Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: CT Pistol Permit Issues.com continues to support HB 5245

  1. #1
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960

    CT Pistol Permit Issues.com continues to support HB 5245

    This bill is a huge benefit over the current system.

    Right now, the majority of towns are asking citizens (demanding even) that citizens sign hold harmless agreements, medical release forms, town generated forms with extra information (including amputations, speech mannerisms, manner of dress, etc.), letters of reference, passport photos, instructor demographic information, etc.

    The bill, as amended, would modify cgs 29-28 to include:

    (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.

    Of particular note is subsection B of part B:

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

    As we have shown on www.ctpistolpermitissues.com, the majority of towns ask for additional information. Especially the more populated towns having an effect on much more of CT's population.

    Some would argue that the bill now creates a standard of two sets of fingerprints. We feel this is a minor issue considering the benefit illustrated above. The VAST majority of towns (indeed probably virtually all towns) as a standard already take fingerprints for the background checks.

    Given that the bill prevents towns from REQUIRING additional information, we find that this is a vast improvement.

    The Board of Firearms Permit Examiners has stated that towns can not require citizens submit additional information. This, has fallen on deaf ears as the declaratory ruling from the BFPE has no legal effect on how a local issuing authority handles the permit process. Under the current system, the town can ask for the information, citizen refuse, town denies by drawing adverse inference as to why a citizen does not provide law enforcement with said information. Then, appellants have to wait a rather long time in order to obtain a hearing.

    Weighing the options, this bill helps the vast majority of applicants in this state with the least burden of additional requirements.

    We will continue to support this bill moving forward.

    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.

  2. #2
    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
    Some would argue that the bill now creates a standard of two sets of fingerprints.
    Because it does.

    We feel this is a minor issue considering the benefit illustrated above.
    You feel it is a minor issue that the bill you are supporting adds a requirement to the permit process that could deny some people their right? I cannot be ok with that.

    The VAST majority of towns (indeed probably virtually all towns) as a standard already take fingerprints for the background checks.
    And yet, the background checks themselves are optional to issuance of the permit by the local issuing authority. Is that next on the chopping block?

    Given that the bill prevents towns from REQUIRING additional information, we find that this is a vast improvement.
    This is simply not true, and I think you know it. It is not an 'improvement' since there is no difference at all.

    In 1968, Attorney General Robert K. Killian ruled:

    If the legislature had intended that each municipal police department devise an appropriate application form for the carrying of handgun, it would not have expressly provided that the application forms be prescribed by the Commissioner of State Police. The clear and obvious intent of the General Assembly was to provide a uniform application for state-wide use by issuing authorities. The authority to prescribe such a form having been granted to the Commissioner of State Police, a municipal police department may not alter, change or add to the prescribed form no matter how laudable the intent or motive for doing so.
    On 1/24/10, the Board of Firearm Permit Examiners (BFPE) ruled:

    In light of the strong legislative policy favoring “a uniform application for state-wide use by issuing authorities”, it is the determination of the Board that the statute does not permit an issuing authority to require submission of additional material at the time an applicant files his application on a form prescribed by the commissioner together with the required statutory fees and proof of (a) completion of a course approved by the commissioner in safety and use of pistols and revolvers, (b) that the applicant is not an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States, (c) that he is not less than twenty-one years of age, and (d) fingerprints for a criminal record check. Refusal to submit additional material with the initial application, such as letters of reference, does not, ipso facto, render the applicant unsuitable. Further, such failure to submit this additional material does not relieve an issuing authority of its statutory duty to conduct an investigation into the applicant’s suitability and to process the application within the statutory time frame. Accordingly, an applicant’s failure to submit these additional materials with the initial application would not constitute “just and proper cause” for denial.
    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

  3. #3
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post

    You feel it is a minor issue that the bill you are supporting adds a requirement to the permit process that could deny some people their right? I cannot be ok with that.
    No, because 29-29 also states they can use other methods:

    (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.

    29-29 will still be on the books.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post

    And yet, the background checks themselves are optional to issuance of the permit by the local issuing authority. Is that next on the chopping block?
    No, and that argument is moot. Yes, the local issuing authority can issue if they haven't received the federal background check. But, section "e" of 29-29 also states:

    (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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post


    This is simply not true, and I think you know it. It is not an 'improvement' since there is no difference at all.

    In 1968, Attorney General Robert K. Killian ruled:
    No, I disagree and don't tell me what I know. I know that there is no statute forbidding the collection of extra information. We can handle the "if" after we see the result of the statute. A non-binding BFPE letter helped, the argument many towns are using is simply "we're not breaking the law, so we'll continue to do it". This, I have heard from many towns directly and many people I help navigate the process.

    Regardless of what Killian has "ruled". It is not law. I like to at least have this further argument with local issuing authorities.

    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.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by KIX View Post
    . I know that there is no statute forbidding the collection of extra information.
    If a statue does not require specific information then the locals can ask for more but refusing to provide it will not be good cause to reject. And if they do then the request for sanctions would be appropriate relief.

    When a new bill is passed, the courts will look and say "well the legislature knew of the other provision & this one would supersede the other in conflict". Bills are not passed in a vacuum ... the legislature knows it may conflict...but they pass them w/o changing the old law. Its retarded, yes. but that's the way it is.

    Look at bill HB 5458 .. the red light camera for a 14-299 violation. The MV code states that all violations are tried by the criminal procedures.

    So there is a conflict with the bill being considered and the current law. If the bill passes then we'll have two laws that conflict. The red light camera law that will use an administrative hearing and the MV statue that says the criminal procedure is mandatory. What do you think your chances are for a motion to dismiss in the administrative hearing because of lack of jurisdiction? Not likely.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    (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.


    From the bill.....but I have not seen the form required by ESPP, so get ready for a new form that will require loads more crap and I hope you have your birth certificate handy .... and why do I need a NRA approved safety course, why not a free course by the state?

    Its still a bad bill IMO

    Status: passed the house .... tabled for senate vote
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 05-07-2012 at 01:41 PM.

Posting Permissions

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