Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Audio of May 9th Hearing THE APPLICATION PROCESS

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Audio of May 9th Hearing THE APPLICATION PROCESS


  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Why is this cop making argument? He cannot act as consul per CGS Sec. 51-88 (?)

    This case is a good example of why cop's cannot and should not be able to argue.

    29-29 (b)
    (b) The local authority shall take the fingerprints of such applicant or conduct any other method of positive identification required by the State Police Bureau of Identification or the Federal Bureau of Investigation, unless the local authority determines that the fingerprints of such applicant have been previously taken and the applicant’s identity established, and such applicant presents identification that the local authority verifies as valid. The local authority shall record the date the fingerprints were taken in the applicant’s file and, within five business days of such date, shall forward such fingerprints or other positive identifying information to the State Police Bureau of Identification which shall conduct criminal history records checks in accordance with section 29-17a.

    And why is the board asking a bunch of questions .... they cannot once the hearing begins .. no where does the law allows them to ask questions during the active hearing ...

    29-32 states:

    (c) Any person aggrieved by the action of an issuing authority may file with the board a clear and concise statement of the facts on which he relies for relief, and shall state the relief sought by the appellant. The receipt by the board of the appellant’s statement shall initiate the appeals process, and no appeal may be rejected for mere lack of formality. The board shall, within ten days next following receipt of the appeal, set a time and place at which the appeal shall be heard. The board, while such appeal is pending, may request such additional information from the appellant and from the issuing authority as it deems reasonably necessary to conduct a fair and impartial hearing, and shall require of the issuing authority from whose decision or action the appeal is being sought a statement in writing setting forth the reasons for such failure, refusal, revocation or limitation. Failure or refusal of the issuing authority to furnish such written statement, or to supply the appellant with an application, at least ten days prior to the hearing shall be cause for the board to grant the relief sought, forthwith and without further hearing.

    Why did the board start examining convictions on the state website? Asking for captian's mast and other questions? Ridiculous questions...irrelevant and under Chapter 54 they are to prevent irrelevant queries -- they are supposed to prevent such queries (but yet go on and on violating Chapter 54 again and again) ... it is up to the issuing authority to prove that he has not met the requirements regarding disqualifies ..

    The BFPE should be eliminated .... this case audio examples why: they allow cops to represent towns illegally, they cannot contain themselves to the limits that the legislature has made upon them ...

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Shelton
    Posts
    138
    did I hear them right that the law is changing to allow for 12 weeks instead of the current 8 weeks to obtain your permit??

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Shawn Mitola View Post
    did I hear them right that the law is changing to allow for 12 weeks instead of the current 8 weeks to obtain your permit??
    I don't recall any such bill becoming a law this session .. you are welcome to search..
    http://www.cga.ct.gov/

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I don't recall any such bill becoming a law this session .. you are welcome to search..
    http://www.cga.ct.gov/
    I think the reason the board asked the questions (and I could be wrong here) is because the board ordered a permit to be issued even though the applicant was not ran through the background checks.

    The way I understood the hearing was that the ordered the temporary permit to be issued the following day, and they asked that the state police get hold of the fingerprint cards and run the background checks so when the applicant goes to Middletown to obtain the permanent 5 year license, the background check will be completed.... since the Groton PD was inept and incapable of reading a law.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Peruta View Post
    Ed, I have a question related to the initial application process. And since you know CT law better than almost anyone else, I figured you could answer this.

    What would happen if someone was to put N/A or something similar to the occupation questions?

    The reason I ask this is because a lot of people who are employed in the private sector for big companies do not want the company to hear about having a carry license and it is reasonable to wish to safeguard this information.

    I suppose the argument could be made that they need it to determine suitability; however, I don't think that would go far because if the default position was assumed (which is the person is unemployed) then they would still be suitable for a license.

    I know this issue went to court in Georgia years ago and the court sided with the applicant saying that unless the permit is solely for employment reasons, then employment information is not of material substance and not relevant.

