Should An Arrest With No Conviction Prevent Me From Getting A Conceal/Carry In CT?

[Rob Boudrie]

But remember one thing. An arrest that is dismissed is not a part of a criminal record. I have no record. The case was dismissed

This may very well be true in CT, but is absolutely untrue in MA.

Remember, innocent until proven guilty.

You are indeed fortunate if this is the policy in your state.

 

[xtry51]

I thought I've heard you can go right to the staties to get your prints done and pretty much do the whole process through them. Thats probably wrong because people love to talk about things they know nothing about but this person said the state police make the whole process alot easier. Thanks to everyone for the advice on this matter. Innocent until proven guilty seems to be a good argument here but at the same time I dont know if using the Pre-trial Diversion program makes a difference.

btw - I asked the court clerk at the conclusion of my case if prospective employers could see my record and she said no. I'm sure the CCW process is more thorough than a job application.
What about transporting the weapons to property I have in VT? Federal permit?

Nope, just lock them unloaded, ammo separate, and put them in trunk/back of car and you're good to go. Oh, and don't stop in MA on the way there, period.

 

[dcmdon]

Smokey,

The state police will often do prints for you. But its up to them as to whether they want to do them or not. The Troop F Barracks in Westbrook on I95 are happy to do them, work permitting.

The CT statute does not require that the issuing PD do the prints so this is within the law. . . . BUT some local PDs that want to make things difficult for applicants require that you do the prints with them. Often this is the same PD that "for scheduling reasons" only does 2 printing sessions of Pistol Permit Applicants per week. So there is a 6 month backlog for prints.

So in summary, yes, most towns accept prints from the State Police. And most Barracks will do them happily, for free. But you need to check it out yourself

Finally, PLEASE stop using the term CCW. There is not a single word in any CT statute that uses any variation of the word "concealed". Its technically a "Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers". aka "Pistol Permit".

CT is an open carry state for those who choose to do so.

 

[xtry51]

This may very well be true in CT, but is absolutely untrue in MA.
You are indeed fortunate if this is the policy in your state.

I think it's funny that you think we're fortunate when you're state is one of few (if not the only) that treats it's citizens that way.

It's not that we and 48 other states are lucky or won some mystical freedom lottery, it's that your state sucks

 

[dcmdon]

Nope, just lock them unloaded, ammo separate, and put them in trunk/back of car and you're good to go. Oh, and don't stop in MA on the way there, period.

You can carry long guns in or through CT any way you want, as long as they are not loaded. Someone from out of state can literally have an (AWB compliant) AR15 across their lap while driving with a loaded magazine in their hand. If the mag isn't in the gun, its perfectly legal.

Xtry's advice is good safe advice. But if you are just going to CT, you don't need to bother with locking or casing long guns.
If you have handguns, you can't bring them to CT for anything other than organized shooting events or some other minor excluded situations, without a Pistol Permit.

If you are traveling interstate you need to Google the term FOPA and look up the safe passage clause. As Xtry51 implied, this is your safe way across MA. Make sure you comply with FOPA. Its very specific as to what you need to do to be protected. Don't take my word. Look it up and read it.

 

[dcmdon]

I think it's funny that you think we're fortunate when you're state is one of few (if not the only) that treats it's citizens that way.

It's not that we and 48 other states are lucky or won some mystical freedom lottery, it's that your state sucks

I think on balance CT is not that bad. I chaffe at the fact that I need to ask governments permission for many of the things I do and want. But really, there is nothing that I can't do in CT that I want to do.

1) pistol permit process is usually straightforward.
2) can carry a handgun pretty much anytime, anywhere. (secondary schools or lower are the only real prohibition)
3) mail order ammo
4) long guns are pretty much unregulated
5) private sale of long guns to a permit or hunting license holder with nothing more than a bill of sale
6) no restrictions on magazine capacity
7) no restrictions on Class 3 firearms including silencers, machine guns or anything else.
8) no gun registration. (machine guns excluded) If you move here with a bunch of guns, you don't need to do anything to be legal. You can immediately do whatever you want with long guns as long as they are unloaded in the car. With a pistol permit, you can take your handguns almost anywhere, anyhow, for any reason.
9) State recognizes revocable trusts, which makes buying and owning Class 3 firearms much more straightforward.
10) no prohibition on home based FFL

.
Yes, the AWB is a thorn. But if you want an AR with a telescoping stock and a flash suppressor, spend $300 extra and get a pre-ban lower. Then put anything you want on or in it. Including a short barreled upper or an auto sear.

If you want an AK, get the superior AK74.
If you want an AK with threaded bbl, folding stock, etc, you will have to step up an pay$800 for a pre-ban Norinco or (damn can't remember other brand) in .223.
(No AKs in 7.62x39 allowed)

In my mind, the most important thing is that once I have a pistol permit, I can carry whatever I want, whenever I want, wherever I want.

Don

 

[xtry51]

I think on balance CT is not that bad. I chaffe at the fact that I need to ask governments permission for many of the things I do and want. But really, there is nothing that I can't do in CT that I want to do.

1) pistol permit process is usually straightforward.
2) can carry a handgun pretty much anytime, anywhere. (secondary schools or lower are the only real prohibition)
3) mail order ammo
4) long guns are pretty much unregulated
5) private sale of long guns to a permit or hunting license holder with nothing more than a bill of sale
6) no restrictions on magazine capacity
7) no restrictions on Class 3 firearms including silencers, machine guns or anything else.
8) no gun registration. If you move here with a bunch of guns, you don't need to do anything to be legal. (machine guns excluded)
9) State recognizes revocable trusts, which makes buying and owning Class 3 firearms much more straightforward.
10) no prohibition on home based FFL

You can pretty much have whatever you want.
The AWB is ridiculous. If you want an AR with a telescoping stock and a flash suppressor, spend $300 extra and get a pre-ban lower.
If you want an AK, get the superior AK74.
If you want an AK with threaded bbl, folding stock, etc, you will have to step up an pay$800 for a pre-ban Norinco or (damn can't remember other brand).

In my mind, the most important thing is that once I have a pistol permit, I can carry whatever I want, whenever I want, wherever I want.

Don

It's true that if we could get rid of the AWB it wouldn't be egregious. Constitutional carry along with that would be nice though...

 

[dcmdon]

Nice, but not necessary. Look at the crap the people in MA have to deal with. They need an FID to buy a box of ammo!!! Crazy. And who can keep track of all the tiers of pistol permits they issue. And $800 glocks because that model can't be sold in state. Total insanity.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

And who can keep track of all the tiers of pistol permits they issue.

They make it easy by color coding them - then come with a pink, yellow, blue, white or green stripe . Of course, the various sub-categories can be a bit tricky to track .

I wish I were joking.

 

[travis]

The fact that a permit is needed at all is sad.

 

[dcmdon]

Agreed. But I can still own pretty much anything I want, and take it anywhere I want.

And remember, a permit is only required for hand guns. As far as long guns are concerned, CT is "free".

 

[GSG]

btw - I asked the court clerk at the conclusion of my case if prospective employers could see my record and she said no. I'm sure the CCW process is more thorough than a job application.

It will be. The chances are also greater that someone at the PD will know the cop who arrested you in the 1st place.

I think on balance CT is not that bad.

I agree with you that it's not that bad when compared to a few other states. There is one thing about CT's gun laws that raises my eyebrows though.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/pub/chap529.htm#Sec29-38c.htm

Sec. 29-38c. Seizure of firearms of person posing risk of imminent personal injury to self or others. (a) Upon complaint on oath by any state's attorney or assistant state's attorney or by any two police officers, to any judge of the Superior Court, that such state's attorney or police officers have probable cause to believe that (1) a person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to other individuals, (2) such person possesses one or more firearms, and (3) such firearm or firearms are within or upon any place, thing or person, such judge may issue a warrant commanding a proper officer to enter into or upon such place or thing, search the same or the person and take into such officer's custody any and all firearms. Such state's attorney or police officers shall not make such complaint unless such state's attorney or police officers have conducted an independent investigation and have determined that such probable cause exists and that there is no reasonable alternative available to prevent such person from causing imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to others with such firearm.

