Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: visited DESPP in respect to their new registration/declaration forms & Issues

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    visited DESPP in respect to their new registration/declaration forms & Issues

    It appears as if people are mandated to complete every section on the forms. Ex: you don't have a driver's license (Operator License of form) or you don't want to provide it under the federal driver's privacy act, too bad. It will be rejected.

    Don't want to put in your SS# - too bad

    Don't have a phone # - too bad

    Don't understand 53a-157b ? Too bad - you'll have to lie and say you do

    etc

    But AR lowers by themselves do not have to be registered as long as you don't have the other parts needed to assemble it into an AW.

    I also filed a FOI request asking to view those registration forms that were completed by folks.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    it appears as if people are mandated to complete every section on the forms. Ex: You don't have a driver's license (operator license of form) or you don't want to provide it under the federal driver's privacy act, too bad. It will be rejected.

    Don't want to put in your ss# - too bad

    don't have a phone # - too bad

    don't understand 53a-157b ? Too bad - you'll have to lie and say you do

    etc

    but ar lowers by themselves do not have to be registered as long as you don't have the other parts needed to assemble it into an aw.

    I also filed a foi request asking to view those registration forms that were completed by folks.
    well said!!!

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by CTSurvivor View Post
    well said!!!
    Someone should send in a form w/o: a SS#, Importer, Phone #, DL#, height, weight, and scratch out the certification section spouting off that "I understand...". And if they send it back .. a return to sender back to them.

    According to Det. Damato ( a nice guy really ) ... numerous complaints have been received but everyone who put in a form completed it fully so far ... he said "we'll deal with the issues as they come up"... but I really doubt it.

    Maybe a mandamus action needed?

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    I followed up with a letter asking what sections are mandatory - ones I thought not

    REGARDING BOTH FORMS
    1) Social Security Number
    The form does not state that it's optional. And it conflicts with the provisions of our federal privacy act. I believe that this entry cannot be a mandatory entry.

    2) Home Telephone Number
    I don't see how this can be mandatory ~ having a phone is not mandatory. And a telephone number is not an identifying characteristic.

    3) Height
    I know that I do not know what my exact height is and I don't think that DESPP could require me to obtain it. And this information is variable..I believe that my height changes. and I also see a conflict with federal law, driver's privacy act.

    4) Weight
    I also do not know my exact weight and my weight varies. and I also see a conflict with federal law, driver's privacy act.

    5) Operator's License Number (ie drivers license number)
    I don't see how this can be mandatory as people are not required to have one; and I also see a conflict with federal law, driver's privacy act.

    6) Certification statements ~ "I understand....CGS Sec. 53a-157b.."
    I am not a judge or lawyer. I have no idea of the legal conclusion's appropriateness. I certainly have no idea what is actually punishable by law under CGS Sec. 53a-157b. I cannot therefore complete the certification and be, in good faith, truthful. And I have never seen such a legal conclusion being required to be agreed to by a person certifying a document. So I (and I assume most citizens) cannot attest to something I have no knowledge of and certainly will not accept DESPP's interpretation of the laws of this state. And even if one had such knowledge, the person may not agree with the current case law or laws regarding the subject matter. It seems to me as if DESPP is trying to get folks to admit to something for the purpose of an easier prosecution of some future criminal or civil charge. PA13-3 does not require such a statement to be agreed to; indeed, the Act only notices a declaration needs to be filed, not any affidavit (that is on the AW form).

    SPECIFIC TO FORM DPS-414-C (ASSAULT WEAPONS)

    7) Manufacturer
    Not all firearms were made by a gun manufacturer, as defined by federal and state laws. I think that an annotation of "if known" or "if manufactured by a gun manufacturer" would be more appropriate in the box of instructions.

    8) Importer
    I doubt people know this information nor does the law require people to perform research to find out and provide an answer. Nor are all firearms imported.

    9) Serial Number
    Not all guns have serial numbers; how this can be mandatory is puzzling.

    10) Model number
    Not all guns have "model numbers" associated with them and this also may require research.

    11) Caliber
    Not all guns use any specific caliber ammunition. With some guns, it is variable.

    12) Unique ID/Markings
    This is too vague for anyone to guess what is being requested.

    13) Notary seal
    No certification or even affidavit requires a seal; numerous case law supports this. It cannot be mandatory; indeed the notation is "notary seal MAY be placed here". Does this indicate that a seal is required and that that space is a convenience for the notary?

    14) Signature of notary
    PA13-3 does not require a notary or affidavit ; PA13-3 does require a declaration regarding magazines but makes no similar requirement of the assault weapon registration. The legislature could have stated an affidavit or declaration was required but they did not. DESPP appears to be adding to PA13-3 but DESPP does not have such authority under the law.



    SPECIFIC TO FORM DESPP-0788-C MAGAZINES

    15) Permit Number/Eligibility Certificate/ or Ammunition Certificate Number
    I assume that "permit #" is in respect to a pistol permit; but this is not a requirement to possess a magazine so this cannot be mandatory. Eligibility certificate is not a requirement either to possess. And an ammo certificate? They do not yet exist not is it required to possess a magazine. I don't see how this section can be required to be completed and failure to do so would result in a rejection of the declaration.



    16) Make (if available)
    This column heading for a line entry is vague. I have no idea what you are asking for here; this cannot be mandatory due to the vagueness of the information being required. No law requires a person to know this information.

    17) Type
    This is looking for the caliber of the ammunition I assume. But many magazines can handle a wide variety of ammo sizes so to pinpoint or state a specific type is not possible. Additionally, new products may be designed and made available to a person that would expand the magazines' uses. PA13-3 does not prohibit such a scenario. A person may also wish to acquire a new firearm in the future that can utilize the magazines currently possessed in which a different caliber is associated with the new firearm. No law requires a person to know this information.

    18) Capacity
    Again, magazines can accommodate a wide variety of capacities. It appears as if DESPP is asking for a specific value but this is simply not possible with certain magazines. Additionally, this requires research and a person may not know the capacity of his magazines nor have ammunition to perform research.

    ,,,


    Also, is there an administrative review process for rejected forms? If so, please let me know.





    I'll see if I get a reply .... if not, I'll complete 1 form leaving all this questionable queries BLANK .... and scratch out most of that pesky certification crapolla ... they should have an encyclopedia of instructions IMO... I'm not a mind reader -- what they ask for somethings is just out in left field. What does my weight have to do with possession of stuff anyway...

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    15
    All great information, thank you.

    Is my legal requirement to just FILE the form or actually have it ACCEPTED?

    Also, is it possible that I complete a sale form to someone out of state with a legal date of sale but not deliver it? This way I don't register since it's not my gun anymore and no one ever knows unless they raid my house in which case I have the sale slip showing I sold it and isn't my property?

    Thanks.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by ctgunowner View Post
    All great information, thank you.

    Is my legal requirement to just FILE the form or actually have it ACCEPTED?

    Also, is it possible that I complete a sale form to someone out of state with a legal date of sale but not deliver it? This way I don't register since it's not my gun anymore and no one ever knows unless they raid my house in which case I have the sale slip showing I sold it and isn't my property?

    Thanks.
    I imagine that you could be out of state and sell a gun that you had back at home and then send it to the buyer later..I assume you went through a FFL .... without a FFL in the loop, you may be violating federal law in selling to an out of state person

    ? is do you possess it in the state. Possess=control. So you could not sell it but keep it ... your possession is proof of possession (huh?! lol) Read the law .. does not say just OWNER, also says POSSESS.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    15
    Ahh ok thanks. I'm frankly terrified, and angry, about the thought of registering.

    Terrified because the information WILL get out to the public and my gun WILL be confiscated someday.

    Angry because I am no criminal. I am a hard working, tax paying patriot that has a right to have this weapon.

    The law was passed illegally and the forms are illegal.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by ctgunowner View Post
    Ahh ok thanks. I'm frankly terrified, and angry, about the thought of registering.

    Terrified because the information WILL get out to the public and my gun WILL be confiscated someday.

    Angry because I am no criminal. I am a hard working, tax paying patriot that has a right to have this weapon.

    The law was passed illegally and the forms are illegal.

    I sent you a pm

  9. #9

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    Seems like DESPP does not like that law.

  11. #11
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    I very strongly want to know their answers/replies to every single thing in your letter. I couldn't have worded it better myself, besides maybe adding a simple link to the privacy act
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” ~Thomas Jefferson
    www.CTCarry.com

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    I very strongly want to know their answers/replies to every single thing in your letter. I couldn't have worded it better myself, besides maybe adding a simple link to the privacy act
    Well, one could also argue with the weight...because the basic formula is F=ma F= force (wt) m=mass a=acceleration (due to gravity)
    Even if one knew their mass, one cannot calculate their weight without a known or given location being specified as "a" varies on this planet depending on location. I guess if you are an astronaut, a weight of zero lbs (or close to zero) would be an appropriate answer? Who knows?

    I don't have a scale (and most people don't have a calibrated one anyways) and at my doctor's office, he annotates this on HIS records ("my" medical file is actually his property) so I have no records of my weight taken at any time.


    And since the force exerted on your spinal column likely affects your height, I cannot tell them my height either.

    The form does not ask for a wt or hgt range .. it asks simply for your weight & height. Clearly, to me, it must be exact. Down to the exact amount. Even the amount of air in my lungs would likely affect both values. It would take thousands of measurements to get to a true value for either requested specification. And require equipment that I do not have and further information not provided on the form.

    Sorry DESPP, I don't see how I can answer that type of quantitative question truthfully.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 07-13-2013 at 01:54 AM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    I think your points about height and weight are a little above and beyond the realm of reality. I'm sure an approximation is more than sufficient. if your form says 150lbs, and you weigh 152, no one is going to arrest you. also, if you put 150, and 10 years from now you weigh 200, no one is going to arrest you. it's common sense that height and weight are constantly changing.

    all the rest though are good points, especially the driver's license # (some people don't have driver's licenses), and SS# (federal privacy act of 1974)
    Last edited by motoxmann; 07-13-2013 at 12:34 PM.
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” ~Thomas Jefferson
    www.CTCarry.com

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    all the rest though are good points, especially the driver's license # (some people don't have driver's licenses), and SS# (federal privacy act of 1974)
    Until they fix the SS# issue I will not register my items. This is something I fully stand behind and are willing to go the distance in court if need be.

    On but off topic.... Security Officers with class one endorsement must provide their ss# on the DPS 1030-c card to register and recertify.
    Is anyone else aware of this? Seems like they are starting to push this crap on all firearms forms.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    I think your points about height and weight are a little above and beyond the realm of reality. I'm sure an approximation is more than sufficient. if your form says 150lbs, and you weigh 152, no one is going to arrest you. also, if you put 150, and 10 years from now you weigh 200, no one is going to arrest you. it's common sense that height and weight are constantly changing.

    all the rest though are good points, especially the driver's license # (some people don't have driver's licenses), and SS# (federal privacy act of 1974)
    Well, who really knows? If you are 152 and put 150, does that create RAS? They may compare to DMV records....

    I would not put anything past DESPP - they are already breaking federal law.

    I'm a scientist damit, not a bureaucrat ... don't ask me for a quantitative value if you don't want one !
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 07-13-2013 at 04:05 PM.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by CTSurvivor View Post
    Until they fix the SS# issue I will not register my items. This is something I fully stand behind and are willing to go the distance in court if need be.

    On but off topic.... Security Officers with class one endorsement must provide their ss# on the DPS 1030-c card to register and recertify.
    Is anyone else aware of this? Seems like they are starting to push this crap on all firearms forms.
    Did not know about DESPP form 1030....hmmm

    But if you have an issue about a section, just send it in with "objection" or blank in the section or contact them prior to sending it in.

    You can enter "objection" to every item if you wish (although some of the sections are clearly relevant) ... if they send it back rejected THEN you can file a case to force them to accept it, after any admin appeal (if any is available~I don't see any in respect to these forms ~ hence my ? to DESPP about this process or lack of this process), or you can follow up with DESPP about why they rejected it.

    But to just not send it in .. well, how would a court know that you had any objection to the section? After you are arrested and on trial is not the best time IMO.

    I could see a court demanding and ordering that they accept it w/o a SS# .... but according to the information obtained in my visit to the Middletown office, no one has submitted the form(s) w/o a SS# being placed into the section.

    Really, if one wanted to make a legal point of the SS# being required .. they should submit a form to them now, before they change the form.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 07-14-2013 at 02:58 AM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Did not know about DESPP form 1030....hmmm

    Really, if one wanted to make a legal point of the SS# being required .. they should submit a form to them now, before they change the form.
    I'll give it a shot if I get a day off this week. I live in Middletown and have a few forms to file. If they reject it, I'll ask to speak to a supervisor, and remind them of the privacy act of 1974, and demand they accept it without a SS#, or threaten to bring it to court as a violation of federal law. I'll also remind them that according to the privacy act of 1974, by federal law, they MUST provide a clause on the form referring to the SS#, stating whether it's mandatory or optional, what it will be used for, and who will have access to the information.
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” ~Thomas Jefferson
    www.CTCarry.com

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    Status update 16jul13 - transferred to legal dpt. christine plourde

    Ms. Torres clearly had no idea how to answer the inquiries or does not have the authority to answer.

    Transferred to legal dept. ~ christine.plourde@ct.gov

    I will keep in contact with Ms. Plourde until a reply is provided.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Ms. Torres clearly had no idea how to answer the inquiries or does not have the authority to answer.

    Transferred to legal dept. ~ christine.plourde@ct.gov

    I will keep in contact with Ms. Plourde until a reply is provided.
    Nice!

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by CTSurvivor View Post
    Nice!
    Christine informed me today that she is reviewing the request now and will have the records prepared soon.

    What is DESPP's definition of "soon" ? Who knows.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Christine informed me today that she is reviewing the request now and will have the records prepared soon.

    What is DESPP's definition of "soon" ? Who knows.
    Yea, I have seen that soon nonsense turn into months. Did you FOI the info giving them a deadline or was it just an informal request?

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by CTSurvivor View Post
    Yea, I have seen that soon nonsense turn into months. Did you FOI the info giving them a deadline or was it just an informal request?
    A formal request ... got my copy file stamped at their HQ .. you cannot give a deadline ... but if you think that they are dragging their feet, you can file a complaint before the freedom of information commission (which usually takes 10-12 mos. to puke out a decision)

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Well, I got no response (other than a run around if you want to call that a response ) from DESPP ... so I stopped off at Rep. Sampson's office today and inquired if they might be able to a response to my queries. The aide to the Rep. said that everyone had the same questions as I did and will forward the queries to DESPP.

    The aide said that DESPP does not have to respond and I disagreed ... DESPP should answer any question to aide in a citizen in compliance with the law. The aide said that they still might not respond. I said then I'll take further action if they do not respond to the Rep. inquiry.

    So the aide took it in stride and said that an answer, if any, should be known by the end of next week.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    1

    Public Act 13-3- Registering "Assault Weapons'

    I just got off the phone with the CT DESPP, the lady I spoke to confirmed that the Social Security number is optional and leaving it blank is okay. I had other questions about the form; - she suggested I contact the legislature about them, her implication was that the form and questions were created by politicians and not the DESPP. I went to review the act, it seems that most of the questions including the social security one were generated by the DESPP, so they are mis-characterizing their own product. Here is the relevant part in the act "Sec. 28. Section 53-202d of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective from passage)4) The certificate of possession shall contain a description of the firearm that identifies it uniquely, including all identification marks, the full name, address, date of birth and thumbprint of the owner, and any other information as the department may deem appropriate.

    As you can see the act asks for little (relatively), the DESPP have added social security, home telephone number, sex, height, weight, operator license number and importer.

  25. #25
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Avidmind View Post
    I just got off the phone with the CT DESPP, the lady I spoke to confirmed that the Social Security number is optional and leaving it blank is okay. I had other questions about the form; - she suggested I contact the legislature about them, her implication was that the form and questions were created by politicians and not the DESPP. I went to review the act, it seems that most of the questions including the social security one were generated by the DESPP, so they are mis-characterizing their own product. Here is the relevant part in the act "Sec. 28. Section 53-202d of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective from passage)4) The certificate of possession shall contain a description of the firearm that identifies it uniquely, including all identification marks, the full name, address, date of birth and thumbprint of the owner, and any other information as the department may deem appropriate.

    As you can see the act asks for little (relatively), the DESPP have added social security, home telephone number, sex, height, weight, operator license number and importer.
    Doesn't the bolded phrase above cover that?
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

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
  •