Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Connecticut Carry - HB 5245 - Retraction of Support

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

    Connecticut Carry - HB 5245 - Retraction of Support

    As of 4/21/2012, Connecticut Carry no longer supports HB 5245. Our original support for this bill came due to the bill mostly being impotent and only having minor clarifying language. Upon reconsideration and careful examination, it was determined that this bill actually adds further restrictions to the permit process in Connecticut. Because of this, Connecticut Carry cannot stand in support of this bill.


    Number 4 on the list of requirements reads:

    (4) two sets of fingerprints for purposes of section 29-29.
    CGS 29-29 reads:

    (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.
    CGS 29-29 therefore is less restrictive than the proposed change. Currently, there is no need for fingerprint cards to be submitted with permit applications.




    I regret that I allowed myself to be duped by this bill and voted to throw the support of Connecticut Carry behind this bill. I take full responsibility for this.

    We will strive to more carefully consider future bills regardless of their source.
    Last edited by Rich B; 04-21-2012 at 12:30 PM.
    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
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    exactly ... but it appears to be to late

  3. #3
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by brk913 View Post
    Before you pull support for this bill I think you should find out from the SPBI and FBI what methods other than printing if any they will allow for positive identification.
    Before this, I was more neutral than not on the bill since the rest of it is effectively useless. Adding a requirement for fingerprinting is a restriction no matter how you define it.

    I have applicants who are challenging the submission of fingerprints right now. They are not required, especially if they are already on file.

    The question all along has been "Why support this bill?". I should have sided with my instincts.
    Last edited by Rich B; 04-21-2012 at 03:14 PM.
    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
    Regular Member brk913's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Plainville, CT
    Posts
    370
    I deleted my post just as you were responding as I wish to retract what I wrote after further reading of the bill. My question now is can the Senate not ammend it? Can't we ask someone to ammend that line to read:

    (4) two sets of fingerprints or 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 for purposes of section 29-29.

    I'd also like a report or some more info on the people that are appealing for print reasons.
    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

  5. #5
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by brk913 View Post
    I deleted my post just as you were responding as I wish to retract what I wrote after further reading of the bill. My question now is can the Senate not ammend it? Can't we ask someone to ammend that line to read:

    (4) two sets of fingerprints or 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 for purposes of section 29-29.

    I'd also like a report or some more info on the people that are appealing for print reasons.
    You are a good man, I knew you would understand.

    The amendment looks ok, but I would rather see the bill just plain squashed. Why add more squishy language to these statutes for no benefit?

    Email me or call me and I will talk about the applicants. Privacy is a concern with some applicants we are helping.
    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

  6. #6
    Regular Member brk913's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Plainville, CT
    Posts
    370
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    The question all along has been "Why support this bill?".
    Because it would standardize the application process statewide and clear up a lot of confusion among applicants and police departments. Some people find it hard to stand up to authority and when the PD "orders" you to supply extras like letters of reference, credit checks, medical releases, resumes, assorted exta forms they just do it. Even with the Declaratory ruling from the Board I would say more than 50% of issuing authorites have extra criteria for application submission. Sure the applicant start the appeal process and of course the Board will side with them but that delays this whole process even more. But if it's clearly written into a State Statute the issuing authority will have no excuse to not follow the law. Look at the way Waterbury wants to fight about the letters of reference even though they clearly received their copy of the Declaratory RUling, they act like that does not exist, they would not be able to do that and get away with it if the legislature spells it out for them.
    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

  7. #7
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by brk913 View Post
    Because it would standardize the application process statewide and clear up a lot of confusion among applicants and police departments. Some people find it hard to stand up to authority and when the PD "orders" you to supply extras like letters of reference, credit checks, medical releases, resumes, assorted exta forms they just do it. Even with the Declaratory ruling from the Board I would say more than 50% of issuing authorites have extra criteria for application submission. Sure the applicant start the appeal process and of course the Board will side with them but that delays this whole process even more. But if it's clearly written into a State Statute the issuing authority will have no excuse to not follow the law. Look at the way Waterbury wants to fight about the letters of reference even though they clearly received their copy of the Declaratory RUling, they act like that does not exist, they would not be able to do that and get away with it if the legislature spells it out for them.
    The proposed legislation won't change this. People will still have to stand up to the issuing authorities. Look at all the other statutes they clearly break and don't care about.

    Putting the requirements into law is useless without penalties for breaking it. BFPE appeals and campaigns like we are running on Waterbury will be the only way to change this.
    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

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by brk913 View Post
    Look at the way Waterbury wants to fight about the letters of reference even though they clearly received their copy of the Declaratory RUling, they act like that does not exist, they would not be able to do that and get away.
    And they cannot get away with it if you ask for and are granted sanctions in the administrative hearing too....so there are remedies beyond changing the law to this abortion....just my opinion of course

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    West Haven
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    The proposed legislation won't change this. People will still have to stand up to the issuing authorities. Look at all the other statutes they clearly break and don't care about.

    Putting the requirements into law is useless without penalties for breaking it. BFPE appeals and campaigns like we are running on Waterbury will be the only way to change this.
    Rich
    That has been my argument all along. How can a resident fight the law on his/her own without fearing being accused of some sort of authority violation? Not everyone has the bank roll or liberty to take on false charges. Remember when I said like DMV...application,proof,fee,issue. No interpretation required.

  10. #10
    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
    That has been my argument all along. How can a resident fight the law on his/her own without fearing being accused of some sort of authority violation? Not everyone has the bank roll or liberty to take on false charges. Remember when I said like DMV...application,proof,fee,issue. No interpretation required.
    No one is asking or suggesting for anyone to do it on their own. That is why organizations like CT Carry are helping people.

    I have no idea what this has to do with this bill one way or the other though. This bill changes nothing about whether someone has to fight their own battles or not.
    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 KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by brk913 View Post
    Because it would standardize the application process statewide and clear up a lot of confusion among applicants and police departments.
    That is the entire purpose of this bill - period.

    I still stand behind it for that reason.

    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.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Lemonade from Lemons based on the current porposed application changes

    Those who suggested or advocated in behalf of these changes had no clue of the current issues or effects the changes could allow.

    (b) An applicant for a temporary state permit shall provide the issuing authority the following: (1) A completed and notarized application on the form prescribed by the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, which form may not be modified or supplemented with additional forms; (2) proof of lawful presence in the United States consisting of (A) for citizens of the United States, a birth certificate, naturalization certificate or valid United States passport, or (B) for aliens, a permanent resident card; (3) a certificate of successful completion of a course in the safety and use of pistols and revolvers signed by an instructor certified by the National Rifle Association, the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, a law enforcement agency or a branch of the military service of the United States; and (4) two sets of fingerprints for purposes of section 29-29.

    The proposed change to the statute
    DOES NOT require that the "two sets of fingerprints" be TAKEN by the local issuing authority.

    It seems possible from the wording that any applicant could obtain two blank fingerprint cards, (one state and one federal), roll their own prints onto the cards and submit them as part of "
    A COMPLETED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION".

    I agree with Rich B that another mandated requirement has been added to the process, but also believe that it might shorten the application process if applicants are allowed to submit the two completed fingerprint cards
    with their applications for Temporary Permits.

    The new changes
    don't even require that the mandated "fingerpints" be submitted on any particular type of form(s).

  13. #13
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by KIX View Post
    That is the entire purpose of this bill - period.
    And it does nothing to this effect, but sets us back by mandating fingerprints with squishy language that makes no sense.

    The perception that this bill 'standardizes' anything is purely illusion.

    This has been settled law since 1968 but it requires us to act on it, not sit back and wonder why all the issuing authorities are not automatically fixing things.

    http://ctcarry.com/Permits/AdditionalRequirements
    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

  14. #14
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    And it does nothing to this effect, but sets us back by mandating fingerprints with squishy language that makes no sense.

