Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 3/12/2011 1:03:37 PM EST
My father in law just took his pistol permit class in New Milford Ct today and we were talking about the class and he mentioned that the instructor said it was legal to open carry, I had heard a little about it in an early post possibly but didn't pay much mind. The question has anyone tried to exercise this right or have seen anyone open carrying. I have not. The instructor suggested not to open carry as it mat be asking for trouble. What do you guys or gals think.
Link Posted: 3/12/2011 2:04:54 PM EST
doesnt say anywhere that you can open carry in CT.
That being said open carry is dumb tactically.
And I dont want to deal with people that dont know any better.
Link Posted: 3/12/2011 2:15:24 PM EST
Basically it's asking for trouble from sheeple and police, but technically legal.
Link Posted: 3/12/2011 2:41:14 PM EST
[Last Edit: 3/12/2011 3:06:12 PM EST by DanTSX]

Originally Posted By skeeters65:
doesnt say anywhere that you can open carry in CT.
That being said open carry is dumb tactically.
And I dont want to deal with people that dont know any better.

This is pretty much it.

Wish there was some protection against printing or accidentally showing.

Link Posted: 3/12/2011 3:09:51 PM EST
In a nutshell there is NO law that says you cannot OC. The CT pistol permit says permit to carry and nothing about being concealed.

However, there was the guy who printed or accidently flashed his piece at the take-out area of some restaurant. He was met by a full on police response. Luckily that person had money and went to court where he was basically found not guilty of breach of peace.

If you OC expect to be put on the ground at gun point and have your license yanked.
Link Posted: 3/12/2011 3:22:39 PM EST
[Last Edit: 3/12/2011 3:41:22 PM EST by sbhaven]
Originally Posted By jas24:
My father in law just took his pistol permit class in New Milford Ct today and we were talking about the class and he mentioned that the instructor said it was legal to open carry, I had heard a little about it in an early post possibly but didn't pay much mind. The question has anyone tried to exercise this right or have seen anyone open carrying. I have not. The instructor suggested not to open carry as it mat be asking for trouble. What do you guys or gals think.

If one looks at their pistol permit it does not specify method of carry. People just assume that you cannot open carry here. There a dedicated open carry CT forum over at opencarry.org where you can read about the experiences of those who have open carried. Some have no issues, others have had a few run in's with police.

People like to say there is a tactical disadvantage to open carry. Some like to claim that you will be the first one shot by the criminal if you OC. Some claim that those who open carry give gun owners a bad name. Or that people that open carry are pushing the limits and are just begging to get arrested. There are good arguments to be made on both sides of the OC debate. I have yet to read a story about someone who OC'd being the first shot during a hold up. There is at least one instance where people who were open carrying deterred a robbery at a GA Wafflehouse last year. Its a personal choice on how to carry. What works for you may not work for others.

If you want to open carry feel free, just be warned that someone may think your breaking the law and call LEOs down upon you and they may possibly arrest you for Breach of Peace. You may want to print out the "Carry Documents" from the Connecticut Citizens Defense League web site if you plan to open carry.

ETA: What's funny is that in New Britain you are in violation of a local ordinance (16-80) if you conceal carry. And apparently New London also has a local ordinance (14-11) that prohibits conceal carry.
Link Posted: 3/12/2011 11:55:45 PM EST
[Last Edit: 3/13/2011 12:05:41 AM EST by emsjeep]
Originally Posted By Blackhawk101:
In a nutshell there is NO law that says you cannot OC. The CT pistol permit says permit to carry and nothing about being concealed.

However, there was the guy who printed or accidently flashed his piece at the take-out area of some restaurant. He was met by a full on police response. Luckily that person had money and went to court where he was basically found not guilty of breach of peace.

If you OC expect to be put on the ground at gun point and have your license yanked.


He wasn't found not guilty, they declined to prosecute him. The civil suit is ongoing in Federal Court, and your last sentence is ludicrous.


Link Posted: 3/13/2011 12:05:52 AM EST
Originally Posted By skeeters65:
doesnt say anywhere that you can open carry in CT.
That being said open carry is dumb tactically.
And I dont want to deal with people that dont know any better.


Show me the law that says I'm allowed to pee standing up, or how about the one that says I can drink cream soda on a Sunday while addressing ridiculous assertions on ARFcom...no? Can't find them? Well I guess I better shut up.



Originally Posted By Remyrw:
Basically it's asking for trouble from sheeple and police, but technically legal.


All I hear is baaaaahhhh, baaaaahhhh, baaaaaahhhhh, from the people complaining about the herd.
Link Posted: 3/13/2011 12:35:07 AM EST
Originally Posted By emsjeep:
Originally Posted By Blackhawk101:
In a nutshell there is NO law that says you cannot OC. The CT pistol permit says permit to carry and nothing about being concealed.

However, there was the guy who printed or accidently flashed his piece at the take-out area of some restaurant. He was met by a full on police response. Luckily that person had money and went to court where he was basically found not guilty of breach of peace.

If you OC expect to be put on the ground at gun point and have your license yanked.


He wasn't found not guilty, they declined to prosecute him. The civil suit is ongoing in Federal Court, and your last sentence is ludicrous.




Explain your last sentence oh great commenter from the great communist state of NY.
Link Posted: 3/13/2011 6:19:08 AM EST
There has been a proposed bill circulating in the State House that would BAN open carry and make "Printing" a stiff penalty. Ban news in my opinion. I fear that the Open Carry advocates have stuck the proverbial 'stick in a hornet's nest'.


http://www.ctgunrights.com/03.Political/2011/2011.Conceal.Carry.Proposed.Legislation.Yellow.pdf

Currently if you exercise discretion and keep it covered you can't be charged with a Felony if it accidentally is exposed.
Link Posted: 3/13/2011 7:12:45 AM EST
Originally Posted By Blaster3094:
I fear that the Open Carry advocates have stuck the proverbial 'stick in a hornet's nest'.

How so? They are not breaking any laws, are they? Is not the firearm still there whether one chooses to carry open or carry concealed?
Link Posted: 3/13/2011 7:53:02 AM EST
Prior to the Hartford OC Rally there was no real clarification. POST training for years advised arrest & permit seizure...A policy letter from DPS came out advising that it was "ok" in and of itself. That's the readers digest version....

My .02: OC has not had widespread news coverage in CT and will result in a police response...at a minimum. If you want to go that route, have at it.
Link Posted: 3/13/2011 8:40:32 AM EST
It maybe technically legal but why bring all that attention to yourself. I've occasionally seen imprinting everywhere you go whether it's ignorance or just a newbie that probably just got the permit and chooses to carry a weapon without taking into consideration their size compared to the pistol/revolver they carry.

For all those that feel it's their right to carry "open" PLEASE take a handgun retention course and practice, practice, practice. Oh and lose the top snap holsters get yourselves a "secure" holster.
Link Posted: 3/13/2011 9:01:33 AM EST
The New London City Ordinance states that you can't carry a weapon without the permission of the City Council. This used to be covered by your permit, since your initial permit used to be the local permit issued by your local police chief, who was an agent of sorts for the City Council.

Now that the initial permit isn't a local permit, there's a loophole that everyone ignores. No one ever gets charged on it.
Link Posted: 3/13/2011 2:58:19 PM EST

Originally Posted By Hyperbaric:
The New London City Ordinance states that you can't carry a weapon without the permission of the City Council. This used to be covered by your permit, since your initial permit used to be the local permit issued by your local police chief, who was an agent of sorts for the City Council.

Now that the initial permit isn't a local permit, there's a loophole that everyone ignores. No one ever gets charged on it.
New Britain has this as well. Hartford City Parks are supposed to be CCW-free.

Link Posted: 3/13/2011 2:59:07 PM EST
[Last Edit: 3/13/2011 3:12:15 PM EST by DanTSX]

Originally Posted By emsjeep:
Originally Posted By skeeters65:
doesnt say anywhere that you can open carry in CT.
That being said open carry is dumb tactically.
And I dont want to deal with people that dont know any better.


Show me the law that says I'm allowed to pee standing up, or how about the one that says I can drink cream soda on a Sunday while addressing ridiculous assertions on ARFcom...no? Can't find them? Well I guess I better shut up.



Originally Posted By Remyrw:
Basically it's asking for trouble from sheeple and police, but technically legal.


All I hear is baaaaahhhh, baaaaahhhh, baaaaaahhhhh, from the people complaining about the herd.

WTF!?! This isn't some civi Vs JBT thread!

Seriously man, there is no reason to get defensive and shoot your mouth off over this.

Link Posted: 3/13/2011 6:19:36 PM EST
I know of one personally who got busted at a restaurant for open carry. He was sitting in a Wallingford restaurant with a lap top and someone complained. They pull his permit and took his gun. He went to court and the charges dropped. OC is legal but sheepies will call police that you are frightening them. Most police will charge you with some charge to satisfy the sheep. Also business owners can call and say your not allowed in the store or on my property.

I don't have the energy to open carry. I don't worry when I see it, as I got mine too.

An armed society is a polite society.

I know of another who got busted for printing in a Waterbury restaurant. He had to go to a hearing at the public safety office and after he appeared there and said his piece, he left with his gun and permit.

The cops may not know the laws and if someone complains, your getting a time out. Life sucks around sheep.
Link Posted: 3/13/2011 6:37:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By Hyperbaric:
The New London City Ordinance states that you can't carry a weapon without the permission of the City Council. This used to be covered by your permit, since your initial permit used to be the local permit issued by your local police chief, who was an agent of sorts for the City Council.

Now that the initial permit isn't a local permit, there's a loophole that everyone ignores. No one ever gets charged on it.

As of lately, you might not leave alive if you're not carrying in New London.
Link Posted: 3/13/2011 7:18:56 PM EST
Originally Posted By Blackhawk101:
Originally Posted By emsjeep:
Originally Posted By Blackhawk101:
In a nutshell there is NO law that says you cannot OC. The CT pistol permit says permit to carry and nothing about being concealed.

However, there was the guy who printed or accidently flashed his piece at the take-out area of some restaurant. He was met by a full on police response. Luckily that person had money and went to court where he was basically found not guilty of breach of peace.

