Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 37

Thread: Seymour Open Carry response

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    58

    Seymour Open Carry response

    My initial email:

    Chief Metzler
    11 Franklin Street
    Seymour, CT 06483


    Dear Chief Metzler,


    The purpose of this letter is to seek clarification of a Seymour Department policy.

    I have spoken with several Seymour Police Department Officers on several different occasions in regards to open carrying of a firearm in the town of Seymour. They had stated that they were told to issue an infraction for breach of peace under CGS 53a-181 if they observed anyone having a holstered pistol on their hip out in open view.

    My concern is that carrying a firearm in the open is not a violation of the above statue and such enforcement of this statue should not be made.

    I hope that you can find the time to address my concern and clarify this said policy with me so that I can have some clarification as to what the position of the Seymour Police Department is.


    Respectfully,



    Jason *******


    Response from Seymour Police Department Chief Metzler
    Jason:
    There is no department policy regarding this issue. The intent of the Connecticut Statute is to have the weapon concealed. If the wearing of a weapon in plain view causes concern for others, an officer may charge the carrier with causing alarm. That decision is within his discretion based upon the circumstances.
    I hope this clears up any misinformation that might have been provided to you from an uninformed source.
    Chief Metzler

  2. #2
    Regular Member G30Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    St. Joseph MO
    Posts
    120
    Don't walk your big German Shepherd in public, it might alarm someone. Don't walk around with no shirt on if you are a very large man, it might alarm someone. Don't go out in public in spandex, you may alarm someone.

    What an idiot.
    "Ever notice once in a while you come across somebody you shouldn't have f***ed with......That's me." -Clint Eastwood "Gran Torino"

  3. #3
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    This is an unacceptable response from a Chief of Police.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    This is an unacceptable response from a Chief of Police.
    Ahhh Rich.... I was eagerly awaiting your response.
    How should I now proceed?

  5. #5
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by CTSurvivor View Post
    Ahhh Rich.... I was eagerly awaiting your response.
    How should I now proceed?
    I would proceed as you normally do.

    I think it is time for organizations to address this one. This sounds like perfect territory for Connecticut Carry to address.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  6. #6
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910

    Connecticut Carry's response to Chief Metzler

    Chief Metzler,
    Our organization has been informed by a concerned citizen that you have informed him that Connecticut law 'intends' for his firearm to remain concealed and that your officers are free to make arrests for breach of peace.

    The Connecticut General Statutes do not prescribe any method of carry, either concealed or otherwise.
    The relevant statute on that matter is CGS 29-35 (I have taken the liberty of quoting it here so you can verify that it does not mention concealment anywhere inside it):
    Sec. 29-35. Carrying of pistol or revolver without permit prohibited. Exceptions. (a) No person shall carry any pistol or revolver upon his or her person, except when such person is within the dwelling house or place of business of such person, without a permit to carry the same issued as provided in section 29-28. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to the carrying of any pistol or revolver by any parole officer or peace officer of this state, or parole officer or peace officer of any other state while engaged in the pursuit of official duties, or federal marshal or federal law enforcement agent, or to any member of the armed forces of the United States, as defined in section 27-103, or of this state, as defined in section 27-2, when on duty or going to or from duty, or to any member of any military organization when on parade or when going to or from any place of assembly, or to the transportation of pistols or revolvers as merchandise, or to any person transporting any pistol or revolver while contained in the package in which it was originally wrapped at the time of sale and while transporting the same from the place of sale to the purchaser's residence or place of business, or to any person removing such person's household goods or effects from one place to another, or to any person while transporting any such pistol or revolver from such person's place of residence or business to a place or individual where or by whom such pistol or revolver is to be repaired or while returning to such person's place of residence or business after the same has been repaired, or to any person transporting a pistol or revolver in or through the state for the purpose of taking part in competitions, taking part in formal pistol or revolver training, repairing such pistol or revolver or attending any meeting or exhibition of an organized collectors' group if such person is a bona fide resident of the United States and is permitted to possess and carry a pistol or revolver in the state or subdivision of the United States in which such person resides, or to any person transporting a pistol or revolver to and from a testing range at the request of the issuing authority, or to any person transporting an antique pistol or revolver, as defined in section 29-33. For the purposes of this subsection, "formal pistol or revolver training" means pistol or revolver training at a locally approved or permitted firing range or training facility, and "transporting a pistol or revolver" means transporting a pistol or revolver that is unloaded and, if such pistol or revolver is being transported in a motor vehicle, is not readily accessible or directly accessible from the passenger compartment of the vehicle or, if such pistol or revolver is being transported in a motor vehicle that does not have a compartment separate from the passenger compartment, such pistol or revolver shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the carrying of a pistol or revolver during formal pistol or revolver training or repair.

