Grief Over Gun Permits -- Courant.com

Grief Over Gun Permits -- Courant.com

There are 313 comments on the Hartford Courant story from Oct 8, 2007, titled Grief Over Gun Permits -- Courant.com. In it, Hartford Courant reports that:

James Goldberg was never in trouble with the law, never even had a traffic ticket.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hartford Courant.

To Eden Pastora

Meriden, CT

#294 Oct 14, 2007
A name from the past!

There is much more information on this topic that has not been release, but depositions in the pending Federal Case will reveal the truth.

You cannot imagine what we've learned from sources that used to be on the inside of the Firearms Unit after they read the article in the Courant.

Goldberg's case should be filed by the end of the week, and it's my understanding that the Kuck case will be ammended soon to add additional defendants now that we have gone through a couple of hundred emails.

Will post additional info when it becomes available.

Ed Peruta
Eden Pastora

AOL

#295 Oct 14, 2007
Travel Warning
Republic of New Hampshire
Department of Justice
Keene, NH 03431
This information verified current as of today, Thu Oct 26 2006 19:08:57 GMT-0400 (Eastern Standard Time).
CONNECTICUT, STATE OF
October 26, 2006
This Travel Warning for the State of Connecticut provides a partial description of a security
situation facing New Hampshire citizens. It notes that citizens of New Hampshire have faced
oppression in the State of Connecticut and advises citizens of New Hampshire to evaluate
their security situation and consider departing.
The Republic of New Hampshire continues to warn residents against travel to Connecticut in
light of recent unrest following the unwarranted, illegal detainment of New Hampshire resident
Lauren Canario in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London, where several New
Hampshire expatriates are known to reside. Canario was arrested for peacefully reading a
book on a piece of property in defiance of Connecticut's attempt to seize said land. All
attempts at resolution of this matter have resulted in extreme brutality against Canario and
others. Canario is currently being held indefinitely in inhumane conditions at a Connecticut
detention facility.
The unrest is exacerbated by known rampant corruption within the New London Police
Department, the Police Department of the State of Connecticut, and the government of the
State of Connecticut in general. This corruption is known to exist at all levels: Executive,
Legislative, and especially judicial. Residents should at all costs avoid relying on government
agencies in Connecticut to resolve their issues. Government agencies in Connecticut are
known to seize property from those in distress.
There is little hope for a resolution to the current crisis. Connecticut is known to hold
prisoners indefinitely, and New Hampshire is unable to assist New Hampshire residents who
have been so detained. The Republic of New Hampshire has received confirmed reports of
inhumane conditions existing in Connecticut prisons, including the use of vicious attack dogs
to force submission, the shackling of prisoners who are in their cells, the use of extreme cold
to punish prisoners, the unremitting use of bright lights at all hours, and denial of basic human
rights.
New Hampshire residents traveling through Connecticut should be aware that the Bill of
Rights exists in a state of de facto suspension in Connecticut. Residents cannot expect that
they enjoy any rights in Connecticut.
New Hampshire residents should exercise extreme caution if the situation necessitates travel
through Connecticut. Granite-staters who travel to or remain in Connecticut despite this
Travel Warning are strongly urged to avoid interaction with government forces in Connecticut,
as these government forces and agencies are the major cause of the unrest in the State.
Regular updates on the security disturbance in Connecticut will be provided on this website,
and on the website at www.keenefreepress.com . Up-to-date information on safety and
security is available at....... 24 hours a day.
Eden Pastora

AOL

#296 Oct 14, 2007
The above travel advisory shows that we are getting quite a bad reputation here in Connecticut
Eden Pastora

