35Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksMove out of CT and stop paying taxes to a state who tramples on your Constitutional rights. Problem solved. Constitution State indeed.
This is a discussion on "Legally Carrying a Weapon is a Crime" within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Move out of CT and stop paying taxes to a state who tramples on your Constitutional rights. Problem solved. Constitution State indeed....
Array
Move out of CT and stop paying taxes to a state who tramples on your Constitutional rights. Problem solved. Constitution State indeed.
OK, so you got somewhere at great expense for your poor client. That doesn't change the fact that folks are attempting to make something legal, illegal, by applying other laws in an inappropriate manner. Some legislation is in order. You (and maybe I) would say legalize OC and in the legislation declare that OC is not whatever it is they are now calling it. Or, given the general culture, make OC clearly illegal. But, game playing is no good for anyone--except perhaps the defense bar. (No offense intended.)Originally Posted by MitchellCT
"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war."
John Adams. Second President of the United States.
Man's gotta point.
"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." – Luke 22:36
"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." – Thomas Jefferson
Array
Look, you wanna be dumb with a gun, it costs money. Simple as that.
Don't feel bad for the client. Counsel was top notch.
Array
Ain't that always the case?
Read:
The Gift of Fear by Gavin De Becker
In The Gravest Extreme by Massad Ayoob
The Harbinger by Jonathan Cahn
From every encounter or scenario; yours, someone else's, real, or not...
LEARN SOMETHING FROM IT
Array
So where does this leave us? We have a law that the government does not like and chooses to ignore. Then we have another branch of government telling us that they do not like the law either and also are going to ignore it.Originally Posted by Hopyard
O.K. Back on topic. The issue being raised by the OP, and responded to as well by Mitchel is the fact that in CT OC is not illegal, but law enforcement treats it as illegal. To get past the fact that OC is legal, but the powers that be choose to prohibit it the law notwithstanding, they simply assert that OC frightens folks, is therefore a form of disorderly conduct or breach of peace, or creates a public disturbance, and they use these other charges, to suppress otherwise lawful conduct.
In short, they do an end run around the state's own laws but there is nothing that can be done about that because Mitchel has pointed out that as a defense attorney, you get nowhere defending such cases.
How is this any different from what we are told are kangaroo courts in other nations. Where corrupt courts blindly side with the government and ignoring the intent of the law to do it?
Michael
It isn't exactly a Kangaroo court but it is a corrupt use of the law. Its like a nation declaring freedom of speech then making such broadly applicable slander/ libel laws that no one can say or print a word. It is using one set of laws to undermine a different set of laws. In the CT instance the gun laws --which logic should dictate are controlling when it comes to matters of guns-- are being subverted by an entire different class of laws with a different purpose. This is the behavior of 4th and 3rd world countries and shouldn't be tolerated here.
I don't exactly have a CT State Representative because I don't vote there, but the person who represents the district my mouse hole is in actually answers my e-mail personally. Maybe I'll give it a try.
"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war."
John Adams. Second President of the United States.
Array
Connecticut Constitution: SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
So, why is there a problem with OC/CC a handgun in public in Connecticut, when Arizona gives it's citizens the same right to bear arms in public, which we do without any police or political interference.
Arizona Constitution: Article 2, Section 26: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired...
Array
(a) A person is guilty of breach of the peace in the second degree when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person: (1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior in a public place; or (2) assaults or strikes another; or (3) threatens to commit any crime against another person or such other person’s property; or (4) publicly exhibits, distributes, posts up or advertises any offensive, indecent or abusive matter concerning any person; or (5) in a public place, uses abusive or obscene language or makes an obscene gesture; or (6) creates a public and hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which such person is not licensed or privileged to do. For purposes of this section, “public place” means any area that is used or held out for use by the public whether owned or operated by public or private interests.
What shocked ME most about this paragraph of the state law, is section number 5...seems to me that it tramples one of our other Rights....Freedom of Speech...Wonder how many Politicians have been arrested for breach of the peace in the second degree under this section during political debate? (esp # 4) Over the history of the Supreme Court, there have been many famous cases dealing with obscenities and a person’s right to free speech. In fact, the courts have consistently ruled that foul language is a constitutionally protected form of expression.
I personally do not want the Government to trample any of my Rights to attempt to protect me from something.
Made me think of George Carlin's famous "The Seven Words" comedy bit. I actually went and watched it on youtube. I didn't post a link because it is prohibited on this site. I respect the right of those who own this site to restrict what is linked too and said here: I DO NOT accept the Governments "right" to restrict me in what I say.
Array
Well, it's something we are killing as a society, so we as a whole need to stop being stupid. So, unless people start seeing the stupidity of what is happening, then no plan can ever succeed.
Array
I agree with this 100%....Conceal Carry in CT please!
"A free people ought to be armed." - George Washington
For Mitchel, so you got your client off. Did the state appeal? Have there been convictions affirmed at the various state appeals courts?
In other words, the actions of the gendarmes notwithstanding, and giving consideration to your having litigated this matter for a client, is there now some guidance from the courts that should be binding on the gendarmes and on the DAs?
And if there is, then why are they continuing to cause folks to spend huge amounts of money to defend themselves?
Maybe I'm being really really naive here, but one would think a matter as this would be, by now, settled law within the state.
"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war."
John Adams. Second President of the United States.
Array
The problem is that those in power do not like the law. Instead of going to the trouble of changing it they instead decide to just ignore it hoping the people will forget about it.
Michael
Array
Is Conn. a 'shall issue' state for concealed carry?
Array
Just because the issue went to court doesn't mean the matter is decided.
Litigated is a term I use broadly. The matter went to court, and was disposed of without trial.
The client didn't get a record, so no record of the case is retained accessible to the public.
No caselaw. No court decisions. No motions filed. Just chapped lips on my part and scraped knee pads.
Client is still an...Bad word. Complete bad word to deal with and I don't talk to him anymore, and quite frankly, wouldn't return his calls if he did call me.
Still owes me about $1,500 too. I didn't get paid for the amount of crap I had to swallow for him to not go to jail.
I already do demeaning things for money, and in this case, I'd rather have been a stripper. I'd have earned more faster, gotten more respect and had more fun.
Their is no court guidance for this issue for cops. It still a Cluster-Figure it out.
You want guidance?
Don't open carry and be discrete.
Sorry, but that's my take on the issue.
If you do, don't be an attention whore, use good judgement.
Entire incident left a bad taste in my mouth and I have little interest in dealing with it again unless it's actually worth doing.
(Translation - my policy of doing RKBA related work for reduced cost bit me in the rear on this one and I needed a tetanus shot.)
And yes, it's effectively shall issue for permits with a single subjective criteria of "suitability" based on past behavior.
If you have demonstrated a pattern of behavior that is in and of itself not criminal but reflects poor self control of judgement, they will deny you.
For example, multiple restraining orders, reckless driving convictions or DUIs will result in a denial with a right to appeal.
None of them are in and of themselves disqualifying criteria by themselves...in combination, questions are asked and need to be addressed before they say "Here, carry a .45ACP!"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
