• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Connecticut state police want legislature to ban open carry in 2011

Edward Peruta

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
1,247
Location
Connecticut USA
Hot off the copier at the Department of Public Safety

I have as in past years at this time, just obtained via a recently filed Freedom of Information request, from the Department of Public Safety's proposal for mandating Conceal Carry in the 2011 legislative session.

Here is the link to what I received today:
http://www.ctgunrights.com/03.Political/2011/2011.Conceal.Carry.Proposed.Legislation.Yellow.pdf

Every Second Amendment Firearm Advocate how intends to vote this November should ask the person they intend on voting for to state their position on this specific piece of proposed legislation.

It might also be advantageous and a breath of fresh air to have the candidates who claim to support Second Amendment Rights challenge their political opponents to state their position on this specific piece of legislation.

Every Right to Keep and Bear arms believe should begin planning for the 2011 legislative session.

I have highlighted some interesting sections that are very revealing in light of the arrests and detainments that have occurred and seem to be increasing recently in CT.

If you are interesting is supporting Second Amendment Rights on a monthly or one time basis here in Connecticut, please send an email with your true identity and contact information to the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen at info@ctsportsmen.com or to me at edperuta@amcable.tv so that I may provide the information should I find a group interested in administering a Firearms Civil Defense Fund in CT.

FREEDOM IS NOT FREE, and you don't realize the value of a support group until you find yourself jammed up with members of law enforcement in some outrageous situation
 
Last edited:

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
I love it when LEOs tell me the law is 'vague'.

There is nothing 'vague' about our law.

Of course these are the same people who make statements about how we need a law to allow OC in the first place...
 

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
Also, I love how DPS recognizes that we have a problem. OC is legal in CT and no one is doing the right thing to make sure all local police departments understand this.

But then out of right field they decide the solution should be to eliminate OC. I notice at no point in that proposal do they give a reason why OC should be unlawful, they only bring up their own failure as a 'reason'.
 

KIX

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
960
Location
, ,
The problem is the LEOs don't like the law, and they don't want to follow it.

How else can it be that one party does NOTHING against the law, but still can get a "Breach of Peace" charge?

How often does this hit the Hartford "RADAR"?

Interesting to see how this is voted on after the election and if we have a chance to have our voices heard.

Jonathan
 

MGoduto

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
107
Location
New Britain, Connecticut, USA
The problem is the LEOs don't like the law, and they don't want to follow it.

How else can it be that one party does NOTHING against the law, but still can get a "Breach of Peace" charge?

How often does this hit the Hartford "RADAR"?

Interesting to see how this is voted on after the election and if we have a chance to have our voices heard.

Jonathan

Also, I love how DPS recognizes that we have a problem. OC is legal in CT and no one is doing the right thing to make sure all local police departments understand this.

But then out of right field they decide the solution should be to eliminate OC. I notice at no point in that proposal do they give a reason why OC should be unlawful, they only bring up their own failure as a 'reason'.

With the exception of the date, this is the same piece of s*** that the DPS tried last year.

'Vague', my ass!!
 

Edward Peruta

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
1,247
Location
Connecticut USA
When threats of arrest, detainments and Intimidation don't work

What the Department of Public Safety is really saying in their proposal for a new law to force concealment of firearms.

For years, members of Connecticut law enforcement have attempted to impose their personal beliefs without the benefit of any supporting law(s) on citizens who exercise their Second Amendment rights while possessing VALID PERMITS and CARRY HANDGUNS.

On countless occasions some of which have been reported, exposed and discussed at great length on this message board or in the local news media.

The record clearly shows that law abiding individuals have been detained, arrested or at least intimidated with the threat of arrest for Breach of Peace or Disorderly Conduct for the simple act of BEARING an exposed firearm for SELF DEFENSE.

I am personally aware of open carry incidents in Glastonbury, Enfield, Farmington/West Hartford, Plainville, Waterbury, Wallingford, Old Saybrook and Newington.

In the proposed legislation that follows, I have read between the lines and offer a different reason for the proposal being made to the 2011 legislative session.

