who view it.”); Burgess v. Wallingford, 2013 WL 4494481, at *9 (D.Conn. May 15, 2013) (“Carrying a weapon alone is generally not associated with expression.”). Moreover, “the surrounding circumstances” on June 16 offer no support to Northrup’s intended message. As he notes, he simply was walking on a public sidewalk in his neighborhood with his wife, daughter, grandchild, and dog. Northrup fails to show his action of openly carrying a handgun is “sufficiently imbued with elements of communication” or that “the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it.” Spence, 418 U.S. at 409, 411, 94 S.Ct. 2727. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Northrup’s First Amendment claim on the basis of qualified immunity. See Burgess, 2013 WL 4494481, at *9 (<HOLDING>). D. Second Amendment Northrup claims Officer
holding that in deciding whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity it is not only the evidence of clearly established law that is for the court but also whether a reasonable officer could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful in light of the information the officer had holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity where defendant officers could have reasonably believed that they were given sufficient third party consent to search holding that officers were not entitled to qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage where there was a triable dispute as to whether they were reasonable in shooting a suspect who was not facing or pointing his gun at them holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity holding officers were entitled to qualified immunity where reasonable officers could disagree whether or not there was a great likelihood of plaintiffs visible weapon and his shirt quoting the connecticut state constitution regarding the right to bear aims conveying a message to those who viewed it