January 17, 201610 yr Unbelievable any state would require a permit to exercise ones basic rights. I assume CT also requires a permit for one to vote? It's all about money my man, I imagine the permit is not free.
January 17, 201610 yr Author You do have to show it in CT, this guy should have been arrested based upon CT law for failure to ID. Either the cop didn't know the law, or didn't feel like taking the guy in. Did you read the article? The police officer has to both see the firearm AND suspect the carrier of committing a crime to ask for his permit. He was not suspected of a crime and did not have to show his permit.
January 17, 201610 yr Did you read the article? The police officer has to both see the firearm AND suspect the carrier of committing a crime to ask for his permit. He was not suspected of a crime and did not have to show his permit. CT is a partial open carry state, not a full. You have to have a permit to open carry. The law is currently being disputed. If you have to have a permit to open carry, that creates room for LE to stop you regardless. You are reciting KY law, KY is a full open carry state, meaning you can't be stopped without reasonable suspicion. NO permit is required to open carry in KY.
January 17, 201610 yr Did you read the article? The police officer has to both see the firearm AND suspect the carrier of committing a crime to ask for his permit. He was not suspected of a crime and did not have to show his permit. Article goes back and forth... According to the state's attorney, "the officer has the right to ask to see the person's pistol permit. If the person refuses, the officer can arrest the person for interfering with an officer." But some say that contradicts Connecticut law, which states that an officer can request a gun permit if he or she "one, observes carrying a pistol or revolver, and two, has reasonable suspicion of a crime." "What law enforcement officers are saying is that they would like a clarification of the law," said Av Harris, a spokesman for the Bridgeport mayor's office. State's Attorney seems to be of the belief that they were within their rights to ask for the permit. Some say it breaks the law and the police seem to be asking for a clarification. The entire story is broke down in that one section it seems. State police Training Bulletin No. 2013-01 spells it out: “In Connecticut, there is NO state statute which makes it illegal for someone with a valid pistol permit to openly carry a pistol in plain view UNLESS this ‘open carry’ creates a ‘Breach of Peace’ situation” or the person is “intoxicated or using drugs.” Maybe the people that called the police were thinking this was a Breach of Peace situation? In the end he was asked for his permit,didn't show it and wasn't arrested. Is this any different than a police officer asking to check your car for drugs and you saying no. Without probable cause he's letting you go. That's what happened in this case too, wasn't it?
January 18, 201610 yr Article goes back and forth... State's Attorney seems to be of the belief that they were within their rights to ask for the permit. Some say it breaks the law and the police seem to be asking for a clarification. The entire story is broke down in that one section it seems. Maybe the people that called the police were thinking this was a Breach of Peace situation? In the end he was asked for his permit' date='didn't show it and wasn't arrested. Is this any different than a police officer asking to check your car for drugs and you saying no. Without probable cause he's letting you go. That's what happened in this case too, wasn't it?[/quote'] If they can't ask to see the permit how do they know they have one, since you are required to in CT?
January 18, 201610 yr If they can't ask to see the permit how do they know they have one, since you are required to in CT? :idunno: Reads like one side is saying the law says one thing and the other side is saying something else. Police/Mayors office seems to be wanting a clarification on when they can and can't ask.
January 18, 201610 yr I'd have simply shown the guy my permit, got the sandwich, and sat there and ate my sandwich with a big :poop:eating grin on my face.
January 18, 201610 yr I'd have simply shown the guy my permit, got the sandwich, and sat there and ate my sandwich with a big :poop:eating grin on my face. Principle of the act IMO....If I am not under suspicion of committing any crime, then I still free in this United States of America and have no compelling reason to show anyone anything on my person.... No way am I showing law enforcement anything unless I am compelled, under PC suspicion....
January 19, 201610 yr I understand NOT having to show the permit in this situation, as that apparently is how the law is written. The police were called because someone had a concern about this guy, they didn't just randomly pick him out of the crowd. The Police didn't know how valid that concern was until they got there. Training Memos sent out by the state police were telling them they can verify permits in these situations, while the law may be saying something entirely different. I'll guarantee they weren't trying to jam him up, just wanted verify that he's good to go and move on to their next call. If the Police had ignored him and left, then he commits a crime everyone would be screaming why didn't they do more when they were face to face with him.
January 19, 201610 yr I'd have simply shown the guy my permit, got the sandwich, and sat there and ate my sandwich with a big :poop:eating grin on my face. Note to self: Never share a sandwich with spindoc
January 19, 201610 yr I understand NOT having to show the permit in this situation, as that apparently is how the law is written. The police were called because someone had a concern about this guy, they didn't just randomly pick him out of the crowd. The Police didn't know how valid that concern was until they got there. Training Memos sent out by the state police were telling them they can verify permits in these situations, while the law may be saying something entirely different. I'll guarantee they weren't trying to jam him up, just wanted verify that he's good to go and move on to their next call. If the Police had ignored him and left, then he commits a crime everyone would be screaming why didn't they do more when they were face to face with him. Agree. We hear all the time in threads queationing police, that if you are stopped on the street, stopped driving, and in general stopped by the police for any reason, one should just answer the questions, submit to a search, etc. Why is it different in this case?
January 19, 201610 yr Agree. We hear all the time in threads queationing police, that if you are stopped on the street, stopped driving, and in general stopped by the police for any reason, one should just answer the questions, submit to a search, etc. Why is it different in this case? oooooo! oooooooo! Mr. Kotttttteeeeerrrrrrrr!
January 19, 201610 yr I thought this made the rounds a few months ago. Trying to show that asking for his permit was like stopping cars for no reason to ask for registration. Maybe a valid point, but not a good way to make it.
January 20, 201610 yr Agree. We hear all the time in threads queationing police' date=' that if you are stopped on the street, stopped driving, and in general stopped by the police for any reason, one should just answer the questions, submit to a search, etc. Why is it different in this case?[/quote'] Help me understand your post, are you saying that if people are stopped randomly by police, they should submit to searches/questioning?
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.