OC in CT. Guy is asked to leave Subway...

[GlockJock]

Just another instance of cops needing to harass citizens so they can feel like they have power.

I thought that only happened here in Massachusetts....

 

[GaryO]

If you don't stand up for your rights then who will? I don't think it is "bravado" to stand up for your rights. I think it is your duty and obligation to do so as an American. I don't know where I read it before but "a right not exercised is a right lost."

It was from Thomas Jefferson. He was prolific in his writings on liberty.

"Lethargy is the forerunner of death to the public liberty."
--Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.

 

[atilla]

Hardly.... LOl! look I've never had any problems with cops (I have a few real good friends that are cops) , I don't look at them like they are the enemy, most of th etime treat them with respect and act accordingly
and you can avert problems. I don't know what the laws are in CT but
here in Mass if a cop asks to see my permit , I show it to him. I'm not an antagonizer , I've learned in life when dealing with authority figures , being as invisible as possible is always to your advantage.
I've got a great wife and kid, a job I love that I'm good at, a home etc, the last thing I personally need is my "bravado" standing up for my rights when a "here you go" 5 second flash of a card keeps me out of any
nonsense with a cop that could be a "dick" and basically ends it right there.

A "defector" .... LOL! good one

 

[GlockJock]

Remember this happened in Bridgeport where they just re-elected a convicted felon ex-mayor, who just got out of federal prison for bribery, for which he was convicted of, and removed from office for, DURING HIS LAST TERM AS MAYOR.

If that's who they elect as mayor, you get a nice taste for who they hire as cops.

Who the hell does he think he is... Buddy Cianci?

 

[robjax]

It was from Thomas Jefferson. He was prolific in his writings on liberty.

"Lethargy is the forerunner of death to the public liberty."
--Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.

Thank you for the reference.

 

[GaryO]

Thank you for the reference.

My daughter is a UVA student which was started by TJ. Lots of history down there.

 

[robjax]

My daughter is a UVA student which was started by TJ. Lots of history down there.

lol...all I knew is I read it somewhere. Just couldn't' recall the source. I should be better at this but unfortunately I am not. But I firmly believe in the sentiment....

 

[Carl in Ct]

Geez, I don't think kmanick is a boot licker. I see his point and is where I started at with my first post. I just got to thinking that if everyone just shows the permit to avoid trouble then the cops will think we have to. Honestly, I thought we did have to.

I would not be all confrontational about it but I would calmly and respectfully insist that they give me a valid reason as required by state law. Then if they do I will gladly show them my permit. If they cannot or will not give me a valid reason they need to leave me alone. I conceal carry right now anyway. I prefer people not knowing what I do or do not have on me.

 

[GeorgetownLTC]

He could have turned the tables and asked the cop to see his drivers licence, credit cards etc

The irony that the first cop wouldn't even give his name.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Hardly.... LOl! look I've never had any problems with cops (I have a few real good friends that are cops) , I don't look at them like they are the enemy, most of th etime treat them with respect and act accordingly
and you can avert problems. I don't know what the laws are in CT but
here in Mass if a cop asks to see my permit , I show it to him. I'm not an antagonizer , I've learned in life when dealing with authority figures , being as invisible as possible is always to your advantage.
I've got a great wife and kid, a job I love that I'm good at, a home etc, the last thing I personally need is my "bravado" standing up for my rights when a "here you go" 5 second flash of a card keeps me out of any
nonsense with a cop that could be a "dick" and basically ends it right there.

A "defector" .... LOL! good one

You are part of the problem !! It really is sad you don't get how easy it should be.

 

[CMEBoston]

My tongue is bleeding

 

[goodzilla]

According to this article, as of October 1, 2015, you have to present your carry permit in CT when asked by the po'po.

So watch your P's and Q's.

http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2015/08/07/news/local/893531.txt

HARTFORD — Handgun owners will soon have to show police their gun permits when they openly carry their pistols in public because of a change in state law.

Under current law, people need a state permit to carry a handgun, and permit holders are allowed to carry the weapon openly or concealed. Yet, the law did not say gun owners had to present their permits to police.

A Superior Court judge issued a ruling in May that rejected a claim from state police that the law implicitly requires permit holders to produce their credentials whenever police ask to see them.

The Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection had indicated in court filings that it was contemplating appealing the decision.

There is no need to challenge the ruling now because Gov. Dannel P. Malloy signed legislation Monday that closes that loophole in state law, said Michael Lawlor, a senior adviser to the governor on criminal justice policy.

The revised law obliges someone to show their gun permit when police observe the person carrying a handgun, and when police need to verify the validity of the permit and the individual's identity based on a reasonable suspicion of a crime. This change takes effect on Oct. 1.

Lawlor likened the new requirement to traffic stops.

"If you're driving a car, and the police pull you over, you have to show them your driver's license," he said.

Opponents of the proposed requirement saw it as an unwarranted intrusion on the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

The Connecticut Citizens Defense League argued that if an individual is spotted carrying a gun, and the person is not breaking the law, or threatening public safety, then there should be no presumption of wrongdoing.

The Connecticut Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen contended the original intent of the law was to provide law enforcement proof of a permit after a legally owned firearm had been discharged, or probable cause had been determined.

Connecticut Against Gun Violence testified the clarification was needed because the law would be pointless if police were unable to determine if an individual carrying a handgun was complying with its requirements.

There have been documented run-ins between police and gun owners who refused to show their pistol permits when questioned while carrying handguns in public, including an incident in front of the Waterbury Police Department in April.

The court ruling from May arose out of the 2013 arrest of a handgun owner for refusing to show police his pistol permit in West Haven.

In the Waterbury incident, the gun owner video recorded his encounter with a police officer who had asked to see his pistol permit. No arrest was made in that case.

At the time, 26-year-old Don-Trell Brown was carrying a .40-caliber handgun in a holster that was exposed on his hip. Officer Jose Diaz asked to see his permit. Brown declined, and he was allowed to leave after a brief discussion with Diaz.

Two years ago, a Derby man ended up getting arrested after West Haven police stopped to question him and a friend after receiving a report that two men were openly carrying handguns on a crowded beach boardwalk in the shoreline community.

Police arrested Scott Lazurek on a charge of interfering with a police officer after he declined to show his pistol permit. Police found he had a valid permit after inventorying his belongings later. His friend had complied with the request and avoided arrest.

The charge against Lazurek was dropped a little more than a month later, but not before state police revoked his pistol permit. This action would become the subject of a court dispute between state police and the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners.

Lazurek appealed the revocation to the firearms board. During a hearing, he testified that he would respond exactly the same under the same set of circumstances. He also stated later that a better course in retrospect would have been to comply and then file a complaint with West Haven police.

The board split 3-3 on reinstating Lazurek's pistol permit, but the tie vote entitled him to receive his permit back under the panel's rules.

The state police filed an appeal in Superior Court, arguing that although the law did not explicitly state permit holders must comply with police requests to see their credentials, the requirement to carry a permit would serve no purpose without it.

In a 15-page ruling issued May 13, Judge Carl J. Schuman rejected that argument, saying the language of the statute was absolutely clear.

"It only requires a person 'carry' the permit. It does not say 'show,'" Schuman wrote.

He said reinstatement was justified based on Larzurek's testimony, as well as evidence that he had no prior arrest record, and that he had complied with requests to produce his pistol permit in the past.

Yet, while the interfering charge against Lazurek had been dropped, Schuman concluded his failure to show his permit hampered a police investigation in violation of that criminal statute.

 

[Dean Crawford]

[QUOTE="If you're driving a car, and the police pull you over, you have to show them your driver's license," he said.[/QUOTE]

Driving a car is not protected under any amendment.

Dean

 

[W.E.C]

I don't get what the big deal is. If you're open carrying and a cop says can I see your permit? why do you not just show it to him and be on your way?

Want to be pulled over and show your driver licence every time you pass a cop?
it would get old fast.

 

[xtry51]

I don't get what the big deal is. If you're open carrying and a cop says can I see your permit? why do you not just show it to him and be on your way?

According to this article, as of October 1, 2015, you have to present your carry permit in CT when asked by the po'po.

So watch your P's and Q's.

http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2015/08/07/news/local/893531.txt

The revised law obliges someone to show their gun permit when police observe the person carrying a handgun, and when police need to verify the validity of the permit and the individual's identity based on a reasonable suspicion of a crime. This change takes effect on Oct. 1.

They still need to suspect you of committing a crime before you have to show it. So they still need to tell you WHY they want it, and it can't be just "because I want to see it"

 

[robjax]

According to this article, as of October 1, 2015, you have to present your carry permit in CT when asked by the po'po.

So watch your P's and Q's.

http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2015/08/07/news/local/893531.txt

If this isn't an infringement I do not know what is. Now we are guilty until proven innocent.

 

[not new guy]

Hardly.... LOl! look I've never had any problems with cops (I have a few real good friends that are cops) , I don't look at them like they are the enemy, most of th etime treat them with respect and act accordingly
and you can avert problems. I don't know what the laws are in CT but
here in Mass if a cop asks to see my permit , I show it to him. I'm not an antagonizer , I've learned in life when dealing with authority figures , being as invisible as possible is always to your advantage.
I've got a great wife and kid, a job I love that I'm good at, a home etc, the last thing I personally need is my "bravado" standing up for my rights when a "here you go" 5 second flash of a card keeps me out of any
nonsense with a cop that could be a "dick" and basically ends it right there.

A "defector" .... LOL! good one

And what if he asks to look around inside your car during a traffic stop?

 

[robjax]

Driving a car is not protected under any amendment.

Dean

Well, if it's like a car than give us state to state reciprocity across the country.

 

[Jim85IROC]

What would have happened in it was a Subway in MA

The cops would have shot the guy's dog.

 

[goodzilla]

They still need to suspect you of committing a crime before you have to show it. So they still need to tell you WHY they want it, and it can't be just "because I want to see it"

Handgun owners will soon have to show police their gun permits when they openly carry their pistols in public because of a change in state law.

I stand corrected, not the first time the media has been fast and loose with reporting:

Excerpt from [SIZE=+1]Public Act No. 15-216[/SIZE]

Sec. 2. Subsection (b) of section 29-35 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective October 1, 2015):
(b)The holder of a permit issued pursuant to section 29-28, as amended by this act, shall carry such permit upon one's person while carrying such pistol or revolver. Such holder shall present his or her permit upon the request of a law enforcement officer who has reasonable suspicion of a crime for purposes of verification of the validity of the permit or identification of the holder, provided such holder is carrying a pistol or revolver that is observed by such law enforcement officer.

 

[xtry51]

It's OK, that just "reporters" being morons and not actually knowing the current laws. Heaven forbid they actually research something.

 

[Carl in Ct]

They still need to suspect you of committing a crime before you have to show it. So they still need to tell you WHY they want it, and it can't be just "because I want to see it"

Yeah, that's how I read it too, they still need to show that their request for a permit is based on a reasonable suspicion of a crime. If they meant the law to say they could ask just because they see you carrying it would have simply said "The revised law obliges someone to show their gun permit when police observe the person carrying a handgun", period.

If they meant it to mean they can ask if they see you carrying or if they need to validate identity, blah, blah, blah, so that either reason is enough on its own then they should have used the word "or" instead of "and". Using the word "and" means both conditions must be true for the law to apply. I think they needed to watch Schoolhouse Rock when they were a kid. You know, "conjunction junction, what's your function"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8-Ymv1K3FQ

 

[Carl in Ct]

Ah, ok, so the "and" vs "or" problem was a reporter's fault, figures. So the way I read it the law still says the officer must have reasonable suspicion of a crime.

 

[MassPete]

or identification of the holder, provided such holder is carrying a pistol or revolver that is observed by such law enforcement officer...

Didn't know that was the reporters fault

 

[Dean Crawford]

Now I am confused.which one is it.

Dean

 

[xtry51]

That comma is everything. They are saying the permit is acceptable to establish who you are (in CT the pistol license has a pic of you) with the "or".

The comma is a stipulation that means they CANNOT ask for a permit at all, unless they actually see you are carrying a gun.

So they need to see the gun themselves (note is says observed by an officer, not observed by anyone) AND they need to be investigating a crime.

Grammar and punctuation. That shit matter in law

 

[goodzilla]

or identification of the holder, provided such holder is carrying a pistol or revolver that is observed by such law enforcement officer...

No, I think it still is. The "or" parse establishes the 2 reasons that the officer can request the permit after a crime is suspected. xtry is still right. LOL, and here I am thinking that this CT law reads a whole lot better than the MA laws gobbledygook.

for purposes of (1) verification of the validity of the permit or (2) identification of the holder

 

[xtry51]

Now I am confused.which one is it.

Dean

They need to be investigating a crime. See my post 88

- - - Updated - - -

No, I think it still is. The "or" parse establishes the 2 reasons that the officer can request the permit after a crime is suspected. xtry is still right

for purposes of (1) verification of the validity of the permit or (2) identification of the holder

You are correct. It sets that your permit is a reasonable request to establish who you are, if you are suspected of a crime.

 

[MassPete]

Got it, thanks guys...

 

[cfbackrow]

The guy was pushing buttons for sure but the police didn't handle it well either...especially the Sargent ( no fitness requirements in CT? ) I bet if this guy sues he might get somewhere due to the attempted intimidation of the police (never know on a jury) ..the other thing is...if he wasn't videotaping I'm going to hazard a guess that this would have gone down a totally different way