Help A Brother Out

I know money is tight, especially here in Connecticut. I know it also seems like everyone has their hand out; the government, political campaigns, and yes, CCDL. Well, here goes the hand again.

Scott Lazurek is a CCDL member who was arrested and his permit to carry a firearm revoked for exercising his rights. He was in the right, all charges were dismissed and the Board of Firearm Permit Examiners (BFPE) reinstated his permit after over a year delay because of case backlogs.

A few weeks ago the State Attorney General’s Office made the unprecedented decision to take both Mr. Lazurek and the BFPE to court in an attempt to overturn the Board’s decision and again revoke Mr. Lazurek permit. A copy of the summons can be downloaded here: Lazurek-Appeal (pdf)
It’s important to note here that Mr. Lazurek works in a profession that requires him to carry a firearm. The State’s actions are not just impacting his right to bear arms; it’s taking away his income.

CCDL is not involved in this case, but it’s importance to the rights of all gun owners in Connecticut should be obvious. Scott Lazurek needs all the help possible fighting to keep his right to carry a firearm, and by extension his profession. To that end a donation page has been set up to help defray his legal expenses. Please go to and donate whatever you can. After you donate, be sure to share this page with anyone and everyone you know who supports the state and federal constitution. Thank you.

28 thoughts on “Help A Brother Out

  1. Why isn’t the CCDL involved in this case? Is this not an issue that affects gun owners?

    • Ed, This is Scott’s case. His lawyers, his life on the line. His say in how his case is handled. CCDL has no legal standing here.
      Yes, this issue does affect all of us, which is why CCDL is helping to bring attention to his plight, and also helping him raise the money to fund his case.

      • Actually, its now the BPFE’s case … Scott can be added as a party if he wishes at the superior court level. He may wish to just to cover his butt.

  2. Just my two cents, humble knowledge and opinion of Constitutional Law as it applies to this case:

    WOW, this is an extremely important 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights case that will affect all of us. It’s obvious what the State of Connecticut is trying to do with their law suit. They are attempting to make Case Law in their favor so the future for all of us carrying a firearm will be like Nazi Germany, Your Papers Please, every time you walk out the door. If the state is successful, you could be legally stopped numerous times each day by different police officers in the various jurisdictions in your travels. This is their way to try and get around what this actually is, profiling. Your quality of life will be diminished and you can forget about getting anywhere on time due to unrestricted constant delays from government harassment. The police can’t legally stop a car and ask for your papers without a violation first, and the same applies to your Constitutional Right to carry. From the information about this case as supplied here,

    Mr. Lazurek was merely exercising his 2nd Amendment Constitutional Right to carry a firearm in a free country. There was no mention that he had committed or was committing any crime or violation nor did the police make any claim to that extent. I see no problem in this case with the police taking a few seconds and in a casual manner asking Mr. Lazurek if he had a pistol permit. That would be OK as long as it was obvious to Mr. Lazurek that he had the option not to answer and was free to leave.

    Where all this went terribly wrong: The fact that the police detained Mr. Lazurek without Probable Cause nor with a valid Warrant for an extended period and that he was not free to leave is considered False Arrest at that point. The fact that they then physically arrested him on a retaliatory criminal charge furthers the seriousness of the False Arrest scenario. The court apparently correctly recognized this by dismissing the charge. Both acts by the police, detaining Mr. Lazurek who was not free to leave and then physically arresting him are grounds for civil litigation against the involved Officers, their police department and the city.

    Mr. Lazurek only needs one of these following circumstances to be successful in a civil rights law suit: The police department’s /City’s: 1. Failure to train the officers, 2. Failure to supervise the officers, 3. Negligent retention of officers with a history of violating department policy hence evolving into violating citizens rights. The fact that the officers acted outside of prescribed law and no one steeped in from their chain of command to stop or rescind this conduct appears to already demonstrate the Failure to train and supervise.

    The flip side of all this when the case is finalized is: We The people need safe guards in place so that law enforcement doesn’t just start to create or embellish conduct as being criminal in nature as their catalyst to then have the alleged legal authority to demand to see your firearms permit..The ends do not justify the means.

    • I did a little research: Lack of ethics and fair play, what is very wrong in our state & country today:

      Notice the wording in the last paragraph with the word MUST that is designed to strong arm innocent defendants. It deprives them of their right and ability for both compensatory and punitive damages through civil litigation for government wrong doing.

      What should occur: Once the government realizes they screwed up and violated a citizens rights, they should immediately dismiss the charges and take appropriate responsibility. That’s what government transparency is all about. ;

      What actually happens: They pressure the innocent defendant into acknowledging there was Probable Cause for their arrest, before dismissing the baseless charge(s). Once that happens, the innocent citizen has no recourse to recover damages to character, credibility, financial loss etc. The average defendant doesn’t have the time or financial resources necessary to adequately fight big government so they succumb to whats offered. A very unfair, corrupt and unethical system when it come to innocent citizens, alive and well in Connecticut.

      WEST HAVEN: A judge dismissed an interfering with an officer charge for a man who refused to show a gun permit while openly carrying on the boardwalk, ending what a prosecutor called “a nothing case.”

      The case was dismissed Monday in Superior Court, Milford at the request of defendant Scott Lazurek, 34, of Derby, and his attorney, John Drapp. Prosecutor John Barney didn’t fight it because he made a similar offer as a way of ending the case.

      “It kind of was a nothing case. He had no record. He’s a security guard. All it boiled down to was he had a valid permit to carry. There were no issues; he wasn’t doing anything wrong with it. When police officers approached him and said to show it, he was just stubborn with letting them see it,” Barney said. “So they arrested him on interfering because he was giving them a hard time.”

      Only a judge, not a prosecutor, can agree to a dismissal, and a defendant MUST acknowledge there was probable cause for the initial arrest, said Barney. Once Drapp asked for a dismissal and Lazurek agreed there was probable cause for an arrest, a judge granted the request.

      • what? if the state fails to allege facts to support the charge then a dismissal is proper..has nothing to do with PC or RAS..this seems correct but folks can edumacate me if they want

  3. I an not an attorney nor well versed in legal matters such as this, but is the notice to appear even valid when the box for the signature is filled in with a number, 085141, instead of an actual signature?

    Perhaps someone more well versed in these matters could clarify this point.

    • its e-filed … its OK … want to find the specific statue (I know that there is one — search out the CT Practice book or the online statues~ u should be able to find it)

  4. Don’t know if ya’all have seen this, wanted to share it with you.

    I still keep writing the traitors, seems in vain of course, they are not listening.

    I have written all the owners, and several other folks at Krogers showing support, especially given the fact that a few customers had ak 47 slung around their shoulders!!!!! I don’t know what store, I think Texas, but Krogers did nit make a big deal of it.

    Pushing the envelope a bit, even by my standards, but am glad still folks out there Standing firm, and glad the company is not making a big deal.

    If you want to write a supportive letter, here is contact info: ; (CEO, CFO,etc)

    Just takes a few minutes to support pro gun companies.

  5. This is very disturbing, and although I have left the UN-Constitution state, I will make a donation to the fund, as we gun owners are all in this together. This tyranny will continue until traitors like Murphy, Blumenthal and Malloy are removed.

    However, keep in mind that you are living in a democRATic, socialist, fascist stronghold, whose agenda ( if you continue allowing it) will be to disarm you and usher in their euphoric protectionist society.

    I am not praising the republicans, as they have compromised, but, you need to get republicans, libertarians, etc. Politicians who respect the Constitution. I fear this is not going to happen in democratic ruled states.

    I conclude that if within the next 3-5 years, if the 2nd Amendment is not used to take back our government, I fear freedom will be lost.

    Of course for the 2nd Amendment to really have any teeth and actual power over tyranny, the absolute necessity of local militias in every town that are united and organized is the only way to prevent militarized police or military “just following orders” as they follow the commands of their leaders and go door to door, or set up 4th amendment destroying road searches.

    If history tells us anything, is that it always repeats itself, given the human nature and its lust fir power and control, and that you do not play paddy cakes with those who want to disarm you, allowing the “state” to have more power.

    These are very desperate times, and we Americans cannot remember a time when we lived under tyranny. Something had better happen soon, or God forbid another Sandy hoax is used as an excuse to further attack gun owners all in the name of ” public safety.

    Many would consider my words “dangerous”…….well, I don’t care anymore, it’s time to speak against all enemies of freedom and the American way of life, both foreign AND domestic.

    Live free or die.

  6. Sorry guys. I am not trying to offend anyone but, obtaining a carry pistol permit in this state is difficult enough. That makes it all the more valuable and affords the permittee certain rights (not many) than the regular citizen. This not Texas or SC. Wise up and do not open carry. As for our brother in question-Hey, you need that permit to do your job. Don’t F*** around doing something that could affect your livelihood. I would have shown the LEO my permit & been done with it.

    • I was at the capitol bldg today .. metal detectors up. When I complained a capitol cop came over and told me to quit complaining. That was a wrong response to my 1st amendment rights…I cursed him out for a few minutes and told him if he has a problem with me then arrest me or shut the f–k up. He slithered back. Some cops think that they can walk up to you and get you to do anything and most will (that’s why they think this !). If everyone they asked for their permit would just start cursing them out they would not ask anymore. There is no stop and ID in this state as well as no stop and let me see your permit.

