ChevyGuy91
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 22,941
- Likes
- 23,582
Next time you are headed to the Cape stop at the Hanover Mall... It's posted on every entrance door.
Gun free zone signs? LOL at those and go about your business.
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Next time you are headed to the Cape stop at the Hanover Mall... It's posted on every entrance door.
Gun free zone signs? LOL at those and go about your business.
dis post gon' get a thong/gun pic reply, or nah?
Gun free zone signs? LOL at those and go about your business.
Same here.
Len,
Are you saying that signage to that effect is not legally binding? If you are "made" and asked to leave, and you comply, you aren't breaking any laws?
Don
I was just thinking about this the other day. I know in CT you can't carry anywhere the owner of the premises (or person in control of the premises) says "no guns" but I can't really find in the statutes how that needs to be communicated. I would assume clear signage at every entrance but it doesn't really say. I also don't see what the repercussions are if you do carry someplace that says no guns. Do you just have to leave or be charged with trespassing or can you be arrested?
Don, do you know?
I took my wife to do some shopping at Mohegan Sun. I don't go there much at all so I had no clue if they had signs up or if their tribal rules made things different so I didn't carry. I didn't see anything saying I can't. Not only are they casinos with a crap load of cash floating around but they serve alcohol all over the place and they are Indian reservations.
Anyone know about carrying at Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods?
Sovereign land, CT and US laws don't apply. You need permission from the Tribal Council as well as the CT license to carry there and it isn't going to happen.
Before they shut down the rear parking lot/entrance, there was a sign within the door. I did some checking on their laws as we sometimes go to Mohegan Sun for the free concerts (Wolf Den). I determined that it wasn't worth getting a CT license as that is my only destination in CT.
They have a million cameras there and tons of security that is invisible to us. Nothing is going to go down inside the casino without a ton of their security folks getting right on top of it.
This became an issue when CT people started open carrying about 8 years ago. Rich Burgess was arrested by the police even though he agreed to leave the premises when asked by the bar manager. Since then, nobody has been arrested who has agreed to leave when asked, even in places with signage.
Rich also sued the local PD in civil court over the arrest and lost. So in CT, its pretty much do what you want with exceptions listed below and always respect the will of the property owner.
... Re the CT law, its Chapt 529 Sect 29-28
All the statute says is this:
(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.
There is no case law around this because nobody ever goes to trial over it. ... That's all there is. In essence, do what the person who owns/controls the property says to do and you are fine.
This became an issue when CT people started open carrying about 8 years ago. Rich Burgess was arrested by the police even though he agreed to leave the premises when asked by the bar manager. ...
Did Burgess immediately leave the premises when asked, yet get arrested after the fact?
Or did he treat the manager's order to leave as an opportunity for a debate on constitutional law, and stick around long enough to constitute a refusal to leave?
...
I don't carry in CT, but this is of particular interest to me. If I'm ever "made" and asked to leave some GFZ hellhole, I intend my only response to be, "Yes; do you want me to pay for the food I've ordered, or should I leave immediately?". (Of course some managers would want the bill settled first; but some bedwetters would be willing to comp the meal in exchange for the scary gun disappearing sooner).
Note that "finish your meal but don't come back" isn't an acceptable response. I would never trust such a business not to use it as a delaying tactic until a cop arrived on scene. Ain't nobody got time for that.
Carl,
I consider the casinos to be like Disney World. I could probably get a gun inside and I could probebly never be found out. But the risk reward isn't worth it.
When I go to the casinio's I usually drink. I don't carry when I drink. And like Len said, the risk is so so low, its not even worth worrying about. That place has SOOOO much security. I used to work for a company that did IT consulting at Foxwoods. There are more guys on the floor than you could ever imagine. I would guess the response time to an active shooter situation to be in the 10 to 20 second range.
Re the CT law, its Chapt 529 Sect 29-28
All the statute says is this:
(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.
There is no case law around this because nobody ever goes to trial over it. It doesn't say anything about signage. That's all there is. In essence, do what the person who owns/controls the property says to do and you are fine.
This became an issue when CT people started open carrying about 8 years ago. Rich Burgess was arrested by the police even though he agreed to leave the premises when asked by the bar manager. Since then, nobody has been arrested who has agreed to leave when asked, even in places with signage.
Rich also sued the local PD in civil court over the arrest and lost. So in CT, its pretty much do what you want with exceptions listed below and always respect the will of the property owner.
Prohibited by statute in CT is only primary and secondary schools. Colleges are legal but fall under the section shown above re property owner.
https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_952.htm#sec_53a-217b
Key points in teh school prohibition is that the person must have KNOWN that carry in a school was unlawful and they must have known that they had a gun. This is also borne out in the jury instructions around this charge.
I always play it safe and ask the manager before entering if I can bring my gun inside......
Burgess wasn't arrested for trespassing or carrying in a prohibited location. He was initially told that he was being arrested for Breach of Peace 2d but was booked for Disorderly Conduct. The criminal case was later dismissed. ...
... Rich B. is one of the activists on the front lines of the open carry movement in CT. He intentionally waited around after leaving to assert his right to be outside the establishment openly carrying. i.e. he was prepared to be arrested. Also, when asked to remove the gun, he produced documentation that you can print out from opencarry.org, rather than just leaving. ...
"With all due respect, I will not discuss my security procedures with you."
Glock 20 MOS okay?Also, there are regulations in some State forests against carrying. These are intended to be anti-poaching regulations. I've spoken to several Conservation Officers about this and their response has been 100% uniform to the effect of "If I catch you in here with a Glock, I'll probably tell you to go put it in the car. If I catch you in here with a scoped, .44 magnum revolver, I'll arrest you for poaching".
Don
That's one of the odd points in the Burgess case, because the communications and deposition testimony reflected this fluctuation between this idea that (burgess) wasn't actually doing anything illegal (with respect to the open carry) and the law requires concealment. My genuine belief is that substantiating the arrest based on the purported disturbance with the complainant was intended purely to try to fix the problem.During the civil suit verbal communications between the cops was subpoena'd. In it they discussed to the effect of "I dont' think he's breaking the law, but lets get him with something."
In Burges' case, the complainant was not the manager of the bar. He was a patron. Burgess asked the manager of the bar if it was ok to keep the gun on him. Before the two had sorted things out the cops arrested him.
...
Here is a summary of what happened:
http://ctcarry.com/BurgessvWallingford/Background ...
No contest about your take on events. I note that the case highlights some of the more obscure risks of treating contact with Sheeple as a teaching opportunity. (And we both linked to the same good page).
That's what interesting. The compainant wasn't sheeple. He was a long time permit holder who had historically also held security and bail enforcement endorsements on his pistol permit. He was just not educated.Like most people who got permits when he got his, he genuinely believed that open carry was illegal.
So in other words he was woefully ignorant for a person who really had less of an excuse than the average joe to be.... shocking! /sarc.