Carry in colleges "not statutorily prohibited"

The short answer is yes. The long answer is, it helps to understanding what are considered school grounds per the actual statute...
Sec. 53a-217b. Possession of a weapon on school grounds: Class D felony.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/Chap952.htm#Sec53a-217b.htm
Sec. 53a-217b. Possession of a weapon on school grounds: Class D felony. (a) A person is guilty of possession of a weapon on school grounds when, knowing that such person is not licensed or privileged to do so, such person possesses a firearm or deadly weapon, as defined in section 53a-3, (1) in or on the real property comprising a public or private elementary or secondary school, or (2) at a school-sponsored activity as defined in subsection (h) of section 10-233a.

(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to the otherwise lawful possession of a firearm (1) by a person for use in a program approved by school officials in or on such school property or at such school-sponsored activity, (2) by a person in accordance with an agreement entered into between school officials and such person or such person's employer, (3) by a peace officer, as defined in subdivision (9) of section 53a-3, while engaged in the performance of such peace officer's official duties, or (4) by a person while traversing such school property for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting or for other lawful purposes, provided such firearm is not loaded and the entry on such school property is permitted by the local or regional board of education.

(c) Possession of a weapon on school grounds is a class D felony.
So you cannot carry into (or onto real property comprising) any primary and or secondary schools or at school sponsored activities (unless approved by school officials).

So college or univeristy carry is not barred by law as they are not "primary or secondary schools". However, if that college or univeristy has no carry signs posted than carrying there is prohibited by law. What most colleges do, is say that students cannot possess or carry firearms on campus in the student handbook. See the college or univeristy handbook for exact language and punishment. Many times punishment is usually expulsion from either the dorm and or from the campus.
 
I'm getting the information about no carry sign information from the CT State Statues. Specifically Sec. 29-28. Permit for sale at retail of pistol or revolver. Permit to carry pistol or revolver. Confidentiality of name and address of permit holder. Permits for out-of-state residents.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/Chap529.htm#Sec29-28.htm
(e) 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.
Bottom line is, if the property or business owner asks you to not carry, or there is a posted sign stating no carry; and you continue to carry there your in violation of that statute which, if found out, could lead to possible arrest (for example trespass or breach of peace), possible revocation of pistol permit, and or possibly suffer the penalties, including forfeit of the firearm, detailed in Sec. 29-37. Penalties - http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/Chap529.htm#Sec29-37.htm
Sec. 29-37. Penalties. (a) Any 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.
Some are liable to come in and say "Concealed means Concealed". The choice to carry in places where its clear that carry is prohibited is up the person carrying the gun.

Also some people don't know that carrying a firearm into a Post Office is also illegal. In my PO there are actual signs (inside where its not too visible unless your looking for it [thinking]). See: 18 U.S.C. Sec. 930: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/930 and 39 CRF 232.1(l): http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/julqtr/39cfr232.1.htm

Many people, me included, don't know the details of all the the various issues pertaining to CT firearm laws, but a good place to reference is this link: http://www.jud.ct.gov/LawLib/Law/firearms.htm
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by sbhaven
However, if that college or univeristy has no carry signs posted than carrying there is prohibited by law.


where are u getting this from?

He's getting it from the statute.

Comments like I'd rather be arrested than dead don't really mean much if we're talking law.

Heres the totality of it. If you carry onto/into a college you are at worst violating the statute that gives a property owner or manager the right to bar firearms from entry. Here's the kicker though, if you ignore this and are caught you have committed the crime of criminal trespass, a very minor misdemeanor.

You are also violating school policy in which case they have the right to expel you.

So the long and short of it is that you face essentially no risk of criminal prosecution if you ever have to use a gun on campus. But you will most likely be expelled.
You make your choices yourself.

I went to college in New Haven in the late 80s/early 90s. I carried a Seecamp .32 in my pocket every day, all day. When I waited tables at night we were expected to keep our bank in a fanny pack. I carried a S&W 6906 in a deSantis fanny pack holster.

