OCer harassed in Connecticut Subway

[rugertoter]

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

Me too! That was the first thing I thought.

 

[saleen4971]

shocked you can carry. guy didnt have to show CCW, as the officer had no reason to suspect him of a crime. if the officer HAD suspected, and informed him, all the guy had to do is show him his CCW.

no suspicion, no show, cop being a dickhead and other cops standing behind him.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I've never felt uncomfortable enough that someone was OCing that I've wanted to stop them from doing so.
Regardless, I've never acted to restrict anyone's carry; quite the reverse.
I've had a few times I've seen people who made me glad I was able to carry and doing so, regardless of what they had on their belt.

Somehow, I doubt those people care that the image they present to the public will make others uncomfortable... or more likely, that they present the image they do with full intention. Some do it by appearance, others by attitude.

Blessings,
Bill

I'll tell you this Red, I have never had a Jewish man make me feel uncomfortable in a restaurant with him bearing a Star of David and a Torah under his arm.

I can't say the same for a few open carriers I have passed by in my lifetime enjoying a meal.

And I'll say it again, I myself could care less how someone carries a firearm.
Sometimes some people should take a look in the mirror before leaving home and take a hard look at what they are portraying to the public.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Not according to the law stated in the article.

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.)

Even better source.
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/act/pa/pdf/2015PA-00216-R00HB-07027-PA.pdf

(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.

Carrying a handgun concealed or unconcealed is a crime unless that person has a CT permit or is otherwise exempt. Same as IN. As has been discussed on here about IN, reasonable suspicion of unlawfully carrying a handgun.

"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

There are 2 things about that case, one being that decision is out of the 4th circuit, CT is in the 2nd. Another being that NC does not require a permit/license to open carry, unlike CT and IN for instance.

Usually looking at the statutes alone is misleading. You also have to consider how the courts interpret the statutes. Not gonna research CT case law, but if I lived there I would.

There is that.

I think what he's trying to say is if you want people to have a positive perception then think about how you look to give people a reason to have that positive perception. Is it wrong to have a negative perception based on what someone looks like or how they dress? Yep. Are people going to change their stereotypical thinking? Nope

Why is it wrong to have a negative (or positive for that matter) impression based on what someone looks like or dresses?

Somehow, I doubt those people care that the image they present to the public will make others uncomfortable... or more likely, that they present the image they do with full intention. Some do it by appearance, others by attitude.

Blessings,
Bill

Agreed.

 

[BugI02]

It does, I'm very easy to add to your ignore list. Reading is Fundamental..

Actually, I'm wondering if the avatar might provide an answer. With a phablet sized screen playing that loop, attached in the junk zone, I suspect you could open carry a Desert Eagle and no one would notice.

I notice when you are chastising someone your grammar and syntax improve markedly. Just sayin'

 

[17 squirrel]

Actually, I'm wondering if the avatar might provide an answer. With a phablet sized screen playing that loop, attached in the junk zone, I suspect you could open carry a Desert Eagle and no one would notice.

I notice when you are chastising someone your grammar and syntax improve markedly. Just sayin'

Sometimes, people bring out the education in others.
I was mocking someone that had tried to demean me on some of my poor grammar and spelling. I am definitely not a grammar nazi unless poked first.

 

[rhino]

Assuming the article was correct about the law (not a safe assumption, granted), it continues to appall me that people authorized to enforce laws do not know the specific laws they are trying enforce, or in this case, claiming to enforce because they were wrong. I'm curious if the cop in the first video is just not that bright, or if he's been trained to keep repeating the same thing over and over in the hopes that the person he's detaining (apparently illegally) will somehow capitulate.

I was very impressed by the guy taking the video refusing to be intimidated, especially when the huge sergeant arrived and very obviously was trying to intimidate him by getting so close.

I wish he hadn't called them d***heads at the end, though. He was in the right, but it diminished him, even though his assertion was accurate given the evidence we have.

 

[sidewinder27]

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.

Let me guess you have no issue with the government listening to everyone's phone calls and reading all email's? Your argument is essentially "if you have nothing to hide then what are you worried about". It's called rights. Also can you afford to take every department to court for violation of your rights?

 

[17 squirrel]

Let me guess you have no issue with the government listening to everyone's phone calls and reading all email's? Your argument is essentially "if you have nothing to hide then what are you worried about". It's called rights. Also can you afford to take every department to court for violation of your rights?

Psssssst...
If the OC would have hidden his Rosco, we would not be having this conversation.

How about apples for apples, the topic here is open carrying walking around downtown..
I believe with having multiple business owners calling the PD that a man is carrying a firearm would have been more than enough probable cause to ask to see his permit.
Remember in that state all the officer needs is probable cause to ask for his permit.
If the OC had produced his permit, it all would have been over in seconds. ( if you believe your rights were violated, make a appointment with the Chief of Police and talk to him.
Remember all that officer had to believe was, the OC might be up to no good.
It does nothing to argue with a Officer in the street, they very easily could have hemmed that man up and ruined his afternoon.

Like I have posted multiple times before,
I could care less how someone carries a firearm. But when you carry in a manner that thrusts in the folks faces, be prepared to be hasseled..
Maybe even being pointed at while laughing by some.
We all have opinions, and opinions will very between folks.
Cover your Rosco boys, it will protect you from Social Disease's from the drips to being hasseled from the Man.

 

[2A_Tom]

Since squirreley has me on ignore please re-post, but delete this sentence.

The topic is an officer ignorant of the law harassing an open carrier.

The argument for open/concealed carry is here. https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/carry-issues-self-defense/71996-open-carry-argument.html

 

[red_zr24x4]

As requested blue falcon-

The topic is an officer ignorant of the law harassing an open carrier.

The argument for open/concealed carry is here. https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/carry-issues-self-defense/71996-open-carry-argument.html

 

[2A_Tom]

Thanks Red.

 

[hopper68]

IF there had really been calls made I think the officers would have placed him under arrest or officially detained him until his permit was produced.

 

[2A_Tom]

IF there had really been calls made I think the officers would have placed him under arrest or officially detained him until his permit was produced.

Why? What law did he break? Can I call and say there is a guy I don't recognize standing on the sidewalk by my house?

 

[hopper68]

Why? What law did he break? Can I call and say there is a guy I don't recognize standing on the sidewalk by my house?

Makes a difference if they are investigating a "crime", real or imagined. If sued it could be the difference between harassing the guy for OC or responding to a call. I am NOT saying either is right just saying what might be important to a jury. More than likely you and I would be excused from any such jury.

As to the guy on the sidewalk I need more info. Is he waiting by the bus stop? Totally legal. Is he playing around with your mail box? Kinda sketchy. Using binoculars to stare into your windows? Well he is on public property. Wearing just a speedo in the middle of winter? No law against that. Clucking like a chicken? Why do you hate freedom.

 

[17 squirrel]

IF there had really been calls made I think the officers would have placed him under arrest or officially detained him until his permit was produced.

So we are to the point now where we just believe part of the story.. The part that works with your opinion....
Hahahahahahahahah..

 

[hopper68]

So we are to the point now where we just believe part of the story.. The part that works with your opinion....
Hahahahahahahahah..

No, just expressing my opinion, giving one possible way it could have happened and why it turned out why it did. If you have any first hand knowledge of what happened I would like to hear it.

 

[17 squirrel]

Too bad it does't go both ways.

Since squirreley has me on ignore please re-post, but delete this sentence.

The topic is an officer ignorant of the law harassing an open carrier.

The argument for open/concealed carry is here. https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/carry-issues-self-defense/71996-open-carry-argument.html

Thanks Red.

That's funny about you worrying about me keeping on topic..
Haven't we discussed this already on another thread ??
Do you want to get spanked again ???

Take care of your own house.. Practice what you preach..


Done here.....

 

[2A_Tom]

I didn't really think you could be trusted, so I baited you.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Boys, boys... Since you can't speak civilly to each other, I want you both to put each other on your ignore lists, for real, and USE those lists. If you see a hidden post from the other, IGNORE it. Act like the other guy doesn't exist. Don't bait each other, don't make snide remarks about each other, just go your separate ways.

Please.

Before one of us with a mod tag makes it happen.

I am asking. I don't want to have to TELL you, nor do I want another mod to have to do so.

It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. The question is if it is possible for you.

Blessings,
Bill

That's funny about you worrying about me keeping on topic..
Haven't we discussed this already on another thread ??
Do you want to get spanked again ???

Take care of your own house.. Practice what you preach..


Done here.....

I didn't really think you could be trusted, so I baited you.