Ray Bevis: Connecticut Pushing ‘Stop and Frisk’ Bill for Gun Owners

courtesy CBS News

Looks like Connecticut hopes to expand their gun control laws by rather a lot in the coming year and one of the bills removes serious liberties from gun owners:

“This year we’re going to put forward four bills that we think will improve safety here in the State of Connecticut,” said Rep. Steve Stafstrom, the co-chair of the Judiciary Committee. …

Republicans and Democrats joined gun control advocates today in pushing two bills that would require unloaded guns to be safely secured at all times either in a home or a car. …

And the fourth proposal is one that has failed in previous years; a law that would allow law enforcement to require gun owners to show their gun permit upon request for any reason.  Ray Bevis of Wolcott and the CCDL calls it a profiling bill adding,  “It’s a ‘stop and frisk’ bill. To say, ‘Hey just because you have a firearm we’re going to stop you and identify you and frisk you down for doing nothing wrong other than carrying a firearm.”

– Mark Davis, wtnh.com in 4 new gun control laws raised in Judiciary Committee

comments

  1. avatar RMS1911 says:

    Still an infringement.
    Time to cull the scum in Connecticut.

    1. avatar UsedtobePun says:

      Americans don’t have the nerve for that. They think the ballot box still works!

      Only voting that works is with your dollars and your feet. Move and take your spending, business and taxes elsewhere. That’s the only penalty they understand.

  2. avatar possum says:

    “that would require unloaded gunns to be safely secured at all times either in a home or in a car” , easy enuff, don’t unload them

    1. avatar Draven says:

      except, that’s already illegal unless you’re one of the anointed ones.

      1. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

        “”don’t unload them””

        “except, that’s already illegal unless you’re one of the anointed ones.”

        Unconstitutional via the ‘Heller’ decision :

        “Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Second_Amendment_findings_and_reasoning_for_the_decision

        There is no difference between unloaded and disassembled, in terms of speed-of-immediate-use…

        1. avatar Draven says:

          doesn’t matter, you can still get arrested and do prison time for it.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Heller and McDonald are ignored with impunity by lower courts. No enforcement mechanism for courts refusing to abide by SC rulings. I suspect that even if SC ruled 2A is absolutely absolute, lower courts would ignore the decision.

        3. avatar Mark N. says:

          Without the benefit of the actual text, these laws typically have an exception for “in the immediate possession.” There is a similar bill pending in California which is modeled on a San Francisco ordinance upheld by the Ninth Circuit, cert den.

        4. avatar Anon in Ct says:

          Although CT is notionally “may issue” it actually operates as pretty much “shall issue” (most CT residents don’t actually realize this, fortunately). Yes it takes too much time and too much $$ in application fees, but pretty much anyone who can pass an NICS check can get a permit to carry a handgun.

          Out of all the many terrible firearms laws in CT, the regime for issuing carry permits is far from the worst.

          I have kids, so all guns are either on my hip or locked up. But that’s just me and my circumstances. If I lived alone, I might want to keep a gun on the nightstand.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I have no objection to allowing law enforcement to demand to see my gun permit, but a HUGE objection to any kind of “gun permit” even existing.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “…a HUGE objection to any kind of “gun permit” even existing.”

        What an odd statement from a citizen protected from government tyranny by a formal constitution prohibiting government from turning citizens into serfs and vassals.

        What an odd statement, indeed. Have you any idea how inflammatory, anti-collective and radical such a pronouncement is? One would think you had human, natural and civil rights the government is prohibited to suppress.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          “One would think you had human, natural and civil rights the government is prohibited to suppress.”

          Damn right wing radicals all think they have “rights”. Crazy bastards.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Damn right wing radicals all think they have “rights”. Crazy bastards.”

          The only use I have for the left wing is when I am in an aircraft.

      2. avatar Phil Wilson says:

        Seems like them mean whatever VA calls a carry permit. They don’t have gun permits in VA as far as I know. Yet.

  3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    ‘…that would require unloaded guns to be safely secured at all times either in a home or a car.’

    Well that wouldn’t be a problem for me. I leave all my guns loaded.

    If you’re carrying concealed, how is the LEO going to know to ask to see your carry permit? And if any LEO discovers your gat on your person why wouldn’t he ask to see your permit?

    1. avatar Draven says:

      Pretty sure in CT, just like in CA, when they check your license plate it shows that you own firearms. That’s all part of the ‘registration’ thing.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Draven,

        In my state, when cops run your vehicle’s license plate, their system will indicate if the registered owner of the vehicle has a concealed carry license. Whether or not police therefore assume that the driver is armed (based on the fact that the registered owner has a concealed carry license) is up to the officer on scene.

        By the way the justification for that entire system is totally bogus because there is absolutely ZERO reason to assume that the person driving the car is the registered owner of the car. The person driving the car may be a family member, a friend/neighbor, a mechanic or interested buyer who is test-driving, a thief who just stole the car, someone who is kidnapping the registered owner, etc., etc., etc. And even if the registered owner is driving the car, he/she may or may not have chosen to take their handgun with them on that particular drive.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Knowing that the car is registered to a CCW permit holder should tell the police that the driver is a law abiding citizen who’s extremely unlikely to cause them problems.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…should tell the police that the driver is a law abiding citizen who’s extremely unlikely to cause them problems.”

          Quite the opposite. Such notice tells LE that the driver has a gun, and is likely to snap at any moment and go on a shooting rampage without warning. As a result, the cops should treat the driver as armed and dangerous.

          It’s all about making gun ownership too much trouble for gun owners.

        3. avatar possum says:

          Well that tag tip off is just bullsht, I just can’t believe “they” can stamp your tag with a “hes got a gunn” , wow, double wow. That just ain’t right

        4. avatar Draven says:

          well, in CA and CT, only The Anointed have CCW permits, so… yeah, ti tells you when they own a handgun.

        5. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Sam, you’re assuming that cops are as delusional as the Commiecrat politicians who write the laws they enforce. Well, some of them are, but…

          Draven, I believe in CA there are rural areas where CCW permits are for all practical purposes handed out on a shall issue basis.

        6. avatar Draven says:

          yes, largely the counties with less than 100k people.

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Sam, you’re assuming that cops are as delusional as the Commiecrat politicians”

          Cops don’t need to be delusional, they are required no action at all; it is all on the permit holder. Which is the neat trick. If the permit holder does not present the permit immediately, the police have grounds for search (presuming the cops did actually check for the permit before approaching you). If you fail, and it is determined later that you failed, you lose your permit, and are subject to fines. At the moment, the max jail time is 90 days, so you don’t lose your 2A permission (uhhh…2A right).

        8. avatar binder says:

          Sam I am, learn to read;
          “show their gun permit upon request” NOT when encountering the police.

          FYI, they want to pass it because some idiot is not going to show their permit when requested and then we have a fun situation were the cop now suspects that the armed individual is far more likely to be a criminal.

          The whole 5th amendment argument out the window because you are not incriminating yourself by providing your permit.

        9. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Sam I am, learn to read;
          “show their gun permit upon request” NOT when encountering the police.”

          My comment was concerning my locality, not the locality of the original article. To quote from myself (first sentence), “My state law requires producing a carry permit anytime LE makes contact, for any reason..”

        10. avatar binder says:

          Sorry Sam. If from Illinois. When the finally got CCLs everyone kind of lost it on the required to show when asked. I did not like it, but also understood that some idiot was going to stress out some cop and get shot in the process. Also we took a real look at it from a constitutional point and realized that it would be hard to argue against.

          The requirement to show a permit without someone asking is an issue as it can become a self incrimination easily if you take to long.

          Funny thing, I have even been made by Chicago cops and they did nothing more than make eye contact and give nods back and forth. But then i’m always clean cut and wear a collared shirt.

      2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Ah. So the bill is that they can pull you over just to ask to see your permit? So what if you have a permit but aren’t carrying a weapon or your permit when they pull you over? Impound your car and do a full cavity search? Good thing all those MS13 members register their guns, right?

        1. avatar Draven says:

          pretty sure thats exactly what they meant by stop and frisk comparisons. Also, if neighbors see you loading rifle cases in the trunk…

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Texas law initially required CCW holders to carry and present their licenses whether armed or not. Essentially holders refused, told TX to kiss ass, and some (including me) refused to get a license at all, although I often carried. Then 2A forces went back and corrected that supposed “mistake”, and more of us went ahead and got licenses. That is pretty much what Texas has been doing for a couple decades now, playing the antis game of incrementalism. Agree to all manner of shit to get your foot in the door, then revisit every legislature to remove more and more crap. Car carry, campus carry, open carry, license categories (revolver only) elimination, I think next Leg is going to make a serious run at constitutional carry.

        3. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

          “I think next Leg is going to make a serious run at constitutional carry.”

          For all, or just the “Texan by the grace of God” residents only?

        4. avatar CarlosT says:

          Even if it’s for Texans only, it’s a big step forward. They can can make the final step later if they need to.

      3. avatar Jared says:

        No. CT permit holders aren’t being pulled over for having a pistol permit.

        CT has been shall issue by court ruling since 1969 so comparing it to CA is dishonest.

        There are videos on YouTube of a black man in Bridgeport cursing the police out for asking if he had a pistol permit when he was openly carrying. This bill is in response to that as well as the Lazurek case.

        1. avatar Draven says:

          I wasn’t saying they were being pulled over for *having* a permit, I weans saying it is very possible that the system would tell the office that you have one on a random plate check.

      4. avatar Trampled Under Foot says:

        Really!? Never heard of such a thing. Of course we don’t have firearms registration in Florida. Working in Florida I have ran thousands of out of state plates. We get a couple of tourists now and then. Never had firearms ownership pop up on a 10-28. Suppose it could happen. I have had citizens give me their CCW permit along with their DL. I would hand it back and say, “I didn’t ask for this.” They would usually reply, “I just thought…” Fill in the blank. I would explain that it was a traffic stop. Whether or not you have a firearm has nothing to do with it. Furthermore, it’s none of my business, but just out of curiosity, “What’cha carrying?” This usually led to a short conversation on the merits of his choice. And a verbal warning on the traffic offense. I hated writing tickets anyway.

        1. avatar Draven says:

          Yes exactly, you are in FL, where there is no such thing as registration…

  4. avatar Sean G./The Rookie says:

    “…a law that would allow law enforcement to require gun owners to show their gun permit upon request for any reason.”

    Not just no, but HELL NO!

    1. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

      Next step for the Connecticut totalitarians…mandating that firearm owners wear a yellow “G” patch on their clothes so that “everyone” will know who they are and can shun them…not like it ain’t happened before.

      1. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

        Wouldn’t a nice permanent facial tattoo be much more practical? That way the ‘normals’ can see the gun nuts coming from a distance and flee like gazelles…

        (Sarc)…

        1. avatar possum says:

          “flee like gazzele’s” for some reason I found that funny.

  5. avatar Gordon in MO says:

    The time is coming….

    Be Prepared !

    1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      It never fails. In almost seven years of reading and commenting on TTAG, the only times I ever read thinly veiled insurrectionist posts like yours, they’re posted not by a regular, but by someone I’ve never heard of. I always just assume it’s some overzealous FBI agent pursuing his biases by trolling gun blogs for potential suspects. There’s nothing here, officer. Move on.

      1. avatar possum says:

        Just wait till I get my Neutrino Fusion Bommb, yah dirty rotten coppers, “Look ma , Im on top of the world, err what’s left of it” *bwwhahaha*

        1. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

          “Just wait till I get my Neutrino Fusion Bommb…”

          I’d just like to say I’m damn glad marsupials don’t have opposable thumbs to do their ‘evil genius’ work…

          *shudder* 😉

  6. avatar Baldwin says:

    Lock my stuff up cause you passed a “law”? If I want to leave all my doors and windows open and all my stuff laying around , well, it’s MY stuff! Produce papers on demand, oops, “request”? Well, that just feels like an old WW2 movie and I’m not gonna be particularly cooperative with your bureaucratic infringement on my basic human right to self defence.

  7. avatar Roh-Dog says:

    This, and sundry other reasons, is why I have a plan to leave the Nutmeg State to one that is sane(r).
    This state is a model of progressivism (read: socialism), rounding the corner to have a ruling class and the chattel.
    How dare we, the citizen, *think* that we may be self determined, of independent thought and drive, striving to become efficient in our own affairs.
    The charge of the New State: submit swine! You are an anachronism. You are a paycheck for the state. You know nothing. You will be shown equality, by fiat and fine or by force!

    1. avatar Herb Allen says:

      Sounds like CT has become the Nutcake State.

      I cheered the Patriots last night but that’s because Tom Brady is a Trump supporter & MAGA wearer.

    2. avatar Southern Cross says:

      There is a Soviet term which is appropriate for the entrenched politicos and their appointees. It is Nomenklatura, or New Ruling Class. The term was used to describe the party members and their appointed apparatchiks who ran the country.

