• 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.

Town of Groton and Chief Michael Crowley

davidmcbeth

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
MKEgal said:
I hope the board gets a copy of that & sees how their directions are being ignored.
Is there anything the board can do to the Chief, or the Lt., or the town?
Click to expand...

No not really...other than take judicial notice of his actions next time he is before the board.
 
E

Edward Peruta

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
1,247
Location
Connecticut USA
DESPP aka the State Police have refused to issue 5 year permit

Mr. Paddock presented himself in Middletown in an attempt to receive his 5 year Permit to Carry.

The SLFU has refused citing the REQUIREMENT that the Temporary State Permit be SIGNED by the ISSUING AUTHORITY.

A recommendation has been made to have Mr. Paddock immediately notify the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners address the issue.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHY THE LOCAL ISSUING AUTHORITIES LOSE CASES AT THE BOARD AND SUPPORT IN THIER COMMUNITIES.

It's all about attituce and whether or not the ISSUING AUTHORITY is a "SUITABLE" person to hold the postion.

In this case I believe that Chief Crowley should be repremanded or suspended for his attitude towards a resident of his community.
 
davidmcbeth

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
davidmcbeth said:
I would say that it is more than contempt ... I would say that the the state could argue that the permit is not valid, at least its something to be aware of. It must be signed by the issuing authority. He'll find out when he goes for the permanent permit I guess.

I would get the permanent permit prior to carrying ... just to be safe.

No one should be treated like this.
Click to expand...
. The only recourse that the citizen has are:
1) request the board to file a mandamus (he won his case & no appeal has been filed) with any superior court against both the issuing authority and DESPP
2) re-file for a permit

Either option = 2-24 months of time


Yet another example of why the board needs to go ... they have no real authority to require towns to do anything...





(e) All appeals hearings shall be conducted in an informal manner, but otherwise according to the rules of evidence, and all witnesses shall be sworn by the chairman. The board shall cause a verbatim transcript of the hearing to be kept in such manner as it may determine, and shall furnish such transcript to any party appealing its decision as hereinafter set forth. The statements of witnesses made under oath shall be privileged. Decisions of the board shall be by majority vote and shall be communicated in writing to the appellant and to the issuing authority within twenty days after the rendering of the decision. If any issuing authority neglects or refuses to comply with a decision of the board within ten days after notice of the board’s decision has been given to such issuing authority, the board shall apply to the Superior Court for a writ of mandamus to enforce the board’s decision.
 
Last edited:
davidmcbeth

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Edward Peruta said:
Mr. Paddock presented himself in Middletown in an attempt to receive his 5 year Permit to Carry.

The SLFU has refused citing the REQUIREMENT that the Temporary State Permit be SIGNED by the ISSUING AUTHORITY.

A recommendation has been made to have Mr. Paddock immediately notify the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners address the issue.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHY THE LOCAL ISSUING AUTHORITIES LOSE CASES AT THE BOARD AND SUPPORT IN THIER COMMUNITIES.

It's all about attituce and whether or not the ISSUING AUTHORITY is a "SUITABLE" person to hold the postion.

In this case I believe that Chief Crowley should be repremanded or suspended for his attitude towards a resident of his community.
Click to expand...

The SLFU could have accepted that as a signature ... but I doubted that they would.

Did the issuing authority "lose" .. no, not really. Unless they lose "something" they have not lost ... IMO

I hope he was not carrying a pistol and exposed himself to a nice prison sentence ... well, he can still carry a rifle until he gets his pistol permit ...

If the guy asks the board to further the case to a superior court with a mandamus request . The board does not have the authority to settle the case .. per statue they must file a mandamus.

I hope this solider is in town for a few years.
 
brk913

brk913

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2007
Messages
370
Location
Plainville, CT
Not for nothing but this is just another example why the local authorities should have nothing to do with this process anyway, everyone should be allowed to apply directly to the DESPP so that everyone has the same procedure.
 
davidmcbeth

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
brk913 said:
Not for nothing but this is just another example why the local authorities should have nothing to do with this process anyway, everyone should be allowed to apply directly to the DESPP so that everyone has the same procedure.
Click to expand...

You really want DESPP to be the arbitrator in permit applications in the initial process? The consider this: I filed a FOI request with DESPP asking them for records relating to PA13-3's now-citizen-required registration items (guns/mags) - DESPP wrote back saying that this creates a safety risk in their eyes and asked DAS to review this opinion (proper procedure under our FOI Act). Now we have an agency who is going to twist our right not to have our arms infringed by demanding that we provide DESPP with this same information lest we be felons.

