Clarity on Req't to provide your Permit? Thoughts on drivers license.

[Rich B]

Individuals going out in public open carrying need to be aware that they can be lawfully detained maybe even arrested incident to their lawful behavior even though they will be vindicated in the end. That is the only point I want to make.

That is, OC, but be aware that you may be lawfully detained or arrested even though you will be proven right in the end.

Your point seems unproductive to me. You can be detained or arrested wrongfully anytime, anywhere regardless of whether you are OCing or not.

 

[emsjeep]

Your point seems unproductive to me. You can be detained or arrested wrongfully anytime, anywhere regardless of whether you are OCing or not.

The point is that the presence of a weapon is substance which interacting officers tend to fixate upon. You might have the Police called on you for any number of reasons sure, but merely being present in any particular area rarely results in any sort of protracted detention or arrest absent other circumstances or facts, if even anything beyond an interaction without detention. You can work to normalize weapons all you want but you can't dispute that at this time a weapon isn't treated just the same as a pixie stick by law enforcement and the public in general. You know that a weapon draws attention above and beyond any other common object. People need to be aware of the risks they are engaging in, misrepresenting the reality of the legal and social aspects of OC'ing here does nothing but put misinformed people out on the streets and in jeopardy of engaging in risks that may not be acceptable to them.

 

[Rich B]

People need to be aware of the risks they are engaging in, misrepresenting the reality of the legal and social aspects of OC'ing here does nothing but put misinformed people out on the streets and in jeopardy of engaging in risks that may not be acceptable to them.

No one here is misrepresenting anything.

You are talking to someone who spends a lot of time relaying his experiences in OCing to the forum. In particular, my bad experiences are well known by people here.

I don't think anyone here doesn't understand the pitfalls of OC here in CT.

 

[emsjeep]

No one here is misrepresenting anything.

You are talking to someone who spends a lot of time relaying his experiences in OCing to the forum. In particular, my bad experiences are well known by people here.

I don't think anyone here doesn't understand the pitfalls of OC here in CT.

You need to make sure you are clear. When I came to CT a few months ago, and came here and elsewhere to read up on carry and OC, the problems were not clear to me, the applicable laws and what conduct I should expect or was legally protected from were unclear.

 

[Rich B]

You need to make sure you are clear.

I am very clear, thank you. People have seen very clearly on this forum what can happen if you OC, and they have also seen what should happen.

If you would like to put together a more complete reference than what is currently being provided, by all means go ahead.

You are not going to convince me to put a disclaimer on everything I say so that someone who reads 4 posts and decides to OC won't be caught by surprise if he is illegally detained or wrongfully arrested. As I have said, every lawful activity would require the same disclaimer by the same merit.

Moreover, I don't think muddying the waters with hypothetical concepts that may have happened illegally or in other states is going to help make anything clear.

 

[emsjeep]

I am very clear, thank you. People have seen very clearly on this forum what can happen if you OC, and they have also seen what should happen.

If you would like to put together a more complete reference than what is currently being provided, by all means go ahead.

You are not going to convince me to put a disclaimer on everything I say so that someone who reads 4 posts and decides to OC won't be caught by surprise if he is illegally detained or wrongfully arrested. As I have said, every lawful activity would require the same disclaimer by the same merit.

Moreover, I don't think muddying the waters with hypothetical concepts that may have happened illegally or in other states is going to help make anything clear.

The sky is blue.

 

[brk913]

Citation, reasoning, anything? Very dangerous comment to make without anything to back it up.

How about the memo from the DPS stating just that (I have taken the appropriate line out of context):

A rally in support of the 2nd Amendment is currently scheduled for April 10, 2010 at
1300 hours on the north lawn of the State capitol. while the capitol building and grounds are
under the jurisdiction of the State Capitol Police, there is the possibility that State Police
personnel may be asked to assistt he Capitol Police, or may have occasion to observe and/or
come into contact with individuals who are carrying firearms, either openly or concealed. In light
of this scheduled event, specific guidance concerning law enforcement matters related to
firearms at this event follows:

o State Police personnel should not arrest a properly permitted individual merely for
publicly carrying a handgun in plain view.

o State Police personnel should not arrest individuals merely for publicly catryinga
firearm other than a handgun in plain view'

o State Police personnel should not request individuals to produce their pistol permits
unless such individual has become the subject of a law enforcement investigative
inquiry for another reason.

 

[emsjeep]

How about the memo from the DPS stating just that (I have taken the appropriate line out of context):

A rally in support of the 2nd Amendment is currently scheduled for April 10, 2010 at
1300 hours on the north lawn of the State capitol. while the capitol building and grounds are
under the jurisdiction of the State Capitol Police, there is the possibility that State Police
personnel may be asked to assistt he Capitol Police, or may have occasion to observe and/or
come into contact with individuals who are carrying firearms, either openly or concealed. In light
of this scheduled event, specific guidance concerning law enforcement matters related to
firearms at this event follows:

o State Police personnel should not arrest a properly permitted individual merely for
publicly carrying a handgun in plain view.

o State Police personnel should not arrest individuals merely for publicly catryinga
firearm other than a handgun in plain view'

o State Police personnel should not request individuals to produce their pistol permits
unless such individual has become the subject of a law enforcement investigative
inquiry for another reason.

Means they are finally getting the picture maybe, in some small degree? They want to avoid that deciding lawsuit? A one time policy shift doesn't make law. They are also aware that the people there are more likely than anyone else to sue if things go awry. Until this becomes statewide policy that they distribute to every law enforcement agency (and make it intentionally general and not in reference to a specific event on a specific day) and train on it, you only have a marginally better footing if you were to sue for an OC detention. On the one hand it bodes well, but on the other hand it means that they will be avoiding encounters and you may never get the common law codification of this sentiment as the necessary case may never arise.

 

[Rich B]

And now we are all back to where the rest of us were 6-12 months ago.

Moving forward...

 

[emsjeep]

And now we are all back to where the rest of us were 6-12 months ago.

Moving forward...

Seeing as they are still detaining people...the impact clearly isn't what we would have hoped. This would be an example of the type of info/research I was looking for when I asked initially. Thank you to those actually doing the work.

Is there a more general memo that was issued?

 

[Rich B]

Seeing as they are still detaining people...the impact clearly isn't what we would have hoped.

Why would it have solved this? This is the normal progression of things with making OC mainstream.

 

[emsjeep]

And now we are all back to where the rest of us were 6-12 months ago.

Moving forward...

Why would it have solved this? This is the normal progression of things with making OC mainstream.

These statements are contradictory. Is this evidence pertinent and material or not?
First you claim that it is some sort of stepping stone that clarified this discussion that we are having 6-12 [sic, it was 7] months ago, but then you state that its presentation wouldn't have resolved or moved this discussion forward. Are you being deliberately contrary? Please resolve the apparent contradiction.

 

[Rich B]

These statements are contradictory. Is this evidence pertinent and material or not?
First you claim that it is some sort of stepping stone that clarified this discussion that we are having 6-12 [sic, it was 7] months ago, but then you state that its presentation wouldn't have resolved or moved this discussion forward. Are you being deliberately contrary? Please resolve the apparent contradiction.

Um no.

You are really too tightly wound here. We have been dealing with these particular issues for quite a while here, you are just rehashing the exact same conversations we have had before with a peculiar enthusiasm. I would advise you to read through the forum.

 

[emsjeep]

Um no.

You are really too tightly wound here. We have been dealing with these particular issues for quite a while here, you are just rehashing the exact same conversations we have had before with a peculiar enthusiasm. I would advise you to read through the forum.

You just stated that the addition of this item to the fact set resolved the discussion to a point at which you had arrived at 6-12 months ago, then you state that you didn't cite it because the item is immaterial and resolves nothing that we have been discussing. Which is it? Never mind the fact that the second statement is contradictory in and of itself. You didn't cite the document because it was too applicable? Don't pee on my leg and tell me its raining.

I believe that the addition of this item neither puts a bow on the discussion as you indicated first, nor that it is immaterial to the discussion, as you stated second, on the contrary it is exactly the information I was looking for weeks ago when I asked you about this and you refused to provide anything but your opinion. It isn't a resolution but it adds something to the degree of protection afforded us...apparently not in practice, apparently, but in theory.

 

[Rich B]

You just stated that the addition of this item to the fact set resolved the discussion to a point at which you had arrived at 6-12 months ago, then you state that you didn't cite it because the item is immaterial and resolves nothing that we have been discussing. Which is it?

No, that is how you (erroneously) interpreted it.

We have all known about the DPS memo to the state police for quite some time. Something you would know if you would take my advice and wind yourself down a bit and read the forum.

 

[emsjeep]

No, that is how you (erroneously) interpreted it.

We have all known about the DPS memo to the state police for quite some time. Something you would know if you would take my advice and wind yourself down a bit and read the forum.

The problem, Rich, is that you made statements purporting to be factually correct and didn't provide citations or evidence (in a number of threads across at least 2 separate forums). When I questioned you about these assertions you refused to provide evidence; when I brought up evidence that called your assertions into question you countered with more unevidenced assertions and opinions. I have no responsibility to search though entire forums, literally thousands of posts and threads, to review everything you have ever said to make sure you haven't answered my question yet in some obscure way that requires analysis and inference to just partially provide some scant amount of direction.

1) The memo is interesting but thats where it ends essentially. It does not carry the force of law.

a- As it doesn't carry the force of law, it is impermanent, it is a policy statement made in regards to a single event on a single date. Policy is subject to change, and one memo doesn't even establish a trend for sustained implementation.

b- Being policy, the level of enforcement that can be made against it is questionable at best. Officer's violating this policy may or may not be ultimately civilly liable, and may and probably will retain the immunity they enjoy with their employment.

c- Now I see why you are saying some of the things you have been, we could have addressed this weeks ago if you had provided your source. Again, this is policy, not law, your argument is still questionable, but it would have been more clear to me where you were coming from at least.

2) Your argument that, "everyone knows about it, I don't have to cite it," is completely nonsensical. In all of the people who have read these threads this is the first mention of it. Just because you think everyone is familiar, doesn't make it so.

3) At best, this document might be used to support a civil suit, but relying on it, alone, to be the basis of your case is probably misguided. It is a relatively minor point in the scheme of things.

Any more evidence that is too obvious to mention?

 

[Rich B]

I give up. Some people are only looking for a fight, not for a solution.

 

[emsjeep]

I give up. Some people are only looking for a fight, not for a solution.

I want your evidence. The DPS policy memo is a great example of what I am looking for and of what you continually refuse to provide. Its a small piece, and tenuous in and of itself, but an important piece nonetheless. What else do ya got?

 

[cbnlnk121]

Warning: Extreme sarcasim

Why is it that all forums have a search button and no one wants to use it?

Do we even need one?

What's the point?

Simple search .... hhmmm ... who knew?

 

[Rich B]

Why is it that all forums have a search button and no one wants to use it?

I feel like a broken record with the new members to the forum who are awkwardly (sometimes belligerently) skeptical. From now on, they can read the forum or go without. We should not have to repeat the years of history in this matter in every thread.