Where can I and can I not carry?

dis post gon' get a thong/gun pic reply, or nah?

Man, this is a rough crowd.

il_570xN.505350567_k03u.jpg


(Others call them lanyards).
 
Len,

Are you saying that signage to that effect is not legally binding? If you are "made" and asked to leave, and you comply, you aren't breaking any laws?

Don

Don,

Exactly what I'm saying.

Also proper CCW means that you'll never be "made".
 
Len,

have you seen this article?

http://www.victorygunblog.com/blog/printing

I engage in casual carry in CT, since OC is safe and legal. I always use a retention holster when I do this.

Casual Carry = concealed carry with little to no effort to actually conceal. (open carry is actually less convenient since I don't tuck my shirts in normally) I use this term because I wear my shirts untucked when out and about. So I often have a T shirt or polo shirt over a duty sized gun in an OWB holster. What is amazing is that nobody ever notices. I'm talking about a G34 in an ALS retention holster hanging an inch off my belt with 2" of slide hanging below the hem of my shirt.

In MA. Concealed is concealed for obvious reasons.
 
I was just thinking about this the other day. I know in CT you can't carry anywhere the owner of the premises (or person in control of the premises) says "no guns" but I can't really find in the statutes how that needs to be communicated. I would assume clear signage at every entrance but it doesn't really say. I also don't see what the repercussions are if you do carry someplace that says no guns. Do you just have to leave or be charged with trespassing or can you be arrested?

Don, do you know?

I took my wife to do some shopping at Mohegan Sun. I don't go there much at all so I had no clue if they had signs up or if their tribal rules made things different so I didn't carry. I didn't see anything saying I can't. Not only are they casinos with a crap load of cash floating around but they serve alcohol all over the place and they are Indian reservations.

Anyone know about carrying at Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods?
 
I was just thinking about this the other day. I know in CT you can't carry anywhere the owner of the premises (or person in control of the premises) says "no guns" but I can't really find in the statutes how that needs to be communicated. I would assume clear signage at every entrance but it doesn't really say. I also don't see what the repercussions are if you do carry someplace that says no guns. Do you just have to leave or be charged with trespassing or can you be arrested?

Don, do you know?

I took my wife to do some shopping at Mohegan Sun. I don't go there much at all so I had no clue if they had signs up or if their tribal rules made things different so I didn't carry. I didn't see anything saying I can't. Not only are they casinos with a crap load of cash floating around but they serve alcohol all over the place and they are Indian reservations.

Anyone know about carrying at Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods?

Sovereign land, CT and US laws don't apply. You need permission from the Tribal Council as well as the CT license to carry there and it isn't going to happen.

Before they shut down the rear parking lot/entrance, there was a sign within the door. I did some checking on their laws as we sometimes go to Mohegan Sun for the free concerts (Wolf Den). I determined that it wasn't worth getting a CT license as that is my only destination in CT.

They have a million cameras there and tons of security that is invisible to us. Nothing is going to go down inside the casino without a ton of their security folks getting right on top of it.
 
Carl,

I consider the casinos to be like Disney World. I could probably get a gun inside and I could probebly never be found out. But the risk reward isn't worth it.

When I go to the casinio's I usually drink. I don't carry when I drink. And like Len said, the risk is so so low, its not even worth worrying about. That place has SOOOO much security. I used to work for a company that did IT consulting at Foxwoods. There are more guys on the floor than you could ever imagine. I would guess the response time to an active shooter situation to be in the 10 to 20 second range.

Re the CT law, its Chapt 529 Sect 29-28

All the statute says is this:
(e) The issuance of any permit to carry a pistol or revolver does not thereby authorize the possession or carrying of a pistol or revolver in any premises where the possession or carrying of a pistol or revolver is otherwise prohibited by law or is prohibited by the person who owns or exercises control over such premises.

There is no case law around this because nobody ever goes to trial over it. It doesn't say anything about signage. That's all there is. In essence, do what the person who owns/controls the property says to do and you are fine.

