See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Connecticut "open carry" follies
Source:
various
URL Source: http://various
Published: Jun 10, 2008
Author: various
Post Date: 2008-06-10 22:34:59 by rack42
Keywords: Connecticut, open carry, gun
Views: 84
Comments: 2
I can't find the article to the Pennsylvania "open carry" thread, but there is a "kinda-sorta" thing occuring in Connecticut. Man was arrested for "breach of peace" when someone was "frightened" that the man's belt holster was exposed at a resturaunt when he reached for his wallet. Local police were called. Police were shown his permit (permit is to allow one to carry; there is nothing that says that the firearm must be concealed). Police shuve the man against a wall, enlist his help in removing his firearm (it was one of those holsters that prevent someone from the rear to remove it). Then handcuff him. Taken to jail by the Glastonbury police, they take his permit and his firearm. By Connecticut Law, only the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners have juristiction over permits. Mr Goldberg filed a case in Connecticut Superiour Court and had his "second degree breach of peace" charge nolled. The Defendant has been charged with Breach of the Peace in the Second Degree, in violation of C.G.S. § 53a-181. DOCKET NO. CR070211668 http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum14/4567-1.html Getting the return of his permit and firearm hasn't happened. He has filed a in Federal court http://www.ycgg.org/pdfpages/goldbergcomplaint.pdf Upshot? The Connecitcut Board of Firearms Permit Examiners and State Police (Department of Public Safety, ie DPS) are corrupt. The head of DPS is on record as stating that only LEO's should have pistols. Most Police in Connecticut don't have an any idea as to Connecticut law and simply do what their Chiefs tell them. There is precident with respect to lawful actions and disturbance-of-the-peace in Connecticut law: C.G.S.A. § 29-28 (b) (emphasis added). The only restriction contained in the statute with regard to the locations where a permit-holder may carry a weapon is contained in § 29-28(e), which provides: The issuance of any permit to carry a pistol or revolver does not thereby authorize the possession or carrying or a pistol or revolver in any premises where the possession or carrying of a pistol or revolver is otherwise' prohibited by law or is prohibited by the person who owns or exercises control over such premises. There is no evidence whatsoever that the carrying of a concealed weapon in Chili's restaurant is either prohibited by law or, is prohibited by a rule or policy adopted by Chili's restaurants. Thus, the Defendant's conduct was affirmatively approved under Connecticut law, and the Court cannot find that the Defendant's lawful conduct may be punished under a different section of Connecticut law. Indeed, the Connecticut Supreme Court has held in another context that local authorities may not frustrate the purpose of the weapons permit statute by restricting what is permitted under the statute. See Dwyer v. Farrell 193 Conn. 7, 475 A.2d 257 (1.984) (local authorities could not restrict the sale of handguns in a manner permitted by § 29-28, even though the local action did not expressly conflict with the language of that section, as the legislative purpose underlying § 29-28 was frustrated by the local action). Moreover, it is well established that an overreaction to a defendant's lawful conduct cannot establish the elements of breach of the peace. For example, the court held in State v. Collis, 14 Conn. App. 440, 540 A.2d 1062 (1988), that the evidence was legally insufficient to show that the defendant committed a breach of peace by engaging in threatening behavior simply because the alleged victims felt threatened……… Also, it has been recognized explicitly in a number of other jurisdictions that the literal breadth of the definition of a breach of the peace "does not mean. . . that lawful and proper conduct may constitute a breach of peace just because it provokes violence or disorder." "O'Leary v. Commonwealth 441 S.W.2d 150, 154 (Ky. 1969). Rather, "the mere fact that the exercise of a lawful right may result in a disturbance or breach of the peace does not make the exercise of that right a violation of the law so long as the right is exercised in a peaceful manner and without force or violence or threats of same." Briggs v. State, 367 S.W.2d 750, 754 (Ark. 1963), vacated on other grounds, Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U.S. 306 (1964). See Nesmith v. Alford, 318 F.2d 110 (5th Cir. 1963) (plaintiffs, white persons who were arrested when they were eating peaceably with Negroes in desegregate restaurant and were subsequently tried for disorderly conduct, were entitled to judgment as matter of law on false imprisonment count against officers who had arrested them; the plaintiffs' conduct could not be reasonably considered to be a breach of the peace simply because a crowd of bystanders were provoked into disorder as a result of their conduct).
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: rack42 (#0)
The Founding Fathers would be deeply saddened to learn about the BS going on in one of the 13 original colonies regarding citizen's 2nd Amendment rights (or lack thereof). They would probably call for a revolt against that state's government.
I doubt that they would have stopped at calling for a revolt in one state. Whole country is FUBAR, or would be to them (or even most of our grandparents and most certainly their parents).
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.Most Police in Connecticut don't have an any idea as to Connecticut law and simply do what their Chiefs tell them.
“The best and first guarantor of our neutrality and our independent existence is the defensive will of the people…and the proverbial marksmanship of the Swiss shooter. Each soldier a good marksman! Each shot a hit!” Schweizerische Schutzenseitunt (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#2. To: X-15 (#1)
The Founding Fathers would be deeply saddened to learn about the BS going on in one of the 13 original colonies regarding citizen's 2nd Amendment rights (or lack thereof). They would probably call for a revolt against that state's government.
Lord Acton
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest