Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: The FOI request for email addresses of "CONNECTICUT FIREARM DEALERS"

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

    The FOI request for email addresses of "CONNECTICUT FIREARM DEALERS"

    For all that may be wondering who made the FOI request for "CONNECTICUT FIREARM DEALERS" EMAIL ADDRESSES, I did!!
    I made the request on July 29th along with several other requests for public records.
    I have been requesting and obtaining large amounts of information regarding firearm and firearm policies in CT for some time.
    The email addresses I requested were on July 29th and are as of today, public records disclosable under FOI.

    Ed Peruta
    edperuta@ctgunrights.com

    The recent events regarding my FOI request have prompted several emails including the one below.

    Governor Dannel P. Malloy and Commissioner Reuben Bradford
    ,


    Please forward this email to Governor Dannel P. Malloy and Mr. Michael Lawlor as it pertains to them also.

    Please provide prompt access to ALL public records whether written, electronic or email regarding your department’s planning, implementation and execution of the email or phone call solicitation for objections to the release of email addresses of “Connecticut Firearm Dealers.

    I also request prompt and timely access to any public records or communications received by and logged into your department since my FOI requests made on July 29th 2013 on the topic explained in this email.

    Given that you have provided an email address where individuals are solicited to send any objections to my FOI request of July 29th, I would like to be provided prompt access to ALL e-mails received at “ dealers@ct.gov ” since July 29th 2013 with particular attention to any emails received which state objections to the release of the requested email addresses.

    You and the members of your department have consistently offered excuses for not being able to provide prompt or timely access to public records, and this campaign to solicit objections is a perfect example of wasted public time and funds in pursuit of a political executive branch agenda to thwart timely access to or copies of public records.

    This campaign is no different than the Executive Branch delay in providing timely information on the Newtown incident.

    This is an example of your EXECUTIVE BRANCH/DESPP campaign to deny prompt access to public records:

    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    From: DPS.MessageCenter@ct.gov <conf-524652625@everbridge.net>
    Date: Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:03 PM
    Subject: Freedom of Information Request
    To: "redacted email addresses"



    To All Retail Dealers

    Please be advised that this office has received a Freedom of Information request to provide email addresses used to contact “Connecticut Firearms Dealers”. This office is mandated to provide these email addresses, however should you have any objections to this request, please email us at
    dealers@ct.gov and provide a detailed explanation as to your objection. We may be able to utilize your explanation in exempting your email address from the request.

    Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter.

    Special Licensing and Firearms Unit





  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Here's my now customary FOIC complaint writing when dealing with DESPP:


    DESPP has engaged in actions that have violated the access to records requirements of the Act, that produced rules or regulations that frustrate the intended goals of the Act, and has engaged in a pattern of conduct with this and other FOIA requests of mine that detail that DESPP simply refuses to comply with the promptness provisions of the Act as well as the access to records provisions of the Act. The Freedom of Information Commission has also noted to DESPP, in previous orders and rulings of the commission, to comply with the Act in previous cases before the FOIC but yet DESPP continues to violate and ignore the Act and to violate the orders of the FIC.

    I therefore request that the FIC make a finding that DESPP has violated several provisions of the Act including:
    1) failure to provide access to records in this request
    2) failed to provide prompt access to records
    3) frustrated the Act by making rules or regulations contrary to the provisions of the Act

    I ask for the following relief:
    1) that copies of the records requested by me be provided free of charge
    2) that civil sanctions be assessed against Reuben Bradford, commissioner of DESPP (address included above) and Ms. Christine Plourde and Ms. Janet Ainsworth of DESPP (both also located at the same business address as Mr. Bradford).
    3) that criminal charges be brought against DESPP personnel pursuant to CGS Sec. 1-240(b) by the commission as the commission deems to be appropriate.


    Feel free to copy/paste these passages.

    Like they're the only a**holes on the block....
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 10-17-2013 at 12:15 AM.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Peruta View Post
    [SIZE=3]For all that may be wondering who made the FOI request for "CONNECTICUT FIREARM DEALERS" EMAIL ADDRESSES, I did[COLOR=#000000][FONT=Calibri][B][SIZE=5]!!
    I also request prompt and timely access to any public records or communications received by and logged into your department since my FOI requests made on July 29th 2013 on the topic explained in this email.

    Given that you have provided an email address where individuals are solicited to send any objections to my FOI request of July 29th, I would like to be provided prompt access to ALL e-mails received at “ [EMAIL="dealers@ct.gov"][FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3]dealers@ct.gov
    It seems as if DESPP is soliciting FFLs to claim a privacy issue on their email addresses that they have provided to DESPP. Ostensibly, these FFLs would then have to go before the FIC at their preliminary hearing to plead such a claim (they should not be able to do this via documentation ~ but the FOIC is a tool for the democrats).

    DESPP does not define what is "prompt" under the Act ... the Act defines it for them. I have ones from June still not answered properly.

    I spoke with a hearing officer (Cliff L.) 2 days ago when I visited the commission to view the 2013-197 and 2010-328 case files (dealing with the OCME and the Sandy Hook shooting records that the OCME has); I also dropped off five notice of appeals regarding DESPP records that they are like a broken record (you're at the "top of the pile"-a statement 3 weeks ago) just saying that they are "working on it". Cliff is an appologist for them .. saying "they're understaffed"..my reply: they have no obligation for their legal dept. to review records responsive to requests...they can just send them out.

    COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Incitement to violence, even when in jest, is not allowed
    Last edited by John Pierce; 10-22-2013 at 11:47 AM.

Posting Permissions

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