    In your email to the concerned citizen, you make reference that a person who 'causes alarm' could be charged. I would like to know what you and your officers plan to charge the person with.

    I will assume for sake of brevity that you would try to justify a charge of breach of peace.

    Here is the statute for breach of peace:

    From: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/pub/chap9...Sec53a-181.htm
    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.

    When we break this down, we have (a) which says BoP occurs when you intend to create annoyance or alarm by one of the following:

    Fighting or being violent or threatening. (Obviously does not apply)
    Assaults or strikes another. (Same)
    Threatens to commit any crime (Same)
    Uses abusive or obscene language (Same)

    And then there is the last clause which I would argue also does not apply, but even if one argues that it does apply (a serious stretch), a CT pistol permit holder is clearly 'licensed and privileged' to carry their firearm. Both clauses have to be proven, neither would hold up in court. Neither ever have.

    I don't expect you to just take my word for it.

    That is why I am attaching the opinion of the DPS from a memo sent to the State Police (StatePoliceMemoOpenCarry.pdf). That is pretty clear on how they expect an officer to act around a citizen carrying a firearm unconcealed.
    In case you have trouble with the attachment, here is a link to it on the internet: http://ctcarry.com/Document/Details/...7-ea345e5bb3a0

    I am also attaching the opinion of the Torrington Police Department's review of the applicable laws after their interaction with a person carrying unconcealed (Torrington Memo Open Carry.pdf).
    In case you have trouble with the attachment, here is a link to it on the internet: http://ctcarry.com/Document/Details/...6-f5351641c7a8

    I am also attaching the opinion of the Wethersfield Police Department's review of the applicable laws following their receipt and review of the Torrington memo (Wethersfield Open Carry Memo.pdf)
    In case you have trouble with the attachment, here is a link to it on the internet: http://ctcarry.com/Document/Details/...b-2911f4abb7d0

    The Bridgeport PD is also aware, although I have not yet received their memo yet. I am working on this however. In the meantime, you may contact Sgt. Nikola of the Bridgeport Police Department for clarification of their stance on open carry.

    The Old Saybrook PD is aware as well of the legality of not concealing a firearm. I am unaware of a memo that I can offer you on this from them, I was told it would be communicated verbally to the officers. You may contact Chief Spera on this. He knows my name and should be able to tell you exactly what he told me he would inform his officers: A person carrying a firearm unconcealed should be expected to be treated like any other citizen.

    I am attaching audio of a BFPE hearing where BFPE states in no uncertain terms that open carry is legal and goes further to admonish an officer out of Fairfield for arresting someone for open carry (skip ahead to 28:00 if you are in a hurry.) (BFPE Fairfield Open Carry Legal.MP3). The permit was returned to the permittee by a unanimous vote. FYI - Joseph Corradino is the chairman of that board and has mentioned several times that prosecutors all around the state have been informed of the legality of open carry and the futility in trying to prosecute for breach of peace for nothing but not concealing your firearm. Go ahead and call him, I am sure he would love to explain this further.
    In case you have trouble with the attachment, here is a link to it on the internet: http://ctcarry.com/Document/Details/...7-5e751e033459

    Chief Metzler, I hope you will take the time and read what I have written, review what I have sent you and rethink your policies (or lack thereof) regarding arresting people who do not conceal their firearms. If there is no current policy in your department (as you indicate), I invite you to use the Torrington or Wethersfield memos as a basis for yours. I happen to think the State Police Memo is the best reference for your officers, but this is (of course) your choice. I would be happy to act in an advisory capacity as you so choose.

