ALRIGHT ALREADY -- I'll go and apply for a CCW --- but ..

[davidmcbeth]

After reading some of the crap that towns try to make one do ..... I will not allow them to:

1) fingerprint me (not mandatory)
2) give them any freaking "letters of reference" (not mandatory)
3) and 1 day over the time limit or on date of denial I will file an appeal

[davidmcbeth]

Well I went and submitted an application today. I did not include any $$$ (you don't have to pay to vote, another right so I don't think I need to pay anything). They did not want to accept it .. but I just told them I would just mail it if they did not wish to take it, so they took it.

Of course a police officer got involved ... talked to him about the various sections (employment, DD214 requirement) and he agreed with some but not all of my arguments. Of course he said he would deny the application - I would not have expected otherwise.

So I filed it w/o fingerprints, w/o picture, w/o copy of ID, no NRA safety course, & without completing several sections of the form putting "not required" in those sections.


I'll be preparing for the denial of course. The officer said that he would deny it today ...

[davidmcbeth]

OK, it has been over 8 weeks and no response (as I figured and hoped) ... filed an appeal with the Board ... they sent me a notice saying that my hearing is set for MARCH 2013 (ha! a year) and asked, under penalty of dismissal, to complete a questionnaire and arrest history.

Now I am a total a---hole when it comes to constitutional rights and I'll complain and complain and complain and complain and complain --- I filed an objection to their questionnaire & arrest history request. Basis for objection: 1) asks for irrelevant information (Chap. 54 and 2nd amendment forbids this) 2) asks for duplicate information (also Chap. 54 issue) 3) 1 yr is too late ! (2nd amendment issue ~ right to retain proficiency with weapon --- US Army says 6 mo. needed~see them argue against that).

They have their next hearing date set in a couple of weeks (the Board is not fulfilling their statutory duty in allowing so long a time period either~they only have like 32 hrs of hearing time scheduled until the end of the year) ; I'll be there and demand a decision or a dismissal !

If not, then I'll wait for the dismissal that they promised me ~~~ an appeal will follow the next day (well, I'll get the paperwork from the court to serve them so maybe 2 weeks after lol).

Sue was nice at the Board .... but she has zero clue how administrative cases are adjudicated ... none whatsoever. When I asked he about filing an objection she said that they would hear it in MAR 13 .... ha! my case would be dismissed by then

I expect to be victorious (I always expect to win because I never file a frivolous suit)!!! And then this goofy "suitability" garbage will go right out the window. Even the courts acknowledge that "suitability" means nothing more than what the Board thinks it means ... but the courts don't have the guts to strike it down on its vagueness.

[GoldCoaster]

Interesting approach David, I'm sure it will shake things up a little bit but hopefully you won't find yourself disappointed when the wheels grind to a halt because you aren't playing the game according to their rulebook. Ideally we'd be a constitution state with constitutional carry like Vermont, Arizona, and Wyoming but we live in a state full of liberal weenies.

[Leverdude]

I'm curious about when you say no NRA course. Did you just refuse to hand over the certificate? Not take the NRA course but another acceptable course? Or not get any instruction at all? I'm not a lawyer but I believe a suitable course is a requirement by state statute. I'd agree its unconstitutional, but if you want the permit I dont think you'll get it without taking a course.

[davidmcbeth]

I'm curious about when you say no NRA course. Did you just refuse to hand over the certificate? Not take the NRA course but another acceptable course? Or not get any instruction at all? I'm not a lawyer but I believe a suitable course is a requirement by state statute. I'd agree its unconstitutional, but if you want the permit I dont think you'll get it without taking a course.

I did not take the gun-control NRA course. Its not required to own, correct? Then it cannot be required to acquire and maintain proficiency and to do that you need a permit because you cannot leave your house without one (with the gun).

Oh, it is a requirement by statute, written before Heller, McDonald, and Ezell (sp?) ... this state has shot themselves in the foot with the gun restrictions IMO ... and it will be their downfall.

It will rattle cages ..... the board's responsibility does encompass such an examination; if they do or not who knows. Since I filed an objection to their request for arrest records then I'll know before the main hearing...if they rule in my favor (ha!) then the case will wait until March (maybe); if they overrule my objection (I'm hoping!) then they'll automatically dismiss the case and it becomes reviewable and it would be a de novo review by superior court (and this should take ~4 months I figure). Then it will off the appellate court (and I have filed appeals before, a but rusty but its mainly monkey-see, monkey-do) for 6 months and then off the the state supreme court for 6 more months. I did time my permit application to avoid the legislature from getting involved.

What do people actually get out of a 4-8 hour course? Nothing really -- its not 20 weeks of basic training, right?

[davidmcbeth]

Interesting approach David, I'm sure it will shake things up a little bit but hopefully you won't find yourself disappointed when the wheels grind to a halt because you aren't playing the game according to their rulebook. Ideally we'd be a constitution state with constitutional carry like Vermont, Arizona, and Wyoming but we live in a state full of liberal weenies.

Oh, on my permit application it is peppered with "not relevant" in most sections...the cop looked at me like I was an idiot...he refused to accept it until I told him I would just deliver it to the 1st selectman..then he took it. Most people in this state still think that the 2nd amendment applies only to militia ... hahaha

[wethepeople]

Oh, on my permit application it is peppered with "not relevant" in most sections...the cop looked at me like I was an idiot...he refused to accept it until I told him I would just deliver it to the 1st selectman..then he took it. Most people in this state still think that the 2nd amendment applies only to militia ... hahaha

We are the militia. Just not a "practiced one". I hope we all feel that way,otherwise they can say the 2A doesnt apply to us.

[Leverdude]

I did not take the gun-control NRA course. Its not required to own, correct? Then it cannot be required to acquire and maintain proficiency and to do that you need a permit because you cannot leave your house without one (with the gun).

Oh, it is a requirement by statute, written before Heller, McDonald, and Ezell (sp?) ... this state has shot themselves in the foot with the gun restrictions IMO ... and it will be their downfall.

It will rattle cages ..... the board's responsibility does encompass such an examination; if they do or not who knows. Since I filed an objection to their request for arrest records then I'll know before the main hearing...if they rule in my favor (ha!) then the case will wait until March (maybe); if they overrule my objection (I'm hoping!) then they'll automatically dismiss the case and it becomes reviewable and it would be a de novo review by superior court (and this should take ~4 months I figure). Then it will off the appellate court (and I have filed appeals before, a but rusty but its mainly monkey-see, monkey-do) for 6 months and then off the the state supreme court for 6 more months. I did time my permit application to avoid the legislature from getting involved.

What do people actually get out of a 4-8 hour course? Nothing really -- its not 20 weeks of basic training, right?

Good luck. I agree with your stance as far as the second amendment. I thought you were simply refusing to abide by extra conditions implemented by local authorities. As far as what they get out of the course I guess it depends. If you are already familiar with guns not much. If you have never handled one you learn to do so safely. It's not a tactical training course, just a basic safety course.
Should it be required before exercising a constitutional right? Of course not.

[dcmdon]

David,

Completion of a course approved by the DPS is a statutory requirement to be issued a PP.

So you won't get any help form the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners. What many of us are trying to get people to do is only to submit what is required by law. Like you said, no, letters of reference, credit checks, conversations with neighbors, etc.

But the class is IN THE STATUTE. There are only 2 courses that I know of that are approved by the DPS. One is NRA Basic Pistol and the other is the one created by, but not currently being taught, by Ed Peruta.

So before you waste a year of your life, only to have your appeal denied by the BFPE, I'd suggest you submit an application that complies with the requirements of the statute and nothing more. Simply saying that the 2A is all the pistol permit you need is a sure path to a dismissal or a felony charge if you carry without a permit.

Don

p.s. Also. Its not a CCW in CT. Its a gun. It can be carried concealed or openly. There is not CCW permit in CT. Its a pistol permit or more correctly a Permit to carry Pistols and Revolvers. The word CONCEALED does not appear anywhere in any CT law or regulation.

[davidmcbeth]

Good luck. I agree with your stance as far as the second amendment. I thought you were simply refusing to abide by extra conditions implemented by local authorities. As far as what they get out of the course I guess it depends. If you are already familiar with guns not much. If you have never handled one you learn to do so safely. It's not a tactical training course, just a basic safety course.
Should it be required before exercising a constitutional right? Of course not.

Safety safety safety .. the mantra of 2nd amendment opponents. Anyone who buys a gun learns how to use it for their own preservation; those who won't will not be around that long.

Plus how can you get proficient without a permit? Shoot into your bedroom walls? lol

I think that ALL the stuff the state wants us to do for a permit is extra. And it is. Look at the states where a permit is not required, do you see gunfights at the OK Corral occurring? No. Why? Because the premise is faulty that a NRA class and suitability examinations are needed.

Also, if one was truly concerned about crime then people would be wearing ballistic vests as well as carrying ... I have yet to see anyone do both. If one was in a situation where his/her gun is needed then a vest would be seen as being a wise choice to have as well.

When I have carried in the past, I wore a vest as well. Something for folks to consider. I really want my permit to practice and only occasionally carry .. but I think that people can carry however they like.

[rt1983]

While I completely agree with what you are doing and applaud you for what you are doing, the pistol class IS required per state statute.

I completely agree though, how can someone be expected to be proficient with a pistol if they can not legall even handle or own one without a permit or eligibility certificate?

[KIX]

Good luck battling the statutes...... and all the money required to do so! Unless, you plan to represent yourself.

But, what is this CCW stuff? CT doesn't have CCW permits. Can't believe someone didn't say this earlier.

Jonathan

[dcmdon]

David,

p.s. Also. Its not a CCW in CT. Its a gun. It can be carried concealed or openly. There is not CCW permit in CT. Its a pistol permit or more correctly a Permit to carry Pistols and Revolvers. The word CONCEALED does not appear anywhere in any CT law or regulation.

I did.

[KIX]

LOL, my bad.

OCDO went offline for about ten minutes and I reloaded the page a couple times..... I think I musta missed it when I kept trying to reload the page.

Jonathan

[brk913]

I've been giving this thread a lot of thought and when I first read it I laughed and thought the OP was crazy and just wanted to cause trouble for himself but after reviewing what he has done (as far as application submission) and what he wants to do I am thinking we should all get behind him on this and help in any way we can.

How many potential permit applicants are willing to fight for what's right? Most just want their permit and will jump through any and all hoops CT and their town lays out for them, it only takes one good runling from a court to declare statute's unconstitutional, how will we ever know how they will rule unless someone has the guts to stand up to the state and take them to court. I think that CT Carry and the CCDL should be involved with this, someone should also try to get the NRA on board. Imagine if in 18-36 months we get a ruling from a court that the CT permit system itself is unconstitutional.

To the OP I am behind you on this all the way and I commend you for fighting for your rights, please keep us informed of the progress.

[Rich B]

To the OP I am behind you on this all the way and I commend you for fighting for your rights, please keep us informed of the progress.

We have been in communication with David for a while now and we support his fight to the extent that we can. He has supplied us lots of relevant information and I hope we have returned the favor at least in part.

[KIX]

I agree wholeheartedly..... I hope it can continue all the way through.

The only cases I know of where people have gone this route never saw it all the way through. I think the demise was more fiscally motivated than overall tenacity towards the issue.....

Good luck, if I can help at all, just ask.

Jonathan

[Leverdude]

Safety safety safety .. the mantra of 2nd amendment opponents. Anyone who buys a gun learns how to use it for their own preservation; those who won't will not be around that long.

Plus how can you get proficient without a permit? Shoot into your bedroom walls? lol

You are preaching to the choir. If you pass the course you can get proficient by practicing with the gun you are legally allowed to transport & carry.

I think that ALL the stuff the state wants us to do for a permit is extra. And it is. Look at the states where a permit is not required, do you see gunfights at the OK Corral occurring? No. Why? Because the premise is faulty that a NRA class and suitability examinations are needed.

Yes & no, its a fact that firearm accidents are at an all time low, IMO largely because of NRA & other educational resources. I teach 6 to 12 people a month and most benefit greatly from it. Its not a tactical or marksmanship course, though shooting is involved, its more focused on making guns safe & safely handling them, we focus alot on muzzle awareness etc. Should they be required? Not in my opinion, but it is the law here & while I think it does us good to refuse to do things not required by the law to satisfy local PDs I dont see much to be gained by ignoreing the actual statutory requirements.

Also, if one was truly concerned about crime then people would be wearing ballistic vests as well as carrying ... I have yet to see anyone do both. If one was in a situation where his/her gun is needed then a vest would be seen as being a wise choice to have as well.

So wear one. I'm content having the means to stop a violent attack, I'm not expecting to get into a battle.

When I have carried in the past, I wore a vest as well. Something for folks to consider. I really want my permit to practice and only occasionally carry .. but I think that people can carry however they like.

Well, I think you will be out of luck in this state, or any state with a permit requirement if you ignore the statutory requirements. The place to fight the fight your fighting is Hartford, not the local PD. But hell, its a free country, have at it.

[Leverdude]

I've been giving this thread a lot of thought and when I first read it I laughed and thought the OP was crazy and just wanted to cause trouble for himself but after reviewing what he has done (as far as application submission) and what he wants to do I am thinking we should all get behind him on this and help in any way we can.

How many potential permit applicants are willing to fight for what's right? Most just want their permit and will jump through any and all hoops CT and their town lays out for them, it only takes one good runling from a court to declare statute's unconstitutional, how will we ever know how they will rule unless someone has the guts to stand up to the state and take them to court. I think that CT Carry and the CCDL should be involved with this, someone should also try to get the NRA on board. Imagine if in 18-36 months we get a ruling from a court that the CT permit system itself is unconstitutional.

To the OP I am behind you on this all the way and I commend you for fighting for your rights, please keep us informed of the progress.

Hadnt really looked at it that way. I thought he wanted his permit but I guess he might be trying to make a change. I think honestly that our permit system is clearly unconstitutional because its all encompassing. While it lets us carry its not really a carry permit because its required for transportation or any practical posession outside the home or place of business. If it were only required for carrying loaded on your person it would be different the way I see it. Itd still be infringement though.

[dcmdon]

Yes & no, its a fact that firearm accidents are at an all time low, IMO largely because of NRA & other educational resources. I teach 6 to 12 people a month and most benefit greatly from it. Its not a tactical or marksmanship course, though shooting is involved, its more focused on making guns safe & safely handling them, we focus alot on muzzle awareness etc.

Should they be required? Not in my opinion, but it is the law here & while I think it does us good to refuse to do things not required by the law to satisfy local PDs I dont see much to be gained by ignoreing the actual statutory requirements.

Perfectly said.
To fight the fight against what you think are unreasonable statutory requirements while trying to get a PP is pointless. UNLESS you intend to take your denial to court and try to get the requirements ajudicated to be in violation of Article 1, Section 15 of the CT constitution.

Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

That may be a reasonable approach, but it will take a boat load of money. So if your goal is to get a PP, its a bad path. If your goal is to set legal precedent and create case law, its a great path. I guess it just depends on what your goals are.

Re firearms courses, I can unequivocally tell you that people come out of my PP classes more aware of what it takes to handle firearms safely than they are coming into the course. Is it beneficial. Yes. Should it be statutorily required? No.

In the flying world, there is a colloquial term for your pilots license that implies that you don't know a whole lot. When you get your first Single Engine, Land rating, its called a ***License to Learn.*** The implication being that you have just enough knowledge to safely go out and get more knowledge on your own. I explain to my pistol classes that that is our goal.

[davidmcbeth]

Perfectly said.
To fight the fight against what you think are unreasonable statutory requirements while trying to get a PP is pointless. UNLESS you intend to take your denial to court and try to get the requirements ajudicated to be in violation of Article 1, Section 15 of the CT constitution.

I have filed cases in lower and upper courts before (federal and state) and this one is much simpler than previous ones I have been involved with as it deals with a question of law for the most part and these are heard de novo at every level.

CT constitution should change it from "in defense of the state" to "in defense from the state" lol. Because that's the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

Right now I have several bites of the apple. One, in an objection to completion of paperwork the board wants completed; then in a response to the dismissal action promised.

Should the board look at statues and come to legal conclusions as to their constitutionality? Yes, they should. Will they? Likely not.

But due to the boards insistence that their forms be completed then the appeal is able to be more focused towards violation of due process (timeliness of board processes) and violations of Chapter 54 (irrelevant information) based upon bad law (29-29) and violation of 2nd amendment (not giving out permit to a handgun owner). Biggest question is state or federal court .. which is best venue.

[davidmcbeth]

Re firearms courses, I can unequivocally tell you that people come out of my PP classes more aware of what it takes to handle firearms safely than they are coming into the course. Is it beneficial. .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uqD8...eature=related

see at 15 seconds - 20 sec .... must be you as a toddler ! Good handling skills exhibited at such an early age!

[davidmcbeth]

Well, I received a response from the board, see below:


As Secretary of the Board, I am responding to your e-mails and US Mails regarding your appeal of the fact that the Issuing Authority in your town has not issued you the permit you report that you applied for i.e. to carry firearms.

Inasmuch as you do NOT argue against answering ALL questions on the questionnaire but only the ones enumerated in your objections to answering "some of the questions", I await your answers to the questions you do not object to.

You ask "that the hearing date of 14 MAR 13 be stricken and replaced with a hearing date consistent with your pleadings and you suggested the date of 14 JUN 12.

As Secretary, I am empowered to set the agenda to schedule the appeals cases for their hearings; there are many appellants who have been waiting for their hearing dates to come up and I see no reason to move your appeal case to the front of the line; consequently your request to have your arguments/appeal heard on our 14 JUN 12 agenda is denied.

Assuring you of our desire to cooperate in all matters of a mutual interest, I remain



VTY,



T. WILLIAM KNAPP

Secretary

I followed up of course asking for a hearing date of 14 JUN 12 to hear the objection that I filed (as opposed to the actual permit hearing). I answered 1 question that I did not object to (but answered in my objection pleadings anyway -- regarding age). All others I still objected to.

See what happens next ... if they do not reply then I shall be at the hearing on the 14th as planned...to bring up my objection to their "suitability" questionnaire.

I think that since they denied moving up my hearing date of MAR 13 at all ... now I have grounds to file a writ. But I'll wait until the 14th anyways .. because I need to write up the writ (I did not expect them to even answer my request -- I fully expected them to ignore it) and they may actually agree to hear the objection, who knows? They surprised me with their response. They may actually agree to hear my request to have my objection heard on the 14th.

[Rich B]

(I did not expect them to even answer my request -- I fully expected them to ignore it) and they may actually agree to hear the objection, who knows? They surprised me with their response.

Chief Knapp is not a bad guy. He is limited in his response due to his duties in the BFPE, but he is a fair man who is interested in helping people.