|
|
|
OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > Connecticut > Angry woman in the S&S parking lot
|
|
||
| OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > Connecticut > Angry woman in the S&S parking lot
|
|||
| Moderated by: jpierce | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Lank Regular Member
|
So this woman scared the crap out of me in the stop & shop parking lot today. My car door is open and I'm loading groceries into the passengers side when she approaches: "Excuse me can I ask what you do for a living that you're carrying a weapon around?" She was dressed like a pretty normal person - but she had this absolutely hostile look on her face. I wish I had a picture. It was frightening. I've had a few people ask about the gun before but they've always been very polite. She looked like she was out for blood. I replied: "I'm a software engineer." Suddenly her face became apologetic: "Oh sorry. I thought you were carrying a weapon." I realized the gun was now out of her view after I turned to talk to her. I turned back a little. "Oh yes, I am. This is a gun." ...and the look of hostility was back. She looked like she was about to boil over with hippie rage: "So what are you doing carrying a weapon around?" I shrug: "It's legal in Connecticut." I think about showing her the permit for a split second, but decide I don't want this woman knowing where I live. Crazy lady: "To carry a weapon around?" Me: "Yeah, if you have a permit for it." Now she really looks like shes going to explode or flip out or something. I think to myself: "I'm glad *she* doesn't have a gun". I add: "...most people carry them concealed." She turns and stomps away. All pissed off and such. I finish loading my last two bags of groceries and drive off. So, nothing really bad happened. And I'm alright.  And I guess one incident in 6 months+ of open carrying is not very much. It just spooked me a little bit. |
|||||||||
|
Lenny Benedetto Regular Member 
|
What town were you in? |
|||||||||
|
MGoduto Regular Member 
|
Lank wrote: So this woman scared the crap out of me in the stop & shop parking lot today. My car door is open and I'm loading groceries into the passengers side when she approaches: ...how do you spell 'crazy bitch'??? Amazing!! Is it prudent behavior to walk up to an armed person that you don't know, and start asking hostile questions? And they say that we're crazy!!! |
|||||||||
|
modelo57 Regular Member 
|
Un (blanking) believable! |
|||||||||
|
Lank Regular Member
|
THE LOVER wrote: What town were you in? This was the Stop & Shop in Norwalk on the Post Road. |
|||||||||
|
Lank Regular Member
|
MGoduto wrote
Yeah being hostile towards an armed stranger for no good reason doesn't seem like it would generally be a good idea. It definitely wasn't what she said but *how* she said it. For a minute I thought she might've been an off-duty police officer. She kept using the word "weapon" instead of just saying "gun". But since she didn't seem to know about concealed carry I figured she was probably not a cop. I'm just glad I didn't babble or say anything dumb. I'm an intelligent person, but not always the best at expressing myself verbally. I think I handled that one pretty well though. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Lank wrote: But since she didn't seem to know about concealed carry I figured she was probably not a cop. Apparently, you don't either.  |
|||||||||
|
Lenny Benedetto Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Lank wrote:But since she didn't seem to know about concealed carry I figured she was probably not a cop. What doesnt he know??? |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member 
|
THE LOVER wrote: airgunner23 wrote:Lank wrote:But since she didn't seem to know about concealed carry I figured she was probably not a cop. Drive by Troll anti-OC'r.  |
|||||||||
|
Lenny Benedetto Regular Member
|
Sonora Rebel wrote: THE LOVER wrote:airgunner23 wrote:Lank wrote:But since she didn't seem to know about concealed carry I figured she was probably not a cop. I hope that remark was not directed at me |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member
|
Nah... airgunner 23. |
|||||||||
|
JUMPMASTER Regular Member 
|
She is lucky you didn't have her arrested for causing you annoyance, alarm, inconvience, and grief. : ) |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Listen, bub. I'm VERY pro-OC and I do it all the time back home in AZ. There is a time and a place for everything and OC in the libtard blue Peoples Republic of Konnektikut ain't it. |
|||||||||
|
Hef Regular Member 
|
airgunner23 wrote: Listen, bub. I'm VERY pro-OC and I do it all the time back home in AZ. There is a time and a place for everything and OC in the libtard blue Peoples Republic of Konnektikut ain't it. I have a CT non-res permit and I OC whenever I am in CT. I haven't had a problem. IMO, when I am in CT, that IS the time and place for OC. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
JUMPMASTER wrote: She is lucky you didn't have her arrested for causing you annoyance, alarm, inconvience, and grief. : ) HE is VERY lucky he didn't get arrested had she called in "man with a gun". According to the SFLU and BFPE, you are to make EVERY effort to keep your firearm concealed because if you don't and it "causes alarm" to another person, you risk arrest and losing your permit. This was a direct response on the BFPE FAQ section on their website. There was a lot of good stuff there but, unfortunately, they took most of it down because people were citing it as legal advice, which it was NOT. Remember the guy at Chili's who went in to pick up his take out and his pistol was exposed? A LOT of legal trouble for that guy. I know it isn't in the LAW, but those two units, especially the SFLU, make the rules and that's what they go by. Just like defining the AK-47 "type" and what qualifies under the assault weapons ban. Show me where that is codified in the law ANYWHERE. You can't...because it's not there... |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Hef wrote: I have a CT non-res permit and I OC whenever I am in CT. I haven't had a problem. IMO, when I am in CT, that IS the time and place for OC. Ok there, Shooter... Try that in downtown Hartford, Bridgeport, New Haven, Stratford or, heck, even my little town of Naugatuck and let me know how that went with your one phone call. Right or wrong, it is what it is... |
|||||||||
|
JUMPMASTER Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Listen, bub. I'm VERY pro-OC and I do it all the time back home in AZ. There is a time and a place for everything and OC in the libtard blue Peoples Republic of Konnektikut ain't it. Here in Connecticut we have far less restrictions on where we can't carry then you do in Arizona. We can carry just about anywhere we please. Just because you live in Arizona that doesn't mean you have any more right to carry openly then we do here. Have you ever heard of the US Constitution Article IV Section 2.: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Well, I just fired off an email about OC to my local PD and the SLFU. I'll post what they respond with...if they respond at all. |
|||||||||
|
JUMPMASTER Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Hef wrote:I have a CT non-res permit and I OC whenever I am in CT. I haven't had a problem. IMO, when I am in CT, that IS the time and place for OC. what a nut job. This guy is part of the problem. Must be a SLFU lacky trolling the forum. Heck, even the Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety admitted during public testimoney that open carry is currently legal. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
JUMPMASTER wrote: Just because you live in Arizona that doesn't mean you have any more right to carry openly then we do here. Where in the hell did I say that? |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member 
|
airgunner23 wrote: JUMPMASTER wrote:She is lucky you didn't have her arrested for causing you annoyance, alarm, inconvience, and grief. : ) If it "isn't the law," but "that's what they go by," they will likely need to get used to purchasing motorcycles for others. The LAW as written (or as administered in case law) is what "matters." LE Departments cannot create law out of whole cloth. Your support of such is not helpful. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
JUMPMASTER wrote: Heck, even the Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety admitted during public testimoney that open carry is currently legal. Then I challenge you to nut up and OC in the downtown areas of the cities I listed above...or any large city in CT and TAKE PICTURES/VIDEO IN PUBLIC because, if you don't, any "I've already done it and had no problems" comments are PURE BS. Just because it's CURRENTLY "legal" doesn't mean you won't get arrested and have a LOT of legal headaches. What if that Commissioner (or the next) one changes their stance? Sometimes using your brain with some discretion is better than "just because I can". Yes, I know that sounds defeatist so save all the "you're part of the problem" comments...it just is what it is here... Again..."points to guy at Chili's"... |
|||||||||
|
Hef Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: JUMPMASTER wrote:She is lucky you didn't have her arrested for causing you annoyance, alarm, inconvience, and grief. : ) The SLFU doesn't make the rules. They process permit apps. They are also very pro-gun. The permit board are the people who think they make the rules, and they are anti-gun. I have no legal obligation to conceal my firearm until the legislature and the governor say so. A concealment proposal is in the works, but for the time being OC is perfectly legal in CT. As for your following post, I OC from the Bradley airport, wherever I stoo (which has included Waterbury, but not Naugatuck), Danbury area, Stamford area, and some of Bridgeport (though not downtown). I generally try to avoid Bridgeport and Waterbury, since I have little to no business there and I don't particularly like the crime-ridden atmosphere. I'm not worried about Stamford at all. My cousin just retired from there as the chief of police. My family is full of LEO's. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
wrightme wrote: If it "isn't the law," but "that's what they go by," they will likely need to get used to purchasing motorcycles for others. WTF? |
|||||||||
|
Hef Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Well, I just fired off an email about OC to my local PD and the SLFU. I'll post what they respond with...if they respond at all. I don't ask a cop for legal opinions just like I don't ask a bank teller for economic forecasts. Neither is worth a damn. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Hef wrote:
Well, if you have "LEO mafia" protection, good for you. Not everyone does. And, as I said before...comments don't cut it. PICS/VIDEO and then maybe I won't raise the BS flag on you. I've lived in CT, been all over the state extensively and worked for Sikorsky for a looooong time and I've NEVER seen anyone OC...and I make it a point to notice... I have seen some REALLY bad cases of printing, though. I about @#$% myself when I saw some fat old biker dude in a Big Y wearing a Larry the Cable Guy shirt, sleeveless of course, that said, "The right to keep and BARE arms shall not be infringed. Of course, right at 3:30 was a HUGE pistol/holster combo carried OWB under an already too tight shirt. He was short and kept exposing the lower half every time he reached up for something. Hilarious.  |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Hef wrote: I don't ask a cop for legal opinions just like I don't ask a bank teller for economic forecasts. Neither is worth a damn. I also contacted the SLFU, which makes a lot of the "rules". Are they just as worthless? |
|||||||||
|
Hef Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: JUMPMASTER wrote:Heck, even the Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety admitted during public testimoney that open carry is currently legal. Why would you use the word "legal" in quotes, as if to question it's legitimacy? Maybe you don't understand our system of law, but in America, that which is not prohibited by law is permitted. The absence of a prohibition on open carry makes it legal. The fact that an LEO may arrest you, a permit holder, for OC'ing does not make your actions any less lawful. |
|||||||||
|
Hef Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Hef wrote: Well, since all the LEO's in CT don't have a telepathic network to communicate with, I conduct myself under the assumption that I may be challenged, and must therefore handle all confrontations on my own. And I do. My point is that I haven't had ANY. Hell, most people don't even notice that I'm carrying.....or they don't care. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Hef wrote
Yes, they do, in a lot of cases. What did you not understand about them making the rule as to what an "AK-47 TYPE" is? They can change that over night and I've NEVER seen the actual definition in writing other than in an email from SGT Bastura, who is/was the XO of the SLFU. I know it isn't "solid legal", but I keep a printed copy, along with my receipt showing I bought my AK-74 at a show in Waterbury, in case I ever get called out for having something banned at the range. And, I have... What I've never gotten a good answer for is what happens to a person if they get caught carrying and have the permit, but not physically on them. Forgot wallet or something... |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Hef wrote: The fact that an LEO may arrest you, a permit holder, for OC'ing does not make your actions any less lawful. I never said OC was illegal. I used "legal" in quotes because Johnny Law MAKES "legal" happen however he wants at the time because he may very well not even know the law as so often happens. Just because it's "legal" doesn't mean a person won't have a PITA day if approached for OC. Right or wrong...it is what it is... And I still call BS on the people who OC "all the time" all over CT and have NEVER had a problem or been questioned. |
|||||||||
|
JUMPMASTER Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Hef wrote: So what is the big deal with "printing?" He can carry his gun anyway he wants. Just because he chose to have it covered doesn't mean it has to be completely covered. And if he chose to carry it in the open doesn't mean it has to be completely in the open. That's the beauty of Connecticut, you can carry you gun and way you want to and it is completely LEGAL. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
JUMPMASTER wrote:So what is the big deal with "printing? If you're going to carry concealed, then at least do better than a redneck, beater half assed attempt. |
|||||||||
|
JUMPMASTER Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Hef wrote you may wish to visit this website ct.gov/bfpe and review the firearms laws link. If you review the law you will find that if you are carrying but your permit is not physcially on you that it's an infraction and the fine is $35. I don't understand what your statement of "get caught carrying and have the permit.." means. What is there to get "caught" for? Doing something legal is no grounds to be "caught" |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
JUMPMASTER wrote:
See, that's the exact thing right there. $35 fine? Naugatuck PD said you'd be arrested on the spot, firearm confiscated and they would petition to have your permit yanked. What do you not understand about getting caught without physically having the permit? Any number of things that would put you in the hospital when out and about. Heart attack, stroke, serious car accident... The EMTs would find it and most likely contact the police...they'd already be there for a car accident. Or simply being questioned by Officer "Not so Fiendly" if he sees you printing. Again..."points to guy busted at Chili's for printing". Or, gasp! Actually having to use it for self defense! Last edited on Fri May 8th, 2009 07:28 pm by airgunner23 |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member
|
..."It's legal in Connecticut"... "...if you have a permit for it." Simple enuff answer... but indicitive of the perversion of the 2A. Rights do not require permission. Not 'legally'. The 2A is as much a civil right as any other. Moreso than most so-called undefined 'rights' lumped into the 14A in that it is a specific right. Actual rights are pre-existing conditions 'recognized' and protected by government. Government can only recognize rights (or restrict and otherwise deny them) not grant them. Unfortunately... CT requires permit (as do many states I s'pose) to bear arms openly. 'Course there's also states that deny the right altogether. I'll concede 'permit' to carry concealed as mode of carry is not addressed by 2A 'n states have that option under 10A. I say 'option' 'cause that's what it amounts to. It still angers me tho... when the 'hippies' and such who espouse diversity and all sorts of questionable 'rights' get their multi-colored panties inna wad over the free exercise of the obvious fundamental 'Right' to self defense. I think the appropriate response to these in-your-face 'Why do you have a weapon' questions is: 'Self Defense'. She was prob'ly from MA or someplace similar. Now 'n then I'll encounter that type among the snowbirds who show up here. What REEEEELY get's 'em goin' is when they'll ask... 'Do you have a permit for that?' (in THAT 'how dare you' tone) and I'll just say 'No' and keep on goin'. I have a permit to carry concealed weapons... but not for 'That' per se... openly on my gunbelt. They'll prob'ly dial 911 and holler MWAG... only to have the 911 operator blow 'em off. |
|||||||||
|
JUMPMASTER Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: JUMPMASTER wrote:I would recommend that you spend some time and write a letter or meet with the Naugutuck Chief and point out what the LAW says so that they may be informed. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Sonora Rebel wrote: ..."It's legal in Connecticut"... "...if you have a permit for it." But what if you don't have your permit physically on you because you forgot your wallet, purse, or whatever? Are they just going to take your "word" that you have one? MWAG call...blow 'em off... "Points to guy at Chili's busted for printing and restaurant called 911/po po and he had sh^tloads of legal and financial headaches..." |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
JUMPMASTER wrote: I would recommend that you spend some time and write a letter or meet with the Naugutuck Chief and point out what the LAW says so that they may be informed. And I will do just that very thing. Working on it right now and will follow up with a written letter to the Chief, Detective, Shift Supervisor, Administrative Lieutenant, etc. |
|||||||||
|
JUMPMASTER Regular Member
|
That "guy at Chilis" unknowingly at the time did more for the open carry movement in Connecticut in one afternoon that anyone previously. And I thank God for people like Ed Peruta and Peter Kuck. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
JUMPMASTER wrote: That "guy at Chilis" unknowingly at the time did more for the open carry movement in Connecticut in one afternoon that anyone previously. And I thank God for people like Ed Peruta and Peter Kuck. Maybe, but do YOU want to be that guy??? |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: wrightme wrote:If it "isn't the law," but "that's what they go by," they will likely need to get used to purchasing motorcycles for others. Arrests by LE for lawful activity will be likely to earn lawsuits. There are multiple examples in these forums. Search "Freedom Cycle." |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: JUMPMASTER wrote:That "guy at Chilis" unknowingly at the time did more for the open carry movement in Connecticut in one afternoon that anyone previously. And I thank God for people like Ed Peruta and Peter Kuck. It is not about "wanting" to be "that guy." It might be about being willing to be "that guy." You obviously are not. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Nope, I'm definitely not. Just can't seem to put my finger on why I'd want to potentially be arrested, have a huge expensive legal battle and my life fukked up in a HUGE way for a long time but, hey, that's just me. You want to be "willing"...go ahead by all means... |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member
|
JUMPMASTER wrote: airgunner23 wrote:Listen, bub. I'm VERY pro-OC and I do it all the time back home in AZ. There is a time and a place for everything and OC in the libtard blue Peoples Republic of Konnektikut ain't it. Less? Uh... 'don't sound like it from where I'm sittin'. I've OC'd in AZ for over 40 years 'n never had a City LEO, Sheriff or Border Patrol type so much as hiccup over it. Any 'more' right? No... just that the 'right' is recognized all over Arizona. We don't need a permit to OC either... never have had. Ever hear of Art 2 Sec 26 of the Arizona Constitution? 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves or the state shall not be impaired." "There is a time and a place for everything and OC in the libtard blue Peoples Republic of Konnektikut ain't it." That statement speaks for itself about the act of OC in CT doesn't it? 'Time and a place for everything... hmmm? 'Wouldn't be intimidated much then would ya? If permits are required to 'carry' either way... then 'printing' shouldn't be an issue either. It shouldn't matter if OC is recognized. 'Must be somethin' in the water back east. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
