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

[davidmcbeth]

Chief Knapp is not a bad guy. .

Not a bad guy? Seems to me like he is a anti-gunner. He denied my request for an earlier hearing to consider my objections to his processes that are clearly unconstitutional.

How much worse can the others be?

Anyway, his denial is good enough to file a writ. Then the BFPE can explain their 9 month process as being within "reasonable dispatch" to an actual judge.

There are two degrees in this regard: for all gun rights or not ... there is no fine line....Knapp is an anti-gunner in my eyes. There is no compromising by me; I am not the NRA.

[KIX]

Knapp did exactly as I said he was going to do. I don't like the process per se, but he said the exact same point I did. How would it be right to put one person ahead of dozens of others that have been waiting their turn?

To say he is anti-gun based on this is rather laughable. He is tasked with doing a job and he is doing what he can with the rules and guidelines of his position.

That being said, the sad trend is the now growing line of people awaiting the restoration or issuance of their rights. Seems we're back on this route again.

What I would like to see is something being done about the senseless revocations that are filling up the hearing calendar. Many of them are seriously useless.

Jonathan

[davidmcbeth]

Knapp did exactly as I said he was going to do. Seems we're back on this route again.

Well I have several options right now:
1) wait until 60 or 90 days is up and see if they dismiss the case - anyone have knowledge if they actually do this?
2) ask the board to hear my objections to their questionnaire on the 16th
3) just to prepare and file a writ w/o further board contact

Advantages to #1 is that I'll get a ruling on their questionnaire legality the quickest and would set a precedence that would likely make 99% of the board's work easy to do as a motion for summary judgment may be all that is needed for other people with cases pending.

[KIX]

Since I observe the hearings themselves, I have never heard of this.

The only dismissals of cases I have seen are when:
Agreement is made before a hearing (i.e. the town doesn't want to waste time knowing they are going to lose and issue right before the hearing date)
One party doesn't show up for the hearing and the other side wins their hearing.

I wish we had some vehicle to use due process in cases where the town is obviously going to lose a hearing and decides to not show up.

Jonathan

[davidmcbeth]

I wish we had some vehicle to use due process in cases where the town is obviously going to lose a hearing and decides to not show up.

Jonathan

We may have an avenue to pursue, but it isn't easy. Maybe you have to file a claim with the claims commissioner to get permission to sue the state and/or issuing authority (I can see various charges, claims, or counts one could claim). Just brainstorming here ... I do have a claim already filed but I have time to amend the complaint ... I could add it to the currently pending claims I filed with the claims commissioner.

Cost of filing complaint with claims commissioner: fifty bucks.

[KIX]

Ha, cheaper for a citizen to file the claim than it is to get a permit!

The insanity. I wish ya luck (and hopefully a very well written documentation of your battle along the way!).

Jonathan

[davidmcbeth]

The board wrote me back in respect to the 14 JUN 12 filing ... the arrest record/MV sections are NOT REQUIRED .. as well as other questions.

It seems as if the board has just tossed out suitability .... or at least give me ammo to say as such

But from this ruling, it appears as if the DPS form in respect to this issue also likely would not have to be completed .

A first, baby step.... but a step in the right direction


Attachment 8651

[dcmdon]

David, this is great news. However, I'm confused.

The DPS799c has lettered not numbered questions. (A-F) What am I missing?

Don

http://www.ct.gov/despp/lib/despp/sl.../dps-799-c.pdf

[davidmcbeth]

David, this is great news. However, I'm confused.

The DPS799c has lettered not numbered questions. (A-F) What am I missing?

Don

http://www.ct.gov/despp/lib/despp/sl.../dps-799-c.pdf

Its the BFPE form, not the DPS form ...

There are many similarities between the two forms ... since the DPS form also asks for employer info (BFPE said not needed), arrest records (BFPE said not needed), previous permit info (BFPE said not needed), then BFPE would likely say that this information requested under the DPS form would not be reasonable to ask an applicant. And from the same basic theory, almost ALL the information that DPS asks for (sans actual identifying information) would not be relevant to an applicant...of course this is just my opinion at this point.

[davidmcbeth]

Attachment 8654Attachment 8655Attachment 8656

3 Pages to which the 20 JUN 12 response above by the board refers to...see post #32


Now I have to decide if its OK to answer the dozen or so ? the board said I must answer to move the appeal forward or not to & get a dismissal. Still thinking about it ... any thoughts forum?

[davidmcbeth]

Today I went and sent in the questionnaire, only answering questions the Board ruled were mandatory queries (none had anything to do with suitability).

I also asked Susan if they'll consider a motion in limine to get a pre-hearing ruling to limit the hearing to 2 questions: 1) am I a resident and 2) I am able to own a handgun


Susan also updated me on a new tentative hearing date ... now its 13 DEC 12 ... from original March 2013 tentative hearing date

If they are willing to consider the motion in limine, I shall file one .. if not, objections at the hearing would be the route to follow

[davidmcbeth]

A Sgt. from my local PD responded to the BFPE questionnaire that the board sent them.

The Sgt. admits that I have no criminal record ... but then also argues that my refusal to provide fingerprints was a reason for the denial. ??

The Sgt. also lists some FOIA requests as being cause for the denial as well (???).

And some letters and reports of no real significance.

So, I am left with these options:

1) motion to strike all the documents due to the lack of the Sgt. to enter an appearance (people or parties w/o an appearance cannot make case file entries)
2) motion to strike parts of the filing (almost all of the filings since most deal with suitability)
3) file a motion for summary judgment as the Sgt. admits I have no convictions (or does not show any facts that would indicate a loss of my gun rights)

I also think that the Sgt. made some false statements ... I am investigating these now ... it wouldn't hurt to attack his credibility. Once I get this information definitive (I would not want to say someone lied w/o proof) in respect to the veracity of the Sgt.'s statements then I'll have all the information needed to decide on a course of action.

[davidmcbeth]

I filed 2 sets of documents today:
1st) motion to strike the policeman's filings of 3 jul 12 for a myriad of reasons (total striking & individual sections or statements made)
2nd) memo of law supporting the motion to strike.


I see no rush for a ruling on this but my mid-august I would expect to have something at the latest.

This filing is in response to a cop filing the completed questionnaire the board sends the town and the supporting documents that they claim provide support to a denial (which they don't).

Still plead to strike pleadings if the pleadings are based on any type of suitability examination...I was successful in striking my questionnaire inquiries regarding suitability

[davidmcbeth]

This Board ruled that they will "address the motion on your hearing date" .... its a punt (admin agencies seem to have a habit of this)

So they neither denied or granted the motion to strike. It should allow for oral arguments on the matter so that's positive aspect of it.

I'm surprised that they'll allow the arguments to be heard in an open hearing as it would be a further public record for folks to review.

It would also likely result in the local authority in not filing any further documents to support their side unless the board wishes to grant them an extension to re-file once the currently filed questionnaire is stricken (which I am pretty sure it would be in whole or in part).


Now that I have their ruling on my motion to strike; I can work on a motion in limine to address what should be the subject matter of the hearing. The purpose of this motion is two-fold: first, to get the board to limit the focus of the hearing to a simple question: is the petitioner legally able to possess or own a handgun (and if so, a permit should be issued) and secondly, to have the opportunity to argue the law before the hearing on the permit occurs (I have found this useful in the past where the first time a legal argument is made, the judges don't understand the reasoning but upon a multiple re-argument they finally get the reasoning and agree- with any new argument or defense that has not been seen by the judge before, I always do this motion ~ and where the legal argument is sound, it has been successful in which the judge denies the motion in limine but then, at trial, reverses his viewpoint and agrees with the legal argument). Sometimes you have to explain things several times and I'll have 2 opportunities for my basic argument so I'll be able to fully explain all aspects of the argument before the hearing begins and a third time, if needed, at the hearing.

[davidmcbeth]

Hi !

I have now 3 weeks to prepare for my hearing before the board. Any one know of any significant case law in respect to the board's procedures or board opinions or rulings?

Just doing hearing prep.

[dcmdon]

David,

I have to say that when you first started this, I thought you were a nut.

I still think you are a nut, but I applaud what you are trying to do and wish you the best of luck. I'm glad you are on our side.

Don

[davidmcbeth]

David,

I have to say that when you first started this, I thought you were a nut.

I still think you are a nut, but I applaud what you are trying to do and wish you the best of luck. I'm glad you are on our side.

Don

Its a simple concept really. I already legally own a gun. I should be able to practice with it. A permit should be issued w/o any further examination of any other facts because I need one to transport the gun to a range. As to the procedural aspects, it is meant to limit facts that the issuing authority can or is able to disclose to the board so more of my facts and argument are made into the record. My goal is that only my testimony and argument will be heard. I think it is an achievable goal.

[carolina guy]

Its a simple concept really. I already legally own a gun. I should be able to practice with it. A permit should be issued w/o any further examination of any other facts because I need one to transport the gun to a range. As to the procedural aspects, it is meant to limit facts that the issuing authority can or is able to disclose to the board so more of my facts and argument are made into the record. My goal is that only my testimony and argument will be heard. I think it is an achievable goal.

(*thumbs up*) Good luck!

This sounds like a fight well worth fighting! Thankfully, most of this is not necessary in North Carolina...although the whole "pistol purchase permit" needs to go away.

[Good Citizen]

Hi !

Any one know of any significant case law in respect to the board's procedures or board opinions or rulings?

Just doing hearing prep.

I do, I gleaned 50 cases of appellants who lost at the board, and appealed, from the law library, and sent myself the judicial opinions and I narrowed down to see what the procedures are To build myself a rulebook, of What the board should be doing. What I noticed through a year and a half of hearings is that the board members are nice guys, they at time's, talk to you like there your friend a lot of times trying to get things on record, depending which one, they are attempting to screw you out of your permit. Due to their own opinion, not based on the law or the definitions, in these judicial rulings. I saw a lot of things, totally unorthodox when it comes to the rules of evidence, there is a way to present a case, and under Most circumstances a one line simple objection "needs to be made", the case must be presented in essence "to the judicial review board", or the other option most take, is to go in and beg for their right, you don't appear to be a beggar.

Some of the board members try to make you feel like you have to "come clean" to their questions they actually have no right to ask, And if you answer you're totally screwed because you're begging for something you're not going to get, a simple objection would suffice, comfort knowing that this is going to the judicial review process and that is the only way to guarantee your permit and that the rules are followed. Most appellants including their attorneys are lazy and say thing's on record hoping to get a quick fix, ie the board to vote to issue the permit, But the problem with that is some of the board members vote based on their personal opinion and not the law. In essence answering the unfounded questions you just screwed yourself during the judicial review process the judge will say that you answered the questions therefore no rules were broken, I saw that come up time and time again.

When one reads through this many judicial opinions you get a sense and written understanding from judges, with what the board should and shouldn't be doing, the judges, Make very clear in every judicial opinion that their job is not do not retry the case, they simply make sure that the rules were not broken, as laxed
As they are.

It probably wouldn't hurt to put in some case law with judicial opinions from appellants, V. the board of firearms examiners on record. I also was able to draw the inference the volunteer board members don't like when people file appeals because it, from what I was able to gather, is a very laborfull process for them, and there volunteers. It's a little harder than just showing up listening to some stories and voting.

[davidmcbeth]

I agree with everything you have said but would note that with lawyers representing a complainant a lawyer may see that filing an objection to certain things just are not worth the hassle as some things, they see, as being a non-issue. So for a lawyer, some things they let go I just say "I would have objected" and with other things they let go I would say "Man, that should have been objected to!".

As far as administrative appeals to the Superior court, you are correct, all admin rulings appeals generally just look at the record that was made before the agency that ruled. Questions of law can be re-argued as these are de novo issues but questions of fact and new evidence admission are generally not allowed; the burden against a losing part in respect to the merits of the case to a losing party is "against the manifest evidence" meaning if the superior court could see any logical reason why the board ruled in the manner it did then the court will sustain the ruling..a very hard burden to overcome. Hence my work to get this changed where admin appeals are heard totally de novo by a superior court. I don't think this will go anywhere unless numerous examples are shown to our legislature of the abuse of the system by the various administrative agencies. After all, this would turn back 100 years of law in respect to admin appeals!

And 100% agree about "telling your story" and the ammo it gives to the board to deny. Loose lips sink ships is a motto for a litigant before the board. Less is more ... don't answer questions w/o objecting to the question posed ... it makes a record of a ruling of law that can be reviewed de novo by the court. Answering and then after losing arguing to the superior court "that ? should not have been asked" is not a winning argument because you waived any objection to the ? during your hearing. Even though the board is tasked with conducting an "investigation" under the law, this statue does not exist in a vacuum .. case law, other statues, and common law actually limit what type of questions they can ask. The board is not the opposing party, folks should not let them behave as if they are.


ps sent GC a PM

[dmjs]

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?

I hate to disagree here, there are some ranges that allow one to practice without a Pistol Permit. You only have to show your NRA Cert....

Sometimes in life stirring the pot no only makes bad soup for you, but also for your guests.

[Rich B]

Sometimes in life stirring the pot no only makes bad soup for you, but also for your guests.

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams

[davidmcbeth]

I hate to disagree here, there are some ranges that allow one to practice without a Pistol Permit. You only have to show your NRA Cert....

Sometimes in life stirring the pot no only makes bad soup for you, but also for your guests.

I know places where you need nothing to practice....Blue Trail range doesn't require anything. But how you gonna get your guns there? Ya cannot leave your house with a handgun w/o a permit?

[dmjs]

I know places where you need nothing to practice....Blue Trail range doesn't require anything. But how you gonna get your guns there? Ya cannot leave your house with a handgun w/o a permit?

Many ranges do rent firearms to you without a Permit, just a NRA cert

[davidmcbeth]

Many ranges do rent firearms to you without a Permit, just a NRA cert

My gun is unique .. one of a kind ... so I kinda need to be able to transport this specific handgun .. (I put this fact into my appeal letter to the board)

Also, even in anti-carry Illinois, you can transport your gun to a range w/o violating any law ... not so in CT where you need a permit to leave your 4-walls of your dwelling.

I like this .. shoot me another argument, helping me get ready for the board.