Great News For Permit Holders: Attorney Craig C. Fishbein Appointed to BFPE

Attorney Craig Fishbein, an attorney from Wallingford has been officially appointed to the BFPE. Craig has worked with CCDL as our attorney (and still will). Craig will be a knowledgeable addition to the Board.

Congratulations Craig!!

Congratulations to Craig!
This great news for the people of Connecticut!
Carry On!

An attorney? If he actually follows the law instead of twisting it then this would be good but I have never seen a state paid lawyer in an administrative hearing actually follow the law. And in the case of these board hearings, the commissioners allow testimony from absent parties ALL the time. I don't recall seeing any issuing authorities filing appearances that they should be required to do for example. And the board asks questions not to clarify but to act in stead of these absent parties...hardly acting as an impartial board.

davidmcbeth said:

An attorney? If he actually follows the law instead of twisting it then this would be good but I have never seen a state paid lawyer in an administrative hearing actually follow the law. And in the case of these board hearings, the commissioners allow testimony from absent parties ALL the time. I don't recall seeing any issuing authorities filing appearances that they should be required to do for example. And the board asks questions not to clarify but to act in stead of these absent parties...hardly acting as an impartial board.

Click to expand...

Craig will follow the law. Plus this is a volunteer Board. They are not paid employees of the State!

See Our Blog and watch Craig's video David.

http://ccdl.us/blog/2012/10/23/craig-fishbein-appointed-to-bfpe/

romma said:

Craig will follow the law. Plus this is a volunteer Board. They are not paid employees of the State!

See Our Blog and watch Craig's video David.

http://ccdl.us/blog/2012/10/23/craig-fishbein-appointed-to-bfpe/

Click to expand...

They do get paid (stipends for reimbursement of expenses). Volunteer or paid - I have not seen a lawyer working for the state that actually follows the law.

We'll see when my case comes before the board if the law will be followed or not; I fully expect to get railroaded.

davidmcbeth said:

They do get paid (stipends for reimbursement of expenses). Volunteer or paid - I have not seen a lawyer working for the state that actually follows the law.

We'll see when my case comes before the board if the law will be followed or not; I fully expect to get railroaded.

Click to expand...

For example, the attorney states that he has a permit to carry. In his processing of his permit , did he object to anything being required or asked by the issuing authority or the board? I don't see any such objections and I asked the board if anyone else had ever filed objections to their questionnaires and the answer was no. So I come to the conclusion that the lawyer sees that the questions posed were not objectionable in his permit application & possible board review (as some questions objectionable are duplicates)...and a refusal to answer on the DPS permit application form would have certainly resulted in a denial and a case before the board.

And his involvement with the Blue Trail range clearly was not entirely successful .. the 200yd range is still closed to my understanding.
And he was paid as a lawyer for his work I think.

As he said in his speech, be wary of those who SAY they support the 2nd amendment...and in the case of carry issues, he clearly has demonstrated that he agrees with every hurdle the state legislature produced and DESPP requirements/questions on the DPS form, the fees being collected, and the questionnaire that the board sends out to every litigant.

As far as being on the board, I do not see him as being a friend of carry. Perhaps he will prove me wrong but I doubt it.

He is not on a board to decide if you can own an assault rifle but on the question of carry. They are really two different aspects of the 2nd amendment and other law. I have not heard him speak out against any of the regulatory requirements for obtaining a permit nor of any argument that permits, as they are issued now and their requirements, are contrary to the provisions of natural law, the 2nd amendment, and/or the 9th amendment.

One has to look for facts regarding his positions on CARRY ... he seems to be more pro-2nd amendment than Obamalama...but that's not enough for me to give him an internet hug. Give it some thought...

It AMAZES me that you could have such an opinion of someone that you have, clearly NEVER met!
I do know him!
I shoot with him!
And yes he carries.

Maybe if you want to know why the 200 yd range is still closed you should ask Dave Lyman, the owner of BT's.
Oh and in the process maybe you should also express your opinions of Craig. They are very close friends.

I'd research his history before such an opinion is made.

