I don't understand? Perhaps you can elaborate?

This law could be bad and used against innocent people. Simply a gun grabbing law the way it's worded.
Not one protection for the accused party until/after the official "real" hearing? Perhaps?
You lose P permit. Lose long arm whatever permit.
Can't get you property back until legal(allowed) to own/do so.
Where is your property(or valuable collection)  protected in the law?
Is there any protection for $500 to $10,000's of your property?
Actually it infuriates me.

I get it and agree, after the election I guess.
I still angers me.
I know it's lost temporally, perhaps forever. But I still have doubts, their system can not survive!

I know the Republicans were filibustering yesterday, in an attempt to have Dem legislation (some anti-2a) die in committee. I don't follow all the political wrangling, but something had the Republicans all worked up.

Some more movement on temp restraining bill S.B. 650:

4/23/2015 (LCO) Referred to Office of Legislative Research and Office of Fiscal Analysis 04/28/15 5:00 PM

So this next step is where the bill should die when the OLR should find it unconstitutional because it violates the 4th amendment, and the fiscal committee should find it too costly to implement properly and too costly to defend the lawsuits that would be brought against the state due to the unconstitutional features of the bill... Right?

Considering who cosponsored this bill this one will be going through and signed by Malloy no matter what. It has the heavy anti rights hitters behind it. It gives them a feather in their campaign hat and something they can point to claim they enacted one of the suggestions by the Sandy Hook Commission. they are just going through the motions right now by sending it to OLR and OFA. There were apparently two voice votes on amendments which passed both amendments. One of the amendments was introduced by Rep. Tong & Sen. Flexer. Tong is a serious and well known gun hater. I'll be surprised if this doesn't sail through the legislature with it being a strictly party line vote for the most part and Malloy will sign it. I just don't see the Democrats voting down this bill in the full legislature no matter how many write/contact them to vote against it. They'd be savaged by the local media if they vote against this bill.

Bill cosponsors:
SEN. LOONEY, 11th Dist.
SEN. DUFF, 25th Dist.
SEN. BYE, 5th Dist.
SEN. BARTOLOMEO, 13th Dist.
SEN. CASSANO, 4th Dist.
SEN. COLEMAN, 2nd Dist.
SEN. CRISCO, 17th Dist.
SEN. KENNEDY, 12th Dist.
SEN. FLEXER, 29th Dist.
SEN. LARSON, 3rd Dist.
SEN. WINFIELD, 10th Dist.

I think the best way to defeat this would be find out which of the bill sponsors are current gun owners or permit holders and file temporary restraining orders against them....

As long as there are no legal repercussions there is zero reason we shouldn't. God knows some of them own guns. It'd be good to give them a taste of their own medicine.

 

If there were legal repercussions then this would be a non issue, but God knows in liberal land nothing is thought out from both ends..

The hardest part when the unicorn springs from my asshole is the horn... gets me every time.

More movement on S.B. 650.

4/29/2015 (LCO) File Number 754  
4/29/2015  Senate Calendar Number 444  
4/29/2015  Favorable Report, Tabled for the Calendar, Senate  
4/29/2015 (LCO) Reported Out of Legislative Commissioners' Office  

The text of bill 650 that is going to the Senate, fiscal note and bill analyses have been posted.

Text of Bill
File No. 754 [pdf]
JUD Joint Favorable Substitute [pdf]

Fiscal Notes
Fiscal Note for File Copy 754  

Bill Analyses
Bill Analysis for File Copy 754

Edit to add: They have made some modifications (highlighted in blue in one case) including the following related to firearms:

Upon receipt of the application the court shall order that a hearing on the application be held not later than fourteen days from the date of the order except that, if the court issues an ex parte order against a respondent who is a peace officer as defined in section 53a-3, such hearing shall be held not later than five days from the date of the order.
....
(2) When (A) an application indicates that a respondent holds a permit to carry a pistol or revolver, an eligibility certificate for a pistol or revolver, a long gun eligibility certificate or an ammunition certificate or possesses one or more firearms or ammunition, and (B) the court has issued an ex parte order pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, service of process shall be effectuated by a police officer in lieu of service by a proper officer. When service is to be effectuated by a police officer, the clerk of the court shall send, by facsimile or other means, the application, the applicant's affidavit, the ex parte order and the notice of the hearing to the law enforcement agency, for the town in which the respondent resides, not later than two hours after the issuance of such order. The law enforcement agency shall receive all process directed to such agency. A police officer of the law enforcement agency shall promptly execute such service and make true return thereof. Service of process by a police officer on a respondent shall be in hand. At the time a police officer effectuates service, the respondent shall surrender all pistols, revolvers, other firearms and ammunition owned by, or in the control or possession of, such respondent to the police officer. In the event that pistols, revolvers, other firearms and ammunition cannot be surrendered by the respondent to the police officer at the time service is effectuated because such pistols, revolvers, other firearms and ammunition are at a location other than the location where service is effectuated, the respondent shall, not later than twenty-four hours after the time service is effectuated, transfer, deliver or surrender such pistols, revolvers, other firearms and ammunition in accordance with section 29-36k, as amended by this act. When service is effectuated by a police officer, the information contained in the application or applicant's affidavit shall not alone constitute grounds for arrest under subsection (a) of section 46b-38b. A photographic copy, a micrographic copy or other electronic image that clearly and accurately copies the application, the applicant's affidavit, any ex parte order and the notice of hearing shall be permitted when effectuating service under this section.
....
(b) Immediately, but in no event more than twenty-four hours after notice has been provided to a person subject to a restraining or protective order or a foreign order of protection, such person shall (1) transfer any pistol, revolver or other firearm or ammunition that such person then possesses to a federally licensed firearms dealer pursuant to the sale of the pistol, revolver or other firearm or ammunition to the federally licensed firearms dealer, or (2) deliver or surrender such pistols and revolvers and other firearms and ammunition to the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection or a law enforcement agency.
....
(d) If a state permit or temporary state permit for the carrying of any pistol or revolver is revoked because the person holding such permit is subject to an ex parte order issued pursuant to section 46b-15, as amended by this act, or 46b-16a, upon expiration of such order, such person may notify the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection that such order has expired. Upon verification of such expiration and provided such person is not otherwise disqualified from holding such permit pursuant to subsection (b) of section 29-28, the department shall reinstate such permit.
....
(c) If an eligibility certificate for a pistol or revolver is revoked because the person holding such certificate is subject to an ex parte order issued pursuant to section 46b-15, as amended by this act, or 46b-16a, upon expiration of such order, such person may notify the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection that such order has expired. Upon verification of such expiration and provided such person is not otherwise disqualified from holding such certificate pursuant to section 29-36f, the department shall reinstate such certificate.
....
(c) If a long gun eligibility certificate is revoked because the person holding such certificate is subject to an ex parte order issued pursuant to section 46b-15, as amended by this act, or 46b-16a, upon expiration of such order, such person may notify the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection that such order has expired. Upon verification of such expiration and provided such person is not otherwise disqualified from holding such certificate pursuant to section 29-37p, the department shall reinstate such certificate.
....
(c) If an ammunition certificate is revoked because the person holding such certificate is subject to an ex parte order issued pursuant to section 46b-15, as amended by this act, or 46b-16a, upon expiration of such order, such person may notify the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection that such order has expired. Upon verification of such expiration and provided such person is not otherwise disqualified from holding such certificate pursuant to section 29-38n, the department shall reinstate such certificate.

Great, so, as has been proven many times over in Glorious People's Republik of Malloyville, the people's rights can still be trampled and removed from them but, if that person is a police officer, his rights can be trampled slightly less and they can have their property returned to them sooner? Am I reading that right?

Noticed that too did you. Yeah you read that right. Police have a hearing with five days, the peasants within 14 days.

It does raise the interesting question of why is there a different set of standards. If they are really so concerned with trying to prevent EVERYONE from having guns/permits when a TRO is issued then there shouldn't be a separate standard when it comes to police officers. Maybe its just me and I'll probably put this in a very poor way, but when I read that and change my thinking to that of an anti gunner, I thought; OK so you want to ban guns /permits from people with TRO's, but you set a different standard for police officers? What message does that send to the person who gets a TRO against a police officer? To me it appears the legislators are saying their life is potentially less important because they are getting the order against a police officer versus someone who isn't a police officer. The message the legislature is sending is fracked. I would venture to guess that they got lobbied by law enforcement to change the language and lower the hearing wait time.

