DeBlasi v board of firearms

Oral argument is next week on the 16th at 10 in the morning.
http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=HHBCV125015701S
I would like for people to come to show support. Hopefully something good comes out of this
Also check out my new videos of the match in newbedford mass
http://youtube.com/user/SteelTeam4X
Thanks

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.

OTHER

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.

thought today went pretty well.... I fought a good case and did my best. In all honesty it is a 50/50 chance of a victory. Now I wait for the decision. Defense rasied that I was not prejudiced of my 2nd amendment rights because I have a eligiblity certifacte and can bear arms in the home, I pulled out the new Moore v. Madgain case that says bearing arms means a loaded gun outside the home. It raised eyebrows not sure if it was a good or bad thing, I feel like the judge couldn't get over the fact that I was a firearms owner who can buy pistols and revolvers take them home but can't transport them afterwards. I think that was a good thing but who knows, it is anyone's game. I did deffinlty score some points but administraive appeals are funny in the way they operate.

Needforspeed1060 said:

thought today went pretty well.... I fought a good case and did my best. In all honesty it is a 50/50 chance of a victory. Now I wait for the decision. Defense rasied that I was not prejudiced of my 2nd amendment rights because I have a eligiblity certifacte and can bear arms in the home, I pulled out the new Moore v. Madgain case that says bearing arms means a loaded gun outside the home. It raised eyebrows not sure if it was a good or bad thing, I feel like the judge couldn't get over the fact that I was a firearms owner who can buy pistols and revolvers take them home but can't transport them afterwards. I think that was a good thing but who knows, it is anyone's game. I did deffinlty score some points but administraive appeals are funny in the way they operate.

Click to expand...

Did you mention that you cannot practice w/o a permit? (could have cited another IL case - Ezell v. Chicago)

I doubt they'll care about moore v. madigan, being outside the district BUT it is an ILL. case and, for some goofy reason, CT loves IL case cites.

And that defense is an absolute balderdash reason ... who argued that (does not prejudice you cause you can have it in your home)? I'll give him a quick visit....is that DEANN S VARUNES?

Oh, and I have visited federal prosecutors, judges, etc. and let them know my opinion of theirs.

And the judge did not know you cannot further transport your guns w/o a permit (it was an argument I made before the board by the way). And I showed about 50 pages of evidence that the mere transportation of a firearm (even a loaded one) has never caused an injury or death.

I see that your objection to their supplemental records filing was sustained ... what did they try to get into the record?

that's 118.00 filing #