• 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.

Arrest and Dismissal of Disorderly Conduct Charges for Open Carry

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
This says it all, doesn't it?

And just for the record, I called the Chief of Police in Wallingford (Douglas Dortenzio) personally and asked him if he thought it was ethical. He said he was not aware of any wrongdoing by Lt. Martino and that he would evaluate the ethical nature of having Lt. Martino investigating himself when he gets the IA report.

I don't follow his logic and I assume this is a big hand waving over me to let me know that he is not going to take my complaint seriously or even try to play fair.

Oh well. Like Ed said, they have been given an opportunity here. The ball is in their court. It sure is not going to look good for them down the road if they continue as I expect them to.
 

KIX

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
960
Location
, ,
Carrying an audio recorder......

My understanding from previous work says that it's not admissible in court if you record someone without their knowledge and possibly permission.......

Maybe one of the lawyers can correct me on this.

Legal to record, but not admissible, as far as I knew.....

Jonathan
 

Anthony_I_Am

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
270
Location
SMITHFIELD, North Carolina, USA
A very serious question is beginning to take shape here and around the country.

QUESTION:

IF AN OWNER OF A BUSINESS HAS THE RIGHT TO PROHIBIT CARRYING FIREARMS IN HIS ESTABLISHMENT, DOES HE ALSO HAVE THE RIGHT TO DICTATE HOW THE WEAPON IS TO BE WORN OR CARRIED IF HE DOES NOT PROHIBITCARRYING FIREARMS?


IN OTHER WORDS, CAN A BUSINESS OWNER MANDATE CONCEALEMENT AS A CONDIDITON OF ALLOWINGFIREARMS TO BE CARRIED?

The question was raised by a very knowledgeable individual in law enforcement and poses a rather unique area for discussion.



I don't see why not. At least in NC I can ask you to peave my property for any reason. I can ask you to leave because your shirt tail is untucked, because your shoe strings are green, or because your saggy pants show your ass. In fact, when the police come, I don't have to say why I don't want you in my restaurant. I just have to tell them I want you gone. I don't have to provide any reason.

Basically if the owner doesn't want you there, it's just plain rude not to leave.

Again, the private property argument will lose as a business open to public accomodation is a long standing measure in our legal system.[\quote]

All these SC cases cite a PROTECTED CLASS, for instance I cannot ask a person leave my restaurant because of their race, sex, religious belief, or disability. Gun toters are not a protected class. I cannot ask a person to leave my restaurant because they are black. I can ask them to leave because their t-shirt reads "hang all blacks", for example. Their first ammendment right ends at the doors to my restaurant.
 
Last edited:

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
I don't see why not. At least in NC I can ask you to peave my property for any reason. I can ask you to leave because your shirt tail is untucked, because your shoe strings are green, or because your saggy pants show your ass. In fact, when the police come, I don't have to say why I don't want you in my restaurant. I just have to tell them I want you gone. I don't have to provide any reason.

That may be true, but I would like to see you squirm when you tell someone that they have to leave because they are black, chinese or muslim. See how far that argument goes. I always agree that the property owner has the right to ask me to leave. I am fine with not doing business with them and letting others in the community know that they are not 2A friendly. But lets face it, if the person was kicked out of a store for being black, chinese or muslim, it would be all over the evening news and lawsuits would be flying.


All these SC cases cite a PROTECTED CLASS, for instance I cannot ask a person leave my restaurant because of their race, sex, religious belief, or disability. Gun toters are not a protected class.

Well therein lies the problem. The bill of rights is really what protects people, and the second amendment is not at all a lesser protection. I believe we are a protected class, it has just not been stood up for in court yet.

I cannot ask a person to leave my restaurant because they are black. I can ask them to leave because their t-shirt reads "hang all blacks", for example. Their first ammendment right ends at the doors to my restaurant.

That is very untrue. No rights end at the doors of your restaurant. 'Hang all blacks' is not really going to be protected under the first amendment since it is meant to cause a problem amongst people and to specifically offend a group of people, possibly leading to violence. Carrying a firearm is in no way, shape or form similar to that.
 

crisisweasel

Newbie
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
265
Location
Pima County, Arizona, USA
I think that those of us who open carry really need to come to grips with a fact the public knows only too well: that when you conceal a pistol, it then makes that pistol blink out of existence, thereby no longer posing a threat.

Perhaps we can stimulate the economy by passing out peril-sensitive sunglasses to each and every American.
 

KIX

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
960
Location
, ,
The police use recordings all the time to gain convictions. Whats good for the goose oughtta be good for the gander.

I agree with your statement....... but I don't think the same holds true for us normal Joe Citizens of CT.

It's not illegal to record, just in legal proceedings. Which is a sham.
 

GoldCoaster

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
646
Location
Stratford, Connecticut, USA
I agree with your statement....... but I don't think the same holds true for us normal Joe Citizens of CT.

It's not illegal to record, just in legal proceedings. Which is a sham.

Then it gets leaked to the press and "educate" the jury pool. The police leak stuff all the time, all's fair if it keeps you out of bubba's cell.
 

kwikrnu

Banned
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
1,956
Location
Brentwood, Tennessee
Sounds interesting. Sounds a bit like Officer Flood's interview with Sarah Dobensky in my case. Have you read that transcript?
Yes I read it earlier in this thread which is why I posted mine. They were trying to get the lady to press charges against me for assault. It must be SOP for cops to try and influence witnesses with outright lies. They told me several times in my encounter, "you know if anyone feels threatened by your firearm they have 365 days to press charges." They were trying and probably still are trying to charge me with something. They have wrote letters to the State which suspended my handgun carry permit.
 
Last edited:

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
Yes I read it earlier in this thread which is why I posted mine. They were trying to get the lady to press charges against me for assault. It must be SOP for cops to try and influence witnesses with outright lies. They told me several times in my encounter, "you know if anyone feels threatened by your firearm they have 365 days to press charges." They were trying and probably still are trying to charge me with something. They have wrote letters to the State which suspended my handgun carry permit.

That is very unfortunate. I wish you luck in your case.
 

Jellydonut

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
24
Location
Connecticut
CT law

As you can see from the CT.gov website under carrying in public, you can possibly risk losing your pistol permit. With rights come responsibilities. Also, under 53-206d, Carrying while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drug prohibited. In this case you were in a bar, I don't know if the person in this case was drinking or not but it seems this detail by the police was over looked. CT law also states that leaving the bar and not the premise the bar is located is still considered trespassing under state statute. While I am a gun advocate, I believe common sense and responsibility is paramount. Furthermore, thinking tactically, why would you want to carry openly? Who do you think the bad guy is going to shoot first if he sees your gun? Finally, it seems that the police in this situation could have done a better job in this investigation and charges.



RESTRICTIONS ON CARRYING AND TRANSPORTING FIREARMS

In Public Buildings

The law, with minor exceptions, bars people from carrying firearms in any building (1) where either House of the General Assembly is located; (2) in which the office of any legislator or legislative officer, employee, or committee is located; or (3) where a legislative committee is holding a meeting. The law exempts police officers, military personnel on official duty, and veterans serving as honor guards (CGS § 2-1e(c)).
Interference with the legislative process is a class D felony.

In Public

The permit to carry handguns allows people to carry them openly or concealed, but mature judgment, says the Board of Firearm Permit Examiners, dictates that (1) “every effort should be made to ensure that no gun is exposed to view or carried in any manner that would tend to alarm people who see it. . . [and] (2) no handgun should be carried unless carrying the gun at the time and place involved is prudent and proper in the circumstances. ”

For example, according to the board, handguns should not be carried:

1. into a bar or other place where alcohol is being consumed;

2. in any situation involving stress such as an argument;

3. after consuming alcohol or any drugs other than those legally prescribed; or

4. in any building, residential or commercial, whose owner prohibits handguns (http: //www. ct. gov/bfpe/cwp/view. asp?a=1252&q=254186).

Motor Vehicles

By law, when handguns are being transported in a motor vehicle, they must be unloaded and kept (1) in a place not readily or directly accessible from the passenger compartment or (2) in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console (CGS § 29-35). A violation carries a penalty of one to five years imprisonment, a fine of up to $ 1,000, or both, with a mandatory minimum one-year sentence in the absence of mitigating circumstances (CGS § 29-37).
When long guns are being transported in a vehicle or snowmobile, they must be unloaded. A violation carries a fine of $ 10 to $ 100, imprisonment for up to 30 days or both (CGS § 53-205).

On School Property and School-Sponsored Events

It is illegal, with some exceptions, to possess firearms on any elementary or secondary school property or at any school-sponsored event, if the person knows that he or she is not licensed or privileged to possess such firearms. A violation is a class D felony. The law does not apply to the otherwise lawful possession by:

1. anyone using a firearm as part of an approved school program;

2. anyone who has an agreement with the school allowing the firearm;

3. peace officers functioning in their official capacity; and

4. anyone with an unloaded firearm crossing school property to hunt, provided entry is allowed (CGS § 53a-217b).

Other Places where Firearms are Prohibited

People are barred from possessing or carrying handguns on any premises where prohibited by law or by the person who owns or exercises control over the premises (CGS § 29-28(e)).

A violation carries a fine of up to $ 500, imprisonment for up to three years, or both, and any handgun found in the violator's possession must be forfeited (CGS § 29-37).
 

NickNt

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
74
Location
, ,
Actually, doesn't the whole section about "motor vehicles" only apply to people WITHOUT permits? Go read the statue it'self and tell me what you think, thanks

NWT



As you can see from the CT.gov website under carrying in public, you can possibly risk losing your pistol permit. With rights come responsibilities. Also, under 53-206d, Carrying while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drug prohibited. In this case you were in a bar, I don't know if the person in this case was drinking or not but it seems this detail by the police was over looked. CT law also states that leaving the bar and not the premise the bar is located is still considered trespassing under state statute. While I am a gun advocate, I believe common sense and responsibility is paramount. Furthermore, thinking tactically, why would you want to carry openly? Who do you think the bad guy is going to shoot first if he sees your gun? Finally, it seems that the police in this situation could have done a better job in this investigation and charges.



RESTRICTIONS ON CARRYING AND TRANSPORTING FIREARMS

In Public Buildings

The law, with minor exceptions, bars people from carrying firearms in any building (1) where either House of the General Assembly is located; (2) in which the office of any legislator or legislative officer, employee, or committee is located; or (3) where a legislative committee is holding a meeting. The law exempts police officers, military personnel on official duty, and veterans serving as honor guards (CGS § 2-1e(c)).
Interference with the legislative process is a class D felony.

In Public

The permit to carry handguns allows people to carry them openly or concealed, but mature judgment, says the Board of Firearm Permit Examiners, dictates that (1) “every effort should be made to ensure that no gun is exposed to view or carried in any manner that would tend to alarm people who see it. . . [and] (2) no handgun should be carried unless carrying the gun at the time and place involved is prudent and proper in the circumstances. ”

For example, according to the board, handguns should not be carried:

1. into a bar or other place where alcohol is being consumed;

2. in any situation involving stress such as an argument;

3. after consuming alcohol or any drugs other than those legally prescribed; or

4. in any building, residential or commercial, whose owner prohibits handguns (http: //www. ct. gov/bfpe/cwp/view. asp?a=1252&q=254186).

Motor Vehicles

By law, when handguns are being transported in a motor vehicle, they must be unloaded and kept (1) in a place not readily or directly accessible from the passenger compartment or (2) in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console (CGS § 29-35). A violation carries a penalty of one to five years imprisonment, a fine of up to $ 1,000, or both, with a mandatory minimum one-year sentence in the absence of mitigating circumstances (CGS § 29-37).
When long guns are being transported in a vehicle or snowmobile, they must be unloaded. A violation carries a fine of $ 10 to $ 100, imprisonment for up to 30 days or both (CGS § 53-205).

On School Property and School-Sponsored Events

It is illegal, with some exceptions, to possess firearms on any elementary or secondary school property or at any school-sponsored event, if the person knows that he or she is not licensed or privileged to possess such firearms. A violation is a class D felony. The law does not apply to the otherwise lawful possession by:

1. anyone using a firearm as part of an approved school program;

2. anyone who has an agreement with the school allowing the firearm;

3. peace officers functioning in their official capacity; and

4. anyone with an unloaded firearm crossing school property to hunt, provided entry is allowed (CGS § 53a-217b).

Other Places where Firearms are Prohibited

People are barred from possessing or carrying handguns on any premises where prohibited by law or by the person who owns or exercises control over the premises (CGS § 29-28(e)).

A violation carries a fine of up to $ 500, imprisonment for up to three years, or both, and any handgun found in the violator's possession must be forfeited (CGS § 29-37).
 

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
As you can see from the CT.gov website under carrying in public, you can possibly risk losing your pistol permit. With rights come responsibilities.

Carrying your firearm openly in public is not putting yourself at risk for losing your permit or for arrest. Drinking while carrying your firearm, brandishing a firearm, etc are unrelated charges that are equally as valid whether you are carrying concealed or not.

Also, you need to provide a link to where this info was obtained. This is old data that was rescinded from the BOFPE website as far as I am aware. Don't cite information without links or valid sources.
 

Jellydonut

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
24
Location
Connecticut
Carrying your firearm openly in public is not putting yourself at risk for losing your permit or for arrest. Drinking while carrying your firearm, brandishing a firearm, etc are unrelated charges that are equally as valid whether you are carrying concealed or not.

Also, you need to provide a link to where this info was obtained. This is old data that was rescinded from the BOFPE website as far as I am aware. Don't cite information without links or valid sources.

Yes, you are right it's old info. I apologize. However, I disagree with you about OC. It does put you at risk because every OC involves a different situation and all have different outcomes. You may be detained and nothing or detained and arrested or no one may even approach you. If you get arrested or a LE has reason to report you to DPS, you may lose your permit. Yes, you may get it back or you may not. The man in the Glastonbury case did not get his permit back for 15 months.
 

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
Yes, you are right it's old info. I apologize. However, I disagree with you about OC. It does put you at risk because every OC involves a different situation and all have different outcomes. You may be detained and nothing or detained and arrested or no one may even approach you. If you get arrested or a LE has reason to report you to DPS, you may lose your permit. Yes, you may get it back or you may not. The man in the Glastonbury case did not get his permit back for 15 months.

You may be illegally detained and/or arrested when you are doing anything, that has nothing to do with OC, that has to do with LEOs who should not be LEOs. Having been arrested once, all charges dismissed and the police department being put on the defensive against a 4th amendment violation and wrongful arrest litigation, I am content with my understanding of the law.

You can try and spread all the misinformation you want. The simple fact is that there is no circumstance where you can be arrested for open carry if you have a permit in the state of Connecticut. The ridiculous little quotes you keep mentioning are purposeful misinformation from public officials who don't want to be the first on record to just admit that OC is 100% legal with a permit.

These people are using purposeful political redirection by saying "You may be arrested for OC under certain circumstances". I have heard this many times from LEOs and even Chief Dortenzio in Wallingford. When you push them for those circumstances, they start speaking of carrying in a K-12 school, removing your firearm from its holster, etc. Those are all illegal already under other statutes. That is a shocking misunderstanding (and disregard) for the law and for what OC is.

Up until recently, the old standby for LEOs has been that you may be arrested for OC if someone panics or causes a disturbance because of your OC. That has been proven wrong several times now, most relevantly in my case. Wallingford PD sure learned a quick and hard lesson on the law that night that had the officers apologetic and returning my firearm and changing my charge by the time I was being booked.

LEOs are learning, the public still for the most part doesn't notice or care, and we are making great progress.

Now, if you want to continue to argue points that were never relevant and are only becoming less so, I will let you keep shouting at the sky as most of the rest of this forum's users are already doing. If you want to make an intelligent debate and abandon all this silly nonsense you keep using as 'evidence', I will be listening.

In order for you to continue any part of this debate, you need to cite (with original source) an actual CT general statute that could be used to prosecute someone for the simple act of carrying a firearm in the open if they have a valid permit on their person. No 'quotes' from random people or anything else matters. The opinion of LEOs, politicians or states attorneys are irrelevant to this discussion. The only thing that matters is what the law says.

For extra credit, show me the statute that allows a LEO to carry their firearm in the open while on duty.
 

KIX

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
960
Location
, ,
Am I the only one that can't believe this is still going on?

I only hope that someone doesn't take away some of this "mythinformation" as fact.

Jonathan
 
Top