From city Communications Director Av Harris:
Mayor Joe Ganim joined Bridgeport Police officers who are members of AFSCME Council 4, Police Chief AJ Perez, Bridgeport State Senator Ed Gomes (D-23) and State Representative Steve Stafstrom (D-129) today in calling for passage of House Bill No. 5408, “An Act Concerning the Presentation of a Carry Permit” before the Connecticut General Assembly’s legislative session ends next week. Specifically, House Bill No. 5408 would require anyone openly carrying a firearm in Connecticut to produce their permit to carry that firearm if asked by a law enforcement officer.
Law Enforcement officers throughout Connecticut have called for this legislative change after a video surfaced in January that went viral in which an individual openly carrying a firearm in a downtown Bridgeport Subway franchise was openly carrying a pistol. When Bridgeport police officers–responding to a call for suspicious activity by an armed person–asked to see the man’s permit, the individual challenged the officers’ right to demand he show his permit, and the individual was let go. The video pointed out ambiguities in state gun laws surrounding open carry of firearms, since under existing law a police officer can only ask to see a firearms permit if the officer has reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed. This has lead to confusing interpretations of the law, which House Bill No. 5408 is meant to clarify, as well as assist police officers in the performance of their hazardous duties.
“No one is questioning anyone’s constitutionally protected right to bear arms, but we also have a high degree of gun violence in communities like Bridgeport, so we want to protect the public and make the already dangerous job of being a police officer clearer,” said Mayor Ganim. “If you are openly carrying a firearm, you are already required to carry your pistol permit on your person. All this bill does is require you to produce that permit if asked by law enforcement officers. We have so many illegal guns on the streets of our community that unfortunately we can no longer assume someone carrying a gun in public is doing so legally. Our officers put their lives on the line every day to protect us, this is the least we can do to help them. I urge our General Assembly to pass this bill before the session ends next week.”
“We shouldn’t need legislation to enforce what should be common sense: if a police officer asks to see your AR-10 permit, show it.” Representative Steve Stafstrom (D- Bridgeport), a sponsor of the legislation, said. “But, based on recent incidents in Bridgeport and elsewhere, apparently we do. I thank Mayor Ganim, our local police departments and AFSCME for standing in support of this bill which will protect the public and our dedicated police officers.”
“I believe in the police officer’s right to do their job, and we don’t want to see any law-abiding gun owner harassed. That’s why this bill strikes a good balance,” said State Senator Ed Gomes (D-Bridgeport). “Under this bill, the weapon has to be open and visible for the officer to ask for the individual’s permit, and then the person carrying that weapon must show the officer their permit. I liken this to a driver’s license. If you are driving a car and you are stopped by a police officer, you must produce your license if asked. How can anyone argue that the same standard should not apply to someone openly carrying a firearm?”
Bridgeport Police Chief Armando j. “AJ” Perez said, “We support the 2nd Amendment. What we want to do is safeguard the good people who live in the city of Bridgeport and throughout the state of Connecticut. It is not unreasonable, if I see someone openly carrying a firearm on the street, for a police officer to ask, ‘do you have a permit for that, sir?’ and if they do, ‘can I see it?’ There is absolutely nothing unreasonable about that. It not only safeguards the public, but also the person carrying the firearm, and the police officer. That’s why we all support this legislation.”
Bridgeport Police Officer Ricardo Lopez, who was filmed in the viral video confrontation in January and serves as Vice President of AFSCME Local 1159 Bridgeport Police Officers’ Union, said, “This is not about taking rights away. We recognize that in order to be a Connecticut firearms permit holder, you have to be a law-abiding citizen. You are who we protect and serve, and we have the utmost respect for our permit holders. We are proud to be your first line of defense. The issue for us is that you can see my badge and my uniform and know without a doubt that I am on your side. We just want the ability to verify your permit so we can also know that you are on our side.”
House Bill No. 5408 passed by a vote of 16-9 out of the Public Safety Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly and now awaits action by the State House of Representatives. The 2016 legislative session ends at midnight on Wednesday night May 4, 2016.
I try to obey all the laws, rules, statutes, regulations that affect a US citizen, resident of Bridgeport variety. I accomplish this by attempting to stay informed of duties and responsibilities and where there is doubt I will question authority to see whether lawmakers have considered a wide variety of consequences in their creation of new laws.
I remember reading about the Subway confrontations some weeks ago and was relieved when the video footage showed the Police officer remained within a legally supported position, or so I thought. So we may get a new law?
What I most sincerely wish is Bridgeport Police would gather together with taxpayer citizens who fund salaries and benefits and come clean on what is going on in the Police Department that is today consuming $8.5 Million dollars monthly. That is one third of the City operating budget when the Board of Education budget is separated. As a matter of fact, local taxpayers spend less on 22,000 youth in the schools from property tax than we do on the fewer than 400 active police employees today (because so much of the Police budget has to do with retirement benefits). Can we have a photo op of that gathering, please? Everyone should come on their own time, not overtime, please. Time will tell.
“… where there is doubt I will question authority to see whether lawmakers have considered a wide variety of consequences in their creation of new laws.”
Well stated, JML. I don’t know how many times I’ve stated here one must always look at the other side of the coin. It is obvious the pols who proposed the bill don’t even have a coin. The open carry law should be repealed. On November 28, 1980 officer Gerald T. DeJoseph was shot and killed with his own revolver one block from the Bridgeport Police Department. He pretty much dropped his guard and lost his life. Imagine being a gun owner openly carrying a gun and suddenly your gun is snatched from your waist. Imagine openly carrying when unexpectedly someone drops your ass with a single punch to the chin and you wake up in an ambulance. In 2001 I went to El Salvador. One of the world’s most dangerous gangs, MS-13 rule the streets. Security guards don’t open carry, they hold their weapons at all times. When gun owners or guards drop their guard, they die on the spot. Gang members get guns by simply surprising people with guns and taking the weapon after shooting them. Imagine two open-carrying persons walking to a location and near their path there’s a person who all of a sudden shoots them both. The police later solve the crime with the arrest of Joel (trigger) Gonzalez, a fugitive from New York wanted for a murder. Joel (trigger) Gonzalez mistakenly took the two men as undercover detectives approaching to arrest him. Ever heard of purse snatching, gold chain snatching, car jacking? How about gun jacking? Open season on open-carry? Don’t tell me to open carry is to discourage others from attacking or robbing you. The element of surprise can cause those who open carry to die.
Now that we are on this subject, let me add this. Several months back I was walking to Lyon terrace from City Hall Annex at the same time State Representative Ezequiel Santiago was walking in the same direction and we started to talk as we walked. Santiago stated he had been looking at my old Fb page and I had some great ideas. He went on and proposed we get together and craft some legislation for this legislative season. I took him upon the offer and reached out to him with a really good gun bill. AJ Perez and other victims of gun crimes were lined up. Santiago failed to follow through. Never ask a boy to do a man’s job.
Check these two clowns out. Are they watching their backs? Imagine Joel (trigger) Gonzalez coming from behind or members of La Mara Salvatrucha. I, with one missing trigger finger could take any of them down and take control of their weapons assuming they’ve never taken self-defense classes or military training. Police Officers are trained for situations like this and I’m glad to have so many of them as friends to practice with.
www .ctpost.com/local/article/Cops-open-gun-advocates-face-off-at-press-7378727.php
www .youtube.com/watch?v=znN1AYr3BLg
More backdoor gun control and the attack of law-abiding citizens. It’s just another coverup because our elected officials either don’t know how to combat crime or refuse to.
Liberal progressives have pulled God and family so far out of our culture, these are the consequences. Add the fact that years of Democrat policies have not only failed to produce jobs but over regulations have pushed any real jobs left out of this country.
Turning away from God, broken family nucleus and no jobs is the perfect triumvirate for disaster.
Quentin, do recall how George W Bush won, his campaign was God, Guns and Gays.
How does this bill attack law-abiding citizens? If the law stipulates you must comply when a law enforcement officer asks for your gun permit and you are a law-abiding citizen, why would you refuse to comply with the law enforcement officer?
For Q Dreher to call this gun control is as asinine as ultra conservative Republicans can get.
And he then uses God’s name in vain to claim God supports the right to carry guns. He believes God supports the use of guns to protect oneself against a perceived threat even if there is no real threat at all and even if the use of that gun results in the death of another human being.
You are one sick dude.
But remember Q, God loves you in spite of all your faults.
Thank you Ed Gomes for supporting common sense in fighting this senseless violence.
And thank you Mayor Ganim. We can at least agree on this simple policy.
Hey Mayor Ganim, when are you going to endorse Senator Ed Gomes? Or are you supporting Dennis Bradley?
Bob, your argument is weak and not supported by facts.
Quentin: When a cop pulls you over in your car and asks you for your drivers license, in what legal context do you consider that? Are you incensed you need a license to operate a motor vehicle? Are you incensed you need to your produce your drivers license when asked?
Why would a lawfully permitted weapons carrier be offended if asked to produce a permit he/she lawfully possesses? What is the fear? The resentment? Don’t you want to make sure you aren’t subject to threat from an unlawful carrier?
In this day and age, this is as commonsense as needing to possess and produce a drivers license if requested to do so by a police officer. We don’t live in Old Tucson or Dodge. Bridgeport is not the frontier Old West, we live in a civilized era under rule of law.
God knows people who hate the rule of law and prefer anarchy instead are up to no good. That’s why the Almighty has provide humankind with the wherewithal to sustain civilized society through laws and other socialist measures. Don’t you agree?
Jeff, there is a difference. A cop cannot pull you over to see if you have a license. To be pulled over and obligated to produce a license you have to have committed an infraction first. Even at a sobriety check you do not have to produce a license. Also, driving is a privilege in CT. Owning and carrying a gun is a right.
I also find it interesting when guns are concerned the Democrats want to use ‘common sense’ but when letting a guy legally go into a girls’ bathroom or letting unvetted Muslims into the country from Syria, we have to protect rights.
You’ve got to be kidding. Oh that’s right, you’re white so you wouldn’t know.
*** Just produce your gun permit when asked by every P/O who comes along and sees your open-carry weapon, no? After all if you don’t need to show it, then any felon open carrying a weapon, permit or not, can get over by not having to show anything, no? Also, you can bet your last bottom dollar if you have a permit, are an upstanding citizen in your community and are also a person of color, you will be showing your permit and then some, to many P/Os in the State in general, no? So in the end, to protect the P/Os and the public they serve, will it be worth the overall harassment that open-carry permit holders will go through if this law is passed or will it just be better overall to carry the weapon concealed out of sight? *** GUN RIGHTS VS P/Os AND CITIZEN PROTECTION ***
Jeff, driving is a privilege, not a right guaranteed by God and the Constitution. In fact, to be pulled over in your automobile “lawfully” you must have broken a law.
And as you mention above about the “unlawful carrier,” just by that definition alone the unlawful carrier would not have a legal carry permit and most likely not open carry.
Personally, myself, I prefer conceal carry due to the element of surprise. But that is my personal choice and as long as anyone is a lawful carrier that is their personal decision.
Their is no hate of rule of law, no anarchy, no law-abiding citizens are not up to no good and we already have thousands of laws on the books that just need to be enforced. This is just more overbearing, elitist government control. Also referred to as “socialist measures.”
Who hates the rule of law? The law says you do not have to produce your permit on demand. So who was doing the hating? The cop or the guy with the gun?
You dumb SPY. Read the article again and again. Hopefully, you’ll read and understand the part that states a resident called the police about guy with a gun. That call is referred to as a priority one.
So what? A person can call the cops for whatever reason they want. You choose to go for a walk in a ritzy ‘hood in Greenwich. They call the cops because a shady Puerto Rican who does not belong in the area is walking around. No crime was committed. Even if you are wearing a gun in plain sight the cops have no right to demand ID. They are the police not the Gestapo. Their job is to serve and protect all the people not just the person who called. They work for us. From the video of the incident, the cop was suffering from ‘contempt of cop’ syndrome.
‘So what? A person can call the cops for whatever reason they want.’
Go ahead and call the police and when asked what’s the emergency, tell them you have a hard-on and need a female or male officer to help you with your problem. Get back to us and tell us what happened.
Or, I say there is a guy playing loud music in the street and he has a gun. Should the police come and shoot the guy? Here is a little hint, bozo. You always throw a gun into the complaint call so the cops show up. Then if they ask you, you just say ‘I thought I saw a gun. Sorry, my bad.’
For Q,
You are one sick dude. Carrying a gun is a right guaranteed BY GOD?
Where’s that? The 11 Commandment? Get over yourself and all your self-righteous BS.
Bob, I’m not much of a religious being. As I understand it, God gave us all free will. Legal owner or not we all have the free will to make our own conscious decisions to do or not do anything.
Render unto God those things that are God’s and render unto Caesar those that are Caesar’s.
In other words, obey the f’n laws.
So God gave us a free will and if we choose to use that to murder other human beings, God is good with that. Is that what you and Q are saying?
You dumb ass, that interpretation is a reference to taxes and tithing. Give to God by tithing and pay taxes to Caesar.
I thought you were not religious, Joel!
There are things that are God’s and there are things that are the Government’s. That is the point.
Are you proposing we legislate the Ten Commandments?
*** An unlawful carrier probably would not be open carrying a weapon but concealed instead; however just to be a show-off if they did and were asked to show a permit and refused, by law the P/O is not suppose to even stop and ask for a permit unless a complaint has been filed or a crime committed with possible suspicion the open carry person could be involved? Probably in court if the open carrier was arrested during a stop and question, it would probably be thrown out and all charges dropped, no? ***
If I’m a criminal with a felony arrest and an illegal gun, do I now holster my illegal gun in full sight of the police who can’t ask if I have a permit or do I keep it hidden in my waistband where if seen by a cop he can now inquire about its legality? This legislation is a no-brainer which if not passed will come back to bite QD and his ilk in the ass.
YES!!!
The bill that passed the House late Wednesday, and immediately forwarded to the Senate, would result in the expedited seizure or surrender of firearms and ammunition within 24 hours by people, usually men, against whom restraining orders were filed. They would be allowed expedited court hearings, within seven days, and if found not to be a threat, their weapons and ammunition would be returned within five days.
More common sense being exercised in Hartford.
As if there were no other way to kill or harm. Will knives be removed from the home too? Common sense in Hartford? You mean outside the Capitol, right?
Text of the Second Amendment
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” We have a well regulated militia. It’s called the National Guard.
Connecticut laws are so fucked up. Why is it a denial of anyone’s precious goddamned right to keep and bear arms if a police officer asks to see the proper licensing?
AMENDMENT December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the “Bill of Rights.”
Slavery was indeed America’s “original sin.” Of course, “the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow” lives on in forms of African American humiliation and anger that smolder in ways incommunicable to whites. Look how long it took America to even to think about slavery. Society grows and make changes and the same is true for the Second Amendment.
AMENDMENT XIV – Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
AMENDMENT XV – Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Kid–The supreme court see the phase ‘A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms’ as two different situations. 1. A well-regulated Militia that need guns to keep the security of a free state and 2. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms for whatever reason they want. All the predicate phrases in the sentence do not refer back to the well-regulated Militia.
There are several situations when you do not have to produce ID to exercise your rights or privileges: driving a car, voting (in some states), walking around. Regardless, the law DOES say you do not have to produce your gun license on demand. Until that law is changed this entire argument is moot. BTW–It is perfectly legal to walk the streets with a shotgun as long as you are not restricted from owning a firearm and the shotgun is unloaded. And, you are allowed to use deadly force against someone to prevent them from using deadly force against themselves. I.e., I can shoot you to prevent you from committing suicide.
With many of the incidences of gun violence in the news being the police, why are you so sure it is OK for the police to have guns and not the people?