FMJ
Regular Member
imported post
Saw this on one of the other sites:
Interesting. I recently spoke to the lawyer that is handling the matter of Reveron v. Board of Firearms Permit Examiners. It is a very interesting case. Mr. Reveron is approximately 30 years old and late in 2004 after serving in Iraq he retired as a Sargeant of the U.S. Army. Shortly after returning to the states, Mr. Reveron obtained a carry permit. In March of 2005 Mr. Reveron was in New Haven, carrying concealed while accompanied by three friends. Approximately midnight they decided to leave New Haven and return home. Mr. Reveron was the front seat passenger in the vehicle. When he got into the seat he removed his holstered firearm from his belt and placed it in his lap.
When the driver attempted to maneuver the onto a roadway the path was blocked by a pedestrian. The driver asked the pedestrian (aka "suspect") to move, at which time the suspect stated in a loud voice while reaching into his back wasteband area, "I'm gonna kill all ya suckers." Mtr. Reveron drew his firearms and stated, "Show me your hands, show me your hands." The suspect then showed his hands and noting that there was no firearm in the possession of the suspect, Reveron re-holstered his firearms and placed it in his lap. The driver proceeded to the edge of the parking lot, and while waiting for a break in traffic, the suspect approached the vehicle, on the passenger side. The driver, attempting to commiserate with the suspect, put down the window next to Reveron, attempting to apologetically shake the hand of the suspect. When the window decended, the suspect dove into the vehicle and after wresting with Reveron, over the firearm, the suspect successfully stole the Mr. Reveron's firearm. Reveron immediately reported the theft to the New Haven authorities, and cooperated in identifying the suspect who was arrested about a month later. About threee weeks after cooperating with the police investigation, Mr. Reveron received a letter from the state police telling him that his permit had been revoked.
Mr. Reveron appealed the revocation and finally received a hearing date of September 11, 2008. Yes, in excess of three years after the revocation. At the hearing, he represented himself. He left after the hearing and did not stay to watch deliberations. During deliberations the BOard originally voted in a tie (which SHOULD mean that he won his appeal) BUT, in this case, the Chairman of the board "claimed"that he did not know what to do with a tie, the state police (illegally) interjected into the deliberation process, and eventually one of the board members CHANGED their vote against Mr. Reveron. (It is important to not that the Board did not fault Mr. Reveron for pulling his firearm on the suspect, their siding with the state is solely because Mr. Reveron's gun was stolen).
The lawyer that I spoke with was in attendance that night and he witnessed the travesty that I imparted above. Following the hearing he contacted Mr. Reveron and told him what ACTUALLY happened at the hearing after he left. He offered to represent Mr. Reveron pro bono because he was so appalled at what he had witnessed.
Anyway, the appeal to the Superior Court was thereafter filed. In April or so of 2009 Mr. Reveron's lawyer showed up at the New Britain Superior Court and argued his case against the Attorney assigned by the Attorney General's office.
During the argument, Reveron's lawyer pointed out to the court that in 2007 our legislature passed a statute trhat says that if your gun is lost or stolen that you have to report it with (I think) 72 hours BUT, the statute also says that if you do not do that, for the first offense, your permit SHALL NOT be revoked.
Well, as expected in this no gun rights state, the judge ignored the statute, and ruled for the Board.
BUT then, the lawyer found out some interesting facts about that judge. First, that the judge worked full-time at the Attorney General's office for about 10 years; Second, that the "asssigned attorney" and the judge both were working at the AG's office at the same time; Third, that the judge is known on the AG's official state website, as the "Unofficial Historian" of the AG's office, having published the history of the office as lately as 2007. Apparently NONE of this information was disclosed to Reveron's attorney,and clearly there is some kind of problem here. Reveron's lawyer immediately filed a motion to have this judge vacate his ruling and remove himself from the case. This motion was denied by that same judge.
This lawyer told me that yesterday he filed an appeal of this matter to the Connecticut Supreme Court. It will be interesting. Just wanted you to know that not all lawyers are bad seeds. There are some that actually fight for our 2nd Amendment Rights, and some of them do it not to be paid, but rather because it is right.