Do I want DESPP more involved? No. I want the board to be deleted in the process ... they take too long, they have no authority to demand and enforce their rulings.

If this case was before a superior court judge, the Chief & town would have been found in contempt for what they did - for numerous things.

Only possible jail time and fines by a judge would be something that would affect the permit issuing processes IMO.

There is nothing to stop towns from behaving in this same manner to everyone.
 
E

Edward Peruta

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
1,247
Location
Connecticut USA
The Day Newpaper Article on this topic with comments

http://www.theday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130612/NWS01/306129932/1069/rss

The comments are very supportive of Mr. Paddock.
The readers know only bit and pieces of the real story.

And the Groton Town Police have changed their policies but still have delays caused by Chief Crowley's policies.

Here are some of the comments posted under the article

My two sense Posted: June 12, 2013 3:40 pm
I say again:
Guys like Chief Crowley are violating our constitutional rights and teaching subordinates to do the same.
(Report Abuse)
[TR]
[TD="class: row1"]
generalrjp Posted: June 12, 2013 3:13 pm
Reading the text, it states denial of a permit "by an issuing authority using its discretion to deem the applicant 'unsuitable',.

The must issue law has been muddled by the gun control zealots in the Connecticut.
(Report Abuse)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row1"]
R Posted: June 12, 2013 2:36 pm
BF- the Chief granted him a temporary permit and then wrote on that permit, that he shouldn't have one...

the only questionable circumstance is what the chief did.

The state reviewed the situation and found the Groton PD was out of line and told them so...
(Report Abuse)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row1"]
batcob Posted: June 12, 2013 1:55 pm
BF - He wouldn't have a security clearence if he was unsuitable or involved in circumstances of questionable origins.
(Report Abuse)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row1"]
Marine1992 Posted: June 12, 2013 1:39 pm
SNOWSTORM - Who are you talking about? The police?
(Report Abuse)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row1"]
BF in Mystic Posted: June 12, 2013 1:25 pm
Several have asked why the local agencies get involved in a state permit. The answer is because the local agencies may know something about the applicant that doesn't show up in an arrest record that would make him "unsuitable." The individual involved may have been involved in circunstances of questionable origin but never arrested. They may be aware of some mental instability but not severe enough to be documented.
(Report Abuse)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row1"]
R Posted: June 12, 2013 11:30 am
generalrjp- It does NOT give discretionary authority. There are specific requirements to deny a permit and an appeal processes well. Connecticut is a "MUST ISSUE" state so long as the person qualifies under the law.
(Report Abuse)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row1"]
Ain't drinking the kool aid Posted: June 12, 2013 11:21 am
Great post my two sense.
(Report Abuse)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row1"]
generalrjp Posted: June 12, 2013 10:58 am
Better get used to the government exercising power over its citizens. The gun removal law signed by Malloy gives discretionary authority to deny permits. This is the beginning of the end of many of our freedoms.

We've already seen the Obama regime sic the IRS on conservative groups without fear of repercussion. We've seen the Obama regime thrash the 1st Amendment rights of press freedom, we've seen the Obama regime try to take all guns away from law abiding citizens. Now wait for the IRS unleashing its power to enforce Obamacare.

What a mess.
(Report Abuse)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row1"]
John Yannacci, Sr. Posted: June 12, 2013 10:42 am
Only Paddock knows whether or not he chose the right battle to fight. One has to determine how much he is willing to lose to stand up for his rights. I am currently embroiled with two citizen complaints with the New London Police Department, neither of which I would have pursued seven years ago. But, I'm retired and have time on my hands so I decided to go for it because, in my heart, I feel that I'm right. Having the courage of your convictions sometimes costs you. But, you also discover what lying liars the police can be when backed up to the wall.
(Report Abuse)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row1"]
Ain't drinking the kool aid Posted: June 12, 2013 10:28 am
Malloy must go!!
(Report Abuse)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row1"]
My two sense Posted: June 12, 2013 10:28 am
Chief Crowley acted unprofessionally.
'nuff said.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that too many cops allow their position of authority to go to their heads.

Vindictive application of "the law" is completely inappropriate.

If the Chief of Police thinks that this behavior is OK...what are his officers learning?

Thank you Mr. Paddock for being strong and standing up for your rights....as infringed as those rights may have already been.

