Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Connecticut Carry - Waterbury PD retreats from permit requirement stance

  1. #1
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910

    Connecticut Carry - Waterbury PD retreats from permit requirement stance

    Waterbury responds to Connecticut Carry's demand to stop denying permit applications for refusal to supply unlawful additional requirements. Their response is that they have educated their officers to no longer do this. They go on to indicate that they will still ignore the law and perform overbearing investigations without cause after the permit application is submitted.

    The Waterbury Police Department has retreated to a new line in the sand. One that is also indefensible. Connecticut Carry will investigate how the Waterbury Police Department implements this policy and take actions as necessary from there.

    Take note of the Waterbury Police Department's use of the word 'defendant'. Clearly, they have taken a position that someone who applies for a permit is guilty of something and is defending themselves. The Waterbury Police Department needs to change their assumptions of guilt when dealing with law abiding citizens.

    Online:
    http://ctcarry.com/Campaign/PermitRe...ents_Waterbury
    http://ctcarry.com/Campaign/PermitRequirements_Feedback

    Letter:
    http://ctcarry.com/Document/Details/...2-656639ca0e12
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    West Haven
    Posts
    87
    Rich
    Excellent work! It shows the power of the voice. I guess the follow up would be actual implementation of the change. Any volunteers?

  3. #3
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by IH8SPM View Post
    I guess the follow up would be actual implementation of the change. Any volunteers?
    Indeed. We will be looking at people's experiences with the Waterbury PD and the permit process to see if they comply, and where they end up actually drawing the line in their investigations. Their stated position is not lawful and will crumble under judicial scrutiny, but first we need confirmation that they will be conducting invasive investigations without cause and treating permit applicants like criminals.

    This battle in this location should be over (pending confirmation from future applicants), the war has just begun.

    We also need to hear experiences from people with similar problems in other towns.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    They must fear that citizens will come and shoot them in the heads....2nd amendment works!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    108
    Do we know what the lawyer is referring to in Town of Farmington vs Board of Firearms Examiners? Google search didn't help me.

  6. #6
    Regular Member dmjs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Rocky Hill CT
    Posts
    47

    Cv 95-0550258s

    FARMINGTON v. BD. OF FIREARMS PER. EXMR., No. CV 95-0550258S (Feb. 23, 1996)
    MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
    DYER, J.

    With respect to the requirement for three letters of
    character reference, Farmington maintains that this condition is
    a tool which aids police in their statutorily mandated (General
    Statutes § 29-29) investigation of an applicant's suitability
    to carry firearms.
    "It is nice to be important, but more important to be nice"
    Member: NRA - Life, CCDL,
    CT, MA, UT, FLA Pistol Permit Instructor
    NRA Certified Instructor - Professional Safety Training

  7. #7
    Regular Member dmjs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Rocky Hill CT
    Posts
    47

    29-29

    Sec. 29-29. Information concerning criminal records of applicants for permits. (a) No temporary state permit for carrying any pistol or revolver shall be issued under the provisions of section 29-28 unless the applicant for such permit gives to the local authority, upon its request, full information concerning the applicant's criminal record. The local authority shall require the applicant to submit to state and national criminal history records checks. The local authority shall take a full description of such applicant and make an investigation concerning the applicant's suitability to carry any such weapons.

    (b) The local authority shall take the fingerprints of such applicant or conduct any other method of positive identification required by the State Police Bureau of Identification or the Federal Bureau of Investigation, unless the local authority determines that the fingerprints of such applicant have been previously taken and the applicant's identity established, and such applicant presents identification that the local authority verifies as valid. The local authority shall record the date the fingerprints were taken in the applicant's file and, within five business days of such date, shall forward such fingerprints or other positive identifying information to the State Police Bureau of Identification which shall conduct criminal history records checks in accordance with section 29-17a.

    (c) The local authority may, in its discretion, issue a temporary state permit before a national criminal history records check relative to such applicant's record has been received. Upon receipt of the results of such national criminal history records check, the commissioner shall send a copy of the results of such national criminal history records check to the local authority, which shall inform the applicant and render a decision on the application within one week of the receipt of such results. If such results have not been received within eight weeks after a sufficient application for a permit has been made, the local authority shall inform the applicant of such delay, in writing. No temporary state permit shall be issued if the local authority has reason to believe the applicant has ever been convicted of a felony, or that any other condition exists for which the issuance of a permit for possession of a pistol or revolver is prohibited under state or federal law.

