Open Carry Field Report W/E 5/02/10

[Rich B]

imported post

Just a Guy wrote:

Rich -

If I may play the devil's advocate... Are you eqully incensed at the prohibition from carrying in the state capitol? The post office? The local elementary school? In the court room? Are there any reasonable limitations on where one can and can not carry?

I'm not trying to be a wiseass. I'm just wondering if you think the right to carry (openly or concealed) should be absolute.

First, I wouldn't use the word 'incensed'. Perturbed perhaps.

I do believe there are some reasonable limitations on where we can carry. For instance the court room in your example I understand because it is locked down and has metal detectors and armed marshals on guard. And that I guess is where I break it down. Any place that is willing to deploy adequate armed security is a reasonable place to request that I don't carry.

That means that from your example, I am ok with the capitol building and the court house.

A post office? A school? Of course you should be able to carry in both. Otherwise they are just another 'gun free' zone ripe for the scum of society to make victims of free people.

 

[Rich B]

imported post

ccwinstructor wrote:

The prohibitions on freedom of association on private property are an affront to the Constitution.  Stupid discrimination by business owners has its own disincentives, but to say that a person must accept all clients is a violation of the private property owner's rights.  Racial discrimination in commercial ventures was only able to prosper because of backing by the government in law.  Business did not want to put up with all the hassle that racial discrimination caused.

As I have already indicated in this thread. No one is advocating forcing a business owner to accept carry (in any form) on their property. However since we have a stupid law that specifically enables a business owner to discriminate against a gun owner's civil rights, we are put at a disadvantage. That law has no merit and should not stand up to scrutiny in my opinion.

Consider the same law:
"Any business owner has the right to exclude someone based on race, color, gender or sexuality. If that patron does not leave immediately, they will arrested for trespassing."

That is what this law does. It spits in the face of a constitutional right. Also, I take a bit of issue (although I know it is just semantics) but calling a business opened to the public 'private property' and then giving that person the same rights as a real private property owner to kick anyone off their land is a bit too generalized isn't it? I don't encourage people to come in and walk around my house. I don't charge them money to do so. The two things are markedly different.

 

[atrule]

imported post

I open carried taking a walk by my house into Cheshire. It was a 3 mile walk or so. I have OCed other, much more public places, this Spring. Apparently, someone called the police. I got stopped coming back about a 100 yards short of the Wallingford boarder. Over all it was a positive experience for me, I presume the police, and apparently the neighbors, who came out and asked why I was stopped, and I explained while the officers called their HQ to see how to proceed.

I probably wasn't as prepared as I should have been. I offered up front that OC was legal in Connecticut. Officer Ecke asked why I was doing it. I was a little short of words, but between the both of us, it was something like this is not illegal, and I really don't want to disturb people anyway, but I am asserting my rights, because “A right not exercised is a right lost”. (BTW, I do see OC as a chore that needs to be done. Few others are doing it, therefore it is more incumbent on me to OC). He said that in the 19 years this is the first time he saw someone OC.

I said I probably should have a hand out (I know this, I think I will get on it now) so it can help explain what I am doing better and the laws better. I mentioned the Hartford Courant article, CCDL.us and Goldberg and Supreme Court cases coming down the pike.

In the end, I gave him my phone number and we will probably chat about it. He and the other police officer were certainly interested. He did ask that I cover my sidearm with my shirt tail. I was happy to do so. I completed what I set out to do, which was show the safety and peace of OC. Doing what he requested for his own conscience of for now so he can have opportunity of finding out the facts I believe gained a little more respect.

There was a neighbor, who sees me walking by all the time who inquired what was going on. He was a gun owner too. He was sort of rallying me on.

That was my excitement for today.

 

[ccwinstructor]

imported post

Good report.

You are doing very effective activism. Thanks for the effort and the clear thinking.

 

[Lenny Benedetto]

imported post

Andy good job on remaining calm and letting the officer know that you were not breaking the law. Since you have his name, I would request a meeting with him to show him all of the literature on OC.
Perhaps a meeting with him and his chief.

I would not have covered my gun with my shirt...but then that is just me. "Rebel WITH a cause" LOL!!