I have not watched yet

but people just like to fuck up their lives

http://www.ctn.state.ct.us/ctnplayer.asp?odID=10474

http://www.ctn.state.ct.us/ctnplayer.asp?odID=10472

Hope you have 6 hours to waste

Hearings of 8/14

http://www.ctn.state.ct.us/ctnplayer.asp?odID=10581

http://www.ctn.state.ct.us/ctnplayer.asp?odID=10583

http://www.ctn.state.ct.us/ctnplayer.asp?odID=10582

Summary....

They have a shrink on the review board who does an instant "suitability" analysis.

If you lose your gun, don't tell anyone.
If you are depressed, don't tell anyone.
If you are old with dementia, don't confuse a "relic" permit and claim you have an FFL.

If you are a passenger in car with your legal guns, and driver does a road rage thing waving a his gun at someone, unlock door, hands on dash, and immediately let police know you have 2 guns when the car is stopped by police.

If you have a loose fitting holster don't leave the house

the 2nd amendment is for everyone - yes, even "fuckups"

I thought it was for middle aged white men with privilege only. What the hell is going on!

There is a part of the so called "gun culture" where people turn their nose up at others.

Many of the permit holders I know wear their permit like a badge. "Look at me, I'm a law abiding citizen". These people complain about having had to jump through hoops, but it seems as if they take pleasure in the fact they were deemed "worthy" by "the system".

Everyone has skeletons in their closet at some level. No one is perfect. Stay humble, folks. You could lose your rights one day for something as dumb as the same people you now laugh at. That wouldn't be nice, would it?

Live and let live.

But, did you pay the privilege tax??

Does that include certain individuals like the mentally ill, child molesters and violent repeat offenders? If not then the 2nd Amendment isn't for everyone.

In reality most people including most here generally do not want the 2nd Amendment to apply to everyone. Some in our society don't think 2A is for anyone other than law enforcement and military. Most people including most gun owners demand some limits to the kinds of "fuckups" who can legally buy and possess firearms. The minute you say certain people like the mentally ill, child molesters and violent repeat offenders should be allowed to buy and possess guns is when most people (including most gun owners, voters and politicians) look at you with this face: .

All of the above should be able to own guns (outside of a prison or mental asylum). Freedom for all, or freedom for none.

It can be argued that by denying the 2nd Amendment to those in prison or in mental asylums one is in effect admitting that the 2nd Amendment isn't for "everyone". That there are some limits to who may exercise their 2nd Amendment. Which is pretty much what Scalia indicated by saying that no right is unlimited in the Heller decision. This obviously presents a quandary to those who claim that no politician, judge or jury can take away their 2nd Amendment rights yet also say that people in jail shouldn't be allowed to possess guns. Its an endless discussion/argument. <shrugs>

None of that changes the fact however that progressives have a core agenda of wanting to take away the 2nd Amendment. By expanding the BFPE with additional members including one from the medical field they now have another avenue to advance that agenda by redefining who is 'suitable'.

Unfortunately the State of CT currently treats the 2nd Amendment and Article I, Sec 15 as a 'privilege', subject to the whims of; the elected officials, the courts, and occasionally those who wear a badge.

Simple

It should parallel voting rights or a temporary judge's order

No need to over complicate

Review board 07/24/2014 SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS!

Besides the obvious fuck-ups...don't drive drunk with 2 flat tires and cocaine in you pockets, or don't argue with police after you are kicked out of bar.

This week had a CT version of "show me your papers":
14-119-R Scott R. Lazurek   (orginal story from NHregister Lazurek court case )

Open pistol carry stopped in West Haven, was given the choice to show papers or get arrested.
We learn that while it is true that law does not require you to show pistol permit, you can get arrested for "interfering with an officer" if you refuse to show papers.

Other notes about review board...
1.  When the police have a weak case, a review board member will tell appellants that they do not have to talk.  
But of course, complete fuck-ups will demand to present their case.
2.  Do not hire an attorney (Drapp 48:40 ) who is so bad, he was scolded by board members.

I have a friend who lives in a far away state.  10-15 years ago he was diagnosed with some type of very serious psychosis, and has been on meds ever since.  He is productive and normal.  I don't know if he is prohibited (it is something we have never discussed), but I think his wife, also my friend, originally had him committed for a short time when the problem started.

There is no way in hell he belongs behind bars!