    Your thoughts?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Applications by mail and Fingerprints from other agencies

    1. Simply submitting a completed and notarized DPS 799c Temporary Pistol Permit application in person during normal business hours or by Certified U.S. Mail starts the clock for any appeal.

    2. When the DPS 799c Temporary Permit Application is submitted to the LOCAL ISSUING AUTHORITY with a set of Fingerprints for the State and Federal Criminal History Records Check, a five day clock begins for the fingerprints to be forwarded to the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection SPBI Unit.

    3. The application submitted should contain, (at a minimum), the following to be considered a “SUFFICIENT APPLICATION

    a. The DSP 799 c application properly filled out and notarized
    b. Evidence of the applicant’s Firearm Safety Course completion
    c. Required Government issued ID to establish I.D. and legal residence in the U.S.– Passport, Birth Certificate etc.
    d. DD-214 (if prior military)
    e. The three checks required, $70.00, $50.00 and $16.50 (the fifty dollar fee is subject to challenge)
    f. A State of Connecticut Applicant fingerprint card properly filled out with the applicant’s fingerprints

    Sec. 29-28a. Application for permit. Notice of decision to applicant. (a) Requests for temporary state permits under section 29-28 shall be submitted to the chief of police, or, where there is no chief of police, to the warden of the borough or the first selectman of the town, as the case may be, on application forms prescribed by the Commissioner of Public Safety. Upon written request by any person for a temporary state permit not on a prescribed application form, or upon request by any person for such application form, the local authority shall supply such forms. When any such request is made in person at the office of the local authority, the local authority shall supply such application form immediately. When any such request is made in any other manner, the local authority shall supply such application form not later than one week after receiving such request. If such application form is not supplied within the time limits required by this section, the request therefor shall constitute a sufficient application. If any local authority fails to supply an application form upon the request of any person, such person may request an application form from the Commissioner of Public Safety or any barracks of the Division of State Police, and the time limits and procedures set forth in this section for handling requests for such forms shall be applicable.

    (b) The local authority shall, not later than eight weeks after a sufficient application for a temporary state permit has been made, inform the applicant that such applicant's request for a temporary state permit has been approved or denied. The local authority shall forward a copy of the application indicating approval or denial of the temporary state permit to the Commissioner of Public Safety. If the local authority has denied the application for a temporary state permit, no state permit may be issued. The commissioner shall, not later than eight weeks after receiving an application indicating approval from the local authority, inform the applicant in writing that the applicant's application for a state permit has been approved or denied, or that the results of the national criminal history records check have not been received. If grounds for denial become known after a temporary state permit has been obtained, the temporary state permit shall be immediately revoked pursuant to section 29-32.




    4. Submission of a “SUFFICIENT APPLICTION” with the required checks by Certified U.S. Mail Return Receipt Requested should be directed SPECIFICALLY to the ISSUING AUTHORITY.

    5. The applicant’s fingerprints taken by any local police department or the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protections SPBI unit on a single State of Connecticut Applicant fingerprint card are valid for submission with a Temporary Permit application.

    Sec. 29-17c. Collection of fingerprints by municipal police department or Division of State Police. Fees. (a) No employee of a municipal police department or the Division of State Police within the Department of Public Safety shall refuse to collect the fingerprints of a person requesting such fingerprinting for the purposes of a criminal history records check in accordance with section 29-17a, or other noncriminal purposes, provided (1) such employee's duties include fingerprint collection, and (2) the person requesting such fingerprinting works or resides in the municipality where such department or division is located.

    (b) The provisions of this section shall not be construed to prohibit a municipality from establishing a limited period of hours during which such fingerprints may be collected.

    (c) A municipality may charge a reasonable fee for collecting fingerprints under this section. If a municipality submits fingerprints electronically to the Department of Public Safety, such municipality shall charge the person from whom the fingerprints were collected all applicable state or federal fees and shall forward such fees, monthly, to said department.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Shelton
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I don't recall any such bill becoming a law this session .. you are welcome to search..
    http://www.cga.ct.gov/

    Not sure what the proposed bill number would be but I did find this in an article where they discussed it and also talked about getting rid of the Board.

    Looney's bill would give issuing authorities 12 weeks to render a decision instead of eight. It would allow authorities to require applicants to consent to the release of any documents or evidence it reasonably believes will assist in determining suitability. It would delineate that an issuing authority may consider factors such as psychiatric disabilities, attempted suicide, participation in violent crime, arrests or convictions for use or distribution of a controlled substance, military service record, incidents of workplace violence, or any other factors which the issuing authority reasonably believes contributes to the applicant's suitability.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Providing Employment information

    The state currently takes the postion that applicant's names and addresses are exempt from disclosure prior to the issuance of a Valid Permit.

    Personally, I do not believe they are correct without the proper legislation in place.

    With this in mind, I would understand any reasonable refusal to supply employment information.

    Retired and/or unemployed individuals are not required to have an employer!!!

    Some employers may take a negative view of any employee with a Permit to Carry Firearms.



    Quote Originally Posted by Jared View Post
    Ed, I have a question related to the initial application process. And since you know CT law better than almost anyone else, I figured you could answer this.

    What would happen if someone was to put N/A or something similar to the occupation questions?

    The reason I ask this is because a lot of people who are employed in the private sector for big companies do not want the company to hear about having a carry license and it is reasonable to wish to safeguard this information.

    I suppose the argument could be made that they need it to determine suitability; however, I don't think that would go far because if the default position was assumed (which is the person is unemployed) then they would still be suitable for a license.

    I know this issue went to court in Georgia years ago and the court sided with the applicant saying that unless the permit is solely for employment reasons, then employment information is not of material substance and not relevant.

    Your thoughts?
    Last edited by Edward Peruta; 05-11-2013 at 05:18 PM.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Jared View Post
    Ed, I have a question related to the initial application process. And since you know CT law better than almost anyone else, I figured you could answer this.

    What would happen if someone was to put N/A or something similar to the occupation questions?

    The reason I ask this is because a lot of people who are employed in the private sector for big companies do not want the company to hear about having a carry license and it is reasonable to wish to safeguard this information.

    I suppose the argument could be made that they need it to determine suitability; however, I don't think that would go far because if the default position was assumed (which is the person is unemployed) then they would still be suitable for a license.

    I know this issue went to court in Georgia years ago and the court sided with the applicant saying that unless the permit is solely for employment reasons, then employment information is not of material substance and not relevant.

    Your thoughts?
    I answered that query for employment information as "irrelevant or not applicable" with both the DPS form and BFPE questionnaire (I objected to the BFPE and got a ruling if I recall) -- the board ruled that their query did not mandate a response.

    My argument was the same as Ed stated above: that contacting my employer may result in termination (and that there is no listed employment position that is a disqualifier).

    Why the board asks irrelevant questions is a mystery ~ they are specifically charged with insuring that this does not happen per Chap. 54.

    Quite frankly, its none of there business .... the town said that would contact my employer if I provided the information. Its none of my town's business who I, we, work for.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Peruta View Post
    The state currently takes the postion that applicant's names and addresses are exempt from disclosure prior to the issuance of a Valid Permit.

    Personally, I do not believe they are correct without the proper legislation in place.

    With this in mind, I would understand any reasonable refusal to supply employment information.

    Retired and/or unemployed individuals are not required to have an employer!!!

    Some employers may take a negative view of any employee with a Permit to Carry Firearms.

    Ed,

    Did this come from a BFPE ruling? If not, did this statement come from the Connecticut State Police?

  12. #12
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Jared,

    Ed has the right idea about what fields are required or not and has and will guide people through the permit process and permit appeals process.

    Be careful about advice to reject all or some of the fields on the permit application. We have seen how this can go.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thc0M_ZdK80

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke7Uhu_ZUSM

    As always, be careful about what advice you accept on the internet. You are on the right path with Ed.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    Jared,

    Ed has the right idea about what fields are required or not and has and will guide people through the permit process and permit appeals process.

