School zones

[BFDMikeCT]

Is there anyone who would like to help donate to me paying the lawyer to give us an answer on this?

 

[davidmcbeth]

How do we get a definitive answer on it? A lawyer?

A definitive answer? Humm.

You could contact your legislator and ask him to pose a query to the Legistative Research Branch ... they may produce a non-binding report.

Also see...

Sec. 53a-217a. Criminally negligent storage of a firearm: Class D felony. (a) A person is guilty of criminally negligent storage of a firearm when he violates the provisions of section 29-37i and a minor obtains the firearm and causes the injury or death of himself or any other person. For the purposes of this section, "minor" means any person under the age of sixteen years.

(b) The provisions of this section shall not apply if the minor obtains the firearm as a result of an unlawful entry to any premises by any person.

(c) Criminally negligent storage of a firearm is a class D felony.



and



Sec. 29-37i. (Formerly Sec. 29-37c). Responsibilities re storage of loaded firearms with respect to minors. No person shall store or keep any loaded firearm on any premises under his control if he knows or reasonably should know that a minor is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the parent or guardian of the minor unless such person (1) keeps the firearm in a securely locked box or other container or in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure or (2) carries the firearm on his person or within such close proximity thereto that he can readily retrieve and use it as if he carried it on his person. For the purposes of this section, "minor" means any person under the age of sixteen years.


Recommend google scholar search .... maybe a trunk or glove box is considered "other container"


And also...

Sec. 53-205. Loaded shotguns, rifles and muzzleloaders prohibited in vehicles and snowmobiles. (a) No person shall carry or possess in any vehicle or snowmobile any shotgun, rifle or muzzleloader of any gauge or caliber while such shotgun, rifle or muzzleloader contains in the barrel, chamber or magazine any loaded shell or cartridge capable of being discharged or when such muzzleloader has a percussion cap in place or when the powder pan of a flintlock contains powder. As used in this subsection, "muzzleloader" means a rifle or shotgun that is incapable of firing a self-contained cartridge and must be loaded at the muzzle end.

(b) The enforcement officers of the Department of Environmental Protection are empowered to enforce this section.

(c) The provisions of this section shall not apply to members of the military departments of the government or state while on duty or while traveling to or from assignments, or to enforcement officers, security guards or other persons employed to protect public or private property while in the performance of such duties.

(d) Any person who violates any provision of this section shall be fined not less than ten dollars or more than one hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days or be both fined and imprisoned.

 

[brk913]

IMO intent means nothing. Actual wording means everything. The intent could have been just to condense the statute because it was redundant.

Statute says you must be licensed. Doesn't specify what kind, my assumption would be a pistol permit.

Statute also say privileged, there is nothing that says what gives a person privilege. There is also no definition if privilege, that i can find, in the statutes. My assumption is my permit makes me privileged. I have not been informed of losing this privilege so i am still privileged.

Just my thought. Could be right, could be wrong. I AM NOT A LAWYER AND IF YOU GET ARRESTED FOLLOWING MY ADVICE I HAVE NO MONEY TO HELP PAY LAWYER FEES NOR DOES MY ADVICE SERVE AS LEGAL OPINION.

Actually intent means everything, here is synopsis of the PA which amended the prior statute:

P.A. 98-129 amended Subsec. (a) to add element that the person know that he is not licensed or privileged to possess a weapon on school grounds and deleted former Subsec. (b)(1) that had made provisions of Subsec. (a) inapplicable to the lawful possession of a firearm by a person holding a valid state or local permit to carry such firearm,

I was a permit holder and an instructor when this law changed, I assure you it was talked about at great length as it was moving through the legislature and everyone knew that they were taking permit holders exemption away. I will post the exact wording of the statute prior to this change in my next post.

 

[brk913]

I want to make this clear to anyone who reads it, THIS FIRST PART IS NOT CURRENT LAW, I AM POSTING THE STATUTE AS IT READ PRIOR TO BEING AMMENDED IN 1998.

Section 53a-217b

(a) A person is guilty of possession of a weapon on school grounds when he possesses a firearm or deadly weapon, as defined in section 53a-3, (1) in or on the real property comprising a public or private elementary or secondary school or (2) at a school-sponsored activity as defined in subsection (h) of section 10-233a.

(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to the otherwise lawful possession of a firearm (1) by a person holding a valid state or local permit to carry such firearm, (2) by a person for use in a program approved by school officials in or on such school property, (3) by a person in accordance with an agreement entered into between school officials and such person or such person's employer, (4) by a peace officer, as defined in subdivision (9) of section 53a-3, while engaged in the performance of his official duties, or (5) by a person while traversing such school property for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting or for other lawful purposes, provided such firearm is not loaded and the entry on such school property is permitted by the local or regional board of education. Notwithstanding the provisions of this subsection, a local or regional board of education or the supervisory agent of a private elementary or secondary school may prohibit the possession of firearms by students in or on the real property comprising the public or private elementary or secondary school or at a school-sponsored activity as defined in subsection (h) of section 10-233a.

(c) Possession of a weapon on school grounds is a class D felony.


