Media and
State Confuse the Open Carry Issue
A simple
concept becomes clouded and treacherous
Bridgeport
Connecticut, January 18, 2016: A common
refrain anytime the state or local police in Connecticut screw up and
arrest, detain or harass law-abiding citizens is that ‘the law is
confusing’. There is no better example of this at play than in cases
involving unconcealed (open) carry of handguns in Connecticut. Time
and time again, we see police officers, paid and sworn to know and
uphold the law, who have no idea what the law is. Or worse, they
don’t care what the law is and will make up their own laws in the
absence of laws that they want on the books.
This week, a great example of that police ignorance and arrogance
popped up in Bridgeport, Connecticut. A man standing in a Subway
restaurant trying to order his meal was stopped and
detained by the Bridgeport police department. The police
officer, later joined by his equally ignorant, but more aggressive
Sergeant, harass the man and coerce the employees at the restaurant
to ask the patron to leave. The police did indicate that the man was
not doing anything illegal, that the call for service did not
originate from the restaurant that he was attempting to patronize,
and then, that they let him leave the restaurant without arrest.
In other articles and press releases in our archives, we have previously
explained
that, in the past, many police departments, including Bridgeport,
have seen nothing illegal in their actions, actions motivated by
their ignorance of or disregard for the specific language of
Connecticut laws. In the past, Torrington confirmed
that our educational message about the precise language and correct
interpretation of the laws has been received by them. Wethersfield
has confirmed
the same.
The Connecticut State Police have also acknowledged
this, but then clouded the issue with a poorly worded ‘Training
Memo’. This training memo goes on to say:
If an individual
purposefully refuses to produce such a permit, or properly identify
themselves,
then they may be subject to arrest for Interfering with an Officer,
CGS 53a-167a, if
the elements of that crime are present. – State Police Training Memo
Some State’s Attorneys have purportedly made comments to media
organizations that a person's reluctance to automatically melt into
subservient compliance and immediately whip out an ID somehow
justifies an arrest, simply because a person, especially a
law-abiding citizen, is not thrilled with the idea of being put on
the spot or if the person refuses to show a permit while carrying
openly. However, despite the wording of this memo, where it clearly
dances around the issue and explains that you still have to have the
other elements that constitute ‘Interfering with and Officer’, that
memo was issued in 2013. Now, this is 2016.
Media has also played a role in obfuscating the "open
carry" issue by stating that the laws were somehow
confusing, even though the prevailing Connecticut Laws are
startlingly clear on this issue. Various misleading statements have
also clouded the recent Bridgeport incident by claiming
that there was a caller from the Subway restaurant. Another claim was
that "open carry" is somehow a
new law, or interviewees were citing
the state police memo, or local police, or quoting attorneys that
have not read the law. All media should be more responsible by
actually performing full research and then reporting only based on
complete research.
In 2015, PA 15-216
was passed to address these issues. Before the
Public Act, police implicitly needed Reasonable
Articulable Suspicion of a crime to detain and demand
identification from someone carrying unconcealed per Terry v
Ohio and Hiibel v. Nevada. After the Public Act, we now
have state law that explicitly demands that police have Reasonable
Articulable Suspicion of a crime to detain and demand identification
from someone carrying unconcealed.
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. – PA 15-216
Another
video, purportedly from the same day, shows another
Bridgeport police officer apparently following the man into other
stores and harassing him. When State or local police interpret what
happened in Bridgeport as being a lawful use of police force it
demonstrates that they are derelict in their duty. Any attempt to
arrest, penalize or further harass someone in this kind of situation
will be met with defense from the citizens of Connecticut.
The police behavior of harassing citizens who are carrying firearms
legally, in the cited videos, is out of line for the Bridgeport
Police Department, but sadly, not completely unpredictable. In fact,
earlier the same month, that same police department settled with Michael
Rearden to the tune of $30k for putting Mr. Rearden in a
cage for 6 hours when he was observed carrying lawfully in a vehicle.
In Mr. Rearden’s case, he showed his permit upon the first request.
In the Subway Restaurant incident, the man refused to show his pistol
permit since the police refused to establish their Reasonable
Articulable Suspicion per PA 15-216.
This is not the
first time that police in Connecticut have failed to
correctly apply Connecticut Law in their duties as police officers
when it comes to this issue, nor is it the first time that they have
been accurately informed of
the law.
Connecticut Carry has been contacted by multiple police departments
since the incident, as well as media outlets. Connecticut Carry has,
and will continue to disperse proper information based on laws, case
law, court decisions, and real data, to the media, police
departments, and state agencies, per our mission statement.
In fact, Connecticut Carry has offered free training and seminars to
any police department that will agree to attend training on these, or
other issues. After all, educating our police serves to help everyone
in this state, and makes Connecticut a safer place for our citizens
and for our police.
Please join our organization: http://ctcarry.com/Join
Please donate to our organization: http://ctcarry.com/Donate
Support our organization: http://ctcarry.com/Store
“The idea that we
are still hearing about misinformed and malicious police and state
agencies in Connecticut is an indictment against the entire
anti-rights executive branch of Connecticut government that has a
duty to train their employees. It cannot get any simpler or clearer:
There is no law stipulating how you carry your handgun if you have a
Pistol Permit. There is no lawful way for a police officer to demand
your permit unless he has Reasonable Articulable Suspicion. Case
closed.” –
Rich Burgess, President, Connecticut Carry
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment