Edward Peruta
Regular Member
imported post
his email was sent to the Office of the Attorney General following a series of emails between his office and GOLDCOASTER.
From: Ed Peruta [mailto:edperuta@amcable.tv]
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 6:01 PM
To: 'Patricia.Sullivan@po.state.ct.us'
Cc: rbaird@rachelbairdlaw.com
Subject: Clarification of State Statute
Ms. Patricia Sullivan,
My name is Edward A. Peruta, and I am in receipt of an email sent by you over the signature of Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.
As you might be aware, I am the plaintiff in a personal case currently on appeal in our state appellate court regarding the topic of openly carrying a firearm while in possession of a valid state “PERMIT TO CARRY PISTOLS AND REVOLVERS”.
I am providing a copy of this email to my personal attorney and assure you that this correspondence has been sent in my capacity as an active member of the media.
To say the least, I am disappointed in the response provided to this citizen by the Attorney General.
For the Attorney General of Connecticut or a member of his staff to advocate the existence and/or enforcement of a law that is ambiguous and confusing to current valid pistol permit holders leaving them at risk of arrest, imprisonment or revocation for legal activity is at best a sad day in Connecticut.
During the past two legislative sessions, attempts have been made to have the Legislature amend the statutes to mandate concealment by valid permit holders has failed. The most recent attempt was submitted by the Commissioner of Public Safety in a letter dated February 28, 2009 where he clearly states that the law is “ambiguous”.
Mr. Blumenthal once enjoyed my respect and admiration as a defender of the law and rights of citizens. Sadly after witnessing his position on this topic, that is no longer the case.
In an attempt to obtain the Attorney General’s opinion and position on this topic, I request if possible, a sit down interview with Mr. Blumenthal or prior notice of all planned news conferences like those sent to other members of the media.
If Mr. Blumenthal does not have a schedule of open news conferences, I would like a copy of his speaking schedule from this date through the end of 2009.
Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter,
Edward A. Peruta
American News and Information Services Inc.
Rocky Hill, CT. 06067
860-978-5455
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: "Sullivan, Patricia" <Patricia.Sullivan@po.state.ct.us>
To: (Redacted for privacy)
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2009 2:59:36 PM
Subject: FW: Request for clarification.
Reply from Attorney General Richard Blumenthal
Dear Mr. (Redacted for Privacy):
Pending litigation does not prohibit any person -- including a legislator -- from seeking legislation to clarify an issue. You are correct that the Department of Public Safety does not establish the law on carrying weapons, but the Department must enforce the law to the best of its ability. Indeed, whether a gun carried in plain sight constitutes a criminal violation may depend on the circumstances existing in that situation. Although you are seeking clarity on this issue, the legality of how a permittee carries a firearm will on all likelihood require a factual assessment by law enforcement officials.
I wish I could be more helpful.
Many thanks, and warmest regards.
Sincerely,
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL
his email was sent to the Office of the Attorney General following a series of emails between his office and GOLDCOASTER.
From: Ed Peruta [mailto:edperuta@amcable.tv]
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 6:01 PM
To: 'Patricia.Sullivan@po.state.ct.us'
Cc: rbaird@rachelbairdlaw.com
Subject: Clarification of State Statute
Ms. Patricia Sullivan,
My name is Edward A. Peruta, and I am in receipt of an email sent by you over the signature of Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.
As you might be aware, I am the plaintiff in a personal case currently on appeal in our state appellate court regarding the topic of openly carrying a firearm while in possession of a valid state “PERMIT TO CARRY PISTOLS AND REVOLVERS”.
I am providing a copy of this email to my personal attorney and assure you that this correspondence has been sent in my capacity as an active member of the media.
To say the least, I am disappointed in the response provided to this citizen by the Attorney General.
For the Attorney General of Connecticut or a member of his staff to advocate the existence and/or enforcement of a law that is ambiguous and confusing to current valid pistol permit holders leaving them at risk of arrest, imprisonment or revocation for legal activity is at best a sad day in Connecticut.
During the past two legislative sessions, attempts have been made to have the Legislature amend the statutes to mandate concealment by valid permit holders has failed. The most recent attempt was submitted by the Commissioner of Public Safety in a letter dated February 28, 2009 where he clearly states that the law is “ambiguous”.
Mr. Blumenthal once enjoyed my respect and admiration as a defender of the law and rights of citizens. Sadly after witnessing his position on this topic, that is no longer the case.
In an attempt to obtain the Attorney General’s opinion and position on this topic, I request if possible, a sit down interview with Mr. Blumenthal or prior notice of all planned news conferences like those sent to other members of the media.
If Mr. Blumenthal does not have a schedule of open news conferences, I would like a copy of his speaking schedule from this date through the end of 2009.
Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter,
Edward A. Peruta
American News and Information Services Inc.
Rocky Hill, CT. 06067
860-978-5455
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: "Sullivan, Patricia" <Patricia.Sullivan@po.state.ct.us>
To: (Redacted for privacy)
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2009 2:59:36 PM
Subject: FW: Request for clarification.
Reply from Attorney General Richard Blumenthal
Dear Mr. (Redacted for Privacy):
Pending litigation does not prohibit any person -- including a legislator -- from seeking legislation to clarify an issue. You are correct that the Department of Public Safety does not establish the law on carrying weapons, but the Department must enforce the law to the best of its ability. Indeed, whether a gun carried in plain sight constitutes a criminal violation may depend on the circumstances existing in that situation. Although you are seeking clarity on this issue, the legality of how a permittee carries a firearm will on all likelihood require a factual assessment by law enforcement officials.
I wish I could be more helpful.
Many thanks, and warmest regards.
Sincerely,
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL