How to legally harass CT Open Carriers

[skidmark]

http://www.guns.com/2016/02/10/gun-...manual-of-how-to-harass-law-abiding-citizens/

Connecticut Carry posted the State’s Attorney’s Office’s guidance on how police can still interact with citizens not breaking the law while openly carrying a firearm.

The memo is a five-page guide released by Senior Assistant State’s Attorney Timothy Sugrue to the Chief State’s Attorney’s Office. As explained by Connecticut Carry, the document concedes the unconcealed carry of a firearm with a valid permit in the state is lawful and that police cannot stop someone performing such open carry unless they have probable cause.

Then proceeds to outline just what an officer can and cannot do other than that.

Among the gems is the statement from Sugrue that,

“Based on the widespread proliferation of gun violence in contemporary American society, especially random mass shootings, and the provocation that is inherent in any person who is not readily identifiable as a law enforcement agent or armed security agent openly carrying a handgun in a public place, it is reasonable to suspect, in situations in which the police are present in response to a citizen complaint reporting concern over a person carrying a gun, that the crime of disorderly conduct, in violation of § 53a-182 (a) (2), is being or has been committed.”

The full 5-page memo is here: http://ctcarry.com/Document/Download/492deac4-1b08-45d1-b8c5-fe4b3cbb62d3

TL/DR: Open carry is legal and there's nothing you as a cop can do about it, but here's a list of stuff you can get away with and the legal cover you will need.

Here in Virginia we talk about the dangers of going "north of the Ni [River] which for the geographically challenged is south of the City of Fredericksbug and generally marks the dividing live between liberal & gun-hating Northern Virginia and the rest of the state. Connecticut is certainly "north of the Ni" but now there's even more reason for folks from Virginia and the rest of Free America to stay away.

stay safe.

 

[MAC702]

It would be interesting to compare some local data on the crimes committed by police officers versus the crimes committed by open carriers.

...the provocation that is inherent in any person who is not ... a law enforcement agent ... openly carrying a handgun in a public place, it is reasonable to suspect ... that the crime of disorderly conduct ... is being ... committed.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Connecticut Code - Sec. 53a-182. Disorderly conduct.
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.​

P.S. I definitely want to hear of the first person charged and convicted under this statute for doing nothing more than being seen as an open carrier.

 

[Maverick9]

Connecticut Code - Sec. 53a-182. Disorderly conduct.
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.​

I like #2 (sarcasm).

Disorderly conduct is (uh) Disorderly conduct which annoys... (and so on).

As to the topic, why not have the newspapers publish this 'edict' and ask why your duly elected or hired minions are advising ways to break the law (in effect) by having trumped up charges and lies?

Out the conduct and maybe they're do an about-face?

 

[utbagpiper]

...

TL/DR: Open carry is legal and there's nothing you as a cop can do about it, but here's a list of stuff you can get away with and the legal cover you will need.

About 10 years ago our flagship university took the AG to court so as to be able to continue banning all guns on campus. Our State Supreme Court, however begrudgingly, to the University of Utah it had no choice but to follow State law which permits those with carry permits to possess firearms on campus and prevents any anti-gun employment, student, or other policy from existing or being enforced.

The UoU responded a couple of years later with a secret memo to their campus police department that listed all the catch-all non-gun laws that could be used to harass or threaten lawful OCers (permit required) into covering up. The list was outed and the contract security guards who leaked it were suspended for a few days until the whole thing came to light at which point the U was obliged to reinstate them lest they get hit with a nasty suit for retaliation against legit whistle blowers.

Anyway, the list of laws to use included Disorderly Conduct, Interfering with a School Activity, Trespassing at a School, and several others I forget at the moment. It turned out to be a fine gift from the legal department at the U to compile such a list since we now know what laws to fix.

Our Disorderly Conduct law, at 76-9-102 now includes this language:

(3) The mere carrying or possession of a holstered or encased firearm, whether visible or concealed, without additional behavior or circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe the holstered or encased firearm was carried or possessed with criminal intent, does not constitute a violation of this section. Nothing in this Subsection (3) may limit or prohibit a law enforcement officer from approaching or engaging any person in a voluntary conversation.
​

It isn't perfect, but it has pretty much ended all threats of disorderly conduct against lawful OCers both at the University and elsewhere. We're still working on getting similar, specific protections into other sections of code or into an over-arching section somewhere.