AOL

#297 Oct 14, 2007
To Eden Pastora wrote:
A name from the past!
There is much more information on this topic that has not been release, but depositions in the pending Federal Case will reveal the truth.
You cannot imagine what we've learned from sources that used to be on the inside of the Firearms Unit after they read the article in the Courant.
Goldberg's case should be filed by the end of the week, and it's my understanding that the Kuck case will be ammended soon to add additional defendants now that we have gone through a couple of hundred emails.
Will post additional info when it becomes available.
Ed Peruta
It has been a while. I've been busy quelling or fermenting revolts whatever the case may be,in various Banana Republics.
Only to return to find that Connecticut,has now become a Banana Republic albeit without the palm trees.
I can't wait to see what happens with this case.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#298 Oct 14, 2007
Confused wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the info. I thought a Police Officer was covered by his badge to carry and by vitue of his badge, that supercedes any state permit. A Police Officer does not need a permit? If Goldberg was a sworn officer, he wouldn't be in this mess? I don't know... was Goldberg acting responsibly, walking into a public facility carrying a weapon where other patrons and employees could see it? I'm not sure what to make of it all. I do feel however, if Goldberg was a Police Officer and identified himself by displaying a department issued badge and ID, that would have subterfuged this entire mess. Sometimes I think, you have to treat the cause, not the effect?
What I was bringing up was prior to IDing of the off-duty or retired officer would they not cause the same level of angst that this permit holder caused?
To CONFUSED

Wethersfield, CT

#299 Oct 15, 2007
Confused wrote:
<quoted text>
I really don't know what they would sue for. Goldberg did in fact create a breach of peace. Even though his criminal case was thrown out, he holds some liability for causing an alarming environment. It's just hard for me to believe that any civil court would award him anything. This case has been full circle and if Goldberg used due diligence with his responsibility of carrying a firearm, this mess would never have happened. Rather than think lawsuit, he should prove to the powers to be, that he can handle a firearm in a public place without causing alarm, fear and inconvenience to others.
"The problem with your statement is that it says Goldberg did, in fact, create a Breach of the Peace"...the fact that his case was thrown out of Court establishes that he did NOT in fact create a Breach of the Peace.....THAT is the central point to the whole situation...He did NOT create a Breach of the Peace. By "dismissing the charge" the Judge found, as a matter of FACT, that he did not...
Confused

AOL

#300 Oct 15, 2007
To CONFUSED wrote:
<quoted text>"The problem with your statement is that it says Goldberg did, in fact, create a Breach of the Peace"...the fact that his case was thrown out of Court establishes that he did NOT in fact create a Breach of the Peace.....THAT is the central point to the whole situation...He did NOT create a Breach of the Peace. By "dismissing the charge" the Judge found, as a matter of FACT, that he did not...
I guess I was just thinking of the OJ Simpson Case. Although he was found not guilty of the charges criminally, a civil court found him guilty and ordered him to pay back millions to the Goldman's and Brown's. My point was, although the case was thrown out, pursuing any type of civil suit would be a crap shoot. Why put more money in a Lawyer's Pocket? This (evidently) is not about money from what I read. Goldberg was raised in a family of law enforcement and I'm surprised this event even took place. I would think he was street savvy to the way people interpret firearms. Especially in a public place.
The cost of Justice

Meriden, CT

#301 Oct 15, 2007
When this all went down, people told Mr. Goldberg to let the next person fight the battle.

Mr. Goldberg's reply was very simple.

Everyone before him had done the same thing and that's why it happened to him.

As for the costs, a successful outcome will entitle him to recover his legal fees.

I cannot see ANY judge ruling that a two year wait for a hearing is Due Process.

When the questions begin in depositions under oath, the Troopers will not be able to willy nilly their way out by making up excuses on the fly.

THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS ABUSE OF POWER, AND IT'S TIME FOR IT TO BE EXPOSED.
Zwarte Pete

Ellington, CT

#303 Oct 15, 2007
Eden Pastora wrote:
<quoted text>
It has been a while. I've been busy quelling or fermenting revolts whatever the case may be,in various Banana Republics.
Only to return to find that Connecticut,has now become a Banana Republic albeit without the palm trees.
I can't wait to see what happens with this case.
Your comments are great!
Eden Pastora

AOL

#304 Oct 15, 2007
Zwarte Pete wrote:
<quoted text>
Your comments are great!
Sinterklaas kapoentje,
gooi wat in m'n schoentje,
gooi wat in m'n laarsje,
dank u Sinterklaasje.