(b) A warrant may issue only on affidavit sworn to by the complainant or complainants before the judge and establishing the grounds for issuing the warrant, which affidavit shall be part of the seizure file. In determining whether grounds for the application exist or whether there is probable cause to believe they exist, the judge shall consider: (1) Recent threats or acts of violence by such person directed toward other persons; (2) recent threats or acts of violence by such person directed toward himself or herself; and (3) recent acts of cruelty to animals as provided in subsection (b) of section 53-247 by such person. In evaluating whether such recent threats or acts of violence constitute probable cause to believe that such person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to others, the judge may consider other factors including, but not limited to (A) the reckless use, display or brandishing of a firearm by such person, (B) a history of the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force by such person against other persons, (C) prior involuntary confinement of such person in a hospital for persons with psychiatric disabilities, and (D) the illegal use of controlled substances or abuse of alcohol by such person. If the judge is satisfied that the grounds for the application exist or that there is probable cause to believe that they exist, such judge shall issue a warrant naming or describing the person, place or thing to be searched. The warrant shall be directed to any police officer of a regularly organized police department or any state police officer. It shall state the grounds or probable cause for its issuance and it shall command the officer to search within a reasonable time the person, place or thing named for any and all firearms. A copy of the warrant shall be given to the person named therein together with a notice informing the person that such person has the right to a hearing under this section and the right to be represented by counsel at such hearing.

(c) The applicant for the warrant shall file a copy of the application for the warrant and all affidavits upon which the warrant is based with the clerk of the court for the geographical area within which the search will be conducted no later than the next business day following the execution of the warrant. Prior to the execution and return of the warrant, the clerk of the court shall not disclose any information pertaining to the application for the warrant or any affidavits upon which the warrant is based. The warrant shall be executed and returned with reasonable promptness consistent with due process of law and shall be accompanied by a written inventory of all firearms seized.

(d) Not later than fourteen days after the execution of a warrant under this section, the court for the geographical area where the person named in the warrant resides shall hold a hearing to determine whether the seized firearms should be returned to the person named in the warrant or should continue to be held by the state. At such hearing the state shall have the burden of proving all material facts by clear and convincing evidence. If, after such hearing, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to other individuals, it may order that the firearm or firearms seized pursuant to the warrant issued under subsection (a) of this section continue to be held by the state for a period not to exceed one year, otherwise the court shall order the seized firearm or firearms to be returned to the person named in the warrant. If the court finds that the person poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to other individuals, it shall give notice to the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services which may take such action pursuant to chapter 319i as it deems appropriate.

(e) Any person whose firearm or firearms have been ordered seized pursuant to subsection (d) of this section, or such person's legal representative, may transfer such firearm or firearms in accordance with the provisions of section 29-33 or other applicable state or federal law, to any person eligible to possess such firearm or firearms. Upon notification in writing by such person, or such person's legal representative, and the transferee, the head of the state agency holding such seized firearm or firearms shall within ten days deliver such firearm or firearms to the transferee.

It's different than the "suitability revocation" scheme in Mass., but those standards are pretty broad. If I had to move back to the Northeast I'd still take CT over Mass. though; at least the above involves some due process.

 

[dcmdon]

Here's the reality in any state. If people think you are a threat, they can get a judge to sign off on temporarily removing your firearms.

I look at this piece of legislation and notice that it gives us several protections. I'd rather have that than have the cops "winging it".

(e) explicitly allows you to transfer the firearms to any non-prohibited person and requires the police to release the firearms into that person's custody within 10 days. That is a very strong pro-gun stand.

It also sets out specific conditions and documentation requirements. When I read this law, I get the impression that whoever wrote it understood the fundamental rights to property and specifically firearms that CT residents had.

There are a lot of hoops and conditions for them to jump through.

I'm not saying I like it, but it removes any capriciousness from this process.

Finally, I'm not interested in this turning into a debate about brandishing, but generally I support anti-brandishing laws. Provided the one agrees that brandishing means that you displayed a firearm in a situation where you would NOT have been justified in using it.

For example.

Brandishing - a guy smaller than you says he's going to kick your ass. He's alone and unarmed. You pull your jacket back revealing a holstered firearm.

Not brandishing - A guy with a knife says he is going to kill you. You draw and present your firearm but before you can send one down range, he ceases his assault and retreats.

Flame away.

Don

 

[xtry51]

Here's the reality in any state. If people think you are a threat, they can get a judge to sign off on temporarily removing your firearms.

I look at this piece of legislation and notice that it gives us several protections. I'd rather have that than have the cops "winging it".

(e) explicitly allows you to transfer the firearms to any non-prohibited person and requires the police to release the firearms into that person's custody within 10 days. That is a very strong pro-gun stand.

It also sets out specific conditions and documentation requirements. When I read this law, I get the impression that whoever wrote it understood the fundamental rights to property and specifically firearms that CT residents had.

