Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Being able to clearly understand a law should be a basic right in a free society

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Connecticut USA

    Being able to clearly understand a law should be a basic right in a free society


    The state had received and deposited $50.00 from 1080 applicants, ($54,000.00) from Temporary State Pistol Permits applicants in the months leading up to January 2012.

    At the time of the FOI request, there was a substantial backlog being claimed for various reasons.

    An investigation was initiated to identify and contact those effected, to obtain specific detailed information about when their checks were submitted and deposited.

    The state refused to reveal the names and addressesof those who had paid what is now possibly unlawful $50.00 feeswithout receiving the results in a timely manner.

    The FOI request and complaint was based on the plain wording of the law which clearly states:

    C.G.S. 29-28 (d) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1-210 and 1-211, the name and address of a person issued a permit to sell at retail pistols and revolvers pursuant to subsection (a) of this section or a state or a temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, or a local permit to carry pistols and revolvers issued by local authorities prior to October 1, 2001, shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed, except (1) such information may be disclosed to law enforcement officials acting in the performance of their duties, (2) the issuing authority may disclose such information to the extent necessary to comply with a request made pursuant to section 29-33 for verification that such state or temporary state permit is still valid and has not been suspended or revoked, and the local authority may disclose such information to the extent necessary to comply with a request made pursuant to section 29-33 for verification that a local permit is still valid and has not been suspended or revoked, and (3) such information may be disclosed to the Commissioner of Mental Health and Addiction Services to carry out the provisions of subsection (c) of section 17a-500

    The State of Connecticut has provided their response in the Superior Court FOI appeal regarding releasing the names of PISTOL PERMIT "APPLICANTS".

    After reading the resonse I am now convinced more than everthat we should not need an advanced degrees in English to read and understand a laws.

    The State is going to extreme lengths in their attempts to justify concealing the 1080 names of those who had their Pistol Permit related Criminal History Background Checks delayed after paying the state $50.00 in late 2011 and early 2012.

    Here is the link to the State's dissertation style response:


    Does this mean that the statute says you can obtain just the name OR just the address but not the name AND the address?
    Last edited by Edward Peruta; 08-03-2013 at 06:22 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    earth's crust
    I would agree with DESPP's brief except for one teeny weeny issue.

    The Permit Board has public meetings. These are open to the public under Chapter 14. Complainant's provide there name and addresses to the public in these meetings. Meeting agendas are issued. And results are made public.

    I would think that the logic in the case Washington Post v. United States Department of Defense, 766 F.Supp.1 (1991) guides one into the conclusion that even if one takes the viewpoint of DESPP then the DESPP position would still fail as this information is already made public by the proceedings themselves, the publishing of agendas and minutes and results by an authoritative source that can be without question providing accurate information.

    And the statue exempts names AND addresses ... once one gives out the names the provision loses veracity.

    And I have several cases pending before the FIC regarding redactions (not DESPP records though) and it shall fail on their claims of privacy. But I also argued in respect to our constitutional right to assemble and I think that the argument may apply to Ed's case too. Why should not one get names and addresses of folks who have gone through a quasi-judicial proceeding for the purpose of forming a political action committee to address or propose changes to the law regarding its operation? A state law certainly cannot negate a federal one.

    And are the Permit Board's records basically "sealed" records upon the board's issuance of an order granting the permit? Seems farfetched. I have not asked for fully adjudicated records that resulted in an issuance of a permit from the board ... perhaps I shall and see what they say. Clearly a litigant before the board should be able to view the case file for hints or tips...people do this in Superior courts every day.

  3. #3
    Regular Member DDoutel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011

    Good Grief!!

    Ed, I'm about 3/4 through reading the response you posted, and to get this far, I've had to drink no fewer than 3 cups of coffee... It's clear that DESPP is doing the very best they can to obfusticate and obstruct your lawful request for the stated information. What is clearly demonstrated here is the "Us vs. Them" mentality fostered by government at every level. This attitude is what leads me to describe myself as a "peaceable" citizen, not a "law-abiding" citizen.
    D. T. Doutel

    What is to the lawyer or cop a "material misrepresentation of the facts", and to the politician "misspeaking" is, in common parlance, a bald-faced lie. And don't let anyone tell you different!

    Visit Connecticut Carry and for the latest news regarding Norwalk v. Doutel and Doutel v. Norwalk.

Posting Permissions

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