Another 4th Amendment Thread- in CT

[209]

I was afraid I may hijack the one on the CO OC question, so I figured it would be proper to start another one which is kind of on topic, but strays from that OP.

Since the question of being arrested for OC'ing came up, and I said you'd run afoul of the law in CT, I quickly did some research to make sure I was right. I "knew" people in CT could be arrested for Breach if they failed to conceal their handgun, but had never bothered to keep track of those incidents so I had to check for a cite. The one I found led to another issue which is a possible changing of the law. If nothing else, it provides an insight into actually questioning the law and the possible outcome of doing so.

1. First, we have this. Basically it’s the canned answer to the question of whether or not a pistol permit holder in CT has to conceal their gun.

Kind of an ambiguous answer isn’t it?

http://www.ctpistolsafety.com/wst_page5.html

From their FAQs:

If I decide to carry a gun on my person for self-defense, am I required to conceal the gun?

There is no law in Connecticut mandating the gun be carried concealed, HOWEVER, it is stated that if it is carried in plain view, and it causes complaint or alarm, your permit to carry can be jeopardized. For this reason it is recommended any firearms be carried concealed and out of plain view.

I bolded that plain view and alarm part. A pistol permit holder isn’t arrested for allowing his gun to show, per se. He is arrested for “Breach of Peace”.

2. See this link which is a copy of a “Memorandum in Support of Motion To Dismiss” a Breach of Peace charge against a pistol permit holder.

http://www.ourrockyhill.com/Goldberg.Files/Memo.1.htm

In that case, the defendant asked for clarification of the law, obviously hoping for a dismissal of charges and at the same time, he was evidently hoping for some case law which would decide the issue once and for all.

3. The answer by our leaders in Hartford was to propose a change the law so it says what they want it to say. You have to understand that CT isn't exactly a utopia for gun rights.

Below is a proposed change to the CGS. I’m not sure where this bill is in the legislative works, but I think it's in the Public Safety Committee. Who knows if it'll see the light of day. But, if and I bet when it passes, it will be illegal to not conceal a handgun in CT. I believe the proposed violation will be a misdemeanor.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/TOB/H/2009HB-06457-R00-HB.htm

(c) (1) Any person carrying a pistol or revolver upon his or her person in accordance with the provisions of this section, shall conceal such pistol or revolver. (2) The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to the carrying of any pistol or revolver by any parole officer or peace officer of this state, or parole officer or peace officer of any other state while engaged in the pursuit of official duties, or federal marshal or federal law enforcement agent, or to any member of the armed forces of the United States, as defined in section 27-103, or of this state, as defined in section 27-2, when on duty or going to or from duty.

So we had someone seeking a clearer law and Hartford is attempting to accommodate them by making a bad law worse. :banghead:

FYI- for all of you firearms instructors in CT, there is some legal language in this bill regarding requirements for firearms instruction. I haven’t deciphered it yet, so I can’t say what changes it makes. Might be of interest to some of you.

 

[USAFNoDAk]

Geez Louise, it used to be that the only people who felt the need to carry concealed were criminals, due to their desire to maintain the element of surprise. Law abiding folks didn't have to worry about scaring any of the sheeple. Now, the situation is completely reversed. Law abiding people are being "legally" forced to carry concealed, not to maintain any element of surprise, but to keep from scaring our panzy butt citizens who are prone to run away screaming with their hands waving frantically over thier heads at the mere sight of anyone carrying a pistol who isn't in a uniform of some sort.

I've often wondered what would happen if you just wore a fake security guard uniform and open carried in places like CT? Would anyone notice you at all? Would anyone care? I doubt it. But wear a gun in the open in plain clothes and they'll panic like a meteor is about to strike them. Sheeesh.

This is plain evidence of the left's success in brain washing our society to fear guns unless government officials have them. I hope we can eventually turn that situation around. My hopes are not high.

 

[Mainsail]

I grew up in CT but I would have a hard time moving back there. The CT Constitution’s gun rights wording is one of the least ambiguous around, even more clear than the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution.

SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

Other than the gender-specific wording that could appear to recognize only the rights of males, it seems pretty clear. What the CT Constitution doesn’t recognize, that many state constitutions do, is that the ‘right’ is meant to be free from legislative meddling.

Compare the WA Constitution:

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

The part I bolded in the quote above is what’s missing from the CT Constitution. So it remains open to interpretation (and liberal east coast interpretation at that) whether the right mentioned in Section 15 of the CT Constitution is a right that is free from regulation.

Look at the Idaho provision:

SECTION 11.RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.

From their point of view, carrying a firearm is a right not subject to legislative attempts to neutralize it, while carrying a firearm concealed is more of a privilege that the legislature can regulate as it sees fit. Most states are like this.

Connecticut, despite changing from “The Nutmeg State” to “The Constitution State”, has never really declared the firearms rights of its citizens (a right it recognizes) as an inviolate right. Of course, that doesn’t really address the question here directly.

SEC. 7. The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from unreasonable searches or seizures; and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or things, shall issue without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.

SEC. 9. No person shall be arrested, detained or punished, except in cases clearly warranted by law.

Section 7 is the parallel declaration of the USC 4th amendment. I think Section 9 is also applicable. A good lawyer should be able to argue, especially in light of the Heller decision, that to arrest someone for merely carrying their firearm openly is unconstitutional if the arrestee has a permit to carry. A better lawyer should be able to make the same argument for someone arrested for open carry without a permit. What it comes down to, and always does, is what the judge decides. As we’ve seen with the Heller dissent (if you’ve ever really read it) a judge can ignore facts, inject their own beliefs, and reach a conclusion that would leave most people scratching their heads at how they arrived at a particular conclusion.

Changing the wording to read like you have in the OP might only further weaken the “right” mentioned under Section 15, to the point that one could finally declare the right, in fact, dead. To patriots, the right exists regardless of the legislative efforts to nullify it. A citizen of CT has the right to bear arms, even if doing so results in his or her arrest and prosecution. Since the state government (and by extension the Police) see things differently, the presence of a firearm is reason enough to detain and arrest someone. This means that one’s 4th amendment rights are not being violated, the “reasonable person” standard is employed. A reasonable person in CT believes carrying a firearm is inherently illegal, so the police are justified in making the arrest. Here in WA, our police recognize firearms carry as lawful (because our constitution and case law recognizes it as such) so it is unlikely you would ever have your 4th amendment rights violated for open carry.

 

[WardenWolf]

You gotta love how officers go after YOU for exercising what is currently your legal right, instead of educating the idiot who made the call. They're effectively punishing you for wasting their time, even when the person who called is technically the one wasting their time.

 

[209]

You gotta love how officers go after YOU for exercising what is currently your legal right, instead of educating the idiot who made the call. They're effectively punishing you for wasting their time, even when the person who called is technically the one wasting their time.

In many cases, it's not the officers who "go after you for exercising a legal right", but rather the officers doing their job. In the case of CT, the illustrious Attorney General's stance is that failure to conceal is a Breach of Peace. So it is the policy (approved by the Attorney General's office) to effect such arrests using the appropriate statutes. The courts in CT have not yet resolved the issue with a ruling. Is it an improper application of the statute? The state and the courts are mute on the subject.

Now if the argument is that a weapon that is seen by another person shouldn't cause alarm and that no crime occurred, that will also hopefully be resolved by the courts when the issue is brought before the court. The officers are not at fault for following the interpretation. They are applying a violation of law to such events. The law as applied is recognized as of this point to be a valid application of that law by the interpretation given by the Attorney General's office. Since the Attorney General issues "opinions" for the interpretation of CT law, he gets to be the go-to guy and make the rules... until the courts say he's wrong.

Since CT is not a gun-friendly state, the Attorney General is more than happy to make strict interpretations of the law which are anti-gun. He is allowed to seemingly use this statutory power from Conn. General Statute Section 3-125 - "He shall advise or give his opinion to the head of any executive department or any state board or commission upon any question of law submitted to him" to interpret the written law. So he has instructed the DPS and CT POST that failure to conceal is a violation of Breach of Peace. If his interpretation is thought to be erroneous, the method for contesting his opinions is to go the court and argue it.

We can yell and scream that it's wrong all we want. The method to stop it is clear-cut but hasn't been done yet. So we can say we think it's illegal or a improper application of law, but we have no proof to back it up.

 

[1911Delta]

They (the cops) were just following orders.

Yes. I said it. If a cop arrests a person, legally carrying a firearm just because an idiot called in scared, that cop is not your friend. The cop that does that is an anti gin idiot. People can educate others, that includes cops.