I have read the words in their proposal, but this is what I hear in my head:

We the honest members of law enforcement, have tried to impose our beliefs on, refused to answer questions from, and attempted on several occasions to intimidate and threaten, those that carry their firearms openly in Connecticut without success.

We the honest members of law enforcement now find ourselves in the position of needing the legislature to enact new legislation to force these defiant and rebellious law abiding citizens from BEARING their weapons openly. If legislation is not enacted soon, these defiant rebellious law abiding citizens will force us to obey the law and accept what they are doing by court orders.

If you give us the law we request, we will generate revenue for the state's general fund through the penalties imposed for violations.




PROPOSED LEGISLATION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

Summary of Proposal (Include background information)

This new law would require that a pistol or revolver be carried concealed. 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.

Also included are the penalties for violations of this act.


Reason for Proposal (Include significant policy and programmatic impacts)

Connecticut's firearms carry laws are vague in language as it pertains to carrying a pistol or revolver concealed. Recently, citizens have taken it upon themselves to test our statutes by carrying openly. In doing so, several arrests have been made under the Breach of Peace statues C.G.S. 53a-181, with those dispositions ending in nolle's or dismissal, proving that these laws are inadequate in their detail. 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.

Significant Fiscal Impacts
Municipal: None
Federal: None
State: Penalties would benefit the general fund.
 
Last edited:

KennyB

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Messages
87
Location
Mountain Top
Is anyone really surprised by this? The state police have tried to ban OC in the past. With the elections coming up, maybe they think good ole George Jepsen will win the election for state AG, and Dan Malloy winning as Governor. Two of the WORST Democrats with a F rating from the NRA. Yes my friends, this is a pivitol point in our State for gun rights. Also, not only is OC in danger in CT, but CC. Did anyone see the new commercial from George Jepson attacking Martha Deans support of the 2nd Amendment by (god forbid) teaching gun safety to kids??? He has said he's PROAD of his F rating from the NRA. I can't see him stoping at OC. God help us............
 
Last edited:

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
Why not make the permit say."STATE OPEN or CONCEALED to carry Pistols and Revolvers. and both side of law will be happy.

It already says the same effect. So does the law. Why doesn't the DPS work with the AG and get notice out to police chiefs all over the state instead that they must follow the same rules that they issued the state police during the second amendment rally?
 

buketdude

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
313
Location
Enfield, Connecticut, USA
I see this going....nowhere..depending how elections turn out I guess...but getting this out of the Judiciary Comm is not going to be easy for the fascists who believe in this..

I put my money on this, even if proposed, will not even be voted on..
 

KIX

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
960
Location
, ,
I have read the words in their proposal, but this is what I hear in my head:

We the honest members of law enforcement, have tried to impose our beliefs on, refused to answer questions from, and attempted on several occasions to intimidate and threaten, those that carry their firearms openly in Connecticut without success.

We the honest members of law enforcement now find ourselves in the position of needing the legislature to enact new legislation to force these defiant and rebellious law abiding citizens from BEARING their weapons openly. If legislation is not enacted soon, these defiant rebellious law abiding citizens will force us to obey the law and accept what they are doing by court orders.

If you give us the law we request, we will generate revenue for the state's general fund through the penalties imposed for violations.

I've been saying essentially the EXACT same thing when talking to my friends this week.

I was thinking how to say this with a little "tact" if I had the opportunity to address the folks in Hartford, but my English/Irish sarcasm always creeps in!!

Jonathan
 

Leverdude

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
265
Location
Norwalk, Connecticut, USA
They really need to think this out. As it stands you need a permit to carry, transport or hunt with a handgun in CT. Basically you need a permit for ANY legal use of a handgun beyond keeping it in your home or place of business.
They call it a carry permit but its not really. So I'd think that if they made our permits CC permits they would need to change the law so that the permit was only needed to CC.
OC & transporting etc couldn't require a CC permit. If a person wants to hunt squirrels with their 22 revolver a CC permit wouldn't be sensible.

I guess I'm saying maybe we should push for more sensible laws such as are found in most other states in regards to our permit system & handgun regulation. I think the problems go beyond LEO misunderstanding of the law.
In many ways the laws just dont make sense.