    The perception that this bill 'standardizes' anything is purely illusion.
    No it is NOT. Look at the wording of paragraph B in the bill (the bill is essentially this entire paragraph:

    (b) An applicant for a temporary state permit shall provide the issuing authority the following: (1) A completed and notarized application on the form prescribed by the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, which form may not be modified or supplemented with information not required by statute; (2) proof of lawful presence in the United States consisting of (A) for citizens of the United States, a birth certificate, naturalization certificate or valid United States passport, or (B) for aliens, a permanent resident card; (3) a certificate of successful completion of a course in the safety and use of pistols and revolvers signed by an instructor certified by the National Rifle Association, the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, a law enforcement agency or a branch of the military service of the United States; and (4) two sets of fingerprints for purposes of section 29-29.

    The following being the key:

    which form may not be modified or supplemented with information not required by statute;

    The fingerprints are the standard form of the background check and all 169 towns are doing this as the essential uniform method of performing the background check.

    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.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by KIX View Post
    The following being the key:

    which form may not be modified or supplemented with information not required by statute;
    This is already the effective law. We have rulings dating back to 1968 declaring this. This statute would not change any of this, but it would add an additional requirement that is not currently in the statute.

    The fingerprints are the standard form of the background check and all 169 towns are doing this as the essential uniform method of performing the background check.
    Tell this to the applicant who already has their fingerprints on file and does not (or can not) submit new fingerprints. With the current law, someone with damaged or non existent fingerprints can still get a permit, while HB 5245 takes that ability away.

    Not to mention it is poor language that leaves open many further challenges for nothing.


    HB 5245 does nothing to enforce the clearly established law in this state, but it does cause unnecessary restrictions.
    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

  16. #16
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    This is already the effective law. We have rulings dating back to 1968 declaring this.
    Where? I'm not seeing it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    Tell this to the applicant who already has their fingerprints on file and does not (or can not)
    I still haven't seen where people have used existing prints on file. Especially at appeals hearings. I hear all about the checks, but not using those on file. It has become the standard. How can someone "not" provide prints?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post

    HB 5245 does nothing to enforce the clearly established law in this state, but it does cause unnecessary restrictions.
    ENFORCEMENT is the key here. That would be additional legislation. But this makes it a lot easier for applicants to say that the law says they don't need to do this, and can even set up possible litigation down the road (if someone ever takes it up) regarding the town not following the statute.

    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 Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by KIX View Post
    Where? I'm not seeing it.
    http://ctcarry.com/Permits/AdditionalRequirements

    I still haven't seen where people have used existing prints on file.
    This means nothing. I have.


    It has become the standard. How can someone "not" provide prints?
    Right. Just like concealed carry is the standard? Or 8 weeks?

    I invite you to read 29-29(b) as I quoted above. It is pretty clear that you do not need to provide prints and that there is a process for this.


    ENFORCEMENT is the key here. That would be additional legislation. But this makes it a lot easier for applicants to say that the law says they don't need to do this, and can even set up possible litigation down the road (if someone ever takes it up) regarding the town not following the statute.
    Litigation is just as possible right now. The only issue is that since 1968 and then again since 2010 that no one is actively campaigning against police departments that request additional information.
    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

  18. #18
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    As I have said elsewhere.

    I disagree with you on this. I think the fingerprints outweighs the benefit of a statute that says the information shall not be asked for by a local issuing authority.

    The BFPE does NOT say they cannot collect the information (as this statute does). They say they can't use lack of submission of that information as a basis of judging adverse inference and denying a permit.

    I like the idea of the statute saying that they can't gather it in the first place and therefor can't draw adverse inference in the first place.

    This is why this is good law. Maybe a revision in other areas down the road, but a huge improvement over the current system.

    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.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by KIX View Post
    I disagree with you on this. I think the fingerprints outweighs the benefit of a statute that says the information shall not be asked for by a local issuing authority.
    I am not so eager to give up ground and give up some people's rights to push through a badly worded and ill-conceived bill that will effectively do nothing.

    The BFPE does NOT say they cannot collect the information (as this statute does). They say they can't use lack of submission of that information as a basis of judging adverse inference and denying a permit.
    Wishful thinking. When the local issuing authorities continue to demand the additional requirements and deny people when they don't provide them, those people will have to appeal, just like they do now.

    And in the meantime, we will be dealing with the fallout of the short sighted nature of changing laws without a complete understanding of the laws.
    Last edited by Rich B; 04-22-2012 at 10:50 PM.
    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

  20. #20
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    It's not nearly badly worded at all. I think it sets a system of standards for local issuing authorities to follow without causing citizens to jump through extra hoops. I can support this.

    Not wishful thinking at all. By setting statute saying they cannot ask for the additional paperwork, it is less ground for denial and making citizens appeal in a process now that takes nearly 8 months.

    I stand by our decision on 5245 and continue to support it.

    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
    Quote Originally Posted by KIX View Post
    It's not nearly badly worded at all.
    Ahh I see. Explain to me how and on what those fingerprints are to be submitted on please.

    I think it sets a system of standards for local issuing authorities to follow without causing citizens to jump through extra hoops. I can support this.
    I could as well. And then I understood the fingerprinting provisions of the law.


    By setting statute saying they cannot ask for the additional paperwork, it is less ground for denial and making citizens appeal in a process now that takes nearly 8 months.
    This doesn't even make sense.

    They sure as hell can and will continue asking to the additional requirements, just like they always have, despite two strongly worded rulings against the practice.

    HB 5245 does not make an impact on the appeals process at all, it is dishonest to suggest that it would.
    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 KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    Ahh I see. Explain to me how and on what those fingerprints are to be submitted on please.



    I could as well. And then I understood the fingerprinting provisions of the law.
    Obviously, you don't. As 29-29 (usually your favorite part of the statutes regarding the timeline) also states:

    (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.

    Your comments about not making sense is moot as the ruling has no legal effect on the town. A statute has more effect than a declaratory ruling or a case ruling by the BFPE. History has shown this. Then again, I spend a lot of time studying and observing these cases.

    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.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    (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.
    Might want to read it before quoting it.


    Quote Originally Posted by KIX View Post
    Your comments about not making sense is moot as the ruling has no legal effect on the town. A statute has more effect than a declaratory ruling or a case ruling by the BFPE. History has shown this. Then again, I spend a lot of time studying and observing these cases.
    And yet, the statute will do nothing. There will be no effective difference between this and the rulings we have. And you have not demonstrated anything to refute that. Even if it would, throwing away a good part of our statutes is silly and short-sighted.

    Kind of like the deadlines in 29-29, you are arguing that since your experience shows a rare use of a part of the statutes, that you can lobby to eliminate that part of the statutes at your whim without consideration of the ramifications.
    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

  24. #24
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    You still have not shown what is being "thrown away".

    You're re-quoting the same statute doesn't change the argument.

    29-29 will continue to say that they can use other methods.

    29-28 does not get rid of that statute. As long as 29-29 continues to stay as is, you still have the other methods.

    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.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by KIX View Post
    Obviously, you don't. As 29-29 (usually your favorite part of the statutes regarding the timeline) also states:

    (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.
    In all three of the times you used this (across both forums), you could have simply quoted my OP. This was there with the relevant portions highlight for everyone's convenience.

    HB 5245, which you support, would require fingerprints upon application submission. This would override 29-29 since 29-29 does not mention the application submission, and your supported bill's poor language does not allow for anything other than fingerprints.

    You state in multiple places that new fingerprints are required for the background checks, but this is not necessarily true. As mentioned previously, there are other methods when fingerprints are already existing in the systems. This entire procedure is currently being flushed out for several agencies.

    Your supported bill eliminates all of this.
    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

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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