Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Connecticut Carry - Press Release - Pistol Permit Confidentiality and What It Means T

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

    Angry Connecticut Carry - Press Release - Pistol Permit Confidentiality and What It Means T

    Pistol Permit Confidentiality and What It Means To Connecticut
    The Law Applies Equally

    Hartford CT, December 20, 2013: According to a recent Connecticut Superior Court ruling, the names and addresses of not only permit holders are exempt, but anyone applying for a pistol permit are. Despite arguments to the letter of the law by American News and Information Services, Inc, the FOIC and now Connecticut Superior Court Judge Prescott have decided that the law does not apply as written, but instead a loose interpretation of the law applies. This court decision is being appealed, with Connecticut Carry contributing towards the appeal to try and cement the boundaries of Pistol Permit confidentiality in case law.

    Fortunately, most Connecticut Pistol Permit holders, the bread and butter of Connecticut Carry’s membership, will not be upset by this interpretation at all. In fact, Connecticut Carry is announcing a new public campaign aimed at enforcing these decisions to the letter of the interpretation. The wide reaching ramifications of these decisions will impact many municipalities, the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, the state police and gun owners in the state. Connecticut Carry aims to make sure that the confidentiality of permit holders is applied evenly across the state and according to the law as interpreted by the Freedom of Information Commission and the Connecticut Superior Court.

    To start with, this means that the following restrictions will apply:
    * The Board of Firearms Permit Examiners will need to immediately cease and desist in publishing the roster that they currently publish on their website.
    * Hearings in front of the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners will need to become private affairs where anyone not immediately involved in a case must not be present in the hearing.
    * CT-N and other media sources will no longer be able to record and disseminate board hearings as they have been doing.
    * The Connecticut State Police will need to cease and desist in releasing permit information as they have done in the past.
    * Municipalities will no longer be able to perform ‘suitability investigations’ that include interviewing employers and neighbors like the City of New Haven has been doing for many years now.
    * Police, both in the municipal and in the state capacity will no longer be able to disclose upon arrest that a person was in possession of a pistol permit at the time of their arrest.
    * Police, both in the municipal and in the state capacity will no longer be able to disclose permit statuses over public radio communications, like they currently do.
    * All state agencies will need to redact their releases to make sure that they are not disclosing a permit holder’s name or address information.
    * Media will need to be sure that they are not an accomplice to the crime of releasing such confidential information and disobeying an FOIC ruling.

    As representatives of Connecticut Pistol Permit Holders and the new classes of people that now fall under the same statutory language (‘Assault Weapons’ and ‘Large Capacity Magazines’), Connecticut Carry will be ensuring that these laws are enforced without any preference or exemptions for political classes who bear no exemption under the laws. There will be no quarter given to State Police Detectives and other personnel who knowingly violate these interpretations of the law, especially when their only purpose is to further denigrate permit holders. We have recommended Federal criminal charges in the past and we will not hesitate to pursue all legal means to make sure that future crimes by the state are prosecuted.

    Any disclosure of a person’s name or address that is a Connecticut Pistol Permit Holder or Applicant is a violation of law right now according to the Connecticut Superior Court. Anyone disclosing this kind of confidential information in the future should expect to be the subject of legal actions on behalf of the citizens of Connecticut.
    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:

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    earth's crust
    A terrible decision restricting open access to records and meetings. There already is enough in our FOIA Act to disallow names/addresses of permit holders under the "privacy" exemption in the 29-28 statue.

    Now, no meeting agendas are going to be posted, changing over 30 years of law and violating CGS Sec. 1-225 provisions?

    Logically then, the BFPE meetings must be closed to the public, as you said. But then how can the public know of injustices?

    I prefer open records and meetings ... yes, people will not be happy that their permit status would be disclosed ... maybe then they'll argue for constitutional carry.

    It also appears from the Prescott decision that people who apply and get denied -- their applications are available under FOIA.

    Its a bad ruling that will be overturned. Like the federal driver's license privacy act, once one wishes to contest a ticket and goes to court, the act's privacy provisions evaporate in respect to BFPE meetings.

    So is the privacy meant to cover those that apply without regard to being approved or not or do only those people who get approved have their privacy intact? According to Prescott, only those that get approved are due privacy...

    Oddly, the ruling speaks nothing of open meetings directly ...

    And how is one going to know when a person's application has a final denial decision?

    Its a bad decision that was not well thought out ~ I understand the theory behind it but the legislature has been aware of the statue and, as Prescott noted, has not changed the open meetings or open records provisions of our FOIA Act or other laws...he is legislating from the bench IMO.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 12-23-2013 at 06:14 PM.

Posting Permissions

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