Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Suggestion to All Connecticut Permit holders

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

    Post imported post

    AM I THE ONLY PERMIT HOLDER WITH QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FIREARMS LAWS IN CONNECTICUT?

    The system in Connecticut has played games with many individuals who've asked reasonable questions for many years. Maybe it's time to turn up the heat.

    IN THE PAST TWO YEARS I HAVE HEARD FROM MANY INDIVIDUALS WHO WANT ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

    It's NOW time for the State to answer!!!

    They can use the increase in permit fees tohire people to answer our questions.

    As you all may already know, I filed a request for Declaratory Judgement with the courts back in 2008. The state has dragged their feet on my request an fought me at every level.

    I only asked three simple questions.

    One of the reasons they gave which prompted the dismissal of my motion in Superior Court is the fact that I didn't exhaust my administrative remedies. They believe I should have asked the Commissioner of Public Safety for a Declaratory Ruling.

    Shame on him and the Attorney from the AG's office, The Commissioner has no authority enforce his opinion on local law enforcement or University Police Departments and surely can't issue orders or reprimands JUST BECAUSE HE SAYS SO.


    I AM TIRED OF THE ARROGANT ATTITUDE OF THE TOP BRASS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, AND THINK IT'S TIME THEY WERE FORCED TO RESPECT US AS LAW ABIDING PERMIT HOLDERS.

    Soooooo...... I believe that an organized individual approach may be necessary.

    I have put together an outline of my thoughts, and believe that if a standardized Administrative Request for Declaratory Ruling form was made available to everyone that wants answers to firearm questions, it may get their attention if everyone submitted individual requests to the agencies that have the authority over their personnel.

    The need to draft and use multiple choice generic REQUESTS FOR DECLARATORY RULINGS.

    FACTS:
    [/b]
    We know that the Commissioner of Public Safety[/b] has no administrative jurisdiction over policies, practices and actions of local police departments or their sworn officers and cannot issue declaratory rulings which are binding on members of law enforcement outside DPS.

    We know that local a local Chiefs of Police[/b] or their departments have no jurisdiction over the policies, practices and actions of sworn members of the Department of Public Safety or other law enforcement agencies outside their departments and cannot issue declaratory rulings which are binding on members of other law enforcement agencies.

    We know that the Connecticut Police Officers Standards and Training Council[/b] has no day to day administrative jurisdiction over policies, practices and actions of sworn police officers operating in their respective Private, State or Local departments or agencies and cannot issue declaratory rulings which are binding on members of law enforcement in Connecticut outside their own agency.

    We know that the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners[/b] has by regulation the authority to render Declaratory Rulings but is without jurisdiction or authority regarding the day to day policies, practices and actions of sworn police officers operating in their respective Private, State or Local departments or agencies.

    We know that the office of the Chief States Attorney[/b] has little or no jurisdiction over the policies, practices and actions of sworn members of the Department of Public Safety or other law enforcement agencies outside their agency and cannot issue declaratory rulings which are binding on members of other outside law enforcement agencies.

    We know that the office of the Attorney General[/b] has the right to render formal legal opinions with little or no jurisdiction over the day to day policies, practices and actions of sworn members of the Department of Public Safety or other law enforcement agencies, but could issue a declaratory rulings which would apply to all sworn members of law enforcement in Connecticut.

    We know that the Connecticut Judicial Department[/b] (the courts), have the right to render formal binding Declaratory Rulings that carry the authority of the court only after all[/b] administrative remedies have been exhausted. The effect of having to exhaust all [/b]administrative remedies in this particular situation creates the need to seek multiple declaratory rulings across a number of jurisdictions from a variety of state and local agencies to assure that ALL[/b] administrative remedies have been exhausted in each individual agency and jurisdiction where sworn officers apply the statutes in question .

    POSSIBLE SOLUTION:
    [/b]
    A generic request for a declaratory ruling with a multiple choice selection of agencies to submit to together with a multiple choice of common questions and issues to be submitted to each individual agency could be drafted.

    The generic request for a Declaratory Ruling with a multiple choice list of questions could then be personalized as to the individual making the request and submitted to one or more state agencies by the individual seeking clarification of one or more provisions of the law.