If you OC expect to be put on the ground at gun point and have your license yanked.


He wasn't found not guilty, they declined to prosecute him. The civil suit is ongoing in Federal Court, and your last sentence is ludicrous.




Explain your last sentence oh great commenter from the great communist state of NY.


I spend about 80% of my time in CT and have a home here....do you have any real arguments or do you have some more BS I need to address before you feel compelled to make constructive comments?

Last I heard the civil suit regarding the man who was OC'ing is being appealed to the 2d. Cir. I know of no evidence that supports your blind assertion that when you OC you will be drawn on and proned out on a regular basis and be subject to license revocation. RichB (over at CTguntalk or OCDO) for example, has had a number of encounters, and none to my knowledge have involved him being drawn on, and last time I checked he still had his license. What you state is a possibility even in extremely OC friendly states, and I see no evidence to support the claim that it should be an expectation of any OC'er in this state. You made the claim, you back it up with a couple of solid examples.
Link Posted: 3/13/2011 7:28:59 PM EST
Originally Posted By DanTSX:

Originally Posted By emsjeep:
Originally Posted By skeeters65:
doesnt say anywhere that you can open carry in CT.
That being said open carry is dumb tactically.
And I dont want to deal with people that dont know any better.


Show me the law that says I'm allowed to pee standing up, or how about the one that says I can drink cream soda on a Sunday while addressing ridiculous assertions on ARFcom...no? Can't find them? Well I guess I better shut up.



Originally Posted By Remyrw:
Basically it's asking for trouble from sheeple and police, but technically legal.


All I hear is baaaaahhhh, baaaaahhhh, baaaaaahhhhh, from the people complaining about the herd.

WTF!?! This isn't some civi Vs JBT thread!

Seriously man, there is no reason to get defensive and shoot your mouth off over this.


Everyone likes to whine about the mass movements of the sheeple but they are ever so unwilling to break from the herd and assert their rights...and not only are they unwilling, which is a personal choice, but they actively discourage others. Before you claim that they are giving people fair warning, all I see here is dramatic hyperbole unsupported by facts or personal experience, it is one sided scare tactic and agenda driven FUD propagated by people who offer no basis for their unsubstantiated claims. My goal is to inform people where I can and allow them to make their own decisions based on the evidence and honest assessments of reality. I will be the first to admit that OC carries some risks, limitations and responsibilities; but characterizing the situation as one which invites certain violent police interaction and license revocation is irresponsible and dishonest.

Link Posted: 3/14/2011 4:33:50 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/14/2011 4:42:11 AM EST by DanTSX]

Originally Posted By emsjeep:
Originally Posted By DanTSX:

Originally Posted By emsjeep:
Originally Posted By skeeters65:
doesnt say anywhere that you can open carry in CT.
That being said open carry is dumb tactically.
And I dont want to deal with people that dont know any better.


Show me the law that says I'm allowed to pee standing up, or how about the one that says I can drink cream soda on a Sunday while addressing ridiculous assertions on ARFcom...no? Can't find them? Well I guess I better shut up.



Originally Posted By Remyrw:
Basically it's asking for trouble from sheeple and police, but technically legal.


All I hear is baaaaahhhh, baaaaahhhh, baaaaaahhhhh, from the people complaining about the herd.

WTF!?! This isn't some civi Vs JBT thread!

Seriously man, there is no reason to get defensive and shoot your mouth off over this.


Everyone likes to whine about the mass movements of the sheeple but they are ever so unwilling to break from the herd and assert their rights...and not only are they unwilling, which is a personal choice, but they actively discourage others. Before you claim that they are giving people fair warning, all I see here is dramatic hyperbole unsupported by facts or personal experience, it is one sided scare tactic and agenda driven FUD propagated by people who offer no basis for their unsubstantiated claims. My goal is to inform people where I can and allow them to make their own decisions based on the evidence and honest assessments of reality. I will be the first to admit that OC carries some risks, limitations and responsibilities; but characterizing the situation as one which invites certain violent police interaction and license revocation is irresponsible and dishonest.


Thanks for rationally explaining yourself.

Ok I can agree with the herd and hyperbole sentiment 100%. However, the sentiment is that citizens will invariably overreact at spotting OC. The police will probably act out of caution and ignorance rather than actual overreaction. I agree, nobody has been tasered for legally OC'ing. On the other hand, most CCW and OC'ers are fairly rational folks and will be civil if approached by LE. Keep in mind that any police questioning over any civil right is generally not well received. Also, it has been proven in this state that if you assert your rights by OC'ing in areas where OC'ing would be considered uncommon, that you may very well be defending your rights via court or board hearing.

On the other hand, consider that OC'ing is so uncommon in this state that most of the unwashed masses will generally assume that anyone OC'ing is a cop anyways. Strange how that works out. Some clean-cut looking felon could carry a beretta on a drop-leg all day long at the mall and not raise a question if he was wearing 5.11 pans, had a crewcut, and a mustache.