Saw this on one of the other sites:
Interesting. I recently spoke to the lawyer that is handling the matter of Reveron v. Board of Firearms Permit Examiners. It is a very interesting case. Mr. Reveron is approximately 30 years old and late in 2004 after serving in Iraq he retired as a Sargeant of the U.S. Army. Shortly after returning to the states, Mr. Reveron obtained a carry permit. In March of 2005 Mr. Reveron was in New Haven, carrying concealed while accompanied by three friends. Approximately midnight they decided to leave New Haven and return home. Mr. Reveron was the front seat passenger in the vehicle. When he got into the seat he removed his holstered firearm from his belt and placed it in his lap.
When the driver attempted to maneuver the onto a roadway the path was blocked by a pedestrian. The driver asked the pedestrian (aka "suspect") to move, at which time the suspect stated in a loud voice while reaching into his back wasteband area, "I'm gonna kill all ya suckers." Mtr. Reveron drew his firearms and stated, "Show me your hands, show me your hands." The suspect then showed his hands and noting that there was no firearm in the possession of the suspect, Reveron re-holstered his firearms and placed it in his lap. The driver proceeded to the edge of the parking lot, and while waiting for a break in traffic, the suspect approached the vehicle, on the passenger side. The driver, attempting to commiserate with the suspect, put down the window next to Reveron, attempting to apologetically shake the hand of the suspect. When the window decended, the suspect dove into the vehicle and after wresting with Reveron, over the firearm, the suspect successfully stole the Mr. Reveron's firearm. Reveron immediately reported the theft to the New Haven authorities, and cooperated in identifying the suspect who was arrested about a month later. About threee weeks after cooperating with the police investigation, Mr. Reveron received a letter from the state police telling him that his permit had been revoked.
Mr. Reveron appealed the revocation and finally received a hearing date of September 11, 2008. Yes, in excess of three years after the revocation. At the hearing, he represented himself. He left after the hearing and did not stay to watch deliberations. During deliberations the BOard originally voted in a tie (which SHOULD mean that he won his appeal) BUT, in this case, the Chairman of the board "claimed"that he did not know what to do with a tie, the state police (illegally) interjected into the deliberation process, and eventually one of the board members CHANGED their vote against Mr. Reveron. (It is important to not that the Board did not fault Mr. Reveron for pulling his firearm on the suspect, their siding with the state is solely because Mr. Reveron's gun was stolen).
The lawyer that I spoke with was in attendance that night and he witnessed the travesty that I imparted above. Following the hearing he contacted Mr. Reveron and told him what ACTUALLY happened at the hearing after he left. He offered to represent Mr. Reveron pro bono because he was so appalled at what he had witnessed.
Anyway, the appeal to the Superior Court was thereafter filed. In April or so of 2009 Mr. Reveron's lawyer showed up at the New Britain Superior Court and argued his case against the Attorney assigned by the Attorney General's office.
During the argument, Reveron's lawyer pointed out to the court that in 2007 our legislature passed a statute trhat says that if your gun is lost or stolen that you have to report it with (I think) 72 hours BUT, the statute also says that if you do not do that, for the first offense, your permit SHALL NOT be revoked.
Well, as expected in this no gun rights state, the judge ignored the statute, and ruled for the Board.
BUT then, the lawyer found out some interesting facts about that judge. First, that the judge worked full-time at the Attorney General's office for about 10 years; Second, that the "asssigned attorney" and the judge both were working at the AG's office at the same time; Third, that the judge is known on the AG's official state website, as the "Unofficial Historian" of the AG's office, having published the history of the office as lately as 2007. Apparently NONE of this information was disclosed to Reveron's attorney,and clearly there is some kind of problem here. Reveron's lawyer immediately filed a motion to have this judge vacate his ruling and remove himself from the case. This motion was denied by that same judge.
This lawyer told me that yesterday he filed an appeal of this matter to the Connecticut Supreme Court. It will be interesting. Just wanted you to know that not all lawyers are bad seeds. There are some that actually fight for our 2nd Amendment Rights, and some of them do it not to be paid, but rather because it is right.