| Author | Post |
|---|
Edward Peruta
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28th, 2009 11:42 pm |
|
October 22, 2009
2009-R-0354
FIREARMS
By: Veronica Rose, Principal Analyst
You asked if it is (1) legal to possess handguns without a permit. You also asked if it is illegal for a person with a valid gun permit to (1) carry exposed handguns in public or (2) carry exposed handguns on his or her private property.
The Office of Legislative Research is not authorized to give legal opinions and this should not be taken as one.
1. Is it lawful to possess handguns without a permit?
The law does not require a person to have a permit in order to possess handguns within his or her “dwelling house or place of business” (CGS § 29-35). The court has defined business place for purposes of this statute as a “business in which the individual has a proprietary, controlling or possessory interest and, therefore, does not include place of employment in its scope” (State v. Vickers, 260 Conn. 219, 223).
The law also exempts from the permit requirement:
1. Connecticut parole and peace officers;
2. other states' parole and peace officers on official business;
3. federal marshals and law enforcement officers;
4. U. S. Armed Forces members on, or going to or from, duty;
5. members of a military organization on parade or going to or from a place of assembly; and
6. anyone carrying a handgun (a) in its original package from the point of purchase to his or her home or business place, (b) as merchandise, (c) for repair or when moving household goods, (d) to or from a testing range at a firearm permit-issuing official's request, or (e) to a competition or exhibit under an out-of-state permit.
2. Is it illegal for a person with a valid gun permit to carry exposed handguns on his or her person in a public place? Is it illegal for a person with a valid gun permit to carry exposed handguns on his or her private property?
The statutes authorizing the carrying of handguns are silent on these issues. And there is no binding interpretation of these statutes. According to the Attorney General's Office:
. . . the question of whether permitted gun owners must carry the firearm in a concealed manner is currently in litigation. While the statute doesn't explicitly prohibit the open carrying of a weapon, the Department of Public Safety feels that publicly carrying a weapon may implicate criminal statutes in certain circumstances. The Office of the Attorney General does not enforce those statutes.
Further, whether or not the Department believes that the current law requires the concealed carrying of such weapon, our office has not provided any legal advice on that matter as we have not been asked by the Department to answer such a question.
VR: ts
Last edited on Thu Oct 29th, 2009 12:00 am by Edward Peruta
|
Rich B
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28th, 2009 11:47 pm |
|
So this really puts in the same place as we have been, does it not?
Also, who is this OLR place and what does it mean to us?Last edited on Wed Oct 28th, 2009 11:47 pm by Rich B
|
Edward Peruta
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28th, 2009 11:49 pm |
|
OLR stand for Office of Legislative Research.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/olr/
Mission Statement
The nonpartisan Office of Legislative Research helps the General Assembly make policy and serve the public by providing it with accurate, timely, and objective research, policy analysis, and assistance in the development of legislation
Last edited on Wed Oct 28th, 2009 11:54 pm by Edward Peruta
|
buketdude
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 191 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 12:13 am |
|
I don't understand why it matters what the Dept Of Public Safety "feels"?
"Further, whether or not the Department believes that the current law requires the concealed carrying of such weapon" ???
What in the "current law" would give anyone the idea that you must carry concealed???
I think you truly must be mentally ill if you read the CGS and come to the conclusion that "you must conceal a handgun"...or just a complete idiot...
Last edited on Thu Oct 29th, 2009 12:14 am by buketdude
|
JohnO
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 02:27 pm |
|
The State of CT Statutes are also "silent" on chewing gum while walking, as well as every other lawful pursuit and activity of normal everyday life .
The chosen phrasing smacks of someone desiring to cloud the issue and not wanting to go on record stating that carrying openly is legal.
|
Statkowski
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 03:53 pm |
|
It's kind of hard for them to come out and openly state that open carry is legal. However, since the law is silent on such, they can come out and state that it's not illegal.
Here in Pennsylvania the law is likewise silent on the issue, but a State Supreme Court ruling, interpreting the law or lack thereof, openly stated that open carry was legal since it wasn't illegal.
|
Rich B
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 03:56 pm |
|
Statkowski wrote:
It's kind of hard for them to come out and openly state that open carry is legal.
But the question is: Why? What would be wrong with that? Open carry is legal, and it harms no one. This is like stating openly that chewing gum is legal.
|
ESCH
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 15th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 61 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 04:48 pm |
|
. . . the question of whether permitted gun owners must carry the firearm in a concealed manner is currently in litigation.
What litigation is this? I haven't heard it is in litigation.
It is great that the question keeps being asked. I just want a definitive answer. The only reason it is not given is political and that pisses me off. Whoever is in charge of making the public statement doesn't have the balls to do it. They are afraid of the public reaction to such comment and afraid of the reaction from the local police departments who don't want this to become common practice for whatever reasons. "The law is silent" means there is no law. It is not illegal.
They then throw in a bunch of crap about how:
doesn't explicitly prohibit the open carrying of a weapon, the Department of Public Safety feels that publicly carrying a weapon may implicate criminal statutes in certain circumstances. The Office of the Attorney General does not enforce those statutes.
Which is meant to please the local police departments because they can charge you with whatever they want to to try to discourage this activity. Who is responsible for answering wether openly carrying a firearm with a permit to do so while going about lawful activities itself is grounds for an arrest. Someone has to be responsible for answering that question. Who? Obviously no one wants that hot potato, but it belongs to someone. WHO?
|
Edward Peruta
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 05:46 pm |
|
The question has been around for several years, I filed this with the Superior Court and it was dismissed because THEY maintain that I did not exhaust my admisistrative remedies.
The issue is currently on appeal in CT.
http://www.ourrockyhill.com/Goldberg.Files/peruta_DecJudgeComplaint_112807.pdf
|
Thundar
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 06:28 pm |
|
Edward Peruta quote: ... that publicly carrying a weapon may implicate criminal statutes in certain circumstances. The Office of the Attorney General does not enforce those statutes.
This is worse than a non answer, it is an illogical one.
Any act may implicate criminal statutes in certain circumstances. It does not make the act illegal.
For example:
Driving may implicate criminal statutes (speeding, etc.) in certain circumstances, but that doesn't mean the act of driving is illegal.
|
ESCH
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 15th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 61 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 06:32 pm |
|
Great reading. Thanks Ed.
I remember the "not exhausting administrative remedies"
I remember hearing about an appeal.
Is there any dates approaching where this moves along?
|
Edward Peruta
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 07:14 pm |
|
Afer reading between the lines in the most recent OLR, I went to the OLR office at the capitol and acquired these emails.
There will be more, but I am waiting for them to be emailed to me.
I have posted a link to the PDF emails.
http://www.ourrockyhill.com/00.DJ.info/OLR%20Docs%20on%20Owning%20and%20Open%20Carry0001.pdfLast edited on Thu Oct 29th, 2009 07:29 pm by Edward Peruta
|
ESCH
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 15th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 61 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 07:57 pm |
|
They keep on intentionally being as vague as possible and it really is annoying.
While the statute doesn't explicitly prohibit the open carrying of a weapon, the Department of Public Safety feels that publicly carrying a weapon may implicate criminal statutes in certain circumstances.
"Certain circumstances?" For example, While committing an act of arson? How about While engaged in a fist fight? Of course under "certain circumstances" it may be against CT general Statutes. Why do they refuse to tell you what those circumstances are?
That is BS. They know that is not what was meant by the question. Notice they never want to get in writing that what they mean is when it causes someone else alarm. They won't say it. They won't write it. They insinuate it with "certain circumstances." That way they can't be held accountable for their words and it gets the paper off their desk.
On top of that, the Department of Public Safety feels that publicly carrying a weapon may implicate criminal statutes in certain circumstances.
The DPS "feels" and "may" implicate? Real strong foundation and fact finding done here. Way to get to the bottom of the situation. I "feel" I shouldn't have to pay taxes in this state where they treat their citizens this way. Where does that get me and what weight does my "feelings" hold? I don't remember reading anyone asking the DPS how they "feel" about anything. It is not their job to have an opinion. It either does or does not constitute a basis for a criminal charge. Period.
Sorry for venting.
|
Edward Peruta
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 08:00 pm |
|
We need to make our frustration known to the two legislators who asked for the most recent OLR.
I'm still waiting for Veronica Rose to send me any documents from DPS that led to this OLR.
Will keep everyone posted.
Ed
|
ESCH
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 15th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 61 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 08:32 pm |
|
Let me see if I get this right or not. Richard Kehoe states in his letter to V. Rose.
the statute doesn't explicitly prohibit the open carrying of a weapon
Then he goes on to say,
Further, whether or not the Department believes that the current law requires the concealed carrying of such weapon, our office has not provided any legal advice on that matter as we have not been asked by the Department to answer such a question.
Which means the AG's office hasn't told the DPS what the law is because they haven't been asked. What difference does it make if they ask or not? Is the DPS the only one who can ask the AG's office for what the law is? I thought the whole point of this was that the question IS being asked of the AG's office by V. Rose. Correct?
The DPS is not going to ask the AG's office what the law is because they already know what it is and they don't want to hear the answer. The AG's office needs to tell them even if they don't want to hear it.
Is the legislator who posed this question to Veronica Rose pleased with the insightful and exact answer given to their question? Or do they see it as a bunch of roadblocks as it is intended to be?
|
gluegun
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed May 13th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 110 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 08:44 pm |
|
ESCH wrote: Further, whether or not the Department believes that the current law requires the concealed carrying of such weapon, our office has not provided any legal advice on that matter as we have not been asked by the Department to answer such a question. So how does one get DPS to ask the AG's office to provide legal advice on this matter? Can another governmental body get the AG's office to answer this question?
|
Rich B
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 08:47 pm |
|
gluegun wrote:
So how does one get DPS to ask the AG's office to provide legal advice on this matter?
And why can't the citizens ask for an authoritative answer? Does the AG forget that he is employed by us?
|
gluegun
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed May 13th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 110 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 08:54 pm |
|
Rich B wrote: gluegun wrote:
So how does one get DPS to ask the AG's office to provide legal advice on this matter?
And why can't the citizens ask for an authoritative answer? Does the AG forget that he is employed by us? Apparently that's not one of his duties under the Connecticut General Statutes. He IS required to answer any of the following:
He shall, when required by either house of the General Assembly or when requested by the president pro tempore of the Senate, the speaker of the House of Representatives, or the majority leader or the minority leader of the Senate or House of Representatives, give his opinion upon questions of law submitted to him by either of said houses or any of said leaders. He shall advise or give his opinion to the head of any executive department or any state board or commission upon any question of law submitted to him. So says Sec. 3-125. Duties of Attorney General; deputy; assistants; associate attorneys general.
|
Rich B
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 08:57 pm |
|
gluegun wrote:
Apparently that's not one of his duties under the Connecticut General Statutes.
And that seems to be a major issue in my mind.
How are we supposed to abide by the law if no one can even tell us what it is?
|
gluegun
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed May 13th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 110 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 09:29 pm |
|
Rich B wrote: How are we supposed to abide by the law if no one can even tell us what it is? We know the law. It's getting the government and it's agents to understand.
Since DPS is apparently unwilling to ask the AG the question we all want answered, the next best option is to find another person with the authority to make such a request.
|
Current time is 12:23 am | Page: 1 2   |
|