    Due the problems with determining the effect and authority to mandate compliance with a declaratory ruling by any one particular agency, it may be necessary to submit duplicate requests to several different agencies to properly assure the actual authority of each agency and who the declaratory ruling would be applicable to is addressed.

    Declaratory Ruling :
    [/b]

    Who has the authority to establish a common understanding of the laws regarding firearms statutes and how they are applied in Connecticut?[/b]

    There are multiple state and local government agencies with varying types of authority regarding firearm laws and regulations.

    THE CONNECTICUT LEGISLATURE[/b]Has the undisputed authority to legislate any needed supplemental or correcting legislation if needed to clarify any ambiguity or confusion in state firearm statutes.
    [/b]
    No single agency listed below possesses the authority or jurisdiction to mandate uniform understanding and/or enforcement of Connecticut State Statutes as they pertaining to firearms except a court of law.

    [/b]DPS[/b] - Issues, denies, renews, revokes and seeks at risk warrants when appropriate. Has the authority to issue declaratory rulings to Department of Public Safety Personnel ONLY[/b]

    Local Issuing Authorities[/b] issue Temporary 60 day State Permits, deny initial 60 day State Permits, revoke permits they issue, and request revocation of 5 year State Permits. Have the authority to issue declaratory rulings to members of their departments ONLY[/b]

    Various local or special law enforcement agencies[/b] with arrest powers often stop, confront, detain, arrest and seek at risk warrants regarding permit holders. Have the authority to issue declaratory rulings to members of their departments ONLY

    Office of the Chief States Attorney[/b] – Approves warrants and prosecutes individuals arrested for firearm related charges whether the charge is correct or not. May have the authority to issue declaratory rulings to Department of Public Safety Personnel ONLY

    CONNECTICUT HUMAN RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES (CHRO) AS THE PARENT AGENCY OF THE CONNECTICUT BOARD OF FIREARMS PERMIT EXAMINERS[/b] – The Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, upholds or overturns decisions to deny or revoke Permits to carry or limitations placed on same. The Board, as a part of CHRO effective October 1, 2009, has the limited authority to issue declaratory rulings on specific issues and topics that are within their jurisdiction.

    THE CONNECTICUT ATTORNEY GENERAL[/b] - Has the authority to issue OFFICIAL [/b]legal opinions to explain and clarify state firearm laws to state and local government agencies and every individual who possesses a permit to carry, purchases or possesses a firearm or is empowered to enforce the law and arrest individuals in the State of Connecticut.

    THE CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT[/b] – Is the only state agency that has the authority to issue clear and concise rulings to explain and clarify state firearms law(s) to state and local government agencies and every individual who possesses a permit to carry, purchases or possesses a firearm in the State of Connecticut.

    THE FEDERAL COURTS[/b] – Has the authority to compel proper enforcement of laws that are being enforced in a manner that deprives individuals of equal treatment or enforcement.

    QUESTIONS THAT SEEM RIPE FOR REVIEW AND DECLARATORY RELIEF:
    [/b]


    1. Open or Concealed Carry of a firearm by an individual while I possession of a valid permit to do so.

    2. Confiscation of Valid Permits by Local Law Enforcement Agencies during an any incident or arrest for a non disqualifying crime or infraction.[/b]

    3. Where firearms may be carried by individuals with Valid Permits to Carry.

    4. At Risk Warrants and the need to apply for and possess the at risk warrant prior to the non criminal seizure of firearms.

    5. The effect of securely stored firearms (owned by others) in a home occupied by a person that is the subject of an active at risk warrant.[/b]

    6. The possession of firearms by a non felon who lives in a home with a convicted felon if the weapons are secured and not accessible to the felon who cohabitates with the owner.[/b]
    [/b]
    7. Identification Requirements to obtain or renew permits to carry pistols or revolvers[/b]

    [/b]8. Fees charged as part of applications and Eligibility requirements to exercise the constitutional right to possess handguns in a private residence including any requirements to purchase the handgun for use in the home.[/b]


    9.[/b]Application Residency requirements for those that have more than one residence[/b]
    [/b]
    10. Additional information as part of the standard application process or a Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers or an Eligibility Certificate.[/b]

    [/b]11. Proof of U.S. Citizenship or any type of identification to purchase a firearm for storage or use in the home of the purchaser for self defense under the provisions of theU.S. and State Constitutions.[/b]


    If you desire an answer to one or more of these questions, pleasecontact me and let me know. I am prepared to have anAttorneyDraft a multiple choice Administrative Request for a Declaratory Judgement where you will be able toselect the topics you want explained.

