Board's ability to name parties --- make believe autority

“We begin our analysis by noting that "[administrative agencies are tribunals of limited jurisdiction and their 291*291 jurisdiction is dependent entirely upon the validity of the statutes vesting them with power and they cannot confer jurisdiction upon themselves.... [A]n administrative body must act strictly within its statutory authority, within constitutional limitations and in a lawful manner.... It cannot modify, abridge or otherwise change the statutory provisions, under which it acquires authority unless the statutes expressly grant it that power." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Castro v. Viera, 207 Conn. 420, 428, 541 A.2d 1216 (1988). "It is a familiar principle that [an administrative agency] which exercises a limited and statutory jurisdiction is without jurisdiction to act unless it does so under the precise circumstances and in the manner particularly prescribed by the enabling legislation." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 427-28. 241 Conn. 282 (1997), GARLAND HALL v. GILBERT AND BENNETT MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., ET AL.,(SC 15608), Supreme Court of Connecticut, Argued March 27, 1997,Officially released June 3, 1997.


Currently, the Board is saying that the issuing authority is a party to my pending case; however, there is no statue or board regulation that gives this agency the authority to designate parties.

Compare the 29-etc. statues to the FOIA Act (Chapter 14, 1-210(d)) that states: In any appeal brought under the provisions of section 1-206 of the Freedom of Information Act for denial of access to records for any of the reasons described in subdivision (19) of subsection (b) of this section, such appeal shall be against the chief executive officer of the executive branch state agency or the municipal, district or regional agency that issued the directive to withhold such record pursuant to subdivision (19) of subsection (b) of this section, exclusively, or, in the case of records concerning Judicial Department facilities, the Chief Court Administrator or, in the case of records concerning the Legislative Department, the executive director of the Joint Committee on Legislative Management.

I can find no similar statue in the permit laws or regulations of the board. And it cannot be an implied authority as it only has the authority that the legislature gives them. Even superior court judges cannot name parties to a case; the parties themselves name themselves and defendants not named by the plaintiff must petition the court for entry onto the case as a party. So who is a "party"? Its a person with a vested interest in the case. And in these BFPE hearings, its only the gun owner.

I think its an omission by our legislature .. just noticing

I dunno about that. 29-32C kinda of states the issuing authority has a part in this process (this is that part of the statutes that outlines the BFPE).

(c) Any person aggrieved by the action of an issuing authority may file with the board a clear and concise statement of the facts on which he relies for relief, and shall state the relief sought by the appellant. The receipt by the board of the appellant's statement shall initiate the appeals process, and no appeal may be rejected for mere lack of formality. The board shall, within ten days next following receipt of the appeal, set a time and place at which the appeal shall be heard. The board, while such appeal is pending, may request such additional information from the appellant and from the issuing authority as it deems reasonably necessary to conduct a fair and impartial hearing, and shall require of the issuing authority from whose decision or action the appeal is being sought a statement in writing setting forth the reasons for such failure, refusal, revocation or limitation. Failure or refusal of the issuing authority to furnish such written statement, or to supply the appellant with an application, at least ten days prior to the hearing shall be cause for the board to grant the relief sought, forthwith and without further hearing.

I see what you're saying, but I also see intent in the statute. That being said, 29-32C has also helped many citizens over the past year with towns refusing to "show their cards" as to why they were denied. When the citizen has not received a reason for his denial within ten days, I've see them as rather quick hearings (like 5 minutes!).

Jonathan

I saw that, but just because an issuing authority can be a witness, does not make them a party. See, it list me as the appellant but not the issuing authority as the appellee .... why call one the appellant and not the other appellee. Indicates that the board is just to make a decision that the appellant is able to be issued a permit.

KIX said:

I see what you're saying, but I also see intent in the statute. That being said, 29-32C has also helped many citizens over the past year with towns refusing to "show their cards" as to why they were denied. When the citizen has not received a reason for his denial within ten days, I've see them as rather quick hearings (like 5 minutes!).

Jonathan

Click to expand...

Under Chapter 54, and Sec 29-etc the board has the right to send out questionnaires to anyone it likes. So, the sending out of a questionnaire to a town does not infer that they are parties....not at all

There is only one party - the permit seeker. The board is just a fact finder. I'm surprised no one noticed this before.

I think you'd have a tough time with that argument. I've observed a lot of court cases with arguments based in statute. I've also seen the courts go with intent in the vast majority. Given that the process is set up where the local issuing authority does the initial background on an appellant and has the option to deny, it seems rather clear that the intent of the statute was so that the appellant can plea their case and the local issuing authority can argue their stance.

Would be an interesting argument, but even as a betting man I wouldn't touch it with food stamps.

Jonathan