Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Litigation is near on UNLAWFULL the $50.00 State Background Check fee

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

    Litigation is near on UNLAWFULL the $50.00 State Background Check fee

    The following information CLEARLY indicates the fact that the $50.00 fee has NEVER been approved.
    The State is attempting to project that charging a $50.00 will improve the background issue without revealing that the %50.00 fee has been collected since October 1, 2009 without legislative authorization.

    Stand by for more info as it becomes available

    Read the highlighted text that follows.

    Title of Proposal

    AAC Fees Charged for Criminal History Background Checks

    Statutory Reference
    29-11 and 29-17a

    Proposal Summary
    This statutory change would create a new and appropriate revenue stream by charging for individuals in the private sector that currently do not pay any state fees for criminal history background checks performed by the agency’s State Police Bureau of Investigation.

    29-17a- would set up a separate non lapsing account for fees collected pursuant to 29-11 and 29-17a. All money deposited into the account would be used for enhancements and improvements to the DESPP Special Licensing and Firearms Unit.

    Other changes will delete unnecessary and misleading language from the fee structure for criminal history background checks. The section will also provide a reduced fee for copies of fingerprints, but only for those requested at time of initial fingerprinting.

    Under existing law all criminal history background checks coming from other agencies are not subject to any state fees. (Only the federal FBI fee is charged) While this is appropriate for purposes of background checks on individuals that the agency in question is considering for employment, the fee is also not in place for all of the individuals who are licensed by the agencies but employed in the private sector, such as school bus drivers. The agency’s State Police Bureau of Identification has been overwhelmed with the huge numbers of individuals for whom criminal history background checks for non criminal justice purposes are now required by statute. There is a backlog of more than 3 months. Charging the private sector for these criminal history background checks will create a revenue stream that will allow for better staffing and equipment for the unit, and it will then be able to better carry out its functions.

    CGS 29-11(c) indicates a $36 fee for a name search. The agency cannot do just a name search as we need a date of birth to accompany this name. Currently if a requester pays only the $36 fee they only receive a yes or no response. If they want a complete criminal history background check they have to pay the additional $50 fee, making their request totaling a fee of $86. The statue as it currently reads is misleading, eliminating this $36 fee and making the fee a flat $50 for a criminal history record check regardless of who the requester is would eliminate the confusion on the part of the requester.

    CGS 29-11(c) indicates a $15 fee for fingerprinting. However, the statute is silent regarding whether this fee applies on a per person basis or per set of fingerprints basis. This section would provide for an additional $5 fee for any additional copy of the individuals fingerprints requested at the time of the initial fingerprinting. This will alleviate an individual from requesting multiple sets of fingerprints without being charged and the language indicating that the $5 fee will apply to any additional copies requested at the time of initial fingerprinting will prevent an individual from returning at a later date requesting a copy of their fingerprints for the lesser $5 fee

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I never paid .... I agree, its nothing more than a hurdle

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...nd-what-is-not


    go there and note your opinion

  3. #3
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910

    For more information...

    More information on the fight against background check fees can be found here: http://ctcarry.com/BackgroundCheckFee/Background
    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

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    More information on the fight against background check fees can be found here: http://ctcarry.com/BackgroundCheckFee/Background
    so, you think that no one should include a 50 dollar chk? Zip over to the link above and note it on the thread started.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Sample of one communites numbers regarding the $50.00 State Background Fees collected

    One coummuity has supplied, (upon request), information that paints a picture of how much money has been collected for Fingerprint Based State Background Checks by individuals applying for Temporary Permits to Carry
    .

    445 applications x $50.00 each = $22,250.00


    The $50.00 Fee was implemented on October 1, 2009 WITHOUT LEGISLATIVE AUTHORIZATION.

    10/2009 - 5

    11/2009 - 3
    12/2009 - 7
    01/2010 - 13
    02/2010 - 5
    03/2010 - 9
    04/2010 - 8
    05/2010 - 4
    06/2010 - 2
    07/2010 - 6
    08/2010 - 2
    09/2010 - 13
    10/2010- 3
    11/2010 - 9
    12/2010 - 13
    01/2011 - 5
    02/2011 - 5
    03/2011 - 11
    04/2011 - 6
    05/2011 - 15
    06/2011 - 8
    07/2011 - 5
    08/2011 - 13
    09/2011 - 7
    10/2011 - 7
    11/2011 - 5
    12/2011 - 16
    01/2012 - 9
    02/2012 - 12
    03/2012 - 15
    04/2012 - 18
    05/2012 - 18
    06/2012 - 8
    07/2012 - 7
    08/2012 - 14
    09/2012 - 8
    10/2012 - 19
    11/2012 - 20
    12/2012 - 12
    01/2013 - 40
    02/2013 - 14
    03/2013 - 9
    04/2013 - 17

    TOTAL: 445

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I would have thought it was more than a measly 25K ... I assume its much much higher in reality ...

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

    Handed to the State Marshal today

    This is the complaint which is being served by the State Marshal

    50Fee-Complaintfinal.pdf

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    should be a slam dunk ... I addressed this during my permit application ... the town did not even mention the $50 fee not being paid to the board ...


    “We begin our analysis by noting that "[administrative agencies are tribunals of limited jurisdiction and their 291*291 jurisdiction is dependent entirely upon the validity of the statutes vesting them with power and they cannot confer jurisdiction upon themselves.... [A]n administrative body must act strictly within its statutory authority, within constitutional limitations and in a lawful manner.... It cannot modify, abridge or otherwise change the statutory provisions, under which it acquires authority unless the statutes expressly grant it that power." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Castro v. Viera, 207 Conn. 420, 428, 541 A.2d 1216 (1988). "It is a familiar principle that [an administrative agency] which exercises a limited and statutory jurisdiction is without jurisdiction to act unless it does so under the precise circumstances and in the manner particularly prescribed by the enabling legislation." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 427-28. 241 Conn. 282 (1997), GARLAND HALL v. GILBERT AND BENNETT MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., ET AL.,(SC 15608), Supreme Court of Connecticut, Argued March 27, 1997,Officially released June 3, 1997.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 05-23-2013 at 09:59 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I would have thought it was more than a measly 25K ... I assume its much much higher in reality ...
    he did say it was only one community, I assume that simply means one single town. so to have 445 in a single town in 3.5 years seems pretty accurate to me. and for all we know it might be a small town
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” ~Thomas Jefferson
    www.CTCarry.com

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Motoxmann has highlighted that the 445 applications were for only 1 town.

    Well, if one assumes that the town actually is a median for all the towns (what, about 169 towns in CT) then one could calculate:

    50 $ / application * 445 applications/town * 169 towns/state * state = $3.76 million

    That's a lot of meatballs !
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 05-24-2013 at 01:22 PM.

Posting Permissions

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