    (d) The commissioner may investigate any applicant for a state permit and shall investigate each applicant for renewal of a state permit to ensure that such applicant is eligible under state law for such permit or for renewal of such permit.

    (e) No state permit may be issued unless either the local authority or the commissioner has received the results of the national criminal history records check.

    (1949 Rev., S. 4160; P.A. 92-130, S. 6, 10; P.A. 98-129, S. 5; P.A. 01-130, S. 6; P.A. 01-175, S. 22, 32.)

    History: P.A. 92-130 required issuing authority to record date fingerprints were taken, authorized forwarding of fingerprints to FBI for national criminal history records check, authorized issuing authority to issue permit before report from FBI is received, required issuing authority to inform applicant and render a decision on application within one week of receipt of report, and, if report has not been received within eight weeks after application is made, to inform applicant of delay, and prohibited issuance of permit if issuing authority has reason to believe applicant has been convicted of a felony; P.A. 98-129 relieved the issuing authority of the requirement that it take the fingerprints of the applicant if it determines that the fingerprints of the applicant have been previously taken and the applicant's identity established and the applicant presents identification that the issuing authority verifies as valid and made the submission of the fingerprints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by the issuing authority mandatory rather than discretionary; P.A. 01-130 substituted "local" authority for "issuing" authority to reflect change from local permit to state permit, adding new Subsecs., designated as (d) and (e), re commissioner's investigation of applicants and required receipt of results of national criminal history records check before state permit issued, and made technical and conforming changes; P.A. 01-175 made technical changes throughout, designated existing language as Subsecs. (a) to (c), amended Subsec. (a) by adding language re state and national criminal history records checks, and amended Subsec. (b) by adding language re method of positive identification and criminal history records checks pursuant to Sec. 29-17a, effective July 1, 2001.

    Cited. 193 C. 7. Cited. 200 C. 453. Cited. 209 C. 322.

    Cited. 7 CA 457. Cited. 9 CA 169; judgment reversed, see 205 C. 370.

    Cited. 39 CS 202. Cited. 42 CS 157.


    "It is nice to be important, but more important to be nice"
    Member: NRA - Life, CCDL,
    CT, MA, UT, FLA Pistol Permit Instructor
    NRA Certified Instructor - Professional Safety Training

  8. #8
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Skinnedknuckles View Post
    Do we know what the lawyer is referring to in Town of Farmington vs Board of Firearms Examiners? Google search didn't help me.
    He is pretending that the court ruling gives the PD the right to make invasive investigations without cause.

    That is not likely to stand in court, and it is discussed in the BFPE's declaratory ruling.

    http://ctcarry.com/Permits/AdditionalRequirements

    Now we need to see what they will actually do.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  9. #9
    Regular Member dmjs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Rocky Hill CT
    Posts
    47

    Must realize

    What we all must relaize here in the STATE OF CONNECTICUT BOARD OF FIREARMS PERMIT EXAMINERS FINAL DECISION DECLARATORY RULING ON PETITION CONCERNING APPLICATIONS that it does state;

    B. REQUESTS FORADDITIONAL INTORMATION DURING THE INVESTIGATION

    "An issuing authority is not a mere rubber stamp.The statutes contemplate a bona fide investigation of an applicant's suitability. The determination of an applicant's suitability by the issuing authority, and if required by the Board, is necessarily constrained by "General Statutes §§ 29-28 through 29-38 [which] clearly indicate a legislative intent to protect the safety of the general public from individuals whose conduct has shown them to be lacking the essential character or temperament to be entrusted with a weapon." Dwyer v. Farrell, 193 Conn. 7, 12-13 (1984). Although Connecticut's firearms licensing laws do not specifically define the terms "suitable" and "unsuitable," the decision in Smith's Appeal from County Commissioners, 65 Conn. 135 (1894) affords an appropriate deifnition

    A person is "suitable" who by reason of his character-his reputation in the community, his previous conduct as a licensee-is shown to be suited or adapted to
    the orderly conduct of a business which the law regards as so dangerous to public welfare that its transaction by any other than a carefully selected person duly licensed is made a criminal offense.