  8. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    As a holder of a Conn non resident CWP. Most cops in my past experience don’t ask to see your permit when pulled over during a traffic stop. Same here in Florida. One cop said to me once I’m not showing you mine. Why would I want to see yours??? When I lived in NY. Your under no obligation to tell them your armed. Most cops who do see on their screen you have a permit. Might ask to see it. Take your weapon. Go back yo the unit. Check you out and then return your gun unloaded. Every state I’ve been in has been different.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      My state law requires producing a carry permit anytime LE makes contact, for any reason, whether you are armed or not. This means that should a cop stop you to tell you the road is flooded, or the bridge is damaged, you are required to voluntarily present your permit; LE not required to ask.

      Glad I took the concealed carry course; glad I don’t carry (I think).

      1. avatar Craig says:

        Requiring a CCW hold to tell or present their license when contacted by police is simply fishing for a reason to harass people for exercising a right. Such action by cops serves NO other purpose than that. NC has a ‘must inform’ law and it is used frequently to harass and arrest people who have done nothing else wrong.
        According to the FBI database CCW holders are 7 time LESS likely to commit a felony than cops. So WHY, other than infringing on my right, do such laws even exist?

        1. avatar UpInArms says:

          Same in Delaware. The requirement is to inform LE if you have a firearm on your person or in your vehicle. At that point you would be required to produce whatever relevant paperwork. You are not required to show a concealed carry permit at any time unless you are actually doing concealed carry (DE is an Open Carry state).

  9. avatar ollie says:

    Off Topic, but, now that nearly every democrat in the US is announcing their presidential campaign, study the candidates carefully so that you can decide the absolute worst one in the 2020 democrat primaries. Pick the most leftist extreme one possible. Gun folks should come to a preferred candidate by consensus through discussions on TTAG and then vote en masse for the chosen cretin.

    Plan ahead, don’t wait til the last moment.

  10. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “This year we’re going to put forward four bills that we think will improve safety here in the State of Connecticut.” — Connecticut Rep. Steve Stafstrom

    So, all it takes is a nebulous, unsubstantiated claim that something will improve safety and that justifies any law which the legislature dreams up?

    Using that standard, Connecticut can tell us that they think forcing women to wear steel chastity belts will reduce attempted rape and improve safety — and therefore justify such a law. Of course said law would include a provision where women must show, upon demand of any law enforcement officer for any or no reason, that they are wearing their steel chastity belt.

    — OR —

    We could demand that legislatures stop passing laws which infringe upon our rights.

    1. avatar possum says:

      a strong magnet then they wouldn’t have to ask?

  11. avatar former water walker says:

    “Stop and shoot a cop”…WHUT could go wrong?!?😄😋😊😏

  12. avatar Enuf says:

    Happily I live in a state that still respects the entirety of the US Constitution and has passed additional laws to clear up confusion among those of poor judgement.

    For you folks in less civilized places, sorry to hear of your woes. Here’s hoping upcoming Supreme Court decisions will begin to turn that tide for you.

    1. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

      “Happily I live in a state that still respects the entirety of the US Constitution…”

      Liar.

      Really? Name the gun stores where I as an out-of-state resident, can walk in and buy a new handgun for cash and walk out with it and go back to my home state. You know, like how they used to do it?

      I’m waiting, ‘sovereign citizen’. Name the gun stores or admit you lied…

      1. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

        Am I the only one getting fed up with this commenter’s bullshit?

        1. avatar Pg2 says:

          The “free state” bs has always been annoying and false. It gets thrown around here a lot.

  13. avatar John Galt says:

    NO. Period.

    IT IS TIME FOR THE PRESIDENT TO WITHDRAW ALL FEDERAL FUNDS FROM STATES VIOLATING THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

    It is also PAST TIME for an alledly firearms rights President to have his attorney general (not bill barr) aggressively sue EVERY state denying it’s citizens the BILL OF RIGHTS?

    The president CAN DO THIS!!!!!!!!!!!

  14. avatar slow says:

    Connecticut State Pension Fund has a $127.7 billion underfunded liability or $35,721 per person in the state. Where Demonrats are in charge, always the same story.

    1. avatar CZ Peasy says:

      Luke 22:36

  15. avatar Ralph says:

    “No man’s life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session.”

    — Gideon J. Tucker (1866)

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “No man’s life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session.”

      — Gideon J. Tucker (1866)

      Indeed….

