Connecticut Carry - HB 5245 - Retraction of Support

KIX said:

It's not nearly badly worded at all.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Rich B said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

(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.

Click to expand...

Might want to read it before quoting it.

KIX said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

KIX said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Bravo Sierra.

You can't have it both ways. You're using the same argument I have with you on the timeline.

I say they have 8 weeks in 29-28, you say no they don't under 29-29. You can't have it both ways.

If your argument holds on the timeline issue, it also holds here for the EXACT same reason.

You are being rather selective in your argument and how you interpret it when the principle is the exact same thing (on basis of law, not the substance of the issue).

Jonathan

KIX said:

You can't have it both ways. You're using the same argument I have with you on the timeline.

I say they have 8 weeks in 29-28, you say no they don't under 29-29. You can't have it both ways.

Click to expand...

You are correct on one thing, this is like the timeline argument. You were wrong then and you are wrong now. You don't understand how the permit process and the statutes tie together. I don't intend to argue with you further on this since you have demonstrated it is not worthwhile.

For anyone else following along:

- HB 5245 says the applicant must submit on submission 'fingerprints' (note it says nothing about how they are to be submitted, which will lead to plenty of issues).

- 29-29 says clearly that the local issuing authority, so after a complete submission which would have to include fingerprints if HB 5245 passes, may submit fingerprints or other positive identifying material. Well, obviously they wouldn't be able to choose if the applicant was mandated to submit fingerprints and not other positive ID. This is a de facto restriction on the process. And yes, people do submit applications without fingerprints.

I will further with YOU are wrong and I have been helping people SOLELY on this topic longer than CT Carry has been around.

You do not understand the permit process obviously as you continue to dream up versions of what will be, but in the end, doesn't come to fruition.

I wasn't wrong then, I am making the same argument that the issuing authority can go by either statute and the BFPE has done NOTHING to augment that. NOT ONE CASE.

However, I will meet you with a partial agreement as well.

I agree that it would be nice to remove that statement from the bill, HOWEVER, the intent (as is often the basis for litigation in arguments such as ours) also goes a long way and as long as the bill says:

"two sets of fingerprints for purposes of section 29-29."

It sets up an argument for your logic on 29-29.

We will just have to be free to disagree.

I will, however, still not hold any animosity on the issue and be willing to join you for a "beer summit".

Jonathan

KIX said:

I will further with YOU are wrong and I have been helping people SOLELY on this topic longer than CT Carry has been around.

You do not understand the permit process

Click to expand...

John, you may have an understanding of the permit process, but not of the laws and how they interact.

I agree with Rich. And your continued support for this bill is troubling for one who is supposed to be supportive of the common law rights we should be afforded.

Do a little google scholar research on laws of a state that conflict with each other & which ones prevail. You'll learn that Rich is correct.

I did not supply a new set of fingerprints to obtain my Temporary Permit in Rocky Hil

Jonathan,

In August of 2008, I applied for my 60 Day Temporary Permit without providing any new sets of fingerprints and obtained it within 7 days from the Rocky Hill Police Chief.
I showed him the statute, we had a discussion about my being previously fingerprinted and he issued without taking ANY new fingerprints.
I'm sure that the Chief did his homework prior to issuing my permit.

Ed Peruta

KIX said:

Where? I'm not seeing it.



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?



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

Click to expand...

And 29-29 will still exist.

Jonathan

Bill heard in senate today ? Anyone know the vote results?

Just wondering