As you can see permit holders were the first listed exemption, if the intended for permit holders to remain exempt of this law they would not have pulled out that specific wording. Just so everyone is clear, here is the current statute:

Sec. 53a-217b. Possession of a weapon on school grounds: Class D felony. (a) A person is guilty of possession of a weapon on school grounds when, knowing that such person is not licensed or privileged to do so, such person possesses a firearm or deadly weapon, as defined in section 53a-3, (1) in or on the real property comprising a public or private elementary or secondary school, or (2) at a school-sponsored activity as defined in subsection (h) of section 10-233a.

(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to the otherwise lawful possession of a firearm (1) by a person for use in a program approved by school officials in or on such school property or at such school-sponsored activity, (2) by a person in accordance with an agreement entered into between school officials and such person or such person's employer, (3) by a peace officer, as defined in subdivision (9) of section 53a-3, while engaged in the performance of such peace officer's official duties, or (4) by a person while traversing such school property for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting or for other lawful purposes, provided such firearm is not loaded and the entry on such school property is permitted by the local or regional board of education.

(c) Possession of a weapon on school grounds is a class D felony.

 

[brk913]

I then read the Jury Instructions which can be found here: http://www.jud.ct.gov/JI/criminal/part8/8.2-10.htm They say in part that the state must prove,

"Element 3 - With knowledge
The third element is that the defendant knew that (he/she) was not licensed or privileged to do so. The phrase "license or privilege" means having been given permission or right to do so. A person acts "knowingly" with respect to conduct or to a circumstance when (he/she) is aware that (his/her) conduct is of such nature or that such circumstance exists. <See Knowledge, Instruction 2.3-3.>"

When you look up knowledge as defined by our statutes it reads:

"2.3-3 Knowledge -- § 53a-3 (12)

Revised to December 1, 2007

A person acts "knowingly" with respect to conduct or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when (he/she) is aware that (his/her) conduct is of such nature or that such circumstance exists. An act is done (knowingly / with knowledge) if done voluntarily and purposely, and not because of mistake, inadvertence or accident.

Ordinarily, knowledge can be established only through an inference from other proven facts and circumstances. The inference may be drawn if the circumstances are such that a reasonable person of honest intention, in the situation of the defendant, would have concluded that <insert factual statement of the crime charged; for example: "the instrument was forged">. The determinative question is whether the circumstances in the particular case form a basis for a sound inference as to the knowledge of the defendant in the transaction under inquiry."

I would not want a Jury making an inference of what I may have known or should have investigated further before doing it....

 

[brk913]

But in what I read it says licensed to do so and we( permit holders) are licensed to carry. Again it doesn't say that our permit is not adequate just as it doesn't say that you can open carry. However we know that because it doesn't say we can't open carry that we are allowed. There for IMHO it doesn't say our license is not a valid license for school zones so it should be.

Mike, it says licensed or privileged to do so, here is how the state defines that in those above referenced jury instructions: "

The phrase "license or privilege" means having been given permission or right to do so."

Can you show me anywhere in statute where "YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN" permission or the right to do so? Because of this wording the burden is now on you to show you were given such permission.

 

[SPOProds]

BRK, thank you for the history. Having been 11 years old at the time i had no idea of the change. However, i read it as a wording change. They took out the permit holder line and added the "licensed and privileged" line.

Are jury instructions laws? Im not sure but if the jury instructions are wrong, then it would be cause for appeal and so forth. You could also have a judge only trial. Not that it would give you any better chances.

The PA is what makes the difference to me. I concur that a permit doesn't give you license or privilege.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Are jury instructions laws?

No, instructions can be written individually for every case....litigants can argue about the instructions prior to the trial and after the trial if the instructions given were defective or not followed ...

Some instructions are simply copied and pasted and are published .. these instructions have usually gone through several trials and generally can be relied upon to the casual viewer.

They are not law .. they are roadways for people on the jury to reach a proper verdict.

 

[MKEgal]

Sec. 53a-217b. Possession of a weapon on school grounds: Class D felony

So far nobody has trotted out a statute about traversing a "gun-free" school zone, not going on the property. The federal code treats the magical 1000' bubble the same as the school grounds. Some states make a difference in their law.
Here's the applicable bit of federal code: 18USC922(q)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

If I am dropping off my kid at a catholic school two towns away where they go, I have to leave my house unarmed and continue to be unprotected all day...

I recently had to spend an entire day unarmed all because I knew in advance I'd be spending 5 minutes in a GFZ in the middle of the day

Unless there's a CT law saying it's illegal to be in the magical 1000' bubble, federal law says it's legal for people with a license issued by CT.

It still doesn't say that our "licensed permit carry" is not adequate.

Nor does it say that your pistol permit is adequate.

The way US law works, that which is not expressly forbidden is lawful.
Guess that's why there are laws saying murder is wrong.

You can search the CT penal code here:
http://search.cga.state.ct.us/dtsearch_pub_statutes.html

The only reference I found to firearms ("weapons") and schools is the one already given in this thread about possession on the grounds. Can anyone find a statute pertaining to being within the magical 1000' bubble? If not, I think that federal law applies, & anyone with a license may carry on public property within the magical zone as long as they're not on the grounds. Also, federal law says that one may be on the grounds if the firearm is unloaded & in a locked case, or if it is in a locked rack attached to the vehicle. Obviously CT law says differently on that account.

 

[Rich B]

The way US law works, that which is not expressly forbidden is lawful.
Guess that's why there are laws saying murder is wrong.

Except we do have a very specific statute against carrying on the 'real property' of any public or private primary or secondary school.