      “There is no distinctly American criminal class – except Congress.”
      – Mark Twain (1897)

      “Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.”
      – Mark Twain, a Biography

      “All Congresses and Parliaments have a kindly feeling for idiots, and a compassion for them, on account of personal experience and heredity.”
      – Mark Twain’s Autobiography

      1. avatar Ogre says:

        Mark Twain told the story of two men who hated each other. One desperately wanted to kill the other, so he challenged him to a duel, which the other refused. Trying to goad the other into fighting, the first man insulted the other man’s ancestry, calling his female ancestors whores and so forth. Nothing worked to prod the other man into a fight. Finally, the man called the other a member of the New York State Legislature, upon which the other man drew a pistol and shot the first one dead. It appears that there are some things that no man will find tolerable. While this has nothing to do with the current socialist legislature in Connecticut, it may still apply in New York State.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “It appears that there are some things that no man will find tolerable.”

          Kinda like using lawyers for experiments lab rats refuse to do.

  16. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    Is that last one called “The Your Papers Please Act” or “Harrassing Gun Owners For Fun & Profit?” Maybe both.

  17. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Have any of them explained how this supposedly helps?

    1. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

      “Have any of them explained how this supposedly helps?”

      C’mon Jim, you’re better that that.

      It “helps keep guns out of the wrong hands” or some bullshit excuse.

      It doesn’t matter it won’t, in any appreciable fashion. But it’s “doing something” and that’s all that matters.

      By that very metric, every driver pulled over for drunk driving should be breathalized for every subsequent minor traffic infraction.

      In fact, cops should have license plate scanners, and if you ever drove drunk in the past, they should pull you over again and test you at any time “just because”…

      *Sarc*

      1. avatar possum says:

        Ignition interlock

  18. avatar NORDNEG says:

    In My state , police can tell if you have a concealed carry permit by calling in your plate numbers, I had a thing on my plates that photo radar couldn’t read & they were breaking in a rookie cop one day & pulled up behind me at a stoplight, the light changed & their lights went on, they pulled me over & through their loudspeaker said stay in the vehicle with your hands on the wheel, 10 minutes later 2 cop cars 1 lieutenant car comes up lights flashing, they surround my vehicle & then ask to see my permit, all that manpower & nonsense for a license plate infraction. That’s my story,

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Did they have guns drawn? Was the SWAT team and helicopter called in as well?

      I think the supervising officer should be called out for the response, and the probationary officer should he asked why he didn’t question the response without due cause.

  19. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    And the left wonders why we oppose registration!!! That also violates “shall not be infringed”. RBG should retire soon we can get constitutionalist on SCOTUS.

  20. avatar raptor jesus says:

    How can I get that finish on my GP100?

  21. avatar Scratch a liberal, find a klansman says:

    So gun owners without a CCW won’t be harassed?

  22. avatar Victoriaillinois says:

    Is there any relationship between the gun manufacturers in the state and lawmakers? If they moved it would cause more unemployment, aka tax revenue. Do they care? Do the manufacturers make more money selling to other countries? Government contracts? Unless I’m missing something, being rabidly anti-gun doesn’t make sense in that state.

    1. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

      Some have left, but it’s *difficult* to do. The employees have local roots, and those don’t move easily.

      The gun haters in the legislature know this, and cynically exploit it.

      Why I hope anyone and everyone working against gun rights gets cancer and dies alone with not enough opiates…

      1. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

        And I’m *serious* about the last bit. Just fucking die, scum…

  23. avatar Mad Max says:

    In Pennsylvania, you need a license to carry to open carry in Philadelphia (the only place that requires a LTCF to open carry in Pennsylvania).

    I saw an Asian dude at the gas station with a holstered Glock on his right hip and a small wallet with an ID window containing his LTCF on his left hip.

    The dude had it (un) covered, so to speak.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      why do they get to make up their own rules?….thought that was the states responsibility…I actually know the answer but I thought i’d bring it up anyway…

  24. avatar Jonndoe says:

    Soooo….when are the politicians going to require all gun owners to wear a yellow star of David on our clothing so the can tell just by looking who’s a gun owner??

  25. avatar GS650G says:

    The constitution state my ass.

  26. avatar TBD says:

    Lower courts have been thumbing their noses at the Heller decision for years, now. Time for SCOTUS to step in/up. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York will be argued in October. It is an important case that will set the tone for the future.

    The left chips away little by little at our gun rights because they can’t pull off an outright ban with one piece of legislation. On the pro-gun side, full nationwide open and concealed carry for all is not likely to happen all at once, either. If NYSRPA prevails that will be our start.

Leave a Reply to Sean G./The Rookie Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email