This became an issue when CT people started open carrying about 8 years ago. Rich Burgess was arrested by the police even though he agreed to leave the premises when asked by the bar manager. Since then, nobody has been arrested who has agreed to leave when asked, even in places with signage.

Rich also sued the local PD in civil court over the arrest and lost. So in CT, its pretty much do what you want with exceptions listed below and always respect the will of the property owner.

Prohibited by statute in CT is only primary and secondary schools. Colleges are legal but fall under the section shown above re property owner.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_952.htm#sec_53a-217b

Key points in teh school prohibition is that the person must have KNOWN that carry in a school was unlawful and they must have known that they had a gun. This is also borne out in the jury instructions around this charge.
 
Sovereign land, CT and US laws don't apply. You need permission from the Tribal Council as well as the CT license to carry there and it isn't going to happen.

Before they shut down the rear parking lot/entrance, there was a sign within the door. I did some checking on their laws as we sometimes go to Mohegan Sun for the free concerts (Wolf Den). I determined that it wasn't worth getting a CT license as that is my only destination in CT.

They have a million cameras there and tons of security that is invisible to us. Nothing is going to go down inside the casino without a ton of their security folks getting right on top of it.

Thanks Len, that's kind of what I figured. That's fine, I don't go there much and it's probably one of the safest places on the planet.

Thanks Don, that's the statute I read too and thought to myself, seriously, that's all it says? I must be missing something but I guess not. If I know a place says no guns I try not to go there anyway, especially a place like Panera Bread so I don't support their business. My bank has a clear sign on the door so I don't carry there but it bugs me a little. I am guessing that all banks in CT say no guns, even if they don't have signs up.

I don't drink much but I do occasionally go to pubs to eat and have a beer or two with friends. I often carry in those places as I have never seen anything in the CT statutes saying I can't and I've never seen any signage. I look at it as a restaurant even though most of them do have bars in house.

If I were going to a place that was strictly a bar I might not carry I guess. Like I said, I don't drink much so I can't remember the last time I went to a bar.
 
Last edited:
This became an issue when CT people started open carrying about 8 years ago. Rich Burgess was arrested by the police even though he agreed to leave the premises when asked by the bar manager. Since then, nobody has been arrested who has agreed to leave when asked, even in places with signage.

Rich also sued the local PD in civil court over the arrest and lost. So in CT, its pretty much do what you want with exceptions listed below and always respect the will of the property owner.

Is there more info on this case available? Was he carrying and ignoring posted signage or something? Seems a bit iffy to be arrested for not being able to read the property owner's mind.
 
... Re the CT law, its Chapt 529 Sect 29-28

All the statute says is this:
(e) The issuance of any permit to carry a pistol or revolver does not thereby authorize the possession or carrying of a pistol or revolver in any premises where the possession or carrying of a pistol or revolver is otherwise prohibited by law or is prohibited by the person who owns or exercises control over such premises.

There is no case law around this because nobody ever goes to trial over it. ... That's all there is. In essence, do what the person who owns/controls the property says to do and you are fine.

This became an issue when CT people started open carrying about 8 years ago. Rich Burgess was arrested by the police even though he agreed to leave the premises when asked by the bar manager. ...

Did Burgess immediately leave the premises when asked, yet get arrested after the fact?

Or did he treat the manager's order to leave as an opportunity for a debate on constitutional law, and stick around long enough to constitute a refusal to leave?
140830a-felix-unger.jpg

I don't carry in CT, but this is of particular interest to me. If I'm ever "made" and asked to leave some GFZ hellhole, I intend my only response to be, "Yes; do you want me to pay for the food I've ordered, or should I leave immediately?". (Of course some managers would want the bill settled first; but some bedwetters would be willing to comp the meal in exchange for the scary gun disappearing sooner).

Note that "finish your meal but don't come back" isn't an acceptable response. I would never trust such a business not to use it as a delaying tactic until a cop arrived on scene. Ain't nobody got time for that.
 
Did Burgess immediately leave the premises when asked, yet get arrested after the fact?

