Update, law clarification: In the state of Connecticut are you required to show a gun permit when wearing a weapon openly? A stand-off between city police and a patron packing a gun played out in a Subway shop on Main Street Downtown. Check out the videos that capture the moment in a city struggling to reduce violent crime.
Public safety spokesman Michael Giannotti shared this interpretation from Lieutenant Christopher LeMaine:
“Recently an issue came up on what to do with a person who openly cares a handgun and whether an officer has the right to ask to see a pistol permit from the person and what to do if that person refuses to show it. To clarify this, I have consulted our State’s Attorney, John Smriga. He stated that unless the officer has prior knowledge that the person has a valid pistol permit, 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 (53a-167a). Other chargers such as Breach of Peace may apply, but would be case specific. The requirement to show the permit can be found in Public Act 15-216.”
The CT Post has more about the confrontation here
A most interesting dialogue and an opportunity for learning, probably.
Do I understand a citizen has a right to carry a weapon in public (as a legal right) and has no coincident responsibility to show a license or other evidence the gun and carrier of same are licensed, registered, etc.? Anybody provide what the facts are in Bridgeport, CT, and USA at this moment? I never would have guessed that as an automobile owner and driver I would have more responsibility in this regard when asked by a public safety officer than a gun-bearing citizen. Time will tell.
So was this clown arrested?
Next update.
What defies credulity is two police patrolman and a police officer had no clue what the law was with respect to this individual’s right not to show his permit. One would think every Bridgeport police officer would know this law specifically.
You mean this law:
PA 15-216 – AN ACT CONCERNING RISK REDUCTION CREDITS, CARRY PERMITS AND PAROLE OFFICER ACCESS TO STATE FIREARMS DATABASE
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2015
This act, among other things, requires a pistol or revolver permit holder to present his or her permit when a law enforcement officer (1) observes the person carrying a pistol or revolver and (2) has reasonable suspicion of a crime for purposes of verifying the validity of person’s permit and his or her identity. Current law requires permit holders to carry their permits while carrying a pistol or revolver.
It also allows parole officers, in performance of their duties, to access the names and addresses of people (1) issued permits to carry or sell handguns, handgun or long gun eligibility certificates, assault weapon possession certificates, or ammunition certificates and (2) who declared possession of large capacity magazines.
Oh and the suspected crime on open carry whether breach of peace or disorderly conduct would be 29-35 which requires a person to have a VALID CT PISTOL PERMIT to carry a weapon whether concealed or open. That being said and a class D felony is the suspected crime inquiring if the person has a permit is a valid request if refused can be arrested for interfering all of which was upheld in a Supreme Court decision in May 2015 in the state of CT in addition the stop itself asking for a permit is also not a violation of the 4th amendment as well. Just saying. Idiots like this are why they continue to pass more laws against legal gun owners. Instead of antagonizing the cops for YouTube props, show the permit, find it’s valid and move on, no harm no foul.
I think both police officers handle the situation well but I’m glad the guy did record the incident. There is a question about the word “may” in the law and does “may” mean “shall?”
*** Actually unless someone called and wished to file a complaint because they felt threatened by this guy carrying a weapon, the officer, believe it or not, is not even supposed to stop the guy and ask if he has a permit! I’ve seen this before in other states I visited this past summer, it’s kind of crazy, no? I ask myself, then why even have a damned permit in the first place? Now if it’s concealed then I believe you must have a permit but if it’s out in the open like back during the wild west days, I don’t think you need anything other than having the weapon registered and not be an ex-felon. He’s lucky he was videoing this encounter because if he wasn’t, then it would have been a different story with his word against the police and we all know who the courts side with, don’t we! I don’t think today’s society is mature enough nor has the patience and smarts to just be carrying weapons out in public like that; rights or no rights. This country is becoming more and more gun crazy, every time the government tries to put more controls on weapons in general! ***
*** All states have different laws on open carry. In CT you must have a gun permit to carry open or concealed. And sometimes you could get cited for breach of peace or disorderly conduct if you act like the guy on the video! He’s lucky he was in fact recording the incident, in my opinion, very lucky! ***
This posting began with an interpretation of applicable law by the State’s Attorney. The police officers showed restraint, but they should have arrested the individual. I wonder if Governor Malloy has seen this video. So much for more restrictive background checks when you have disrespectful, defiant individuals flaunting his being armed.
This man had every right to question the action of the police and to film the incident and is one reason why police officers need to wear body cameras.
You are kidding me. That’s your beliefs? What happened to respect authority and obey the law? Sorry, not a fireman sleeping on duty getting paid. Jackass.
It is very disconcerting to see police officers so cowed by the litigiousness of our society they are reluctant to exercise their common sense when ascertaining the legitimacy of the possession and public display of a firearm. The need for a permit to have a sidearm on one’s person is a decades-old statute in Connecticut and most other states. The arrogant person in that video should have been arrested and his firearm permit revoked under the provisions of the statute cited above. Police officers have the legal right to confront and demand ID from persons behaving in suspicious/threatening and irrational ways, based on their judgment calls. A guy walking around Bridgeport displaying a sidearm like he’s in Old Tucson fits the categories of threatening and suspicious. And as it turns out, the officers were solidly backed by the law and didn’t need any deliberation about making and enforcing their request for ID/pistol permit.
Of course, the overreaction and brutality cases involving various police departments (including our own) just sets the stage for arrogant fools, such as the person in the above video, to make a difficult job (being a police officer) impossible.
Those three cops wanted to do their job, but the tenor of the times has cops in Bridgeport so psychologically hobbled they are afraid to trust their own training and instincts, and possibly even the law (which, I suspect, they knew quite well in this particular situation).
The arrogant fool in the video is just one more argument for stricter gun control measures.
Welcome to Mogadishu!
Should have been arrested for video. The law is clear, if you are interacting with a person and the video is hindering as it is in this, are interfering is the charge to be applied. Now a third-party witness not being interviewed wants to video all set by statute but not the guy being interviewed, are you kidding me? Oh and body cameras are going to fix what? Idiots?
Jeff, so these police officers should be brought up on charges of not doing their job thereby endangering the public?
Ron: The behavior of these officers certainly doesn’t indicate a need for any discipline. They are obviously outstanding officers (very cool-headed) who know how to avoid causing a situation to escalate.
But it is also obvious–by induction–our beleaguered BPD cops need support and encouragement.
The arrogant, antagonistic fool who publicly displayed his sidearm and videotaped the cops’ reaction to the situation was obviously baiting those cops. They allowed him to get away with it in order to avoid the media sensationalism (and damage to BPD and their legitimacy) that would have ensued had they rightfully called him on the permit and videotaping and arrested him.
Had the cops arrested the a-hole, the guns-rights imbeciles and their anti-cop in-laws would have been all over the media indicting those cops and the BPD for their failure to respect the gun-toting a-hole and his “constitutional right” to intimidate the Bridgeport public and the BPD.
What those cops, and all the BPD cops on the street, need is reassurance the city and community are behind them and won’t throw them under the bus if they are challenged legally because of the legitimate exercise of their police powers. (Such as in making a gun-toting a-hole produce his/her permit to carry). If one is to analyze the behavior/posturing of the cops while confronting the gun-toter, it is apparent (to this Bridgeporter) the cops didn’t feel secure in having the city/the public behind them. The cops need to know we are behind them when they are rightfully fulfilling their duties in pursuit of public safety.
Jeff, that’s not what I saw. I saw police officers who weren’t sure what the law was governing carrying a gun and whether carrying and showing a permit were part of Connecticut laws. Guns are a big issue in Connecticut in general and Bridgeport specifically and one would think they should know the current laws governing both carrying and permits.
One good thing came out of this situation, awareness. There will be no doubt should this happen in the near future it will be dealt with a little differently next time, video or not.
#1 this hoodlum called the officers “Dick Heads” at the end of the video which in itself should get him put in the back of the car.
#2 this hoodlum has a YOUTUBE channel where he does this ALL across Connecticut.
I personally wish someone would beat the shit out of him. I understand the rights and blah blah blah, but when you go out of your way to provoke officers and get attention, you deserve to get the shit kicked out of you.
www .youtube.com/channel/UCxroonWoz2EFdweb1R5cAZA
That’s the asshole’s YouTube channel. Don’t believe me, just watch! (Yes, I was singing Bruno Mars when I wrote that last sentence.)
This guy can be on 15 television channels, who gives a shit. He is a troublemaker and should have been arrested.
One thing came out of this video and that is the cops need a refresher course in some of these laws they don’t come across often.
Thanks to all the posts. And to the observation of all this by the City Attorney’s office with a close look at the law. Bottom line at the moment seems to be, if there is no suspected crime in the area at the time, then the individual has a “right” to deny an answer to the police. In fact wearing the gun in the open, and pushing the envelope with Police present, almost taunting or more is a pretext to getting arrested, and then suing the City and whether a settlement is made early (smaller) or later (larger), the result is a failure to live up to the terms of the law as it is may cause a police officer to create another liability for City taxpayers. Training is important as is good judgement. (How comfortable are downtown shoppers with others openly carrying guns? Encouraging of more retail?) And laws that fail to make sense in operation require more work, no? Time will tell.