Vindictive application of "the law" is completely inappropriate. Especially when the officer violates the law or lies on a police report i.e., "I saw you cross the yellow line" has become the reason for too many pull-overs. We should require such a statement by an officer to be accompanied by a "dash-cam" recording...or the stop should be deemed inappropriate, unjustified, and unlawful. Guys like Chief Crowley are violating our constitutional rights and teaching subordinates to do the same.
(Report Abuse)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row1"]
longtime mystic resident Posted: June 12, 2013 9:52 am
R,
I quit after 20 in 91. Our paths might have crossed.

Anyway, I stand corrected as I failed an essential requirement to READ and COMPREHEND (RTFQ?). I thought the COP wrote the note on the application NOT the temporary permit. I agree that was a childish and unnecessary act.

A few years back when I went through the GTPD for my permit, they were actually very helpful and professional. I just hate to see them trashed when they are also victims of the new laws. I have also heard of other towns where the disapproval rate was inordinately high but I didn't think Groton was one of them.

I still think that Paddock might've played a big part in his own misery but none of us were there. All we have to go on was what the DAY printed. However, I think Malloy should be down here processing applications.
(Report Abuse)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row1"]
Ain't drinking the kool aid Posted: June 12, 2013 9:21 am
The legislature and fool we hae for a Governor has put the legislature in a no win situation with unenforcable punitive laws.
(Report Abuse)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row1"]
thinking Posted: June 12, 2013 9:19 am
there was also something on the news this morning about the $50 fee being illegal .
(Report Abuse)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row1"]
Bobbydanger Posted: June 12, 2013 9:16 am
Its very clear,they arrest us for not following the law but ignore it themselves.in England nobody has guns and that poor soldier sat there for 20 minutes getting hacked to death till the police shot the two butcher knive killers.I believe you can still buy butcher knives in ct. without a permit,but stand by
(Report Abuse)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row1"]
R Posted: June 12, 2013 9:15 am
LTMR-

The CSP takes hand carried finger print cards when you get your permanent permit...

When the finger print cards are filled out they are signed and dated by the officer and or entity doing the finger printing.

While your opinion that it should be a controlled process between agencies may be valid, it is not the requirement under current law.

As for your "chit" example- having spent 26 years on active duty, I've been there, done that and have the t-shirt. But we are not talking about a chit here, we are talking about a Constitutional Right, and a legal requirement in the law for the local authority to process temporary permits within a 8 week period. The state law requires that you provide two finger print cards- if they are done by the CSP or the Federal Government, and are sufficient according to the law as written, then Groton should comply with the law, not make up their own.

As I stated earlier- this is not a new problem...I have heard many stories about this particular situation happening over and over again...because some Chief's of Police don't want to issue permits...

The bottom line is the law requires Groton to process within 8 weeks, it requires them to accept valid finger print cards, and the Chief is required to sign the permit and issue it, unless there is legal cause not to. It is very unprofessional behavior on the COP part in this case, that caused the complaint to the state. By the way, how juvenile was it to issue a temporary permit to carry with a note on it, stating the person should not have a permit???

The Chief is clearly out of line and in violation of state law.
(Report Abuse)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row1"]
longtime mystic resident Posted: June 12, 2013 9:09 am
R, one last thing:
I think your idea of accepting more state's permits is an OUTSTANDING idea and would do away with a whole lot of bureaucracy.
(Report Abuse)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row1"]
longtime mystic resident Posted: June 12, 2013 9:00 am
R,
No finger print card I have ever seen has the same authentication security that a passport does. I still think it should be handled by a controlled process between agencies. If the GTPD has been ordered to accept these from other agencies then it should a controlled process between agencies.

As I believe you pointed out, the state waived a wand and caused this rush of applications but hasn't provided anything to help the processors deal with the increased volume. I would suspect that they could wave the same magic wand and say, "Voila! It is now 16 weeks temporarily because of the spike in demand and lack of resources."

With regard to a COB knowing the rules? A new guy on the boat wants a request run through but so do 20 other new guys. He comes up with a copy of the Navy Regs quoting chapter and verse while the other 20 are patient. First, the impatient man's request gets "lost". Then it gets submitted without a signature. "Oops, my bad, lad." Then "disapproved" knowing full well that it will take longer to process but ultimately be overturned.

Nobody said it was fair but one has to pick their battles and approach very carefully. When you pick a fight with "authority", it is not over until they are done with you. GRIN
(Report Abuse)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row1"]
Scoop Newsworthy Posted: June 12, 2013 8:32 am
I heard the tape of the Board of Examiners hearing. Crowley got his clock cleaned and was told what to do, and how it was going to be done!For that, he disagrees with issuing a permit! Take Crowleys gun!
(Report Abuse)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row1"]
wylie Posted: June 12, 2013 8:08 am
The Groton Town Chief sounds like a bully and a smug little spoiled brat. He didn't like it that Mr Paddock did not accept his arbitrary judgement, but rather instead chose to enforce his 2nd AMendment right.