Or did he treat the manager's order to leave as an opportunity for a debate on constitutional law, and stick around long enough to constitute a refusal to leave?
...
I don't carry in CT, but this is of particular interest to me. If I'm ever "made" and asked to leave some GFZ hellhole, I intend my only response to be, "Yes; do you want me to pay for the food I've ordered, or should I leave immediately?". (Of course some managers would want the bill settled first; but some bedwetters would be willing to comp the meal in exchange for the scary gun disappearing sooner).

Note that "finish your meal but don't come back" isn't an acceptable response. I would never trust such a business not to use it as a delaying tactic until a cop arrived on scene. Ain't nobody got time for that.

Burgess wasn't arrested for trespassing or carrying in a prohibited location. He was initially told that he was being arrested for Breach of Peace 2d but was booked for Disorderly Conduct. The criminal case was later dismissed.

There is some debate as to why the arrest was made. Burgess would assert that the arrest was a result of his open carrying. The officers deposed relative to the failed civil suite that followed all made statements regarding the ambiguity of Connecticut law relevant to open carry, BUT pinned the basis of the arrest on a verbal dispute between Burgess and the complainant. (Their responses to questions related to that topic were all structured to suggest that there could be instances when the result of open carry could substantiate charges) The complainant was another patron of the pool hall, who also holds a permit (with current/ previous security and bail enforcement endorsements)- who learned back in the day that Connecticut was a concealment required state. A ranking officer on desk/dispatch duty that evening did make a radio transmission indicating concealment was required. (The call for service was related to a person open carrying, Burgess asserts that he did not get into an argument with the complainant). Upon his release on a PTA, Wallingford PD gave Burgess his gun and magazines back, and also did not refer his permit for revocation, as officers deposed claim because, his arrest was not related to the gun.
 
Last edited:
Carl,

I consider the casinos to be like Disney World. I could probably get a gun inside and I could probebly never be found out. But the risk reward isn't worth it.

When I go to the casinio's I usually drink. I don't carry when I drink. And like Len said, the risk is so so low, its not even worth worrying about. That place has SOOOO much security. I used to work for a company that did IT consulting at Foxwoods. There are more guys on the floor than you could ever imagine. I would guess the response time to an active shooter situation to be in the 10 to 20 second range.

Re the CT law, its Chapt 529 Sect 29-28

All the statute says is this:
(e) The issuance of any permit to carry a pistol or revolver does not thereby authorize the possession or carrying of a pistol or revolver in any premises where the possession or carrying of a pistol or revolver is otherwise prohibited by law or is prohibited by the person who owns or exercises control over such premises.

There is no case law around this because nobody ever goes to trial over it. It doesn't say anything about signage. That's all there is. In essence, do what the person who owns/controls the property says to do and you are fine.

This became an issue when CT people started open carrying about 8 years ago. Rich Burgess was arrested by the police even though he agreed to leave the premises when asked by the bar manager. Since then, nobody has been arrested who has agreed to leave when asked, even in places with signage.

Rich also sued the local PD in civil court over the arrest and lost. So in CT, its pretty much do what you want with exceptions listed below and always respect the will of the property owner.

Prohibited by statute in CT is only primary and secondary schools. Colleges are legal but fall under the section shown above re property owner.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_952.htm#sec_53a-217b

Key points in teh school prohibition is that the person must have KNOWN that carry in a school was unlawful and they must have known that they had a gun. This is also borne out in the jury instructions around this charge.

The only 29-28(e) prosecution that I know of involved William Dong, who took a guilty plea to two counts for carrying two pistols upon his person at UNH. (He was also plead guilty in state and federal court to charges related to a Bushmaster AR variant in his vehicle, which he unlawfully acquired in PA and imported to CT). 29-28(e) is serious in the sense that criminalizes carrying in a location prohibited by law or by the owner/controller to the degree of a class e felony, with a 2 year non-suspendable sentence. That means that an individual could be charged under that section for violating many different things (carrying/possessing on postal property, carrying/possessing on school grounds/function, carrying/possessing in locations prohibited by town ordinances, carrying/possessing in a owner/controller declared gun free zone, etc...)