    Be careful about advice to reject all or some of the fields on the permit application. We have seen how this can go.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thc0M_ZdK80

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke7Uhu_ZUSM

    As always, be careful about what advice you accept on the internet. You are on the right path with Ed.
    I was just curious and I follow this stuff very closely.CT renewals don't ask almost any of the questions they do on an initial application. It's been so long since I applied for my initial CT permit (way back in the old days when restaurants in CT had smoking sections).

    I only renew my CT,RI and MA permits because LEOSA does not exempt one from the gun free school zone act so I need the permits for that. I actually don't carry my CT permit on me in CT, I carry my LEO creds, I simply keep it active because of the federal school zone law.

    My main interest in the employment question is because CT and RI have similar language and I'm still involved in RI gun license issuance matters and one of the next challenges (after the couple that are pending in state Supreme Court) will be over material questions. The last RI town permit application I assisted with half of the questions were answered n/a and the chief issued the renewal, so we have yet to have precedent on the matter.

    Not many people pay attention to this as most shall-issue states have updated their applications to remove employment info, but the New England shall issue states still have it and so do a few others like Florida and Oregon (some sheriff's still have it).

    One thing I am not clear on about the CT renewal (I can renew my PP next month) is if an enhanced drivers license will satisfy the state police for their illegal requirement of submitting proof of citizenship. You would think they would but the state department does not accept an enhanced drivers license as proof of citizenship when applying for a passport so I'm not sure about the state police.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    Jared,

    Ed has the right idea about what fields are required or not and has and will guide people through the permit process and permit appeals process.

    Be careful about advice to reject all or some of the fields on the permit application. We have seen how this can go.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thc0M_ZdK80

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke7Uhu_ZUSM

    As always, be careful about what advice you accept on the internet. You are on the right path with Ed.
    The board in the case you youtubed shows that the board went beyond there statutory authority and ruled that everything that DESPP asks for must be provided; however, there is no case law to support such a claim. Objecting to a query IS the proper legal way of addressing this type of issue.

    And objecting causes no harm ... the worst case is that they claim that an incomplete application was made --

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    The board in the case you youtubed shows that the board went beyond there statutory authority and ruled that everything that DESPP asks for must be provided; however, there is no case law to support such a claim. Objecting to a query IS the proper legal way of addressing this type of issue.

    And objecting causes no harm ... the worst case is that they claim that an incomplete application was made --
    I'm still listening to the first video (it's 2 hours).

    So far, it seems you could answer the question with "not material" or n/a and that would not be leaving the question blank.

    Your case involves not answering multiple questions and the audio is hard to hear with papers being shuffled around and it's hard to hear the people speaking and it's honestly brutal to hear with all the white noise... But I'm still listening to it.

    I'm just trying to figure out if the employment question can be answered with n/a and if someone has won that on appeal due to it not being a material question as someone did in Georgia.


    I am laughing because it's SGT. MASON... Not Mr. Mason... LOL... Good thing you didn't refer to him as "public servant Mason."
    Last edited by Jared; 05-11-2013 at 07:05 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    This came from the State Police and Attorney Generals office

    There have been FOI cases, one of which is currently on appeal to the Superior Court.
    The state wants to make policies without the benefit of legislation supporting their actions.



    Quote Originally Posted by Jared View Post
    Ed,

    Did this come from a BFPE ruling? If not, did this statement come from the Connecticut State Police?

  17. #17
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    The recorded case is an example of a perfect way to lose a BFPE appeal. And then how to lose the reconsideration for an appeal.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    The recorded case is an example of a perfect way to lose a BFPE appeal. And then how to lose the reconsideration for an appeal.
    the board said that ALL sections of the dps form must be completed ..

    do you agree with that viewpoint?

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    Dave,

    Your case is classic spaghetti on the wall. And they were beyond frustrated with you. I don't know that it is clear that a completed application without listed employment would be denied.

