OC in East Hartford

[Edward Peruta]

imported post

FIVE SIMPLE QUESTIONS

Can a black man be arrested and charged with Breach of Peace or Disorderly Conductfor intentionally choosing to take a walk ina white neighborhood if it causesinconvenience, annoyance or alarm to the white residents who live in the area?

Can a breast feeding mother be arrested and charged with Breach of Peaceor disorderly conduct if she intentionally breast feeds her child in a restaurant or on a bus causinginconvenience, annoyance or alarm to those around her?

Can anyone who intentionally walks up and down a sidewalk late at night be charged with Breach of Peace or Disorderly Conduct if doing socauses othersto be inconvenienced, annoyed oralarmed?

Can a homeless person who hasn't taken a bath for several months be arrested and charged with Breach of Peace or Disorderly Conduct if they sit near a person at a lunch counter causinginconvenience, annoyance or alarm?

Can a one or more members of the Klu Klux Klan in possession of a parade permit walking down the middle of a street be arrested and charged with Breach of Peace or Disorderly Conduct if doing so causes inconvenience, annoyance or alarm to other members of the public?

The list is endless?

But rest assured, the state would have no problem answering these5 questions, but will do everything in their power not to answer any questions pertaining to the right to carry pistols and revolvers OPENLY.

 

[ESCH]

imported post

For arguements sake, I was informed today by a member of one of our police departments that an exposed firearm even with a permitqualifies asthreatening behavior. Thus you would be recklessly alarming (part 1) with threatening behavior (part 2) qualifying for breach of peace. If someone were to be alarmed and feel threatened by a scary gun.

He assures me he has made many BOP arrests. :quirky

 

[Edward Peruta]

imported post

Please post the officers name or at least the Department he works for so that they may be sent the Federal Case out of New Mexico and have an equal oppurtunity to train their officers.

 

[ESCH]

imported post

I would if he werekind enough to give me his name and department name. Doubt that will happen though. He seem pretty happy with charging people with BOP.

I would also take the time to pullthe cases he claims to have charged people with. Doubt I will find them either though.

 

[ESCH]

imported post

I sent him this email,

Lets see if I get a response:

I was discussing open carry with you on the forum today 10/16/09. You referenced how Breach of Peace charges apply to situations in the posts made regarding legally open carried firearms by permitted individuals. You also claim to have made many BOP arrests.

If you would be willing to, I would like to know which department you work for and your name so I can contact the department and find out what their policies are regarding Breach of Peace with regards to legally open carried permittedfirearms. It would be of great educational value and be a great addition to my research on the topic. I would also be interested in the cases in whichyou claim to have arrested people for BOP in this manner. That is why I ask for your name.

Any info would be appreciated.

Thanks

Anyone want to place wagers on wether or not I get a response?

 

[Edward Peruta]

imported post

Sending the officer an email is a waste of time.

He won't tell you his name or his department because he knows he is wrong and afraid of the repercussionsfor making the statements he has made.

And you can send him my comments.

 

[ESCH]

imported post

I got a polite response about there really is no department policy and he really hasn't arrested anyone for OC BOP.

Why do people insist on spreading rumours and lies? Why would you come on Gun forums and be this way? Why would you not help promote the truth and help protect citizens rights?

I just don't get it.

 

[Lenny Benedetto]

imported post

I read his reply on the other forum, I bet he aint even a cop!!!

 

[Deuce1911]

imported post

Hello all. I have family in East Hartford and often visit them. Until recently i was unaware of the status of CT on OC. Now that i know there is no law against it, you can be sure i will be OCing on my next visit! If Massad Ayoob can do it then by god i will as well.

 

[Lenny Benedetto]

imported post

Deuce1911 wrote:

Hello all. I have family in East Hartford and often visit them. Until recently i was unaware of the status of CT on OC. Now that i know there is no law against it, you can be sure i will be OCing on my next visit! If Massad Ayoob can do it then by god i will as well.

As long as you have a Ct carry permit, you should be good to go. Just remember that the LEO's dont all know...LOL!!!

 

[fatcat46]

imported post

OK, I gave it some thought and decided to fire off another email to the Deputy Chief. I have included it below. YES, I plagiarized some of your responses as I am not a great thinker of words. SO thanks for the help.

Deputy Chief Thurnauer

Hello again!

I hate to bother you again but after our last conversation I decided to look into the definition of "Breach of Peace". This is what I found:

"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."

After reading this I am having a hard time understanding how a "Breach of Peace" charge would apply to someone legally open carrying a firearm they are licensed for. There is no intent to cause alarm. There is no threatening. No fighting, no assault, no posting of abusive material, no obscene gestures, and not creating an offensive condition of which one is licensed to do so. The state statute does not seem to apply to the scenario I propose of going about my business in a lawful manner even if someone doesn't like it.

I don't see how somebody complaining, they saw my weapon, fits into the Breach of Peace definition. I tried to think of other situations to compare with and I come up with are these:

What if someone didn't like my tattoos and were offended? Would that be "Breach of Peace?" I don't think so.

What if someone didn't like the color of car I drive and thought it was offensive? Would that be Breach of Peace? Probably not.

Please don't take any of this as being argumentative. As a layman I am just trying to understand all of this so I don't end up in jail

 

[Lenny Benedetto]

imported post

That letter sounds good, It would be nice to get a reply from it however I really dont think that he will. You have pointed out to him that the charge of BOP is not acceptable and with that I bet his tongue (or typing fingers) will be tied.

 

[GoldCoaster]

imported post

Exactly, he will do one of a few things.

1. Respond back that he has already answered your questions and any further questioning should be directed at the city attorney (cop-out).

2. Respond back that technically what you say is correct but his officers are good men and women and use good judgment and if they say you are causing alarm then you will be arrested for BOP.

3. Say "Wow, you have opened up my eyes to the law, I will address the rank and file on Monday during roll call and make sure they know not to harass a lawfully carrying member of the public solely because they are carrying openly.

(I wouldn't hold my breath on waiting for 3)

Sooner or later the illustrious Mr Blumenthal IS going to have to answer once and for all and his answer is going to have to be based on law. The 2nd circuit court of appeals is going to give him some case law to chew on, and if he decides to politic it versus apply the letter of the law then he needs to get Glenn Beck-ed on a public forum and simply asked over and over WHAT LAW.

 

[Lon]

imported post

ESCH wrote:

I got a polite response about there really is no department policy and he really hasn't arrested anyone for OC BOP. 

Why do people insist on spreading rumours and lies? Why would you come on Gun forums and be this way? Why would you not help promote the truth and help protect citizens rights?

I just don't get it.

I still think he is the alter ego for another anti-OC poster on the forum. I could be wrong, though.

 

[Lenny Benedetto]

imported post

Lon wrote:

ESCH wrote:

I got a polite response about there really is no department policy and he really hasn't arrested anyone for OC BOP.

Why do people insist on spreading rumours and lies? Why would you come on Gun forums and be this way? Why would you not help promote the truth and help protect citizens rights?

I just don't get it.

I still think he is the alter ego for another anti-OC poster on the forum. I could be wrong, though.

Ya it could be that MORON on there...s----h

 

[fatcat46]

imported post

Lenny Benedetto wrote:

That letter sounds good, It would be nice to get a reply from it however I really dont think that he will. You have pointed out to him that the charge of BOP is not acceptable and with that I bet his tongue (or typing fingers) will be tied.

SURPRISE!!!! I did get a response.

"Fran, I think Disorderly Conduct fits this situation better. And remember, the police don't determine guilt they simply base an arrest on probable cause. Could a reasonable person believe a crime has been committed is their standard. The court will then allow each party to argue their case.

Unfortunately, built into this system is the fact that until someone is arrested we often don't get guidance as to what is a good arrest situation."