    While Conn. Gen. Stat. §29-28(b) provides a list of mandatory disqualifications, the issuing authority and the Board possess discretionary authority to consider other conduct that establishes cause for a finding that the applicant is not a suitable person to carry firearms. Cranev. Chairman, Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, Unreported Decision, (Conn. Super., Aug. 25,1999) (No. CV980068024S), (Dyer, J).

    It therefore follows logically that the issuing authority may require an applicant to provide additional information concerning eligibility or suitability once an issue arises during the course
    of the investigation carried out in furtherance of the applicant's initial application.

    The Superior Court addressed this issue in Basilicato v. State, 46 Conn.Supp. 550, 760 A.2d 155 (1999), aff d per curiam 60 Conn. App. 503, 760 A.2d 140 (2000). In that case, the applicant applied to the chief of police of the town of West Haven pursuant to General Statutes § 29-28 for a pistol permit. In that application he made mention of the fact that he had been treated for mental or emotional problems and that he had lost time from work resulting from stress, and that he had been disabled from working since October 1, 1991, because of the condition. On May 30, 1996, the officer conducting the investigation of the applicant's suitability requested that the applicant obtain from his stress management counselor a letter indicating that she saw "no problems with the possessing or carrying of a handgun." The plaintiff declined to comply with that request, and the chief of police declined to issue the permit. On appeal to the Board, we determined that the police chief appropriately withheld the permit on the basis of the applicant's failure to funrish him with the requested information. The board found that the consideration of an applicant's mental and emotional stability is relevant to detelinine suitability to possess a pistol permit. Our decision was afifrmed on appeal to the Superior Court. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

    Common sense and the interest of public safety affirm that the issuing authority is not
    confined to issues of mental health in requesting additional information to resolve specific issues uncovered by the investigation or revealed in the application. This Board has consistently refused to issue permits when appellants have submitted incomplete or inaccurate applications because we ourselves rely on the issuing authority's investigation in carrying out our statutory mandate. It is certainly appropriate for issuing authorities to investigate issues concerning an applicant's mental health status,criminal history, pattern of domestic violence, drug or alcohol abuse, extremist conduct, reckless, negligent, or irresponsible conduct, poor judgment, dishonesty, bad character, association with known criminals or disruptive persons, or any other issue which tends to undermine confidence in an applicant's potential for safely carrying firearms outside the confines of his home or business.

    The statute does not prescribe the form or the time frame in which such additional submissions must be made and the Board declines to do so. Most issues will certainly be resolved informally. We can foresee issues arising at the moment the application is filed based on an applicant's answers to the questions on the required form. The issuing authority may not refuse the application at this point, but may immediately request more specific information at that time.We decline to exalt form over substance in a process which should be flexable enough to accommodate both the public and private interests involved.

    Once such issues have been uncovered, either on the face of the application or statutorily required submissions or in the course of the issuing authority's investigation, the issuing authority may require the applicant to submit such information, documents, or other material sufficient to resolve the question of eligibility or suitability.

    When such issues arise and the issuing authority seeks further specific information, failure to provide such information may, by itself, be sufficient to deem applicant unsuitable; however such a determination must be made on a case bycase basis from all of the facts and circumstances of the case."
    "It is nice to be important, but more important to be nice"
    Member: NRA - Life, CCDL,
    CT, MA, UT, FLA Pistol Permit Instructor
    NRA Certified Instructor - Professional Safety Training

  10. #10
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    And the applicable lines therein are:


    It therefore follows logically that the issuing authority may require an applicant to provide additional information concerning eligibility or suitability once an issue arises during the course of the investigation carried out in furtherance of the applicant's initial application.

    Once such issues have been uncovered, either on the face of the application or statutorily required submissions or in the course of the issuing authority's investigation, the issuing authority may require the applicant to submit such information, documents, or other material sufficient to resolve the question of eligibility or suitability.

    When such issues arise and the issuing authority seeks further specific information, failure to provide such information may, by itself, be sufficient to deem applicant unsuitable; however such a determination must be made on a case bycase basis from all of the facts and circumstances of the case
    http://ctcarry.com/Document/Details/...6-76c82a872e80

    Local issuing authorities do not have blanket authority to make invasive requests past the authority provided them in the statutes unless they have cause to do so that arises based on evidence in the application itself or based on evidence that arises from their suitability investigation.
    Last edited by Rich B; 04-09-2012 at 11:47 AM.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    Local issuing authorities do not have blanket authority to make invasive requests past the authority provided them in the statutes unless they have cause to do so that arises based on evidence in the application itself or based on evidence that arises from their suitability investigation.
    Seems perfectly clear- no wonder they are telling us we are wrong. I'm sure this is what is making Waterbury such a safe place.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Freiheit417's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    167

    Would be nice if CT statutes had teeth...

    like New Hampshire's:

    Judges orders Newton chief to issue license, pay attorney fees


    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...-attorney-fees

    Under New Hampshire law (RSA 159:6-f), an issuing authority -- typically the police chief -- may be personally liable to pay reasonable attorney fees and costs for violating the state law on issuing licenses (RSA 159:6). In this case, the Town of Newton was also sued and could be held responsible to pay as well.


    http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...59/159-6-f.htm
    America, where freedom* reigns.

    *Freedom subject to change depending on jurisdiction and availability. Some freedoms may not be available due to local political expedience or prevailing political correctness. Please check Federal, State, County, City, or any other special district for applicable laws governing the extents of freedoms prior to purchase.

    -----------

    “What you see is the fringe of the fringe showing up in Hartford today." - Danny Malloy a.k.a. "The Governor" 3/11/2013

  13. #13
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Once the application has been submitted this department will continue to request references
    a) they can request all they want
    b) looks like they're saying they won't refuse to accept an application, but they won't process it w/o the illegally-demanded references

    extremist conduct, reckless, negligent, or irresponsible conduct, poor judgment, dishonesty, bad character, association with known criminals or disruptive persons
    Sounds like several reasons they could deny a license based on a history of political activism, including 2A issues like OC. How many times have we heard that OC is irresponsible & shows poor judgment? (Even from other gun owners!)
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    West Haven
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Freiheit417 View Post
    like New Hampshire's:

    Judges orders Newton chief to issue license, pay attorney fees


    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...-attorney-fees



    http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...59/159-6-f.htm
    Wish we had that law here. I support everyone being held responsible for their acts.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by IH8SPM View Post
    Wish we had that law here. I support everyone being held responsible for their acts.
    We do ! You just have to go through the claims commissioner before filing a 42 USC 1983 suit I believe.

    Don't need a "statute" .. its a violation of a a core constitutional right...

  16. #16
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    Rich and I both had the chance to confront Waterbury on the issues today at the BFPE hearing.

    To say it was interesting, was putting it mildly. They will still ask for the letters and such, but it will be interesting to see where it goes there.

    Rich can verify my assessment, but it seems they still want to do the dance. Essentially, no letters when you drop off your application, but they want to ask for them during their investigation. Which, from where I stand, is still the same thing as it's three letters regardless. The BFPE said essentially that it can't be used as a reason for denial (or they'll keep having to appear to the board).

    The discussion is going forth from both CT Carry and CT Pistol Permit Issues.com

    I don't think either group is going to stop pushing for an end to the permit insanity.

    Jonathan
    www.ctpistolpermitissues.com - tracking all the local issuing authority, DPS and other insanity with permit issues
    www.ctgunsafety.com - my blog and growing list of links useful to gun owners (especially in Connecticut).

    Rich B: My favorite argument against OC being legal in CT is "I have never seen someone OC in CT".
    I have never seen a person drink tea from a coke bottle while standing on their head, that doesn't mean it is illegal.

  17. #17
    Regular Member dmjs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Rocky Hill CT
    Posts
    47

    Just my opinion

    I think (just my opinion) that many here and other forums do not say (post often/or at all) is because some others here and on other forums have an intimidation factor involved.

    In some postings from these other forum members the wording that is used is often very offensive to some, even though it is not meant to be, but at times some “board members” may feel offended by others words and or advice.

    “Members” of this forum and others should always realize that advice here on this forum, and other forums, even though may be correct on many facets, it is not and should not be considered legal advice. The best legal advice that one can get is from an attorney whose specialty is in the field of Firearms Law and in person. Not via a forum, unless you personally know that this individual is for a fact an attorney and even than one should be cautious.

    One should not continue to tell someone to do something that they do not want to do, because she/he has a issue or cause for not following thru on what she/he was told to do on this or any other forum. (Once again a big turn off) Here on this forum and others we talk about our rights, and it is his/her right to not to take someone’s advice, no matter if it is from a fellow board member or an attorney.


