OCer harassed in Connecticut Subway

[hopper68]

The officer even asked the manager not to serve the OCer,

Gun-Toting Subway Customer Gets Into Open-Carry Dispute With Police [Updated] - Eater

 

[Kutnupe14]

Somebody should probably fired and sued.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'm surprised you can even carry a gun in Connecticut. I'm not surprised by the animosity.

 

[Spear Dane]

I'm surprised you can even carry a gun in Connecticut. I'm not surprised by the animosity.

^^^^^^

 

[cobber]

It's CT. Is he obliged to produce to LE on request?

 

[LodeStone]

It's CT. Is he obliged to produce to LE on request?

From what I understood from the article, he is only required to show his permit if he is suspected of engaging in criminal activity.

 

[2A_Tom]

It's CT. Is he obliged to produce to LE on request?

Not according to the law stated in the article.

According to the Connecticut Post, state laws and police training mandates appear to contradict each other when it comes to citizens' rights to open carry. Under state law, people may open carry, so long as they're also carrying their permit. State police have been trained that they should not arrest citizens "merely for publicly carrying a handgun in plain view." However, if an individual does not produce his or her permit, officers may arrest them for interfering with police. In comparison, the law specifies that police may only request to verify permits or identification if there's "reasonable suspicion" that the gun carrier has committed a crime. Business are also permitted to refuse service to open-carry customers under state law.

A Subway spokesman tells Eater that the company does not have a blanket policy on firearms at its restaurants. "All Subway restaurants are individually owned and operated by franchisees who are part of the communities in which they live and work. We require franchisees to follow all local, state and federal laws."

 

[chipbennett]

I would just like to take this opportunity to thank the Indiana LEO, who by and large don't treat law-abiding citizens with such disregard.

 

[hopper68]

I would just like to take this opportunity to thank the Indiana LEO, who by and large don't treat law-abiding citizens with such disregard.

+1

 

[chipbennett]

Better source for CT laws:

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/connecticut.pdf

In CT open carry is legal, but any carry (open or concealed) requires having the permit on one's person. However, CT is not a duty-to-inform state, and there's nothing that would preclude the standard of RAS of unlawful activity in order for a police officer to subject someone to an investigatory detention and/or compel someone to produce ID or a permit.

I particularly loved the "you're armed in public". (Well, so are you, Officer Blowhard.)

 

[ajeandy]

Guns in restaurants continue to stir controversy.

Guns, not OC guns, just guns.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I'm surprised you can even carry a gun in Connecticut. I'm not surprised by the animosity.

2nd^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[KellyinAvon]

Guns, not OC guns, just guns.

Guns in restaurants continue to stir controversy.

So do whiney little wussies.

 

[actaeon277]

Guns in restaurants continue to stir controversy.

Maybe they stir controversy, because news outlets have decided to MAKE it controversy.

 

[17 squirrel]

Open carry tends to cause controversy, now matter what the topic is, if people can see it, they can and will have a opinion on it.
If your don't like being in the forefront I would suggest simply to
Cover your Rosco boys when you go to town.

 

[actaeon277]

Open carry tends to cause controversy, now matter what the topic is, if people can see it, they can and will have a opinion on it.
If your don't like being in the forefront I would suggest simply to
Cover your Rosco boys when you go to town.

Isn't the problem here, the police not knowing the law?

 

[17 squirrel]

Thanks but I have pretty good comprehension of what I read.

"reasonable suspicion" is a very broad term, if the open carrier had just simply shown the State Trooper his permit, both party's would have simply parted ways happily. The place to argue or not respond to LE is not the middle of a restaurant or a sidewalk, comply and hammer it out in court.
The point I was making, if no one had seen his pistol, multiple people would not have called the police complaining there was a man carrying a firearm walking around town.
When you put things that are controversial to some folks, up in their faces, prepare to be hasseled.
It's been that way since the beginning of time.

 

[cooltools]

Guns, not OC guns, just guns.

You better believe it brothers and sisters ! Lucky to live in the great state of Indiana where the majority of LEO's support the 2nd amendment.

 

[NyleRN]

Open carry tends to cause controversy, now matter what the topic is, if people can see it, they can and will have a opinion on it.
If your don't like being in the forefront I would suggest simply to
Cover your Rosco boys when you go to town.

This....you choose how to make the bed you sleep in

 

[chipbennett]

Thanks but I have pretty good comprehension of what I read.

"reasonable suspicion" is a very broad term, if the open carrier had just simply shown the State Trooper his permit, both party's would have simply parted ways happily. The place to argue or not respond to LE is not the middle of a restaurant or a sidewalk, comply and hammer it out in court.
The point I was making, if no one had seen his pistol, multiple people would not have called the police complaining there was a man carrying a firearm walking around town.
When you put things that are controversial to some folks, up in their faces, prepare to be hasseled.
It's been that way since the beginning of time.

"Third, it is undisputed that under the laws of North Carolina, which permit its residents to openly carry firearms . . . Troupe’s gun was legally possessed and displayed. The Government contends that because other laws prevent convicted felons from possessing guns, the officers could not know whether Troupe was lawfully in possession of the gun until they performed a records check. . . . We are not persuaded. Being a felon in possession of a firearm is not the default status. More importantly, where a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention. Permitting such a justification would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals in those states."

US v Black, 4DCA