The problem is part ignorance and part fear on the sides of gun owners as well as the public at large, and the police are once again, caught in the middle. Most CCW'ers have nothing to gain by OC'ing, so they don't. But CCW'ers should support OC'ers regardless of the OC'ers justification for OC'ing as it is an important right to assert. Ultimately it comes down to education. We are doing our part but the public is happy to put their fingers in their ears and continue to tremble and shit themselves at the thought of firearms living outside of a 800lb safe.
Link Posted: 3/14/2011 5:19:41 AM EST
Allow me to drop my 2 cents into this entire argument. I'm and instructor here in CT and have held my permit for many years. The question of open carry comes up time and time again. It is 100% accurate that the convoluted Connecticut laws do not exclude “open carry” nor even mentions “concealed carry” so the students always have a discussion about the ability to OC. I used to feel that it was a case of "lose what you don't use" and that we Connecticut residents lost the ability to OC by not OC’ing all the time and eventually society became super-sensitized to seeing a handgun in a holster on the hip of a civilian who did OC.

I don't think that any more.

Frankly, I can not find any proof that pistol owning Connecticut residents EVER open carried....at least not on a regular basis. I have never seen a photo of ANY resident from the past with a holster on and it really stands to reason if you think about. By the start of the 20th century the really settled old states like Connecticut and Massachusetts were at the forefront of civility and gentlemen wore waistcoats and blazers year round. They didn't walk around in sweatshirts and t-shirts like most guys do today, especially in the summer. So, if they did carry a handgun you didn't see antique pistol owners with open carry but, rather, they always concealed carry if due to no other reason to their fashion of dress at the time. Vest pocket pistols were popular, too. Now move forward to more modern times.

I was born in the early 1950s. I can clearly remember the first person with a holster on his belt and that was in a shop that my father frequented. The shop owner open carried legally........as they can do today, too. But I cannot recall EVER seeing a civilian with an open carry holster growing up. Nor do I ever remember hearing about anyone having an open carry confrontation as a youth and I was closely involved with our local Police Department. We started the second Police Explorer's Post in the USA and the first East of the Mississippi.

So, to put this into a nutshell, Connecticut civilian residents NEVER OC’d in the past as far as I can determine. They simply never thought about it. When the State of Connecticut finally began to “regulate” the ownership of handguns and require citizens to obtain permits to buy handguns, the discussion of “open carry” or “concealed carry” were not included because it was simply “assumed” that citizens would carry as they always carried and that was………concealed.

We may be making a mountain out of a molehill here, trying to resurrect something that never existed in the first place…..at least here in CT. Of course we could all go back to wearing suit-coats everywhere we go!

Rome
Link Posted: 3/14/2011 1:48:41 PM EST
Originally Posted By Cabinetman:
Allow me to drop my 2 cents into this entire argument. I'm and instructor here in CT and have held my permit for many years. The question of open carry comes up time and time again. It is 100% accurate that the convoluted Connecticut laws do not exclude “open carry” nor even mentions “concealed carry” so the students always have a discussion about the ability to OC. I used to feel that it was a case of "lose what you don't use" and that we Connecticut residents lost the ability to OC by not OC’ing all the time and eventually society became super-sensitized to seeing a handgun in a holster on the hip of a civilian who did OC.

I don't think that any more.

Frankly, I can not find any proof that pistol owning Connecticut residents EVER open carried....at least not on a regular basis. I have never seen a photo of ANY resident from the past with a holster on and it really stands to reason if you think about. By the start of the 20th century the really settled old states like Connecticut and Massachusetts were at the forefront of civility and gentlemen wore waistcoats and blazers year round. They didn't walk around in sweatshirts and t-shirts like most guys do today, especially in the summer. So, if they did carry a handgun you didn't see antique pistol owners with open carry but, rather, they always concealed carry if due to no other reason to their fashion of dress at the time. Vest pocket pistols were popular, too. Now move forward to more modern times.

I was born in the early 1950s. I can clearly remember the first person with a holster on his belt and that was in a shop that my father frequented. The shop owner open carried legally........as they can do today, too. But I cannot recall EVER seeing a civilian with an open carry holster growing up. Nor do I ever remember hearing about anyone having an open carry confrontation as a youth and I was closely involved with our local Police Department. We started the second Police Explorer's Post in the USA and the first East of the Mississippi.

So, to put this into a nutshell, Connecticut civilian residents NEVER OC’d in the past as far as I can determine. They simply never thought about it. When the State of Connecticut finally began to “regulate” the ownership of handguns and require citizens to obtain permits to buy handguns, the discussion of “open carry” or “concealed carry” were not included because it was simply “assumed” that citizens would carry as they always carried and that was………concealed.

We may be making a mountain out of a molehill here, trying to resurrect something that never existed in the first place…..at least here in CT. Of course we could all go back to wearing suit-coats everywhere we go!