    Employment could be a rational question for a bounty hunter pistol permit or for a security guard permit, but a class 0 permit is a different story. If there was an applicant who's ONLY issue was not giving employment info, I'm not convinced the BFPE wold uphold a denial based on that sole fact.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Jared View Post
    Employment could be a rational question for a bounty hunter pistol permit or for a security guard permit, but a class 0 permit is a different story. If there was an applicant who's ONLY issue was not giving employment info, I'm not convinced the BFPE wold uphold a denial based on that sole fact.
    Agreed, and we have to remember to keep a clear distinction between suitability and need.

    The BFPE has actually opined before that a repossession agent and a BEA agent are both in a class of people who are likely to be 'undesirable' in some manner. So not including that may be a good thing. But it could also work for you. But leaving it off certainly should not work against you.

    We make good cases and move the lines forward by making small, logical progressions. That is what the Paddock case was.

    The employment field would be a good thing to establish as well, but it should be done in the right way with a good case.


    Are you moving to CT?
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post

    Are you moving to CT?
    Hello no.

    I grew up on the Route 6 corridor in Rhode Island, just 10 miles from the CT state line.

    I would never move to CT due to super high taxes, and bad gun laws. If I was to move back to New England, it would be New Hampshire. I will spend my older years most likely in either NH or OR.

    I do come back to New England a couple of times a year due to a large amount of family and friends in CT, RI, MA, and VT... So I do frequent Route 6 and I-95 in CT.

    The reason I stay involved in RI matters is because most of those chiefs need to be judicially slapped hard. The current pending case is found here http://www.hopkinscenter.org/gendreau-v-canario.html. It's good case and hopefully our hard work pays off.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Jared View Post
    Hello no.
    Fair enough.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Jared View Post
    Dave,

    Your case is classic spaghetti on the wall. And they were beyond frustrated with you. I don't know that it is clear that a completed application without listed employment would be denied.

    Employment could be a rational question for a bounty hunter pistol permit or for a security guard permit, but a class 0 permit is a different story. If there was an applicant who's ONLY issue was not giving employment info, I'm not convinced the BFPE wold uphold a denial based on that sole fact.
    The board did say that EVERY query must be answered. Ah yes, they were flustered ... because I would not let them trod all over my rights w/o me objecting. I was going to appeal but I got side tracked with a medical issue.

    The board is full of it, has been full of it, and need to meet folks like me...I told them that they can ASK for anything but that does not mean it is REQUIRED that everything that they ask for must be provided. I cited some case law as well, but they are not interested in case law ...

    Some here believe that the board is a good agency but I would disagree ... in the most recent case, the Groton one, the board ruled in favor of the applicant BUT violated the applicant's rights in the process again and again... I would still have a negative viewpoint in such a set of circumstances because my due process rights are just as important as the outcome IMO.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    The board did say that EVERY query must be answered. Ah yes, they were flustered ... because I would not let them trod all over my rights w/o me objecting. I was going to appeal but I got side tracked with a medical issue.

    The board is full of it, has been full of it, and need to meet folks like me...I told them that they can ASK for anything but that does not mean it is REQUIRED that everything that they ask for must be provided. I cited some case law as well, but they are not interested in case law ...

    Some here believe that the board is a good agency but I would disagree ... in the most recent case, the Groton one, the board ruled in favor of the applicant BUT violated the applicant's rights in the process again and again... I would still have a negative viewpoint in such a set of circumstances because my due process rights are just as important as the outcome IMO.
    Just finished both of your YouTube clips. The board said they never considered employment and they simply pondered on the issue, but they didn't say either way.

    The board is a good thing. The police chiefs hate the board for a reason. I wish RI had a board, currently, permit denials have to be appealed to the state Supreme Court..... Talk about a burden.

    The Groton chief got slammed in that case. They went into his employment and security clearance because they basically issued him a temporary permit on the spot since Groton didn't do a background check.

    Regarding your ability to appeal (at least to federal court under 42 USC 1983) you have two years to do so. So you can still do it if you wish after your medical issues are dealt with.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    the board said that ALL sections of the dps form must be completed ..

    do you agree with that viewpoint?
    Does rich b have a reply?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •