I have read the appeal filed by the complainant.
TEN DAY REQUIREMENT
The purpose of the 10 day requirement prior to the hearing is to avoid surprise - certainly a due process issue.
However, I think that a request for a continuance by the complainant is the more proper avenue to approach the violation.
Although it is a violation, the complainant noted in paragraph 23 of the complaint that the board MAY grant a default judgment.
Some time requirements are mandatory and some are not. So as far as the 10 day time limit - I think he will not be successful via these arguments.
2nd AMENDMENT ISSUES
Here I think it is better. In CT, you cannot practice with your pistol because you cannot transport a pistol to a range w/o a permit.
We have a right to practice (Ezel v. Chgo (sp?)) -- although the court is not bound by this). So the ? of suitability is what the complainant states in his complaint. However, he did not plead the practice aspect of the 2nd amendment in his brief ... The question of suitability should be just this: do you have a right to own/possess? if yes, then you are suitable.--this was argued in his complaint.
CT boxed itself in here ... you need a permit to practice and you cannot practice w/o a permit.
I would go further and say that a safety course cannot be required either...but that's for another case.
It looks like the hearing on the 16th is to examine the plaintiff's (complainant's) default motion & judgment (via 17-33--failure to appear remedy?). The plaintiff is a pro se plaintiff.
If I were the plaintiff, I would amend the complaint to include the practice aspect of the complaint before the defendant files a motion to dismiss for failing to plead facts that would support his claims. But that's just me. But I see in the complaint that DPS is mentioned but "DPS" is really never defined in the complaint .. minor issue really...but is DPS the proper agency, wasn't it changed to DESPP in 2011?
No dates are given so its hard to tell.