Memo to CT Troopers Re: Legality of Open Carry


PDA






Speedo66
January 22, 2014, 01:50 PM
Not sure if this has been posted before. It's a memo to CT troopers re: CT open carry laws. It reiterates that open carry by holders of a CT carry permit is legal, and not an arrestable offense in and of itself.

Personally, I'm not an advocate of open carry, but here it is for your viewing pleasure:

http://ctcarry.com/Document/Download/a034b530-1221-425d-a99f-53af710ff219

If you enjoyed reading about "Memo to CT Troopers Re: Legality of Open Carry" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MErl
January 22, 2014, 01:59 PM
Is a CT pistol permit a carry permit or a general permit to own a handgun?

Clarifications like this are good even if you don't support open carry. Wouldn't want to get in trouble on a windy or hot day for failed concealment.

Stargazer65
January 22, 2014, 02:43 PM
The CT pistol permit allows you to purchase and carry a handgun. No stipulations on open or concealed carry. Neither method is required nor prohibited by law.

Speedo66
January 22, 2014, 02:44 PM
No permit required to own in CT, just carry.

NY on the other hand requires a permit just to possess, and prohibits the display of a carried pistol. This was part of the rules given me when I received my NYC carry permit. I believe NYS loosens the rules for open carrying while hunting.

Arizona_Mike
January 22, 2014, 04:56 PM
It looks pretty good except for the "playground" part. ???

Mike

NavyLCDR
January 22, 2014, 07:25 PM
The part that disturbs me is:

"There is NO permit required to openly carry a rifle/long gun.

Troopers may investigate by asking for identification to determine a subject's purpose and to query databases to determine if they are precluded from possessing such a firearm (i.e. convicted felon)."

Then

"If an individual purposefully refuses to identify themselves, then they may be subject to arrest for interfering with an Officer, CGS 53a-167a, if the elements of that crime are present."

So - let me get this straight - in CT a police officer can lawfully detain me and require me to identify myself with NO reasonable suspicion that a crime is afoot? That runs 100% contrary to Terry v. Ohio.

MErl
January 22, 2014, 07:58 PM
They can some ask you to identify. Not sure if CT is a must identify state but there is this:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/pub/chap952.htm#Sec53a-167a.htm

CT has arrested people for failing to identify but it seems they later get overturned.

NavyLCDR
January 22, 2014, 10:54 PM
They can some ask you to identify. Not sure if CT is a must identify state but there is this:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/pub/chap952.htm#Sec53a-167a.htm

CT has arrested people for failing to identify but it seems they later get overturned.
" Sec. 53a-167a. Interfering with an officer: Class A misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of interfering with an officer when such person obstructs, resists, hinders or endangers any peace officer, special policeman appointed under section 29-18b, motor vehicle inspector designated under section 14-8 and certified pursuant to section 7-294d or firefighter in the performance of such peace officer's, special policeman's, motor vehicle inspector's or firefighter's duties.

(b) Interfering with an officer is a class A misdemeanor."

Is it a "duty" of a police officer to detain a person, question them, and require them to identify themselves when they have no reasonable suspicion that there is a crime being committed? Does driving a vehicle provide reasonable suspicion of the crime of driving without a license? Does the fact that I am talking on a cell phone provide reasonable suspicion of stealing a cell phone and thus being in unlawful possession of it? Why does carrying a rifle, for which there is no permit required to carry, provide reasonable suspicion for the officer to detain someone to investigate the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm?

I'm glad we don't have these problems in WA state:
http://forum.nwcdl.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=ec5b4f15f71d5f854d7dbb621e70ae81&action=downloads;sa=downfile&id=9

WA State Supreme Court, State v. Casaad:

Casad walked down the street in Port Angeles on a Saturday afternoon carrying two rifles partially wrapped in a towel. A woman called 911. Police responded, detained Casad, frisked him, and asked why he carried the weapons. Casad admitted that he was a felon, an admission that lead to his arrest and charges for unlawfully possessing the weapons. The trial court held that the police had no authority to detain Casad for a Terry stop and suppressed the evidence as the fruit of an unlawful seizure. We affirm.

You also mention "must identify" states. A "must identify" statute is still only constitutional if there is reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed:
(I know this is wikipedia, but the facts are easy enough to verify)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. Under the rubric of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the minimal intrusion on a suspect's privacy, and the legitimate need of law enforcement officers to quickly dispel suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity, justified requiring a suspect to disclose his or her name.

Since when does carrying a rifle in a manner that is allowed by law and for which NO permit is required rise to the level of reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed? I will say it again - that seems the same as driving a car rises to the level of reasonable suspicion of committing the crime of driving without a license.

MErl
January 22, 2014, 11:42 PM
Since when does carrying a rifle in a manner that is allowed by law and for which NO permit is required rise to the level of reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed?
Only carrying a rifle in CT would not. (assuming it is not an unregistered AW, assuming you are not carrying it to cause alarm, assuming you are not leaving the scene of a yet unreported crime, assuming...) Can see where that leads.

I should have just quoted this from my initial link
Cited. 182 C. 242. Cited. 189 C. 1. Cited. 191 C. 433. Cited. 194 C. 347. Cited. 195 C. 668. Cited. 198 C. 43. Cited. 205 C. 456. Cited. 211 C. 389. Cited. 220 C. 38. Cited. 230 C. 400. Cited. 234 C. 78. Cited. 236 C. 214. Refusal to comply with police command to provide identification following a Terry stop may constitute a violation of section even if such refusal is unaccompanied by any physical force or other affirmative act; statute broadly proscribes conduct that hinders, obstructs or impedes a police officer in performance of duties irrespective of whether offending conduct is active or passive. 280 C. 824. Regarding 2003 revision, Appellate Court's determination that evidence was insufficient to support defendant's conviction and that defendant lacked requisite intent was improper in case where defendant, when asked to produce license and registration, swore at officer and left scene, and potential applicability of Sec. 14-217 to present case does not preclude conviction under this section which was drafted expansively to encompass wide range of conduct. 285 C. 447.
I added the underline

But there is also this there
Legislature did not intend failure to identify oneself instantly and voicing of declaratory statements, such as "this isn't Russia," to constitute interference or obstruction under section. 86 CA 363.

So like usual, standing on your rights will probably end up OK but escalate the situation. There has to be suspicion of some crime, but since that crime could be disturbing the peace (called by another name in the OP) it would be easy to suspect.

NavyLCDR
January 23, 2014, 06:35 AM
I'm glad I don't live in CT. In WA it is not a crime to refuse to provide identification to police, even during a "Terry Stop".

NavyLCDR
January 23, 2014, 01:17 PM
In regards to the CT law - the first consideration is not really did the subject commit the crime of interfering with a police officer's "duties". The first consideration is did the officer have any authority to detain the subject to begin with. Was there reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed to justify a Terry Stop? It will be interesting to see how Connecticut courts decide - is the fact that Suzy Soccer Mom is scared by the fact that Joe Snuffy is carrying a rifle enough to raise reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed? Thankfully, again, in WA state, the state supreme court has already decided that Suzy Soccer Mom's fear of guns is not reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed.

Arizona_Mike
January 23, 2014, 02:36 PM
States vary with respect to providing ID. Arizona is a "true name" state where you are legally required to give your true name after being informed of the legal requirement. You are not required to produce ID in general (non-driving, non-CC) contexts.

Mike

If you enjoyed reading about "Memo to CT Troopers Re: Legality of Open Carry" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!