Oops! Sorry about that I thought that I was corresponding with the Zwarte Piet.
Eden Pastora

AOL

#305 Oct 15, 2007
The cost of Justice wrote:
When this all went down, people told Mr. Goldberg to let the next person fight the battle.
Mr. Goldberg's reply was very simple.
Everyone before him had done the same thing and that's why it happened to him.
As for the costs, a successful outcome will entitle him to recover his legal fees.
I cannot see ANY judge ruling that a two year wait for a hearing is Due Process.
When the questions begin in depositions under oath, the Troopers will not be able to willy nilly their way out by making up excuses on the fly.
THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS ABUSE OF POWER, AND IT'S TIME FOR IT TO BE EXPOSED.
I agree with you except on one point.
"I cannot see ANY judge ruling that a two year wait for a hearing is Due Process".
It is not uncommon,in fact it is the norm for people to wait up to two years for their speedy trial. Sometimes pre-trial detainees languish in prison for nearly two years waiting to go to trial.
Several years ago there was an article in the newspaper on this subject. I don't remember how the courts were able to justify this violation of the 6th Amendment but they were able to do so with a concoction of legal mumbo-jumbo.
Of course this is Connecticut Courts I am talking about. The Federal system is a different matter.
Citizen

Bolton, CT

#306 Oct 15, 2007
His dad was a cop
To Eden Pastora

Wethersfield, CT

#307 Oct 15, 2007
Eden Pastora wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with you except on one point.
"I cannot see ANY judge ruling that a two year wait for a hearing is Due Process".
It is not uncommon,in fact it is the norm for people to wait up to two years for their speedy trial. Sometimes pre-trial detainees languish in prison for nearly two years waiting to go to trial.
Several years ago there was an article in the newspaper on this subject. I don't remember how the courts were able to justify this violation of the 6th Amendment but they were able to do so with a concoction of legal mumbo-jumbo.
Of course this is Connecticut Courts I am talking about. The Federal system is a different matter.
"Those times when accused languish in jail waiting a couple of years for trial are USUALLY-not always but-USUALLY at THEIR lawyers request"..i.e.'stall and people will forget because it is, after all, an OLD case"...for the MOST part that's why there are old cases on court dockets...
pbod

United States

#308 Oct 15, 2007
Remember the 2nd amendment protects the first.
If they can ignore one they can ignore the others....
rickbee

Hartford, CT

#309 Oct 17, 2007
The cost of Justice wrote:
When this all went down, people told Mr. Goldberg to let the next person fight the battle.
Mr. Goldberg's reply was very simple.
Everyone before him had done the same thing and that's why it happened to him.
As for the costs, a successful outcome will entitle him to recover his legal fees.
I cannot see ANY judge ruling that a two year wait for a hearing is Due Process.
When the questions begin in depositions under oath, the Troopers will not be able to willy nilly their way out by making up excuses on the fly.
THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS ABUSE OF POWER, AND IT'S TIME FOR IT TO BE EXPOSED.
Well wrote. That it what this case & all the other cases involving state officials are all about-ABUSE OF POWER & I miht add-TOTAL DISREGARD FOR THE LAW as written.
Ed_W

Southington, CT

#310 Oct 21, 2007
Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
This law was drafted in a time when the U.S. was a rural colony under British rule, so people could "protect" themselves from "invaders", and really has no relevance in today's modern society. The United States would probably be a better place as people wouldn't feel a sense of "entitlement" to own a deadly weapon
Perhaps you should look up the words "protect" and "invaders" in the dictionary.
chain

AOL

#311 Oct 21, 2007
chief sweeny was a lousy chief of the police dept of bridgeport. and the cop who arrested goldbreg is a jerk who might have a personal agenda to full-fill.
the cop in question failed to use discretion when he effected the arrest of goldbreg.
he didn't have to arrest the guy. a verbal warning should had been issued.
anyway, i wish mr.G with his lawsuit.
Principles in Progress

AOL

#312 Oct 21, 2007
chain wrote:
chief sweeny was a lousy chief of the police dept of bridgeport. and the cop who arrested goldbreg is a jerk who might have a personal agenda to full-fill.
the cop in question failed to use discretion when he effected the arrest of goldbreg.
he didn't have to arrest the guy. a verbal warning should had been issued.
anyway, i wish mr.G with his lawsuit.
Ok, and what gives you the background to judge Chief Sweeney as a "lousy chief"? Can you support this assertion with some fact? As far as the verbal warning, as opposed to the arrest. You weren't there either so let's not judge what went on. People like you, that are so quick to jump on Law Enforcement, usually have their own agenda and personal conflicts with them.
Edward Peruta

Meriden, CT

#313 Oct 21, 2007
OPTIONS THAT COULD HAVE, BUT DID NOT HAPPEN

1. Mr. Goldberg could have been interviewed, required to produce his valid permit and allowed to continue on his way without any action being taken, as was done in the Enfield DMV case on May 16, 2007.