Why do we need a permit to carry (or eligibility certificate) in order to buy a handgun? They determine your legal eligibuility immediately before you buy it with the NICS check.

Why do I need a permit to carry to take a handgun I'm not carrying to a range for practice?

How can I possible have a right to keep & bear arms if a permit is needed for ALL modes of carry? While I disagree with it I can see the logic in a CC permit IF OC is unhindered. But if all modes of carry require a permit then RKBA is not a right but a privilege.

Ed, you should have my info already. If you dont let me know & I'll get it to you.

P>S>

I just sent an E-mail to a state rep & senator.
If I get responses I'll post them here.
 
Last edited:

Recon Marine

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2010
Messages
27
Location
Hartford County, Soviet Union
Stiff Fines

"(d) Any person who violates any provision of subsection (a) of this section shall: (1) for
conviction of a first offense, be fined not less than five hundred dollars or more than two
. thousand dollars, and (b) be imprisoned not more than one year; and (2) for a
subsequent conviction of this offense (a) be fined not less than two thousand dollars or
more than five thousand dollars, and (b) be imprisoned not more than five years."

THOSE ARE SOME PRETTY STIFF FINES!

THIS IS THE CONSTITUTION STATE & IT IS A CARRY PERMIT, IT'S PRETTY CLEAR WHAT LESIGLATURE WANTED TO DO! LEAVE IT UP TO EVERY CITIZEN TO MAKE THERE OWN CHOISE! I CAN’T GET OVER THE SEVERATY OF THOSE FINES????

In construing a statute, established rules of statutory construction require that courts search for the legislature's intent in the words of the statute. Demar v. Open Space and Conservation Commission of Rocky Hill, 211 Conn. 416, 559 A.2d 1103 (1989). If the language of the statute is clear, it is assumed that the words themselves express the intent of the legislature and thus there is no need to further construe the statute. Anderson v. Ludgin, 175 Conn. 545, 400 A.2d 712 (1978). ++++THERE'S A REASON IT'S NOT A CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT++++++++++++
 

Konacow

New member
Joined
Nov 5, 2010
Messages
4
Location
Connecticut
Need to reduce gun laws.

I have been going back and forth with the State Police and the D.E.P. about open carry and it seems the State & local police don't understand the laws of Connecticut, they need a course on them. They don't understand this is an open carry state and try to make up their own laws, this needs to be stopped.
They really need to think this out. As it stands you need a permit to carry, transport or hunt with a handgun in CT. Basically you need a permit for ANY legal use of a handgun beyond keeping it in your home or place of business.
They call it a carry permit but its not really. So I'd think that if they made our permits CC permits they would need to change the law so that the permit was only needed to CC.
OC & transporting etc couldn't require a CC permit. If a person wants to hunt squirrels with their 22 revolver a CC permit wouldn't be sensible.

I guess I'm saying maybe we should push for more sensible laws such as are found in most other states in regards to our permit system & handgun regulation. I think the problems go beyond LEO misunderstanding of the law.
In many ways the laws just dont make sense.

Why do we need a permit to carry (or eligibility certificate) in order to buy a handgun? They determine your legal eligibuility immediately before you buy it with the NICS check.

Why do I need a permit to carry to take a handgun I'm not carrying to a range for practice?

How can I possible have a right to keep & bear arms if a permit is needed for ALL modes of carry? While I disagree with it I can see the logic in a CC permit IF OC is unhindered. But if all modes of carry require a permit then RKBA is not a right but a privilege.

Ed, you should have my info already. If you dont let me know & I'll get it to you.

P>S>

I just sent an E-mail to a state rep & senator.
If I get responses I'll post them here.
 

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
I have been going back and forth with the State Police and the D.E.P. about open carry and it seems the State & local police don't understand the laws of Connecticut, they need a course on them. They don't understand this is an open carry state and try to make up their own laws, this needs to be stopped.

Who in the state police did you talk to and when?
 

Konacow

New member
Joined
Nov 5, 2010
Messages
4
Location
Connecticut
Rich

Rich, I talked to a State Police woman and she doesn't even know how to read the law. It is sad to know that these people are LEO's because they can't uphold the law or don't want uphold the law or want to make up laws.
 
Top