Rome


The history in New York is interesting as well. As it is unsettled OC territory, my time spent researching has been spent on NY material. Anyway, New York first banned concealed carry but permitted unlicensed open carry so that men who engaged in sudden quarrels could know whether their opponent was armed or not and proceed or break off the encounter accordingly. New York then went on to license mere possession and things have gone downhill since. Until relatively recently in the whole scheme of things much of Long Island, along with upstate areas was primarily agricultural and so there is a very strange mix of circumstances just over the border from permissive OC up state to possession denied in NYC.
Link Posted: 3/14/2011 3:38:59 PM EST
This ain't Arizona, OC at your own risk.

things not to do while OC

-go to the bar
-go to the abortion clinic
-go to the PD and ask if it's legal
-get in a domestic
-try to punk out your neighbor over the property line

All will likely end poorly. The current doctrine is that it is a GO "in and of itself". If the firearm somehow plays a supporting role in a separate violation/allegation you will likely be minus a pistol & a permit. In other words, your mere presence with a firearm isn't an issue.
Link Posted: 3/14/2011 3:57:46 PM EST
Don't forget to OC in a bank just before you OC at the police dept.

If I had a decent holster I would OC in my hometown (out in the sticks, less than 5k pop) but for the time being I don't worry if I expose the grips, even if I am working in Manchester.
Link Posted: 3/14/2011 4:06:01 PM EST

Originally Posted By Cabinetman:
Allow me to drop my 2 cents into this entire argument. I'm and instructor here in CT and have held my permit for many years. The question of open carry comes up time and time again. It is 100% accurate that the convoluted Connecticut laws do not exclude "open carry” nor even mentions "concealed carry” so the students always have a discussion about the ability to OC. I used to feel that it was a case of "lose what you don't use" and that we Connecticut residents lost the ability to OC by not OC’ing all the time and eventually society became super-sensitized to seeing a handgun in a holster on the hip of a civilian who did OC.

I don't think that any more.

Frankly, I can not find any proof that pistol owning Connecticut residents EVER open carried....at least not on a regular basis. I have never seen a photo of ANY resident from the past with a holster on and it really stands to reason if you think about. By the start of the 20th century the really settled old states like Connecticut and Massachusetts were at the forefront of civility and gentlemen wore waistcoats and blazers year round. They didn't walk around in sweatshirts and t-shirts like most guys do today, especially in the summer. So, if they did carry a handgun you didn't see antique pistol owners with open carry but, rather, they always concealed carry if due to no other reason to their fashion of dress at the time. Vest pocket pistols were popular, too. Now move forward to more modern times.

I was born in the early 1950s. I can clearly remember the first person with a holster on his belt and that was in a shop that my father frequented. The shop owner open carried legally........as they can do today, too. But I cannot recall EVER seeing a civilian with an open carry holster growing up. Nor do I ever remember hearing about anyone having an open carry confrontation as a youth and I was closely involved with our local Police Department. We started the second Police Explorer's Post in the USA and the first East of the Mississippi.

So, to put this into a nutshell, Connecticut civilian residents NEVER OC’d in the past as far as I can determine. They simply never thought about it. When the State of Connecticut finally began to "regulate” the ownership of handguns and require citizens to obtain permits to buy handguns, the discussion of "open carry” or "concealed carry” were not included because it was simply "assumed” that citizens would carry as they always carried and that was………concealed.

We may be making a mountain out of a molehill here, trying to resurrect something that never existed in the first place…..at least here in CT. Of course we could all go back to wearing suit-coats everywhere we go!

Rome

This is a good point. Despite the allegedly fond memoirs of many taking their hunting rifles to school in their pickup and no one thinking the worse of it, carrying handguns was much less common back then. I don't know where some folks get the idea that we wore our guns and spurs `a-janglin back in the day. Firearms ownership and 2A discussions focused more on hunting and sport than self-defense or tyranny.


Link Posted: 3/14/2011 4:13:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 3/14/2011 4:21:37 PM EST by jkm]
-rural area, going about your business...prob no issue, at worst brief intrusion
-you look like charles manson, smell, are carrying a hi-point in waistband and begin quoting statutes....may have a bad day
-wearing a black trenchcoat outside your school w/12 gauge hanging from shoulder.....will have bad day
-strapping AR renegade at political rally.....will have bad night



-carrying in a usually sterile area w/camcorder, repeating "...am I being detained?" .....you are a douche manufacturing drama for an agenda that 95% of the populace could give a rat's ass about

....although I support your right, I think anyone "creating" situations is a fool. I do not need a Tackleberry being my spokeperson.

Link Posted: 3/14/2011 6:32:11 PM EST
Originally Posted By DanTSX:
Firearms ownership and 2A discussions focused more on hunting and sport than self-defense or tyranny.




Self-defense in the home or while traveling was a given though. Now we have certain jurisdictions that make it difficult to obtain or impractical to field a serviceable HD shotgun in a reasonable amount of time. The fact remains that America has been or has been in danger of being invaded by organized armies in the past and personal ownership of arms has been important in securing and maintaining our country. Our founding documents acknowledge and protect our right to violent revolution; however far we have come in almost 250 years we are still and always have been a society founded on violent revolution. In the past, people were allowed to do what was necessary to ensure their own safety, they didn't have to worry about whether Grandpa's shotgun was going to make them a violent felon next year, now we are struggling to maintain our more basic rights and hunting and target shooting are afterthoughts.
Link Posted: 3/15/2011 12:33:12 AM EST
I need to put on an old Stetson cowboy hat with one of them long hanging cowboy holsters hanging off my hip and go for a walk downtown. I bet I won't get 1 block before cornered by police.
Link Posted: 3/15/2011 4:48:54 AM EST
Me personally, I would not like to advertise what I have on me. That is just my personal opinion. If / When I carry, it will be out of sight, and yes, out of other peoples mind.

