Because DESPP and Trooper Mattson are 'pro gun', right?

I remember being told by various forum members that people think that Trooper Barbara Mattson is 'pro-gun' and that the SLFU is overall good on guns. I cannot personally vouch for any or all of the members of SLFU or the DESPP, but I do want to share some history and a look at what is going and has gone on.

Read this:
http://www.ctgunrights.com/00.Docs/00.ct.docs/Hall Document.pdf

This is a retirement letter from retired Trooper Douglas Hall. Someone I can vouch for being a 'good guy'. He is now an attorney in private practice. If you want to know what I personally think of him, I would consider hiring him as my attorney second only to my current attorney (Attorney Rachel Baird). In fact, he was involved in my lawsuit against Wallingford.

He knew Mattson was a nightmare for the unit, although he seemed to meter his wording appropriately for his ongoing professional career. Mattson is out of control and has been threatening firearms owner with arrest for nothing. She has been revoking permits for years for things that are not even remotely illegal. She has also been making extrajudicial 'deals' with permit appellants, but had no problem turning around and bringing a suit against the BFPE for doing the same thing.

Notice in the letter that Douglas Hall references former Trooper Hatfield as another good resource. He is a resource we lost along with Dawn Hellier. Both also retired from the DESPP to pursue 'other careers'.

It is no surprise that the good troopers are being driven out at an increasing rate and that the ones who are anti-rights are being left behind. Make no mistake, this is a coordinated effort.



This is just a preview of some of the things Connecticut Carry is honed in on with regards to our rights in Connecticut. You absolutely need to be involved in, subscribed to and, hopefully, supporting our efforts. No one else is even talking about these issues, nevermind actually actively engaging them. We know people are excited about other efforts in our state. But don't get locked into putting all your eggs in one basket. That is how we ended up where we currently are. This fight needs to grow and adapt dynamically.

http://www.ctcarry.com/Join

http://www.ctcarry.com/Donate

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...wful-conduct-in-the-SLFU-by-Detective-Mattson

same subject matter ...

She's a wacky one .... one can see videos of her giving testimony before our legislature ... not only is she wacky, she's also an idiot (seems to be a prerequisite for a state job...oh, and being a democratic donor) has limited knowledge of firearms nor of the reason why we have them...

The way to deal with a governmental official run amok is to sue them in their official capacity whenever they attempt to act outside their authority. Without a good on-call lawyer (these things happen in days), you're kind of on your own. That takes money...and a lot of people don't want to spend it. A judge can do a lot of things that you wouldn't believe, like fashion relief that preserves your rights while allowing the gov't to do what it has to do...or stop a crazy official from bullying citizens.

Way too much narrow thinking on this forum...if you don't hit back in the courts, you'll continue to have your rights trampled. We all know that the administrative remedies are cheaper and sometimes effective, so that's where people go. All you need to get in front of a judge is an official who has acted outside their statutory authority...which relieves you of the duty to handle things administratively (as opposed to judicially). One thing government officials hate is having the courts decide the limits of their authority. TROs, Mandamus, Orders to Show Cause etc....all useful tools.