With Regards to Rights

[emsjeep]

Again, congratulations with getting on track with the forum. That is what we are working on and fighting against.



It was FUD. There was no reason to post it, and it is very likely to have people interpret it in such a way that they will be fearful of activities that are entirely legal.

I'll remove it if it will keep you on track...

The point remains however, that you cannot in any responsible way claim that even though the activity is legal that the practitioners don't run a measurable risk of arrest or detention WHICH THERE ARE NO LEGAL PROTECTIONS AGAINST OR PRECEDENTIAL REMEDIES FOR.

ETA: Why do you feel the need to characterize everything as if everyone else is somehow a moron? I'm now just getting on board? You've been bitching about this for weeks, you make countless posts about how the detentions and arrests are "illegal" when in point of fact, they weren't or have yet to be proven to have been. You may realize what I characterized above but you refuse to highlight the risks, irresponsibly, to other people interested in participating in the activity. The mischaracterizations are broad and glaring, the representations of the law and the significance of the evidence is undeniable. Own up to it.

 

[Rich B]

The point remains however, that you cannot in any responsible way claim that even though the activity is legal that the practitioners don't run a measurable risk of arrest or detention WHICH THERE ARE NO LEGAL PROTECTIONS AGAINST OR PRECEDENTIAL REMEDIES FOR.

For the last time, this claim has not been made, quite the contrary in fact.

 

[emsjeep]

For the last time, this claim has not been made, quite the contrary in fact.

Let the record reflect that Rich assents that no legal precedent exists that would provide for classification of the aforementioned situations as either "illegal" or "unlawful," based on the current state of the law, and that protections against arrest/detention for charges brought incident to OC are not specifically afforded by any point of law.

 

[k2zr2]

Let the record reflect that if your opinion differs from Rich B you are going to get an itemized list explaining why you are wrong.

emsjeep I agree with all your points thus far. You are more articulate than I am however what you say makes sense. I may not be able to get my point across to you Rich B (because you won't listen) but I am far from a troll.

It is not illegal for the LEO's to detain you and ask you questions. There is nothing "unlawful" about asking you questions. They ask for your ID because they got a call from a concerned citizen and they are going to check your background. There is nothing wrong with them asking for your ID. When you say "But I'm not driving" is completely irrelevant to the LEO's request to see your ID. Providing it under "Duress" is also irrelevant, you still handed him your ID. If you truly stood up to what you believed in, don't hand him your ID. When you say that you walk around New Haven and they seem to be open carry friendly, this is great for you. However, some other person may read this, practice this, and get hassled. It is statements like this that we want to inform the public before they decide to open carry or not.

You are the only one spreading the FUD crap. Did you read that wiki article? And I quote, "FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence public perception by disseminating negative and dubious/false information designed to undermine the credibility of their beliefs." What do you think you are doing by open carrying? You are trying to influence public perception that open carry is legal. There is no law that says you may openly carry a handgun. Therefore you are spreading FUD, albeit on the interwebz or in real life.

We don't need to provide you links to the topics we are bringing to the table, we are reading the same posts you are. We are just trying to let everyone know that if you open carry, there is a chance your day will be hassled. We never said that yours and other's arrests are justified, we are simply saying that you are portraying that open carry is ok in this state. While the law may be vague to you, to others it makes sense.

Its these encounters that I find counter productive to your cause.

 

[emsjeep]

Let the record reflect that if your opinion differs from Rich B you are going to get an itemized list explaining why you are wrong.

emsjeep I agree with all your points thus far. You are more articulate than I am however what you say makes sense. I may not be able to get my point across to you Rich B (because you won't listen) but I am far from a troll.

It is not illegal for the LEO's to detain you and ask you questions. There is nothing "unlawful" about asking you questions. They ask for your ID because they got a call from a concerned citizen and they are going to check your background. There is nothing wrong with them asking for your ID. When you say "But I'm not driving" is completely irrelevant to the LEO's request to see your ID. Providing it under "Duress" is also irrelevant, you still handed him your ID. If you truly stood up to what you believed in, don't hand him your ID. When you say that you walk around New Haven and they seem to be open carry friendly, this is great for you. However, some other person may read this, practice this, and get hassled. It is statements like this that we want to inform the public before they decide to open carry or not.

You are the only one spreading the FUD crap. Did you read that wiki article? And I quote, "FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence public perception by disseminating negative and dubious/false information designed to undermine the credibility of their beliefs." What do you think you are doing by open carrying? You are trying to influence public perception that open carry is legal. There is no law that says you may openly carry a handgun. Therefore you are spreading FUD, albeit on the interwebz or in real life.

We don't need to provide you links to the topics we are bringing to the table, we are reading the same posts you are. We are just trying to let everyone know that if you open carry, there is a chance your day will be hassled. We never said that yours and other's arrests are justified, we are simply saying that you are portraying that open carry is ok in this state. While the law may be vague to you, to others it makes sense.

Its these encounters that I find counter productive to your cause.

I'm not convinced that we agree. I also think you are confusing two issues here. Let me roll this into one sentence: If one decides to open carry, one should be aware that doing so could have consequences, including arrest or detention, from which you are not specifically protected by any extant legal precedent.

I have NO issue with open carry personally. I have OC'd, I will again. Open carry is, to the best of my knowledge, a legal activity under Connecticut criminal and licensing statutes.

Typically the law, at least statutory law, doesn't approve of behaviors, it serves to list what behaviors are illegal. The best you can do is prove that open carry, in and of itself is not made illegal by statute or law. As far as I can tell, it is not. . . and I have done as much research as I think I possibly can.

I am of the belief that our biggest opponents are and have been aware of open carry and have always meant to restrict not only OC, but CC and ownership on whole. The public image is a balance, on one side is the "frightened public" that the manipulators who always had it out for us utilize to push unconstitutional legislation, the other side is normalization. Normalization works not just by seeing first hand, but in their efforts to undermine us the opposition forces us into the media, and the people not so easily swayed by fear pushing politicians and Brady affiliates benefit from the publicity in the same way as if they had seen an OC'er on the street.

We will always have enemies in the media and in government, but a silent minority is easily disposed of. . . publicity only makes our numbers grow, and the hope is that our numbers will grow faster than theirs, if not, at least we went down fighting.

 

[Rich B]

Let the record reflect that if your opinion differs from Rich B you are going to get an itemized list explaining why you are wrong.

If you had the idea that this was a forum where you could post whatever misinformation you want, you were wrong.

It is not illegal for the LEO's to detain you and ask you questions. There is nothing "unlawful" about asking you questions.

There is if they have no RAS. The simple and lone act of open carry does not generate this RAS.

They ask for your ID because they got a call from a concerned citizen and they are going to check your background. There is nothing wrong with them asking for your ID.

There absolutely is. This has been settled. Terry v Ohio and St. John v. McColley, et al are both evidence of this.

When you say "But I'm not driving" is completely irrelevant to the LEO's request to see your ID.

False. You are under no requirement to furnish your license to drive a vehicle unless you are driving a vehicle.

Providing it under "Duress" is also irrelevant, you still handed him your ID. If you truly stood up to what you believed in, don't hand him your ID.

Then you clearly don't understand anything about the 4th amendment. Searching and seizing an ID is definitely not lawful without RAS.

When you say that you walk around New Haven and they seem to be open carry friendly, this is great for you. However, some other person may read this, practice this, and get hassled. It is statements like this that we want to inform the public before they decide to open carry or not.

Which is what I do here. You are stating 'facts' that don't exist.

You are the only one spreading the FUD crap.

Uh no.

You are trying to influence public perception that open carry is legal.

Which it is, so what is the problem?

There is no law that says you may openly carry a handgun.

Nor would there need to be. You are arguing silly, silly logic that shows you don't understand even the basics of our legal system.

We don't have laws to allow things. We have laws to forbid them. In the absence of all laws, everything would be legal, not illegal. You are embarrassing yourself here.

We don't need to provide you links to the topics we are bringing to the table

Actually you do. It is called rule #5 of the forum.

We are just trying to let everyone know that if you open carry, there is a chance your day will be hassled.

Which I do all the time. Hell, I even created a website to let people know it. What have you done to inform people so far besides spreading misinformation on the internet?

We never said that yours and other's arrests are justified

Actually you did.

Remember? This is your quote:

You are trying to influence public perception that open carry is legal.

 

[Rich B]

I'm not convinced that we agree. I also think you are confusing two issues here. Let me roll this into one sentence: If one decides to open carry, one should be aware that doing so could have consequences, including arrest or detention, from which you are not specifically protected by any extant legal precedent.

I have NO issue with open carry personally. I have OC'd, I will again. Open carry is, to the best of my knowledge, a legal activity under Connecticut criminal and licensing statutes.

Typically the law, at least statutory law, doesn't approve of behaviors, it serves to list what behaviors are illegal. The best you can do is prove that open carry, in and of itself is not made illegal by statute or law. As far as I can tell, it is not. . . and I have done as much research as I think I possibly can.

I am of the belief that our biggest opponents are and have been aware of open carry and have always meant to restrict not only OC, but CC and ownership on whole. The public image is a balance, on one side is the "frightened public" that the manipulators who always had it out for us utilize to push unconstitutional legislation, the other side is normalization. Normalization works not just by seeing first hand, but in their efforts to undermine us the opposition forces us into the media, and the people not so easily swayed by fear pushing politicians and Brady affiliates benefit from the publicity in the same way as if they had seen an OC'er on the street.

We will always have enemies in the media and in government, but a silent minority is easily disposed of. . . publicity only makes our numbers grow, and the hope is that our numbers will grow faster than theirs, if not, at least we went down fighting.

To be fair, although I don't agree with your misconceptions that you expressed elsewhere in this and other threads, I cannot find a single thing I disagree with in this post.

 

[k2zr2]

I'm not convinced that we agree. I also think you are confusing two issues here. Let me roll this into one sentence: If one decides to open carry, one should be aware that doing so could have consequences, including arrest or detention, from which you are not specifically protected by any extant legal precedent.

I have NO issue with open carry personally. I have OC'd, I will again. Open carry is, to the best of my knowledge, a legal activity under Connecticut criminal and licensing statutes.

Typically the law, at least statutory law, doesn't approve of behaviors, it serves to list what behaviors are illegal. The best you can do is prove that open carry, in and of itself is not made illegal by statute or law. As far as I can tell, it is not. . . and I have done as much research as I think I possibly can.

I am of the belief that our biggest opponents are and have been aware of open carry and have always meant to restrict not only OC, but CC and ownership on whole. The public image is a balance, on one side is the "frightened public" that the manipulators who always had it out for us utilize to push unconstitutional legislation, the other side is normalization. Normalization works not just by seeing first hand, but in their efforts to undermine us the opposition forces us into the media, and the people not so easily swayed by fear pushing politicians and Brady affiliates benefit from the publicity in the same way as if they had seen an OC'er on the street.

We will always have enemies in the media and in government, but a silent minority is easily disposed of. . . publicity only makes our numbers grow, and the hope is that our numbers will grow faster than theirs, if not, at least we went down fighting.

Honestly I could not have put it better than you did in your one sentence. However I do feel that the writings of Rich B are misleading. His accusations that I do NOT know what I am talking about are uncalled for. I have done my homework on the situation, and I DO understand the fundamentals of our Judicial System. In order to protect my rights I avoid deliberate confrontations with the authorities by concealing my weapon at all times.

To each his own, carry however you would like. Don't complain that you are being harassed for carrying openly. Don't portray that there will be legal protection to those who follow your beliefs.

 

[Rich B]

I DO understand the fundamentals of our Judicial System.

But you think that there needs to be a separate law to make open carry legal?

Don't complain that you are being harassed for carrying openly.

So people should not complain when they are harassed/detained/arrested for things that are legal? You have a scary way of thinking.

I would hate to see where any other civil rights would be right now if everyone shared your thoughts.

 

[k2zr2]

But you think that there needs to be a separate law to make open carry legal?



So people should not complain when they are harassed/detained/arrested for things that are legal? You have a scary way of thinking.

