brk913
Regular Member
It seems this forum lost sight of open carry issues which is what this forum is all about. To get us back on track I think everyone should be aware of what has happened in CT regarding OC over the last few months.
The case of Scott Lazurek has made waves here in CT. Scott was arrested for refusing to show his permit after being stopped for openly carrying a handgun on a beach boardwalk in CT. He was one of two people stopped, the other showed his permit and was free to leave, Scott refused, standing on the principal that an officer in CT needs RAS to stop and ID an individual. Prior Federal courts have agreed that the simple act of openly carrying a handgun in a state that allows the OC of handguns does not amount to RAS, see Black v US as an example: http://www.fedagent.com/case-law-up...ysis-of-the-free-to-leave-standard-of-seizure
Scott was arrested for Interfering with an Officer, they could not charge him with a gun crime as upon inventorying his possessions subsequent to arrest they discovered his valid Pistol Permit in his wallet. The state revoked his permit due to the arrest. Scott went to court and the prosecutor after reviewing the case offered a Nolle, Scott refused stating he would only accept a full dismissal as he should not have been stopped to begin with, the prosecutor after reviewing the laws eventually agreed and dismissed the case fully. You would think the story ends there but no, the state refused to return his permit even though a court had decided he broke no laws. So Scott waited over a year to receive his hearing before the Board of Firearm Permit Examiners.
At the hearing a member of the Board asked Scott what he would do if presented with the same situation again and he firmly stated he would do the exact same thing, some members of the Board were taken aback by this but in the end Scott won and the Board ordered his permit to be reinstated.
The state, now with mud on it's face, did not like that answer and appealed the Board's decision to the court system, to make a long story short the court upheld the Board's decision but in doing so the Judge added several personal opinions to his decision instead of just stating facts of law. One of those statements was that the prosecutor should have pushed the charges against Scott, that he felt the dismissal was wrong and what Scott did was in fact interfering with an officer (a direct disregard of prior federal court rulings). Read the entire ruling here: http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=8953633
After losing in court the state was going to appeal that decision but decided not to appeal, the main reason was because our legislature in CT took up the issue and snuck this little change into our statutes without a public hearing as far as I could tell:
Sec. 2. Subsection (b) of section 29-35 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective October 1, 2015):
(b) The holder of a permit issued pursuant to section 29-28, as amended by this act, shall carry such permit upon one's person while carrying such pistol or revolver. Such holder shall present his or her permit upon the request of a law enforcement officer who has reasonable suspicion of a crime for purposes of verification of the validity of the permit or identification of the holder, provided such holder is carrying a pistol or revolver that is observed by such law enforcement officer.
Now, you would think that an officer would still need RAS prior to them stopping an open carrier but nope, our lovely law enforcement officers and their superiors have taken this new statute and determined that the mere sight of a firearm is RAS to stop, detain and ID to verify if the permit is valid, making being illegal the new default status of anyone seen openly carrying, you are now guilty and must prove yourself innocent on the street, again clearly flaunting prior federal court rulings.
What happened to our 4th and 5th amendment rights....when are the people of CT going to wake up and see that every day they are giving away their liberties that brave men and women fought and died for? I believe Scott Lazurek is a Patriot for standing up for our rights and although he "won" his case it is a bittersweet result for the rest of us open carriers here in CT who have to live in fear that we to will be stopped and detained for no legal reason other than an officer feels he needs to check everyones permit. It's time to clear out the anti gun legislators in Hartford and repeal a lot of our erroneous laws, especially ones that violate Constitutional Rights.
The case of Scott Lazurek has made waves here in CT. Scott was arrested for refusing to show his permit after being stopped for openly carrying a handgun on a beach boardwalk in CT. He was one of two people stopped, the other showed his permit and was free to leave, Scott refused, standing on the principal that an officer in CT needs RAS to stop and ID an individual. Prior Federal courts have agreed that the simple act of openly carrying a handgun in a state that allows the OC of handguns does not amount to RAS, see Black v US as an example: http://www.fedagent.com/case-law-up...ysis-of-the-free-to-leave-standard-of-seizure
Scott was arrested for Interfering with an Officer, they could not charge him with a gun crime as upon inventorying his possessions subsequent to arrest they discovered his valid Pistol Permit in his wallet. The state revoked his permit due to the arrest. Scott went to court and the prosecutor after reviewing the case offered a Nolle, Scott refused stating he would only accept a full dismissal as he should not have been stopped to begin with, the prosecutor after reviewing the laws eventually agreed and dismissed the case fully. You would think the story ends there but no, the state refused to return his permit even though a court had decided he broke no laws. So Scott waited over a year to receive his hearing before the Board of Firearm Permit Examiners.
At the hearing a member of the Board asked Scott what he would do if presented with the same situation again and he firmly stated he would do the exact same thing, some members of the Board were taken aback by this but in the end Scott won and the Board ordered his permit to be reinstated.
The state, now with mud on it's face, did not like that answer and appealed the Board's decision to the court system, to make a long story short the court upheld the Board's decision but in doing so the Judge added several personal opinions to his decision instead of just stating facts of law. One of those statements was that the prosecutor should have pushed the charges against Scott, that he felt the dismissal was wrong and what Scott did was in fact interfering with an officer (a direct disregard of prior federal court rulings). Read the entire ruling here: http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=8953633
After losing in court the state was going to appeal that decision but decided not to appeal, the main reason was because our legislature in CT took up the issue and snuck this little change into our statutes without a public hearing as far as I could tell:
Sec. 2. Subsection (b) of section 29-35 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective October 1, 2015):
(b) The holder of a permit issued pursuant to section 29-28, as amended by this act, shall carry such permit upon one's person while carrying such pistol or revolver. Such holder shall present his or her permit upon the request of a law enforcement officer who has reasonable suspicion of a crime for purposes of verification of the validity of the permit or identification of the holder, provided such holder is carrying a pistol or revolver that is observed by such law enforcement officer.
Now, you would think that an officer would still need RAS prior to them stopping an open carrier but nope, our lovely law enforcement officers and their superiors have taken this new statute and determined that the mere sight of a firearm is RAS to stop, detain and ID to verify if the permit is valid, making being illegal the new default status of anyone seen openly carrying, you are now guilty and must prove yourself innocent on the street, again clearly flaunting prior federal court rulings.
What happened to our 4th and 5th amendment rights....when are the people of CT going to wake up and see that every day they are giving away their liberties that brave men and women fought and died for? I believe Scott Lazurek is a Patriot for standing up for our rights and although he "won" his case it is a bittersweet result for the rest of us open carriers here in CT who have to live in fear that we to will be stopped and detained for no legal reason other than an officer feels he needs to check everyones permit. It's time to clear out the anti gun legislators in Hartford and repeal a lot of our erroneous laws, especially ones that violate Constitutional Rights.