  7. @ James W.: Very good point. The reality of it all now is that we have a test case to clarify facts and points of law once and for all. Hopefully Mr. Lazurek we will be successful so there isn’t a next time for anyone.The New Haven lawyer Su-Ho Hwang had a similar situation, was arrested, had his case dismissed and has now filed civil litigation against the City of New Haven. A good case to keep an eye on: .

  8. Pingback: Connecticut Bureaucrats Battle After Man Declines to Show Gun Permit - Hit & Run :

  9. Pingback: Connecticut Bureaucrats Battle After Man Declines to Show Gun … | News4Security

  10. CCDL has no standing to be added to the case (other here maybe–and the inability to see appeals at the BFPE limits our rights to be added as parties or intervenors at BFPE hearings). The AG claims that the board ignored its own “precedents”’s a clue: admin agencies decisions have no precedence value whatsoever since they are too fact based cases. This is how the police treat citizens … arrest for no reason, make up stuff. WAKE UP gun owners … do not find anyone guilty of ANY (and I mean ANY) crime until the gun laws are repealed…jury nullification is legal in CT, regardless of what any gov’t official says, including a judge. I don’t see the need for the complainant to file but he may be added as a party to the case. Winning an admin appeal is very hard as the board only has to show that any evidence would support their opinion (not that other evidence supports the opposite finding or a re-weighing of the case’s evidence)…the substantial evidence rule (it sucks..but it is what it is).

  11. And Judge Schuman granted the stay … he’s a gov’t lackey … is he running for office in NOV? Vote him out ! I don’t like admin appeals being heard at a centralized location instead of at the possible aggrieved natural person’s location. Case number is HHB-CV-14-6026730-S …

  12. Pingback: Connecticut Bureaucrats Battle After Man Declines to Show Gun Permit | Michigan Standard

  13. There are some very good, educated, fair and ethical judges out there in Connecticut. But, the more you educate yourself about Connecticut politics, the worse it gets. See who’s behind the appointments of various not so ethical judges that will then be offering legal opinions and writing legal decisions on points of law, That is, factoring in which politicians or political party they owe for supporting and appointing them. One hand washes the other. I know of one case where there was a politically connected criminal defense attorney defending drug traffickers while at the same time his wife (also politically connected) was a state drug prosecutor. Sounds like it could be a conflict of interest, but problem solved. They were both appointed to be CT Judges together. Gee, what’s the chances of that,,a politically connected husband and wife team being the best choice out of all the potential attorneys to choose from. But this went under the public radar as she went by her maiden name and no one in the public or media picked up on the fact that they were married to each other. If you look at some of the decisions made by CT judges, it’s apparent which ones are merely political puppets of their handlers. Hope we don’t get any of those regarding very important 2nd Amendment cases..

  14. Pingback: » The Yankee Gunner Podcast – 036The Yankee Gunner

  15. Hey, my 2 cents. Its Ct, not Texas or WV. If you carry a pistol, you have to have a permit, it’s a state law. We all don’t like it and can try to change it, but its the law now.
    Guy walks with the gun. Police sees it. They want to know if he has a permit to carry. He refuses to produce it. They take him in. Where is the problem?

    • the problem is that since the police did not suspect he was committing a crime, they legally could not demand to see his permit. Since That was indeed the case, the charge of interfering with police was bogus. So a law abiding citizen was arrested for following the law and you don’t see a problem with that? REALLY?

    • If you don’t know why this is a problem … then you need to educate yourself … about the 4th amendment, 2nd amendment, and 9th amendment. If you don’t want to go through the hassle then just trust us…its wrong.

    • I see the guys point about just presenting your permit if asked, no problem, in a perfect world, But in a not so perfect state such as Connecticut where political corruption is running wild, elected officials have a proven track record that they can’t be trusted, if given an inch they take a mile, they make restrictive laws based on emotion without having a clue on the subject technical matter or it’s impact on individual Constitutional Rights and when the current Governor Danny Malloy refers to the state’s 15,000+ children, women and men of the Connecticut Citizens Defense League as “extreme right-wing gun advocacy group members” for believing in and supporting their country’s 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights, in Connecticut, The Constitution State, we have a major problem.

      • It has been my experience that once you cater to the cop then the cop expects you to bend over and when you don’t then he gets all girl-crying on ya. Best to just tell him to piss off from the get-go before he’s “invested” in the encounter. Make it no encounter and all will be well. Mr. Lazurek followed the right path and was vindicated for it, luckily. The court is not going to 2nd guess the BFPE .. if there was ANY evidence supporting the return of his permit, that’s all that is needed for an affirmation of the agency’s decision…its one time in few that the idiotic admin review law favors a citizen. 🙂 And, I agree with others, it will make a binding opinion that future BFPE’s should ( ) should be required to follow but since admin cases are so much based on the individual facts of a case it would likely only be useful to a very limited number of cases…but I guess even then its worth something.

  16. Pingback: October Monthly Meeting | CCDL Blog

Comments are closed.