| Author | Post |
|---|
Edward Peruta
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 3rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 387 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14th, 2008 12:40 pm |
|
To all:
Several significant questions have been submitted to the Connecticut Superior Court in the form of a Request for Declaratory Ruling.
CONCEALMENT & OPEN CARRY are issues in the request.
Attorney Rachel M. Baird of Torrington, Connecticut is bringing the action in behalf of Edward A. Peruta and everyone else who has a permit.
Remember, this is a question of RIGHTS, and is not limited to firearms.
In any situation where law enforcement does not understand existing law, or makes their own rules without authority, citizens must demand compliance with the law.
http://www.ourrockyhill.com/Docs/Declaratory.Documents.htm
|
GoldCoaster
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16th, 2008 01:27 pm |
|
Edward,
This is an incredible read. How soon (given the slowly turning wheels of justice) do you think you will see movement on the original complaint?
I wasn't 100% sure why the state argued for a dismissal of the complaint, was it because you didn't include in the notification all the police departments in the state or was it because the class of people this affected (CT Pistol permit holders) weren't notified about it.
Either way, how could the plaintiff be expected to know each and every police department and their address? I am glad the judge saw through that motion and ordered DPS to provide the list.
Since this also affects permit holders it would behove them to send the results of this action to every CT pistol permit holders as well. I'd rather that notification come from the DPS rather than the list of CT permit holders being made public for obvious reasons.
I for one am looking forward to updates on this issue.
Thanks for doing this Edward, and for keeping us up to date on it.
Regards
RC
|
Edward Peruta
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 3rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 387 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16th, 2008 01:57 pm |
|
GOLDCOASTER,
I am currently in Florida and will return to Connecticut next week.
We are currently in the process of providing notice to all law enforcement agencies in CT.
Once that is done, I would hope that Judge Pittman will see the importance of a timely decision in this matter.
It be awhile before we get a formal court decision on these questions, but I understand that changes are taking place across CT.
I have posted in several locations on this and other websites, but the most complete information can be found on two specific sites.
http://www.ycgg.org
http://www.ourrockyhill.com
|
Edward Peruta
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 3rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 387 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 18th, 2008 12:18 am |
|
Recent documents on this topic posted today.
http://www.ourrockyhill.com/Docs/Declaratory.Documents.htm
|
JUMPMASTER
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Dec 30th, 2008 06:30 pm |
|
Oral argument on State’s motion to dismiss Declaratory Ruling request to be held in New Britain Superior Court on January 5th 2009.
Court starts at 9:30 or 10:00 am if your interested.
http://www.ourrockyhill.com for more info
|
JUMPMASTER
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jan 3rd, 2009 03:13 am |
|
The State is NOT ready for oral arguments on January 5th, Attorney says he
has to be in another court.
DELAY again.
DO NOT GO TO COURT ON JANUARY 5TH.
|
Durham68
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 12th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 13th, 2009 06:40 pm |
|
| Any idea when the next date will be set?
|
JUMPMASTER
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Jan 13th, 2009 07:24 pm |
|
| Maybe on the 20th.
|
Durham68
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 12th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 22nd, 2009 04:38 pm |
|
| Any word on a date yet?
|
Edward Peruta
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 3rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 387 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 12th, 2009 10:06 pm |
|
Today, I received word that the transcript of what happened in court is now available.
It needs to be paid for, obtained and then scanned to either Microsoft Word or a PDF format so that it may be posted here on this site.
I'm in San Diego and have had to ask friends to obatin the transcript.
Stay tuned
Last edited on Thu Mar 19th, 2009 03:21 am by Edward Peruta
|
Edward Peruta
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 3rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 387 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 19th, 2009 04:48 pm |
|
This is the link to the Court Transcript of the March Hearing.
The judge seem to get it.
Read the transcript and judge for yourself.
http://www.ourrockyhill.com/Transcript%20of%20Hearing%20on%20Declaratory%20Ruling%20March%202009.htm
|
GoldCoaster
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 19th, 2009 06:18 pm |
|
Interesting read there Ed, too bad Ms Baird didn't have the documents printed out in triplicate ready for that hearing. It sounded to me like the judge was very interested in reading the back and forth between yourself (and others) and the DPS/SFLU folks.