The Chief is the one that seems unfit to have access to fire power in public.
(Report Abuse)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row1"]
SNOWSTORM2 Posted: June 12, 2013 7:55 am
This is disgusting. All these idiots running around with guns!
(Report Abuse)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row1"]
R Posted: June 12, 2013 7:43 am
longtimemysticresident:

According to State Law and I quote "1. Complete this form (DPS-799-C) and submit to appropriate local authority (local police, resident state trooper or first selectperson, as applicable) along with the below:
 Completed State and Federal fingerprint cards with $50.00 fee and a $16.50 fee payable to Treasurer, State of Connecticut for criminal history background checks;
 Firearms Safety & Use Course Certificate;
 $70.00 payable to the local authority;
 Proof you are legally and lawfully in the United States (e.g., certified copy of birth certificate, U.S. passport or documentation issued by I.C.E.)."

If you have the fingerprint card filled out and certified by the CSP or a Federal agency they are legal documents, just like your passport. Since the CSP ordered Groton PD to accept the state and federal finger print cards...Groton PD's policy was in error.

By the way- the COB would likely have known what the rules were, rather than make up his own...
(Report Abuse)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row1"]
dw710 Posted: June 12, 2013 7:37 am
I'm glad Paddock stood up held the GTPD responsible for the LAW that they are required to follow. I work with a guy that was in a very similar situation. He is a retired chief from the navy of 20 years, has no criminal history, arrest's dui's or any of the sort. The groton town police kept denying his application all because when the 8 weeks were up he stopped in and asked about the status on his permit. They got annoyed with him, then denied him of the application, they made him file appeal which at that point it got approved because GTPD had no just cause to deny him.


It's sad when they don't want to hold themselves responsible to follow the LAW but completely expect everyone else to. "We are doing our due diligence," Crowley said.
Thats's like a regular citizen that gets pulled over for speeding and told the officer that I was doing my due diligence to follow the speed limit.

And as for the comment written on his permit sure seems uncalled for.
(Report Abuse)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row1"]
lindaanna Posted: June 12, 2013 7:19 am
I think the chief should be ashamed of himself for adding that little note on the temporary permit. And is this the proper format for an issuing authority to deem an applicant "unsuitable". I would think not. And if it was, then I would think that the state would have looked into why the chief thought Mr. Paddock was an unsuitable character and that he should not receive the temporary permit. And I would HOPE, that if the state found him unsuitable, they would have DENIED the permit. Isn't that what all these gun laws are supposed to be about. That the guns don't fall into the hands of the wrong people. Sounds like a childish remark to me. I think they should take the chief's pen away!!
(Report Abuse)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row1"]
batcob Posted: June 12, 2013 7:10 am
kathshep, it is the Chief's responsibility to enforce the law and not violate it. Is that so hard for him to do?
(Report Abuse)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row1"]
Anniegurl Posted: June 12, 2013 7:09 am
Sounds to me like the police chief may be the person who should not be carrying a weapon. Get over yourself and do your job. CT lawmakers wanted permits for nearly everything, find; now issue them!
(Report Abuse)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row1"]
longtime mystic resident Posted: June 12, 2013 7:04 am
R has made some real good points.


With regard to the Chief having a problem with this person applying for a permit? We don't know the "tone" of the exchanges between these two men.


There is a time and a place to take on the "system". With over 8 years in the military, you'd think Paddock would also understand the downside to poor timing for one's assault on the system. I am sure he'd be made a "believer" if he pulled a similar stunt with his Chief of the Boat.


"In an attempt to speed up the process, Paddock said, he first obtained a federal fingerprint card from the Navy and later was fingerprinted at state police headquarters in Middletown."


Did Paddock ask the GTPD if they would accept either card before obtaining them or did he just show up with them demanding that his application be processed? What about a "chain of custody" on an important document like this? The finger print card is the ONLY thing in the process that really ties his past and future to HIM. Did Paddock hand carry them or were they sent via registered mail?


I gotta side with the GTPD on this one.
(Report Abuse)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row1"]
LEO Posted: June 12, 2013 6:50 am
Oh, the unintended consequences of the liberal mind:

"Let's make it hard, so they won't buy a gun"
"Let's make them get a permit to buy ammo"

"Oh, look....they are all getting carry permits...oh, my god...180,000 people had them and EVERY person is going to now. They will all be able to carry concealed weapons"

This is too funny.
(Report Abuse)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row1"]
thinking Posted: June 12, 2013 6:44 am
kathshep : if they were doing the best they can , then why did it take the state to order them to do their job ?? and then still not sign it ?? , PAINE brings up some good questions !!
(Report Abuse)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row1"]
R Posted: June 12, 2013 6:27 am
CRUISER- Because people are afraid that if they don't act to get a permit now, they may not be able to get one later. Many hold permits and do not own a gun...but you now need a permit to buy ammo, including .22LR ammo...since the new laws were passed, everyone needs some sort of permit to own even a long gun or buy ammo for a .22 target rifle...

You guys all wanted more permits- now issue them!
(Report Abuse)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row1"]
CRUISER Posted: June 12, 2013 6:23 am
Why is it that eveyone seems to think they need a gun today!
(Report Abuse)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row1"]
David B. Posted: June 12, 2013 6:19 am
Not just local, the State is worse. 90 mph to your donut store is not necessary and sitting in construction lanes with cars running and hoods open is criminal but I am sure the State PD has determined this required for whatever reason, this will help increase their already exploded retirement anyway. And yes, most of them have the "above the law" mentality.
(Report Abuse)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row1"]
John Yannacci, Sr. Posted: June 12, 2013 5:52 am
Local police have forgotten that their job is to serve and protect.
(Report Abuse)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row1"]
R Posted: June 12, 2013 5:30 am
This is and has been a common problem with the current state gun permit law. There are some PD's that were flat out denying everyone because the "chief" didn't agree with citizens being armed...

Here is a prime example of why the states new law's requiring permits to own a long gun or purchase ammo are restrictive and not well thought out.

This same process will be required for every new permit as well...an unfunded mandate by the State on local PD's and for that matter the CSP...

This process should be changed and move the permit to the state level only, in addition the state of Connecticut should consider reciprocating with other states so a valid permit from another state is recognized here and can result in a new permit here, much the same as drivers licenses are. A good example is the Utah permit which is currently honored by over 30 states.
(Report Abuse)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row1"]
lindyloo Posted: June 12, 2013 5:17 am
First, I thought it was only the rural communities that own guns. At least that is what this paper has speculated in recent months. Second, good for Mr. Paddock. Also, why would the chief make that type of remark? If it is because Mr. Paddock was using his first amendment rights to preserve his second amendment rights then the chief's comments would seem to represent a serious problem.
(Report Abuse)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: row1"]
Paine Posted: June 12, 2013 4:13 am
Is the Day going to follow up and ask the Chief why he wrote the statement? Is the Town Council going to sit down with the Chief and ask him why he made this statement? Me thinks the Chief was being vindictive and he should be reprimanded! What other vindictive behavior is the Chief involved in? Maybe the Chief shouldn't have a gun!
(Report Abuse)
[/TD]
[/TR]
kathshep Posted: June 12, 2013 4:12 am
Why is this news worthy? GTPD is doing the best that they can with their allotted manpower.
 
Last edited:
davidmcbeth

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
This case exemplifies the need to eliminate the BFPE ... they allow non-attny to present cases and this is a typical result of town's not issuing out permits when they should.

Do you think a lawyer is going to risk his license by doing what the chief did in this case?

After all, that lawyer would have to go before the judge and explain his clients actions and if he knew about what the chief was doing.

The chief would not be a chief today if this was a case before a judge and he did what he did.
 
J

Jared

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
892
Location
Michigan, USA
Edward Peruta said:
Yes, Mr. Paddock was issued his Temporary and 5 year permit.
Click to expand...

Ed,

How was this resolved? Did the Chief re-issue a signed temporary license or did the SLFU in Middletown issue him the permanent license?

BTW, It may be worth informing the chief, that if he's so concerned about illegal use of guns, that his officers better have a pistol permit if they want to carry off-duty because the Federal Gun Free Schools act provides no exemption for those carrying under LEOSA so he may want to focus his efforts to be sure that his officers aren't constantly committing federal felonies.
 
D

dcmdon

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
469
Location
Old Saybrook, CT
Edward Peruta said:
Yes, Mr. Paddock was issued his Temporary and 5 year permit.
Click to expand...

Thanks Ed.

Like the Jared, I'm interested to know how this was resolved. Did the chief eventually sign?

If so, how long did it take? What was the date (approximately) that he eventually signed or the DESPP accepted the typed "per order of . . "?

Thanks,
Don
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top