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.We feel this is a minor issue considering the benefit illustrated above.
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?The VAST majority of towns (indeed probably virtually all towns) as a standard already take fingerprints for the background checks.
This is simply not true, and I think you know it. It is not an 'improvement' since there is no difference at all.Given that the bill prevents towns from REQUIRING additional information, we find that this is a vast improvement.
In 1968, Attorney General Robert K. Killian ruled:
On 1/24/10, the Board of Firearm Permit Examiners (BFPE) 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.
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.