He is also not a "state paid" attorney. He has a practice that is far from a government mouthpiece. Especially if you've ever seen what he has done in Wallingford (and he has had more success with pro gun cases than certain other attorneys often mentioned here).

Look at where he has stood on constitutional issues. It's clear this is the best appointment the BFPE has had in quite some time.

Hell, the last attorney was not only not licensed to practice in CT (furthering the backlog of hearings) but either anti-gun in his views or just plain not present for hearings.

This, is a win for CT.

Jonathan

While I'm at it.....

If you'd rather have the known anti-gun appointment (especially with this governor).... keep pushing it!

Jonathan

Really?

David, your posts previous to this one are mildly amusing. In this thread you're adopting a different tact completely, right out of the gate you're assuming because this new appointee is a lawyer that he's not worth ****. And you wonder why you don't get taken seriously?

For one, having another lawyer on the board is a very good thing, their rules of operation state that without a lawyer on the board (lets say the one that is on there now is sick or otherwise indisposed) they can't do any real work. Having another lawyer on the board will enable them to NOT fall flat due to absences. This is a good thing, it keeps people with appeals, even people like you! from having to wait extra time.

Having a lawyer who is WELL VERSED in 2nd amendment issues is a huge plus for everyone, being a lawyer is one thing but being a lawyer who understands 2nd amendment issues and will keep both sides of the conversation honest is a good thing.

If you find yourself getting railroaded by the BFPE it won't be because they are "out to get you" it will be your own doing and you'll have only yourself to blame.

Personally I'm very glad to have another knowledgeable person on the board to balance out the DPS and their sometimes anti-citizens-having-guns attitudes that seeps out from time to time. I wish Mr. Fishbein the very best of luck and commend him for his volunteer work for the firearms owners in this state.

GoldCoaster said:

This is a good thing
.

Click to expand...

You don't know that...you are jumping to conclusions w/o any facts. The guy says he supports the 2nd amendment, whoppie-doopie. As he said, Obama says this too.

How does he stand on carry is the question .. the board does not consider the right to own assault weapons. Many people who own ARs support our horrible permit processes.

The rules do require at least one lawyer, you are correct on that point.


What has he done for CARRY? Nothing that I see. Maybe he has .. please let me know what he has done for CARRY. I objected to the requirement for the BR check fee, the need to include MV records, arrest information, etc. and have been successful in getting the objections heard and ruled upon (mostly in my favor). Your man did not.

And they railroad everyone ! You have not figured that out yet. How can a cop represent his town? He can't, it requires the town consul to appear, not a cop. I have not seen anyone object to this point and it is a very serious one that has multiple ramifications. In addition to the town consul needing to file an appearance, it also costs the town $$$ (more than a cop showing up so if a town wants to play their games then it will cost them $$) for the lawyer, and it helps to insure that someone may be held accountable for harassing people who should have had their permits issued long ago.

I have an objection to the town's questionnaire filing pending because the town did not file an appearance. This will be ruled upon. I'm sure the board will just say "that's the way we do it" and ignore case law -- even with 2 lawyers on the board.

So, before you say my opinions are off the wall, wait and see ...

So if you have facts to offer in respect to the guy not only being pro-2nd but being pro-carry and his ACTIONS to limit the garbage process that we get subjected to (a process that takes too long and that local authorities play games with and that the board plays games with) please provide them.

I have an open mind but I don't say ! hooray ! just because the guy has an AR. 2nd amendment issues are written in court opinions that are easily understood by most folks so a lawyer on the board is not needed to talk about the 2nd amendment-we have courts to do this.

I sat through several hearings when the only real question that the board should have examined is the appellant's gun rights (does he or does he not have them) instead of asking 10,000 irrelevant questions of a poor guy before them. The board acts like a second prosecutor even though Chapter 54 is very clear on what questions they can ask...and this is with at least one lawyer on the board...do you think that your man is going to offer up objections to his fellow board member's inquiries?

We'll see is all I'm saying (not seeing anything he did for carry or permit processes...).

