• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

SB 969 up for public hearing on 28th - raise fees on permit related activities by DPS

davidmcbeth

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/TOB/S/2013SB-00969-R00-SB.htm Public Hearing on 02/28


...

(c) The Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection shall charge the following fees for the service indicated: (1) [Name search, thirty-six dollars; (2) fingerprint] Fingerprint search, fifty dollars; [(3)] (2) personal record search, fifty dollars; [(4)] (3) letters of good conduct search, fifty dollars; [(5)] (4) bar association search, fifty dollars; [(6)] (5) fingerprinting, fifteen dollars; (6) additional copy of fingerprints requested at the time of initial fingerprinting, five dollars; and (7) criminal history record information search, fifty dollars. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to any individual seeking to be licensed or otherwise approved for any occupation or position for which a provision of the general statutes requires that a criminal history records check be conducted pursuant to section 29-17a, as amended by this act. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any federal, state or municipal agency if the individual identified in the request is seeking employment with the requesting agency....
 
J

JeepinMaxx

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
21
Location
Columbia, CT
davidmcbeth said:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/TOB/S/2013SB-00969-R00-SB.htm Public Hearing on 02/28


...

(c) The Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection shall charge the following fees for the service indicated: (1) [Name search, thirty-six dollars; (2) fingerprint] Fingerprint search, fifty dollars; [(3)] (2) personal record search, fifty dollars; [(4)] (3) letters of good conduct search, fifty dollars; [(5)] (4) bar association search, fifty dollars; [(6)] (5) fingerprinting, fifteen dollars; (6) additional copy of fingerprints requested at the time of initial fingerprinting, five dollars; and (7) criminal history record information search, fifty dollars. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to any individual seeking to be licensed or otherwise approved for any occupation or position for which a provision of the general statutes requires that a criminal history records check be conducted pursuant to section 29-17a, as amended by this act. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any federal, state or municipal agency if the individual identified in the request is seeking employment with the requesting agency....
Click to expand...

This incremental eroding of CT's 2A is troubling... And the financial burden is worse
 
motoxmann

motoxmann

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
760
Location
Middletown, CT
wtf?? thats a lot of dough. but it says it applies only to a criminal records check for potential employment? I don't see a mention of pistol permit relation

and what the heck is a "letters of good conduct search"? I've never heard of such a thing
 
Last edited:
R

Riverdance

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2006
Messages
89
Location
Virginia
Does this apply to background checks for permits? If so, one potential tactic to take in opposing high fees for background checks (BC) is to liken them to a poll tax. WE KNOW we have a clean record, and WE as individuals who are submitting ourselves to it don't need or want to have to undergo the check as we know it is unnecessary. If it is truly a "public" safety issue and if the public/government wants the BC then it should rightfully be paid for out of the general fund. The government wants the info, we don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top