• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

dcmdon

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
469
Location
Old Saybrook, CT
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

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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.
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Update 1 JUN 12

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

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
(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.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
960
Location
, ,
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

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
960
Location
, ,
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

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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.
 
Last edited:

KIX

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
960
Location
, ,
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

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
VICTORY !!!! - well partial victory hehehe

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


View attachment 8651
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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/slfu/pistol_permits/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

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Documents rec 7-3-12 from local PD

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

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
7-12-12 update - new filings filed by me

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

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Today's BFPE ruling on motion to strike police's questionnaire filed 3 JUL 12

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.
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
3 weeks before hearing - check in with forum on BFPE hearings, results, highlights of

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.
 
Top