double-tap. Forum software going nuts today. Last edited on Fri May 8th, 2009 07:55 pm by wrightme |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Nope, I'm definitely not. Just can't seem to put my finger on why I'd want to potentially be arrested, have a huge expensive legal battle and my life fukked up in a HUGE way for a long time but, hey, that's just me. You want to be "willing"...go ahead by all means... Once again, see my previous response. Want. Willing. Two different things. So you are willing to prevent lawful behavior? |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Sonora Rebel wrote: JUMPMASTER wrote:airgunner23 wrote:Listen, bub. I'm VERY pro-OC and I do it all the time back home in AZ. There is a time and a place for everything and OC in the libtard blue Peoples Republic of Konnektikut ain't it. I've never had a problem in Arizona, either, but feel free to come out here to CT and try OC...I DARE you... Forgot to add... A HUGE problem is you can't carry anywhere in AZ that serves alcohol for on-site consumption. Doesn't matter if you stay out of the bar area as Florida allows. You can't even enter the establishment. Pretty much all "adult" restaurants are out. Even Chuckie Cheese because they serve beer. Not the case in CT and I was actually surprised how little limitations for "no carry" places there are for such a libtard, blue state. Last edited on Fri May 8th, 2009 07:56 pm by airgunner23 |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Sonora Rebel wrote:JUMPMASTER wrote:airgunner23 wrote:Listen, bub. I'm VERY pro-OC and I do it all the time back home in AZ. There is a time and a place for everything and OC in the libtard blue Peoples Republic of Konnektikut ain't it. After you get done reading up on "freedom cycle," look up "color of law." I think you have some enlightenment and empowerment deficit going on. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
wrightme wrote: So you are willing to prevent lawful behavior? Nope, but I'm willing to not have my life very potentially fukked up for a long time "just because I can". |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: wrightme wrote:So you are willing to prevent lawful behavior? Which is a good choice for you. That does not equate to forcing your choice on others, as you are doing with your judgmental posts. It is their choice. Your blathering about unlawful rules created outside of the legislative bodies does not change reality. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
wrightme wrote:
Where in the hell did I ENFORCE my choice on anyone? I only talked about WHY I WON'T OC IN CT. Please try to get it right next time. |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member
|
No... can't carry in a bar or anywhere alcohol is served... but small concession for the OC right that y'all seem afraid to exercise just bein' on the street for fear of bein' busted by the local LEO's... 'cause they 'don't like it'. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Sonora, how is that alcohol carry thing coming along? I knew they were trying to get that repealed. I don't know about today but, back in the 80s when we moved to Prescott, you'd see lots of old timers dressed up in cowboy garb, on horseback, with their six shooters. They were all over downtown in the bars/saloons on Whiskey Row. Nobody ever got busted that I knew of. The other thing you have to be careful of is carrying on Injun land/rez. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Sonora Rebel wrote: No... can't carry in a bar or anywhere alcohol is served... Concealed means concealed. I always have at least a pocket popper on me.  |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Sonora Rebel wrote:I do not need... nor does Arizona require any 'permit' to openly carry a gun. I carry my wallet all the time. The AZCWP is in there (along with everything else) such as drivers license, credit cards 'n all that. I do not 'forget'. It's my responsibility to have these things available. I rarely carry CC. Ambient temp now is 105 deg. Spring has just begun. There is no such issue as 'printing' in AZ...."It's legal in Connecticut"... "...if you have a permit for it." |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: JUMPMASTER wrote:So what is the big deal with "printing? airgunner23 wrote: Listen, bub. I'm VERY pro-OC and I do it all the time back home in AZ. There is a time and a place for everything and OC in the libtard blue Peoples Republic of Konnektikut ain't it. airgunner23 wrote: Hef wrote:I have a CT non-res permit and I OC whenever I am in CT. I haven't had a problem. IMO, when I am in CT, that IS the time and place for OC. Here are several example of where you attempt to force your view on others. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Sonora Rebel wrote:I do not 'forget'. Yeah, like you've never run out of the house at the last minute and not forgotten anything...riiiigt... |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: I've never had a problem in Arizona, either, but feel free to come out here to CT and try OC...I DARE you... I wouldn't wander east to CT if somebody paid my freight to go. I can't stand yankees. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
wrightme wrote: airgunner23 wrote:And I was talking about OC'ing MYSELF in every one of those quotes OR simply asking people to OC in places they might very well get in trouble. Again, try to get it right next time.JUMPMASTER wrote:So what is the big deal with "printing? |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Sonora Rebel wrote:
Oh, I hear you! I hate it here. I'm only here because I have a sweet ass job working and flying for the company that built the helicopter I flew in the Navy. Believe me, if they had other facilities outside of CT where I could do what I do here, I'd be hunting hell or high water for a transfer! |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Sonora Rebel wrote:I do not 'forget'. Actually... no. Chalk that up to 20 years of military conditioning... especially of ID. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
I call BS you've never ONCE ran out of the house and forgotten SOMETHING other than ID. ANYTHING... |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Sonora, how is that alcohol carry thing coming along? I knew they were trying to get that repealed. I don't know about today but, back in the 80s when we moved to Prescott, you'd see lots of old timers dressed up in cowboy garb, on horseback, with their six shooters. They were all over downtown in the bars/saloons on Whiskey Row. Nobody ever got busted that I knew of. The other thing you have to be careful of is carrying on Injun land/rez. Dunno the present status of that Bill... or if it ever got to comittee yet. 'Dressed up in cowboy garb?" LOL! This is the desert... not Miami. Used to be I'd roll my gunbelt up and hand it to the barkeep on the way in 'n get it on the way out. Someplaces will still do that... but not like it was 30-40 years ago... or even 20 years ago. I carry in my vehicle on the Rez... but not out of the vehicle. It's their land... they make the rules... but the roads belong to the state. 'Last time I was up in Prescott... the Kommiefornians had the  look when I went into the motel coffee shop for breakfast with a 1911 cross draw at 10 O-Clock and a Gerber MK II on my gunbelt. I was on my way back here... with a lotta desert to drive thu. Cowboy 'garb'... LMAO! |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: I call BS you've never ONCE ran out of the house and forgotten SOMETHING other than ID. ANYTHING... Nope. Too far out in the cholla to come back 'n get 'whatever'. 'Was also aircrew... I check my stuff beforehand. |
|||||||||
|
Decoligny Regular Member 
|
airgunner23 wrote: Nope, I'm definitely not. Just can't seem to put my finger on why I'd want to potentially be arrested, have a huge expensive legal battle and my life fukked up in a HUGE way for a long time but, hey, that's just me. You want to be "willing"...go ahead by all means... If you aren't willing to stand up for your rights, you are in effect laying down and willingly allowing them to be trampled. Thank God for those of us who are willing. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Decoligny wrote:
And exactly how much activism/standing up for your rights have you done in one of the most firearm restrictive states in the nation? Hmmm? Statewide concealed carry? Get rid of those retarded looking AR-15s because you can't even have a pistol grip? |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Decoligny wrote: ...Here we go...  |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Well, I'm sure he's gone commando on the entire state and will brag about it, but in the end it's just text. No way to prove anything. |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member
|
I won't even cross the Colorado river anymore into Kommiefornia... 'cause if I'm that far west I've got all sorts of 'toys' in the truck that'd put me under the jail in Ahhnoldland. One time... I was down by the little river park near the Yuma Territorial Prison... 'n there were some cops on the other side of the river in Winterhaven area doin' somethin' or other. I got my AK outta the truck 'n thumped it in my chest... "Ay-ai-ai-ai-ahh" like the character did with his war club in Platoon. Then raised it over my head 'n screeched like a Star Wars 'sandman'. They just stared. OK... I'm nuts... but it was my way of givin' the finger to Kommiefornia. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Tuscan Raider, LOL. You should have yelled, "Wolverines!". |
|||||||||
|
Decoligny Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Decoligny wrote: Well, for one of the most restrictive states in the nation there is a hell of a lot going on here as California is indeed the front lines of the 2nd Amendment battles in the nation right now. The Nordyke v. Kings County case just got the 2nd Amendment Incorporated at the state and local level. This was the stepping stone we have been waiting for to start overthrowing many of the restrictive gun laws here. There are several Federal lawsuits that have just been filed that are addressing "Shall Issue" versus "May Issue" and getting the "approved" handgun list thrown out. I have open carried in my own neck of the woods for a couple of years now. My open carry pamphlet (downloaded 5,000 times) has given other Californians vital information necessary to legally open carry and not go to jail. It has been distributed to all 57 District Attorney's Offices, and to almost all of the County Sheriff's Offices. I have open carried in San Diego at many of the group get togethers and spoken with many police officers to help educate them about the legalities of open carry. What exactly have you done? Other than Trolling on this site? Not much is what I would say. |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member
|
It's 'Tucson'... 'How long you been yankeeized? Their mommies prob'ly didn't let 'em go see Red Dawn... |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Sonora Rebel wrote: It's 'Tucson'... 'How long you been yankeeized? Their mommies prob'ly didn't let 'em go see Red Dawn... Nope, it's "Tusken" or "Tuskan" depending on which site you check. We were both wrong, but I do know that Tucson is in AZ!  |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Decoligny wrote: I have open carried in my own neck of the woods for a couple of years now. Sure, tell yourself whatever helps you sleep at night... Why are you even on the CT section? At least, unlike you CA weenies, we can actually carry our guns with bullets in them. Now, I will admit to not being sure, but I've also heard you can't even have a loaded magazine on your person at all. |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member
|
Ya gotta be a lawyer to OC a popgun in CA. I mean... how hard is it? Cross the Colorado goin' east 'n strap on yer gunbelt in the parkin' lot... with one in the pipe... and be on yer merry way. No demonstrations... no meetings... no fear of the cops... no cause to memorize a bunch'a statutes just to be able to defend yourself if you have to. Even when Reagan was Gov... (I voted for him against Brown in that one) you couldn't carry a pistol in San Diego. California is a soft tyranny... and there too many leftoid moonbats in the cities to make a sensible dent in common sense rights. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Don't know if this is still the case, but CA was such a sh^thole causing so many people to leave in droves that a one way out of state U-Haul rental was MUCH more expensive than a round trip out of state one. |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Sonora Rebel wrote:It's 'Tucson'... 'How long you been yankeeized? Their mommies prob'ly didn't let 'em go see Red Dawn... In Hohokum... it was "Water by the Black Mountain'... but there's no Hohokum's anymore... so it's all anecdotal as to the pronunciation. Closest I've heard from the Piman's is Tus-kan. |
|||||||||
|
Decoligny Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Decoligny wrote:I have open carried in my own neck of the woods for a couple of years now. And why are you in the CT section Mr. "Back Home in Arizona"? I can carry a gun fully loaded in about 90% of California. I will admit to your not being sure at all, I will even go so far as to say you are wrong. In the areas where you can't have a "loaded" gun, you CAN carry loaded magazines, and with a little practice can have the gun in battery in about 1 to 2 seconds, a whole lot faster than most people can even draw a concealed weapon. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Decoligny wrote
Guess you were one of those ADHD kids because you can't seem to follow along. I freakin' LIVE and WORK in CT. |
|||||||||
|
Lank Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: JUMPMASTER wrote:She is lucky you didn't have her arrested for causing you annoyance, alarm, inconvience, and grief. : ) Let's not turn this into a flame war - I understand what airgunner is saying and I think he's right. BUT This is also exactly the thing that we've all been trying to change. I respect the law and those who are charged with enforcing it, but they've started to enforce rules that very clearly have not been written into law. Our system of government intentionally puts a sharp dividing line between the people who make the laws and the people who enforce them. This prevents any one person or group of people from obtaining too much power and walking all over your liberties. If they pass a law stating that I cannot carry open, I'll stop doing it (or I'll move out of the state). But so far they haven't. The way I see it, open carry is a form of peaceful protest against an unjust set of restrictions invented by the DPS. My decision is to choose liberty over a little temporary safety and to continue to open carry, ignoring any imaginary laws that have not been passed by the CT legislature. Maybe we will succeed in changing things in CT, or maybe I'll get arrested and people will call me an idiot. |
|||||||||
|
Lank Regular Member
|
Decoligny wrote: airgunner23 wrote:Decoligny wrote: "The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it." --chinese proverb  |
|||||||||
|
MGoduto Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: JUMPMASTER wrote:She is lucky you didn't have her arrested for causing you annoyance, alarm, inconvience, and grief. : ) There's no requirement in CT state law to conceal, and no where in state law is OC prohibited. Nothing in the language on the permit mentions 'concealed' and it isn't titled as a CCW. The SLFU doesn't make the law, and have gotten away with spreading that 'alarm' bulls*** far too long. If you read the breach-of-peace statute it's a huge stretch to apply it to someone who's OC-ing. Actually, the whole 'Goldberg at Chili's' situation turned out ok for the guy. Judge Norko threw the charges out, he got his permit back without having to go before the review board, and his federal lawsuits are in process. I OC quite a bit, and have never had a problem. stay safe.... |
|||||||||
|
old dog Regular Member
|
Can she ask me what I do for a living and why I'm armed? Let me think a moment. Ahh, I've got it. HELL, NO! It does no good to toady to the likes of her. They won't be mollified by a courteous demeanor and a calm recitation of the laws. Civility is viewed as weakness and merely encourages their hostility. On top of all that, I loathe being accosted in public by strangers. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Lank wrote:
Bingo! |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Lank wrote: My decision is to choose liberty over a little temporary safety and to continue to open carry, ignoring any imaginary laws that have not been passed by the CT legislature. Maybe we will succeed in changing things in CT, or maybe I'll get arrested and people will call me an idiot. I highly suspect the latter would happen. And I will agree that OC is inherently legal because it's not prohibited. Is it smart? No, but consider this. They can't make an OC charge stick, but they CAN make a breach of peace or public disturbance charge stick. That's what you'd be arrested for and that IS against the LAW. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Lank wrote:That is strictly opinion. It is not agreed by all. You feel that way. Others feel differently. To expect others to agree with you is to project YOUR opinion onto others. Suppressing lawful behavior.My decision is to choose liberty over a little temporary safety and to continue to open carry, ignoring any imaginary laws that have not been passed by the CT legislature. Maybe we will succeed in changing things in CT, or maybe I'll get arrested and people will call me an idiot. In the words of Lank, "my decision." Not YOUR decision. airgunner23 wrote: Lank wrote:And arguably leave themselves open to a hefty lawsuit. That is a severe warping of any "breach of peace: or "public disturbance" law I have read. Lawful activity without intent to incite does not fit the definitions. Arrest and charge for such is not within statute.My decision is to choose liberty over a little temporary safety and to continue to open carry, ignoring any imaginary laws that have not been passed by the CT legislature. Maybe we will succeed in changing things in CT, or maybe I'll get arrested and people will call me an idiot.They can't make an OC charge stick, but they CAN make a breach of peace or public disturbance charge stick. That's what you'd be arrested for and that IS against the LAW. Last edited on Sat May 9th, 2009 05:41 pm by wrightme |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
What is it with these CA and NV guys giving a sh^t about OC in CT??? |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: What is it with these CA and NV guys giving a sh^t about OC in CT???OC and/or CC is a national issue, not a regional. it is key to 2nd Amendment, as in "bear arms." Some concepts such as lawful activity vs disorderly conduct are universal concepts. pointing out where someone is from has nothing to do with these stated ideals. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
I understand. Abortion, gay marriage, firearms ownership/carry etc are national issues, too, but you won't see me b!tching in, say, a CA or NV or MO or FL forum about it. What started these 'tards even commenting on little bitty ol' CT? |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: I understand. Abortion, gay marriage, firearms ownership/carry etc are national issues, too, but you won't see me b!tching in, say, a CA or NV or MO or FL forum about it. What started these 'tards even commenting on little bitty ol' CT?Your abrasive attitude, and your wish to project YOUR desires upon others. You do not have a "lock" on the topic. Remember how we do not want to turn this into "flame wars?" Or is that your desire? When you try to force others to agree with your chosen "smart" definition of actions, you attempt to deny the lawful activity of others. You also attempted to place law-making activity outside of a law-making body as a valid point. I do not agree, and freely point it out. It knows no state boundaries. Pointing it out is a simple ad hominem argument that does not hold water. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Why are you out of staters making racket in the CT forum? Nobody seems to be able to answer that. Do you have so little to do in life that you b!tch in the NY, MA, MD, NJ, RI, IL, etc forums, too? |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Why are you out of staters making racket in the CT forum? Nobody seems to be able to answer that. Do you have so little to do in life that you b!tch in the NY, MA, MD, NJ, RI, IL, etc forums, too?Why do you care? Who made you the "thread nanny?" Why do you persist in badmouthing others for that reason? Do you have so little to do that you get some pleasure from doing so? Back to the topic. Who makes the laws in CT? |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Since you're so concerned about CT, YOU tell me. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
double tap... Last edited on Sat May 9th, 2009 07:34 pm by airgunner23 |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Since you're so concerned about CT, YOU tell me.Since you seem to lack that tidbit, it is the legislative body of the State of Connecticut, except for any applicable Federal Statutes that may apply. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
I don't lack any "tidbit". YOU asked the question so YOU do the research. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: I don't lack any "tidbit". YOU asked the question so YOU do the research.You seem to still lack that "tidbit." I provided it for you, and you seem to have missed that, eh? |
|||||||||
|
Lenny Benedetto Regular Member
|
I think that I will unwatch this topic now. It started as a story of OC by a guy from CT in CT. Now it has turned to moronic chatter across state lines! My final statement here is if you want to OC where it is legal, than do it. If a legal problem arises from it, THAN FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS, LIKE MANY HERE ARE WILLING TO DO. If you are not willing to fight for the cause than shut up and just read about people who are !!! |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
THE LOVER wrote: If you are not willing to fight for the cause than shut up and just read about people who are !!! Settle down, Beavis. Everyone else has just as much right to say whatever they want as you do. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
THE LOVER wrote: I think that I will unwatch this topic now. It started as a story of OC by a guy from CT in CT. Now it has turned to moronic chatter across state lines!Well stated. No pun intended... Last edited on Sat May 9th, 2009 08:47 pm by wrightme |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
wrightme wrote: Well stated. Nice pun. |
|||||||||
|
Decoligny Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: THE LOVER wrote:If you are not willing to fight for the cause than shut up and just read about people who are !!! I think you have mistaken this site for http://www.DontOpenCarry.org |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Decoligny wrote: airgunner23 wrote:THE LOVER wrote:If you are not willing to fight for the cause than shut up and just read about people who are !!! Uh, try coming up with something that actually exists next time, mmmK? |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Decoligny wrote:It has as much validity as the "rules" you refer to earlier in this thread.airgunner23 wrote:THE LOVER wrote:If you are not willing to fight for the cause than shut up and just read about people who are !!! |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
What ever blows your skirt up and/or helps you sleep at night... |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: What ever blows your skirt up and/or helps you sleep at night...You are going to have this thread "end" like this one, eh? unsubscribed Last edited on Sun May 10th, 2009 05:05 pm by wrightme |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
You like to open carry and I think it's a bad idea in very liberal areas. We get it! |
|||||||||
|
AWDstylez Banned 
|
Flame war in my home state section? How did I miss this? |
|||||||||
|
AWDstylez Banned
|
double post Last edited on Sun May 10th, 2009 09:23 pm by AWDstylez |
|||||||||
|
modelo57 Regular Member
|
The original point of this post (imho) was that a total stranger approached someone in an openly aggressive and potentially threatening manner. The only answer to her question, however it was posed was and should be myob! Whether you OC or CC is not anybody elses problem! If the individual accosted had chosen to report this to the police she could have be charged with breach of peace. Chances are if the police had been called and she was still present, she would have received a verbal warning and told MYOB! Before someone takes me to task about "how do you know this?" in my job the police had been called to the store on several occasions (not necessarily involving OC or CC) and in most cases the aggressor received a verbal and was told not to return by the police. Twice the aggressor was arrested and charged with "breach". |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
AWDstylez wrote: Flame war in my home state section? How did I miss this? Just curious to what your take is because, unlike some others, you actually LIVE in CONNECTICUT. Do you OC? If so, when and where? I've been in CT for a long time and I have NEVER seen a non LE "regular joe" open carrying (other than the range) and, being from AZ where open carry is frequently done, I make it a point to look. |
|||||||||
|
GoldCoaster Regular Member 
|
AWD - you haven't missed much. |
|||||||||
|
AWDstylez Banned
|
airgunner23 wrote: AWDstylez wrote:Flame war in my home state section? How did I miss this? Yes, OC is extremely rare in CT. I've never seen anyone else open carry, only the occasional piss-poor concealment. Personally, the only time I OC is while hiking, walking in the woods, etc, when even sheeple will recognize the need for a gun and not be startled by it. Other than that, I conceal it. No need to raise alarm and piss people off. CC accomplishes the same thing (having a gun on me), without making me a target, pissing people off, complicating my day, embarassing my gf, friends, etc etc etc. HOWEVER, in defense of the people that do OC everywhere... it has to start somewhere. If people don't start doing it, it'll never become commonplace. I wouldn't do it even if it was commonplace, but that's my personal choice. Other people have different opinions and there's no good reason anyone should be barred from OCing if that's what they want to do. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
AWDstylez wrote:
Booyah! Someone else speaks with wisdom regarding OC in CT. He OCs when hiking in the woods and I BELIEVE this guy. The others who claim to open carry for years in Bridgeport, New Haven, Stratford, Hartford, etc and have NEVER been hassled? BULLSH1T!!! Last edited on Mon May 11th, 2009 03:19 pm by airgunner23 |
|||||||||
|
Keanu Regular Member 
|
Is it too late to get Gregory Eads involved in this discussion??  |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: AWDstylez wrote: So, in other words, you believe that which supports YOUR point of view, but disbelieve that which does not....... Clever. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Keanu wrote: Is it too late to get Gregory Eads involved in this discussion?? I hope he jumps in... Even he would agree that UNTIL OC IS WRITTEN INTO LAW, doing it in CT, especially in the city, is STUPID. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
wrightme wrote: So, in other words, you believe that which supports YOUR point of view, but disbelieve that which does not....... Go hang your big brass ones out and OC in ANY of the cities I've mentioned and take VIDEO WITH AUDIO of your "adventures" out and about in PUBLIC and get back to us, mmmmK? But, you won't...and you KNOW it... |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: wrightme wrote:So, in other words, you believe that which supports YOUR point of view, but disbelieve that which does not....... You are correct, I will not. I never claimed to have done so. The main point is that some CT residents claim to have OC'd. You deny their report. AWD claims to have not seen others OC. You agree with his report. You only agree with that which supports YOUR opinion. To be completely fair, you should admonish AWD to provide HIS audio/video evidence. If you want to call for supporting audio/video, at least be fair about it. Otherwise, at least give the other first-hand reports the same level of validity as you give the first-hand report from AWD. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
Previously, you claimed that OC was not illegal. airgunner23 wrote: Hef wrote:The fact that an LEO may arrest you, a permit holder, for OC'ing does not make your actions any less lawful. Is it now your contention that OC is illegal? airgunner23 wrote: Keanu wrote:Is it too late to get Gregory Eads involved in this discussion?? Stupid or not isn't the issue. The LAW is the issue, and: Hef wrote: airgunner23 wrote: Hef stated it plainly. What the law does not prohibit IS legal, whether you care, agree, or understand. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
wrightme wrote: To be completely fair, you should admonish AWD to provide HIS audio/video evidence. If you want to call for supporting audio/video, at least be fair about it. Otherwise, at least give the other first-hand reports the same level of validity as you give the first-hand report from AWD. Having hiked all over CT and finding three geocaches this very last weekend, I'm MUCH more likely to believe AWD and his accounts of carrying when hiking in the woods. CT is VERY rugged, rural and heavily vegetated (not in winter) outside of the cities. AWD can back me up on this. Although I've NEVER seen anyone OC in the woods, AWD's OC claim is MUCH more believable and realistic than those who claim they carried pubicly in the city. As much as I'd love to see AWD's video proof, that's not what I want. I want these John Wayne swingin' dicks to provide THEIR proof, which would very likely be "News at 10" type video after the arrest. But, we all know they never will... |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: wrightme wrote:To be completely fair, you should admonish AWD to provide HIS audio/video evidence. If you want to call for supporting audio/video, at least be fair about it. Otherwise, at least give the other first-hand reports the same level of validity as you give the first-hand report from AWD. No, that is false. We do not know. It is most likely for them to not have video proof. Do you believe that all (or most) people who OC do so with a video entourage? Just because you see no videos does not mean it doesn't happen. I do agree with your reasons for placing greater validity upon the response of AWD than on the response of others, BUT that does not mean the others are lying as you imply. Also, you once again show more reticence to see the proof of that which you do not believe, as opposed to that which you DO believe. You have put in place a greater standard for validity on one than the other. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
wrightme wrote:
Man, you really are a piece of work. I said for them to GO OUT AND VIDEO their OC IN PUBLIC experiences. Where in the hell did I say I expected them to provide pre-existing footage? And, YES, I've seen plenty of videos on-line where people OC'd in public to prove a point and being hassled by the po po...even though it was LEGAL. Right here in New England. NH to be exact. Now, let's see these chucklehead yahoos try this in the CT metroplexes... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FWXnK5UyRI |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: wrightme wrote: You simply cannot enter into dialog without being insulting, can you. Stating you have not seen OC, and AWD stating that he has not seen OC does not mean it does not happen. Attempting to say others need to provide you with video proof to believe their statements is setting a double-standard. You accepted AWD's statement because it matches your opinion. You do not provide the same standard to those who disagree with your opinion. There are two separate issues here. One is the simple act of Lawful OC. The other is the act of "OC to document behavior." You are requesting that those who state they OC in CT to move their act from the simple act, to the other act. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Let's just say that I'd be MORE than willing to video tape my CC experiences in PUBLIC right along side anyone here OC'ing. Seriously. I'll even buy lunch. But, when/if the police show up...I don't know you! |
|||||||||
|
bennettprescott Opt-Out Member 
|
I'll open carry in the location of your choice (provided it is legal there) for a free lunch, especially considering I would love to have videotaped proof. |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member 
|
airgunner23 wrote:You like to open carry and I think it's a bad idea in very liberal areas. We get it! The vast majority of this forum thinks your wrong. I live in San Francisco and I think you're wrong. Furthermore that's exactly why this forum even exists. Which means you're trolling. I hope you're enjoying yourself. Last edited on Mon May 11th, 2009 09:33 pm by marshaul |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member
|
bennettprescott wrote:I'll open carry in the location of your choice (provided it is legal there) for a free lunch, especially considering I would love to have videotaped proof. Thank god, someone needs to shut this guy up. People are Open Carrying in every state where it isn't proscribed by law, even in oh-so-liberal California where they must do so unloaded. Why this is hard to believe is beyond me. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
marshaul wrote: airgunner23 wrote: Fine. OC and rock out with your cock out...enjoy the attention in San Phagsicko. Last edited on Mon May 11th, 2009 09:47 pm by airgunner23 |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
marshaul wrote
When you can define "proscribed by law", get back to me. |
|||||||||
|
bennettprescott Opt-Out Member
|
airgunner23 wrote:Fine. OC and rock out with your cock out... enjoy the attention in San Phagsicko. This is absolutely uncalled for, as is the rest of your juvenile name calling and labeling. |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member
|
airgunner23 wrote:marshaul wrote Like in Texas. http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.010.00.000046.00.htm |
|||||||||
|
Hef Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Keanu wrote:Is it too late to get Gregory Eads involved in this discussion?? Hey genius, until OC is SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED BY LAW, it is still legal to do in CT bya CT permit holder. Laws don't "ALLOW" behaviors, they only "PROHIBIT" them. How dense can you be? Really? |
|||||||||
|
Hef Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: wrightme wrote:To be completely fair, you should admonish AWD to provide HIS audio/video evidence. If you want to call for supporting audio/video, at least be fair about it. Otherwise, at least give the other first-hand reports the same level of validity as you give the first-hand report from AWD. I don't particularly care whether or not you really believe that I open carry in populated areas in CT. As far as I am concerned, you are a nobody who just appeared on an internet message board last week. Yippee for you. Since my world revolves around ME, your concerns, questions, and demands are entirely pointless because they don't serve any useful purpose in MY world. You're a spineless tool, afraid to exercise your rights. How shameful. Not everyone is as spineless as you are, but since you can't comprehend it, you do the only thing you can - you project your own fear on others. You should be as aggressive in asserting your rights as you are in deriding those who actually do. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Hef wrote: airgunner23 wrote:Keanu wrote:Is it too late to get Gregory Eads involved in this discussion?? Come up here and do it, Mr. SOUTH CAROLINA... I DARE you. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Hef wrote:
Come on up here, @#$%tard and do it. I would LOVE to see what happens to you. Bring a vid camera. |
|||||||||
|
Hef Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Hef wrote:airgunner23 wrote:Keanu wrote:Is it too late to get Gregory Eads involved in this discussion?? Your comprehension skills suck. I told you that I have a CT permit and I already HAVE carried OC on numerous occasions without incident. Your "dare" isn't all that daring. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Hef wrote: Your comprehension skills suck. I told you that I have a CT permit and I already HAVE carried OC on numerous occasions without incident. Your "dare" isn't all that daring. Good for you. Put a gold star on your fridge for hassle free OC... Let's see you deal with some ass wipe approaching you in a parking lot as in THE ORIGINAL POST when you get confronted. That's my point. Everyone, apparently, thinks they can OC in CT and NEVER have a problem... |
|||||||||
|
Hef Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Hef wrote:Your comprehension skills suck. I told you that I have a CT permit and I already HAVE carried OC on numerous occasions without incident. Your "dare" isn't all that daring. Maybe you weren't paying attention. I HAVE OC'ED IN CT AND HAVE NEVER HAD A PROBLEM. Now, that may change, but the fear that it may happen isn't going to deter me. I'm not afraid of a little confrontation here and there. That's part of life. |
|||||||||
|
Decoligny Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Hef wrote:Your comprehension skills suck. I told you that I have a CT permit and I already HAVE carried OC on numerous occasions without incident. Your "dare" isn't all that daring. There are those who would wait until a course of action is totally accepted by everyone, and the chance a negative encounter because of the action is zero, before they would even consider embarking upon that course of action. They are by definition cowards. There are those of us who Open Carry all across the country. Even in areas where the police "don't like" open carry, because we refuse to allow the police to rule our lives by "policy" where no actual law exists against it. There are those of us who open carry, and have been confronted by the police, and have stood our ground against the onslaught of lawless tyranny. hotairgunner23 is obviously not among the second group discussed. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Hef wrote:Given your manner, I place you in high school, and that is being generous. Your demeanor here really does not assist you in your attempt to put everyone else down. You may not believe it, but there are plenty of people in this country, and on this web forum, that do not feel the need to put others down to feel good about themselves. You do not appear to either understand this, or fit that mold. Last edited on Tue May 12th, 2009 12:29 am by wrightme |
|||||||||
|
AWDstylez Banned
|
Really though, why the hell are all these non-CT, probably never even set foot on CT soil, people in here arguing? airgunner has every right to call BS on people. Last time I checked (pretty recently), we had a thread about who in CT actually OC'ed and who didn't. There wasn't even a half handful of people that said they did, and most of the ones that said they did had only done it a couple times in inconspicuous places. I recall one guy claiming he OC'ed regularly in New Haven, but he was the only one. Now all of a sudden this thread comes up and everyone has been OC'ing for years. I'm not going to go as far as to directly call BS on anyone, but I cannot, not even in my wildest dreams, imagine someone OC'ing in a urban CT setting (bum@#$% towns in the northern corners and anything west of RT8 doesn't count) and not being hassled. I can guarantee if I OC'ed into my local grocery store I'd be in cuffs before I could check out. Last edited on Tue May 12th, 2009 02:58 am by AWDstylez |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
AWDstylez wrote: Really though, why the hell are all these non-CT, probably never even set foot on CT soil, people in here arguing?Well, at least one report of OC in Norwalk...... Lank wrote: THE LOVER wrote:What town were you in? |
|||||||||
|
old dog Regular Member
|
Well, this has certainly devolved nicely. So much venom, so little substance. No wonder some people think gunners are unstable. |
|||||||||
|
Fritter60 Regular Member
|
Open Carry does happen in CT, even in the big'ol cities. I have frequently carried in New Britain and Newington and there are people on these boards that have seen me do it. So get off your high horse, you don't know everything.. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
AWDstylez wrote: Really though, why the hell are all these non-CT, probably never even set foot on CT soil, people in here arguing? Exactly. Well said. I cannot add any more to this post. |
|||||||||
|
PT111 Regular Member 
|
old dog wrote: Well, this has certainly devolved nicely. So much venom, so little substance. No wonder some people think gunners are unstable. Good point. I have never seen anyone OC in CT but the fact that I have not been there in 40 years may explain that. I read the OP when it was orignally posted and have just checked back to see why it has grown to 8 pages. Still wondering. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
PT111 wrote: old dog wrote:Well, this has certainly devolved nicely. So much venom, so little substance. No wonder some people think gunners are unstable. |
|||||||||
|
Hef Regular Member
|
AWDstylez wrote: Really though, why the hell are all these non-CT, probably never even set foot on CT soil, people in here arguing? I was born in Stamford. I grew up in CT, then moved away, but I still visit family there. |
|||||||||
|
bennor Regular Member
|
I do think some do miss the real problem with CT. Its not that OC isn't legal. The fact that OC is legal (police view not withstanding) is supported by the fact the legislature was reviewing a bill to specifically outlaw OC. And since there is no law saying its not legal, people should be able to do so. However, the problem is, many local LEO's and the State Police who choose to disregard the fact that there isn't a law and will arrest someone for OCing, if they are dispatched on a "man with a gun" 911 call. (http://ourrockyhill.com/) The actual law used to charge you for OCing won't be a gun law it will be something along the lines of"Breach of Peace" and then the State Police will revoke your pistol permit. Here in New Haven I have asked three different officers over the last year if OC was legal and they said no, they would arrest someone for doing so. I asked everyone I came into contact with when getting my pistol permit and all said OC is not legal in CT. As such I don't OC where I live as I cannot afford to be arrested and to incur the expense of a lengthy fight with a lawyer to get the charges dropped, handgun back, and permit reinstated due to police ignorance or willful disregard of the laws of this state. If others are so financially endowed that they could fight this fight, then by all means please OC here so you can get case law enacted to support OC. Hopefully the other frequent poster here who currently has a case before a judge about clarifying OC will be adjudicated in favor of OC so as to clear up the confusion at the local LEO and the State Police level and to allow people the option of either concealing or carrying open (or carrying conceal and not be arrested if it prints or becomes unconcealed). |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
Lank wrote: So this woman scared the crap out of me in the stop & shop parking lot today. My car door is open and I'm loading groceries into the passengers side when she approaches:According to airgunner23, since he (nor anyone else here) did not see this happen, no OC took place? You cannot determine that no OC happens by virtue of not seeing it where you are. To make that false claim, you would have to observe each minute of each 24 hour period that happens, forever. The OP is one report. You continue to ignore that report, but agree with reports from those who do not OC, or have not seen OC. All or nothing. airgunner23 is only allowing those data points that agree with his chosen opinion. He is denying any data point that disagrees with his position. That proves nothing. |
|||||||||
|
AWDstylez Banned
|
bennor wrote: I do think some do miss the real problem with CT. Its not that OC isn't legal. The fact that OC is legal (police view not withstanding) is supported by the fact the legislature was reviewing a bill to specifically outlaw OC. And since there is no law saying its not legal, people should be able to do so. However, the problem is, many local LEO's and the State Police who choose to disregard the fact that there isn't a law and will arrest someone for OCing, if they are dispatched on a "man with a gun" 911 call. (http://ourrockyhill.com/) The actual law used to charge you for OCing won't be a gun law it will be something along the lines of"Breach of Peace" and then the State Police will revoke your pistol permit. You pretty much hit the nail on the head. That's exactly why I don't like seeing new people being told, "Oh, yea, it's legal... go right ahread." It is legal, but good luck actually doing it. Tell them how it really is, "Yes, it's legal, but getting arrested is a matter of WHEN, not if." Last edited on Tue May 12th, 2009 01:55 pm by AWDstylez |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
bennor wrote: I do think some do miss the real problem with CT. Its not that OC isn't legal. The fact that OC is legal (police view not withstanding) is supported by the fact the legislature was reviewing a bill to specifically outlaw OC. And since there is no law saying its not legal, people should be able to do so. However, the problem is, many local LEO's and the State Police who choose to disregard the fact that there isn't a law and will arrest someone for OCing, if they are dispatched on a "man with a gun" 911 call. (http://ourrockyhill.com/) The actual law used to charge you for OCing won't be a gun law it will be something along the lines of"Breach of Peace" and then the State Police will revoke your pistol permit. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: bennor wrote:I do think some do miss the real problem with CT. Its not that OC isn't legal. The fact that OC is legal (police view not withstanding) is supported by the fact the legislature was reviewing a bill to specifically outlaw OC. And since there is no law saying its not legal, people should be able to do so. However, the problem is, many local LEO's and the State Police who choose to disregard the fact that there isn't a law and will arrest someone for OCing, if they are dispatched on a "man with a gun" 911 call. (http://ourrockyhill.com/) The actual law used to charge you for OCing won't be a gun law it will be something along the lines of"Breach of Peace" and then the State Police will revoke your pistol permit. Evidence of the Police stating a willingness to conduct false arrest. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
bennor wrote: I do think some do miss the real problem with CT. Its not that OC isn't legal. The fact that OC is legal (police view not withstanding) is supported by the fact the legislature was reviewing a bill to specifically outlaw OC. And since there is no law saying its not legal, people should be able to do so. However, the problem is, many local LEO's and the State Police who choose to disregard the fact that there isn't a law and will arrest someone for OCing, if they are dispatched on a "man with a gun" 911 call. (http://ourrockyhill.com/) The actual law used to charge you for OCing won't be a gun law it will be something along the lines of"Breach of Peace" and then the State Police will revoke your pistol permit. Another reason I won't OC is I don't want my neighbors (and their teenage kids and friends who talk) knowing I own firearms. Aside from a bunch of them being huge libtards, I don't want to invite a break in. |
|||||||||
|
bennor Regular Member
|
wrightme wrote: airgunner23 wrote:bennor wrote:I do think some do miss the real problem with CT. Its not that OC isn't legal. The fact that OC is legal (police view not withstanding) is supported by the fact the legislature was reviewing a bill to specifically outlaw OC. And since there is no law saying its not legal, people should be able to do so. However, the problem is, many local LEO's and the State Police who choose to disregard the fact that there isn't a law and will arrest someone for OCing, if they are dispatched on a "man with a gun" 911 call. (http://ourrockyhill.com/) The actual law used to charge you for OCing won't be a gun law it will be something along the lines of"Breach of Peace" and then the State Police will revoke your pistol permit. How is it false arrest when you don't actually get charged with violating of a gun law and are instead charged with "Breach of Peace"? If you read the CT Statues on "Breach of Peace" its nice and vague and all it really takes is someone calling in a "man with a gun" call on a person who OC's to be charged with it. You/We don't get to make the judgement on if the police violated the law, ONLY a court of law does that. And to reach that stage it will cost one a lot of money in legal fees to fight the initial arrest and subsequent charges. One thing to keep in mind is that once you are arrested the State Police will revoke your pistol permit license. And once that's done you cannot carry said firearm outside of your home or business. And it could take YEARS to get that permit back, if ever, and only if you are found innocent in a court of law or the charges are dismissed. You know we could argue all day long about what is legal and what isn't, but in the end, once your arrested and charged by the LEO/DA it no longer matters what WE think. The idea here how to legally carry a firearm not get arrested in the first place when the police interpret the laws differently than the person OCing does. Again, OC is legal but one does so AT their own risk (ETA: as long as they have a valid CT pistol permit). Last edited on Tue May 12th, 2009 04:47 pm by bennor |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
bennor wrote:
Exactly. Why'd it take so long for the logically sane people to show up? This is EXACTLY what the BFPE had in the FAQs on their website. If your gun "causes another alarm" (their exact wording), you are subject to arrest for disturbing the peace and your permit is subject to revocation. Have fun with that guys! And, NO, I'm not going to argue legality...it is what it is... |
|||||||||
|
bennor Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Another reason I won't OC is I don't want my neighbors (and their teenage kids and friends who talk) knowing I own firearms. Aside from a bunch of them being huge libtards, I don't want to invite a break in. This is a vary valid issue that comes up when some towns contact one's neighbors when one applies for a pistol permit. Its why I specifically asked the New Haven PD if they will contact my neighbors when I initially applied for my pistol permit as I didn't' want one set of neighbors, who lived next door to me for a short time, knowing since they appeared to be trouble makers of the neighborhood (late night parties, lots of loud fights indoors and out). Some local issuing authorities will contact your neighbors or boss/company to inform them, its a method of intimidation to try and get people not to apply for a permit. However this/that is a discussion for another thread. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
bennor wrote:
Good points, again. As a brand new resident in CT, who in the HELL would want their neighbors and boss/co-workers knowing they owned guns and intended to carry them? WHO in their right mind would even vouch for or endorse someone wanting a permit they barely know? I'm glad the Naugy PD didn't contact my neighbors or my boss. I gave them my phone number so if they called I would have told them to call back later because he was "busy". Then I could discreetly tell my boss not to freak out if the police called asking about a new employee and firearms. Thankfully, they never called so my boss was none the wiser. Last edited on Tue May 12th, 2009 05:16 pm by airgunner23 |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
Good points (well, maybe). Shouting and rudeness aside, calling a lawful act a "breach of peace" should generate lawsuits when arrested and charged as such. Where is it that simple lawful activity is a crime? Something the CT LE seem to not understand is that a simple lawful activity does not make a "breach of peace." Last edited on Tue May 12th, 2009 05:45 pm by wrightme |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
wrightme wrote: Good points (well, maybe). Shouting and rudeness aside, calling a lawful act a "breach of peace" should generate lawsuits when arrested and charged as such. Where is it that simple lawful activity is a crime? Screaming that Jesusahhhh is coming in public is perfectly legal, too, yet that will probably get you arrested for breach of peace as well. It doesn't matter what you're doing if the "public" doesn't like it and/or becomes "alarmed". Also, the breach definition, as mentioned before, is VERY vague. Then you get to spend all kinds of money, time, blood, sweat and tears fighting to get the charges dropped, getting your permit reinstated, probably fighting to get your confiscated firearm back or suing them if they destroyed it. And enjoying having your name and face drug through the media and dealing with neighbors, friends, co-workers, etc. If you want all that hassle then by all means, go ahead and OC. See ya on News at 10.  |
|||||||||
|
bennor Regular Member
|
There is a court case in the works, for those who haven't been following the various postings by Edward Peruta in another thread in this forum, who in a plaintiff in a case that is trying to get a declaratory ruling that the LEO's are supposed to follow. The link below details all the various problems and causes why OC, while technically legal can lead to arrest and permit revocation. Its worth a read to understand the various issues on how muddied and crazy this issue has become, and why CT is NOT a 100% legal OC state despite the lack of laws making OC specifically illegal. http://www.ourrockyhill.com/Docs/Declaratory.Documents.htm "Postings on several FIREARM related message boards demonstrate that many individuals do not fully understand what is currently taking place here in Connecticut. There is a growing group of Connecticut Citizens who have made it their mission to demand that law enforcement understand and comply with the various Federal and State Constitutional Safeguards, existing State Statutes and Regulations. QUESTIONS CURRENTLY EXIST ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CONNECTICUT GENERAL STATUTES REGARDING GUN LAWS AND THE AUTHORITY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AS IT APPLIES TO CONNECTICUT PERMITS TO CARRY PISTOLS AND REVOLVERS. UNABLE TO RESOLVE THESE ISSUES, THE COURT WAS ASKED TO DECIDE WHAT THE LAW SAYS AND ALLOWS THE FOLLOWING COURT DOCUMENTS MAY HELP OTHERS UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED" Last edited on Tue May 12th, 2009 06:18 pm by bennor |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
bennor wrote: Its worth a read to understand the various issues on how muddied and crazy this issue has become, and why CT is NOT a 100% legal OC state despite the lack of laws making OC specifically illegal. Bingo! No different than my parents never specifically telling me I couldn't bang my girlfriend in the hot tub so it was "legal" by default. I still KNEW I'd get in trouble if I were caught. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: wrightme wrote:Good points (well, maybe). Shouting and rudeness aside, calling a lawful act a "breach of peace" should generate lawsuits when arrested and charged as such. Where is it that simple lawful activity is a crime? Strawman. Conducting lawful activity such as OC, where legal, is not (nor should it be) sufficient to cause "breach of peace" arrest, charge, and conviction. If LE is doing such, they are operating outside the confines of the statute. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: bennor wrote:Its worth a read to understand the various issues on how muddied and crazy this issue has become, and why CT is NOT a 100% legal OC state despite the lack of laws making OC specifically illegal. Um, unless you were both the age of consent in the state of residence, it is quite likely that you would be performing an unlawful act. Also, household rules for a family are a very poor comparison for legal statute. Nice try. (well, no, not really even a far stretch attempt) |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
".....double-tap......" Last edited on Tue May 12th, 2009 06:28 pm by wrightme |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
wrightme wrote: airgunner23 wrote:bennor wrote:Its worth a read to understand the various issues on how muddied and crazy this issue has become, and why CT is NOT a 100% legal OC state despite the lack of laws making OC specifically illegal. Nice doubletap... We were both under 18, so it was NOT illegal at all. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: wrightme wrote:airgunner23 wrote:bennor wrote:Its worth a read to understand the various issues on how muddied and crazy this issue has become, and why CT is NOT a 100% legal OC state despite the lack of laws making OC specifically illegal. ??? What is the age of consent in the state you lived in at the time? It really is irrellevant, as household rules are not even close to a reasonable analogy to legal statute. Or did you miss that part? Would it have been more accurate to state "..under 18, so it was NOT LEGAL at all?" Last edited on Tue May 12th, 2009 06:32 pm by wrightme |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
wrightme wrote: Conducting lawful activity such as OC, where legal, is not (nor should it be) sufficient to cause "breach of peace" arrest, charge, and conviction. If LE is doing such, they are operating outside the confines of the statute. And that's exactly what they are doing and the burden is on YOU to get your name cleared and the charges dropped. It is what it is but, hey...you wanna go poke that rabid sleeping pit bull with a sharp stick? Go ahead buddy boy... |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: wrightme wrote:Conducting lawful activity such as OC, where legal, is not (nor should it be) sufficient to cause "breach of peace" arrest, charge, and conviction. If LE is doing such, they are operating outside the confines of the statute. As long as no one is willling to "poke that rabid sleeping pit bull," it will likely remain as it is; with LE conducting arrest, with ensuing charge and conviction, OUTSIDE of STATUTE. You choose to live in that circumstance? btw, as an aside, my eyesight is fine, you do not need to make text extra large for me. Of course, if you need it such to read it, please continue. Last edited on Tue May 12th, 2009 06:37 pm by wrightme |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
wrightme wrot??? What is the age of consent in the state you lived in at the time? It really is irrellevant, as household rules are not even close to a reasonable analogy to legal statute. Or did you miss that part? 18 in California, but since neither one of us was 18 or older, that "age of consent" law didn't apply. I've never seen ANYWHERE saying sex between two minors was illegal. It is a VERY reasonable analogy. Just because something is NOT expressly prohibited, that does not mean that you automatically should or could just "because you can". But, that's apparently lost on you as proven time and time again... |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
wrightme wrote: You choose to live in that circumstance? Yup. I'm perfectly content to carry CC as my preferred method of carry. Always has been, even in states having an actual LAW stating OC is legal as in Arizona. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: wrightme wrote:You choose to live in that circumstance? That was not the entire point. Are you OK living in a state where the LE enforce non-existent statute? I would not be surprised if such abuses are not limited to OC. Are they? Further, are you ok with CT denying the 2nd Amendment to all citizens who do not go through the permit process, essentially requiring prior approval to exercise a RIGHT? |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: wrightme wrot??? What is the age of consent in the state you lived in at the time? It really is irrellevant, as household rules are not even close to a reasonable analogy to legal statute. Or did you miss that part? Then you would dislike Nevada. I also believe you are quite mistaken. Family rules are not akin to legal statute. Did your parents have a written list that you could refer to, or was it at their whim (which is more typical than your poor example)? |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Listen, if gun loving states like TEXAS and FLORIDA can't get fully allowable carry, little ol' libtard blue CT ain't getting it either. Not going to waste the time and effort moving Mt. Everest rock by rock. If you want to, have fun! |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
wrightme wrote:
No, no written list...like of like OC not being on CT's list, right? |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Well, I'll pick this up later. Gotta run because some of us actually have lives. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: wrightme wrote: No, not at all. Legal statute is a written list. It is not a list of "allowed activities," it is a list of "prohibited activities." That which is not prohibited is legally allowed. This is NOT the same as household rules that are not written at all, nor is it akin to rules for youth that live in that household. The two are not analogous at all, no matter how often and with large text you wish to post it. What is the wording of the CT "breach of peace" statute anyway? |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
...double-tap. Last edited on Tue May 12th, 2009 06:53 pm by wrightme |
|||||||||
|
bennor Regular Member
|
wrightme wrote: Strawman. Wrightme, please see my link above (or click here) and read the initial complaint as to what is really going on with how things work here with respect to OC. Yes the police appear to be operating outside of the legal firearm CT carry statues but they are using another non firearm statue to arrest you, which then causes your pistol permit to be revoked. Again, your interpretation of the law does not supersede the laws the police officer is interpreting as he slaps the cuffs on you and they haul you off to jail. That's why there is a court case in the works to spell ALL of this out and to get everyone on the same page, and hopefully the LEOs will abide by the court decision with respect to people who are licensed to carry pistols in the State of Connecticut. I hope the decision comes down with allowing licensed pistol permit holders to OC or CCW when they carry, that way we have options. Again, one can argue the law all they want but in the end you can still can wind up behind bars. People need to be aware of all of these issues before making the choice to carry OC here in this state. If you want to legally OC, when your here, that's your choice. Just be warned you might be arrested for doing so. And for those interested and if they missed my previous link to the "Breach of Peace" Statue below is the statue for CT. And the State Police (see http://ourrockyhill.com/) have previously said the following, noticed the section I have highlighted in the SP response with respect to the state statute (specifically section A). State Police: "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. " http://law.justia.com/connecticut/codes/title53a/sec53a-181.html Sec. 53a-181. Breach of the peace in the second degree: Class B misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of breach of the peace in the second degree when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person: (1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior in a public place; or (2) assaults or strikes another; or (3) threatens to commit any crime against another person or such other person's property; or (4) publicly exhibits, distributes, posts up or advertises any offensive, indecent or abusive matter concerning any person; or (5) in a public place, uses abusive or obscene language or makes an obscene gesture; or (6) creates a public and hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which such person is not licensed or privileged to do. For purposes of this section, "public place" means any area that is used or held out for use by the public whether owned or operated by public or private interests. (b) Breach of the peace in the second degree is a class B misdemeanor. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
wrightme wrote:
Do your own research and look it up yourself. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Looks like bennor just did it for you... |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
(5) in a public place, uses abusive or obscene language or makes an obscene gesture That's interesting. Saying a swear word or flipping someone the bird is actually illegal? |
|||||||||
|
AWDstylez Banned
|
bennor wrote: Sec. 53a-181. Breach of the peace in the second degree: Class B misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of breach of the peace in the second degree when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person: (1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior in a public place; or (2) assaults or strikes another; or (3) threatens to commit any crime against another person or such other person's property; or (4) publicly exhibits, distributes, posts up or advertises any offensive, indecent or abusive matter concerning any person; or (5) in a public place, uses abusive or obscene language or makes an obscene gesture; or (6) creates a public and hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which such person is not licensed or privileged to do. For purposes of this section, "public place" means any area that is used or held out for use by the public whether owned or operated by public or private interests. That makes all the difference in the word. Do the police carry? Aboslutely not. You cannot arrest a person based on someone's negative reaction to their LEGAL activity. There is case law to support that, maybe someone can link it. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
(1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior in a public place CT is the land of the ultimate libtard. I can very well see them pressing the "threatening behavior in a public place" charge because all someone has to do is say the sight of a firearm made them feel threatened, hence the "cause alarm to another" part of the OC answer from the BFPE. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: wrightme wrote: Why? "Cite to authority." You presented it as relevant. brennor did your work for you. And, see "with intent." OC should not equate to "intent to" cause the ruckus. As noted, it is not the responsibility of the person performing lawful OC to gauge the response from others. It is not in the intent. Last edited on Tue May 12th, 2009 10:05 pm by wrightme |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Hey, bub, we posted at pretty much the exact same time. It wasn't there when I told you to do your own work. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Hey, bub, we posted at pretty much the exact same time. It wasn't there when I told you to do your own work. Either way you cut it, when YOU reference a statute, such as "breach of peace," it is your responsibility to "cite to authority," and not the responsibility of others to do your research and posting for you. bub. (added to speak your own language) |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
So says you. Those are YOUR rules and I don't have to follow them. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: So says you. Those are YOUR rules and I don't have to follow them. False. They are not "my" rules. They are the published rules of this web forum, belonging to Mr. Pierce. You should review them now and then. Da Rulez Specifically, you may find help in rules 5, 7, and 8. Learning from those may assist in your ability to enter into helpful dialog, as opposed to your current ability. Last edited on Tue May 12th, 2009 10:21 pm by wrightme |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Whatever. You still got what you asked for. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Whatever. You still got what you asked for.Yes, I did. It shows that the "breach" statute is not sufficient to support a charge against someone conducting the lawful activity of OC. |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member
|
airgunner23 wrote:I've never seen ANYWHERE saying sex between two minors was illegal. Where have you been the last 20 years? |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
(1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior in a public place There is nothing in this part of the law regarding intent. All someone has to do is feel "threatened" by a person's OC "behavior". Surely, even you can see that but, I may be making a stretch... |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member
|
airgunner23 wrote:Listen, if gun loving states like TEXAS and FLORIDA can't get fully allowable carry, little ol' libtard blue CT ain't getting it either. Not going to waste the time and effort moving Mt. Everest rock by rock. If you want to, have fun! There is nothing I could possible say in response to this post that would not be insulting. So, consider yourself insulted. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
marshaul wrote: airgunner23 wrote: Not in California... |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
marshaul wrote: airgunner23 wrote: Oh, that was clever... |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member
|
airgunner23 wrote:marshaul wrote:airgunner23 wrote: Apparently not in Virginia, Florida, or basically anywhere outside CT, for that matter. airgunner23 wrote: marshaul wrote:airgunner23 wrote: Not clever, but at least I've made more than two posts in a row without breaking forum rules. Last edited on Tue May 12th, 2009 10:32 pm by marshaul |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
So have I. |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member
|
That's a first. |
|||||||||
|
bennor Regular Member
|
wrightme wrote: airgunner23 wrote:Whatever. You still got what you asked for.Yes, I did. It shows that the "breach" statute is not sufficient to support a charge against someone conducting the lawful activity of OC. There in is your problem, you don't think the "breach" statue is not sufficient to support the charge. This isn't about you think in an Internet forum. Its about what the judge thinks after your arrest! Every time these OC kinds of discussions come up they end up at the same dead end with respect to the laws. The laws are what they currently are. Feel free to interpret them as you choose, just don't be surprised if a police officer and or a judge interprets them differently and you end up loosing your pistol permit, the handgun you OC'd with, and or spend some time in jail. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
This. [/thread] |
|||||||||
|
Hef Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: (1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior in a public place Why would the state issue a permit to carry a firearm when such a behavior is "threatening"? If open carry is "threatening", why wouldn't my possession of a valid permit be an affirmative defense? If open carry is "threatening" and concealed carry is not, why have they not amended the law so that my "Connecticut State Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers" reflects a requirement to conceal? How do you reconcile an LEO - let's say a plainclothes detective - open carrying in a "non-threatening" manner, with your idea that a citizen open carrying is a "threatening" behavior? My SC permit says, "SOUTH CAROLINA CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMIT". No legal ambiguity there. Sc statutes clearly prohibit open carry, so I carry concealed in my home state. If the CT legislature intended for the permit to be for concealed carry only, how come I can't find any mention of it anywhere? |
|||||||||
|
Hef Regular Member
|
bennor wrote: wrightme wrote:airgunner23 wrote:Whatever. You still got what you asked for.Yes, I did. It shows that the "breach" statute is not sufficient to support a charge against someone conducting the lawful activity of OC. Good thing my gun isn't very expensive and I own a few other carry guns. As for my CT permit.....oh well. It's not like I go to CT much anymore. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
bennor wrote: wrightme wrote:You are completely missing my point. I realize that what happens in CT is real. I also can easily see that the police ARE overstepping their bounds, and if judges are allowing this, then the entire system needs an overhaul. It is not about how I (or anyone else) "interprets" the law, it is about what the citizens of CT allow to happen. If enough people realize that the JBT atmosphere is too much, change can happen. Unfortunately, if the attitude of the majority of the citizens of CT is reflected in your response, I really doubt it will happen in my lifetime.airgunner23 wrote:Whatever. You still got what you asked for.Yes, I did. It shows that the "breach" statute is not sufficient to support a charge against someone conducting the lawful activity of OC. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: (1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior in a public place(1) is a sub-part of the portion that states "with intent." Cherry-picking does not give you accurate results. Sec. 53a-181. Breach of the peace in the second degree: Class B misdemeanor. (a) person with intent does (1) (1) should never be taken into account unless there is intent. Anyone convicted of OC in such cases should be at SCOTUS with it. Last edited on Wed May 13th, 2009 12:33 am by wrightme |
|||||||||
|
Hef Regular Member
|
wrightme wrote: bennor wrote:wrightme wrote:You are completely missing my point. I realize that what happens in CT is real. I also can easily see that the police ARE overstepping their bounds, and if judges are allowing this, then the entire system needs an overhaul. It is not about how I (or anyone else) "interprets" the law, it is about what the citizens of CT allow to happen. If enough people realize that the JBT atmosphere is too much, change can happen. Unfortunately, if the attitude of the majority of the citizens of CT is reflected in your response, I really doubt it will happen in my lifetime.airgunner23 wrote:Whatever. You still got what you asked for.Yes, I did. It shows that the "breach" statute is not sufficient to support a charge against someone conducting the lawful activity of OC. Having been born and raised there, I can attest to the majority of CT residents being sheep who are happy to live under the thumbs of their government agencies. They really are happy to be oppressed. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
That definitely puts CT on my list of "never step foot inside boundaries of" areas. |
|||||||||
|
Hef Regular Member
|
wrightme wrote: That definitely puts CT on my list of "never step foot inside boundaries of" areas. I only go when I have to, and by day 2 I usually can't wait to get back down south. |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member
|
If every gun owner would stop saying "Of course that's how it is in libtard CT!" and start saying "I demand the state respect my rights!" the problem would resolve itself. How you can justify being a part of the problem and not the solution is beyond me. Many of live in places where we alone cannot afford to stand up to our local criminal police. This does not mean we just give up. I try to find opportunities to OC in California, even if I cannot OC in SF (yet). Even AWDstylez has OCed in a rural setting (which isn't too much different from what I currently do as an SF resident). It's fine to be a realist. But being contrarily negative is a waste of everybody's time. |
|||||||||
|
AWDstylez Banned
|
airgunner23 wrote: (1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior in a public place The fact that there needs to be intent preceeds everything else listed. The law states the requirments, then lists the situations in which they may occur. Intent is one of the requirments and needs to be present in any of the situations for them to constitute breach of peace. Does that actually matter to the cops? No, but that's how it's supposed to be. Last edited on Wed May 13th, 2009 01:34 am by AWDstylez |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Hef wrote: As for my CT permit.....oh well. It's not like I go to CT much anymore. ... Last edited on Wed May 13th, 2009 11:28 am by airgunner23 |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Hef wrote: As for my CT permit.....oh well. It's not like I go to CT much anymore. Then why are you arguing here? Why do you even care? On the rare occasions you get to CT, stick it in your pocket or waistband and shuddup... |
|||||||||
|
Hef Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Hef wrote:As for my CT permit.....oh well. It's not like I go to CT much anymore. I'll carry however I choose in the absence of a law regulating method of carry. When I'm in GA, I OC. Same for NC, VA, WV, PA, OH, KY, TN, NH, VT, and CT, as I've OC'ed in all those states and will again. I would never consider concealing for the convenience of others, as you seem to suggest I should do. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
Hef wrote: airgunner23 wrote:This is what LE use the law to do in CT. Infringement is what is being discussed, and CT law fits that definition. The permit process in CT legislates "to bear arms" into privilege. It will likely remain that way until enough CT citizens decide that they will NOT allow this infringement, and cause legislation change. Until then, CT will infringe.Hef wrote:As for my CT permit.....oh well. It's not like I go to CT much anymore. |
|||||||||
|
Lenny Benedetto Regular Member
|
wrightme wrote: Hef wrote:wrightme,airgunner23 wrote:This is what LE use the law to do in CT. Infringement is what is being discussed, and CT law fits that definition. The permit process in CT legislates "to bear arms" into privilege. It will likely remain that way until enough CT citizens decide that they will NOT allow this infringement, and cause legislation change. Until then, CT will infringe.Hef wrote:As for my CT permit.....oh well. It's not like I go to CT much anymore. Since you are from Nevada and surfing the CT forums, I am sure that you realize that there is a group of CT citizens organizing to take on these types of issues along with all gun issues. The CCDL is just starting out, but we are making real headway in the organization process. Soon we will be recognized as an organization in CT, fighting for all our gun rights |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
THE LOVER wrote: wrightme wrote:That is good to hear, and I sure hope you meet with success.Hef wrote:wrightme,airgunner23 wrote:This is what LE use the law to do in CT. Infringement is what is being discussed, and CT law fits that definition. The permit process in CT legislates "to bear arms" into privilege. It will likely remain that way until enough CT citizens decide that they will NOT allow this infringement, and cause legislation change. Until then, CT will infringe.Hef wrote:As for my CT permit.....oh well. It's not like I go to CT much anymore. As an aside, I "surf the OCDO forums" in general. Examples and discussions in other states are very helpful in keeping an eye on issues in NV. I encourage everyone to "surf the forums" of all states. |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member
|
wrightme wrote:As an aside, I "surf the OCDO forums" in general. Examples and discussions in other states are very helpful in keeping an eye on issues in NV. I encourage everyone to "surf the forums" of all states. Good call. If I never read another "Why are you out-of-staters in our forum?" post again it would be too soon. The worst is when people give me "Isn't San Francisco a long way from Virginia?" BS, when I post regularly and have had active threads in the Virginia subforum since 2007, seeing as Virginia is my second home and all. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Then the out of staters NEED to respond as to why they are here. So far, only one admitted to rarely getting back to CT. The other "major offenders"? Not so much...other than to stir sh!t up. |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member
|
airgunner23 wrote:Then the out of staters NEED to respond as to why they are here. No. They don't. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
marshaul wrote: airgunner23 wrote: So, why are YOU here stirring sh!t up? |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member
|
airgunner23 wrote:marshaul wrote:airgunner23 wrote: I'm engaging in a discussion which all members of the forum are free to participate in. Why are you stirring things up, and in your own state no less? |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Then the out of staters NEED to respond as to why they are here. So far, only one admitted to rarely getting back to CT. The other "major offenders"? Not so much...other than to stir sh!t up. You missed my response to a question like that. Nice "stir." |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
I live here. It's my "right".  |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: I live here. It's my "right". Arguably the only one you didn't have to check at the border of CT on the way in. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Don't blame me. Blame the state, CSP, BFPE, SFLU, local LE, etc... But, since you're Mr. Toughguy, why don't you come here and stick your OC in their faces? Hmmmm? |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Don't blame me. Blame the state, CSP, BFPE, SFLU, local LE, etc... But, since you're Mr. Toughguy, why don't you come here and stick your OC in their faces? Hmmmm? You are a resident. You are much better placed to help change things there. You also obviously show no desire to do anything except complain about the reality. Now, other than that, where have I "blamed" you? A saying goes: "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem." Ask yourself which part you are. |
|||||||||
|
Hef Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: marshaul wrote:airgunner23 wrote: You joined May 3, 2009. You have done nothing BUT "stir @#$% up". If you are so against open carry in CT, why are you even on this website? Why don't you stop instigating and go get comfortable on a concealed carry website? |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
wrightme wrote: You also obviously show no desire to do anything except complain about the reality. I don't complain about not being able to OC. My stance is it's not wise to do it in CT. CC is my highly preferred method of carry anyway. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Hef wrote:
Just as soon as you shut up and get comfy on SC websites. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: wrightme wrote:You also obviously show no desire to do anything except complain about the reality. "you complain about the reality." You HAVE complained about the use of "breach of peace" in unlawful enforcement activities. That is the reality you presented. Even though the statute should not allow such LE activity. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
wrightme wrote:
I didn't complain. All I said was that's what they'd charge you with if you OC'd and "caused someone alarm". Again, please try to get it right next time. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: wrightme wrote: But to do so, LE have to perform false arrest. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Well, I just fired off an email about OC to my local PD and the SLFU. I'll post what they respond with...if they respond at all. So, what was in the email you fired off? Have you received a response? |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
....double-tap. Great forum software at times.. Last edited on Wed May 13th, 2009 05:30 pm by wrightme |
|||||||||
|
bennor Regular Member
|