2. Mr. Goldberg could have been interviewed, required to produce his valid permit and issued a summons in accordance with CGS 54-1h, for the misdemeanor charge of Breach of Peace in the Second Degree, and allowed to continue on his way with possession of his weapon and valid state permit.

3. Mr. Goldberg could have been interviewed, required to produce his valid permit to carry, and then allowed to continue on his way. The Glastonbury Police could have then taken two distinctly different actions to seize his weapon and/or permit while providing Mr. Goldberg with due process.

The first action would have been to follow the procedures set forth in CGS 29-28c to seize Mr. Goldberg’s weapon, which would have provided due process to Mr. Goldberg who would have been assured that a hearing would have been mandated on the seizure of his weapon within 14 days of the seizure.

The second action would have been to submit their facts to the Commissioner of Public Safety in accordance with CGS 29-32 (b), together with any request for revocation which would then have resulted in the required investigation by the Commissioner to determine if the required cause existed to revoke Mr. Goldberg’s permit to carry.

Instead, Mr. Goldberg was unlawfully,(under the color of law), arrested for Breach of Peace in the Second Degree without any of the required elements of the crime present.

Put in a position where he was required to retain legal counsel at considerable cost to receive due process.

Coerced and extorted into making a bogus $500.00 contribution to the Office of Victim services to receive justice.

Denied the return of his father’s illegally seized weapon, without justification for seizure or forfeiture.

Put in a position where his mug shot is currently on file in the Glastonbury Police records system in violation of PA. 06-111 creating the situation where he must expend time and financial resources to have the photograph deleted or destroyed as mandate.

Forced to appeal his improper revocation to the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners where the 14 to 20 month backlog of cases clearly denies appellants their rights of due process.

This issue is headed to the Federal Courts, where the entire issue will be reviewed under the microscope of a federal judge.

The discovery phase of the civil action will allow the relevant laws, documents and individuals involved, to be examined under oath.
This will sort the wheat from the chafe and seperate legal theory and beliefs from reality stated in the law.

Proper training and supervison by Chief Sweeny could have prevented the situation and his intervention based on the facts could have solved the problems without the need to litigate the issue in civil court.
Edward Peruta

Meriden, CT

#314 Oct 21, 2007
To: Principles in Progress

Were you there when the arrest occurred?

Neither was I, but I have ALL of the documents which document the incedent on the night of June 21, 2007, and have requested access and possible copies of the NEW documents relating to additional investigations launched since June 21, 2007.

The new allegations and statments made by the Glastonbury Police Department and Chief Sweeny will make interesting reading, and clearly demonstrate that the tips of their fingers are getting tired of haning on the ledge of the builing.

In additon to the comments in the previous post, consider the fact that NO statements were taken from any of the individuals who the police report claim were ALARMED OR STRESSED.

Also consider the fact that Chili's has NOT, as of this date,(as would be their right),posted any signs to prohibit firearms from being lawfully carried into their restaurant.

There are are also other factors that will become known during the discovery phase of any litigation, that will show a clear pattern of incompetence on the part of the Glastonbury Police Department's understanding of how to read and implement the Connecticut General Statutes.

These statements are not made from the hip, SEVERAL prominent attorneys have been provided the oppurtunity to review the facts and evidence in this case, and they ALL agree that it looks very bad for the Town of Glastonbury, the Glastonbury Police Department and the individual officers who chose the course of action on the night of June 21, 2007.

If after the case is litigated or settled, Chief Sweeny's actions are found to be proper, I will be the first to offer a public apology.

In the mean time, keep watching for the article that will appear after Goldberg files in Federal Court.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wethersfield Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 36 min RealDave 1,276,643
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr IBdaMann 54,537
DCF Protest in CT & We want your stories!!! (Jul '12) 11 hr DCF_cooker 51
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 11 hr Samson 20,104
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) Mon RoSesz 310,231
News More Advice On Acura TL Transmission Failures A... (Apr '09) Sun Bob 291
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) Sun TRD 70,159
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Wethersfield Mortgages