(I am going to address 53a-217b another time)
 
Last edited:
Burgess wasn't arrested for trespassing or carrying in a prohibited location. He was initially told that he was being arrested for Breach of Peace 2d but was booked for Disorderly Conduct. The criminal case was later dismissed. ...

Thanks for the details. And pardon my asking - I now see I could have found them elsewhere on the forum:

... Rich B. is one of the activists on the front lines of the open carry movement in CT. He intentionally waited around after leaving to assert his right to be outside the establishment openly carrying. i.e. he was prepared to be arrested. Also, when asked to remove the gun, he produced documentation that you can print out from opencarry.org, rather than just leaving. ...

So Burgess made no effort to leave the property and was arrested on-site, long after the pool hall manager told him they were going to check with Wallingford PD whether or not OC was legal in CT.

(I know when I have a gun law question, Wallingford PD is the first place I'd go for a legal opinion).

The long version: Burgess v Wallingford: Background includes much evidence about how the situation escalated because of a douchburger pool hall patron who objected to OC.

And in the end, Burgess beat the rap, but he didn't beat the ride, sigh.
 
Thanks everyone, tons of excellent info here.

I do think they need to clarify the CT statute. Maybe it needs to state that there has to be clear signage of no guns for a private property if they don't want people carrying there. That said, I don't want to call attention to it and have 75% of CT property owners tossing up no guns signs all over the place.

Maybe a better way would be for the statute to state that there will be no charges or arrests (regardless of signage or not) as long as the gun owner leaves the property peacefully when informed by the owner or an agent of the owner (property manager, store manager, etc.) that guns are not allowed on that property.

I say regardless of signage because it's really easy to miss a sign entering a store or something. Obviously the places specifically named by law like federal buildings and schools don't need signage but it would still be helpful if they did.
 
In Burges' case, the complainant was not the manager of the bar. He was a patron. Burgess asked the manager of the bar if it was ok to keep the gun on him. Before the two had sorted things out the cops arrested him.

During the civil suit verbal communications between the cops was subpoena'd. In it they discussed to the effect of "I dont' think he's breaking the law, but lets get him with something."

Here is a summary of what happened:

http://ctcarry.com/BurgessvWallingford/Background

This page also had links to the depositions. I've read through them all years ago. Its pretty dry. The summary should give you what you need.

Either way. Things have progressed in CT since then. Stay out of schools.

Also, there are regulations in some State forests against carrying. These are intended to be anti-poaching regulations. I've spoken to several Conservation Officers about this and their response has been 100% uniform to the effect of "If I catch you in here with a Glock, I'll probably tell you to go put it in the car. If I catch you in here with a scoped, .44 magnum revolver, I'll arrest you for poaching".

Don
 
Also, there are regulations in some State forests against carrying. These are intended to be anti-poaching regulations. I've spoken to several Conservation Officers about this and their response has been 100% uniform to the effect of "If I catch you in here with a Glock, I'll probably tell you to go put it in the car. If I catch you in here with a scoped, .44 magnum revolver, I'll arrest you for poaching".

Don
Glock 20 MOS okay? [laugh]
 
During the civil suit verbal communications between the cops was subpoena'd. In it they discussed to the effect of "I dont' think he's breaking the law, but lets get him with something."
That's one of the odd points in the Burgess case, because the communications and deposition testimony reflected this fluctuation between this idea that (burgess) wasn't actually doing anything illegal (with respect to the open carry) and the law requires concealment. My genuine belief is that substantiating the arrest based on the purported disturbance with the complainant was intended purely to try to fix the problem.
 
Last edited:
In Burges' case, the complainant was not the manager of the bar. He was a patron. Burgess asked the manager of the bar if it was ok to keep the gun on him. Before the two had sorted things out the cops arrested him.
...
Here is a summary of what happened:

http://ctcarry.com/BurgessvWallingford/Background ...

No contest about your take on events. I note that the case highlights some of the more obscure risks of treating contact with Sheeple as a teaching opportunity. (And we both linked to the same good page).
 
No contest about your take on events. I note that the case highlights some of the more obscure risks of treating contact with Sheeple as a teaching opportunity. (And we both linked to the same good page).

That's what interesting. The compainant wasn't sheeple. He was a long time permit holder who had historically also held security and bail enforcement endorsements on his pistol permit. He was just not educated.Like most people who got permits when he got his, he genuinely believed that open carry was illegal.

Prior to the Goldberg case, it was very well accepted in Connecticut that if your firearm became exposed you were getting booked for breach of peace 2d or disorderly conduct and were getting revoked (and having the revocation upheld). That perspective used to be promoted by both law enforcement (hence the comments by at least one officer during the communications about concealment) and many instructors who wanted to keep their students from getting themselves into bad situations. After Goldberg, word got around that open carry was not, in and of itself, inherently illegal and a vocal minority began doing it. Now most instructors more accurately teach their students about open carry- with some encouraging it and others at least making sure that students have a better understanding of its status.
 
That's what interesting. The compainant wasn't sheeple. He was a long time permit holder who had historically also held security and bail enforcement endorsements on his pistol permit. He was just not educated.Like most people who got permits when he got his, he genuinely believed that open carry was illegal.

So in other words he was woefully ignorant for a person who really had less of an excuse than the average joe to be.... shocking! /sarc.
 
So in other words he was woefully ignorant for a person who really had less of an excuse than the average joe to be.... shocking! /sarc.

I would say poorly trained. During his deposition, he described being taught that Connecticut required concealment when he took his initial pistol course. He also referenced being taught (when he received additional training for his blue and gold card endorsements) that those endorsements were to visibly carry, only while working (the correct understanding of the endorsements is that they allow a person to carry while engaged in certain occupation, without regard for mode). Albeit erroneous instruction, the instructors teaching that stuff were parroting the state's line, which at least one state board also disseminated in a no-longer published document intended to provide guidance about Connecticut firearm laws.

Similarly, the responding officers were also poorly trained. Each officer deposed expressed confusion about open carry laws. Each officer also denied receiving any recent training about Connecticut firearms laws, aside from what may have been mentioned during annual (general) law update training.One officer, who made the concealment required remark that was on the record, also testified during deposition that there was nobody in the department who had (particular knowledge of) firearms laws and that he would have sought information from the State Police Firearms (and Licensing) Unit if the incident had occurred during business hours. Since Goldberg and Burgess, an increasing number of communities have provided more training to their officers about firearms carry laws either through memos or other instruction. The CSAO has also published guidance to police about firearm carry laws, requests to see permits, etc.... (primarily resultant to the Lazurek case, which resulted in a dismissed criminal case, permit revocation, administrative appeal, and superior court appeal by DESPP, after an individual refused to show his permit while open carrying).

One thing to keep in mind is that as vocal as the open carry people are, they are a small minority. I have seen open carry just 3 times in Connecticut, outside of gun stores/ranges/hunting areas (by people other than police officers or OTJ security guards). One was an armored car guard just off shift at gas station near his place of employment, half in uniform with his Sigma in a duty holster, another was an activist looking for a cop to make his day at a town festival, and the last was a tow truck driver in Hartford.
 
When I got my CT Pistol Permit in 1989 I was taught that it was breach of peace if my firearm accidentally became exposed. I was so freaked out by this that I only carried pocket guns for the first 15 years after that.

I agree JAG, Goldberg changed everything. (Even though he also lost his civil suit against the Wethersfield PD).

Since Goldberg and Burgess its become well known among CT police that OC is legal.

There is a funny recording Rich Burgess made while open carrying in New Haven of a NHPD officer ordering him to conceal his firearm while walking on a public sidewalk. Burgess refuses, the cop then begins PLEADING with him to conceal. My how times have changed.


http://ctcarry.com/Document/Download/a034b530-1221-425d-a99f-53af710ff219
 
Back
Top Bottom