• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

CT Carry - Connecticut State Police declare open carry is legal

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
From: http://ctcarry.com/Announcement/Details/f6f5040d-2be9-4183-948a-47337bc9fd89

Connecticut State Police release Open Carry Training Memo

Memo tells police to not arrest or harass people who carry their firearms unconcealed


Connecticut, April 29th, 2013:


The Connecticut State Police today released their training memorandum regarding the open carry of firearms in the State of Connecticut to Connecticut Carry through Attorney Rachel Baird’s law office. The memo details the obvious legality of carrying a firearm unconcealed in the State of Connecticut and puts the issue of arrest for lawful open carriers to bed once and for all.

Connecticut Carry will continue to work to make sure a copy of this memo hits every police department in the state and to make sure that citizens are fully aware of what to expect when they choose to not conceal their firearm in public.

Please distribute this memo far and wide to LEOs, citizens and anyone else who might benefit from the information. If you have a business open to the public, consider printing this out for your customers to take with them.

The memo is here: http://ctcarry.com/Document/Download/a034b530-1221-425d-a99f-53af710ff219

We wish to thank Connecticut Carry Director Ed Peruta and Attorney Rachel Baird for their efforts in securing this document in an expedited fashion as soon as they caught word of it. This will hopefully be timely to help keep other citizens from being arrested for no reason.

Stay safe out there. Keep calm and keep carrying.

Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

Contact:
Richard Burgess
President
Connecticut Carry, Inc
Ph: 203-208-9577
Email: rich@ctcarry.com
http://ctcarry.com
 
Last edited:

Edward Peruta

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
1,247
Location
Connecticut USA
Training Bulletin 2013-1

I don't care why they issued it but I can only presume that with the number of new permits being issued new questions regarding open carry were being asked of the State Police.

Additional information will be posted shedding light on the significance of this memo.

I believe that this is a huge leap forward for open carry in the state of Connecticut.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
Great news! I wonder what caused them to release this memo.
I think its going to be a "crack-down" on open carriers .. to harass them and to offer 42 USC 1983 protection for the people who are harassing ... see, "I'm just following procedure" mantra.

And if you do not comply with their "stop and ID" then you will be arrested.

And the "open carry of rifles" is legal? Carry an AR and find out if this is true.

This memo is more of a cover-their-arse memo than anything else.

Its making (or trying to) RAS out of lawful carriers just for carrying.

No training memo is going to expand our rights but can only try to obfuscate them. Read the memo again folks...its not a positive memo for folks who carry IMO.

A good memo to see; lets us know where we stand ... we a vermin and the state is king
 
Last edited:

Edward Peruta

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
1,247
Location
Connecticut USA
The department has the authority to interpret § 29–35


Commissioner Bradford -

As background:

In Goldberg v. Glastonbury the Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that officers of the Glastonbury Police Department who had arrested Goldberg on June 21, 2007, for the mere act of openly carrying a handgun were entitled to qualified immunity because the law was unsettled in Connecticut: “On these facts, and given the lack of settled Connecticut law on the issue, we conclude that reasonable officers could, at minimum, disagree on whether there was probable cause to arrest plaintiff for breach of the peace in the second degree, and accordingly the district court's qualified immunity determination ought to be affirmed.”

In Burgess v. Wallingford, a case pending in the District Court in Connecticut, a judge has indicated his intent to dismiss Burgess’s case against the Town of Wallingford where Burgess was arrested on May 16, 2010, for the mere act of openly carrying a handgun.

Countless other individuals in Connecticut have been deterred from engaging in the lawful conduct of openly carrying a handgun while in possession of a valid state permit to do so by the threat of arrest because certain members of law enforcement have challenged the clarity of the law or expressly stated that open carry is not lawful in Connecticut.

In Peruta v. Department of Public Safety our state appellate court deemed the state police the agency with the authority to state the law: “[T]he department has the authority to interpret § 29–35 to determine if it allows for the open carry of a firearm under the circumstances provided.”



The FOIA Request:

This is a Request made pursuant to the state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) compelling prompt access to records.

Upon information and belief the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (“state police”) has in its custody and control records addressing the lawfulness of open carry of handguns in the state of Connecticut.

Specifically, that a record commonly referred to as a “roll call training bulletin” or by similar terminology has been distributed recently to members of the state police addressing the lawfulness of open carry of handguns.

That American News & Information Services requested this record pursuant to the FOIA by email on April 28, 2013, to Commissioner Bradford, in person to Commissioner Bradford on April 29, 2013, and in person and in writing to the state police Office of Legal Affair on April 29, 2013.


Time is of the Essence:

That the state police have the duty as stated by our appellate court to prevent innocent individuals from further subjugation to arrest for lawful conduct.

In refusing to provide American News access to a record that may prevent unlawful arrests of individuals openly carrying handguns in the state of Connecticut, the state police not only violate the FOIA but also the civil rights of individuals to conduct themselves lawfully without threat of arrest for such lawful conduct,

While in the vicinity of the Danielson court on April 29, 2013, American News spoke to Sgt. Smith at Troop D to request the record and was told to contact the state police PIO.

At the time of this email American News is in the area of Troop L and intends to request the record from Troop L in person.


Conclusion;

This communication demands that all Troops be ordered by the Commissioner to provide the requested record to American News or any other member of the public making such request upon presentation to any Troop in Connecticut.

Rachel M. Baird, Attorney

Rachel M. Baird & Associate
Old Post Office Square
8 Church Street Suite 3B
Torrington CT 06790
Tel: (860) 626-9991
Fax: (860) 626-9992
Web: http://www.rachelbairdlaw.com
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
Sgt Smith had no right to direct you elsewhere ... there is no exemption that just because the same record is elsewhere that you have to go elsewhere to get it.

Of course, getting the record via a FOIC appeal could/would take a year....

Of course the act requires a written request currently -- but I think that directing you to file a written request somewhere else may also violate the act....

Interesting ... we know that DESPP issued a memo but did it go anywhere?
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,710
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
Good press release here: https://www.fpri.org/articles/2013/04/understanding-afghan-insurgents-motivations-goals-and-reconciliation-and-reintegration-process

However the State Police overstep their authority by declaring that they may stop anyone they see open carrying and demand to see a carry permit - in Delaware v. Prause the Supreme Court held that police cannot seize people just to check driver's licenses unless there is at least reasonble suspicion that the driver is not licensed. Basic 4th amendment concept.
 

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
However the State Police overstep their authority by declaring that they may stop anyone they see open carrying and demand to see a carry permit - in Delaware v. Prause the Supreme Court held that police cannot seize people just to check driver's licenses unless there is at least reasonble suspicion that the driver is not licensed. Basic 4th amendment concept.
Yup. Next stage of the fight. Gotta move the line forward a little bit at a time...
 

acmariner99

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
659
Location
Renton, Wa
I interpret this as: even with the myriad of new requirements to obtain firearms if you get a carry permit, OC is supposed to be unaffected. However, it may not prevent agencies from harassing otherwise law abiding activity - leaving the question of OC & RAS of not having a permit to be resolved in court. Funny, I thought OC or possession of firearms in general was not deemed to be RAS of criminal activity in and of itself.
 

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
I interpret this as: even with the myriad of new requirements to obtain firearms if you get a carry permit, OC is supposed to be unaffected. However, it may not prevent agencies from harassing otherwise law abiding activity - leaving the question of OC & RAS of not having a permit to be resolved in court. Funny, I thought OC or possession of firearms in general was not deemed to be RAS of criminal activity in and of itself.
There should be no doubt in our system, but the 2nd circuit has not yet been forthcoming with this finding.

We are working on it...
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
Good press release here: https://www.fpri.org/articles/2013/04/understanding-afghan-insurgents-motivations-goals-and-reconciliation-and-reintegration-process

However the State Police overstep their authority by declaring that they may stop anyone they see open carrying and demand to see a carry permit - in Delaware v. Prause the Supreme Court held that police cannot seize people just to check driver's licenses unless there is at least reasonble suspicion that the driver is not licensed. Basic 4th amendment concept.
They use these training memos as cover ... to protect themselves from 42 USC 1983 complaints ~ and the the courts just eat it up, yummy yummy yummy.

Maybe Ed should issue a FOI request to seek out records relating the the memo .. maybe they were stupid enough to actually create and keep a record showing that the memo is a smoke screen for 1983 protection. If you or me were to create a record to cover our butts for something, courts would not allow it into evidence.
 

brk913

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2007
Messages
370
Location
Plainville, CT
There should be no doubt in our system, but the 2nd circuit has not yet been forthcoming with this finding.

We are working on it...
But we have clear case law from the 4th Circuit, very recent too: http://www.fedagent.com/columns/case-law-updates/784-fourth-circuit-finds-that-carrying-a-firearm-in-an-open-carry-state-does-not-create-reasonable-suspicion-and-provides-thorough-analysis-of-the-free-to-leave-standard-of-seizure

"More importantly, where a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention. Permitting such a justification would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals in those states.”
 

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
But we have clear case law from the 4th Circuit, very recent too: http://www.fedagent.com/columns/case-law-updates/784-fourth-circuit-finds-that-carrying-a-firearm-in-an-open-carry-state-does-not-create-reasonable-suspicion-and-provides-thorough-analysis-of-the-free-to-leave-standard-of-seizure

"More importantly, where a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention. Permitting such a justification would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals in those states.”
Right. Which is why it is not a big concern that they want to stop and ID.

Just takes one good case to show them why that is flawed.
 

brk913

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2007
Messages
370
Location
Plainville, CT
Right. Which is why it is not a big concern that they want to stop and ID.

Just takes one good case to show them why that is flawed.
I think a letter sent to the DESPP legal department including the complete ruling from the 4th Circuit and a clear explanation of how the training memo is in direct conflict with this ruling is in order. If we allow it to stand without a vocal challenge right now the State Troopers and any other LEO who reads this memo can use it to give themselves qualified immunity to stop and ID us illegally. If we vocally challenge it now the state's attorneys may agree this is wrong and make the DESPP update their training in this area immediately to prevent a false arrest/charge and any lawsuits that may follow.
 

Edward Peruta

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
1,247
Location
Connecticut USA
Issued or circulated on April 15th

Mr. Peruta,
Please be advised that the Training Bulletin regarding opencarry was distributed on April 15, 2013.

Henri Alexandre
 

Tactical_Evo

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2012
Messages
40
Location
CT
So, I'm a bit confused. I was always under the assumption that you did not have to present your permit to a LEO unless you were doing something of a "criminal act". This document appears otherwise... which makes me wonder - if I'm ever stopped for simply OC, how would I proceed? :uhoh:
 

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
So, I'm a bit confused. I was always under the assumption that you did not have to present your permit to a LEO unless you were doing something of a "criminal act". This document appears otherwise... which makes me wonder - if I'm ever stopped for simply OC, how would I proceed? :uhoh:
The state police do not make the laws, they interpret them.

This is their interpretation. We feel their interpretation about there being nothing illegal about OC is correct, and therefore it makes their interpretation about stopping people for their permits incorrect.

How you proceed is up to you. We do not give legal advice.


Before OCing, people should be very aware and well read on case law like Terry and Hiibel.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
The state police do not make the laws, they interpret them.

This is their interpretation. We feel their interpretation about there being nothing illegal about OC is correct, and therefore it makes their interpretation about stopping people for their permits incorrect.

How you proceed is up to you. We do not give legal advice.


Before OCing, people should be very aware and well read on case law like Terry and Hiibel.
Adminstrative bodies can only do what the legislature authorizes them to do. The legislature did not make DESPP the interpretor of law. However, the courts have saw that they may read a law on first impression; but a court is the body to actually interpret the law. Some cites below:


“We begin our analysis by noting that "[administrative agencies are tribunals of limited jurisdiction and their 291*291 jurisdiction is dependent entirely upon the validity of the statutes vesting them with power and they cannot confer jurisdiction upon themselves.... [A]n administrative body must act strictly within its statutory authority, within constitutional limitations and in a lawful manner.... It cannot modify, abridge or otherwise change the statutory provisions, under which it acquires authority unless the statutes expressly grant it that power." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Castro v. Viera, 207 Conn. 420, 428, 541 A.2d 1216 (1988). "It is a familiar principle that [an administrative agency] which exercises a limited and statutory jurisdiction is without jurisdiction to act unless it does so under the precise circumstances and in the manner particularly prescribed by the enabling legislation." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 427-28. 241 Conn. 282 (1997), GARLAND HALL v. GILBERT AND BENNETT MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., ET AL.,(SC 15608), Supreme Court of Connecticut, Argued March 27, 1997,Officially released June 3, 1997.

“it is for the courts, and not for administrative agencies, to expound upon an apply governing priciples of law.” KENNETH WILSON V. v. FOIC, 181 Conn.324 (1980), CONNECTICUT SUPREME COURT.
 
Top