I would hate to see where any other civil rights would be right now if everyone shared your thoughts.

Don't tell me what I think. I never said there should be separate law regarding open carry. I tried to inform you that laws are open to interpretation, however you dismissed me. You being harassed, Detained, or arrested is because YOU choose to push the envelope and your interpretation of the law.

 

[Rich B]

I never said there should be separate law regarding open carry.

Actually you did, and two different people pointed how wrong you are. No law is needed to make open carry legal. Open carry is already legal.

you dismissed me.

And I corrected you. That is what I do when you are wrong.

You being harassed, Detained, or arrested is because YOU choose to push the envelope and your interpretation of the law.

That comment bears so much ignorance and arrogance that I prefer not to think about it.

I will add however that judges, states attorneys, police and the DPS itself agrees with 'my interpretation of the law'.

I have yet to find a single credible individual who agrees with yours, including the same guy who was arguing against me about other topics and who you claim to be arguing with.

 

[emsjeep]

Actually you did, and two different people pointed how wrong you are. No law is needed to make open carry legal. Open carry is already legal.



And I corrected you. That is what I do when you are wrong.



That comment bears so much ignorance and arrogance that I prefer not to think about it.

I will add however that judges, states attorneys, police and the DPS itself agrees with 'my interpretation of the law'.

I have yet to find a single credible individual who agrees with yours, including the same guy who was arguing against me about other topics and who you claim to be arguing with.

It is possible that the state agreed that DC/BOP is inappropriate on your facts, it is equally possible that they decline to proceed with cases resulting from arrests like yours because they KNOW that it will result in legal precedent that is not favorable to their desire to continue arresting people nearly at will...not to say anything of the potential civil consequences of dragging a ticked off citizen through the criminal justice system.

 

[emsjeep]

Don't tell me what I think. I never said there should be separate law regarding open carry. I tried to inform you that laws are open to interpretation, however you dismissed me. You being harassed, Detained, or arrested is because YOU choose to push the envelope and your interpretation of the law.

The law provides no specific protection from detention or arrest for any number of BS charges that can flow from an OC encounter. While in theory, OC should not be RAS of anything, in practice, police are getting away with detentions. . . to stop that you need either a well formulated civil suit or you need an arrest that makes its way through the system to a published judicial opinion stating that it isn't. The most likely candidate for the criminal precedent is someone who is stopped and detained for the open display, is searched and some contraband is found or he turns out not to have a permit. That would more or less force a prosecution and an assessment of the initiating RAS as the defendant's attorneys attempt to suppress the evidence.

 

[Guntechie]

The law provides no specific protection from detention or arrest for any number of BS charges that can flow from an OC encounter. While in theory, OC should not be RAS of anything, in practice, police are getting away with detentions. . . to stop that you need either a well formulated civil suit or you need an arrest that makes its way through the system to a published judicial opinion stating that it isn't. The most likely candidate for the criminal precedent is someone who is stopped and detained for the open display, is searched and some contraband is found or he turns out not to have a permit. That would more or less force a prosecution and an assessment of the initiating RAS as the defendant's attorneys attempt to suppress the evidence.

I'll take this one step further:

I keep seeing that being stopped or detained for OC is "Illegal" In fact it is not "illegal". If I am wrong please point out the statute that MAKES it illegal. (Unconstitutional maybe, but that does not provide for any CRIMINAL penalty) As Rich has said many times, the law tells you what you CAN'T do, and I have found no statutory prohibition against police detaining or even arresting you and charging you with something like BOP for whatever they want, and leave it for a judge to sort out. "Administrative" penalties may be put in place by the individual PD, but that is an employment issue.

The second problem with these statements is it represents that some tort has been comitted if you are detained without RAS. In fact I know of no case where a civil remedy has been handed out by a judge or jury based on a stop/detention without RAS.

The third problem is that Terry was a criminal matter. The parallel is Police stop someone without RAS for OC. They search him incident to the stop. They find cocaine, and charge him with posession or posession with intent. The judge finds that there was no RAS for the stop, therefore, in the eyes of the criminal court the stop never occurred, therefore they cannot use the cocaine as evidence of a crime. While the DA may get pissed that the cops screwed up and made a bad stop, there is afaik NO civil remedy available to the defendant, and NO criminal charge that can be applied against the cop.


Therefore, while I do understand that a stop for OC MAY be an infringement on your rights, it has thus far not been legislated or adjudicated as to provide for a criminal or civil penalty, and is therefore not "illegal"... just a waste of everyone's time. I also think on the civil side that you'd have a hell of a time proving some sort of monetary damage as a result of being asked for your license or permit.

This is not a statement on "The way things ought to be" just a statement on "What is".

 

[Rich B]

Therefore, while I do understand that a stop for OC MAY be an infringement on your rights, it has thus far not been legislated or adjudicated as to provide for a criminal or civil penalty, and is therefore not "illegal"... just a waste of everyone's time. I also think on the civil side that you'd have a hell of a time proving some sort of monetary damage as a result of being asked for your license or permit.

http://volokh.com/2009/10/01/police...simply-because-hes-openly-carrying-a-handgun/


You just cannot escape the pesky constitution.

 

[Guntechie]

http://volokh.com/2009/10/01/police...simply-because-hes-openly-carrying-a-handgun/


You just cannot escape the pesky constitution.

Good Cite, Rich.
A step in the right direction (Didn't know it was out there)

I didn't see the amount awarded (looks like it was settled), but I also noticed the judge threw out the battery and false arrest claim, and awarded only on the 4A and NM Const. violations.

I'll defer to the actual lawyers here for the next point though:

Federal DC Rulings in New Mexico are not binding precedent here in CT, nor are 10th circuit rulings. That is if something like that were to happen here, an attorney could argue rulings/opinions from those cases (particularly the 10th circuit ruling), but the judge is not bound by them as "precedent", and could reject them.

To become legal precedent in CT there would have to be a Ruling in CT Supreme Court, US 1st Circuit, US Federal Circuit or SCOTUS....



Any of you lawyers know if I am correct?

 

[Rich B]

Good Cite, Rich.
A step in the right direction (Didn't know it was out there)

I didn't see the amount awarded (looks like it was settled), but I also noticed the judge threw out the battery and false arrest claim, and awarded only on the 4A and NM Const. violations.

I'll defer to the actual lawyers here for the next point though:

Federal DC Rulings in New Mexico are not binding precedent here in CT, nor are 10th circuit rulings. That is if something like that were to happen here, an attorney could argue rulings/opinions from those cases (particularly the 10th circuit ruling), but the judge is not bound by them as "precedent", and could reject them.

To become legal precedent in CT there would have to be a Ruling in CT Supreme Court, US 1st Circuit, US Federal Circuit or SCOTUS....



Any of you lawyers know if I am correct?

I don't know of anyone here arguing that there is legal precedent specifically in CT. However, the constitution works the same in all the states, and we can expect a similar ruling across the country when the need presents itself.

All this navel gazing isn't helping anyone.

 

[emsjeep]

As to jurisdictional issues, no court in New Mexico is mandatory authority to any court in CT. It would have to go the the US Supreme Court to be mandatory authority, nevertheless, courts do rely on each others' decisions and interpretations. In the absence of mandatory authority, persuasive authority is helpful and fair game to cite, but they are not bound to follow it or agree.

 

[Guntechie]

I don't know of anyone here arguing that there is legal precedent specifically in CT. However, the constitution works the same in all the states, and we can expect a similar ruling across the country when the need presents itself.

All this navel gazing isn't helping anyone.

Uhhh... Navel gazing? Some people would do well to be a little more introspective at times.

You can't even take a compliment and a follow up question without being dismissive, and rejecting anyone's thought/opinion/research but yours unless they agree with you, and at the same time you are showing your ignorance of how our legal system works.

I am here to partake in a conversation, learn something and offer what I know, not be dismissed and insulted, but I guess I should not have expected any more...

:banghead:

 

[Rich B]

not be dismissed and insulted, but I guess I should not have expected any more...

Ahh the drama...