    It is clearly not prudent to continue to tell citizens or your officers that they may arrest a person with an unconcealed firearm for no other unlawful act other than not concealing their firearm. Not training your officers on the correct application of the laws opens your officers, yourself, your department and your town up to civil liabilities.

    Thank you for your time,
    Rich Burgess
    President
    Connecticut Carry, Inc
    Ph: 203.208.9577
    http://ctcarry.com
    Last edited by Rich B; 02-08-2012 at 08:47 PM.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    58
    Rich.... I idolize you!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    1
    Bravo, Rich. That looks like a wonderful letter. Seeing as how I'm here in Seymour, I have more than a passing interest in the resolution of this issue.

    Thanks again!

  9. #9
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Please don't forget to join and contribute. We have several hurdles coming up and our eyes are always on the goal of having a sufficient set of defense funds set up to protect members if these kinds of law enforcement agencies try to test their limits.

    Connecticut residents need to be protected from over-zealous authorities. We aim to do that.

    Membership is free, the fight is not.

    Join:
    http://ctcarry.com/Account/Register

    Donate:
    http://ctcarry.com/Account/Donation
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  10. #10
    Regular Member DDoutel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    101

    I wish I could say I'm surprised...

    But I'm not. Stunning that "Law Enforcement" around the state still insists on making it up as they go along. When are they going to get it through their heads that cops must abide by the law, even as we citizens do?? They don't just get to do what they want.

    +1, Rich!
    Last edited by DDoutel; 02-09-2012 at 01:17 PM. Reason: Added +1
    D. T. Doutel

    What is to the lawyer or cop a "material misrepresentation of the facts", and to the politician "misspeaking" is, in common parlance, a bald-faced lie. And don't let anyone tell you different!

    Visit Connecticut Carry and LiarCop.com for the latest news regarding Norwalk v. Doutel and Doutel v. Norwalk.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    11
    You are taking the right steps to educate the LEOs and it shows with the memos that have been written by the other departments. By writing the chief you are taking that intimate step and I applaud your determination in seeing this through. The LEOs will always try to do what THEY think is right and hate to be wrong. That is why they hid behind the BoP law for so long. No LEO ever wants to give the person they confronted the "out" or the LEO does not want to be wrong.

    I had a case in NY when I lived there not gun related when a LEO pulled me over because I had Volnteer Ambulance Plates. He asked to see my gear that was "required" by law. When I advised him he was incorrect he went back to his vehicle and I watched him on his cellphone for 15 minutes talking to someone. He returned with a ticket for unlawful registration with a must appear notice. I went to the station and spoke to the SGT and advised him that this ticket was issued in error and explained that I had helped write the law in question, which was true. He through the ticket right out.

    Educating the departments is the right way to go but as in my example the LEOs have to learn to put their ego aside and admit to being wrong as well. Great job guys!!

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    This response is the reason why I don't have a permit. If I want to carry, I carry. I don't need permission. This is a pre-constitutional right that needs to "approval" from our governments.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Norwich, CT
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    This response is the reason why I don't have a permit. If I want to carry, I carry. I don't need permission. This is a pre-constitutional right that needs to "approval" from our governments.
    Yikes! I hope you don't really carry off of your property. The courts take it pretty serious if you get caught carrying without a permit. I think besides jail time you could lose your right to own firearms in CT for the rest of your life.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by hobie16 View Post
    I think besides jail time you could lose your right to own firearms in CT for the rest of your life.
    A felony conviction applies to all states.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Norwalk, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by hobie16 View Post
    Yikes! I hope you don't really carry off of your property. The courts take it pretty serious if you get caught carrying without a permit. I think besides jail time you could lose your right to own firearms in CT for the rest of your life.
    I dont think you even need to leave your property. As I understand it you can posess a handgun INSIDE your home or place of business you OWN but thats it. You cannot carry on your property outside the house.

