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."