Where's the language for returning weapons and mags, did I miss it

Well there is language in there in which one can have a third party take possession of the items turned (really confiscated) by police but they have one year to do so otherwise after one year the police can destroy the items. Once turned over to a third party I assume one could then have them transferred back to the initial owner provided they had their permits/certificates reinstated that would allow them to complete the transfer. Of course what about AW's and LCM's? Under the current wording of the laws governing both of those items they cannot except under certain narrow circumstances transfer those to non exempted class people.

How does it work now? I'd assume there is some kind of existing language or statue that details the restoration of one's confiscated property when the restraining order is rescinded.

You actually want your property RETURNED to you?!?!?!?

We live in a state where they can throw you in jail for a year (mandatory/non-reducible) for not filling out paperwork to satisfy the regime.

I'm actually kind of shocked they haven't pressed for more this year since they know they can enact any law they want with no fear of reprisals.

The state legislature generally only make large leaps in banning/restricting guns when they have a tragedy they can use to harvest and dance in the blood of the victims. They know that there are a good number of Democratic gun owners who if they push too hard will turn against them. Its a delicate balancing act. They know that trying to ban all semiautos as the Sandy Hook Commission recommended will most likely go to far and anger to many voters. There are also some Democratic legislators who when there isn't a tragedy to feed off of tend to come down in the middle or even on the side of gun owners. For many years the usual gun grabbers introduced bills to ban magazines and other things yet until Sandy Hook those bills never made it out of committee. The gun grabbers knew if they broke SB 1160 up into three parts (mental health, schools, guns) and used the normal legislative process that they faced a good chance of not being able to pass their new gun ban. They knew that by lumping everything into one bill and using EC to pass it they could use the raw emotions of Sandy Hook and the media calling out anyone who opposed the bill to get it passed in the dead of night.

Without a tragedy to feed off of the usual gun grabbers in the legislature have returned to nibbling around the edges and passing low hanging fruit like SB 650. They know that SB 650 won't, initially, impact most gun owners, especially Democratic gun owners, and most gun owners will think its a good idea (who doesn't want to remove guns from the hands of potentially dangerous people is what they'll think) because they won't give the bill much critical thought. Most won't care that their guns can now be taken away simply based on the sole word of their angry spouse, angry friend, angry significant other, or even an angry neighbor without any sort of court hearing where they can defend themselves because they don't think it can or will happen to them. They think that TRO's only happen to the other guy, to someone who is a bad person.  They cannot imagine such a law being turned and used on them.

More updates/movement on S.B. 650 today. Looks like they've done some more tweaking with the language in certain portions of the bill, only a few of which are mentioned in this post. It appears they changed the language for police officers from having their ex parte hearing within five days to; "such peace officer may request of the Judicial Branch that the hearing on the application be held as soon as practicable". It appears they also changed the language a bit for how the permit/certificates are to be returned to those who have them revoked. And they appear to have included some new language detailing the return of confiscated items once the restraining order has expired. Note some of the language posted below may be out of context, see the Called Amendment link for full legislative language.

Called Amendments
Senate Schedule A LCO# 7208 [pdf]

Fiscal Notes
Fiscal Note for Amendment LCO 7208  

Bill History
5/14/2015  Referred by Senate to Committee on Appropriations  
5/14/2015  Senate Adopted Senate Amendment Schedule A 7208

"... except that, if the court issues an ex parte order against a respondent who is a peace officer as defined in section 53a-3, such peace officer may request of the Judicial Branch that the hearing on the application be held as soon as practicable. The Judicial Branch shall establish a process to facilitate the scheduling of a hearing on an expedited basis when requested to do so by a peace officer pursuant to this subsection."

