Possible legal repercussions of Stamford shooting

[19-3Ben]

STAMFORD – Four men and one woman were shot following an altercation outside a local nightclub early Sunday.

...

Dayron Wills, 22, of 300 Tresser Boulevard, admitted he was involved in the altercation.

...

Wills told police he pulled out a handgun and began shooting the other person involved in the altercation and then discarded his weapon.

...

Police said Wills does have a valid pistol permit and was legally registered to carry the weapon.

Police said they also seized a small amount of marijuana from Wills.

...

Link to article plus video of shooting.

So here we have a nightmare situation. In CT, which was already turned rabidly anti-gun after the Sandy Hook shooting (it was only anti-gun before but would not characterize it as being rabidly so until Dec. 2012) we have a licensed, legal gun owner acting like a jackwagon and shooting up people in the street in Stamford. One of our main arguments has always been that the legal/licensed guys aren't the ones committing crimes. Of course out of thousands and thousands with permits in this state it is ONE example. A statistical anomaly. But that's all it takes to get the antis all riled up all over again, especially because Gov Malloy was mayor of Stamford before his big promotion, so this is kind of his back yard.

So question is, what legal repercussions do we see coming, if at all, now that the anti gun crowd has a poster child for "responsible gun owners gone bad!"

And at this point is there anything we should be doing to counter it? I realize that may fall under the topic of activism and mods, if you want to move it feel free. I'm just thinking this is a legal matter since there may be resulting legislation related to this.

At least nobody got killed....

 

[Sam1911]

Highly unlikely to be any repercussions at all. No one died, local news story. One shooting just like thousands of others.

One of our enemy groups will probably make note of it, but it's not like this is the first CCW type that's ever broken the law and/or shot someone he shouldn't have. The statistics are in our favor (heavily) but that doesn't mean there are zero bad actors among "us."

It is distressing and frustrating, but doesn't make us especially more vulnerable to alarmists and antis.

 

[Midwest]

This is the first I heard of it.
.

 

[JohnBT]

"we have a licensed, legal gun owner"

He wasn't legal if he was carrying a gun and pot. Or is pot legal there?

 

[Red Wind]

As Sam said, a local story.. Which ,until cable in the '80's and the 'net in the '90's. almost every story was. 24/7 news and social media have changed it all.

For the worse. IMO.

 

[Sam1911]

He wasn't legal if he was carrying a gun and pot. Or is pot legal there?

That wouldn't matter, as the pot would make him federally a prohibited person.

 

[desidog]

Well, since his permit was issued 3 DAYS before the shooting, i think someone in the permitting office has some explaining to do.

I don't understand why he was issued a permit, with a previous weapons charge in 2011...

 

[kwguy]

That wouldn't matter, as the pot would make him federally a prohibited person.

That would be the thing. This isn't the first time a "legally sanctioned" ccw carrier acted like an idiot.

Process accordingly. No different than if a legally licensed driver did something illegal with a vehicle.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

Yep. People are people.
I've learned in my line of work that the number of morons with a CHL/CCL pretty much mirrors the numbers of morons in the general population. We're no different or inherently better.

 

[AlexanderA]

Arkansas Paul wrote:

I've learned in my line of work that the number of morons with a CHL/CCL pretty much mirrors the numbers of morons in the general population. We're no different or inherently better.

If that's true, it pretty much destroys the whole reason for licensing. Licensing is supposed to restrict gun carrying to the more "responsible" sections of society. Either we need to make the vetting process more thorough, or get rid of licensing altogether.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

Don't get me wrong, I didn't say there were just as many criminals with licenses, just that there moron ratio was similar.

There are a lot of stupid gun owners out there. If you don't believe that just look at the Target/Chilis/Chipoltle/Starbucks threads.

Licensing is supposed to restrict gun carrying to the more "responsible" sections of society.

No, its not. It is supposed to restrict gun carrying to the "non-prohibited" sections of society. I suspect the main purpose of licensing is to create more revenue for the state.
Most states are shall issue, meaning that if you are not a prohibited person and you sit through a minimal class you are issued a permit. That tells us little of whether or not a person is responsible.

I do agree with getting rid of the licensing altogether BTW. We definitely do not need to make the process to legally carry get more difficult. Our rights have been infringed enough.

 

[19-3Ben]

Look, of course we all know that a CCW permit doesn't automatically make someone a 'good guy,' and we all know that even irresponsible dunces can get carry permits so long as they pass the class (the instructor goes over the answers with us before we submit the test, so nobody ever really fails).

But that is US, coming from OUR perspective. If OUR perspective were the majority opinion in CT and in many other states, we'd be pretty well set and we would have never had to fight tooth and nail in 2013 to save the 2A from being further gelded.

My fear is that FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE, when someone who is 'government sanctioned' to carry a gun, commits a public act of violence in violation of the law, it calls into questioning the entity that allows people to carry and makes the sheeple start to bleat about how even the .gov approved guys are 'mad men with guns' and we should further restrict rights.

I can already see it. Different sets of rules for guns one can own, vs. carry. In CT we are already limited loading ten rounds for carry, but if it's a standard cap mag we can load it to higher capacity if left at home.
What if they take it to the next level? We can keep a S&W M&P9 loaded with 10 rounds at home, but can't carry anything other than a 5 shot revolver for CCW?

Or what if they decide that we need to get references and psychological testing to profile us prior to getting a CCW permit? What if we do like NY and have to get each pistol we could carry actually registered and attached to our license?

These are the things of which I am... I don't know if fearful is the word, but certainly leery.

I can absolutely understand that nobody died, it's one nut, etc....
But those of us in CT realize that it doesn't take much to get the antis fired up here, and they unlike some other parts of the country, they really can hurt us very very badly here. Look at what happened last April.

Time to contact my reps and then go hit the range.

 

[Sam1911]

Time to contact my reps and then go hit the range.

Well, if that's the take-home message here, I'm all for it!

 

[HankR]

Licensing is supposed to restrict gun carrying to the more "responsible" sections of society.

Close: Licensing is supposed to restrict gun carrying <extra words snipped>.

Either we need to make the vetting process more thorough, or get rid of licensing altogether.

This. What other basic human rights require a license?

 

[Red Wind]

This. What other basic human rights require a license?

None.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Stamford CT.....

I worked briefly for a few weeks at different times in 2013 in Stamford CT.
The city is considered the wealthiest in the US but when you go around a few parts of the downtown area, it seems really rough & gritty.

RS

 

[PBR Streetgang]

From what I heard ,the license was for a security employment position and not a private citizen carry permit....Under Federal law possession of marijuana is still a Federal crime and violated his right to legally carry .

Even if it wasn't, the stats on legally licensed firearm carriers show the number of ccw people committing violent crimes is miniscule compared to non-firearm licensed people..To blame a whole group of people for ones actions is ludicrous.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Leosa.....

To my limited knowledge, the subject in the Tampa Florida movie theater event has LEOSA status.
I'm not sure if the retired Tampa PD captain had a valid Florida W license too but he carried a compact .380acp pistol.

As noted, with more CCW license holders & gun permits, more crimes or events could occur. It's mathematics.

 

[mp510]

From what I heard ,the license was for a security employment position and not a private citizen carry permit...

In Connecticut, armed guard or BEA (or armed guard and BEA) are pistol permit endorsements rather than restrictions as in Mass or New York.

 

[mp510]

I don't understand why he was issued a permit, with a previous weapons charge in 2011...

If it was a Connecticut charge, the arrest never happened if the case was resolved by non-conviction (nolle pros, upon a substantiated motion, upon completion of a pretrial diversion program, NG verdict). The conduct that resulted in the (non) arrest could be used to substantiate a suitability denial (along with any other information about the applicants general reputation, behavior, decision making, etc...) Out of state arrests that do not result in conviction may or may not be arrests depending on that state's laws.

Under Federal law possession of marijuana is still a Federal crime and violated his right to legally carry .

Under Connecticut law, federal prohibited status disqualifies an applicant. However, he probably simply said nothing about it (who would?). Since there's no drug test, if he were a user at the time he applied, the issuing authority probably would not have known.

 

[HankB]

Highly unlikely to be any repercussions at all. No one died, local news story. One shooting just like thousands of others.

Story might have more legs - I saw it a little while ago here on FOX News, and it included cell phone video.

Here's hoping it fades soon . . .

 

[desidog]

The city is considered the wealthiest in the US but when you go around a few parts of the downtown area, it seems really rough & gritty.

Haha. No. Greenwich, next door, holds that accolade, and Darien on the other side is very nice too, but Stamford is definitely NOT. Stamford is essentially two different towns, the downtown/inner city/displaced from NYC housing projects/City part is so awful that some of the taxpayers in "the back country" or North Stamford/ the less developed side of town want to secede from the downtown part.

 

[Spats McGee]

Wills told police he pulled out a handgun and began shooting the other person involved in the altercation and then discarded his weapon.

Police said Wills does have a valid pistol permit and was legally registered to carry the weapon.

Hmmm . . . Something smells fishy.

Police said they also seized a small amount of marijuana from Wills.

Oh, yeah. That would explain it, now wouldn't it.

What? No "simultaneous possession of guns and drugs charge?"

 

[RustyShackelford]

Stamford; post 22....

I disagree.
I read a few online articles & website posts that listed Stamford CT as having the "richest" tax base or the highest # of wealth. This was in 2013 too not 1986 or 1998.
I would agree that the "depressed" areas or sections are not hard to find but the more wealthy citizens might be in the estates/mansions in the HOAs or upscale areas.
My metro area is laid out the same way. The "unincorporated" parts of the county are looked down on & there are "upscale" cities/suburbs with crime or gangs/drugs.

A lot of it is perception & stereotypes but some places are just bad.

 

[quidnunc]

Stamford far from wealthiest city in US - or even CT. In fact not even in top 35 of CT communities in terms of per capita income.

As another poster stated - Stamford is wealthy north of Merrit Parkway and down along LI Sound. The rest is decidedly lower or working or smack in the middle class