    There is a huge and growing membership possibility here in Connecticut and other states to join an organization, that helps them in the day to day use and carry of firearms but when the organization members and or officials say or present themselves in a wrong factor that this is once again a turn off to get the person to join in the cause.

    We must not forget that John and Jane Q Public would like to join and or donate as much as they can to the cause, but in these economic depressed times this is not possible to donate to the entire National, State and local firearm related groups. Maybe a few of the local groups should combine forces and become one. It would have more power, members and funding in the long run.


    Than again we have an ill informed political and public that deserves to be informed and just maybe if there is funding available an ad in a few of our larger media outlets will get the message out. Than again this cost money. But one has to spend a little to get a little.

    Why have a booth handing out lecture at a Gun Store, when those that have the knowledge all ready visit the gun stores? Make a few new members sure, but does this really get the public informed? Not really. Need to get out and about is a better objective and plan.

    Sorry for the rant, but we have to get the word out to everyone, not just a few.


    Everyone be safe.

    Last edited by dmjs; 04-13-2012 at 08:19 AM.
    "It is nice to be important, but more important to be nice"
    Member: NRA - Life, CCDL,
    CT, MA, UT, FLA Pistol Permit Instructor
    NRA Certified Instructor - Professional Safety Training

  18. #18
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by dmjs View Post
    Than again we have an ill informed political and public that deserves to be informed and just maybe if there is funding available an ad in a few of our larger media outlets will get the message out. Than again this cost money. But one has to spend a little to get a little.
    We are certainly working with media sources to get the word out. We spend quite a bit of time and energy doing so. If you would like to help in this effort, I would be happy to show you what we have been doing and how you may assist.

    Why have a booth handing out lecture at a Gun Store, when those that have the knowledge all ready visit the gun stores? Make a few new members sure, but does this really get the public informed? Not really. Need to get out and about is a better objective and plan.
    Absolutely agree there. Membership numbers mean very little. What the group accomplishes means far more.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  19. #19
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    Absolutely agree there. Membership numbers mean very little. What the group accomplishes means far more.
    You'd be amazed how much the average gun owner doesn't know. Just tonight I had some conversations with a few people that STILL don't know the OC laws and such.

    The both at the shop from the CCDL standpoint is mostly to promote the rally at the capitol at the end of the month. I think it's a good idea, hence why I organized the booth at Hoffman's. They have the traffic, it's closest to the state capitol, it seems like a win to me.

    Jonathan
    www.ctpistolpermitissues.com - tracking all the local issuing authority, DPS and other insanity with permit issues
    www.ctgunsafety.com - my blog and growing list of links useful to gun owners (especially in Connecticut).

    Rich B: My favorite argument against OC being legal in CT is "I have never seen someone OC in CT".
    I have never seen a person drink tea from a coke bottle while standing on their head, that doesn't mean it is illegal.

  20. #20
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by dmjs View Post

    [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000]“Members” of this forum and others should always realize that advice here on this forum, and other forums, even though may be correct on many facets, it is not and should not be considered legal advice. The best legal advice that one can get is from an attorney whose specialty is in the field of Firearms Law and in person. Not via a forum, unless you personally know that this individual is for a fact an attorney and even than one should be cautious.
    There is no problem with pointing to the law on the state of CT website. I agree with the lawyer bit. I tell my students to get one and ask them any questions they may have pertaining to the law. Good to have an attorney that knows CT firearms laws as well. I specifically went to my attorney because of his experience in this area of law.

    Quote Originally Posted by dmjs View Post
    One should not continue to tell someone to do something that they do not want to do,
    Agreed. People should do what makes them feel comfortable, not what makes someone else more comfortable. I don't know who's telling someone to do something they don't want to do......

    Jonathan
    www.ctpistolpermitissues.com - tracking all the local issuing authority, DPS and other insanity with permit issues
    www.ctgunsafety.com - my blog and growing list of links useful to gun owners (especially in Connecticut).

    Rich B: My favorite argument against OC being legal in CT is "I have never seen someone OC in CT".
    I have never seen a person drink tea from a coke bottle while standing on their head, that doesn't mean it is illegal.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910

    BFPE hearing

    On 4/12/2012 I was invited to attend a discussion with the Waterbury PD in front of the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners about our complaint of additional permit requirements.

