Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Connecticut Carry - Press Release - Governor Malloy looking to Stack the Deck against

  1. #1
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910

    Connecticut Carry - Press Release - Governor Malloy looking to Stack the Deck against

    From: http://ctcarry.com/News/Release/0322...5-27eec1963425

    Press Release:

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

    Governor Malloy looking to Stack the Deck against permit applicants
    Sends letter seeking nominees to replace longest serving BFPE member Peter Kuck

    Hartford, Connecticut, 6/31/2013:

    In a move to further restrict the rights of the citizens of Connecticut from lawful self-defense, Governor Dannel Malloy has sent a letter to the Ye Connecticut Gun Guild. This letter seeks four nominees as replacements for the longest serving and most outspoken member of the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, Mr. Peter Kuck. The letter follows a series of articles detailing issues in the pistol permit process in Connecticut caused by rogue police agencies and being addressed by the board.

    Mr. Peter Kuck is a patriot with strong and principled opinions on what rights mean. He serves on the board as a representative of the citizens of Connecticut and has therefore taken the Board of Firearms Permit to task on several occasions for not following the law or keeping the best interests of the public in mind. This has meant taking the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners to court several times.

    “The SLFU has operated as a rogue unit within the DPS without oversight or regard for the law or the individual rights of state permit holders.” – Peter Kuck in his Federal Complaint against the DESPP

    With Governor Malloy seeking to replace a good man who has volunteered a tremendous amount of his own time in service to the public in Connecticut and has also volunteered his money and resources to fight injustices within the board and State of Connecticut when the need arose, this is yet again a brazen attack on the rights of the people of Connecticut.

    Governor Malloy is simply not satisfied with his overreaching and unconstitutional gun ban implemented in April. Now he is using alternative means to try and remove rights from law abiding people by denigrating a good man.

    Instead of attacking the people of Connecticut and the patriots who do all they can to help keep them safe, perhaps Governor Malloy could get involved in figuring out why the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection has been illegally collecting millions of dollars’ worth of fees on pistol permit applicants? Or he could get involved with figuring out why the DESPP is delaying pistol permit background checks that are supposed to be instant and making them take weeks or months.

    Of course, most of these issues could be solved through a simple legislative change to make our resident pistol permit process the same as non-resident pistol permits which would remove the local police departments from our pistol permit process and with it, the issue of suitability.

    * The letter: http://ctcarry.com/Document/Download...8-54210a57e965
    * First Courant Article published on June 23rd: http://www.courant.com/news/connecti...,1847793.story
    * Second Courant Article published on June 24th: http://www.courant.com/news/connecti...,3161750.story
    * Bob Englehart editorial with cartoon published on June 24th: http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/...,5044305.story


    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 defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Contact:
    Richard Burgess
    President
    Connecticut Carry, Inc
    Ph: 203-208-9577
    Email: rich@ctcarry.com
    http://ctcarry.com
    Last edited by Rich B; 07-01-2013 at 07:50 PM.
    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

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    http://ctgunrights.com/00.Docs/09.03...ed%20Compl.pdf


    This the complaint Rich?

    http://ctgunrights.com/00.Docs/09.03...ed%20Compl.pdf

    Or this one?

    This the one regarding the 22 mos awaiting a BFPE decision that the court said "that's fine!"
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 07-01-2013 at 02:13 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    More dribble and misleading information from David Godbout

    If you don't know the facts regarding the delay issue, you should keep your comments to yourself.

    The Second Circuit found the 22 month delay to be a violation of Due Process and sent the case back to Judge Bryant.

    Judge Bryant at the District Court issued a decsion where she found that the current delay of approximately 7 to 9 months was fine. That decsion is currenty on appeal back to the Second Circuit.

    You Mr. Godboutappear to be an obsessed individual who seems compelled to post information on this message board prior to doing any research.

    I do not enjoy posting these type of comments but believe that those who read what you post should be forwarned regarding the content of your posts so they are not misled.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Peruta View Post
    If you don't know the facts regarding the delay issue, you should keep your comments to yourself.

    The Second Circuit found the 22 month delay to be a violation of Due Process and sent the case back to Judge Bryant.

    Judge Bryant at the District Court issued a decsion where she found that the current delay of approximately 7 to 9 months was fine. That decsion is currenty on appeal back to the Second Circuit.

    You Mr. Godboutappear to be an obsessed individual who seems compelled to post information on this message board prior to doing any research.

    I do not enjoy posting these type of comments but believe that those who read what you post should be forwarned regarding the content of your posts so they are not misled.
    Ed, this is not a supreme court website forum...don't expect it to be.

    And, you confirm that the lower court did find that the 22 month delay was OK ... you expect me to zip over to the federal court building before posting?

    And it was just to ID the case that the OP originally posted a reference to w/o referencing the actual case...

    You are obsessed ... with me. How sweet.

    Instead of trolling me ... if you have information in respect to the promptness provisions of CGS Chapter 54 in respect to higher court/lower court decisions you should post this information.

    I think you are attacking me, thinking I have something against Mr. Kuck. No where in my post did it allude to this. I only noted the possible cases that may be the case that the OP mentioned.

    I am surprised that you have not filed any federal complaint(s) yet .... you do not seem adverse to such actions. I suggest you examine the registration requirements of PA13-3 in detail with the viewpoint of a possible suit. And of the e-cert process of PA13-3.

    I have filed complaints (just not in federal court).

    My overall opinion of the BFPE is that it should be abolished. An appeal should go directly to the courts with costs and fees being recoverable (like CA FOI/records act law ~ I think you are familiar with). This would stop improper denials in their tracks.

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

    More incorrect information

    Your constant posts of incorrect and misleading information benefits nobody on this board.

    Your obsessions and constant posts only confuse those seeking information.

    EXAMPLE:

    The local District Court/Judge Bryant NEVER found that "the 22 month delay was OK"
    The local District Court/Judge Bryant on remand from the Second Circuit found that the 7 to 9 month delay was ok.
    It's the court's recent decision on 7 to 9 months that is being appealed back to the Second Circuit.
    The delay will now be addressed when the case is argued before the Second Circuit at some point in the future.
    Google and read the Spinelli decision regarding delays beyone 58 days being a denial of Due Process.


    If you can't offer correct information you should keep your fingers off the keyboard!!

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    http://www.ycgg.org/pdfpages/02_26_0...erg_ask_tr.pdf


    Goldberg case was 22 months .... Excussse me for not having a photographic memory

    As you can see from my first post ... i was ASKING questions, not presenting facts

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_mark


    bye the bye, what happened in your CA case? Your case had merits.

Posting Permissions

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