With all the Anit-Gun people out there, I would not like to draw attention to myself unless necessary.
Link Posted: 3/15/2011 7:31:59 AM EST
The discussion of this came up on facebook, and someone I know mentioned that he has open carried in Stratford Town Hall on multiple occasions without an issue.

I don't have a problem with it, and would like the option of open carrying if I want to.
Link Posted: 3/15/2011 10:18:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By sbhaven:
Originally Posted By Blaster3094:
I fear that the Open Carry advocates have stuck the proverbial 'stick in a hornet's nest'.

How so? They are not breaking any laws, are they? Is not the firearm still there whether one chooses to carry open or carry concealed?


I think the poster above you was referring to the fact that DPS stated in their legislative proposal that recent open carry activism that is fueling DPS's desire for legislation to require concealed carry. No matter how you feel about open carry, it's pretty clear based on the snippet/attachment below that DPS feels that now open carry activists are operating within a "loophole" (anti-gun favorite word) that should be closed.

My general concern has always been that mandating concealed carry will put a bounty on the heads of those who mistakenly print a concealed firearm.


http://www.ctgunrights.com/03.Political/2011/2011.Conceal.Carry.Proposed.Legislation.Yellow.pdf

Reason for Proposal (Include significant policy and programmatic impacts)
Connecticut's firearms carry laws are vague in language as it pertains to carrying a pistol or revolver concealed. Recently, citizens have taken it upon themselves to test our statutes by carrying openly. In doing so, several arrests have been made under the Breach of Peace statues C.G.S. 53a-181, with those dispositions ending in nolle's or dismissal, proving that these laws are inadequate in their detail. It is clear that there is a necessity for a concealed firearm law with more detail or, consequently, Connecticut may end up being a state where they carry exposed at all times as decided by case law.

Link Posted: 3/15/2011 11:15:56 AM EST
Originally Posted By rgaper:

Originally Posted By sbhaven:
Originally Posted By Blaster3094:
I fear that the Open Carry advocates have stuck the proverbial 'stick in a hornet's nest'.

How so? They are not breaking any laws, are they? Is not the firearm still there whether one chooses to carry open or carry concealed?


I think the poster above you was referring to the fact that DPS stated in their legislative proposal that recent open carry activism that is fueling DPS's desire for legislation to require concealed carry. No matter how you feel about open carry, it's pretty clear based on the snippet/attachment below that DPS feels that now open carry activists are operating within a "loophole" (anti-gun favorite word) that should be closed.

My general concern has always been that mandating concealed carry will put a bounty on the heads of those who mistakenly print a concealed firearm.


http://www.ctgunrights.com/03.Political/2011/2011.Conceal.Carry.Proposed.Legislation.Yellow.pdf

Reason for Proposal (Include significant policy and programmatic impacts)
Connecticut's firearms carry laws are vague in language as it pertains to carrying a pistol or revolver concealed. Recently, citizens have taken it upon themselves to test our statutes by carrying openly. In doing so, several arrests have been made under the Breach of Peace statues C.G.S. 53a-181, with those dispositions ending in nolle's or dismissal, proving that these laws are inadequate in their detail. It is clear that there is a necessity for a concealed firearm law with more detail or, consequently, Connecticut may end up being a state where they carry exposed at all times as decided by case law.



I hate that term, loophole. Laws are made specifically to make something illegal. If there is no law against it, it's not illegal, and is not a loophole. If they want to make it illegal, that's fine, but printing or accidental exposure should not be outlawed.
Link Posted: 3/15/2011 1:53:36 PM EST
[Last Edit: 3/15/2011 1:54:33 PM EST by emsjeep]
Originally Posted By rgaper:

Originally Posted By sbhaven:
Originally Posted By Blaster3094:
I fear that the Open Carry advocates have stuck the proverbial 'stick in a hornet's nest'.

How so? They are not breaking any laws, are they? Is not the firearm still there whether one chooses to carry open or carry concealed?


I think the poster above you was referring to the fact that DPS stated in their legislative proposal that recent open carry activism that is fueling DPS's desire for legislation to require concealed carry. No matter how you feel about open carry, it's pretty clear based on the snippet/attachment below that DPS feels that now open carry activists are operating within a "loophole" (anti-gun favorite word) that should be closed.

My general concern has always been that mandating concealed carry will put a bounty on the heads of those who mistakenly print a concealed firearm.


http://www.ctgunrights.com/03.Political/2011/2011.Conceal.Carry.Proposed.Legislation.Yellow.pdf

Reason for Proposal (Include significant policy and programmatic impacts)
Connecticut's firearms carry laws are vague in language as it pertains to carrying a pistol or revolver concealed. Recently, citizens have taken it upon themselves to test our statutes by carrying openly. In doing so, several arrests have been made under the Breach of Peace statues C.G.S. 53a-181, with those dispositions ending in nolle's or dismissal, proving that these laws are inadequate in their detail. It is clear that there is a necessity for a concealed firearm law with more detail or, consequently, Connecticut may end up being a state where they carry exposed at all times as decided by case law.



