Ruling documents from davidmcbeth's FOI hearing - 12/13/2012

Rich B · Dec 28, 2012

To draw a conclusion to the David Godbout (davidmcbeth) BFPE hearing, the final (Edit: Mr. Godbout is questioning the finality of this ruling: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...g-12-13-2012&p=1876406&viewfull=1#post1876406) ruling documents are online:

http://subtlehustle.com/Godbout/Decision Memorandum of decision for Godout.pdf

http://subtlehustle.com/Godbout/Godbout Motion for Extension Denial.pdf

So far, this looks like a cautionary tale about pistol permit appeals. I hope people will read these before taking the advice to leave the required sections of the permit blank.

FMJ · Dec 29, 2012

Hilarious!

Funny guy, that David MacBeth. FUNNY GUY!

JoshD422 · Dec 30, 2012

So I guess my question is: was there any expectation that the BFPE would reverse the denial, or was this just intended as a stepping stone toward a superior court case?

JoshD422 · Dec 30, 2012

gutshot said:
A court case? Wasn't this a big enough embarassment?

I'm not one to say. I just think it seemed like a good amount of the things David took issue with were parts of the statute, which the BFPE wouldn't really be able to do much about, so I was wondering if the actual goal might be to take those issues up in court. I asked out of curiosity more than anything.

motoxmann · Dec 30, 2012

I think a pertinent factor here in CT is that we are a MAY issue state, based on the local authority's conclusion as to the applicant's suitability, and factors relating to suitability are not in written law, but rather are subject to the discretion of the issuing authority on a case by case basis. Some aspects of the application may seem relevant, some may seem irrelevant. And how you answer or object to every question can be used against you or in your favor. I believe PART of what mcbeth was attempting to do with everything was at least determine some form of ruling for a change to the process that would in the very least make the process in CT more consistent, but also among many other things

JoshD422 · Jan 2, 2013

davidmcbeth said:
I also included an attack on our state statue that requires safety training because 1) the NRA pistol course does not include anything in respect to transportation and 2nd) studies have shown that the mere transportation of handguns does not affect public safety at all. So how can they demand training (the permit is needed to transport to practice-a core right) if it does not affect any aspect of public safety (the purpose of the requirement).

Is the NRA course absolutely required for military vets? I remember being told by the North Branford PD that military documentation of firearms training would not be sufficient and that I would still need the NRA course. I was not aware of the appeal process or the statutes, so I rolled over and took the course without further question, but I still feel like my time and money were wasted.

motoxmann · Jan 2, 2013

JoshD422 said:
Is the NRA course absolutely required for military vets? I remember being told by the North Branford PD that military documentation of firearms training would not be sufficient and that I would still need the NRA course. I was not aware of the appeal process or the statutes, so I rolled over and took the course without further question, but I still feel like my time and money were wasted.

to answer your question:

Sec. 29-28. Permit for sale at retail of pistol or revolver. Permit to carry pistol or revolver. Confidentiality of name and address of permit holder. Permits for out-of-state residents. (a) *SNIP*

(b) Upon the application of any person having a bona fide residence or place of business within the jurisdiction of any such authority, such chief of police, warden or selectman may issue a temporary state permit to such person to carry a pistol or revolver within the state, provided such authority shall find that such applicant intends to make no use of any pistol or revolver which such applicant may be permitted to carry under such permit other than a lawful use and that such person is a suitable person to receive such permit. No state or temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver shall be issued under this subsection if the applicant (1) has failed to successfully complete a course approved by the Commissioner of Public Safety in the safety and use of pistols and revolvers including, but not limited to, a safety or training course in the use of pistols and revolvers available to the public offered by a law enforcement agency, a private or public educational institution or a firearms training school, utilizing instructors certified by the National Rifle Association or the Department of Environmental Protection and a safety or training course in the use of pistols or revolvers conducted by an instructor certified by the state or the National Rifle Association,

so yes, the course is required, the north branford PD was correct in what they said

brk913 · Jan 2, 2013

motoxmann said:
No state or temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver shall be issued under this subsection if the applicant (1) has failed to successfully complete a course approved by the Commissioner of Public Safety

It should be noted that the Commissioner of Public Safety has the authority to approve more courses but at the present time the only classes they accept is the NRA Basic Pistol Class and I believe they also approved and will accept one that was written by Ed Peruta. Rich, did I read in the CT Carry minutes that you are working on getting approval for a class? I have been thinking of doing that as well, who do you submit it to for approval?

Rich B · Jan 2, 2013

brk913 said:
Rich, did I read in the CT Carry minutes that you are working on getting approval for a class? I have been thinking of doing that as well, who do you submit it to for approval?

We are working on one, albeit slowly right now.

You submit it to the commissioner.

Rich B · Jan 7, 2013

davidmcbeth said:
Rich has posted a document that he claims is a final ruling. This is a false statement. I have asked Rich to remove these and he has refused; I believe that either Rich does not understand what a "final ruling" is or just wants to continue to support the limiting of permits in this state for some unknown reason.

Or, as indicated repeatedly to you, you should bring up your concerns in this thread for all to see and potentially discuss.

The BFPE ruled on your case and supplied these documents in relation to your case. The description I gave above is an accurate description of said case and ruling based on all evidence I had the day I posted it and based on all evidence I have today.

You now say they have granted you a chance to re-argue your case. That is great, I wish you luck in that pursuit. But the fact is, this is the last actual document that I have seen from anyone with inside knowledge of the case. If you have something that supersedes this ruling, you should post it and let us all know it and see it. In fact, you should have posted this ruling so that everyone could see the likely result of doing what you keep telling people to do with regards to both permit applications and hearings. You have spent quite a bit of time giving people advice like writing 'not required' all over their permit applications and BFPE filings and I think I was pretty fair in waiting to see the result of your arguments despite having severe doubts about your claims and arguments. I even spent my personal time to attend your hearing and listen to and record the hearing for everyone here which I believe you should have done yourself.

I am not afraid of being called 'dishonest' or for you to try and tell people I 'support the limiting of permits in this state'. Everyone around here knows very well that I do my business out in the open and that I devote a huge amount of time to 'the cause'. When you make accusations like this, it only hurts your own credibility, particularly in the absence of proof. I am confident that people trust me and how I do business. That trust is shown to me on a continual basis through the overwhelming support of the community we have been seeing.

Throughout your permit saga I have mostly refrained from comment about it. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and wished you good luck.

My obligations with regards to my commitment to Connecticut largely include educating people about the laws and issues in Connecticut. Your case and your advice to people in Connecticut is certainly one of those areas of education that people need. In that pursuit, I have personally spent time documenting the portions of your case that people would need to know about and making sure people can make informed decisions about the advice you are giving.

If you don't like me educating people here about your case and the advice you are giving, by all means, please do it for me. Document your case and the results along the way so that people can make reasonably informed decisions. Otherwise, expect that someone will do what they can to educate people about these issues for you.

Rich B · Jan 7, 2013

In the interest of full disclosure, and since I have been 'called to the carpet' over this matter, here are the requests and responses to this issue that happened via PM so that people can understand what is being discussed with the benefit of the context.

BFPE ruling not final

Rich B said:
davidmcbeth said:

Rich B said:

davidmcbeth said:

not a final ruling rich ... i am filing a motion to reconsider ... recommend removal .. of post/docs

Click to expand...

To the best of my knowledge, this is the final ruling of the BPFE on your case. As far as I know, any reconsideration will be done in court. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Either way, this is the ruling as of right now.

Is there some concern as to my wording? I don't see any reason why this would not be relevant to the board and why people should not be able to see the conclusion of the advice you have been giving.

This is probably something you should address in the thread itself if you have concerns.

Click to expand...

One can file a motion to reconsider within the Board's venue. One does not need to for one to file an appeal. But one can.

The Board made considerable findings that are contrary to prior rulings so this needs to be cleared up so I will be filing a petition to reconsider with the Board.

The Board denied my request for an extension of time to file such a petition ... I have been losing sleep because of their idiocy.

Am I a big fan of the Board, uh..no. I don't like admin hearings and they are not appropriate for reviewing constitutional rights issues like the FIC for 1st amendment stuff and this board for 2nd amendment stuff.

How would we like it where search warrants can be issued by admin boards? You do know that last year a bill was introduced to allow a secretary (not Secretary, a regular secretary) to issue out search warrants?

I love it where the board says they will not consider the constitution ... what goofs.

never met an admin board that is fair ... glad this one has not spoiled that record !

Click to expand...

I am sorry, I can not decipher from this why you are recommending the removal of my post or the documents.

Feel free to post on the thread and explain that you are filing a motion for reconsideration.

my motion to reconsider concerning the board's ruling has been granted

Rich B said:
davidmcbeth said:

Rich B said:

davidmcbeth said:

So, taking down the preliminary ruling from this site would be appropriate...I don't think that you would want to post an inaccurate ruling.

The one posted will likely be changed.

Click to expand...

As I said previously, I don't understand your point. There is nothing inaccurate about the posting of the decision.

-Rich B

Click to expand...

If you cannot understand my point that the post is listing inaccurate information then that's not my problem. You stated that this was the decision of the Board in my case when it is not.

Your posting is inaccurate.

Click to expand...

I certainly invite you to make your criticism public in the thread.

I strongly disagree.

Rich B · Jan 7, 2013

davidmcbeth said:
Really? Its clear that you original post claiming it was a final ruling was not accurate. I told you this via PMs and I told you that my motion to reconsider was granted yet you "stand by" your original post.

As discussed, I have not seen any evidence to suggest that this is not the 'final ruling'. If you care to share here, please do so.

Since one of the documents linked in the OP is entitled:
"MEMORANDUM OF DECISION"

Yes, I stand by my wording. If there is a subsequent ruling or documents you possess that you wish to share that educate me to this not being the case, I would be happy to discuss them.

In the future, please contact me regarding any documents relating to me.

Public documents about the issues here in this state will be disclosed as they have always been. If you wish to disclose them yourself and word things they way you want to, feel free.

A ruling of the BFPE is not final (from the board's venue) until 15 days after it was been made. You posted it too soon. If I were to post such a document, I would indeed take steps to insure the accuracy of the posting.

Show us the notice of reconsideration then.

Rich B · Jan 7, 2013

davidmcbeth said:
http://www.ct.gov/bfpe/cwp/view.asp?a=3598&Q=508224
So, am I a liar?

Nope.

When that ruling is done, be sure to post it.

I am still unclear as to why you are so resistant to posting the documents I have asked you to post several times now both in PM and in public.

Rich B · Jan 7, 2013

davidmcbeth said:
I would not post a link to a court opinion that has been overruled or ruled to be non-precedental.

Nothing I have requested you to post is a 'court opinion'.

Ruling documents from davidmcbeth's FOI hearing - 12/13/2012

Rich B

Regular Member

FMJ

Regular Member

JoshD422

Regular Member

JoshD422

Regular Member

motoxmann

Regular Member

JoshD422

Regular Member

motoxmann

Regular Member

brk913

Regular Member

Rich B

Regular Member

Rich B

Regular Member

Rich B

Regular Member

Rich B

Regular Member

Rich B

Regular Member

Rich B

Regular Member