    The following is quoted from http://ctcarry.com/Campaign/PermitRe...ents_Waterbury

    Quote Originally Posted by ctcarry.com

    The BFPE lectures Waterbury PD on their practices:

    On April 12th, 2012 the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners invited both Connecticut Carry and the Waterbury Police Department to sit down in front of the board for a discussion of our letter to Waterbury. Connecticut Carry President Rich Burgess appeared on behalf of Connecticut Carry. The Waterbury Police Department was in attendance with two officers and their legal advisor.

    The board made it very clear that, like Connecticut Carry indicated, they had once once before ruled on this along with the Attorney General. They made clear to Waterbury that they understood the issue in front of them and that they also could clearly see that Waterbury was simply skirting the law and the board's ruling.

    Waterbury's legal advisor continually pointed to a ruling by Judge Dyer in Farmington v. Board of Firearms Permit Examiners that says:

    "Farmington maintains that this condition is a tool which aids police in their statutorily mandated (General Statutes § 29-29) investigation of an applicant's suitability to carry firearms.
    This is the same assertion that they made in the letter to Connecticut Carry. Waterbury PD completely ignores the cause necessary to perform such an inquiry and instead insists that they will make blanket requests during every investigation. The board warned them that if people refuse, they may appeal to the board where Waterbury would need to answer as to the cause of letters being requested."

    Waterbury also stated that this was "no longer a requirement" which is false. An investigation by Connecticut Carry on the morning of April 12th, 2012 resulted in a recorded conversation with a member of the Waterbury Police Department where the person in the records department indicated that the letters were "required". She indicated that if the letters were not supplied that Waterbury would be unable to perform their background check. This is not true, ridiculous and it means the letters of reference are, in fact, still being required.

    Connecticut Carry plans to give Waterbury a chance to resolve this issue and then re-investigate the issue and see if the necessary changes have been made.

    The Waterbury Police Department has been put on notice to change their process. The citizens of Connecticut have been put on notice to refuse any blanket requests for letters of reference and appeal with the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners if a denial is issued.

    Connecticut Carry would like to extend deep and heartfelt appreciation to the Board of Firearms Examiners for spending their personal, volunteered time to help clarify their ruling and explain the conditions of such to a resistant and misinformed police department. The Board of Firearms Permit Examiners did a great job reasoning against an unreasonable opinion and they are a true asset to this state.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  22. #22
    Regular Member brk913's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Plainville, CT
    Posts
    370
    [QUOTE=Rich B;1737798] they are a true asset to this state. [QUOTE]

    As are you and CT Carry!!! Thanks for fighting for the "little guy" against rogue police departments!!!
    Member:, NRA Patron Life, NSSF, CCDL, CT Carry, MRPC and Bell City
    NRA Certified Instructor, Chief Range Safety Officer - Basic Pistol, Home Firearm Safety, Metallic Cartridge/Shotgun Shell Reloading - www.ctpistolpermit.com

  23. #23
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    It was fun. I wonder how much it cost for the city attorney, police chief and the other officer to stay there all day. We got out near 8:00!

    Jonathan
    www.ctpistolpermitissues.com - tracking all the local issuing authority, DPS and other insanity with permit issues
    www.ctgunsafety.com - my blog and growing list of links useful to gun owners (especially in Connecticut).

    Rich B: My favorite argument against OC being legal in CT is "I have never seen someone OC in CT".
    I have never seen a person drink tea from a coke bottle while standing on their head, that doesn't mean it is illegal.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    From the minutes:

    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.ct.gov/bfpe/cwp/view.asp?a=3291&Q=502778
    New Business: A discussion was held including the Board Members, Waterbury Town Attorney Gary S. Roosa, Sgt. Michael Dethlefsen, Waterbury Police Department, Mr. Richard Burgess, President Connecticut Carry, Inc. and E. Jonathan Hardy, founder of CT Pistol Permit Issues. The discussion was initiated by a letter sent by Mr. Burgess stating that Waterbury Police Department, as part of the application for a pistol permit, required additional information not described in the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners Declaratory Ruling adopted on January 14, 2010. Attorney Roosa defended the Waterbury Police Department stating the additional requirements were only part of the background investigation. Mr. Burgess and Mr. Hardy spoke that they had received complaints from citizens that the additional requirements were part of the process when they first applied for the permit. Mr. Burgess and Mr. Hardy both agreed that the many citizens were intimidated from going forward with the application. The Board ruled that the only documents, as described in the 2010 Declaratory Ruling, must be part of the application process.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •