Question on CT Pistol application

KIX said:

Did they respond to you in writing by any chance?

Jonathan

Click to expand...

Here's what I asked for:
Item #1: Any documents related to any submission of a CCW permit application by the requestor.
Item #2:All departmental documents that outline policies, procedures, and other information in respect to permitting processes that the agency is involved with.
Item #3: All documents produced or received in respect to this FOIA request.

Here's Thomas Hatfield's Response, attached or imbedded....going there today to see what actual documents he has..


And a HINT: when executing a FOIA request always include #3 with everyone. I was just before the board and showed that a town did nothing for 6 mos on a foia request ... town just said "we want to comply"...but the records showed otherwise



And FYI : Personal data act is here: http://www.ct.gov/ctportal/cwp/view.asp?a=843&q=246648 or here: http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap055.htm#Sec4-193.htm


Mr. Hatfield is demanding a written request ... the act does not require this though ... he's getting it both barrels today...


Well, got back from DESPP & Wethersfield BFPE hearings .... Mr. Hatfield was not there today but the documents I got were dated 11 MAY 12 (latest date)~~why did it take a month to provide me the information? They'll have to answer that question in a FIC hearing ~ clearly a violation of our FOIA act, Chap. 14.

Still no procedures regarding DESPP & handling permit requests ... does not seem like they are on the ball at all.

Rich B said:

If they deny 'For all lawful purposes', they need to give that denial in writing and the applicant needs to appeal. They certainly have zero basis for a denial. There is no 'need' qualification in this state.

David's answer of 'not relevant' is also sufficient in my opinion.

With that said, if anyone has an issue with this, please have the person contact me and I will help them work on this. We always need people with a spine ready to stand up against this senseless bullying.

Click to expand...

I just wanted to add that when I went to Middletown for my state permit about 2 months ago, I wrote "for all lawful purposes" and it was handed back to me. The man said I needed to be more specific. I told him I'd be using it for multiple purposes, all which fall within the law. He refused to accept it. I then just told him, fine its for sport shooting. He then processed my paperwork.

I thought it was ridiculous at the time, but didn't realize this was a common occurrence. I apologize, since I could have helped matters for others.

jonnyrocket said:

I thought it was ridiculous at the time, but didn't realize this was a common occurrence. I apologize, since I could have helped matters for others.

Click to expand...

No need to apologize, it's good to know. We know now and several individuals/groups are working on issues like this.

Not the same state for gun rights as it was just a few years ago. Plenty of individuals and groups now fighting various avenues. The more information we get, the more we can add it to the cause.

Thanx for posting,

Jonathan

How about "For all lawful purposes including, but not limited to sport-shooting and lawful defense of oneself or a third party (as defined by CGS 53a-19 or any subsequent revisions of such)."

Will that fit on the form?

Freiheit417 said:

How about "For all lawful purposes including, but not limited to sport-shooting and lawful defense of oneself or a third party (as defined by CGS 53a-19 or any subsequent revisions of such)."

Will that fit on the form?

Click to expand...

How about "to target practice & other reasons"

Well, part of the reason that follow up to this has taken so long is because my lawyer friend bailed on me and I had to write this petition myself. Anyway, I mailed in the request for declaratory ruling about 3 1/2 weeks ago and I just got a voicemail from Sue at the BoFPE, she said that the board is going to hear this petition and it will be up for discussion on Thursday at noon at Wethersfield PD. Unfortunately I cannot make this date and time, how about it Jonathan are you going to be there?

KIX said:

Did they respond to you in writing by any chance?

Jonathan

Click to expand...

After re-reading the thread and noting a recent case before the FIC and superior court in Case Bradshaw Smith v. FIC, CV 115015510S in New Britain (of course - all FIC appeals go there, which I don't like)...

In the Smith case the requested agency for a FOIA request had no documents. They never responded to Smith. Smith filed FIC complaint. FIC ruled that the agency had no duty to reply IF they had no records responsive. Smith appealed...court agreed.

In my case they did reply in writing, very very late. I have sent out for the legislative transcripts of the act's section that relevant. If I find that the legislature already considered this scenario then I'll continue on with my case at the FIC.

Sorry so slow to keep everyone up on the status of my declaratory ruling request, I have been really busy over here the last week or so, anyway, I finally submitted the petition and asked for a ruling on the following three questions:

Can the Department of Public Safety’s Special Licensing and Firearm Unit demand an applicant for a Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers to provide any answer at all to the question “Reason for Permit” on form DPS-46-C?

Can the Department of Public Safety’s Special Licensing and Firearm Unit demand an applicant for a Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers to write only an answer approved by them?

Can the Department of Public Safety’s Special Licensing and Firearm refuse to issue a Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers to an applicant who refuses to answer or refuses to use one of the “approved” Reasons for Permit?

I was unable to attend the hearing at the BoFPE on Thursday but KIX was there, he reports that they gave a copy of my petition to the to the representative for the state (the attorney/officer that acts on their behalf) and he is taking it up with DESPP and will report back at the next hearing.

Kix also stated that he told them some of what he had been hearing from people as well and he might send in a letter to attach to my petition on the same issue. He said he has also heard of some interesting "reasons for a permit" erased and changed. His included.

I find it disconcerting that the BoFPE has to consult with DESPP to determine if its ok for the SLFU to violate people's rights through intimidation. I am going to try to attend the hearing on October 11th to see if this is petition is discussed further and if their answers wll be forthcoming.

{{{He said he has also heard of some interesting "reasons for a permit" erased and changed. His included.
}}}}

Correct me if I am mistaken, but last time I checked the application has to be notarized by a state registered Notary, certifying that the information in the document is yours and correct, right? What authorization of law allows them to change the contents of a notarized document? And if it is the case that they can change information that I am saying is true and certified by notary seal, why bother me with requiring notarization?

That's just me thinking.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LQM said:

{{{He said he has also heard of some interesting "reasons for a permit" erased and changed. His included.
}}}}

Correct me if I am mistaken, but last time I checked the application has to be notarized by a state registered Notary, certifying that the information in the document is yours and correct, right? What authorization of law allows them to change the contents of a notarized document? And if it is the case that they can change information that I am saying is true and certified by notary seal, why bother me with requiring notarization?

That's just me thinking.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

The application form DPS-46-C does not get notarized, this is the final 3x5 index card they make you fill out at DPS right before you get your picture taken not the big two page form you turn in to your local PD...

The law is shall issue unless reasons for not issuing are found. The requirement asking for a reason has no basis in law; they can ask, you can refuse to answer and they should issue the permit. If they don't, then you have the right to appeal that decision by DPS.

And if an answer was changed its likely a criminal act. Who did it is the question.

If they played that game with me I would call my legislator and ask them to eliminate this step in the process.

brk913 said:

The application form DPS-46-C does not get notarized, this is the final 3x5 index card they make you fill out at DPS right before you get your picture taken not the big two page form you turn in to your local PD...

Click to expand...

I sit corrected. Way back when, I was made to believe the application had to be notarized.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

when I went yesterday (11/16) I put my reason as "to legally own and carry handguns". I intended it to be vague, but of course that does not include a description of potential uses. hopefully it never bites me in the arse

motoxmann said:

when I went yesterday (11/16) I put my reason as "to legally own and carry handguns". I intended it to be vague, but of course that does not include a description of potential uses. hopefully it never bites me in the arse

Click to expand...

Could have put "to us as a mixing device for fudge manufacturing- must be able to transport the firearm to the fudge contest facilities throughout the state"..

I apologize for not updating this thread sooner. I have been told that a memo was sent from the BoFPE to the DPS SLFU that said memo was to be placed so as to be visible to the person taking the appplication card and photos and the general gist of the memo was that they may not challenge the answer written in Reason for Permit. I would love to hear from someone who has seen this "memo". It does seem from motoxman's experience that they are no longer forcing a "canned answer". Anyway the BoFPE officially tabled my request for declaratory ruling, basically that means they are not going to address it. If anyone can report that they are again accepting "All Lawful Purposes" as an answer for Reason for Permit it would be appreciated.

brk913 said:

I apologize for not updating this thread sooner. I have been told that a memo was sent from the BoFPE to the DPS SLFU that said memo was to be placed so as to be visible to the person taking the appplication card and photos and the general gist of the memo was that they may not challenge the answer written in Reason for Permit. I would love to hear from someone who has seen this "memo". It does seem from motoxman's experience that they are no longer forcing a "canned answer". Anyway the BoFPE officially tabled my request for declaratory ruling, basically that means they are not going to address it. If anyone can report that they are again accepting "All Lawful Purposes" as an answer for Reason for Permit it would be appreciated.

Click to expand...

I have not heard of any .. but a FOIA request to both the DESPP (no longer DPS) & BFPE ... should pop it up .. I can think of no Chap. 14 exemption that would apply. Be prepared to have to file a FIC complaint .. file after 4 days of no reply & get ready to wait about 8 months for a hearing.

Just as a FYI .. when did you file for a declaratory ruling .. and their reply.

davidmcbeth said:

Just as a FYI .. when did you file for a declaratory ruling .. and their reply.

Click to expand...

Did you read my posts above? http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...-application&p=1829639&viewfull=1#post1829639

The Board took up my request twice, once at the September meeting where it was discussed and an inquiry went out to the SLFU. Then at the October meeting they determined that they would simply send a memo to the SLFU to be placed at or near the counter. I think Kix has seen the memo or at least knows the wording on it, I just want to know if it is actually posted where the public can see it as well. As far as their reply, I received no personal notice or reply, however, per their minutes they tabled my request, thus it is a dead issue to them and they will not make a ruling on it. If someone actually gets denied for refusing to answer the "Reason for Permit" question and they take it to the Board I believe the Board would make the SLFU issue the permit and then they may then look into making that ruling.

brk913 said:

I find it disconcerting that the BoFPE has to consult with DESPP to determine if its ok for the SLFU to violate people's rights through intimidation. .

Click to expand...

Disconcerting ? DESPP is getting too big for its britches !