Regardless of what that says, they were going after people accidentally showing or printing outside of purposeful OC. Goldberg is the one salient example of this. So what's the choice? Be treated like you are doing something illegal and be forced through the courts or have them implement a new law and be treated the same way? If I'm going to be arrested for doing something anyway, they might as well make it illegal so that people are on notice. In fact, the OC'ers out there, people who have been talking to the media and government and local PDs and getting the word out, have put protections in place so that people who accidentally uncover or print are less likely to face an interaction with uninformed police.
Link Posted: 3/15/2011 2:46:27 PM EST
[Last Edit: 3/15/2011 2:48:40 PM EST by sbhaven]
Originally Posted By rgaper:

Originally Posted By sbhaven:
Originally Posted By Blaster3094:
I fear that the Open Carry advocates have stuck the proverbial 'stick in a hornet's nest'.

How so? They are not breaking any laws, are they? Is not the firearm still there whether one chooses to carry open or carry concealed?


I think the poster above you was referring to the fact that DPS stated in their legislative proposal that recent open carry activism that is fueling DPS's desire for legislation to require concealed carry. No matter how you feel about open carry, it's pretty clear based on the snippet/attachment below that DPS feels that now open carry activists are operating within a "loophole" (anti-gun favorite word) that should be closed.

My general concern has always been that mandating concealed carry will put a bounty on the heads of those who mistakenly print a concealed firearm.


http://www.ctgunrights.com/03.Political/2011/2011.Conceal.Carry.Proposed.Legislation.Yellow.pdf

Reason for Proposal (Include significant policy and programmatic impacts)
Connecticut's firearms carry laws are vague in language as it pertains to carrying a pistol or revolver concealed. Recently, citizens have taken it upon themselves to test our statutes by carrying openly. In doing so, several arrests have been made under the Breach of Peace statues C.G.S. 53a-181, with those dispositions ending in nolle's or dismissal, proving that these laws are inadequate in their detail. It is clear that there is a necessity for a concealed firearm law with more detail or, consequently, Connecticut may end up being a state where they carry exposed at all times as decided by case law.


Funny how acting within the bounds of the law is seen by the anti gunners, and some gun owners, as "test our statutes by carrying openly". Some who complain about the OC are missing the point. The wording of that statement says it all. There are no statutes prohibiting open carry, hence open carry is perfectly legal. The main problem with open carry is the police are not trained to deal with the open carrier properly. Many are not trained that open carry just like conceal carry is perfectly legal so long as you have a valid pistol permit and are not engaged in illegal activity. But instead of focusing on the real issue (police training) folks would rather treat lawful activity as "testing the boundaries" and put in another law that will limit our right to carry a firearm.

Frankly I don't like to open carry, but I do not think it should be banned, nor should we look down on those who choose to carry in a manor they prefer if they happen to prefer open carry over conceal carry.
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 3:59:02 AM EST
I don’t know what the big deal is about open carry. Some days it's the most comfortable way to carry, winters a bit tough but the rest of the year it’s easy. Not many people bother me when i decide to OC I just go about my day normally. And think if OC get banned what will happen to the CC laws. They will become stricter and you could get arrested for printing, and any other reason they can find. With OC legal you don’t have to worry as much as most people wouldn’t notice a little printing unless they carry themselves. It’s a right to be able to choose which way you want to carry. I like having the option to choose and not being forced to carry one way or the other. I bet a lot more people would OC if it was known the LEO knew the law and would respect it. if you take a gander at opencarry.org under the CT forum you'll notice a lot most people don’t bother you and now the LEO know the law and wont hassle you either. Anyways it's your choice how to carry, I’m just glad that you are carrying and not one of them anti's. Carry on!
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 4:00:32 AM EST
One additional thing to be concerned about is that if enough of a "deal" is made by well-meaning OC gun owners, you can rest assured that one of the anti-gun legislators in Hartford will call it an "epidemic" and submit legislation to amend the current law. With no chance of stopping such changes in the house, senate, or governor's chair, that would be a slam-dunk I think regardless of how many emails, letters, or phone calls are placed. With the current spate of magazine and registration issues we're facing, our time would be best spent fighting that right now, anyway.

Here's a thought. What would be really curious would be to investigate the root cause of all this anti-gun sentiment in our legislature. When did it all start? When were "permits" first required? Was there one event that caused a particular liberal administration to begin "regulating" firearms? We've got a crap-load of regs on the books and they all didn't get in there at once but slowly and surely. When was the first law enacted and why? Is there any indication of any resistance by our citizens back then? That would be a great project with someone having a bit of free time to explore.

Rome
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 5:28:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By DPMS556-223:
I bet a lot more people would OC if it was known the LEO knew the law and would respect it.

I disagree. I think that most of the people who want to open carry in CT are currently doing it.

