Guns Banned At City Hall

by Paul Bass | Aug 15, 2019 3:29 pm

(16) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author

Posted to: City Hall, Legal Writes, True Vote

The next time you visit City Hall, make sure you’re not packing heat — if you want to follow the law. Signs have gone up there (pictured above) and at the 200 Orange St. government office building informing people that, unless they’re from “law enforcement,” they may not have guns on them. Mayoral spokesman Laurence Grotheer said the signs are the first results of an ongoing comprehensive review of “security protocol at government buildings.” He said the signs are also being posted in firehouses, in city parks, and at the parks & rec headquarters on Edgewood Avenue. He noted that Connecticut is a “conceal and carry” state, but the law allows building owners to restrict guns on their property. Section 29-28(e) of the Connecticut General Statutes, which the signs reference, states: “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.” He said Mayor Toni Harp has asked her staff to “review security measures in place and consider possible upgrades.” Future upgrades could include cameras and metal detectors and “additional security personnel.” He noted that those measures, unlike the signs about guns, would cost money, and therefore need to be considered and carried out in conjunction with the Board of Alders. The mayor has designated Chief Administrative Officer Sean Matteson as the point person for the security review. Hartford, too, has been upgrading its security protocols, according to mayoral spokesperson Vasishth Srivastava. It enacted a similar firearms ban in city buildings last year, and plans to put up signs letting people know. In Bridgeport, “we do not have signs like that posted in city buildings,” mayoral spokesperson Rowena White said. At the police department, a sign does inform people that they have to let officers know if they have weapons on them. White said Bridgeport’s emergency operation center has been doing preparedness training on an ongoing basis, including for cases involving active shooters. That training is also made available to Bridgeport businesses.

Share this story with others.

Post a Comment

Commenting has closed for this entry

Comments

posted by: Nunez on August 15, 2019 6:07pm Wow instead of making a stronger gun crime law. Like if you get caught with a fire arm you will.also get 5 years for illegal possession and 6 months for every bullet make this the minimum and believe me No one is going to take chance to carry

posted by: Greg-Morehead Question, do you think a criminal who is attempting to do something is going to look at the sign and go back to their car and leave their gun in their car because of the sign? I don’t think so.. So, who is this sign for? smh

Those that are lawfully permitted to carry a firearm. I’m a Registered LEGAL gun owner and when I see these signs at different places, I laugh to myself because people attempting to commit harm to someone else with a gun, they DO NOT read these signs…

posted by: Elmmy on August 15, 2019 10:16pm I’m with Greg. That sign is only going to assist City Hall with a law abiding citizen who abides by the law. Someone who does not lead to the impulse for such warnings. A different type of person/personality who is beyond that level of civility does not/will not honor such a sign of that kind. And that (I believe) is the type of person the sign was created to control.

At best, this is just election year sympathy. Nothing else has been accomplished by this sign. Besides demonstrating ineffective leadership. We’ve already had many years of that.

posted by: Fitzy14 on August 15, 2019 10:47pm Let me get this straight, Law abiding citizens who passed background checks to get a permit to carry a handgun can’t legally carry it in city hall or some other parts of a city with high crime, but people who break immigration laws are protected By the city? How is it not an infringement on the 2a not to be able carry in a public space?

posted by: ShadowBoxer on August 16, 2019 8:06am Absolutely Nice.

Smart, and why I like the ethos of my community.

posted by: alphabravocharlie on August 16, 2019 8:36am Ridiculous and unnecessary infringement on the rights of law abiding citizens. The Mayor has just insured that someone entering City Hall with a firearm and malicious intent will be unopposed. The sign could just as easily have read except law enforce and state permit holders but that would be redundant since it is illegal for most others to carry firearms.

posted by: Noteworthy on August 16, 2019 9:00am It’s All Theater Notes: 1. It is difficult to tell the difference between Toni Harp the mayor and Toni Harp the actress. 2. This is play acting. This sign will do nothing with regard to safety and it pretends any security is actually necessary. It’s theater. 3. She pretends to run and influence the school board and pretends kids are graduating with a quality education that has them prepared for college. 4. Harp pretends the budget is balanced when she knows well there is a structural imbalance of $13 million, that she has run actual deficits for three years. She pretends to have a surplus this year, a surplus made entirely of debt backed cash. 5. She pretends to believe in transparency while hiding federal investigations; costs of the China vacation; covers up two rounds of secret pay hikes for her key administrators and diverts money to buy clothes for her personal office staff. 6. She has to have an armed chauffeur accompany her everywhere at tremendous expense for taxpayers. 7. This much I know - it’s the most expensive theater ticket ever.

posted by: tmctague on August 16, 2019 9:39am What is this, Texas?!

posted by: IloveMYcity203 on August 16, 2019 11:03am To reiterate on what a few people who already posted on this post. I too carry (legally). I went through the local, state and federal background checks. My psychiatric and medical history was also checked. I had to wait 3-6 months for the completion of my background check. I did this the right way because I follow the law; therefore, I am going to respect the sign. Criminals won’t, so the sign is stupid. It only helps legal gun owners like me not break the law. I decide on whether I want to disarm myself, put my gun in my lockbox inside my car, then enter the building, or don’t enter at all. If someone wants to commit an act of violence in mass, he or she is going to say, “soft target,” and walk in and do what they came to do, which is shoot and kill people. @Fitzy14,

It’s not an infringement because the city owns that building. Based on Section 29-28(e) of the Connecticut General Statutes, this is completely legal. Just like it is completely legal for you to tell me that no guns are allowed in your house, and I would have to leave or remove the gun from my person. Lastly, I want the uninformed to know that every state is different. Each state has their own laws, and in most southern and Midwest states, the background checks are not as thorough. Those checks usually take between 1 - 3 hours. I consider them “soft” background checks. Those checks don’t dive deep into your arrest history etc., which is why it’s important that the local PD is involved because the department can see your arrest history whether or not the case is dismissed/nollied etc. A lot of states like Atlanta allows the person to be 18 years of age. I’ve had numerous people contact me about how difficult it was to get a license to carry in CT, but once they moved down south, it was like drinking water. This is a problem. Do NOT believe the information that the media spreads. Also, NOBODY should be against universal background checks. Lastly, “AR” DOES NOT stand for Assault Rifle! Fake NEWS!

posted by: IloveMYcity203 on August 16, 2019 11:41am Did I say something wrong in my previous comment? I notice that it is not showing.. hmmm.. If so, what did I say wrong? I’m curious lol

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on August 16, 2019 11:46am To all who are crying.Do like they did here. District court rules Austin City Hall gun ban against the law

https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/district-court-rules-austin-city-hall-gun-ban-against-the-law

posted by: alphabravocharlie on August 16, 2019 12:32pm The law in Texas is different. This is just another example of doing “something” not necessarily something effective. VT has constitutional carry as do many other states (no permit required). They don’t seem to have these problems there. Maybe it’s not a gun thing. Maybe it’s a people thing.

posted by: Fitzy14 on August 16, 2019 1:33pm Ilovemycity203- The city doesnt own the building, the taxpayers own the building. It is not private property and this Mayor certainly doesn’t own it. Can the mayor next say we can’t carry guns on sidewalks owned by the city or on city streets? Private business can do as they please but one shouldnt lose constitutional rights by going into a public building or public space

posted by: LookOut on August 16, 2019 1:40pm thank you alphabravocharlie - the guns are not the problem, the people are not the problem. These notes are a waste of paper and energy…..AND when a drug crazed lunatic storms city hall (without reading these silly signs) many will wish that law abiding citizens were able to carry

posted by: IloveMYcity203 on August 16, 2019 4:21pm @Fitzy14 Okay. If the city does not own it, the statute still says “who owns or exercises control over such premises.” Personally, I can care less about whether or not I can carry inside of City Hall. If I did, then I would challenge that even if I had to do it alone. I used to go there just to pay my taxes, which was the only reason I needed to go in that building in the 1st place. Now I pay my taxes online now. In regards to what you wrote, “Can the mayor next say we can’t carry guns on sidewalks owned by the city or on city streets? Private business can do as they please but one shouldnt lose constitutional rights by going into a public building or public space.” Legally she can’t do that, but I see where you are getting at because she doesn’t “owns” the streets just like she doesn’t “own” city hall. The question is, who cares enough to fight it? I can do it to make a point even though I have no desire to carry my firearm in city hall, but it’s not a bother for me. Maybe it is for someone else. If she went as far as to saying, “people cannot carry on city streets,” then I will exercise my right and carry on the streets because the state law says that I can. I would fight (not literally lol. legally) her and join the masses who would oppose such stupid law. @alphabravocharlie, You are SPOT on my friend!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I agree 10000%