The only time I didn't carry was if I was going somewhere, like to the gym, where the gun would not be under my control at all times. To me locking it in a school locker does not meet my ethical responsibility to secure a weapon.

Would I do it again, absolutely.

I've also carried into several concert venues in CT. Again, I'm willing to roll the dice on the criminal trespass charge.
For the last 10+ years though I've gone to concerts at the Casinos. Its such an improvement. I typically drink when I'm at the casino, so no gun and the wife drives home.

In summary, I just carry wherever I want. I'm more interested in natural law than man made law.
However, don't mistake that for a cavalier attitude. A gun is either on me or its locked up. (I have small children) and if I have or plan to have even 1 drink the gun stays home.
 
Last edited:
29-28
(e) 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.

Signage at an entryway is considered to be adequate notice that firearms are prohibited.

One time when I carried into the Meadows, now called the Dodge Music Center, I noted that there were no signs at the entrance. In fact I couldn't find anything. Eventually, the next day, my wife found something stating that weapons were not allowed printed on the back of my ticket. But it was printed so small that my 30 year old eyes needed a magnifier to read it. A warning like that is questionable at best.
 
Last edited:
Heres the totality of it. If you carry onto/into a college you are at worst violating the statute that gives a property owner or manager the right to bar firearms from entry. Here's the kicker though, if you ignore this and are caught you have committed the crime of criminal trespass, a very minor misdemeanor.

No, actually it's a serious felony.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap529.htm#Sec29-37.htm

Sec. 29-37. Penalties. (a) Any 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.

We're talking about a lifetime loss of gun rights if you're convicted for violating that.

Signage at an entryway is considered to be adequate notice that firearms are prohibited.

CT caselaw isn't my area of expertise, but from everything I've seen there's no set standard for how to determine when you're in violation of this law.
 
So, through all this garbage, does CT have binding signage or is it trespass standard? It smells like they have binding signage but that there is no standard imposed in the law, which leaves one to make wild assed guesses. [thinking]

-Mike
 
So, through all this garbage, does CT have binding signage or is it trespass standard? It smells like they have binding signage but that there is no standard imposed in the law, which leaves one to make wild assed guesses.
The wording of that section of law makes MGL look like an exercise in precision.

It could mean any of the following:

- A carry permit is completely invalid in any location where the owner prohibits guns, the gun owner can be treated as if completely unlicensed, and it's the obligation of the permit holder to find out if such a prohibition exists.

- As above, but only if notice is posted

- A permit is still valid, but the wording means that the permit does not give someone the right to carry in a location if they are specifically told they cannot, and you must leave if asked (i.e., it doesn't convey the right to tell a store owner "sorry, you have no choice, I have a permit")

- Violation of a sign, or perhaps even of an unposted policy, may be trespass.

My guess is "nobody really knows for sure". It's hard to get objectively good data when most of the parties you could ask will have their own agenda and spin it the way that want to read it, rather than citing some objective determination (for example, precedent setting case law).
 
Last edited:
No, actually it's a serious felony.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap529.htm#Sec29-37.htm

We're talking about a lifetime loss of gun rights if you're convicted for violating that.



CT caselaw isn't my area of expertise, but from everything I've seen there's no set standard for how to determine when you're in violation of this law.


thank you for setting me straight on that.

But I'm still confused. By strict definition, this would be a felony because you could be imprisoned for more than a year. (feel free to set me straight if that premise is wrong).

But realistically, trespass is always treated as a petty crime. Although the statute allows for 3 years, you will most likely get a fine and accelerated rehabilitation.
It sounds like we need an atty to weigh in on this one.

Re signage: When I gave this example to my attorney, he felt this met the "reasonable man" sniff test. Like you said, there is no case law.
 
But I'm still confused. By strict definition, this would be a felony because you could be imprisoned for more than a year. (feel free to set me straight if that premise is wrong).

Conviction of any State defined felony, or any State defined misdemeanor with a potential penalty in excess of two years imprisonment, renders an individual a Federally prohibited person for life. (18 U.S.C. 922(d)(1) and 921(a)(20)(B))

But realistically, trespass is always treated as a petty crime. Although the statute allows for 3 years, you will most likely get a fine and accelerated rehabilitation.

If convicted, the actual sentence imposed is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
In addition to being possibly charged with tresspass, the LEO could also use the Breach of Peace statute which they've used on others who carried into locations where others saw the gun and called the police. In addition to being charged, per the penalties statute previously listed, you also run the risk having your firearm confiscated. Then there is the risk of having your permit confiscated/revoked by the Commissioner of Public Safety "for cause".
 
sbhaven,
I have a hard time understanding how a LEO would even know about me carrying. I'm certainly not talking about open carrying into a place thats a grey area. In that case, the only way I'd be "made" is if I actually had to use it. At that point, who cares about a $300 LCP. Actually, who cares about a $2600 Nighthawk Custom Talon II. We're talking about my life and the life of my children here.

Its good that this is all coming out. We all get good info, then do our own risk/reward analysis.
If confronted by such a choice I will probably just make sure the gun is extra well concealed and go about my business.

Since CT has become a de-facto open carry state, I take less trouble to make sure my larger guns are 100% concealed. I wore the Nighthawk today while taking my two daughters to a children's museum. If you actually looked you could definitely see something printing. (bobtailed commander length 1911 in a between the belt/pants holster with a polo over it).

Nobody ever looks twice.

If I was bringing it into the Meadows, I'd do some kind of deep concealment holster.
 
Dcmdon, ask James Goldberg how the LEO's knew he was carrying in Chili's. People can and do inadvertently expose their concealed firearm.

Most people never know that others around them are carrying. Its rare for someone legally carrying to be charged when someone sees their holstered firearm, but as the Goldberg arrest at Chili's shows, it can happen.

People who carry should be aware of the possible legal ramifications if they choose to carry in places that are gun free zones. As the OP post (and others as well) indicated he or she was not aware of the state statute(s) that permit holders are not supposed to carry in places signed or indicated as "gun free zones".
 
Except for the Casino and XL Center..I have never seen a no guns sign anywhere around here...nore have I been told to leave anywhere for OC'ing....In my honest opinion...no one cares..and you are not getting your permit taken unless you are told to leave private property and don't
 
So, through all this garbage, does CT have binding signage or is it trespass standard? It smells like they have binding signage but that there is no standard imposed in the law, which leaves one to make wild assed guesses.

That's pretty much it.

The wording of that section of law makes MGL look like an exercise in precision.

It could mean any of the following:

- A carry permit is completely invalid in any location where the owner prohibits guns, the gun owner can be treated as if completely unlicensed, and it's the obligation of the permit holder to find out if such a prohibition exists.

- As above, but only if notice is posted

- A permit is still valid, but the wording means that the permit does not give someone the right to carry in a location if they are specifically told they cannot, and you must leave if asked (i.e., it doesn't convey the right to tell a store owner "sorry, you have no choice, I have a permit")

- Violation of a sign, or perhaps even of an unposted policy, may be trespass.

My guess is "nobody really knows for sure". It's hard to get objectively good data when most of the parties you could ask will have their own agenda and spin it the way that want to read it, rather than citing some objective determination (for example, precedent setting case law).

You hit the nail right on the head Rob. It seems like that subsection was tossed into the law as an afterthought, and I doubt it's actively enforced. But a couple years ago an NES member was told by an administrator at his college that carry on campus was illegal under that section of law. The further confuse the issue, a campus cop told him that if he had a carry permit he was legal and they wouldn't mess with him.

This keeps coming up, so I'll see if I can poke around and find something on it in CT caselaw.

