sec. 53a-217b. Possession of a weapon on school grounds: Class D felony. (a) A person is guilty of possession of a weapon on school grounds when, knowing that such person is not licensed or privileged to do so, such person possesses a firearm or deadly weapon, as defined in section 53a-3, (1) in or on the real property comprising a public or private elementary or secondary school, or (2) at a school-sponsored activity as defined in subsection (h) of section 10-233a.
Sec. 53a-217b. Possession of a weapon on school grounds: Class D felony. (a) A person is guilty of possession of a weapon on school grounds when, knowing that such person is not licensed or privileged to do so, such person possesses a firearm or deadly weapon, as defined in section 53a-3, (1) in or on the real property comprising a public or private elementary or secondary school, or (2) at a school-sponsored activity as defined in subsection (h) of section 10-233a.
Rich B
Regular Member
Yep. That is what we said.
What Rich said, and:
I raise ya on Sec. 53:
Sec. 53a-3. Definitions. Except where different meanings are expressly specified, the following terms have the following meanings when used in this title:
(1) "Person" means a human being, and, where appropriate, a public or private corporation, a limited liability company, an unincorporated association, a partnership, a government or a governmental instrumentality;
(2) "Possess" means to have physical possession or otherwise to exercise dominion or control over tangible property;
Jonathan
I raise ya on Sec. 53:
Sec. 53a-3. Definitions. Except where different meanings are expressly specified, the following terms have the following meanings when used in this title:
(1) "Person" means a human being, and, where appropriate, a public or private corporation, a limited liability company, an unincorporated association, a partnership, a government or a governmental instrumentality;
(2) "Possess" means to have physical possession or otherwise to exercise dominion or control over tangible property;
Jonathan