| Author | Post |
|---|
Edward Peruta
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 11:44 am |
|
I have taken the liberty to underline and make bold certain text in this document that I find interesting.
AS TAKEN FROM THE DOCUMENT RECENTLY RECEIVED
Summary of Proposal (Include background information)
This new law would require that a pistol or revolver be carried concealed. With certain exceptions for peace officer, parole officers, corrections officers of this state and other states while engaged in official duties as well as federal marshals, agents, armed forces and licensed armed security guards in pursuit of their duties. Also included are the penalties for violations of this act.
Reason for Proposal (Include significant policy and programmatic impacts)
Connecticut’s firearms carry laws are vague in language as it pertains to carrying a pistol or revolver concealed. Recently, citizens have taken it upon themselves to test our statutes by carrying openly. In doing so, several arrests have been made under the Breach of Peace statues C.G.S. 53a-181, with those dispositions ending in nolle’s or dismissal, proving that these laws are inadequate in their detail. It is clear that there is a necessity for a concealed firearm law with more detail or, consequently, Connecticut may end up being a state where they carry exposed at all times as decided by case law.
Significant Fiscal Impacts
Municipal: None
Federal: None
State: Penalties would increase the general fund.
(NEW) CARRYING A PISTOL OR REVOLVER CONCEALED. Exceptions. Definitions. Penalties.
(a) Any person carrying a pistol or revolver, pursuant to the provision of section 29-35, shall conceal such pistol or revolver.
(b) The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to the carrying of any pistol or revolver by any parole officer or peace officer or a uniformed corrections officer of this state, or parole officer or peace officer of any other state while engaged in the pursuit of official duties, or federal marshal or federal law enforcement agent, or to any member of the armed forces of the United States, as defined by section 27-103, or of this state, as defined by section 27-2, when on duty or going to or from duty, or a uniformed armed security officer licensed to carry a pistol or revolver while engaged in the performance of their official duties.
(c) Concealed pistol or revolver means a firearm, that is a pistol or revolver that is covered or enclosed in any manner that an observer cannot determine that it is a handgun without removing it from that which covers or encloses it or without opening, lifting, or removing that which covers or encloses it. However, concealed handgun does not include a shotgun or rifle.
(d) Any person who violates any provision of subsection (a) of this section shall: (1) for conviction of a first offense, be fined not less than five hundred dollars or more than two thousand dollars, and (b) be imprisoned not more than one year; and (2) for a subsequent conviction of this offense (a) be fined not less than two thousand dollars or more than five thousand dollars, and (b) be imprisoned not more than five years.
My opinion:
The Department of Public Safety knows that open carry is currently NOT prohibited in CT.
The Department of Public Safety knows that there are PENDING CIVIL CASES that will clairify the existing statute and permit OPEN CARRY without fear of arrest or revocation.
The department of Public Safety will attempt to sell this new statute on the belief that it will raise additional revenue for the general fund by imposing significant fines on those that open carry while exercising a state and federal Constitutional Right.
The state has known and currently knows that using criminal charges in situations of OPEN CARRY is not correct and has resulted in NOLLES and the DISMISSAL of charges.
DPS now wants to make the second OPEN CARRY offense a FELONY, which would prohibit any possession of a firearm.
JOIN AND FINANCIALLY SUPPORT THE CONNECTICUT CITIZEN'S DEFENSE LEAGUE BY VISITING http://WWW.CCDL.US.
Ed Peruta
Last edited on Sat Nov 7th, 2009 11:46 am by Edward Peruta
|
JohnO
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 02:00 pm |
|
This is outlandish! How can it be possible that {"citizens have taken it upon themselves to test our statutes by carrying openly"} can be construed as testing the statutes. If there is no law against it, it is not in the statutes and therefore no one is testing anything.
This proposal can not stand! The possible penalties for mere accidental exposure are ridiculous and un-constitutional.
Every gun owner whether or not they hold a carry permit or not needs to wake up and vigorously oppose this legislation. Every law abiding individual who believes in the constitution should also do the same.
|
Thundar
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 03:15 pm |
|
This proposal makes the assumption that there was an intent to force concealment of handguns when the licensing scheme was approved by the legislature. That assumption has not been proven and the CT DPS should not be acting in such an irresponsible manner.
The Supreme Court will soon rule on the meaning of Bearing Arms. We know that at least one SC Justice believes that Open Carry is the right and that concealment is a priveledge. IMHO CT would not have such an offensive statute for long if it were to enact it.
Perhaps one could argue that the unintended consequence of forced concealment would be long gun open carry by those that believe that open carry is a right.
|
Lenny Benedetto
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 07:12 pm |
|
Thundar wrote: This proposal makes the assumption that there was an intent to force concealment of handguns when the licensing scheme was approved by the legislature. That assumption has not been proven and the CT DPS should not be acting in such an irresponsible manner.
The Supreme Court will soon rule on the meaning of Bearing Arms. We know that at least one SC Justice believes that Open Carry is the right and that concealment is a priveledge. IMHO CT would not have such an offensive statute for long if it were to enact it.
Perhaps one could argue that the unintended consequence of forced concealment would be long gun open carry by those that believe that open carry is a right.
Thundar,
My main concern is that this garbage could actually become a bill and pass well before the Supreme Court comes to any conclusion over the issue.
Many Lawful Ct gun owners could be eye deep in legal expenses or worse, sitting in prison.
This is something that cannot pass!!!! No matter what!!!
|
turbodog
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 10:47 pm |
|
So they admit the reasoning behind this law isn't public safety, but strictly for monetary gain. They get to make instant criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens, allowing them to then impose fines for their "criminal" behavior.
Ever since the courts decided to allowed municipalities to confiscate private land in the guise of economic development, it should be no real surprise that government will move on to stripping citizens of other rights in the name of the dollar.
|
BizOwner
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 12th, 2009 |
| Location: | Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 24 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 8th, 2009 12:56 am |
|
Edward Peruta wrote:
JOIN AND FINANCIALLY SUPPORT THE CONNECTICUT CITIZEN'S DEFENSE LEAGUE BY VISITING http://WWW.CCDL.US.
Ed Peruta
After reading the latest proposal, it was more than enough for me.
I filled out my CCDL application on line today. I have also mailed to CCDL a $500.00 contribution. Starting Dec. 1, 2009 I will contribute $100.00 a month for a minimum of 5 months. Unfortunately I will not be able to attend alot of meetings due to business. But, will help out when I can.
|
JGuinness
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jan 13th, 2009 |
| Location: | Florida USA |
| Posts: | 28 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 8th, 2009 02:01 am |
|
BizOwner wrote: Edward Peruta wrote: JOIN AND FINANCIALLY SUPPORT THE CONNECTICUT CITIZEN'S DEFENSE LEAGUE BY VISITING http://WWW.CCDL.US.
Ed Peruta
After reading the latest proposal, it was more than enough for me.
Let me be the first to pass along my sincere thanks and appreciation. This next legislative session is going to be a tough political battle for us. We have put in a lot of work in the "off season" and we are prepared to put up significant resistance.
Thank you,
Justin
Carry On!
|
GoldCoaster
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 8th, 2009 03:28 am |
|
BizOwner wrote: Edward Peruta wrote:
JOIN AND FINANCIALLY SUPPORT THE CONNECTICUT CITIZEN'S DEFENSE LEAGUE BY VISITING http://WWW.CCDL.US.
Ed Peruta
After reading the latest proposal, it was more than enough for me.
I filled out my CCDL application on line today. I have also mailed to CCDL a $500.00 contribution. Starting Dec. 1, 2009 I will contribute $100.00 a month for a minimum of 5 months. Unfortunately I will not be able to attend alot of meetings due to business. But, will help out when I can.
Thank you very much Bizowner, welcome to the CCDL, and if you can find time to visit us, please do we'd love to have you.
|
romma
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 8th, 2009 10:45 am |
|
We have a serious fight on our hands when a State agency such as DPS continually attempts to create laws to suit their wishes, instead of serving the public by enforcing the laws.
Nothing like these people pushing it's citizens around while getting paid full time with nice benefits such as state of the art health-care, sick pay and retirement paid for ironically by us. While we always have to fight from behind.
Where is the State agency that fights on our behalf??
BizOwner, thanks for joining, and contributing to the cause...
|
Lenny Benedetto
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 8th, 2009 12:17 pm |
|
BizOwner,
Thank you for the VERY Kind donation!
Hopefully we will get to meet you at one of our meetings soon.
To all,
Remember that there is strength in numbers, especially when the time comes to go to Hartford and address our lawmakers about the problems that we have with these issues.
The more people that attend, on our side, the BIGGER the statement we actually make....STRENGTH IN NUMBERS!!!
|
ESCH
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 15th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 91 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 07:06 pm |
|
| Who wrote this proposed legislation? We need names. Why is it this sort of thing is always proposed without anyone knowing who is behind it. The people who write these things need to be called out. The public needs to know names. These people need to be directly contacted by the public who disaproves of this garbage.
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 07:33 pm |
|
| Can you carry in the CT statehouse or building where they hold hearings? might be nice to speak against this bill while open carrying if you can carry there.
|
Lenny Benedetto
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 07:41 pm |
|
Mike wrote: Can you carry in the CT statehouse or building where they hold hearings? might be nice to speak against this bill while open carrying if you can carry there.
Easy answer
NO!
|
Lenny Benedetto
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 07:41 pm |
|
ESCH wrote: Who wrote this proposed legislation? We need names. Why is it this sort of thing is always proposed without anyone knowing who is behind it. The people who write these things need to be called out. The public needs to know names. These people need to be directly contacted by the public who disaproves of this garbage.
Coming from
DPS
|
Edward Peruta
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 08:05 pm |
|
Here individual emails and email chains that were sent to me after my FOI request.
I put them over on http://www.ctgunrights.com in the forum, but they will get more exposure here until the traffic on the CTgunrights website picks up.
I'm sure there are more documents that I could have obtained, but you have to be rational if you expect to received what your looking for in a prompt fashion.
Sgt. Seth Mancini in the Legal Affairs Unit was very helpful with this request.
Concealment was suggested in 2008, suggested and submitted in 2009 and is now suggested and as yet not submitted for the 2010 legislative session.
The Connecticut Citizen's Defense League and individuals now have a pretty good lead time to organize and get their act together to address this proposal.
----- Original Message -----
From: Turner, Chelsea
To: Spellman, Steven
Cc: Duncan, Nora
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 1:31 PM
Subject: FW: Department of Public Safety 2010 legislative proposals
Thanks Steve!
________________________________________
From: Spellman, Steven
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 3:13 PM
To: Henry, Jean E.; Turner, Chelsea
Subject: Department of Public Safety 2010 legislative proposals
Jean and Chelsea – attached please find DPS legislative proposals for 2010 session and index of same. steve
----- Original Message -----
From: Mancini, Seth
To: Edward Peruta
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 10:48 AM
Subject: RE: FOI Request for information on proposed 2010 legislation
Mr. Peruta:
Based on our discussion last night, attached please find two emails responsive to your request. One email is from LTC Arciero to Steve Spellman and includes all of the legislative proposals from the Bureau of Support Services (which includes SLFU). The other email is from Steve Spellman to OPM, and includes all of the formal proposals that DPS sent up. As you will see, there were some that were proposed at the lower level that were not ultimately included in the proposal from the agency.
As we discussed, I did receive other emails from Steve, but these two contain all of the relevant proposals in one place. I will be in the office next week in the event you have follow-up questions.