Now I need to see what the Disorderly conduct says. I can tell I am in an uphill battle, although a friendly one!

 

[Lenny Benedetto]

imported post

fatcat46 wrote:

Lenny Benedetto wrote:

That letter sounds good, It would be nice to get a reply from it however I really dont think that he will. You have pointed out to him that the charge of BOP is not acceptable and with that I bet his tongue (or typing fingers) will be tied.

SURPRISE!!!! I did get a response.

"Fran, I think Disorderly Conduct fits this situation better. And remember, the police don't determine guilt they simply base an arrest on probable cause. Could a reasonable person believe a crime has been committed is their standard. The court will then allow each party to argue their case.

Unfortunately, built into this system is the fact that until someone is arrested we often don't get guidance as to what is a good arrest situation."

Now I need to see what the Disorderly conduct says. I can tell I am in an uphill battle, although a friendly one!

Open dialogue with law enforcement is the key...keep the lines of communication open and continue to ask questions.

I am looking forward to your next question and his response!!!

 

[gluegun]

imported post

Sec. 53a-182. Disorderly conduct: Class C misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct 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; or (2) by offensive or disorderly conduct, annoys or interferes with another person; or (3) makes unreasonable noise; or (4) without lawful authority, disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons; or (5) obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or (6) congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a reasonable official request or order to disperse; or (7) commits simple trespass, as provided in section 53a-110a, and observes, in other than a casual or cursory manner, another person (A) without the knowledge or consent of such other person, (B) while such other person is inside a dwelling, as defined in section 53a-100, and not in plain view, and (C) under circumstances where such other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

(b) Disorderly conduct is a class C misdemeanor.

Same qualifying phrase as Breach of Peace. (a)(2) seems to be the only section that *MIGHT* apply. However, it "applies" in the same way Breach of Peace does, meaning it doesn't apply at all.

 

[fatcat46]

imported post

Well this doesn't seem to fit either!!

Sec. 53a-182. Disorderly conduct: Class C misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct 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; or (2) by offensive or disorderly conduct, annoys or interferes with another person; or (3) makes unreasonable noise; or (4) without lawful authority, disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons; or (5) obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or (6) congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a reasonable official request or order to disperse; or (7) commits simple trespass, as provided in section 53a-110a, and observes, in other than a casual or cursory manner, another person (A) without the knowledge or consent of such other person, (B) while such other person is inside a dwelling, as defined in section 53a-100, and not in plain view, and (C) under circumstances where such other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.


Now I don't know what to do. I don't want him to think I am badgering him! Maybe I'll wait a day or two and ask him to explain how he thinks this fits the situation. ugh!

 

[gluegun]

imported post

Also this juicy tidbit from the Court of Appeals:
Subdiv. (1) cited. 8 CA 153; Id., 517; 36 CA 625; judgment reversed, see 237 C. 613. Subdiv. (2) cited. 40 CA 643. Cited. 46 CA 661. Subdiv. (1) cited. Id. Subdiv. (2): Held unconstitutional on its face where conduct occurred prior to judicial gloss placed on statute. Id. Subdiv. (2) should be read and applied as follows: A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with the predominant intent previously defined or with reckless disregard for the risks of his or her conduct, the person, by conduct that is grossly offensive under contemporary community standards to a person who actually overhears it or sees it, disturbs or impedes the lawful activity of another person. 83 CA 724. There was sufficient evidence presented by the state and the court reasonably could have inferred on the basis of the size of defendants' belongings and their position on the sidewalk that defendants intended to cause inconvenience, annoyance and alarm and did obstruct sidewalk. 108 CA 146.

Expression of political views found not to constitute disorderly conduct. 33 CS 93. Subdiv. (2): Failure of charge to limit application of section to "fighting words" deprived defendant of freedom of speech constitutional guarantee. 34 CS 689.

Run that one by him and see what he says.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/chap952.htm#Sec53a-182.htm