    Rich,

    Have you had any contact with Chief Rilling in Norwalk? I went back & forth with him back when I got it thru my head OC was legal but coundnt get anything difinitive from him. I sent him links to both Goldbergs incident & yours in the pool hall and asked what our (I live in Norwalk) policy was regarding OC. As I said I got nothing definitive from him, but you are much better than me at this. I find it difficult to not call a spade a spade so I let it die once I realized he was playing stupid.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Leverdude View Post
    Have you had any contact with Chief Rilling in Norwalk? I went back & forth with him back when I got it thru my head OC was legal but coundnt get anything difinitive from him. I sent him links to both Goldbergs incident & yours in the pool hall and asked what our (I live in Norwalk) policy was regarding OC. As I said I got nothing definitive from him, but you are much better than me at this. I find it difficult to not call a spade a spade so I let it die once I realized he was playing stupid.
    I don't ask for permission to OC from law enforcement. It is legal, I have no reason to preemptively consult with them before doing legal things in their jurisdictions.

    I usually only get involved when a LEO decides to declare to citizens that he will violate the rights of law abiding citizens. In your case, he hasn't responded, so there is nothing to do.

    If you wish, you can use as much of my above letter as makes sense to try and win any battle of the intellect with PDs, but I don't think anyone is going to get far in preemptively arguing something that is legal.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Norwalk, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    265
    Ok I understand.
    I wasnt asking permission but simply trying to determine our policy in Norwalk since I think they know its legal. I know for a fact he circulated my initial e-mail but dont know if it was a "watch out for this guy" Or a "ok this is legal dont arrest people" The officers that know me who saw it and recognized my name on it said they knew it was legal, but felt the chief might go for the arrest for PC reasons.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Leverdude View Post
    Ok I understand.
    I wasnt asking permission but simply trying to determine our policy in Norwalk since I think they know its legal. I know for a fact he circulated my initial e-mail but dont know if it was a "watch out for this guy" Or a "ok this is legal dont arrest people" The officers that know me who saw it and recognized my name on it said they knew it was legal, but felt the chief might go for the arrest for PC reasons.
    I don't really see what it matters. It is not 'reasonable' for an officer these days to believe OC is illegal.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    104

    Rich why not Email all Officers

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    It is not 'reasonable' for an officer these days to believe OC is illegal.
    Rich with that being said:

    why not email all officers, in the department with the same letter! Why trust the integrity of this person who is violating his authority and acting in an unlawful manner, to give out the legaly correct info?

    On a larger scale why not email every officer in the state a similar letter, (who's info is on the website's), and inform them directly, and set the record strait, it wouldn’t be that big a task, the most labor intensive part getting the addresses, I would help compile. It would defiantly draw the line in the sand and anyone there after prosecuted, could come to you, for the email receipts if legal action was taken after that email, certain immunities could not be claimed, put your CT carry on the map as no BS strait to the point organization. Take away Qualified immunity from almost all state officers, when acting unlawfully, make them think twice, when they wana throw there ego around. Get the correct info out there so the good officers, know with certainty when there ego maniac counterparts harass citizens for OC they’ll say you know what he did it to himself, or dude your going to get the dept sued. Your letter is undeniable due to the reference material and all I’m saying it would be a powerful tool if prescribed on a large scale. Make reference to sending it to everyone, make reference to the reduction of qualified immunity claims, which open them up to being sued in there individual capacity, compliance will come, for some! Slay the dragon in it’s preverbal cave.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Good Citizen
    On a larger scale why not email every officer in the state a similar letter, (who's info is on the website's), and inform them directly, and set the record strait, it wouldn’t be that big a task, the most labor intensive part getting the addresses, I would help compile. It would defiantly draw the line in the sand and anyone there after prosecuted, could come to you, for the email receipts if legal action was taken after that email, certain immunities could not be claimed, put your CT carry on the map as no BS strait to the point organization. Take away Qualified immunity from almost all state officers, when acting unlawfully, make them think twice, when they wana throw there ego around. Get the correct info out there so the good officers, know with certainty when there ego maniac counterparts harass citizens for OC they’ll say you know what he did it to himself, or dude your going to get the dept sued. Your letter is undeniable due to the reference material and all I’m saying it would be a powerful tool if prescribed on a large scale. Make reference to sending it to everyone, make reference to the reduction of qualified immunity claims, which open them up to being sued in there individual capacity, compliance will come, for some! Slay the dragon in it’s preverbal cave.
    I am certainly not opposed to the sending of such a letter. If you would be willing to volunteer your time to help with it, I would make time to assist as well. I do have a lot on my plate, but it is possible we could get the membership to assist as well.

    Contact me at rich@ctcarry.com and lets discuss how we start. I can see some larger uses for such a database as well, so lets make sure we get coordinated from the start.

    Also, don't forget to sign up as a member: http://ctcarry.com/Account/Register
    Last edited by Rich B; 02-14-2012 at 09:44 AM.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    connecticut
    Posts
    125
    I dont think emailing each officer would hold up in court. Although by haveing the cheif of state/town police you then have something as the officers have to follow policy. I was also told by a seymour police officer that he could charge you with breech of peace or take you pistol during a traffic stop and make you go to the pd to pick it back up. Thease guys def need an education in firearms laws in ct.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by smokeyburnout View Post
    I dont think emailing each officer would hold up in court. Although by haveing the cheif of state/town police you then have something as the officers have to follow policy. I was also told by a seymour police officer that he could charge you with breech of peace or take you pistol during a traffic stop and make you go to the pd to pick it back up. Thease guys def need an education in firearms laws in ct.
    Well I agree with this, the Chief has the duty to train. However, qualified immunity is whether 'any reasonable officer' would come to the same conclusion. Disseminating this information may not fix every officer, but it certainly could not hurt.

    The sad reality is that the only way to 'fix' the officers who will not follow the law(s) is to let them violate our rights and then sue.

    In accordance with this, Connecticut Carry intends to set up a fund to fight these kinds of cases and to help build a strong foundation of lawsuits and case law in this state. People who are interested in making this happen can join and/or donate.

    Remember, right now, if you get arrested and your rights are violated, you are on your own to fund your legal defense and ensuing civil rights lawsuit. This is very difficult and very expensive (I know first hand all about it, so do our directors and so do a few members on this forum). We wish to make our state like many other states, where they have strong organizations that will stand behind people and assist them in defending their civil rights.

    If you feel like I do, that people shouldn't have to fight for redress when their rights are violated on their own, then please get involved.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  23. #23
    Regular Member brk913's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Plainville, CT
    Posts
    370
    I think emailing an entire department is a great idea, to get it kicked of here is a link to all the Plainville Police Officers anf their email addresses: http://www.plainvillect.com/pages/pa...e_contact.aspx

  24. #24
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by brk913 View Post
    I think emailing an entire department is a great idea, to get it kicked of here is a link to all the Plainville Police Officers anf their email addresses: http://www.plainvillect.com/pages/pa...e_contact.aspx
    If we are going to do this, we should get organized, and at the very least do a separate thread so as to not hijack this one.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    58
    Seymour pd officers emails are also listed on their website. I would be happy to email the letter rich composed out to all the officers.
    I heard from a tiny birdie that a few of those officers heard there was a memo from torrington and they wanna see it.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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