I don't even think we need permits to carry. Keep and BEAR arms ... as the judge in the Moore v. Madigan case said.."what do you think bear means? Its not to carry in your home or on your property"...you should listen to the audio on the Illinois case ... that judge is humorous at times. So in this respect, your man and my opinion clearly differ (otherwise he would not be on the board).

Open minds

About the only thing I agreed with your rebuttal was that we shouldn't need permits to carry as it is an express right under the state and US Constitutions.

If you don't know Mr Fishbein, how can you possibly form an opinion in such a negative way? You're the one jumping to conclusions.

He is representing a gun group, it was a gun club/association that put his name forward to represent them. Do you really thing a gun organization would propose an anti-gun person to represent their interests on the board?

Does he carry, he says he does, I have seen him at the range and I have seen him shoot. That's good enough for me. Can he carry everywhere he goes? can any of us? No... I don't believe lawyers get to carry into the court room so given that the majority of his "workplace" is a gun-free zone doesn't take anything away from that. That would be like criticizing a postal worker for not carrying when you already know that post office facilities are gun free *supposedly* by federal law.

I'm assuming here that you're in front of the board by now doing your "I'm not going to tell you crap about me but give me my permit anyway" (which is your right to do, I'm not criticizing your wish to keep your details private) so perhaps before long you will be able to see and judge how this new board member reacts and THEN perhaps form an opinion based on something real and not just paranoia.

You're not saying "let's see" you're saying "I don't believe this guy supports the 2nd Amendment any more than Obama does" and that's something I take issue with.

Keep an open mind by all means but at *LEAST* see how the guy behaves in the board hearings before slamming the appointment. That's open minded.

Many active in the 2A community know him...... and have worked with him on various issues.

He's the only attorney I know of in recent years that has at least won a pro-gun case in CT. Hell, we just got our collective ass handed to us in Goldberg/Kuck v Danager.

Also, I can pretty much guarantee you this attorney wouldn't vote for Obama too.

Just a hunch

Jonathan

KIX said:

He's the only attorney I know of in recent years that has at least won a pro-gun case in CT. Hell, we just got our collective ass handed to us in Goldberg/Kuck v Danager.

Jonathan

Click to expand...

I don't know if they will appeal this goofy judge's ruling...there have been plenty of others that conflict with her reasoning.

davidmcbeth said:

I don't know if they will appeal this goofy judge's ruling...there have been plenty of others that conflict with her reasoning.

Click to expand...

I'm in full agreement here, I read that whole "opinion" and found myself asking "who in their right mind could make the jump from there to here" after I had finished it (and two mugs of tea) I could only surmise that this judge was not in her right mind but was in some anti-gun frenzy and was making her own law as she went.

It should be challenged on the merits (since there are none).

Yep...... the one thing that still gets me is the comparison to a DUI...... one is a constitutionally guaranteed right..... the other is a good time.

Jonathan

Interesting bloviations but I consider it good news that the Connecticut State Rifle and Revolver Association's nomination (http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...or-Malloy-s-office-attempts-to-stack-the-deck) was finally accepted by the Governor. As I understand it from previous posts, the Board requires an attorney to be present for meetings if they are going to rule on cases, so having another attorney on the Board should help work down the backlog. We may not like some parts of the system (most of them?) but taking our glove and going home doesn't seem like a good way to make progress. Nor does internal bickering and backbiting. Just my two cents and not worth that.

Skinnedknuckles said:

Interesting bloviations but I consider it good news that the Connecticut State Rifle and Revolver Association's nomination (http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...or-Malloy-s-office-attempts-to-stack-the-deck) was finally accepted by the Governor. As I understand it from previous posts, the Board requires an attorney to be present for meetings if they are going to rule on cases, so having another attorney on the Board should help work down the backlog. We may not like some parts of the system (most of them?) but taking our glove and going home doesn't seem like a good way to make progress. Nor does internal bickering and backbiting. Just my two cents and not worth that.

Click to expand...

Well I agree that Malloy finally got off his duff and choose someone & likely someone he did not want. He is a rabid anti-gunner. I hope he gets stuck up, maybe he'll start appreciating the 2nd amendment.

Awesome!

I'm very happy to see another attorney on the board. Fishbein is a Wallingford town hero in my book