State Court To Rule On Guns In Cabs [News From Connecticut]

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=7959122&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=7573&rfi=6 ^ | May 9th 2003 | William Kaempffer

[2nd_Amendment_Defender]

Last week, the high court decided to take the case from the appellate court level. The New Haven State’s Attorney’s office appealed a 2002 ruling by Superior Court Judge Lubbie Harper that prosecutors contend sets a frightening precedent that might allow anyone from ice cream vendors and traveling salesmen to pack heat in their vehicles.

The high court is expected to consider the case in its next session, which begins in September.

"It is not frequent (that the high court intercedes and takes a case) but it happens from time to time," said William F. Dow III, a New Haven-based defense attorney. "Essentially, the Supreme Court will reach out and take a case that they’re particularly interested in or a case that will have particular import."

The case revolves around a June 15, 2001, fatal shooting by Metro Taxi driver John Lutters, who killed his fare during a robbery attempt in the Fair Haven neighborhood. Lutters said his assailant, Travis Hazelwood, 38, menaced him with a pair of scissors.

Police and prosecutors determined the shooting was justified, but charged Lutters with carrying a pistol without a permit, a class D felony that carries maximum penalties of five years in prison and $5,000 fines.

In 2002, Harper threw out the charge after concluding that the cab was Lutters’ place of business and thereby made him exempt from the pistol permit requirement.

State law requires gun owners who want to carry their weapon in public to obtain a special license, but that law does not extend to people who want to keep one in their place of business, so long as they have a "proprietary interest."

Lutters leased the cab, so Harper ruled that he qualified for the exemption.

Assistant State’s Attorney John P. Doyle, who prosecuted the case, argued that, if cab drivers are exempt, "where’s the line drawn?"

Lutters’ attorney, Robert M. Berke, said he was prepared to proceed before the high court.

"You can see the arguments of both sides," Berke said. "However, I happen to disagree with the state’s argument."

Assistant State’s Attorney Michele Lukban, a lawyer with the appellate division of the Chief State’s Attorney’s office, said it not unusual for the high court to take a case, particularly in a case where there is no legal precedent.

"It’s not too surprising, considering this is a case of first impression," she said.

Lukban said she anticipated oral arguments would be scheduled this fall and a decision sometime next year.

From a legal perspective, Dow said, Harper’s decision appears to be sound, but added that the entire ordeal seemed more like a gun control than legal issue.

"It’s a policy issue as opposed to a legal issue," he said. However, for the cabbies, he acknowledged, it’s probably more personal. "Do you know how dangerous it is to drive a cab in an urban area? Some people would say that the fellows who have that job are moving targets."

"Personally I’m not a big gun fan, but I understand the arguments and there’s a certain amount of danger involved."

[2nd_Amendment_Defender]

[Paul C. Jesup]

I know this sounds cold. But this gun-hating leftist needs to be carjacked so that he will be shocked back to reality.

[riverrunner]

This could be very interisting. If the court rules in favor of the cabbie. Every one should start their own small busness based out of vehicles.

[always vigilant]

It is highly unlikely this gaggle of clowns in the CT supreme court will rule in the cab drivers favor. This is the same bunch that ruled that the state “ugly gun” (ie. assault weapons )ban was constitutional.

The constitution state – what a joke.

[Psalm 73]

Konnecticut, although a VERY left-wing liberal state, has a pretty easy route to a Concealed Carry permit.
But it does tick me off to no end to have to lock my gun in the car so I can go into a bank, Post Office or Public School - three places where one would is more likely to actually need a gun for self-defense.......

[harpseal]

I would point out that more cab drivers are killed at work by felons than police officers.

Now as to the CT Supreme Court taking this it I am not very hopeful about the outcome. As to the New Haven prosecutor's decision to bring charges against this cab driver for carrying a concealed weapon I am appalled. It is a malicous prosecution that shows the state has no regard for this hard working cab drivers life. Under Connecticut law the use of deadly force is only allowed when one is in reasonable fear of imment death or great bodily harm. So what the prosecutor is saying is that it would have been better to have the cab driver killed or maimed then have him defend himself.

[LurkedLongEnough]

Permits are reasonably easy to get now in CT, although one could also say they're never easy enough.

Others can also say permits are never hard enough to get. Judges are being used by those "others" as catalysts for tweaking the law to make permit holding more difficult in CT.