Connecticut Man Refuses to Show Gun Permit!

[Viking1204]

I can't believe people are actually questioning whether you have the show the permit. What the hell point is it for you to a get a permit if you don't have to show it to a cop to prove you are legal to open carry a weapon? If you don't want to show it why get it??? The point of having a permit is to prove to the cop you are legal to carry. Like Frank said, common sense folks.

 

[donr101395]

I can't believe people are actually questioning whether you have the show the permit. What the hell point is it for you to a get a permit if you don't have to show it to a cop to prove you are legal to open carry a weapon? If you don't want to show it why get it??? The point of having a permit is to prove to the cop you are legal to carry. Like Frank said, common sense folks.

I can see it from both sides. A person doesn't need to prove they are innocent, the state needs to prove they are guilty. It's a small but important distinction. If there is nothing in the law that requires them to show ID and simply carrying it isn't legal justification for the stop then the guy has a point. I do think he could have made his point in a better way, but holding the state to a legal standard isn't wrong.

 

[dead-bird]

What if you lived in Connecticut, were pissed at the onerous laws put in place, and had found a hole in the law?
One that required you to carry a permit on your person, but then failed to require you to produce it.
Perhaps he found the perfect opportunity to poke the system in the eye.

 

[Welldoya]

Why have a permit if you aren't going to show it when asked ?
I think a lot of people these days are just baiting the cops hoping to get a monetary settlement.
There was a piece on the news this morning about a family that got pulled over for not wearing seatbelts. The cop asked the passenger to get out of the car and he wouldn't. They locked the doors and sat there.
The cop told them several times to unlock the door. Then he busted the window with his nightstick.
The entire time the teenager in the back seat was filming it and their was some great acting going on by the two adults in the front seat. Looked to me like the whole thing was a setup, A lawsuit is pending for sure.
Just do what the officer tells you to do. Jeez. It's common sense.

 

[FrankT]

What if you lived in Connecticut, were pissed at the onerous laws put in place, and had found a hole in the law?
One that required you to carry a permit on your person, but then failed to require you to produce it.
Perhaps he found the perfect opportunity to poke thSeae system in the eye.

I would say they poked him back for 13 mos and no license and several thousands of $$ all for arguing w a LEO...worth it?

 

[bigbulls]

Worth it??? I don't know. You would have to ask him. If I had the $$ to fight crap like this you bet I'd be doing it.

Was it worth the hundreds of thousands of lives lost fighting to first secure our rights in the first place and then to make sure we kept those rights?

In Florida were pretty lucky when to comes to gun laws. In Conn. not so much. If they don't stand up for themselves and their rights no one else will.

Again, who is in the right and who is in the wrong? The gun owner seems to have been carrying out his daily business within the law. The officer didn't. The state eventually righted the officers wrong. Seems to me an unlawful arrest law suit is now in order.

 

[bigbulls]

I can't believe people are actually questioning whether you have the show the permit. What the hell point is it for you to a get a permit if you don't have to show it to a cop to prove you are legal to open carry a weapon? If you don't want to show it why get it??? The point of having a permit is to prove to the cop you are legal to carry. Like Frank said, common sense folks.

It doesn't matter one bit what you, I, or any one else thinks the point is. What matters is what the law says or does not say. I read Connecticut gun laws three times last night and as hard as I tried to fin where the law said he had to show ID or his permit I couldn't. That's the only thing that matters...... The written word of the law.

 

[FrankT]

big, I think the real point is do you want the cost and hassle, or not, I don't, you might enjoy it. Right or wrong if the cop gives you a direction do it within reason at the time and then fight it later...that my friend is common sense. I am not going to argue at the time but later after I am out of danger.

 

[dead-bird]

I would say they poked him back for 13 mos and no license and several thousands of $$ all for arguing w a LEO...worth it?

He said he'd do it again...

 

[gandog56]

He's one of those "I know my rights" dudes. I woulda pulled his permit and he could've gone and gotten a job at Tom Thumb.
Guys like that give the rest of us a bad name.
The proper response should have been "Got it right here officer."

I mean he wouldn't even come up with any kind of reason except "I don't want to"?

 

[bigbulls]

What other reason does he need?

Its absolutely amazing to me that there are so many people here that are condemning the guy for conducting himself within the law and are siding with the cop making an illegal arrest on an innocent citizen.

Absolutely incredible.

 

[SAWMAN]

Interesting case. I would REALLY like to hear a recording of how the initial confrontation between the LEO and the individual played out. I know,I know,some will say "who cares,what difference does it make". I believe that if the LEO went about ASKING to see the gentleman's permit the "right" way,the man would have produced it. At lest for all our sakes,I would hope so.

I don't know,I was not there,however I have seen some LEO's that were not very well trained in public relations. Some are too demanding. Some are downright arrogant. Some are sweethearts. My dad used to tell me "there is a right way and a wrong way of doing things". If the LEO went about asking for the gentlemen's permit the right way,I feel that he should have surrendered it.

At this point,the only thing that I can do is put myself in the position of the permit holder. --- SAWMAN

 

[Brandon_SPC]

I know the state of Florida if the LEO ask for conceal carry ID you have to produce drivers license and carry permit. I think it is different though if you open carry in Florida. Under the open carry section.

 

[Viking1204]

It doesn't matter one bit what you, I, or any one else thinks the point is. What matters is what the law says or does not say. I read Connecticut gun laws three times last night and as hard as I tried to fin where the law said he had to show ID or his permit I couldn't. That's the only thing that matters...... The written word of the law.