There are a lot of hoops and conditions for them to jump through.

I'm not saying I like it, but it removes any capriciousness from this process.

Finally, I'm not interested in this turning into a debate about brandishing, but generally I support anti-brandishing laws. Provided the one agrees that brandishing means that you displayed a firearm in a situation where you would NOT have been justified in using it.

For example.

Brandishing - a guy smaller than you says he's going to kick your ass. He's alone and unarmed. You pull your jacket back revealing a holstered firearm.

Not brandishing - A guy with a knife says he is going to kill you. You draw and present your firearm but before you can send one down range, he ceases his assault and retreats.

Flame away.

Don

I agree with all the top stuff but the bottom gets iffy with me.

I mean what about celebratory gun fire? Like when OBL was killed and I just had to empty a few AK mags into the air?

 

[Smokey4009]

I've heard of someone seeing a gun in say a walmart and calling the police saying they are afraid and the person gets hassled. Or someone riding a motorcycle and someone seeing a gun on them and calling the police, same thing. I suppose its the ignorance of the people who dont have the guns and dont know the laws. Situations like that can make open carry sort of risky no?

 

[buketduder]

Smokey..I had something similair happen to me...I never put ANYTHING on my app about it...I had to do blah blah blah and record would be erased..

As for Open Carry..I have done it around east windsor..even in the walmart without hassle...no one really cares..windsor, enfield, somers...no issues..

 

[dcmdon]

I've heard of someone seeing a gun in say a walmart and calling the police saying they are afraid and the person gets hassled. Or someone riding a motorcycle and someone seeing a gun on them and calling the police, same thing. I suppose its the ignorance of the people who dont have the guns and dont know the laws. Situations like that can make open carry sort of risky no?

What you describe has resulted in people getting charged with breach of peace, in CT.

This has not happened in a couple of years. And the charges are always dropped.
The last was James Goldberg. He is presently suing the town that arrested him. (glastonbury or Wethersfield, I forget) in civil court for a six figure sum.

Either way, the word is out. CT cops know that open carry is legal.

This short audio clip is of a prominent CT open carrier who was recently hassled by a cop in New Haven. Take a listen. Its obvious that the cop knows the OCer is within the law. Note the change in the cops tone once he realizes the OCer knows he is within the law. It goes from commanding to almost pleading.

http://subtlehustle.org/NewHavenRudeOfficer/New Haven OC incident 4-2-2011.mp3

The goldberg case was really the turning point. It resulted in this large civil suit. Its also generated front page articles in the Hartford Courant, the states largest paper and the New Haven Advocate, a free arts and entertainment weekly that is on every street corner in New Haven County.

The advocate article was interesting. Its written by some real left wingers. In the end, I think their dislike for cops was stronger than their dislike for guns.

Don

Advocate Article: http://www.newhavenadvocate.com/new...-policing-gun-owners-20110411,0,7756988.story

Courant Article, its all broken up with ads, scroll down to keep reading: http://articles.courant.com/2010-04...s-0418.artapr18_1_gun-owners-gun-laws-permits

 

[Smokey4009]

I emailed the lawyer from that New Haven Advocate Article. Here is her reply. Its hard to tell whether its really necessary or its just her being a lawyer trying to collect some money.
__________________________________________________

My understanding from your brief email is that you do not have a felony conviction for possession of narcotics as the charge(s) were dismissed after you completed a diversionary program. That is great news because a conviction for a felony would have disqualified you from holding a state permit in Connecticut. However, Connecticut still applies a suitability standard to the consideration of an application for a temporary state permit.

Since your situation is more complicated than situations in which an applicant has had no involvement with the court system and the suitability standard is vague the involvement of an attorney from the beginning may serve you more than it might for another applicant without such complications.

My charge for a consultation is $350.00 which would be credited toward an eight week retainer agreement to monitor your application and subsequent representation before the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners should your application for a temporary state permit be denied.

Best regards and I will look forward to hearing from you

__________________________________________________________________

 

[dcmdon]

Smokey,

I'm not sure who the lawyer is, but there are two people in CT who are very experienced in Firearms law.

One is Rachel Baird. I believe she practices out of Torrington, CT.
The other is Ralph Sherman. I believe his office is in West Hartford.

On balance, whoever it was, $350 seems a reasonable number.

Don

 

[mark056]

It seems reasonable to me, would you rather apply on your on and possibly get turned down? This seems like a good way to get a grasp on the realities of the situation.

I really hate to say this, but your little brush with the law will always be a stain on your record, regardless of disposition, regardless of whether it gets sealed or whatever. Unfortunately in today's world anything you do may be held against you for whatever reason, and unfortunately despite what you may have been told, your arrest MAY come back to haunt you at the most inopportune times.

What I say (and believe based on my experience with the system, albeit not in CT) is not the way it should be, but the way it is and we can rustle up all sorts of indignation about how f***ed the system is, but sadly, that is not going to change anything IMO.

Mark L.

 

[dcmdon]

If I were in your shoes, I'd just engage in some "legal fiction". Its perfectly legal. And if a flag goes up, you deal with it. If it doesn't, you're better off.

I've never actually had to say I'd never been arrested (following the advice of the judge who dismissed the charges).
I'd already had my pistol permit when I was arrested. Interestingly, the New Haven police called the CT board of firearms permit examiners and had my Pistol Permit pulled.
3 months later I explained my situation, complete with internal affairs documents and they reinstated my permit.

We also have a suitability clause in our laws. The difference is that we have an independent, fair, method of escalation if you are denied for suitability reasons.
The CT BFPE is very deferential to the rights of CT citizens.

They are independent, which often pisses off the DPS.

Don

 

[fiddly_foo]

We'll for me I just got back from picking up my CT permit from Bpt. police like 10 min. ago. When I got it she showed me in back in 2000 I got arested for dis.conduct and payed a $50 fine she said she could of denied me for not saying that and then made me go through aplies. But she said that would be stupid for a simp-le $50 fine I was thankfull and off on my way. So I guess it could be how the officer is and make sure you put it down it's better to be safe..

 

[dcmdon]

But you paid the fine, essentially admitting guilt.

Its entirely different legally if charges are dropped.
When charges are dropped it is the system essentially admitting to your innocence.
i.e. not enough evidence to convict, so why bother with a trial.

 

[fiddly_foo]

Yea but the thing is on the permit application I left it empty saying I was never arested and I was. I know this is 100% different then what he's saying.. And then when I just went to pick it up she told me she was going to denie me but she said for a disordaly conduct she though it was stupid for me to waste my time and money going through the appeal process. And she said it was her choice and I thanked her alot ..She was real nice I hear stories were there jerks and don't want you to get the permit and hassy you, but Bridgeport she's the nicest lady. She love's the yankees and Uconn women B-ball overall very nice..It's like i'm 16 getting my drivers license again... ok guys later all and goos luck with your delema.

 

[dcmdon]

Exactly - you lied. Glad to hear you got away with it. Your situation further illustrates why the whole suitability thing is such crap.


Suffice to say that lying to the cops is never smart.

 

[fiddly_foo]

I did lie but not on purpose I thought that the case was droped and I was never charged. That happend in 1999 and now it's 2011 I have shity memory as it is.. If I thought I was found guilty I would of wrote that , I was just wrong. I even did a backgorund check and have my 2 friends that are cops run my name through their system when they were at my house with their squad car on their computer it said my record was clean so I have no idea.. But anyways yea it's all good...

 

[dcmdon]

You don't ever pay a fine if the charges are dropped. Most likely you plead "nolo contendere" or "no contest". You neither admit nor contest the charge. You simply pay a fine are by default "guilty".

Just a guess.

 

[Smokey4009]

Yeah if you pay a fine you are guilty of something. Rachel Baird was the attorney I e-mailed. She seems like she takes alot of gun cases.

I called the Meriden Superior Court and asked the clerk about my record and If I have to list the arrest on the permit application. I know she knows nothing of the permit process but she told me there is no public record of my arrest. I wonder if that means there is a private record of my arrest, something that whoever is reviewing my application will see. Most likely.

 

[M1911]

I did lie but not on purpose I thought that the case was droped and I was never charged.

Was the question whether or not you have been arrested? The fact that the case was dropped later doesn't change the fact that you were arrested, cuffed, and stuffed.

 

[terraformer]

There are court fees that are due when someone CWOFs IIRC. They could be seen or interpreted as a "fine" by the uninitiated. Lets face it, for someone who isn't a revolving criminal train wreck the CJ system is a unknown and very intimidating experience. It is really a good idea to consult an attorney and to get your CORI/other state background check to confirm what exactly transpired. That official record is "the truth" as far as the courts are concerned.