Convicted felons lose their voting rights

That's like right number 1 in the US

No, they don't. They can get their voting rights back in CT after they get out of the slammer.

CCDL had a blog post linking to segment of the last hearing.  Its about how a guy was open carrying on the west haven board walk and was arrested.

A few years ago.  Seems there was a divide on the board about the legality of open carry.  I hope to watch the hour and half segment later this weekend.

My new favorite quote, "Gang activity in the City of New Britain....Are there gangs in the City of New Britain?"

It's actually a little more complicated than that. IN all instances, imprisonment must be completed as well as parole. Out of state convictions require that any/ all fines be repaid prior to restoration of rights. Certain election law violations also require completion of probation before voting rights may be restored.

The false statement that the Bridgeport sergeant in 14-032 made re. that was sickening.

A curio and relic license is a class of federal firearms license, albeit one which does not allow one to deal in firearms- but rather only collect certain firearms.

The big issue wasn't open carry, even though it seemed like SGT representing the state attempted to make an issue about it, particularly contextualized to that venue- which was clearly a loss for him, evidenced by the fact that he totally avoided politicizing the case in his closing statement. Instead, the big issue was a very straightforward one- re. the attitude that the appellant demonstrated during the encounter with officers that night, which resulted in the serious escalation of that situation, and which he refused to admit was problematic during the hearing- when he repeatedly suggested that he would react similarly in the future. (I really applaud his honesty, but he really should have followed the cues his lawyer gave him.....As much as I personally believe that the cops were hassling them, probably unfairly and maybe even inappropriately, the appellant really handled that situation in a childlike manner

Is this the one that occurred in a pool hall?

Maybe we should be addressing that with stricter laws as well then.

I am referring to the one in which the appellant was stopped by West Haven PD while walking on the boardwalk, near a playground, where there is no shooting range, and where people have committed crimes in the past- making it necessary to have police patrol the area.

Ah yes that one

Sounds like it was necessary to OC as well then.


Good use of OC.


Bad handling with cops.  But to be fair, bad handling by the cops.  ( although their lack of information and actions are understandable, but not justified)




Of course, it begs the question, why go if it is too dangerous to go unarmed?   But I don't think that is a fair question as it is anyones' right to move about freely.   I often will drive all over the state's major cities and explore the neighborhoods when I'm on the road or have a day off and something else lures me out of my secluded semi-rural retreat.   Lots of cool culture to be discovered and exposure to the reality that not all of these neighborhoods Mogadishu.   Obviously I don't do this at night or after lunch time on the weekends.    Hartford and Bridgeport are by far the most fascinating.  Bridgeport for it's decaying former industrial scarring, and Hartford for its vibrant overlapping ethnic communities and formerly rich and prosperous neighborhoods from it's previous economic booms.     I'm open carrying the entire time ( quick flick of a T- shirt would conceal everything if i got out of car) and with an undisclosed amount of rounds in an undisclosed number of mags of undisclosed capacity, doors are locked, and I don't respond to any comments or inquiries from the locals.  Some areas put your on alert,  but never felt like I didn't have a reason to be passing through.


There is some damn good Jamaican and salvadorian food to be found that way.   Just know a little Spanish because the menus are not in English.   No corazon, no , No lengue, etc etc lol

It was obvious from watching this case that attorney Drapp had no experience with the review board.  
(case 14-119-R Scott R. Lazurek, Attorney Drapp)
He should have told his client to not talk before the hearing.  Lazurek came very close to losing by his attitude and admiting he would do it again.
After the meeting, the old guy on board scolded the lawyer for the way he presented the case.

When the police have a weak case, there is a lawyer board member who is usually pro gun owner, and advises the appellant that they do not need to talk. (Nudge wink, nudge wink...)
Appellants that take his advise win most of time, but most appellants who ignore his advice (like "relic" guy) lose after testifying.
People that testify open themselves to a broad line of questions beyond the scope of the technical reason for the denial.
The chief is an expert at twisting factual statements to a negative, and the shrink is an expert at drawing negative testimony about drugs, drinking, or social behavior.

board meeting on 7/24/14

more fodder

http://www.ctn.state.ct.us/ctnplayer.asp?odID=10510

http://www.ctn.state.ct.us/ctnplayer.asp?odID=10513

BUMP for new hearings

Hearings of 8/14 now posted at start of thread