"(2) When (A) an application indicates that a respondent holds a permit to carry a pistol or revolver, an eligibility certificate for a pistol or revolver, a long gun eligibility certificate or an ammunition certificate or possesses one or more firearms or ammunition, and (B) the court has issued an ex parte order pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, service of process shall be effectuated by a police officer in lieu of service by a proper officer. When service is to be effectuated by a police officer, the clerk of the court shall send, by facsimile or other means, the application, the applicant's affidavit, the ex parte order and the notice of the hearing to the law enforcement agency, for the town in which the respondent resides, not later than two hours after the issuance of such order. The law enforcement agency shall receive all process directed to such agency. A police officer of the law enforcement agency shall promptly execute such service and make true return thereof. Service of process by a police officer on a respondent shall be in hand. At the time a police officer effectuates service, the respondent shall surrender all pistols, revolvers, other firearms and ammunition owned by, or in the control or possession of, such respondent to the police officer. In the event that pistols, revolvers, other firearms and ammunition cannot be surrendered by the respondent to the police officer at the time service is effectuated because such pistols, revolvers, other firearms and ammunition are at a location other than the location where service is effectuated, the respondent shall, not later than twenty-four hours after the time service is effectuated, transfer, deliver or surrender such pistols, revolvers, other firearms and ammunition in accordance with section 29-36k, as amended by this act. When service is effectuated by a police officer, the information contained in the application or applicant's affidavit shall not alone constitute grounds for arrest under subsection (a) of section 46b-38b. A photographic copy, a micrographic copy or other electronic image that clearly and accurately copies the application, the applicant's affidavit, any ex parte order and the notice of hearing shall be permitted when effectuating service under this section."

"(b) Immediately, but in no event more than twenty-four hours after notice has been provided to a person subject to a restraining or protective order or a foreign order of protection, such person shall (1) transfer any pistol, revolver or other firearm or ammunition that such person then possesses to a federally licensed firearms dealer pursuant to the sale of the pistol, revolver or other firearm or ammunition to the federally licensed firearms dealer, or (2) deliver or surrender such pistols and revolvers and other firearms and ammunition to the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection or a law enforcement agency."

"If a person subject to a restraining or protective order or a foreign order of protection transferred or surrendered pistols and revolvers and other firearms and ammunition to the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection or a law enforcement agency because such person was subject to an order; upon the expiration of such order, such person may notify the commissioner or law enforcement agency that such order has expired. The commissioner or law enforcement agency, upon confirming verification of the expiration of such order and provided such person is not otherwise disqualified from possessing such pistols and revolvers and other firearms and ammunition, shall return to the person such pistols and revolvers and other firearms and ammunition."

"(d) If a state permit or temporary state permit for the carrying of any pistol or revolver is revoked because the person holding such permit is subject to an ex parte order issued pursuant to section 46b-15, as amended by this act, or 46b-16a, upon expiration of such order, such person may notify the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection that such order has expired. Upon verification of such expiration and provided such person is not otherwise disqualified from holding such permit pursuant to subsection (b) of section 29-28, the department shall reinstate such permit. The department's determination not to reinstate any such permit that has been revoked may not be based solely upon the issuance of such expired ex parte order."

"(c) If an eligibility certificate for a pistol or revolver is revoked because the person holding such certificate is subject to an ex parte order issued pursuant to section 46b-15, as amended by this act, or 46b-16a, upon expiration of such order, such person may notify the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection that such order has expired. Upon verification of such expiration and provided such person is not otherwise disqualified from holding such certificate pursuant to section 29-36f, the department shall reinstate such certificate. The department's determination not to reinstate any such certificate that has been revoked may not be based solely upon the issuance of such expired ex parte order."

"(c) If a long gun eligibility certificate is revoked because the person holding such certificate is subject to an ex parte order issued pursuant to section 46b-15, as amended by this act, or 46b-16a, upon expiration of such order, such person may notify the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection that such order has expired. Upon verification of such expiration and provided such person is not otherwise disqualified from holding such certificate pursuant to section 29-37p, the department shall reinstate such certificate. The department's determination not to reinstate any such certificate that has been revoked may not be based solely upon the issuance of such expired ex parte order."

"(c) If an ammunition certificate is revoked because the person holding such certificate is subject to an ex parte order issued pursuant to section 46b-15, as amended by this act, or 46b-16a, upon expiration of such order, such person may notify the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection that such order has expired. Upon verification of such expiration and provided such person is not otherwise disqualified from holding such certificate pursuant to section 29-38n, the department shall reinstate such certificate. The department's determination not to reinstate any such certificate that has been revoked may not be based solely upon the issuance of such expired ex parte order."

S.B. 650 received a "Joint Favorable" from the Committee on Appropriations.

5/18/2015 (APP) Joint Favorable

Edit to add:
5/18/2015 (LCO) Reported Out of Legislative Commissioners' Office  
5/18/2015 (LCO) Filed with Legislative Commissioners' Office

Edit to add: APP Vote Tally Sheet [pdf]

More updates on S.B. 650.

Text of Bill
APP Joint Favorable [pdf]

Bill History
5/19/2015  Favorable Report, Tabled for the Calendar, Senate  
5/19/2015  No New File by Committee on Appropriations

Don't worry... Mao will veto it.

Couple of Uncalled Amendments updates to 650 posted by Sen Markley in the past 24 hours. Read the wording of the Uncalled Amendments carefully.  

Fiscal Note for Amendment LCO 9129
Fiscal Note for Amendment LCO 9128

Senate LCO Amendment #9128 (pdf)

"AN ACT CONCERNING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS. "

Strike everything after the enacting clause and substitute the following in lieu thereof:

"Section 1. (Effective from passage) (a) Sections 29-37a, 29-32b, 29-36l, 29-38b, 54-36e, 17a-500, 53-202g, 53-202aa, 45a-99, 52-11, 53-202a, 53-202b, 53-202c, 53-202d, 53-202f, 53-202i, 53-202l, 29-38c, 29-36k, 29-36n, 46b-15, 46b-38b, 46b-38c, 54-36e, 29-38f, 54-36n, 53-202aa, 53a-212, 53a-217, 53a-217c, 29-32, 29-33, 29-34, 29-36, 53-202g, 29-36g, 29-36i, 29-37j, 29-37i, 52-571g, 53a-217a, 29-28 and 29-36f of the general statutes, revision of 1958, revised to January 1, 2013, as amended by public act 13-3 and public act 13-220, as the case may be, are repealed and said sections, as said sections existed in the general statutes, revision of 1958, revised to January 1, 2013, are substituted in lieu thereof.

(b) Sections 29-37p, 29-37q, 29-37r, 29-37s, 17a-506a, 29-38m, 29-38n, 29-380, 29-38p, 54-280, 54-280a, 54-280b, 53-202w and 53-202x of the general statutes are repealed.

(c) The Legislative Commissioners' Office shall make such technical and conforming changes as necessary to carry out the purposes of this act. "

Senate LCO Amendment #9129 (pdf)

"AN ACT CONCERNING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS. "

After the last section, add the following and renumber sections and internal references accordingly:

"Sec. 501. (Effective from passage) (a) Sections 29-37a, 29-32b, 29-36l, 29-38b, 54-36e, 17a-500, 53-202g, 53-202aa, 45a-99, 52-11, 53-202a, 53-202b, 53-202c, 53-202d, 53-202f, 53-202i, 53-202l, 29-38c, 29-36k, 29-36n, 46b-15, 46b-38b, 46b-38c, 54-36e, 29-38f, 54-36n, 53-202aa, 53a-212, 53a-217, 53a-217c, 29-32, 29-33, 29-34, 29-36, 53-202g, 29-36g, 29-36i, 29-37j, 29-37i, 52-571g, 53a-217a, 29-28 and 29-36f of the general statutes, revision of 1958, revised to January 1, 2013, as amended by public act 13-3 and public act 13-220, as the case may be, are repealed and said sections, as said sections existed in the general statutes, revision of 1958, revised to January 1, 2013, are substituted in lieu thereof.

(b) Sections 29-37p, 29-37q, 29-37r, 29-37s, 17a-506a, 29-38m, 29-38n, 29-380, 29-38p, 54-280, 54-280a, 54-280b, 53-202w and 53-202x of the general statutes are repealed.

(c) The Legislative Commissioners' Office shall make such technical and conforming changes as necessary to carry out the purposes of this act. "

is this prison code?


what exactly is he repealing in general. no need to post exact laws  just a quick sum.

Do they issue Cliff Notes for this gibberish?

Markley is effectively trying to repeal the firearm portions of PA 13-3 and PA 13-220. If these uncalled amendments are actually attached to SB 650 then it will act as a poison pill and will potentially kill the bill.

Some further updates in the last 24 hours on SB 650. It appears there was some sort of Senate vote late last night to approve an amendment (9303) proposed by Sen. Looney. See amendment link for the changes/update text.

Called Amendments
Senate Schedule B LCO# 9303 (pdf)
Senate Schedule C LCO# 9128 (pdf)

Votes
Senate Roll Call Vote 396 ADOPT SENATE AMD B LCO 9303

Fiscal Notes
Fiscal Note for Amendment LCO 9303

Bill History
6/3/2015  Matter Pass Retained  
6/2/2015  Designated Only Senate Amendment Schedule C 9128
6/2/2015  Senate Adopted Senate Amendment Schedule B 9303

Edit to add: Not sure what "matter pass retained" means but this is the state's definition of "pass retained". It appears to be a method of passing over a bill but keeping the bill/amendment active and in its position on the calendar.

PASS RETAIN (PR)
Short for "passed, retaining its place on the calendar." The action of passing over a bill but allowing it to keep its position on the calendar relative to other bills. Bills not pass retained fall into the bottom of the calendar. In practice PR'd bills are held until the next session day.

While we shouldn't get our hope up or count chickens before they hatch. Both CCLD and CAGV's Pinciaro feel that SB 650 won't be voted upon in time when this year's legislative session ends at midnight tonight.

SB650 – Quick Update

"This is just a passed temporarily on the agenda. It is not a passing of the bill. The bill is still on the senate agenda but passed by temporarily. They can come back to it but with a deadline so close we think that is unlikely to happen. But IF this bill was to be called again in this session it would still need to be called in the senate and senator Markley would continue with his summation of his amendment."

From a CAGV email:

"So, effectively, SB 650 is dead for now.  Anything can happen later today, but I'd have to bet that this is where it ends."

I was almost expecting the democrats to fail the budget so they can run a special session as a way of getting 650 voted on.

Heard a rumor that the Sunday hunting bill passed both houses.
Bowhunting on private land on Sundays.
Now up to the cocksucker to sign it.

Can't seem to find anything online yet

hope so

What passed was H.B. No. 6034 which authorizes hunting deer with bow and arrow on private property.
AN ACT AUTHORIZING BOW AND ARROW HUNTING ON CERTAIN PRIVATE PROPERTY ON SUNDAYS.
See passed bill's text at this link.

 

So when pulled over we must show permit now?

I'm guessing if they ask to see it, ie they sort of reference the West haven guy at the bottom.

On the showing the permit thing, while the statute's previously didn't mandate one show the permit as the State's court challenge of the BFPE ruling in the West Haven Lazurak case showed the court basically said the officer has wide latitude when investigating (ie investigating when they get a man with a gun call) and failure to show one's permit can be considered interfering with an investigation/interfering with an officer. All this law is doing is codifying the separate court ruling into law.

The actual text from the updated statute new language is in blue/underline: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/FC/2015HB-07027-R000923-FC.htm

Sec. 2. Subsection (b) of section 29-35 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective October 1, 2015):

(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.

Edit to add: Looks like the language is specifically aimed at open carriers with the use of the following language; "provided such holder is carrying a pistol or revolver that is observed by such law enforcement officer". Not clear how this statute would affect conceal carriers where their firearm is NOT observed by the officer.

If enacted by Malloy, the updated statue would go into effect on October 1, 2015.

What about the "who has reasonable suspicion of a crime"..... part of the passage. Unlike most of the gibberish, this seems pretty clear.

Since when is simply OC'ing a crime?

its not, they want to make it available for law enforcement to use that language as frugally as they can to harass gun owners .

When someone makes a man with a gun call...

OK here's the deal, not that it is right or wrong. The law states one who carries is supposed to have a valid pistol permit on them. If the police receive a call about someone carrying a handgun in public, how can they ensure the person carrying is following the law by having a valid pistol permit on them? It presents a catch 22 for the officer. They have to investigate the call and in order to find out if the person carrying is following the law they have to ask to see the permit. But if the person carrying refuses present their permit then how does the officer know the law is being following? In the State v BFPE over the Lazurek open carry incident the court flat out stated the police have wide latitude to conduct an investigation and that refusing to show your permit to the officer conducting that investigation amounts to interfering with a police officer (a crime). This update to the statue simply codifies what the courts have indicated.

As I have stated in previous postings; even though the state laws didn't have specific language about OC, or requiring the showing of your permit, if people keep poking the bear, the state will react.

Since our "Right" to carry, has been turned into a privilege by the permit laws, the state will do what it can to regulate it.  Since you need a permit to carry, the "reasonable suspicion" that a crime is being committed, is the fact that you are carrying a sidearm.

I have no dog in this fight, since I am not a fan of OC, and would have no issue with showing my permit to LEO.  However, if people keep rubbing the state's nose in the OC thing, they WILL react (like they did here).  I don't want to wind up like other states, where CC is the law, and a good gust of wind blowing open you coat can get you arrested.

there should not be a permit system

Ideally, of course there shouldn't be a permit required to exercise one's right. Unfortunately this isn't an ideal world and the permit system exists. People have become conditioned to believe that the permitting system to buy and carry firearms makes them safer. Yet there are several states with constitutional carry that don't seem to have problems...

OCing is not poking the bear. Being confrontational with police is poking the bear. In fact most gun owners in this state don't know OC is legal, simply because very few people do it. We are our own worst enemy. I OC when my pants don't allow or its hot as fuck. As I said in another thread, the first time I met this cop who is now my buddy, he noticed and mentioned he loves responsibly armed citizens. They we played you show me yours I'll show you mine . Being well dressed and non-confrontational goes a long way.


 

ETA: Honestly a right not exercised is a right that doesn't exist. Say all you want about the Texas OC tards, and yeah that was a lot of bad press, but it brought the discussion into public. Not the way to go about it, but if people are not exposed to it, they fear/do not understand it. Don't shove shit in peoples faces, but exposure therapy is a real thing.

No kidding . There is no "poking the bear" here so long as one isn't OC'ing for the sole purpose of causing alarm or to purposefully try to get arrested. This is along the same lines as telling someone like Rosa Parks, don't sit in the front of the bus because your poking the bear. The issue is how to get the public accustom and accepting of people carrying around them. Most have no clue how many around them carry, or that even carrying in public is legal. In some of the cases when people were stopped by police for carrying the initial call was made because the complainant didn't think carrying in public was legal. As such it wasn't the method of carry that is at issue its the gun itself. People were afraid of the gun. Only way to fix that fear is for people to learn that most who carry around them every day are not a threat, that a gun is just another safety tool. Rather tough to acclimate the masses if one hides their gun from public view.

Exactly.

 

Apparently the legislature will hold a special session to pass some bills they couldn't get to yesterday. Unknown if it will include SB 650.
http://ctmirror.org/2015/06/04/a-second-chance-for-second-chance-in-special-session/

I understand that part but as a "pick up the can" state, why not just re-write the law as "Permit must be showed upon request". The stipulation about RS of a crime seems odd to me.

When someone makes a "man with a gun" call, the police may choose to go and investigate. So they show up and say they watch me carrying a properly holstered pistol shopping for food. There is no RS in this case for them to use. It would be the same as me calling the police in Avon and reporting "A black man with a backpack walking down my street".

I see the point but why not just make the law explicit, "Show me your papers, now." We already are in occupied territory.

The entire added sentence initially seemed odd to me. Not only the stipulation about RAS but also needing to see one carrying in addition to RAS.

None of this matters though once and if the updated statute gets implemented. It will simply introduce one more gun control law, one that is somewhat vague or confusing to some. It will be interesting to see what the circumstances end up being for those who are actually charged for violating the new language.