So we won't hear anything else until April 15th or shortly thereafter?
Good stuff, thanks for posting it.
|
Edward Peruta
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 3rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 387 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 19th, 2009 06:26 pm |
|
I was more interested in the fact that we can recover legal fees and expenses if we are successful.
I have no doubts as to how the Judge will rule once he reads the multitude of documents we intend to submit.
I'm not suprised that the State wastes time and resources on this topic when all they had to do was provide the right answers to questions posed by members of the public.
|
uskrusader
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 19th, 2009 06:53 pm |
|
I have been corresponding with some here about organizing an OC event through CCDL sometime in May.
I have been reading your material on ourrockyhill.com and I would like to hear your thoughts concerning such an event.
Thoughts or guidance?
|
GoldCoaster
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 19th, 2009 09:58 pm |
|
Edward,
The part about punitive damages being attorney costs I didn't quite understand. Was it that in a case of this kind that punitive damages are not awardable as in a huge amount as a punishment but that attorneys costs would be considered as a punitive amount? That would be good either way because I'm sure you've put a lot of time and money into this case.
As long as the honorable judge makes his decision based on the points in law and not what the DPS thinks (although you'd have thought that the assistant attorney general would have dragged a DPS lawyer with him).
With a declaratory ruling to the effect of the statutes of CT do not prohibit open carry that's the end of it. Any harrassment after that would be grounds for a new motorcycle like a certain Mark got from a Louisiana town intent on harrassment.
Last edited on Thu Mar 19th, 2009 09:59 pm by GoldCoaster
|
Edward Peruta
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 3rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 387 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 19th, 2009 10:24 pm |
|
| The case in New Britain is NOT a case for damages, those could be filed in a State or Federal Court. In order to receieve punitive damages, the court may require the plaintiff to show arbitrary and capricous conduct. I simply wnated and want the court to address the issue and clarify exactly what the law mandates.
|
Statkowski
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20th, 2009 01:19 am |
|
What is it that some people, including Mr. Peruta's attorney, do not understand? Laws do not grant permission, they only deny certain actions. If it's not denied by statute, then, by default, it's legal. Murder, be it for vengeance, vendetta, retribution or whatever, is illegal because the law states it's illegal. If not made illegal, it would be, by default, legal.
The statute requires a license to carry a firearm. The statute does not state that the firearm has to be concealed, or unconcealed. Ergo, ipso facto, and a bunch of other dead-language terms, open carry is not illegal since it's not specifically prohibited by law.
The question to be raised is, where does some state agency get the lawful authority to add concealed carry restrictions to the law? And, if they lack the authority to do so, then why are they doing it?
|
Protector
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21st, 2009 02:22 am |
|
Statkowski wrote: What is it that some people, including Mr. Peruta's attorney, do not understand? Laws do not grant permission, they only deny certain actions. If it's not denied by statute, then, by default, it's legal. Murder, be it for vengeance, vendetta, retribution or whatever, is illegal because the law states it's illegal. If not made illegal, it would be, by default, legal.
The statute requires a license to carry a firearm. The statute does not state that the firearm has to be concealed, or unconcealed. Ergo, ipso facto, and a bunch of other dead-language terms, open carry is not illegal since it's not specifically prohibited by law.
The question to be raised is, where does some state agency get the lawful authority to add concealed carry restrictions to the law? And, if they lack the authority to do so, then why are they doing it?
+1
|
Edward Peruta
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 3rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 387 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 2nd, 2009 01:13 am |
|
Latest update,
Attorney Rachal Baird has filed a Memorandum regading the State's motion to dismiss, and you may read it at this link.
http://www.ourrockyhill.com/Docs/Declaratory/peruta.Supplemental.Motion.pdf
|
SlackwareRobert
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jun 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | Alabama |
| Posts: | 943 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 7th, 2009 10:11 pm |
|
Is this a trascript thing, or is english a foreign language in that court?
Tuff reading to follow what the judge is going on about.
Ahh, that is, ahh, like, ahh, reads like a BHO off the cuff interview.
Can't wait for the next phase, and oral arguments. Would love to sit in on this one.
|
Current time is 12:59 pm | Page: 1 2   |
|
