| Author | Post |
|---|
Lonnie Wilson
State Researcher
|
Posted: Tue Jul 15th, 2008 08:34 am |
|
Who would have figured the @%^$-storm I just stirred up just from posting an email.
|
Statkowski
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jul 15th, 2008 02:14 pm |
|
| Lonnie, sometimes that's all it takes - one e-mail. All it takes is one spark to set off a blazing inferno. We're all fighting here for basic civil rights, of which firearms are an integral part. We all, united, must keep those cards and letters flowing - to the Governor, the State Police, our elected officials, whomever. Never let up. Never give in.
|
Hef
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jul 15th, 2008 05:43 pm |
|
Um, can you cite a specific statute, detective?
Lonnie Wilson wrote: Interesting response out of DPS Special Licensing:
From: "Det. MattsonKaranda"
To: "'DPS Special Licensing'"
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 7:56 AM
Subject: RE: Open Carry Legality and Revocation
Dear Mr. Wilson,
The issue remains that this is not an open carry state. There are instances
where the open carry of a firearm may lead to others being inconvenienced,
annoyed or alarmed by the presence of a openly carried firearm. We believe
that the firearm being concealed will allow the permit holder to carry a
firearm but still assure the other members of the public from being exposed
to the firearm which they may not be comfortable around. The link you
provided was from the Office of Legislative Research and not the opinion of
the Department of Public Safety or that of the Board of Firearm Permit
Examiners. We continue to act on the revocation of a pistol permit on a case
by case basis.
I hope this answers you question.
Det. T. M. Karanda
Connecticut State Police
Special Licensing and Firearms Unit
|
GoldCoaster
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jun 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 65 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16th, 2008 04:52 am |
|
There isn't a specific statute or it would have been found and listed right here before now.
It's Det Karranda's opinion and nothing more.
I'm waiting for the outcome of the judge's ruling, I think that will be more telling than someone in DPS giving their opinion of the law.
|
LKB3rd
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16th, 2008 12:07 pm |
|
GoldCoaster wrote:
There isn't a specific statute or it would have been found and listed right here before now.
It's Det Karranda's opinion and nothing more.
I'm waiting for the outcome of the judge's ruling, I think that will be more telling than someone in DPS giving their opinion of the law.
I spoke with Attorney Baird, and she said she would guesstimate 6-8 months on the declaratory ruling.
She was great to talk to, and and is a great asset to help those of us who want to open carry.
I am going to start with my local town, and draft a letter to the chief of police, and see if Ms. Baird will look it over before I send it. I can post the letter here after I get it sorted out, and others may find it useful to use as a template to send similar letters to their town chiefs of police.
This is another step in this issue, but requiring a permit for what is supposedly a right makes it not a right at all (which I have mentioned previously in this thread). The 2nd amendment and the state constitution don't say we have a right to keep and bear arms "as long as the state gives you permission first in the form of a permit, which can be denied or revoked for cause." It says we have that right, period.
Would we allow them so issue "free speech permits" to people the state decides are suitable to exercise free speech?
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16th, 2008 01:00 pm |
|
Hef wrote: Um, can you cite a specific statute, detective?
Lonnie Wilson wrote: Interesting response out of DPS Special Licensing:
From: "Det. MattsonKaranda"
To: "'DPS Special Licensing'"
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 7:56 AM
Subject: RE: Open Carry Legality and Revocation
Dear Mr. Wilson,
The issue remains that this is not an open carry state.
Who the heck is Det. Karanda to state that CT "is not an open carry state??!!
Where does he get off making such arrogant and conclusory statements?
I think some kind of personnel complaint is in order.
|
Edward Peruta
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 3rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 77 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16th, 2008 01:40 pm |
|
IF EVERYONE READING THIS MESSAGE BOARD WAS TO SEND A FORMAL HARD COPY LETTER TO:
COMMISSIONER JOHN A. DANAHER III ESQ.
111 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
MIDDLETOWN, CT. 06457
ASKING HIM TO GET HIS HANDS DIRTY BY TAKING THE TIME TO TAKE A CLOSE LOOK AT WHAT THE INDIVIDUALS HE HAS AUTHORIZED TO ACT IN HIS BEHALF ARE DOING AND SAYING, WE MAY SEE SOME MOVEMENT ON THIS ISSUE.
Connecticut State Police Detective Thomas Karanda is one of at least two current individuals in the Special License and Firearms Unit who have been authorized to act under the direct authority of the Commissioner on firearms issues.
THERE ARE OTHER EMAILS THAT ORIGINATED FROM THE FIREARMS UNIT WHICH ARE JUST AS CONFUSING AND INCORRECT.
Many involved in this issue believe that the Connecticut DPS Commissioner John A. Danaher III, is totally clueless as to what his employees are doing or saying while acting with his direct authority as it pertains to firearms.
I would not be surprised to eventually find out in a formal legal deposition that Commissioner John A. Danaher III, has been and is, insulated from the facts in this issue, together with the fact that he has relied on what he was and is being told by the people that surround him on a regular basis.
Situations have already occurred where individuals involved in law enforcement in Connecticut have learned that there is NO requirement to conceal a weapon while in possession of a VALID permit to carry.