Does the law state you can open carry WITHOUT a permit? Does the law say you can open carry WITH a permit? What exactly does the law say? If the law says you can open carry WITH a permit and you open carry then technically you are breaking the law if you don't show your permit because the officer sees you as someone open carrying WITHOUT a permit. The law may not directly state you must show your permit but how do you prove your innocence if you refuse to show your ID? How is it any different than showing your drivers license when you get pulled over on the road?

 

[bigbulls]

Does the law state you can open carry WITHOUT a permit?

No.

Does the law say you can open carry WITH a permit?

Yes.

If the law says you can open carry WITH a permit and you open carry then technically you are breaking the law if you don't show your permit because the officer sees you as someone open carrying WITHOUT a permit.

Show me the Conn. statute where it says that you must produce the permit when asked by LEO. Also show me where it says that if you do not produce the permit then you are breaking the law. You can't because its not there. It don't make a hill of beans worth of difference what the officer "sees" you as from the perspective of the law. This is how laws get F#$%ed up! When people start reading too much into the law and ASSuming it "means" something other than what is written in black and white.

The law may not directly state you must show your permit but how do you prove your innocence if you refuse to show your ID?

If the law does not directly state it then it isn't law. Again, This is how laws get F#$%ed up! When people start reading too much into the law and ASSuming it "means" something other than what is written in black and white.

The last time I checked this was still the United States of America and not Communist Russia or China. In this country you are innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is placed on the state to prove guilt. You don't have to prove a darn thing. I don't know how and when it got turned into a person having to prove their innocence.

How is it any different than showing your drivers license when you get pulled over on the road?

The law says that you must have on your person and produce your DL when stopped by LEO. You assume this responsibility when you get your DL and drive a vehicle.

The Conn. law does not require one to produce the carry permit. It's really as simple as that. It comes down to black and white, written law. That's it.

 

[dead-bird]

I spent considerable time looking over the Connecticut statutes and provided links to same.
Didn't see any requirement to show or produce your permit.
Might be in there but I didn't find it...

 

[Viking1204]

No.

Yes.

Show me the Conn. statute where it says that you must produce the permit when asked by LEO. Also show me where it says that if you do not produce the permit then you are breaking the law. You can't because its not there. It don't make a hill of beans worth of difference what the officer "sees" you as from the perspective of the law. This is how laws get F#$%ed up! When people start reading too much into the law and ASSuming it "means" something other than what is written in black and white.

If the law does not directly state it then it isn't law. Again, This is how laws get F#$%ed up! When people start reading too much into the law and ASSuming it "means" something other than what is written in black and white.

The last time I checked this was still the United States of America and not Communist Russia or China. In this country you are innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is placed on the state to prove guilt. You don't have to prove a darn thing. I don't know how and when it got turned into a person having to prove their innocence.


The law says that you must have on your person and produce your DL when stopped by LEO. You assume this responsibility when you get your DL and drive a vehicle.

The Conn. law does not require one to produce the carry permit. It's really as simple as that. It comes down to black and white, written law. That's it.

Some people just don't get common sense I guess. The law states you must have a permit to open carry, not showing your permit when an officer asks to prove you aren't breaking a law is just plain stupid and lacks any semblance of common sense IMO.

 

[Stanley13]

No.

Yes.

Show me the Conn. statute where it says that you must produce the permit when asked by LEO. Also show me where it says that if you do not produce the permit then you are breaking the law. You can't because its not there. It don't make a hill of beans worth of difference what the officer "sees" you as from the perspective of the law. This is how laws get F#$%ed up! When people start reading too much into the law and ASSuming it "means" something other than what is written in black and white.

If the law does not directly state it then it isn't law. Again, This is how laws get F#$%ed up! When people start reading too much into the law and ASSuming it "means" something other than what is written in black and white.

The last time I checked this was still the United States of America and not Communist Russia or China. In this country you are innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is placed on the state to prove guilt. You don't have to prove a darn thing. I don't know how and when it got turned into a person having to prove their innocence.


The law says that you must have on your person and produce your DL when stopped by LEO. You assume this responsibility when you get your DL and drive a vehicle.

The Conn. law does not require one to produce the carry permit. It's really as simple as that. It comes down to black and white, written law. That's it.

^^^^Asshattery^^^^ I like it safety second

 

[Welldoya]

Some people just don't get common sense I guess. The law states you must have a permit to open carry, not showing your permit when an officer asks to prove you aren't breaking a law is just plain stupid and lacks any semblance of common sense IMO.

I agree. What is it with all these guys looking for loopholes? Big deal, you found a loophole. Whoopee. Just what do you think the purpose of a permit is ? Use some common sense.
He's just lucky he didn't get one of these cops that are sick and tired of jerks trying to prove that they found a loophole.

 

[HayesGreener]

I think this discussion is on the wrong tree. The statutes that are operative here are those that govern the security guard and private investigator business, not the statutes related to the general population carrying a firearm. There is a lot of language in the law related to security guards and armed security guards and the kind of license/ID they must carry while on duty, as well as the license they must have when going to and from work while carrying. The law in CT is not as clear as Florida's for security officers and PI's-but the intent of the law is clear-you are expected to carry the ID and you have to show it on demand when engaged in licensed activities. Just think about it-if there was no requirement to show the license on demand any idiot could dress up like a security officer and run around causing all manner of mischief. Administrative discipline on this idiot is appropriate