Kuck/Goldberg v. Danaher - Oct. 2012 ruling. Courts are our friend???

Utter insanity. The backlog is just fine, don't worry about waiting nearly two years for your hearing.......

I'm glad the board has gotten it down to six months now, but this ruling is just insane.

http://ctpistolpermitissues.com/2012/10/19/goldbergkuck-v-danaher-ruling-october-2012/

Jonathan

I agree and will be giving the judge a call to let the commie girl know my opinion of her opinion.

It appears as if the plaintiff's did not argue the right to practice with the firearm and the need to do this every 6 mos.

Nor of the fact (maybe case law did not exist) that the right to practice is part of the gun.

And the case highlights the need to attack the introduction of evidence at the board hearing. I have a current motion to exclude the town's questionnaire and other documents due to the fact that the town did not enter an appearance prior to their submission and that the questionnaire was completed and provided to the board by an unauthorized person.

The vast majority won't read the whole ruling. Which is sad. There are a few points that are indeed important in there.

I just get frustrated fighting this stuff tooth and nail and then an activist judge nullifies this nonsense.

Interesting: I wonder if this judge would feel the same if an Occupy Wall Street protester filed for a permit and was told to wait 18 months......

Jonathan

KIX said:

The vast majority won't read the whole ruling. Which is sad. There are a few points that are indeed important in there.

I just get frustrated fighting this stuff tooth and nail and then an activist judge nullifies this nonsense.

Interesting: I wonder if this judge would feel the same if an Occupy Wall Street protester filed for a permit and was told to wait 18 months......

Jonathan

Click to expand...

On page 42 it interesting gibberish ... talking about an arrest making it unsuitable to get a permit. That's false! An arrest means nothing.

And that question needs to be removed from the application for just that purpose. Conviction is one thing, arrest...... nonsense.

Jonathan

KIX said:

And that question needs to be removed from the application for just that purpose. Conviction is one thing, arrest...... nonsense.

Jonathan

Click to expand...

I objected to it and the board agreed with both of us....

Understood.

Until it's off that damn application..... we'll still have denials. I want to see that damn thing removed altogether.

There are some wording issues that need to be worked on as well.

Jonathan

KIX said:

Understood.

Until it's off that damn application..... we'll still have denials. I want to see that damn thing removed altogether.

There are some wording issues that need to be worked on as well.

Jonathan

Click to expand...

what's worse is what other agency paperwork contains ... I have had three headbuttings with the FIC because of their incorrect INHOUSE checklists. One example: chklist has SOL listed (by 30 days after a denial to a foia request the fic appeal must be filed) .. but SOL is an affirmative defense that needs to be plead by the opposing party, not by the clerk at the FIC (and the SOL did not run out either) ...

Ya know, when agencies begin behaving bigger than their britches that gets me in action with my legislators to eliminate the agency all together. Right now, my state reps have agreed with my assessment that the FIC can go away. No other state has this particular agency.

And maybe its time for people here to get a concerted effort to eliminate the BFPE...after seeing that 22 mos. is OK one may as well eliminate the agency all together. The workload aspect is a red herring ... the board has the authority to meet whenever they desire .. could be 7 days a week. I'll start a new thread to explore this.

And their questionnaires are just out there ... they are simply fishing expeditions and "trap" questions.

Can't eliminate the BFPE

Until CT is a SHALL ISSUE state meaning there is NO suitability clause just "are you prohibited by any of disqualifying factors?" "No?" "Ok here's your permit" - OR - we become like Vermont and have a permitless carry then we need the BFPE to hear denials and revocations, we have NO other recourse without them. DPS tried to eliminate them so they could be the sole judge/jury/executioner and that was fought and squashed.

GoldCoaster said:

Until CT is a SHALL ISSUE state meaning there is NO suitability clause just "are you prohibited by any of disqualifying factors?" "No?" "Ok here's your permit" - OR - we become like Vermont and have a permitless carry then we need the BFPE to hear denials and revocations, we have NO other recourse without them. DPS tried to eliminate them so they could be the sole judge/jury/executioner and that was fought and squashed.

Click to expand...

DPS? I would have it be the local towns doing the examination and appeal - then de novo appeal to a superior court in the jurisdiction of the applicant & town.

The local petty tyrants are where the majority of the problems lie. There's no need for "suitability" if you're NOT a prohibited person that's all that should matter.

My town dragged it's feet by only doing 3 application appointments per week, so 12 per month! That's BS.. but that's the kind of thing the local yokels are doing on top of extra un-required information as well you know.

Getting a pistol permit should be as easy as a drivers license, not prohibited? Here you go.

DPS are mostly governor appointed lackeys, if you get an anti 2A governor (which is pretty much guaranteed in CT) then what do you have as recourse? Who wants to fight them in court?