Seth Mancini
_______________________
Sgt. Seth G. Mancini, Esq.
Commissioner's Staff
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission (and any attachments accompanying it) is privileged, confidential and intended only for the individual or entity named. If you or your office is not the intended recipient, the dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy all copies of this transmission. Thank you.
________________________________________
From: Edward Peruta [mailto:edperuta@amcable.tv]
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 10:22
To: Spellman, Steven
Cc: Atty Rachel M. Baird; Mancini, Seth
Subject: FOI Request for information on proposed 2010 legislation
Mr. Spellman,
Please provide prompt access to any documents that currently exist regarding suggestions or recommendations for proposed legislation in the upcoming 2010 legislative session.
It is my understanding that the process for suggesting legislation for the upcoming session begins in the late summer.
I am also sending this to Sgt. Seth Mancini in the Commissioner’s office.
Because of the delays involved in receiving answers via U.S. Mail, I request that we communicate via email.
Respectfully,
Edward A. Peruta
----- Original Message -----
From: Arciero, Christopher
To: Spellman, Steven
Cc: Izzarelli, Samuel ; Vitale, Deborah
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 2:44 PM
Subject: FW: PROPOSALS 2010 Legislative Session
Steve- OAS is available to discuss the specifics. Thx Chris
From: Vitale, Deborah
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 2:48 PM
To: Arciero, Christopher
Cc: Izzarelli, Samuel
Subject: PROPOSALS 2010 Legislative Session
Importance: High
Sirs:
As we discussed, these are the responses to your request for any proposals pertaining to the 2010 Legislative Session.
A copy of SPHQ 2009-175 and responses from BC & T and BSS are attached. Grants did not have anything to propose.
Note: The deadline for submission to Steve Spellman is September 8th. R/S, Deb
From: Bonker, Colleen
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 11:31 AM
To: dps.messagecenter@po.state.ct.us
Cc: Vitale, Deborah; bill.freeman@po.state.ct.us; Bartush, Bette; Henion, Ed; Spellman, Steven
Subject: PROPOSALS 2010
Please send an SPHQ to SPALL
Thanks,
Colleen
Colleen S. Bonker
Executive Secretary to
Commissioner John A. Danaher III
Department of Public Safety
|
ESCH
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 15th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 91 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 08:41 pm |
|
Lenny Benedetto wrote: ESCH wrote: Who wrote this proposed legislation? We need names. Why is it this sort of thing is always proposed without anyone knowing who is behind it. The people who write these things need to be called out. The public needs to know names. These people need to be directly contacted by the public who disaproves of this garbage.
Coming from
DPS
DPS is not what I was looking for. Which person actually put pen to paper and wrote this down. Not every person who works for DPS had a say in this. It is either one person or a very small group who meet behind closed doors hidden from sunlight who come up with this stuff. It is certainly not done out in the open in any kind of public forum.
|
Lenny Benedetto
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 08:57 pm |
|
You might try contacting any of the people that are on the emails that Ed posted.
They may be helpful with supplying an actual name.
|
BizOwner
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 12th, 2009 |
| Location: | Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 24 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 08:12 pm |
|
Lenny Benedetto wrote: BizOwner,
Thank you for the VERY Kind donation!
Hopefully we will get to meet you at one of our meetings soon.
Your welcome. Cannot attend tonites meeting, but I have the Dec. meeting on my calender. Will see you all in Dec.
|
ESCH
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 15th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 91 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11th, 2009 02:33 am |
|
| Sorry you couldn't make the meeting. Things are really picking up. I believe there was about a 30% increase in turnout from last month! Getting close to needing a bigger room!
|
Lon
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 27th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 39 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11th, 2009 10:22 pm |
|
I would love to make the meetings, but both my wife and I have previous commitments on Tuesdays - I can't make everything. 
|
Current time is 09:11 pm | |
|
