OCer harassed in Connecticut Subway

[Somemedic]

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


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.



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.



There is that.



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



Agreed.

Starr v. State
One is only required to ID one's self if they have committed an infraction or ordnance violation

Washington v. State
Cooperative and removed from [vehicle, weapon], officer safety isn't valid for a search.*

United States v. Cortez, 449*
U.S. 411, 417-18 (1981).
However, an officer “must have a particularized and objective*
basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.” This basis must focus on particularized suspect behavior and not descriptive*or environmental factors.*

United States v. Black, 707 F.3d 531, 540 (4th Cir. 2013)
Absent any other suspicious behavior, the carrying of a firearm alone does NOT create reasonable*
suspicion for detention.
(“Where a*state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify*an investigatory detention.”).


Thus, officers stopping an individual for carrying a firearm must be able to*point to additional suspect behavior that led them to believe criminal activity was afoot.

There is NO*Indiana statutory authority that permits an officer to stop an individual carrying a handgun*solely for the purpose of verifying the existence of a valid handgun license.*

 

[IndyDave1776]

I own my company, why?
(and why so interested in my profile?)

Which means you are all of the above and then some!

 

[KellyinAvon]

No reason to call the officers names.

I wasn't.

 

[churchmouse]

Fellas, I know a few of you personally and am familiar with the rest through posting. I truly like each and every one of you.
Please stop arguing about this. It can only escalate to someone getting some points or a time out.
This is one of those topics. It can raise emotions and usually does. I see all sides here and agree to an extent with much of what is said.
I worry about the image we put out there to the low-info uninformed public that can go either way on 2A issues.
It is sad that we have come to this but here we are.
Now, what to do about Re-educating the public and that includes some LEO's.

Carry on but please, keep it civil between you. We are all in this together.

 

[Dirtebiker]

Which means you are all of the above and then some!

?

 

[IndyDave1776]

?

I have never known any business owner who did not have to wear most every hat in the house at some point, as opposed to what the entitled leftist would have you believe, that if your name is on the shingle, you just sit at a desk and listen to your accountant tell you how much money you are raking in.

 

[cobber]

Hadn't thought of this either. Does CT have preemption, or can local units write their own laws on guns?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Starr v. State
One is only required to ID one's self if they have committed an infraction or ordnance violation

Washington v. State
Cooperative and removed from [vehicle, weapon], officer safety isn't valid for a search.*

United States v. Cortez, 449*
U.S. 411, 417-18 (1981).
However, an officer “must have a particularized and objective*
basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.” This basis must focus on particularized suspect behavior and not descriptive*or environmental factors.*

United States v. Black, 707 F.3d 531, 540 (4th Cir. 2013)
Absent any other suspicious behavior, the carrying of a firearm alone does NOT create reasonable*
suspicion for detention.
(“Where a*state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify*an investigatory detention.”).


Thus, officers stopping an individual for carrying a firearm must be able to*point to additional suspect behavior that led them to believe criminal activity was afoot.

There is NO*Indiana statutory authority that permits an officer to stop an individual carrying a handgun*solely for the purpose of verifying the existence of a valid handgun license.*

I'm familiar with all of those cases.
Starr v State, you do not have to ID yourself if not suspected of an infraction or ordinance violation, I understand that. But carrying a handgun is illegal (misd or felony) without being licensed or having one of the other exemptions. So while you do not have to ID, and you can't or at least shouldn't be arrested for failure to ID, it would be possible and most likely legal to be arrested for unlawfully carrying a handgun. Per IC it is the accused responsibility to prove an exemption not the state to prove that there isn't one.

Washington. Yep the search was unlawful. Not quite sure what that has to do with this.

US v Cortez, carrying a handgun is illegal in IN unless you fall under one of the exemptions. The particularized objective basis would be the sight of a handgun.

US v Black, I addressed this above but will do so again. In NC open carry is legal without a license/permit. That is not the case in IN or CT, carry of a handgun openly or concealed is illegal unless you meet an exemption. In other words carrying a handgun openly in NC is inherently legal unless the person is prohibited, IN is the reverse. Also IN and CT are not in the 4th appeals court "jurisdiction", the courts do not have to consider the opinion of that court unless they are in that jurisdiction. It would be akin to citing a county court case out of let's say Adam co IN in a Vandenberg co court. Or a IL court of appeals opinion in IN.

You would better off attempting to cite US v DeBerry in IN. If for no other reason than to watch Kirk Freeman froth at the mouth at the judges incorrectly citing tx law.

ETA
You might also want to read State v Richardson.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/in-court-of-appeals/1431792.html

Hadn't thought of this either. Does CT have preemption, or can local units write their own laws on guns?

Not that I can find statutorily, but according to Wiki the courts have found intent of preemption in some cases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Connecticut#State_preemption_of_local_laws

 

[Dirtebiker]

I have never known any business owner who did not have to wear most every hat in the house at some point, as opposed to what the entitled leftist would have you believe, that if your name is on the shingle, you just sit at a desk and listen to your accountant tell you how much money you are raking in.

Gotcha!
you're correct. Ecspecially since I work alone quire a bit. Well, that is when I'm not sitting around watching my bank account grow!

 

[Libertarian01]

...Thus, officers stopping an individual for carrying a firearm must be able to*point to additional suspect behavior that led them to believe criminal activity was afoot.

There is NO*Indiana statutory authority that permits an officer to stop an individual carrying a handgun*solely for the purpose of verifying the existence of a valid handgun license.*

It is my understanding that in Indiana, and ONLY in Indiana for purpose of this comment, it is illegal on its face to carry a handgun without a LTCH. Ergo, LE IS allowed to stop and question you regarding your being so licensed when they notice you are carrying a handgun.

Once they verify that you are licensed, through a potential variety of methods, they must then stop questioning you unless something else has caught their attention.

Regards,

Doug

 

[chipbennett]

Starr v. State
One is only required to ID one's self if they have committed an infraction or ordnance violation

Washington v. State
Cooperative and removed from [vehicle, weapon], officer safety isn't valid for a search.*

United States v. Cortez, 449*
U.S. 411, 417-18 (1981).
However, an officer “must have a particularized and objective*
basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.” This basis must focus on particularized suspect behavior and not descriptive*or environmental factors.*

United States v. Black, 707 F.3d 531, 540 (4th Cir. 2013)
Absent any other suspicious behavior, the carrying of a firearm alone [ed: where that activity is lawful] does NOT create reasonable*
suspicion for detention.
(“Where a*state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify*an investigatory detention.”).


Thus, officers stopping an individual for carrying a firearm must be able to*point to additional suspect behavior that led them to believe criminal activity was afoot.

There is NO*Indiana statutory authority that permits an officer to stop an individual carrying a handgun*solely for the purpose of verifying the existence of a valid handgun license.*

Is there case law specific to Indiana (or to states with statutes materially similar to Indiana's) in this regard? Because in Indiana, the carrying of a handgun is a per se illegal act, the affirmative defense against which is the LTCH. So, an officer merely knowing that someone is carrying a handgun has evidence of a violation of statute - thus, the demand to produce the LTCH is lawful.

It is the very reason that we need constitutional carry to pass: so that we are no longer considered by the state to be per se criminals, merely for exercising a constitutionally protected, natural right.

 

[stephen87]

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.

Wrong thread. You want this one:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/carry-issues-self-defense/71996-open-carry-argument.html

 

[stephen87]

I do think it's funny how a few here keep adding to the what if's will make me uncomfortable. Im a pretty well traveled man, I believe I have more miles traveling in a sailboat ( solo ) than most here have flown in a plane, certainly not all but most.
I grew up outside of a big city, I've seen about everything this world has to offer in different lifestyles, how a person dresses, sexual orientation, lifestyle and so on does not offend or make me uncomfortable.
With some restaurants a dress code is certainly required for service, but for the luck of Hoosiers theres not alot of restaurants that require a dress code for service.
Someone wearing greasy jeans will not make me uncomfortable at all, but depending on where I was eating I might point you out and laugh at you.

Don't like the avatar, feel free to put me on ignore.

So because you've traveled quite a bit, your opinion matters more than ours? Am I misinterpreting this? I routinely wear jeans/khakis and a hoodie, toting a Glock 19 on one hip and a one-year old on the other. I get quite a few looks, but you know what? I couldn't give three ****s less. You know why? It's my life, I will live it how I want. I choose to open carry for accessibility and comfort. If you don't like how I'm dressed while I'm carrying, then the polite version would be to go somewhere else. I haven't changed for my family's sake and I'm damn sure not gonna change because some guy on the internet told me that I should "look in the mirror." I have had exactly two negative encounters while OCing. I can't think of all the positive encounters because they don't stick out in my mind.

 

[stephen87]

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.

Correct, they COULD have "hemmed that man up" but instead they tried to intimidate him into identifying himself for no unlawful reason. If the article is correct, a permit does not have to be shown to an officer unless they suspect him of a crime. Openly carrying a firearm doe not qualify him as a "suspect of a crime." Should an officer be able to stop you for driving your car to verify that you have a license? Courts have ruled no they cannot. Why can't we all get on the same page on this? Openly carrying a firearm SHOULD NOT automatically allow an officer to stop you asking for ID and attempting to intimidate you. I'm glad this man stood up for all open carriers that have been harassed and intimidated by these officers. The way the superior stepped up, you can tell he's done it before and it worked. I'm happy to see it didn't work this time.

 

[stephen87]

It is my understanding that in Indiana, and ONLY in Indiana for purpose of this comment, it is illegal on its face to carry a handgun without a LTCH. Ergo, LE IS allowed to stop and question you regarding your being so licensed when they notice you are carrying a handgun.

Once they verify that you are licensed, through a potential variety of methods, they must then stop questioning you unless something else has caught their attention.

Regards,

Doug

As far as I understand it, once you are proven to be licensed, conversation about your handguns are to cease. They can keep questioning you about other crap if they want, but if they stopped you for your handgun and that's it, then the stop is pretty much over.

With that said, unless it has changed IMPD has made it their policy to not stop anyone openly carrying a firearm for that fact alone.

 

[chipbennett]

Correct, they COULD have "hemmed that man up" but instead they tried to intimidate him into identifying himself for no unlawful reason. If the article is correct, a permit does not have to be shown to an officer unless they suspect him of a crime. Openly carrying a firearm doe not qualify him as a "suspect of a crime."

If CT's statutes are written similarly to Indiana's statutes, then the carry of a firearm is, in fact, a per se crime, and constitutes lawful grounds for an investigatory detention.

Are those laws stupid? Yes. Are they unconstitutional? Yes.

But unless/until they're changed, they are what they are.

Should an officer be able to stop you for driving your car to verify that you have a license? Courts have ruled no they cannot. Why can't we all get on the same page on this? Openly carrying a firearm SHOULD NOT automatically allow an officer to stop you asking for ID and attempting to intimidate you.

Agreed with respect to how things should be. Sadly, how things should be is not how things are, currently.

I'm glad this man stood up for all open carriers that have been harassed and intimidated by these officers. The way the superior stepped up, you can tell he's done it before and it worked. I'm happy to see it didn't work this time.

It is obvious that what happened in the video was attempted intimidation outside of any lawful authority. It is also obvious that the officers recorded were flirting with deprivation of a civil right under the color of law.

 

[stephen87]

If CT's statutes are written similarly to Indiana's statutes, then the carry of a firearm is, in fact, a per se crime, and constitutes lawful grounds for an investigatory detention.

Are those laws stupid? Yes. Are they unconstitutional? Yes.

But unless/until they're changed, they are what they are.



Agreed with respect to how things should be. Sadly, how things should be is not how things are, currently.



It is obvious that what happened in the video was attempted intimidation outside of any lawful authority. It is also obvious that the officers recorded were flirting with deprivation of a civil right under the color of law.

As to the first portion of the comment, IF the article is correct: in Connecticut, the carry of firearms is not probable cause to stop someone for investigatory action. The article states that the CSP and the law contradict each other.

 

[stephen87]

Per the article

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.*

To me, that says that carrying a firearm does not conatitute that RAS. I could be wrong, but that seema to be what the article is saying.

 

[chipbennett]

Per the article

To me, that says that carrying a firearm does not conatitute that RAS. I could be wrong, but that seema to be what the article is saying.

I read that exactly oppositely of the way that you do.

 

[srad]

t is my understanding that in Indiana, and ONLY in Indiana for purpose of this comment, it is illegal on its face to carry a handgun without a LTCH. Ergo, LE IS allowed to stop and question you regarding your being so licensed when they notice you are carrying a handgun.

How does this logic square with operating a motor vehicle? It is illegal to operate a motor vehicle without a valid license, ergo LE is allowed to stop and question anyone driving? Even in the absence of other suspect/illegal activity?