The current request for a Declaratory Ruling in Superior Court in New Britain, CT. should go a long way in bringing this issue to a just conclusion.
IT'S JUST GOING TO TAKE TIME
STAY TUNED TO THE VARIOUS MESSAGE BOARDS THAT ARE FOLLOWING THIS SITUATION.
|
GoldCoaster
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jun 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 65 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16th, 2008 01:41 pm |
|
LKB3rd wrote: GoldCoaster wrote:
There isn't a specific statute or it would have been found and listed right here before now.
It's Det Karranda's opinion and nothing more.
I'm waiting for the outcome of the judge's ruling, I think that will be more telling than someone in DPS giving their opinion of the law.
I spoke with Attorney Baird, and she said she would guesstimate 6-8 months on the declaratory ruling.
She was great to talk to, and and is a great asset to help those of us who want to open carry.
I am going to start with my local town, and draft a letter to the chief of police, and see if Ms. Baird will look it over before I send it. I can post the letter here after I get it sorted out, and others may find it useful to use as a template to send similar letters to their town chiefs of police.
This is another step in this issue, but requiring a permit for what is supposedly a right makes it not a right at all (which I have mentioned previously in this thread). The 2nd amendment and the state constitution don't say we have a right to keep and bear arms "as long as the state gives you permission first in the form of a permit, which can be denied or revoked for cause." It says we have that right, period.
Would we allow them so issue "free speech permits" to people the state decides are suitable to exercise free speech?
Very strange! I had a whole thing typed in but it didn't post to the board, so here's an edit and see if I can remember what I typed.
I think you have a very valid point - Rights are things we have, privileges are things we are given. We have the right to carry and bear arms yet we need the permit in CT to allow us the privilege of doing so.
I also wrote something to the effect of how having a background check would still be required for purchase and a waiting period if you don't have a CT pistol permit but if you're not an "unsuitable" person and wish to open carry you should be able to.
Goldcoaster
Last edited on Wed Jul 16th, 2008 02:02 pm by GoldCoaster
|
Edward Peruta
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 3rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 77 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16th, 2008 01:48 pm |
|
SCHEDULE B Dear Madam or Sir:
Pursuant to an Order of the Superior Court, you are hereby notified of the pendency of the case of Peruta v. Connecticut State Department of Public Safety, et al., Superior Court, Judicial District of New Britain, Docket No. CR07-4015984-S.
By way of declaratory judgment, this case asks the Court to declare certain rights of a Connecticut resident holding a permit to carry pistols or revolvers, specifically seeking judgment as to:
(1) Whether a Connecticut resident has the right in Connecticut to carry a pistol or revolver openly, without concealing the pistol or revolver, in any location where carrying a pistol or revolver is not otherwise prohibited by the premises’ owner or by law.
(2) Whether the Defendants and municipalities have lawful authority to confiscate pistol permits from Connecticut permit holders upon arrest or otherwise without notice of revocation pursuant to General Statutes § 29-32(b).
(3) Whether the Defendants and municipalities stand in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, or condone such violations, by confiscation of a pistol permit upon the arrest of the Connecticut permit holder; by failing to afford proper return of a pistol permit to the rightful owners when submitted by the arresting agency; by relying solely on arrests of Connecticut pistol permit holders as justification for immediate revocation; and by revocation of a pistol permit without the mandatory investigation or finding of cause required by state statute.
A copy of the Complaint in Action for Declaratory Judgment is enclosed because of your potential interest in this litigation. If you wish to be heard, you should make appropriate motion to the Court.
Rachel M. Baird, Attorney
Law Offices of Rachel M. Baird
100 Pearl St Fl 14
Hartford CT 06103-4500
Tel: (860) 249-7238
Fax: (860) 626-9992
|
buketdude
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 149 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16th, 2008 02:17 pm |
|
Dear Mr. Wilson,
The issue remains that this is not an open carry state. There are instances
where the open carry of a firearm may lead to others being inconvenienced,
annoyed or alarmed by the presence of a openly carried firearm. We believe
that the firearm being concealed will allow the permit holder to carry a
firearm but still assure the other members of the public from being exposed
to the firearm which they may not be comfortable around. The link you
provided was from the Office of Legislative Research and not the opinion of
the Department of Public Safety or that of the Board of Firearm Permit
Examiners. We continue to act on the revocation of a pistol permit on a case
by case basis.
I hope this answers you question.
Det. T. M. Karanda
Connecticut State Police
Special Licensing and Firearms Unit
inconvenienced, annoyed and alarmed at my Constitutional rights??....that's my feeling to the fact that i risk arrest for LAWFUL activity..imagine the police pulling over a motorcyclist in CT for not wearing a helmet?...or for a passenger in a car drinking alcohol..these are both LAWFUL activities in this state (not constitutionally protected though)...I say its about time we take the "Constitution State" motto off our license plates..its an insult to our forefathers....its about as bad as Massachusetts "The Spirit Of America" (
Last edited on Wed Jul 16th, 2008 02:22 pm by buketdude
|
minus
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16th, 2008 03:35 pm |
|
Mike wrote:
Who the heck is Det. Karanda to state that CT "is not an open carry state??!!