Eternal vigilance and all that.

Plus, anytime one of these entities shows up asking for some so-called "compromise" we remind legislators how much bad faith that entity has engaged in and how much legislative effort has been expended in the past just to get compliance with current laws. When our opponents damage their own credibility with the legislature, their efforts to get bad laws enacted get much more difficult.

Charles

 

[BB62]

...Plus, anytime one of these entities shows up asking for some so-called "compromise" we remind legislators how much bad faith that entity has engaged in and how much legislative effort has been expended in the past just to get compliance with current laws. When our opponents damage their own credibility with the legislature, their efforts to get bad laws enacted get much more difficult.

An interesting post, and an excellent point (as quoted above).

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

IF Senior Assistant State’s Attorney Timothy Sugrue to the Chief State’s Attorney’s Office believes that the mere sight of an openly carried firearm is cause for law enforcement involvement, then perhaps he should note that (a) (2) (... offensive or disorderly conduct, annoys or interferes with another person...) is not automatically exempted by the mere wearing of a shiny badge.

If the average citizen wearing a holstered gun is frightening to the police; imagine how frightening an armed officer is to the average citizen.

I would probably suggest that Connecticut carriers practice cooperation with Mr Sugrue. Cooperation for as long as he can stand it and for as much as he can stand.
Open carry in a small group, have a member (unarmed) call the local constabulary and report an Open Carrier and that they are 'concerned' Not interfered with or annoyed, just 'a concerned third party'. Cooperate with the police and produce whatever is legally required.
Move to another area and repeat.
Go out the next day and do the same.
Go out the day after that, and the next week, and the next month.

If the police think responding to open carriers is 'gunna be fun!', then allow them to experience the fullness of said fun until they have their bellies full.
Eventually one of two things is going to happen, either open carriers will be intimidated by being prosecuted for Disorderly Conduct, or the police are going to stop responding to calls that allege no illegal conduct.

 

[HPmatt]

Is this Sugrue fellow related to Darby O'gill and the little people? Sounds more like a troll than a Leprechaun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Edward Peruta]

It takes a FINANCIAL commitment to fight this

I regularly open carry in Connecticut, mostly in the summer/warmer months.
I am no longer concerned with what others may think, say or complain about,
especially when in Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport, New London, etc.
Plus, I work for a very experienced Attorney who understands Second Amendment Issues!!!!

Attorney Rachel M. Baird is the one that suggested I use this photo on my business cards.

 

[BB62]

I regularly open carry in Connecticut, mostly in the summer/warmer months. ...

Glad to see you're still alive and kicking!

 

[OC for ME]

Nothing in this Subsection (3) may limit or prohibit a law enforcement officer from approaching or engaging any person in a voluntary conversation.

A bone tossed to LE. What will a Utah LEO do if he is ignored...like totally ignored...like invisible.

My experience is that cops really really hate being ignored.

 

[WalkingWolf]

A bone tossed to LE. What will a Utah LEO do if he is ignored...like totally ignored...like invisible.

My experience is that cops really really hate being ignored.

Ignoring is in my book of how to win an argument with an idiot. It also works for many other social interactions. As long as state law allows it, I highly recommend it for encounters with LE. Disclaimer, if LEO is pointing a gun at you it is not time to ignore the officer Friendly, that will P him off.

 

[OC for ME]

Ignoring is in my book of how to win an argument with an idiot. It also works for many other social interactions. As long as state law allows it, I highly recommend it for encounters with LE. Disclaimer, if LEO is pointing a gun at you it is not time to ignore the officer Friendly, that will P him off.

True. In fact, anything and everything P's-off cops these days.

For example...http://www.wbaltv.com/Officer-Salvatore-Rivieri-s-Firing-Upheld/8916686

"BALTIMORE —The firing of a former police officer who lost his job after a controversial video was posted on YouTube has been upheld."