While this is an OC forum and its principle is to promote OC, that doesn't mean people can go around violating the firearm laws of their states simply to OC. Now here in CT, there is no firearm law against OC, however as has been pointed out the State Police and local LEO's frown on it and have arrested people and revoked permits when a gun was OC'd. Some of us prefer to CCW but would also like the option of OC (without police harassment) for those times when OC is preferable. Some want to go around showing people they are carrying, others (like myself) do not. This isn't a debate on the merits of OC versus CCW. People who think that OC is 100% legal here need to know that the LEO's here may not view it that way and they could be arrested and have your pistol permit revoked. We are NOT saying do not OC, only to be aware of the issues so you don't go and get your self arrested and your permit revoked. This is not a fantasy world where the police think like we do and will respect our rights, or where we don't need permits for 2A rights, this is the real world, and the police can and will arrest someone and let the lawyers figure it out (our rights don't matter to them), and unfortunately the majority of citizens want people to get a pistol permit before getting a pistol or to carry one. Some will complain about this and say that in their state they can OC and the LEO's don't interfere, well that's good for you, but in CT, it's politicians, citizens, judges, DA's, and LEO's who have different views on things here and as such OC is questionable, and we have a pistol permitting process that is rife for abuse, and an state level AWB still in effect. There are some locations where OCing will not incur a "man with a gun call" (kudos for the OP in Norwalk OCing) and there are other places where it will. This state is not firearm or 2A friendly. Heck, I've even been harassed by a customer in a Walmart as I bought some .22 ammunition. That is the major problem that we who live here in CT face when we choose to carry firearms, other's views on firearms. We face a battle with both the local populous and with the police who choose to ignore or twist the laws to suit their views on firearms. I've seen several people OC in Cabelas in Hartford for example but have not seen anyone in New Haven do so when I used to spend a lot of time in the down town area. Part of the issue here is that people who don't live here (or haven't lived here in years) don't realize that OC is but one issue that those who support 2A are dealing with here. The CCDL and other organizations are a good start and are making headway. As is the lawsuit going on about the police's ignoring of the state firearm statutes. We do have an up hill battle over several other issues like the state AWB besides OC to get this state to acknowledge the right to possess and carry firearms per the state and federal constitutions without being hassled by police or citizens who think guns should be banned. It is, and is going to be, a long hard fight and one that will take years. Sorry for the long rambling post and feel free to flame away if you choose to do so. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
I asked what the laws/lack of laws are on OC (to see if they even know) and what their current stance is. Also, if they deem it "illegal", what would the exact penalties/charges be. I didn't get into the whole "it's legal because there's nothing in the laws prohibiting it" because I want their response first. I haven't heard anything back and I don't really expect to. I was VERY surprised the XO of the SFLU told me as much as he did regarding the AK-47 "type". And that was like pulling teeth as they don't want to say much that could be construed as legal advice. Same reason as to why the BFPE pulled down most of their FAQs, including the one addressing OC and "you must make every effort to keep it concealed because if it causes...", yada yada... I did get an answer from the Naugatuck PD about carrying and forgetting your permit. Here's another blatant abuse of power. They said you'd be arrested and have your firearm confiscated. You would be released when someone physically brought your permit in to the station. All this, yet they said they could pull up your color picture from the permit database with your name on the computer in the police car to see if you look like the name you gave them. I then asked about what happens to the firearm...no response. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
I get where you're coming from, bennor, but it's mostly falling on deaf ears. Also, these people, knowing Connecticut, pushing to make OC legal in the LAW will probably end up getting it legally sh!tcanned with our liberal and corrupt politicians. Worse off than before... Since you spend a lot of time in New Haven, what ever happened with that Rabbi and doing armed citizen patrols because the police suck and crime got so bad? It was all the rage in the news for a while, then nothing. It's been about two years. Did they ever actually do any patrols? I know Chief Ortiz was really putting the screws to the Rabbi not to patrol. Last edited on Wed May 13th, 2009 05:55 pm by airgunner23 |
|||||||||
|
bennor Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: I get where you're coming from, bennor, but it's mostly falling on deaf ears. They Jewish group over in the Edgewood section (not far from where I live) ran armed patrols on bikes for a week or two before the Guardian Angles came in and took over. I do know the Chief Ortiz who was on his way out (retiring) was not happy about the patrols. I applied for my permit and was interviewed around that time by the NHPD and I did ask them their views on the armed patrols. The response I got was they didn't like it and that people should let the police handle it. My response was "if they needed armed patrols maybe police patrols are not enough". The guy was slightly unhappy with my response. I got my permit signed the day after Ortiz left. Its why I was calling everyone in sight to find out what I could do (at the five month stage) if a new police chief came in and delayed my permit application even more. It was fun times waiting out the NHPD for my permit. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Wow, thankfully my permit only took about 6 weeks in Naugatuck. The officer I had to see was VERY anti about civilians owning firearms. He said "people like me" make his job harder. Really? The person who pays money, gets training, jumps through hoops like paperwork, notarization, background check, fingerprinting, etc MAKES YOUR JOB HARDER??? Never mind that felony convicted ethnic gang banger who just shoves his gat down the front of his pants and goes about his biddnezz. He also didn't like me asking him what their average across town 911 response times were at 0200 as my response as to why I wanted to carry/own a gun. |
|||||||||
|
bennettprescott Opt-Out Member
|
Perhaps you should have explained why "people like him" make your life harder. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
bennettprescott wrote: Perhaps you should have explained why "people like him" make your life harder. Oh, this guy was a piece of work! When I had to put down my height, I asked if it should be in feet and inches or inches over all because the form didn't specify. He asked my why and I said they use inches over all when I was in the military since this was an "official" form. He went off on how stupid Bush was and started bashing the military. I wanted to read him the riot act, but I didn't find it wise to get into an argument with a cop in the cop shop when applying for a firearm carry permit. There is a clause in the application process that says you can be denied for "not being a suitable person". Didn't want to be labeled as "unsuitable" for being a hot head or something. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0167.htm SUITABILITY AND PERMIT DENIALS In addition to prohibiting the issuance of a temporary or state gun permit to anyone in the above categories, the law requires the local permit-issuing official to find that an applicant for a temporary permit (1) wants the firearm for lawful purposes and (2) is a suitable person to get a gun permit (CGS § 29-28(b)). The law does not define suitability, and it does not provide standards for making the determination. Thus, officials set their own standards, which appear to vary from town to town. Some towns appear to follow the State Police policy. Last edited on Wed May 13th, 2009 06:27 pm by airgunner23 |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
As an aside, examples from Washington might be a good target for CT....... |
|||||||||
|
Gunslinger Regular Member 
|
Sonora Rebel wrote: airgunner23 wrote:I've never had a problem in Arizona, either, but feel free to come out here to CT and try OC...I DARE you... I'm a Yankee, too. But New Hampshire. As gun friendly as Colorado--where I live now, or AZ. We never considered the PDRs of MA, RI or CT to be part of the union... |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Gunslinger, I was actually surprised how "liberal" CT's gun laws are, aside from that retarded AWB. They're not the best, but I was expecting MUCH worse when we first moved here. The permit is pretty much shall issue. My wife and I had no problems getting ours. Unlike a lot of other northeast states, there's only ONE restriction on handguns. If it takes the magazine out of the pistol grip, it cannot weigh 50 or more ounces as manufactured. So, that greatly regulates AK/AR pistols and things like the Kel-Tec PLR-16. But, there are no restrictions on magazine capacity, hollow points, required safety features, etc. Every single "normal" handgun is legal in CT as there's no list of "approved" ones like MA has. Very little restrictions on where you can carry, too. Can even carry into a dedicated bar. Can NOT even carry into a Chuckie Cheese back in AZ because they serve alcohol (beer) for on-site consumption. And, technically, OC is legal, but I'm not going there again. |
|||||||||
|
Lenny Benedetto Regular Member
|
Let me just say FU to all out of staters bashing CT. If you hate yankees and people from CT so much than surf your own states forum, or maybe nobody from your state knows how to read or write!!! Many of us here are working hard towards fixing our states problems. So if you live in the state and want to do more than just CRY about the problems here, Join us!!! If not than go wipe away your tears and accept the fact that you are not bold enough to fight for what is right. |
|||||||||
|
AWDstylez Banned
|
THE LOVER wrote: If you hate yankees and people from CT so much than surf your own states forum, or maybe nobody from your state knows how to read or write!!! I lol'd. This may not be the gun friendly state, but it's got a lot of other (more important?) things going for it. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
AWDstylez wrote: I lol'd. This may not be the gun friendly state, but it's got a lot of other (more important?) things going for it. A LOT? Really? Like what? Some of the highest taxes in the nation, an annual car tax on vehicles that were paid off years ago, some of the highest energy costs, corrupt lying politicians, crumbling infrastructure, TERRIBLE roads and TERRIBLE drivers, urban blight everywhere with overgrown fields, burned out/boarded up buildings that haven't been used in forever, etc. Sh!tholes like New Haven, Waterbury, Bridgeport, Hartford... People and businesses are leaving the state in droves, especially people in the 20-40 demographic. All CT will be left with is teenies and wrinklies due to the SH!TTY economy, HIGH cost of living, taxes, oppressive government. It goes on and on. CT appears to be a dying state. Sure, there's some nice woodlands, water areas decent gun laws for N.E. But, I can find that in tons of other states in the nation without the rest of the crap. My excellent, fun job of flying for Sikorsky? Not so much.  I'd move in a heartbeat if they relocated...on my own dime...with the most expensive moving company on the planet. |
|||||||||
|
Hef Regular Member
|
THE LOVER wrote: Let me just say FU to all out of staters bashing CT. If you hate yankees and people from CT so much than surf your own states forum, or maybe nobody from your state knows how to read or write!!! I can bash CT as much as I like. I've earned the right. I was born and raised there. My family settled there when they got off the boat from Italy 3 generations ago. Over 90% of my family lives in Fairfield County, CT and Westchester County, NY. I am more than qualified to dissect CT life. |
|||||||||
|
Hef Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: AWDstylez wrote:I lol'd. This may not be the gun friendly state, but it's got a lot of other (more important?) things going for it. Holy crap you've actually said something I can totally agree with. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
LOL  |
|||||||||
|
Lenny Benedetto Regular Member
|
Hef wrote: THE LOVER wrote:Let me just say FU to all out of staters bashing CT. If you hate yankees and people from CT so much than surf your own states forum, or maybe nobody from your state knows how to read or write!!! And you left! Good for you and the way I see it. Good for CT! |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
THE LOVER wrote:
Yeah, and I'll bet Mr. "born and raised in CT" is playing Git-R-Dun bubba down in SC, too, like New Haven born Bush portrays himself as a "Texan". |
|||||||||
|
AWDstylez Banned
|
airgunner23 wrote: AWDstylez wrote:I lol'd. This may not be the gun friendly state, but it's got a lot of other (more important?) things going for it. You're obviously visit the wrong areas. I was thinking along the lines of education level, income, outperforming economy, etc. |
|||||||||
|
Hef Regular Member
|
THE LOVER wrote: Hef wrote:THE LOVER wrote:Let me just say FU to all out of staters bashing CT. If you hate yankees and people from CT so much than surf your own states forum, or maybe nobody from your state knows how to read or write!!! Great for me! I now live in a free state, where government employees actually understand that THEY work for US. When's the last time you walked out of the DMV and said, "Man! They're so nice here! And quick!", or looked at your property tax bill and thought, "Wow! That's it?" Last edited on Wed May 13th, 2009 10:58 pm by Hef |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
THE LOVER wrote: Let me just say FU to all out of staters bashing CT. If you hate yankees and people from CT so much than surf your own states forum, or maybe nobody from your state knows how to read or write!!! Do you provide "equal-opportunity" vitriol for the in-stater bashing of CT? WoW is all I can say to your comments. |
|||||||||
|
Gunslinger Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Gunslinger, I was actually surprised how "liberal" CT's gun laws are, aside from that retarded AWB. They're not the best, but I was expecting MUCH worse when we first moved here. The permit is pretty much shall issue. My wife and I had no problems getting ours. Unlike a lot of other northeast states, there's only ONE restriction on handguns. If it takes the magazine out of the pistol grip, it cannot weigh 50 or more ounces as manufactured. So, that greatly regulates AK/AR pistols and things like the Kel-Tec PLR-16. But, there are no restrictions on magazine capacity, hollow points, required safety features, etc. Every single "normal" handgun is legal in CT as there's no list of "approved" ones like MA has. Very little restrictions on where you can carry, too. Can even carry into a dedicated bar. Can NOT even carry into a Chuckie Cheese back in AZ because they serve alcohol (beer) for on-site consumption. And, technically, OC is legal, but I'm not going there again. You make some valid points. DE is another northeastern state with decent gun laws albeit liberal overall. Even Taxachusetts was never a problem for me--both as a resident and non-resident, to get a pistol permit, as they call them. And TX--as gun friendly as you can imagine, most people think, has draconian restrictions--even on length of knife you can carry. But CT will always be a ready target to bash because of its liberal politics. The assumption is that applies to every aspect of the state. As has come out, that is facts not in evidence. Even here in CO, which is as gun friendly as you can get--virtually no restrictions on carry, people have had problems with OC. Painting with a broad brush generally does a poor job. |
|||||||||
|
Hef Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: THE LOVER wrote: Wrong. I live in an $800,000 house. I own 3 vehicles, one of which is a Corvette. I am waiting for my '09 BMW 328i to come in next week. I run a construction company that has 30 employees. I married my wife in St. Thomas, USVI, and I have a credit account at a jewelry store (and not the crappy mall store) to buy her Christmas, Valentine's, anniversary, and birthday presents. Care to make any other stupid remarks? |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
AWDstylez wrote: You're obviously visit the wrong areas. Maybe so about the "wrong areas", but outside of the OLD MONEY whitebread areas (and I've been ALL over CT), I've seen just as much if not worse white trash in CT as I did in FL. Income? Seriously? HIGHLY offset by the high cost of living, excessive taxes, etc. Education level? I may be a Naval Academy '93 grad, but there is NOTHING special "education wise" here. Sure, there's Yale, but they graduate and LEAVE by far and away...just like Dubya. Outperforming the economy? Really? Haven't you noticed large businesses like Beyer closing up shop and canning LOTS of employees? The cut backs/layoffs at the UTC, Sikorsky, Otis, Carrier, Pratt & Whitney, Hamilton Sundstrand, etc? Obviously not. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Hef wrote:
Suuure... Oh, and Corvette = redneck sports car. FAAAR from exotic. Dime a dozen. Surely you can do better. And, before you ask me what I have (I know you will), let's talk twin turbine engine airplanes, as in King Air. |
|||||||||
|
bennettprescott Opt-Out Member
|
Hey, could we all find some way to make this thread go on until it is positively painful, and embarrassing for every single person who participates in any way? For God's sake, shut up already. Compare dick sizes in private. |
|||||||||
|
Hef Regular Member
|
bennettprescott wrote: Hey, could we all find some way to make this thread go on until it is positively painful, and embarrassing for every single person who participates in any way? That wasn't the idea. I was simply refuting his baseless accusation that I'm some sort of wannabe bubba, stereotypical redneck. I'm done with him in this thread. I started a new argument (err, thread) in the "Why Open Carry" area. |
|||||||||
|
Hef Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Hef wrote: I don't care what you have. If it isn't parked in my driveway, it doesn't really matter. |
|||||||||
|
AWDstylez Banned
|
airgunner23 wrote: Maybe so about the "wrong areas", but outside of the OLD MONEY whitebread areas (and I've been ALL over CT), You've obviously been to all the wrong areas. There are far more upper-middle class towns around here then their are dump cities (which you've seemly been to all of). And I don't think first generation doctors, lawyers, and corporate people qualify as "old money." |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
bennettprescott wrote:
That's what I thought, but hey... I didn't FIRST bring up Hef's $800K house and the sh!ty cars Hef drives... Hef the "toy boy" did that but, apparently, he's taken his ball, left the sandbox and gone cryin' home to momma. Can't park it in my driveway... Guess a 62 ft Buddy Davis sport fisherman (more than Hef's house cost, BTW) doesn't count because it's tied up at the local marina... Last edited on Thu May 14th, 2009 10:53 am by airgunner23 |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
AWDstylez wrote: And I don't think first generation doctors, lawyers, and corporate people qualify as "old money." Where do you think their educations come from? Law students just "fall" into Yale? |
|||||||||
|
AWDstylez Banned
|
airgunner23 wrote: AWDstylez wrote:And I don't think first generation doctors, lawyers, and corporate people qualify as "old money." I'm talking about general education, not the fact that there's a few big name schools here. The CT school system is one of the best in the nation. We have some of the highest standardized testing scores, highest general education level achieved, and THE most difficult teaching certification in the nation. Last edited on Thu May 14th, 2009 01:16 pm by AWDstylez |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: bennettprescott wrote:Is your demeanor here part of the face of firearms owners that you are proud to show to the public? Verbally beating someone into a desire to no longer converse with you does not cause what you insultingly state. You REALLY show a disgraceful attitude to others. You are not adding to the forum in a positive manner. |
|||||||||
|
gluegun Regular Member 
|
This thread is no where near being on topic anymore. Can we either get it back on topic or let it die? |
|||||||||
|
AWDstylez Banned
|
wrightme wrote: airgunner23 wrote:bennettprescott wrote:Is your demeanor here part of the face of firearms owners that you are proud to show to the public? Verbally beating someone into a desire to no longer converse with you does not cause what you insultingly state. You REALLY show a disgraceful attitude to others. You are not adding to the forum in a positive manner. I'm starting to wonder what he does for a living. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
AWDstylez wrote: I'm starting to wonder what he does for a living. I said several times before that I work and fly for Sikorsky in Stratford and that's the ONLY reason I'm in CT. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
AWDstylez wrote: I'm talking about general education, not the fact that there's a few big name schools here. Well, I can't speak for your town, but the school system in Naugatuck sucks ass. With all the goddamned property tax, CT should have the best public school system in the universe! |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member
|
Connecticut State Constitution SEC. 15. "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." 'Seems rather straight forward. But then, the 'State' muddies the waters a bit with 'Permit'. "Connecticut State Pistol Permit The Special License and Firearms Unit is responsible for the issuance of state pistol permits. Applicants for a state pistol permit must first apply for, and be granted a local pistol permit. A local pistol permit may be obtained from the police chief in the town in which you reside or maintain a place of business." This is a common malady attributed to 'fuzzy-think' regarding Right, Permit & License. Rights do not require Permission. Now... I read this thing a bit... and I can find no mention of 'Concealed' only... or 'Concealed' at all... and admittedly I prob'ly missed that or didn't read the 'right' part. I think the Beta male lawyers in Legislature obfuscate these things intentionally... as do the mouth breather MSM talking heads. 'Fact is... people don't OC because they are intimidated... and the 'law' has been perverted to the point it is assumed that it is illegal. This is the case in many states... |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Sonora Rebel wrote: Now... I read this thing a bit... and I can find no mention of 'Concealed' only... or 'Concealed' at all... NOW you see that??? |
|||||||||
|
bennor Regular Member
|
Sonora Rebel wrote: Connecticut State Constitution SEC. 15. "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." The pistol license that we are issued does not mention conceal or open carry. Its simply a pistol license to carry and buy handguns. The joys of local issuing authority's extra requirements for pistol licensing is a separate issue that has frustrated many people here and can be discussed elsewhere. So can our wonderful laws about licensing a "right". At least we have a statement about the right to bear firearms in our state constitution, other states don't. In this case it's OC that is at issue. It is the LEO's and DPS Special Licensing that is causing the problems here with respect to OC. What should happen is when an officer gets the "man with a gun call" and arrives on scene and sees someone going about their business with a holstered firearm he should either check to ensure the person has a permit or reports that there is no man with a gun, simply a person going about their daily business with a holstered firearm. What really should happen is when the initial call is made to 911, the 911 operator should ask the caller if the person with the gun is waving it around/using it in a threatening manor, or if they have it holstered and are going about their business not disrupting/disturbing anyone. If holstered than no officers should be dispatched and the operator should inform the caller that OC of a firearm is legal. It all comes down to this statement (http://ourrockyhill.com/) from DPS Special Licensing guys (shown below). The bottom line is OC is questionable here as it stands now. From: "Det. MattsonKaranda" We can argue about the legalities all day long, or how things should be, but in the end the police will still arrest you and you will loose your license if the LEO chooses to arrest you when they get a "man with a gun" call or sees you OCing. Then one will have to spend their time and money to fight it. Sucks but that's the reality here on the ground. Its muddied situation until we get a ruling on the Declaratory Ruling Request that is being sought right now. See these two links, http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum14/13495.html, and http://www.ourrockyhill.com/Docs/Declaratory.Documents.htm for information about that case. |
|||||||||
|
Gunslinger Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Hef wrote: My "redneck sports car" will blow away a Porsche 911S2 and is faster around the Nurburgring than a 911 Turbo. It's big brother, the ZR1, will eat any Ferrari like a grape. And if we want to talk how fast we've gone in airplanes, I've done mach 2.3. But, I'm just a poor, hardworking civil servant these days...  |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Again...falls on deaf ears... |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Gunslinger wrote: y "redneck sports car" will blow away a Porsche 911S2 and is faster around the Nurburgring than a 911 Turbo. It's big brother, the ZR1, will eat any Ferrari like a grape. And if we want to talk how fast we've gone in airplanes, I've done mach 2.3. But, I'm just a poor, hardworking civil servant these days... Wow, since you really want to slap the salamis on the counter and measure up... I'm not talking about speed. I'm talking about OWNERSHIP. 2.3, huh? Let's see you put a 30 thousand pound helo on a frigate at night in high sea states. |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member
|
bennor wrote:
"...being inconvenienced, annoyed or alarmed..." DOES NOT TRUMP THE FREE EXERCISE OF A RIGHT! Good Lord... whatinhell does it take to get thru to these bone-heads? Any 'act' not otherwise prohibited (by statute) is prima facie legitimate. The 'Law' is not some pompous asswipes 'opinion' or projection. The CT Constitution recognizes RTKBA as a Right. This Karanda dude too the oath to 'defend' that Constitution... then babbles 'opinion' in clear repudiation of that oath. The lunatics are running the asylums... everywhere. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Sonora Rebel wrote: ...being inconvenienced, annoyed or alarmed..." DOES NOT TRUMP THE FREE EXERCISE OF A RIGHT! Good Lord... whatinhell does it take to get thru to these bone-heads? Any 'act' not otherwise prohibited (by statute) is prima facie legitimate. Settle down, Beavis. If you want to OC and push your luck in CT, by all means go ahead. Don't disparage the people who want to be discrete and not invite "the man" into their lives needlessly. |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Sonora Rebel wrote:...being inconvenienced, annoyed or alarmed..." DOES NOT TRUMP THE FREE EXERCISE OF A RIGHT! Good Lord... whatinhell does it take to get thru to these bone-heads? Any 'act' not otherwise prohibited (by statute) is prima facie legitimate. I got yer 'Beavis' hangin'... Butthead. I wouldn't set foot in CT on a bet. I have a strong aversion to yankees... and absolute contempt for those who practice or aquiece to tyranny and intimidation anywhere. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Well, I'm not a yankee. I just live here. |
|||||||||
|
JUMPMASTER Regular Member
|
Next time you hear a cop or a group of cops saying that they will "put you on the ground" (like that Chief in Wisconson said) and arrrest you for peaceful law abiding open carrying remind them of this statute or call their supervisor and ask him to have them arrested and charged under this: Sec. 53-37b. Deprivation of a person's equal rights and privileges by force or threat. Any person who, acting alone or in conspiracy with another, for the purpose of depriving any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws of this state or the United States, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws of this state or the United States, engages in the use of force or threat, as provided in section 53a-62, shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor, except that if bodily injury results such person shall be guilty of a class C felony or if death results such person shall be guilty of a class B felony. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Yeah, right. I'm sure there's "good ol' boy" police while on duty immunity or something. |
|||||||||
|
MarlboroLts5150 Regular Member 
|
Hey airgunner23, there is a thread started just for you, apparently you haven't seen it yet. http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum6/25804.html |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
BFD... |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member
|
Sonora Rebel wrote:I have a strong aversion to yankees... and absolute contempt for those who practice or aquiece to tyranny and intimidation anywhere. Well, I know they're pantywaists and all, but didn't you come from Baltimore? |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
marshaul wrote: Sonora Rebel wrote: Uh, you do know Maryland was below the Mason-Dixon line and a slave state, right? |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member
|
marshaul wrote: Sonora Rebel wrote: You apparently dunno much about Maryland's history or contributions to the Confederacy after the Lincoln occupation. But yeah... I came from there... (to here) but grew up in north central Florida (South Georgia as it was known back then) and parts of Virginia. I'm suth'rn as a moon pie 'n RC Cola. Seein' as you're in San Fransicko... I don't want'a even know what you are. |
|||||||||
|
MarlboroLts5150 Regular Member
|
Wow....we've gone from an angry woman in a grocery store parking lot, to re-starting the Civil War.  |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member
|
MarlboroLts5150 wrote: Wow....we've gone from an angry woman in a grocery store parking lot, to re-starting the Civil War. Well hellz bellz why not? Airgunner's now comin' on the AZ forum proclaiming ya can't carry in bars here. Yeah... we know. This from somebody who won't OC at all. Why is he here? I think he's been sniffin' too much JP5. |
|||||||||
|
MarlboroLts5150 Regular Member
|
Sonora Rebel wrote: I think he's been sniffin' too much JP5. Quite possibly true. |
|||||||||
|
AWDstylez Banned
|
This thread REALLY went down the @#$%ter.... |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member
|
Sonora Rebel wrote:I'm suth'rn as a moon pie 'n RC Cola. Just checking. |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member
|
airgunner23 wrote:marshaul wrote:Sonora Rebel wrote: West Virginia is also below what was the original Mason-Dixon line, and Maryland never actually seceded, if we're going to share scarcely relevant historical facts. Now, obviously Maryland was quite a bit more sympathetic to the Confederacy than their failure (inability?) to secede would imply, but really this is all quite irrelevant, as I was merely trying to bait Sonora Rebel so that he would fly off his handle about how southern he is, and how I live in San Francisco anyway (which of course means I cannot be from the South ). I wasn't intending to seriously debate the southernness of Maryland.If I were going to be serious, I would have to admit that I come from Northern Virginia, which many would feel gives me a claim to southernness quite comparable to a person from Maryland. Last edited on Fri May 15th, 2009 02:25 am by marshaul |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Sonora Rebel wrote:
Actually, it's San PHAGsicko... Spelling for the nanny filter... Last edited on Fri May 15th, 2009 10:56 am by airgunner23 |
|||||||||
|
Gunslinger Regular Member
|
airgunner23 wrote: Gunslinger wrote:y "redneck sports car" will blow away a Porsche 911S2 and is faster around the Nurburgring than a 911 Turbo. It's big brother, the ZR1, will eat any Ferrari like a grape. And if we want to talk how fast we've gone in airplanes, I've done mach 2.3. But, I'm just a poor, hardworking civil servant these days... How about a 38 thousand pound Phantom, gyro out, bingo fuel, in zero zero visability with battle damage? They don't just drop straight down like whirlybirds ... |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
At least you had the option of pussing out and ejecting. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Wow, surprised I actually got a response regarding my question about open carry. Very vague, though...typical... Hello, Thank you for the question. Please note that this is not legal advice and should not be relied on as such based on the general nature of your question with respect to carrying of handguns. As an initial matter, you are right about Connecticut General Statute sec. 29-28 being explicitly silent with respect to "concealed". The "carry" statute only addresses the carrying of handguns and does not address the manner/way/location in which they must be carried. However, numerous other statutes come into play with how, when, and where you can carry. The analogy is a motor vehicle license...yes you have a license to drive under the statute, but many other statutes are in place as to how, when, and where you can drive. We strongly suggest you consult an attorney to discuss specific carry situation to flesh out your understanding. It might be appropriate to discuss concepts with that attorney related to, for example, the "contemporary community standard" as to the public at large ( in the place of carry) as to when, where, and how they expect to see handguns being carried. As you can imagine a situation where someone was carrying a handgun in their hand while at a movie theater would be different from that same situation at the gun range. All the best, Tpr. Hatfield Special Licensing and Firearms Unit 1111 Country Club Road, Middletown, CT I'm going to ask what these "other statutes" are regarding "manner/way/location" of carrying. Last edited on Fri May 15th, 2009 07:26 pm by airgunner23 |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member
|
airgunner23 wrote:Sonora Rebel wrote: Well, aren't you the intellectually broadminded, enlightened human being... |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
Thanks! |
|||||||||
|
spioi Regular Member 
|
maybe it would be benificial for states that see OC as being socially unacceptable to make that 2A illegal to exercise. liberty and justice for some...I'm new to OC but can't believe some ppl don't think OC is something ppl should do because it may cause an inconvenience for you and police that stop you for it. how can one be pro gun but anti OC except where nobody will see you. that's like saying I like mexicans but I'd never have one as a friend. |
|||||||||
|
MarlboroLts5150 Regular Member
|
spioi wrote: maybe it would be benificial for states that see OC as being socially unacceptable to make that 2A illegal to exercise. liberty and justice for some... Come to Hawaii, or DC, It is illegal. We're working to change that though. |
|||||||||
|
bennor Regular Member
|
spioi wrote: maybe it would be benificial for states that see OC as being socially unacceptable to make that 2A illegal to exercise. liberty and justice for some...I'm new to OC but can't believe some ppl don't think OC is something ppl should do because it may cause an inconvenience for you and police that stop you for it. how can one be pro gun but anti OC except where nobody will see you. that's like saying I like mexicans but I'd never have one as a friend. I'm sure I'll get flamed for this but here it goes. So everyone should OC all the time, even in places where its illegal to do so? In CT we have the option to either open carry or carry concealed. We have a choice, some people in other states do not have the choice and have to either OC or CC. Some choose to OC others don't. I have yet to read a post in this thread or else where in this forum that tells someone not to OC. Rather most posts that caution OC here in CT say you can OC, but you do so at your own risk based on the LEO's view on OCing. Why do those who are OC supporters flip when someone says that OC "could" get you arrested and to consider that if you choose to OC? Is OC an all or nothing affair when it comes to carrying a firearm? It is rather funny for people in other states to come to different state's forum and complain about those in that state who own guns but don't OC and say that we should OC because they do in their state. And if we don't OC we somehow are not supporter's of the 2nd Amendment. They assume because they can do things in their state, that others should also be able to do the same things in a different state. Well hate to break it to you folks but each state is different, each state has a different makeup of citizen and how they view firearms, and each state has different laws with respect to firearms. In CT we can OC if we desire to. But we also have the State Police who are the issuing authority for the pistol permits who frown on OC and they will pull your pistol permit if arrested (for OCing or other non gun arrests). And we live in a state where its heavily Democratic with (I'm guessing a majority of) citizens, including LEO's and politicians, who are anti gunners and who assume that OC is illegal and do not want firearms in the hands of their fellow citizens (or at the very least locked in a safe). We are a state where no permit means no legal carry and no legal way to legally buy a handgun or take that handgun outside of the home (except in some narrow circumstances). There are some who choose to operate with discretion and not OC in locations or towns where OC might lead to an arrest or at the very least a confrontation with police. It doesn't mean we don't support OC it just means we choose not to OC when it might get us arrested or at the very least a revocation of our permit. It also doesn't mean that we are not fighting to change the system to change our fellow citizens views on firearms. Some seem to relish the confrontation with anti's and or LEO when they OC, and others do not and use discretion when they carry. Yet those who do not relish the confrontation or are cautious when they OC are derided as anti 2A and anti OC. We are all on the same side when it comes to the 2nd Amendment and firearms, yet some choose to flame those who don't' think exactly as they do when it comes to OCing or the 2nd Amendment or with firearms in general. |
|||||||||
|
spioi Regular Member
|
how can someone get arrested if OC is legal? it seems that people that are afraid of being illegaly jailed based on a cops opinion. cops stop ppl in ohio for OC. I had to have 2 felonies sealed before I could own a gun. I was afraid to OC for a time but realized if you're afraid to excercise your rights, then you never had any to begin with. the more ppl that OC the more public exposure it'll get. you can't educate ppl by hiding them from it. if you have a permit to OC then you shouldn't be afraid to do it. I was afraid to OC for a time but then realized I can't let ppl's fears and lack of knowledge dictate how I live my life. the more ppl are seen OCing the more used to it society will get. this is just my opinion. this country didn't become independent from england by ppl being shy. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
spioi wrote: how can one be pro gun but anti OC except where nobody will see you. that's like saying I like mexicans but I'd never have one as a friend. It's not about being anti OC at all. It's about discretion and using your brain as to when you should...and should not. Nobody here ever said not to OC...just that it isn't real wise to do it in CT. |
|||||||||
|
airgunner23 Banned
|
spioi wrote: how can someone get arrested if OC is legal? Sigh, yet again... They'll pop you for disturbing or breach of peace as I've said several times regarding the SFLU and BFPE stance on OC. According to those two departments that regulate EVERYTHING regarding handguns in CT, if your firearm is visible and it "causes alarm to another" (their exact phrase), "you risk arrest and your permit is subject to being revoked" (again, their exact words). |
|||||||||
|
jpierce Administrator 
|
We are a civil rights organization dedicated to the civil rights of ALL Americans! Gay bashing will not be tolerated here even if it is misspelled. You have been banned. airgunner23 wrote: Sonora Rebel wrote: |
|||||||||
|
MarlboroLts5150 Regular Member
|
jpierce wrote: We are a civil rights organization dedicated to the civil rights of ALL Americans! Which one......or both??? |
|||||||||
|
jpierce Administrator
|
Airgunner. Unless I missed it, Sonora Rebel did not use a pejorative for gays in his posting. Airgunner did. Sonora Rebel (or anyone) is welcome to call the city of San Francisco names. The anti-gun mindset that comes from there makes the city a valid target. But everyone should keep my comments in mind. Hate speech or bashing of any group (except anti-gunners ) is not welcome here!And we welcome ALL Americans who believe in the right to keep and bear arms regardless of race, creed or color. MarlboroLts5150 wrote: jpierce wrote:We are a civil rights organization dedicated to the civil rights of ALL Americans! |
|||||||||
|
AWDstylez Banned
|
Well there's one less bigot around. |
|||||||||
|
buffettck Banned
|
Oh really? |
|||||||||
|
Hef Regular Member
|
jpierce wrote: We are a civil rights organization dedicated to the civil rights of ALL Americans! Thanks for cleaning up. |
|||||||||
|
buffettck Banned
|
Did Sonora get banned, too, since he first brought up FranSICKO? We ALL know why that nickname fits so well. |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member
|
buffettck wrote:Did Sonora get banned, too, since he first brought up FranSICKO? We ALL know why that nickname fits so well. No, you got banned for being a bigot, and a troll. Sonora Rebel can at least keep his tongue in check. |
|||||||||
|
buffettck Banned
|
I got banned? |
|||||||||
|
marshaul Activist Member
|
Unless, by some implausibility, you are not airgunner reincarnated. |
|||||||||
|
Edward Peruta Regular Member 
|
airgunner23 wrote: Wow, surprised I actually got a response regarding my question about open carry. Very vague, though...typical... The analogy is a motor vehicle license...yes you have a license to drive under the statute, but many other statutes are in place as to how, when, and where you can drive. We strongly suggest you consult an attorney to discuss specific carry situation to flesh out your understanding. It might be appropriate to discuss concepts with that attorney related to, for example, the "contemporary community standard" as to the public at large (in the place of carry) as to when, where, and how they expect to see handguns being carried. As you can imagine a situation where someone was carrying a handgun in their hand while at a movie theater would be different from that same situation at the gun range. TO ALL WHO READ THIS POST: I'd like to thank the individual who supplied me with this recent response from Trooper Hatfield Esq.. This response together with SEVERAL PREVIOUSLY OFFERED RESPONSES on this topic offers another glimpse into how the Department of Public Safety interprets, administers and enforces the laws together with how they looks at situations involving firearms. As a DPS certified/recognized instructor, I believe that a clear and concise statement should be offered to every valid question posed by permit holders and the general public regarding the carrying of firearms by VALID PERMIT HOLDERS who have attended and passed an approved DPS course of instruction. I for one have started to carry my weapon openly most of the time and have not been surprised by the questions that I have been asked. I believe that law enforcement in general have failed to understand the law and incorrectly informed citizens of Connecticut regarding the laws pertaining to pistol permits and the open or concealed question. Without question, if you carry your weapon in your hand rather than in a holster, you are going to find yourself in a situation. What Trooper Hatfield deliberately failed to state was that carrying an exposed holstered pistol or revolver while in possession of a valid permit to do so, by itself is NOT a crime. Having had a case involving an individuals concept of a "contemporary community standard", I can tell you that it is not determined by one person or a small group of individuals. In my case, Federal Judge Stephan Underhill asked "Who determined the Community Standard", and found in my favor after the individual responded by stating "I did". Law enforcement and certified DPS/NRA instructors in Connecticut have failed to properly train prospective permit holders in the law, and have by their incompetence created a false belief that pistols and revolvers must be concealed. It is also quite evident but not suprising that Trooper Hatfield conviently left out the fact that the issue was persented to the Connecticut State Legislature without success. As a DPS certified instructor, I will present my issues directly to the DPS so that I do not present or offer incorrect information to those who seek to have me instruct them in preperation to submit a permit application to carry a pistol or revolver. TO ALL WHO READ THIS POST: Google “Contemporary Community Standards” and you will find many cases on topics regarding PORNOGRAPHY, THE INTERNET and the FIRST AMMENDMENT. Given the fact that DPS attempted in 2008 and again in 2009 to have the issue addressed by the legislature, it seems apparent that our elected officials chose to leave our “Contemporary Community Standard” as it currently exists. Having had a case before a Federal Judge, I am very aware of the fact that the judge asked “Who decided the community standard?” This issue is no surprise, DPS is going to look anywhere they can to justify their actions or statements. You might also ask this question – What community are we talking about, the world communty, our national community, the Connecticut community or a county or local community. Any attempt to enforce a community standard based on local communities would lead to a patchwork of different laws and interpertations. You might also consider the fact that our Constitution and our State Legislature establish our statewide community standards. NOT A HANDFULL OF POLICE OFFICERS WHO ANSWER EMAIL QUESTIONS. Ed |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
buffettck wrote: I got banned?Yes, that is what it looks like. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
Ed Very good informative post! Thanks. Whether a person lives in CT or not, your explanation and examples show what is being done, and a method to provide a "counter" to it. |
|||||||||
|
garminuvi12 Banned
|
Straight from dps.spec.licensing... "You are very welcome. Another specific example would be: Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 29-28(e) which reads "The issuance of any permit to carry a pistol or revolver does not thereby authorize the possession or carrying of a pistol or revolver in any premises where the possession or carrying of a pistol or revolver is otherwise prohibited by law or is prohibited by the person who owns or exercises control over such premises". This statute also clearly places significant limits on where a person may carry. (e.g. can’t carry places the premise owner or controller prohibits). As the issue of how, when, and where individuals may carry a handgun (on a permit) gains more public attention, it may be reasonable to speculate that in the near future premise owners and controllers will begin to mark prominently whether someone can carry a handgun on that premises. It should be noted that violation of Sec. 29-28(e) appears to carry very significant penalties (e.g. Sec. 29-37 entitled “Penalties” which includes the language that “[a]ny person violating any provision of section 29-28 or 29-31 shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than three years or both, and any pistol or revolver found in the possession of any person in violation of any of said provisions shall be forfeited.). It is also not beyond reason that other statutes, statutes that do not specifically include the terms "firearm", "handgun", "pistol", or "revolver" could also apply to the carrying of firearms. For example, Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 53a-181a entitled Creating a public disturbance might be relevant if the carrying of the handgun caused the population of a particular place in a particular time to deem the carrying an inconvenience, annoyance or alarm. Furthermore, the statutes have numerous As mentioned before, we strongly suggest you consult an attorney to discuss such concepts as "contemporary community standard" and “reasonable time and place”, etc. as they relate to the presence of firearms in the public sphere. All the best, Tpr. Hatfield Special Licensing and Firearms Unit 1111 Country Club Road, Middletown, CT" As former "airgunner23", I don't even know why I'm helping you OC CT idiots, but you want something SOLID and not just some trooper's speculation? This trooper provided the actual LAWS and what could happen if you OC retards keep jamming the fact that you OC "just because you can" in everyone's face. The LAW says you are NOT AUTHORIZED (i.e. NOT LEGAL for the slow units) to carry if the person who owns or exercises control over a premises prohibits it. The scary thing is there isn't even anything stating there has to be a sign or that you should "have reasonably known" carrying in a place was prohibited. And do NOT throw down the "well, if they ask you to leave, just leave and they can't get you for trespassing" BS. Carrying where it is not permitted is ILLEGAL. PERIOD. Notice the VERY real scenario the trooper provided? 99% of business owners probably have never even considered people carrying because this is libtard CT and surprisingly, I have seen VERY few "no gun" type signs. That's because carrying a firearm isn't at the forefront of their minds. You OC "stomp your feet and yell" rejects could very well get a LOT of CT shut down for legal carry with your "get the word out, News at 10" type stunts. MANY owners/businesses are terrified of guns, especially in CT, and would put up signs just for liability reasons alone. Good job guys... Go ahead make it VERY potentially MUCH WORSE for everyone else. I know there's a "no weapons" clause on the Brass Mills Mall in Waterbury, but it's buried on a placard along with the other rules. Very easily arguable in court that a person didn't see it if they got caught, had to use it or OC'd. You "fire and brimstone" OC'ers stage a demonstration and start regularly OC'ing there? You can BET they'd throw up HUGE "no gun" signs at every entrance to the mall. THAT would not be arguable in court as "I just missed it". Sorry I won't be able to respond because I know I will be banned. But, this a is GOOD, SOLID reason NOT to OC in CT. Places potentially everywhere in the future guaranteeing you up to $500 fine, 3 years in jail and you SHALL HAVE YOUR FIREARM FORFEITED...NOT "may be confiscated" if you got caught. Probably a felony, too, so kiss ALL your guns bye bye. Spare me the "concealed is concealed", too. If you want to break the law, fine, but what if you have to use it in self-defense? Just another "one of the books" they'll throw at you. Good luck with that guys! OC makes it even easier for them! You people who want to blatantly OC everywhere need to work on getting the actual LAWS changed FIRST instead of very potentially making handgun carry a LOT harder in CT because "daddy law doesn't say I can't OC, so I going to be clever and smart and do it anyway". Last edited on Mon May 18th, 2009 07:05 pm by garminuvi12 |
|||||||||
|
garminuvi12 Banned
|
doubletap...damn slow forum... Last edited on Mon May 18th, 2009 05:51 pm by garminuvi12 |
|||||||||
|
garminuvi12 Banned
|
Wow, nothing? And so many were so vocal about blatantly carrying everywhere in CT just a short while ago. |
|||||||||
|
2fewdaysafield Regular Member
|
WHEW! I find this forum, then I find this thread! WOW! What follows is strictly my $0.02 and should not be constued as legal advice. Ct is not a particularly handgun friendly state. The people of Ct are not particularly OC friendly. If you've got $$$ and don't particularly mind spending it on attorneys, PLEASE DO OC in CT. Its a good thing to do for everyone's rights in this borderline police state. If you don't have $$$ to burn on attorneys, its probably a good idea to keep your handgun concealed. Not because of any law, but for the good of your bank account. The simple truth is that getting arrested can be real expensive. Even if you are not guilty of violating any laws. Does that make me a chicken$h_t? If you think so, well then....OK. But for those of you that think so, I'll OC everywhere and anywhere in this state....just as soon as you deposit $10K in a legal defense fund for me. Until then, my .357 will stay out of sight....unless I NEED it. Which is what I carry it for anyway. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
2fewdaysafield wrote: WHEW! I find this forum, then I find this thread! WOW!Yes, it must have taken quite a stretch to find this whole forum, and zero in immediately on this one thread, and actually post this post in it..... |
|||||||||
|
2fewdaysafield Regular Member
|
Sorry you feel it was such a stretch. Read about this forum over on TFL and stopped by. Checked out CT since I live there and well, it was only natural I would check out a thread that is so active. Besides, what are you getting so touchy about? I didn't say people shouldn't OC in CT. In fact, I encouraged people to do so. I did however, suggest that before doing so, people check their bank balance as exercising one's right to OC in CT can be an EXPENSIVE exercise of one's rights. I just wouldn't want someone to find themselves making a decision between paying the mortgage or paying a lawyer. You see, there are blue collar working stiffs (like me) of very modest means that have pistol permits in CT and for them OC just might not be the most prudent thing to do. With the possible exception of an organized OC rally. I'm merely suggesting that people protect themselves from our one true enemy....GOVERNMENT. And sometimes "cover and concealment" is the best protection. But like I said, I'll OC 24/7 if you're going to pay the legal bills when I get arrested in Westport because some anti-gun limp wrist calls in a MWAG and the half dumb cop (I can say that, my brother-in-law is one) arrests me because he doesn't know the law. Laws, lawyers and taking principled stands are for people who can afford them. For the rest of us, CCW works quite well. |
|||||||||
|
2fewdaysafield Regular Member
|
And no, I am not airgunner or any of his incarnations as the admin can verify quite easily. Aint him. Don't know him. Don't want to know him. I believe in OC. Lived in Va for 22 years. I'm just urging people to check their "hole card" before going "all in" on this issue in Ct. And for those of you who are fortuneate enough to live in a state where OC is a recognized and established right, I hope you will all come here for a while and help us vote in some politicians that will pass legislation to CLEARLY RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT TO OC. That would do a nice job of ending this argument we shouldn't even be having. |
|||||||||
|
JUMPMASTER Regular Member
|
garminuvi12 wrote: Straight from dps.spec.licensing... And I and the rest of the 130,000 plus (and growing everyday) permit holders will boycott the business and spend our money where the owner believes in the basic human right of self defense. |
|||||||||
|
JUMPMASTER Regular Member
|
garminuvi12 wrote: Straight from dps.spec.licensing... Here is CGS 53a-181a: Sec. 53a-181a. Creating a public disturbance: Infraction. (a) A person is guilty of creating a public disturbance when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he (1) engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or (2) annoys or interferes with another person by offensive conduct; or (3) makes unreasonable noise. (b) Creating a public disturbance is an infraction. There isn't a single thing written in this statute that would a apply to a person legally carrying a handgun in a peaceful manner. |
|||||||||
|
2fewdaysafield Regular Member
|
Quite right Jumpmaster. I am only cautioning that the law not withstanding, OC could become an expensive exercise of one's rights. In CT they do not reimburse you for attorney fees if you are found "not guilty". So permit holders who do not have substantial quantities of cash to pay attorneys should exercise caution before availing themselves of their right to OC. The sad truth is that in America today LE tramples on peoples rights every day. I wish I had a law degree and independant wealth. I'd file a zillion lawsuits against various states for "unjust prosecution" and "violation of civil rights". But in the meantime, in Ct, permit holders who can not afford attorneys would be well advised to giving serious consideration before exercising their right to OC. |
|||||||||
|
AWDstylez Banned
|
2fewdaysafield wrote: Quite right Jumpmaster. I am only cautioning that the law not withstanding, OC could become an expensive exercise of one's rights. In CT they do not reimburse you for attorney fees if you are found "not guilty". So permit holders who do not have substantial quantities of cash to pay attorneys should exercise caution before availing themselves of their right to OC. The sad truth is that in America today LE tramples on peoples rights every day. ^What he said. |
|||||||||
|
2fewdaysafield Regular Member
|
Thank you AWD. I regret that I may have offended some with my "squishy" posts on this subject. But the sad truth is that justice is not blind....at least not to the size of one's bank account. And I would not want anyone to make a stand based on principle without first giving serious consideration to whether they can afford to make such a stand. There are 2 important issues relating to handguns in Ct. One is a word, the other is a phrase....."FELONY" and "2 YEARS MANDATORY". I just hope anyone considering OC in Ct has the financial horsepower to fight those kinds of words. "Cause truth is, regardless what the law says, (and Ct law is NOT crystal clear on this subject) once a cop cuffs you, you are guilty until a judge or jury says otherwise and getting to that point can cost a whole bunch of $$$. Of course, a prosecutor can look at the law and circumstances of your arrest and decide he doesn't want to prosecute. But that ain't going to happen. They are trained to go for the plea bargain especially when they have "FELONY" and "2 YEARS MANDATORY" at their disposal. So once the cop puts those cuffs on you, keeping your gun rights and staying out of prison is likely to cost you a lot of $$$. So in my opinion, if you are considering OC in Ct, I urge you to check your bank balance before you pack your shootin' iron in plain sight. |
|||||||||
|
dcmdon Regular Member
|
2 few, I agree with you regarding your assesment of OC in CT. I am a CT permit holder and pistol instructor. I've been paying attention to this since I got my carry permit when I was 21, about 20 years ago. In CT there is nothing on the books banning it. You may be arrested for breech of peace. Most likely the charges will be dropped or nolle'd with little resistance. Then the fun begins. They will pull your permit. Because the law says that your permit can be revoked if you show bad judgement. (I can't remember the exact language, but the law explicitly says you don't have to break the law to get it pulled) Then you challenge it and go before the bd of firearm examiners. That can take a year and a half. In the mean time you can't legally carry. Thats why I've resisted open carry. What we really need are folks who are carrying with a non-resident permit to push this. To challenge it. Then they have less to lose. For me, its more important to be able to carry legally than it is to open carry. Re your assesment that CT is not a handgun friendly state is largely inaccurate. Although it depends on how you define it. In CT I can carry pretty much anywhere I'd like. The only 2 state exceptions are secondary schools or below and any place that the state legislature is meeting. Thats it. I can carry into a restaurant, house of worship, bar, government building, etc. No restrictions. Also, there is no registration of guns in CT. On the negative side, you need a permit to simply buy a firearm, even if you never intend to carry it outside the house. (don't split hairs, that other ownership permit has all the same requirements as a carry permit). So maybe it depends on how you view things. Don |
|||||||||
|
2fewdaysafield Regular Member
|
dcmdon..... Mostly, I agree with you. Except when it comes to whether CT is handgun friendly. My reference point on this issue is Virginia, where I was practicing OC from the late '70's until I moved to CT in '99. AND I DIDN'T NEED A PERMIT TO DO SO! That is what I call handgun friendly. As far as I am concerned, ANY restriction on OC is by definition "not handgun friendly". |
|||||||||
|
dcmdon Regular Member
|
Well, compared to many states we are pretty unrestrictive. Although, like you said, just the fact that a permit is needed is bad enough, effectively forcing you to ask your government for permission.. I was recently in VT. Open, concealed, it doesn't matter. Its all legal, no paperwork required. Don p.s. you may have left VA when a permit was not required to carry, but I believe one is needed now. |
|||||||||
|
2fewdaysafield Regular Member
|
Yup. Va changed things in the late 90's, when they went to "shall issue" for concealed. Suddenly you needed a permit for ANY kind of carry. I preferred the old system. Permit required for concealed. None required for OC. Heck, back in the '80s it was no surprise to see someone in the grocery store with a pistol on their belt....often just a few miles from DC. I just don't think we should have to get permission to OPENLY exercise 2A RIGHTS. Concealed....well, I don't much like it, but I don't have a big problem with requiring some kind of permit.....so long as the permit is on a "shall issue" basis. |
|||||||||
|
wrightme Regular Member
|
2fewdaysafield wrote: Yup. Va changed things in the late 90's, when they went to "shall issue" for concealed. Suddenly you needed a permit for ANY kind of carry. I preferred the old system. Permit required for concealed. None required for OC. Heck, back in the '80s it was no surprise to see someone in the grocery store with a pistol on their belt....often just a few miles from DC.http://www.opencarry.org/va.html Looks like a "no permit" for OC in VA. |
|||||||||
|
dcmdon Regular Member
|
The reality is that open carry is a political expression of your rights. Tactically, its inferior to concealed carry because you lose your element of surprise. When I carry, its mostly for protection. So I'd carry concealed anyway. The only way it would affect me if I felt comfortable openly carrying is that I would not worry about a brief flash of a belt holster. Don |
|||||||||
|
2fewdaysafield Regular Member
|
Tactically, you're absolutely right. But personally, I prefer a society where LOTS of people carry openly. Makes for a more POLITE society...IMHO Kind of like a buddy I went to college with in the '70s. He always said everyone should be issued a L.A.W. when they got their driver's license. But only 1. He was being facetious, of course, but knowing that darn near EVERYONE is armed tends to restrain people from exhibiting bad manners. As for the people that insist on exhibiting bad manners......Oh well. Ce qui sera, sera. Natural selection I believe they call it. |
|||||||||
|
2fewdaysafield Regular Member
|
wrightme....I stand corrected. I left Va 10 years ago and haven't kept up with their laws. When they went to "shall issue" I got my CCW right off. Though I seldom bothered. Just went on with OC. wrightme wrote: 2fewdaysafield wrote:Yup. Va changed things in the late 90's, when they went to "shall issue" for concealed. Suddenly you needed a permit for ANY kind of carry. I preferred the old system. Permit required for concealed. None required for OC. Heck, back in the '80s it was no surprise to see someone in the grocery store with a pistol on their belt....often just a few miles from DC.http://www.opencarry.org/va.html |
|||||||||
|
spioi Regular Member
|
it sucks that OC is legal but the state threatens to hit youin the pocketbook if you do so. seems the only way around it is to wait 4 years and try to vote in gun friendly politicians. at least they don't have a way to coerce you into not CC'ing. |
|||||||||
|
Lank Regular Member
|
I have intentionally avoided taking part in the long debate that occurred in this thread, but for the record I am still open carrying. And still open carrying at that particular S&S. |
|||||||||