Where does he get off making such arrogant and conclusory statements?
I think some kind of personnel complaint is in order.
S.L.F.U = Gestapo they make up and enforce policys/laws as they see fit.
Last edited on Wed Jul 16th, 2008 03:36 pm by minus
|
Edward Peruta
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 3rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 77 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 12:16 am |
|
Things are heating up in the Declaratory Ruling case in CT.
I've posted some of the recent documents that have been going back and forth.
Feel free to visit and read, then you be the Judge.
Ed Peruta
http://www.ourrockyhill.com/Docs/Declaratory.Documents.htm
|
Statkowski
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 01:21 am |
|
| So, is Detective Karanda going to be promoted or demoted for his e-mail heard 'round the world? Last edited on Fri Jul 18th, 2008 02:56 am by Statkowski
|
GoldCoaster
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jun 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 65 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 04:21 am |
|
Edward Peruta wrote: Things are heating up in the Declaratory Ruling case in CT.
I've posted some of the recent documents that have been going back and forth.
Feel free to visit and read, then you be the Judge.
Ed Peruta
http://www.ourrockyhill.com/Docs/Declaratory.Documents.htm
Yay!
If you'll pardon the pun, Attorney Baird is a real pistol! I love the way she worded her disagreement that you be forced to pay for something Blumenthal should be doing AND her subtle implication that he's a media whore...
Very good indeed!
|
MGoduto
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 20th, 2008 03:04 am |
|
buketdude wrote: inconvenienced, annoyed and alarmed at my Constitutional rights??....that's my feeling to the fact that i risk arrest for LAWFUL activity..
My feelings exactly. I wish I could get my wife to understand. She always tells me to '..cover that up...'. To be honest, I check my zipper before my pistol...
I open-carry about 60% of the time and haven't been hassled by any cops yet. I HAVE been on the receiving end of 'concerns' expressed by law enforcement in a town about 18 miles away when my concealed carry was 'reported' by some pants-wetting busybody. Even though the officer involved was very polite and courteous it still annoyed the crap out of me. I've had more problems with people who've known me for years and objected to my lawful carry around '...the children...' or '...how dare I have a loaded gun in church...'.
On the 'positive side' I've accumulated over a dozen instances where I've been addressed as 'officer', asked how long I've been a detective, did I just get off duty, and the most amusing yet: a shady-looking guy asked if I were a bail agent.
Maybe being a middle-aged guy helps with open-carry. It's still a pain-in-the-ass to have to constantly fight for your rights against those '..who know what's best...'.
mg
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Sun Jul 20th, 2008 03:58 am |
|
MGoduto wrote: I open-carry about 60% of the time and haven't been hassled by any cops yet. I HAVE been on the receiving end of 'concerns' expressed by law enforcement in a town about 18 miles away when my concealed carry was 'reported' by some pants-wetting busybody. Even though the officer involved was very polite and courteous it still annoyed the crap out of me.
Whenver this over-exuberant editorializing arises, I would memorialize your objection with that Department and cipy state authorities - if folks get the idea that nmore an dmore people are OCing, objections to it will dry up over time.
|
LKB3rd
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jul 22nd, 2008 12:23 pm |
|
I spoke with Mike Dearington, and he said he could and would not respond to questions based on hypotheticals.
He did say that he was going to look at the statutes on carrying and breach of peace, and that it was an "interesting question."
He was under the impression that open carry was illegal in Connecticut.
I have also made arrangements to hire Rachel Baird to help me with my education of police and 911 call centers locally in preparation for a hopefully uneventful local open carry.
|
buketdude
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 149 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 22nd, 2008 03:37 pm |
|
LKB3rd wrote: I spoke with Mike Dearington, and he said he could and would not respond to questions based on hypotheticals.
He did say that he was going to look at the statutes on carrying and breach of peace, and that it was an "interesting question."
He was under the impression that open carry was illegal in Connecticut.
I have also made arrangements to hire Rachel Baird to help me with my education of police and 911 call centers locally in preparation for a hopefully uneventful local open carry. if you need help with anything..let me know...it would be nice if the media would help on the matter..but i don't about it in this state..
|
LKB3rd
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jul 22nd, 2008 05:38 pm |
|
As has been brought up earlier in the thread, a group open carry bbq/get together of some sort, in a town where the police respond in an acceptable manner- like not insisting they will arrest us if there is a law or not- with an "exclusive" for a reporter might be a good thing to do at some point.
I am in the process of tweaking a letter to use in my town and surrounding towns. I will send it out, and see what sort of responses I get. Ms. Baird is going to help me to get a good cya letter, that will inform them of the law, and make sure they have the opportunity to properly train their officers and 911 centers, and I hope that I/we will be able to go about our business, exercising our right to open carry in a peaceful, responsible, law abiding manner without getting arrested. Imagine that 
|
peterkuck
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 22nd, 2008 06:21 pm |
|
http://www.ycgg.org/legal_pg.html
http://www.ycgg.org/sound_index.htm
|
Current time is 06:02 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7   |
|