But I'm still confused. By strict definition, this would be a felony because you could be imprisoned for more than a year. (feel free to set me straight if that premise is wrong).

That is correct.

But realistically, trespass is always treated as a petty crime. Although the statute allows for 3 years, you will most likely get a fine and accelerated rehabilitation.

Like Kevlar said, it doesn't matter if you serve time for it, what matters is the maximum sentence that could possibly be imposed if you're convicted for violating it. 3 years makes it a federal DQ, whether the states calls it a misdemeanor or felony.

There's another issue here though. This law has nothing to do with "trespass," it is built into the licensing system itself. The CT laws on trespass are 53a-107 to 53a-110a; click the below link and scroll down to read them all.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/chap952.htm#Sec53a-107.htm

The felony discussed a few posts up is completely separate from the trespass laws. There's language in the trespass laws mentioning signage, but none that directly apply to people simply carrying IMO.

Re signage: When I gave this example to my attorney, he felt this met the "reasonable man" sniff test. Like you said, there is no case law.

That's a gray area to me, honestly. But if that's what your attorney says, take his advice, he likely knows CT law and legal procedures a lot better than me.

People who carry should be aware of the possible legal ramifications if they choose to carry in places that are gun free zones.

Yup. By quoting the law we're not endorsing it as morally correct, just letting people know what is legally expected of them. Us law abiding citizens like to remain law abiding. [grin]
 
Dcmdon, ask James Goldberg how the LEO's knew he was carrying in Chili's. People can and do inadvertently expose their concealed firearm.

Most people never know that others around them are carrying. Its rare for someone legally carrying to be charged when someone sees their holstered firearm, but as the Goldberg arrest at Chili's shows, it can happen.

By my own definition Goldberg was pretty casually concealed.

I used the statement "extra well concealed" when confronted with the choice of going into a gun free zone. To me that means something where it is nearly impossible to inadvertently expose the firearm
Off the top of my head, that would include front pocket carry, ankle holster, thunderware, belly band, etc.

Today I went to Ikea in New Haven carrying my 1911 with nothing more than my polo shirt over it. No signs, and nobody even looked twice. Its possible if I reach for something for the botom of the holster to be exposed. Oh well. But again, this is not a store that has any kind of signage. If it did, I'd either take my business elsewhere or possibly give consideration to pocket carrying something smaller.

Like I said, I am really torn on this. I believe property owners have the right to arbitrarily restrict who can and can't enter their property. It doesn't make any sense, but its their right to be nonsensical about their property.
Public buildings are another story. You and I own those buildings.

Don
 
believe property owners have the right to arbitrarily restrict who can and can't enter their property. It doesn't make any sense, but its their right to be nonsensical about their property.

I agree, however, it does not logically follow that carry should have a special carve out. Some restaurants have dress codes and will deny entry or expell someone not meeting them - but that does not give them the ability to have the local PD come out and make an arrest because said individual committed the offense of algorithmic trespass - ie, "you violated my sign that stated anyone not wearing a tie is guilty of trespass". If the PD come, and talk to the person and are told "I'll be glad to leave, and would have done so if the manager asked" there is no way a citation or arrest will ensue. The same standard should apply to any private standards of dress or conduct on property to which the public is open.

Funny thing - I've only seen one place that attempts to declare that violation of a particular sign prohibiting certain items in a building to which the public is invited (by admission payment) constitutes trespass for which one can be arrested. One rep point to the first person who identifies the location and event.
 
That makes no sense. The whole idea of a property owner being able to make arbitrary decisions is his ability to apply specific carve outs.

In my private residence I can choose to not allow you entry based on anything I want. ANYTHING. Even race, religion, sex. Its my personal property and my decision carries weight of law.
I can certainly choose to not let you in if you are armed.

In my business I can choose to not allow you entry on nearly any basis. Race creed, sex etc, excluded. I can choose to not allow men weearing watches into my business. No cell phones, no problem. No guns, it should not be any different.

Remember, the 2nd Amendment applies to GOVERNMENT. If you don't like my rule, take your business elsewhere.

With all that said. You make a REALLY great point. If I'm dressed inappropriately, I'm not arrested, I'm just asked to leave.

In practice, thats how it USUALLY works out, at least in CT. Goldberg was the exception. If you go over to opencarry.org, there are several people who carry openly all the time in CT. Most have been asked to leave some business or another. Most have found out first about someones discomfort when the police were summoned. The explanation being that the business owner/manager did not want to confront an armed man and ask him to leave so he called the police.

This has happened dozens of times in CT in the last 12 months. Suffice to say that since Goldberg most PDs have been educated on the law.

Don

Don
 
You misunderstood what I meant by "carve out".

No cell phones, no problem. No guns, it should not be any different.

Agreed. Businesses should have the right to set whatever rules they wish. The question is "should violation of a property owner's rules be a criminal offense?"

My point is that you cannot call the police "I spotted someone with a cell phone, please come and cite or arrest him" and expect the person to be arrested if they agree to peacefully leave when asked by you or the police. Lawful concealed carry should not be treated any differently than carrying a cell phone. Some state, however (TX with law 30.06) have "carved out" concealed carry and declared that violation of a sign is a criminal offense - a treatment not afforded to any other violation of property owner's rules that are not otherwise criminal.

I can certainly choose to not let you in if you are armed.
Absolutely, but in many states (MA being one of them), you can order me to leave, but you cannot have me prosecuted simply because I am lawfully armed and it is against your property rules - any more than you have have me prosecuted for violating a dress code. (assuming, in both cases, a willingness to leave immediately and peacefully when so ordered by the person in control of the property).
 
Last edited:
OK I found a few interesting things. The first is info from an anti gun site, but it has a list of places I didn't know were off limits in CT.

http://www.lcav.org/states/connecticut.asp

Possession Restrictions

A person is guilty of interfering with the legislative process when he possesses a weapon from which a shot may be discharged, either loaded or unloaded, within any building where:

Either house of the General Assembly is located;

Any committee, member, officer or employee of the General Assembly has an official office; or

Any committee of the General Assembly is holding a public hearing.

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 2-1e(c).

No person, unless specifically licensed or privileged to do so, may carry a firearm on the property of an elementary or secondary school or at a school-sponsored activity. Section 53a-217b.

A state administrative regulation states that possession of a dangerous weapon in a shelter for the homeless constitutes good cause for expulsion or suspension from the shelter. Conn. Agencies Regs. § 17-590-5. Similarly, possession of firearms on the grounds of the Connecticut Department of Veteran Affairs constitutes cause for an immediate involuntary discharge from programs administered by that Department. Section 27-102l(d)-132.

Administrative regulations also prohibit firearms:

In any state park or forest except as authorized by the Department of Environmental Protection (section 23-4-1(c));

In Bluff Point Coastal Preserve, except for certain authorized persons (section 23-4-4(B)(3));

Inside of or within 50 feet of any magazine or in or around any trucks or other vehicles containing explosives (sections 29-349-135, 29-349-198); and

Inside or within 50 feet of any plant, area, or warehouse used for mixing, packaging, or storing blasting agents (section 29-349-274).

Concealed weapons permit holders may be subject to additional location limits. Please see the Location Limits subsection below for further information.

Location Limits

A permit does not authorize a person to carry a handgun on any premises where the possession or carrying of a handgun is prohibited by the person who owns or controls the premises. Section 29-28(e).

Concealed handgun permit holders may be subject to generally applicable possession prohibitions. Please see the Possession Restrictions and Transportation of Firearms sections above for further information.

This one is from the Board of Firearm Permit Examiners.

http://www.ct.gov/bfpe/cwp/view.asp?a=1253&Q=456516

2. Is the carrying of a handgun on premises with a posted sign banning firearms critical to a permit revocation decision?

The law is silent on this issue. The pertinent statute reads as follows: “[T]he issuance of a 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” (CGS § 29-28(e)).

It seems like they don't even know the answer to that one.
 
I also found a recent superior court case which touches on this; it's the James Goldberg case that was mentioned earlier in this thread, actually. [laugh]

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...connecticut+29-28(e)&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

STATE OF CONNECTICUT
DOCKET NO. CR070211668 SUPERIOR COURT
STATE OF CONNECTICUT J. D. HARTFORD
Plaintiff, at G.A. 12, MANCHESTER
v.
GOLDBERG, JAMES, JULY 20, 2007
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO DISMISS

INTRODUCTION
The Defendant has been charged with Breach of the Peace in the Second Degree, in violation of C.G.S. § 53a-181. The acts show that the Defendant was arrested as he sat in a Chili's restaurant, waiting for his take-out order. Apparently, the manager of Chili's observed the Defendant and saw that lie was carrying' a pistol in a holster that was partially visible under the defendant's T-shirt on his hip. The Defendant has a valid permit to carry a weapon in Connecticut pursuant to C.G.S. § 29-28. Alarmed by her observation of the Defendant's holstered pistol, the manager called the police who responded by coming to the restaurant and taking the Defendant into custody. Although there appeared to be some commotion in the restaurant after the restaurant staff moved all other customers away from the Defendant prior to his arrest, at no time was the Defendant threatening or unruly, and the Defendant never tried to call attention to the weapon in any way. In short, any commotion or disturbance in the restaurant was caused solely by the reaction of the restaurant manager and staff, and not by the Defendant. "


ARGUMENT
EVEN WHEN TAKEN IN A LIGHT FAVORABLE TO THE PROSECUTION; THE EVIDENCE IS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A CONVICTION FOR BREACH OF THE PEACE.
"

Pursuant to C.G.S. § 54-56, a court may, at any time, upon motion by the defendant, dismiss any criminal case against the defendant and order the defendant to be discharged if, in the opinion of the court, "there is not sufficient evidence or cause to justify the bringing or continuing of such information or the placing of the person accused therein on tria1." In determining whether the evidence proffered by the state is adequate to avoid dismissal, such proof must be viewed in the light most favorable to the state. State v. Howell, 98 Conn. App. 369, 908 A.2d 1145 (2006).

The charge in this case has been brought under C.G.S. § 53a-181, which defines the crime of Breach of the Peace in the Second Degree and provides that the crime may be committed by one of six different actions:

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.
,
Based on the evidence in this case, it appears that only subsections (1), (3), or (6) could conceivably be relevant, and with regard to each of these possible statutory violations, the evidence simply cannot support a conviction.

In order for the court to determine that the Defendant engaged in threatening behavior under subsections (1), (3), or (6), it would have to conclude that the mere presence of an individual in a public place with a partially concealed weapon would constitute threatening behavior. Such a conclusion would be in complete conflict with the plain language of C.G.S. §§ 29-28 (b) and (e), which specifically allow the holder of a permit to carry a pistol or revolver to wear that weapon anywhere in the state except where specifically prohibited by law:

Upon the application of any person having a bona fide residence or place of business within the jurisdiction of any such authority, such chief of police, warden or selectman may issue a temporary state permit to such person to carry a pistol or revolver within the state, provided such authority shall find that such applicant intends to make no use of any pistol or revolver which such applicant may be permitted to carry under such permit other than a lawful use and that such person is a suitable person to receive such permit

C.G.S.A. § 29-28 (b) (emphasis added). The only restriction contained in the statute with regard to the locations where a permit-holder may carry a weapon is contained in § 29-28(e), which provides:

The issuance of any permit to carry a pistol or revolver does not thereby authorize the possession or carrying or 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.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the carrying of a concealed weapon in Chili's restaurant is either prohibited by law or, is prohibited by a rule or policy adopted by Chili's restaurants.


Thus, the Defendant's conduct was affirmatively approved under Connecticut law, and the Court cannot find that the Defendant's lawful conduct may be punished under a different section of Connecticut law. Indeed, the Connecticut Supreme Court has held in another context that local authorities may not frustrate the purpose of the weapons permit statute by restricting what is permitted under the statute. See Dwyer v. Farrell 193 Conn. 7, 475 A.2d 257 (1.984) (local authorities could not restrict the sale of handguns in a manner permitted by § 29-28, even though the local action did not expressly conflict with the language of that section, as the legislative purpose underlying § 29-28 was frustrated by the local action).

Moreover, the prosecution cannot possibly show that in acting in conformity with state law and the terms of his weapons permit, the Defendant either intentionally or recklessly intended to cause a public disturbance. Under the circumstances of this case, there is nothing to show that a reasonable person would have believed the carrying of a concealed weapon would have caused a public disturbance, and there is no evidence to support the conclusion that a reasonable person would have felt threatened by the Defendant's conduct or would have reacted to the Defendant as did the restaurant staff.





There is no claim that the Defendant intentionally breached the peace, but rather the state is claiming that the Defendant acted recklessly. Under C.G.S. § 53a-3(13),

a person acts "recklessly" with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregarding it constitutes s a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.

(Emphasis added.) The state cannot offer evidence that would support the conclusion that the Defendant's lawful carrying of a weapon pursuant to a permit was a "gross deviation" from reasonable conduct.

Further, as was noted in State v. 'DeLoreto, 265 Conn. 145, 827 A.2d 671 (2003), § 53a-181 is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad precisely because the issue of whether a particular act or statement may properly be considered to be a threat is governed by an objective standard. The court held in State v. DeLoreto that a conviction under the statute requires specific proof that the defendant intentionally or recklessly threatened a crime that would, cause either a public disturbance, and further pointed out that the essence of a true threat is that a "reasonable person" would perceive that a threat was intended by the defendant. See also State v. Woff,; 237 Conn. 633, 678 A.2d 1369 (1996) (mens rea instruction with respect to breach of the peace which simply restated pertinent statutory language and referred to generalized instruction that the court had given on intent was inadequate as it did not require a finding that the predominant intent was to cause what a reasonable person operating under contemporary community standards would consider a disturbance to or impediment of a lawful activity); State v. Hoskins 35 Conn. Supp. 587, 401 A.2d 619 (1978) (evidence did not establish that defendant minister’s painted slogans, which charged that Jews murdered Jesus Christ, were intended or likely to produce imminent disorder; thus, defendant's conviction for violating breach of peace statute could not be sustained).

Moreover, it is well established that an overreaction to a defendant's lawful conduct cannot establish the elements of breach of the peace. For example, the court held in State v. Collis, 14 Conn. App. 440, 540 A.2d 1062 (1988), that the evidence was legally insufficient to show that the defendant committed a breach of peace by engaging in threatening behavior simply because the alleged victims felt threatened, where the evidence showed that the defendant simply drove slowly past two young women several times, and may have on one occasion spoken to one of them, and that he then stopped the car and opened the door. The court summarily found that such conduct could not violate § 53a-18l (1).

Also, it has been recognized explicitly in a number of other jurisdictions that the literal breadth of the definition of a breach of the peace "does not mean. . . that lawful and proper conduct may constitute a breach of peace just because it provokes violence or disorder." "O'Leary v. Commonwealth 441 S.W.2d 150, 154 (Ky. 1969). Rather, "the mere fact that the exercise of a lawful right may result in a disturbance or breach of the peace does not make the exercise of that right a violation of the law so long as the right is exercised in a peaceful manner and without force or violence or threats of same." Briggs v. State, 367 S.W.2d 750, 754 (Ark. 1963), vacated on other grounds, Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U.S. 306 (1964). See Nesmith v. Alford, 318 F.2d 110 (5th Cir. 1963) (plaintiffs, white persons who were arrested when they were eating peaceably with Negroes in desegregate restaurant and were subsequently tried for disorderly conduct, were entitled to judgment as matter of law on false imprisonment count against officers who had arrested them; the plaintiffs' conduct could not be reasonably considered to be a breach of the peace simply because a crowd of bystanders were provoked into disorder as a result of their conduct).

CONCLUSION
For all of the reasons set forth above, this Court must dismiss the charge against the Defendant, James Goldberg, pursuant to its authority under C.G.S. § 54-56.

The implication here is that if they even have a policy prohibiting it then you're in violation, with or without a sign. [thinking]
 
Even more interesting IMO, is this chart with the number of probation cases by statute.

http://www.ct.gov/opm/lib/opm/cjppd/cjresearch/projects/20070601probationstatistics.pdf

PROBATION STATISTICS
By Christopher Reinhart, Senior Attorney
Number of Probation Cases by Statute—June 1, 2007

On page 11 it says:

29-28 PISTOL PERMIT VIOLATION 1

It seems likely that those numbers reflect the number of people who were currently on probation for violating that law as of the date of publication. Even if it's only one person a year, it looks like these prosecutions are in fact happening, even if it's only a whopping one per year. [laugh]

I'm going to keep digging for more cases/info on the subject.
 
Rob,
I'm with you totally. Your comment:


Agreed. Businesses should have the right to set whatever rules they wish. The question is "should violation of a property owner's rules be a criminal offense?"


Was a lightbulb moment for me. I get your point and its a very very good one. Asked to leave because I'm not dressed appropriately is one thing. Arrested because I'm carrying is another.

GSG - One thing of note in the goldberg case is that there was not any signage displayed at the restaurant. So this case is purely about carrying, accidtnally flashing and your right to carry openly.

The transcript from a request for summary judgement from his Civil suit against the town police is even more enlightening. I'll see if I can scrape up the link and post it here.

Don
 
Last edited:
Here is a link to a great thread in the CT section of opencarry.org.
A link to oral arguments in the Goldberg Civil suit is in the first post.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...on-of-09.17.10

Again, don't forget that the Chili's where he was arrested does not have any signs.
Also remember that the case was dismissed, he was not tried and found not-guilty.

The difference is that this does not create any case law that would protect subsequent arrest victims.

Don
 
The implication here is that if they even have a policy prohibiting it then you're in violation, with or without a sign.

The implication is not that strong.

When there are ambiguous points, the court will often start by examining the point in the light most favorable to the prosecution and determining what would be necessary to apply that section of law. All the court really said is "since there were no signs or policy, that section of the law could not apply therefore, we do not need to go further and even determine when that section of law would apply, or what the offense created by violating a policy would be.". This is not a "ruling" on that section of the law, and it really doesn't do much to change the landscape - things remain vaguely defined.
 
Rob,
I'm with you totally. Your comment...Was a lightbulb moment for me.

For me too. That was a great one Rob. +1 if I haven't already. [grin]

GSG - One thing of note in the goldberg case is that there was not any signage displayed at the restaurant. So this case is purely about carrying, accidtnally flashing and your right to carry openly.

While I agree with you that at it's heart this case was only about open carry/accidental display, the courts will often refer back to a little detail like that in another case to help them form an opinion.

This is not a "ruling" on that section of the law, and it really doesn't do much to change the landscape - things remain vaguely defined.

I agree on both points, but I think the implication is there. If a similar case makes it's way through the CT courts I may be proven wrong however. Ideally I would be.

On a related note that may interest some folks here, that is the only piece of case law I've been able to find for CT where the person involved actually had a carry permit. It would appear that most law abiding gun owners are...law abiding.
 
Back
Top Bottom