How long .... Really??

HenryG · Oct 9, 2012

I have been looking through this forum and reading everything that I can find regarding the turn around time on permit applications. I was advised to start a thread to address my particular situation and see whAt comes back. I reside in Sherman and just applied for my permit on Sept 04. We do not have a local PD but instead are serviced by a resident trooper. When I applied for the permit with him he was very accommodating and did the prints right then and there. We copied the necessary identification and class documentation, and presumably off it went. I have been vetted by the TSA, Secret Service and state department and each time I received my clearance within 48 hours. I was lead to believe, from other sites, that the full process could take between 8 weeks and 4 months. My question is, in light of the fact that I am dealing directly with the CSP will the process go any faster? Also what is a reasonable amount of time to wait before I begin to make inquiries as to the status of the application? Thanks for any info.

Rich B · Oct 9, 2012

CGS 29-29 says the local issuing authority has '5 days' to get your prints out to SPBI. When SPBI completes your background checks and returns them to the PD (should take less than 72 hours), the local issuing authority should take no more than '1 week' to issue or deny your permit.

If 2-3 weeks or more have elapsed, you should be contacting 'records' at the DESPP and requesting when your background checks were received and sent back. If these time limits have been exceeded, you should file an appeal.

8 weeks is a part of CGS 29-28, but the concept of PDs having 8 weeks to process a permit application is the same kind of lore as 'Connecticut is a concealed carry state' and some of us are trying to correct that misinformation.

And no, you will not be dealing 'directly with the CSP'. You will be dealing with your local issuing authority to get the temp permit and then with the DESPP to get your permanent permit.

HenryG · Oct 9, 2012

Well now I see rat maze opening up. As we have no PD in the town who is the issuing authority? The CSP barracks responsible for the resident trooper, the assigned resident trooper, DASSP or the towns first selectman? They really don't make this easy to understand, but at least it isn't New York!

HenryG · Oct 9, 2012

Sorry, I meant DESPP, to many initials in my life.

Rich B · Oct 9, 2012

HenryG said:
Well now I see rat maze opening up. As we have no PD in the town who is the issuing authority? The CSP barracks responsible for the resident trooper, the assigned resident trooper, DASSP or the towns first selectman? They really don't make this easy to understand, but at least it isn't New York!

First Selectman. Although resident troopers often take the responsibility as well.

It looks like in Sherman, the First Selectman has delegated this to the resident trooper: http://www.townofshermanct.org/faqs/faq.htm#faq18

It should be noted there that the fees described are completely incorrect, and it is not a 'firearms permit', it is a Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers.

As far as the resident trooper, there is nothing confusing. As far as this process goes, he has nothing to do with the state or DESPP. He is simply the appointed representative of the town. You still go through the same process as everyone else.

HenryG · Oct 9, 2012

Hey Rich, thanks for the heads up on the link. I will go to town hall tomorrow and let them know about the corrections that they should make.

davidmcbeth · Oct 9, 2012

The town is the issuing authority. The police departments are not unique municipal corporations, they are just an agency of the town.

And the resident trooper program was started in the 1930's or 40's. It should be eliminated. Its no longer needed and the cost is outrageous.

HenryG · Oct 10, 2012

@David, I agree that there are many government programs that have run their course and should be eliminated. While you feel that the Resident Trooper program is one of them I would question what the alternative would be for a town like mine where there are only 3000 residents. We have a full volunteer fire department that the town "contributes" $76,300 to have operate 365/24/7 (that cost has remained constant over the past 5 or 6 years with no increase). The cost of the resident trooper is set by the CSP and paid for by the town and we have increased the coverage to the town in recent years, at increased cost. We simply don't have the fiscal means to equip and pay for a full time PD. I would be interested in hearing your suggestion as to an alternative.

davidmcbeth · Oct 11, 2012

HenryG said:
@David, I agree that there are many government programs that have run their course and should be eliminated. While you feel that the Resident Trooper program is one of them I would question what the alternative would be for a town like mine where there are only 3000 residents. We have a full volunteer fire department that the town "contributes" $76,300 to have operate 365/24/7 (that cost has remained constant over the past 5 or 6 years with no increase). The cost of the resident trooper is set by the CSP and paid for by the town and we have increased the coverage to the town in recent years, at increased cost. We simply don't have the fiscal means to equip and pay for a full time PD. I would be interested in hearing your suggestion as to an alternative.

Contract out to a surrounding town....its not rocket science. I have lived in places without any police protection ... and it was very safe (cause everybody had guns guns and more guns .... guns make good neighbors)

KIX · Oct 13, 2012

Rich B said:
8 weeks is a part of CGS 29-28, but the concept of PDs having 8 weeks to process a permit application is the same kind of lore as 'Connecticut is a concealed carry state' and some of us are trying to correct that misinformation.

It's more than lore, it's the statutes. As much as we may not agree with it, they have that option. Until the statutes are clarified, you really "have it both ways".

An applicant can indeed check and see that paperwork is moving, as is 29-29. But, the town still also have 8 weeks. That being said, I think the legislature needs to get rid of one or the other.

HUGE difference between 8 weeks and open carry being illegal. There is no statute that says OC is illegal, therefore we do it. There is a statute that says the towns have 8 weeks to process an application.

Statutes are rather clear. Interpretations, are another thing..... that's what muddies things up.

Jonathan

davidmcbeth · Oct 13, 2012

Its generally a moot point as the hearing is held long after the dates that "conflict" passes. The opposing party would have to cite some case law where there is none and most opposing parties don't have the expertise to even broach the subject.

Rich B · Oct 14, 2012

KIX said:
There is a statute that says the towns have 8 weeks to process an application.

Keep on believing that... No one else does.

KIX · Oct 14, 2012

Rich B said:
Keep on believing that... No one else does.

CT General statutes does.
BFPE hasn't had a case based on it.
Majority of towns follow that statute.
Majority of towns state as such.

So..... yeah, many do see it for what it is.

It's nice to look at law and see what you want to see, I will look at it for how it is written.

I do think the statutes were intended to work together. Having them in two separate statutes is a bit off. But as long as 29-28 says 8 weeks, it is clear.

Sec. 29-28a. Application for permit. Notice of decision to applicant.

(b) The local authority shall, not later than eight weeks after a sufficient application for a temporary state permit has been made, inform the applicant that such applicant's request for a temporary state permit has been approved or denied.

Even with a basic modicum of the English language, it is plain to see. Don't like it, petition the legislature for a change.

Jonathan

Rich B · Oct 14, 2012

KIX said:
Even with a basic modicum of the English language, it is plain to see.

I would agree:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/pub/chap529.htm#Sec29-29.htm said:
Sec. 29-29. Information concerning criminal records of applicants for permits.

(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.

(c) The local authority may, in its discretion, issue a temporary state permit before a national criminal history records check relative to such applicant's record has been received. Upon receipt of the results of such national criminal history records check, the commissioner shall send a copy of the results of such national criminal history records check to the local authority, which shall inform the applicant and render a decision on the application within one week of the receipt of such results. If such results have not been received within eight weeks after a sufficient application for a permit has been made, the local authority shall inform the applicant of such delay, in writing. No temporary state permit shall be issued if the local authority has reason to believe the applicant has ever been convicted of a felony, or that any other condition exists for which the issuance of a permit for possession of a pistol or revolver is prohibited under state or federal law.

Plain English.

Which is the same plain English read, interpreted and acted upon by the BFPE:

http://www.ct.gov/bfpe/cwp/view.asp?a=1252&Q=254192&bfpeNav=%7C said:
Further more the law states that "Upon receipt of the results of such national criminal history records check, the commissioner shall send a copy of the results of such national criminal history records check to the local authority, which shall inform the applicant and render a decision on the application within one week of the receipt of such results. If such results have not been received within eight weeks after a sufficient application for a permit has been made, the local authority shall inform the applicant of such delay, in writing. C.G.S. 29-29(c)http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/pub/chap529.htm#Sec29-29.htm

KIX · Oct 15, 2012

Again, two different statutes that cover the same thing - background checks.

You STILL selectively quote one, over the other - which is disingenuous to anyone you give advice to.

29-28 is clear. 29-29 is valid, and can still be used to "push" the process along (as I think it was intended).

That being said, selectively using only the statute you like is not doing a service to anyone you help.

For the record, I've observed HUNDREDS of hearings....... not a single one was based solely on 29-29. Rather, they were used governing the statutes as a whole.

I asked you quite some time ago to show me a case where this has been pushed, heard and resolved before the timeline as outlined in 29-28 and you have yet to provide a single case. For good reason, it hasn't happened.

But, feel free to keep dreaming.

Jonathan

Rich B · Oct 15, 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0H3bJHWGl4

Your belief is without merit and contrasts with even the BFPE's interpretations and the interpretations of multiple police departments.

Have fun with that, we will continue to educate people as to why they do not and should not wait 8 weeks to appeal since they are not obligated by statute to do so.

KIX · Oct 15, 2012

Nice try....

I never said they couldn't file based on 29-29.

I often tell people the same thing, but 29-28 still gives the department an out.

I'm at all the hearings, so I am looking forward to your first success on 29-29...... especially since the appeals are taking six months, so.......

Jonathan

Rich B · Oct 15, 2012

KIX said:
but 29-28 still gives the department an out.

You keep saying that...

KIX · Oct 15, 2012

Rich B said:
You keep saying that...

Yet you keep denying what is staring you in the face.

Jonathan

HenryG · Oct 16, 2012

So in one of the local gun shops the other day and asked the owner what his take was on this, and he added something to the discussion here. He mentioned that though the statute states the whole five days to submit is accurate he has seen permits take up to 16 weeks simply because of the backlog on FBI checks. There is no limit as to how long that check can take and the town, once the approval has been received then has one week to issue the temporary permit. So I guess that the take away on that is that the state and town can be doing everything right but if FBI is backlogged then there is no real recourse other than wait.

How long .... Really??

New member

Regular Member

New member

New member

Regular Member

New member

Banned

New member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member