Link Posted: 3/16/2011 5:34:13 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/16/2011 5:35:28 AM EST by Cabinetman]
Hey guys! Check this out. On a hunch, I did a Google search for "History of Firearm Laws in Connecticut. Lookie at what I found. I have NOT had time to look closely but will when the time allows. This appears to have some very interesting information!

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGHP_enUS421US421&q=HIstory+of+firearm+laws+in+Connecticut#q=HIstory+of+firearm+laws+in+Connecticut&hl=en&sa=X&rlz=1T4GGHP_enUS421US421&tbs=tl:1,tll:1900,tlh:1949&prmd=ivnscm&ei=jMmATZqkKoKgsQPX47WFBg&ved=0CCoQyQEoBw&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=a50d8bbb4089c98a

Rome
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 7:39:17 AM EST
Originally Posted By sbhaven:
Originally Posted By rgaper:

Originally Posted By sbhaven:
Originally Posted By Blaster3094:
I fear that the Open Carry advocates have stuck the proverbial 'stick in a hornet's nest'.

How so? They are not breaking any laws, are they? Is not the firearm still there whether one chooses to carry open or carry concealed?


I think the poster above you was referring to the fact that DPS stated in their legislative proposal that recent open carry activism that is fueling DPS's desire for legislation to require concealed carry. No matter how you feel about open carry, it's pretty clear based on the snippet/attachment below that DPS feels that now open carry activists are operating within a "loophole" (anti-gun favorite word) that should be closed.

My general concern has always been that mandating concealed carry will put a bounty on the heads of those who mistakenly print a concealed firearm.


http://www.ctgunrights.com/03.Political/2011/2011.Conceal.Carry.Proposed.Legislation.Yellow.pdf

Reason for Proposal (Include significant policy and programmatic impacts)
Connecticut's firearms carry laws are vague in language as it pertains to carrying a pistol or revolver concealed. Recently, citizens have taken it upon themselves to test our statutes by carrying openly. In doing so, several arrests have been made under the Breach of Peace statues C.G.S. 53a-181, with those dispositions ending in nolle's or dismissal, proving that these laws are inadequate in their detail. It is clear that there is a necessity for a concealed firearm law with more detail or, consequently, Connecticut may end up being a state where they carry exposed at all times as decided by case law.


Funny how acting within the bounds of the law is seen by the anti gunners, and some gun owners, as "test our statutes by carrying openly". Some who complain about the OC are missing the point. The wording of that statement says it all. There are no statutes prohibiting open carry, hence open carry is perfectly legal. The main problem with open carry is the police are not trained to deal with the open carrier properly. Many are not trained that open carry just like conceal carry is perfectly legal so long as you have a valid pistol permit and are not engaged in illegal activity. But instead of focusing on the real issue (police training) folks would rather treat lawful activity as "testing the boundaries" and put in another law that will limit our right to carry a firearm.

Frankly I don't like to open carry, but I do not think it should be banned, nor should we look down on those who choose to carry in a manor they prefer if they happen to prefer open carry over conceal carry.


I completely agree, and I too find it puzzling how acting within the confines of the law is "testing statutes". Does this mean I "test the staute" every time I drive down the highway at the posted speed limit?

These people really need to think before they speak. They just sound so retarded IMO. The sad part is that people even agree with this nonsense. Allot of this mess, IMO, is due to the lack of knowledge of the law and what it does / does not cover.
Link Posted: 3/16/2011 9:14:36 AM EST
Originally Posted By BlindFaith429:
I completely agree, and I too find it puzzling how acting within the confines of the law is "testing statutes". Does this mean I "test the staute" every time I drive down the highway at the posted speed limit?

These people really need to think before they speak. They just sound so retarded IMO. The sad part is that people even agree with this nonsense. Allot of this mess, IMO, is due to the lack of knowledge of the law and what it does / does not cover.

It is puzzling. I think at least once in this thread, on a gun owning board, we've seen people say the OC people shouldn't rock the boat. Missing that the anti's don't care about the boat rocking they care about the boat. Their goal is to limit the boat as much as they can. Ask an anti who opposes open carry what difference does it make if the gun is carried openly or carried concealed. They invariably say that they are afraid of seeing a gun in public. Yet have no problem with a police officer open carrying one. When asked what difference does method of carry make, the gun is still there. They then usually respond with with the usual "only cops and soldiers should have guns". We are letting them define the battle ground on guns and they are winning each time we say; "don't rock the boat because they may pass more laws" when it comes to open carry or anything else 2A related.

ALL of our rights are defined, for better or worse by those who "test the boundaries". Woman wouldn't have the right to vote if they didn't test the boundaries. Certain Americans would still be riding in the back of the bus if they didn't test the boundaries. People who choose to OC are pushing the boundaries, good or bad. They are exposing the public (and LEO's) to people going about their daily business, not violating any laws, while carrying a firearm. The more people are exposed to things they fear and see nothing happened the more they may come around on the carry of firearms lawfully by citizens.

Just my two cents. Some gun owners will always be opposed to anyone open carrying be it for supposed tactical reasons or fear of more laws being passed.
Top Top