    It is my understanding that State Agencies have a set periodof time to render a decision on any requests made and if they fail to respond, or you don't like theexplanation, you can go to court on an appeal.

    If you are interested in getting answersto Connecticut related questions, pleasecontact me at edperuta@amcable.tv and Iwill send you the generic multiple choice document via email when it is ready.







  2. #2
    Regular Member Lenny Benedetto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    VP of CCDL, Inc., ,
    Posts
    470

    Post imported post

    Ed,

    When it is complete please email it to me. LTBENEDETTO@HOTMAIL.COM
    I can send it out as a mass email to all members of the CCDL, Inc.

    Thanks

    Lenny

    Any word on the results of our trip to NYC?
    The Connecticut Citizens Defense League is a non-partisan, grassroots organization devoted to advocating rights affirmed by the Constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Connecticut. We are especially dedicated to protecting the unalienable right of all citizens to keep and bear arms, for the defense of both self and state, through public enlightenment and legislative action.
    Join Here: http://www.ccdl.us/membership

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    No word on New York, but I'm sure the State heard the panel loud and clear on the length of delay and what they said in the Spinelli Case.

    I was also shocked that the Assistant AG who was presenting the State's case did not answer the courts question on carrying openly in CT.

    Did you catch it?

    I think that CCDL is a very good way to get people to ask questions.

    There was a court conference in Waterbury Friday and the State doesn't seem interested in settling the appeal in my Declaratory Judgement case.

    We offered to drop the appeal if the Commissioner would answer the three quesitons. OH WELL.

    If Declaratory Rulings, as they claim, should be made to the Commissioner of Public Safety, I think everyone with questions shoud have the tools to do so.

    Expect a draft declartory request with these multiple choice issues.

    QUESTIONS THAT SEEM RIPE FOR REVIEW AND DECLARATORY RELIEF:

    [/b]1. Open or Concealed Carry of a firearm by an individual while I possession of a valid permit to do so.

    2. Confiscation of Valid Permits by Local Law Enforcement Agencies during an any incident or arrest for a non disqualifying crime or infraction.[/b]

    3. Where firearms may be carried by individuals with Valid Permits to Carry.

    4. At Risk Warrants and the need to apply for and possess the at risk warrant prior to the non criminal seizure of firearms.

    5. The effect of securely stored firearms (owned by others) in a home occupied by a person that is the subject of an active at risk warrant.[/b]

    6. The possession of firearms by a non felon who lives in a home with a convicted felon if the weapons are secured and not accessible to the felon who cohabitates with the owner.[/b]
    [/b]
    7. Identification Requirements to obtain or renew permits to carry pistols or revolvers[/b]

    [/b]8. Fees charged as part of applications and Eligibility requirements to exercise the constitutional right to possess handguns in a private residence including any requirements to purchase the handgun for use in the home.[/b]


    9.[/b]Application Residency requirements for those that have more than one residence[/b]
    [/b]
    10. Additional information as part of the standard application process or a Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers or an Eligibility Certificate.[/b]

    [/b]11. Proof of U.S. Citizenship or any type of identification to purchase a firearm for storage or use in the home of the purchaser for self defense under the provisions of theU.S. and State Constitutions.[/b]



  4. #4
    Regular Member Lenny Benedetto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    VP of CCDL, Inc., ,
    Posts
    470

    Post imported post

    Edward Peruta wrote:
    I was also shocked that the Assistant AG who was presenting the State's case did not answer the courts question on carrying openly in CT.

    Did you catch it?
    YES WE ALL DID!! We talked about it at lunch.
    He answered WITHOUT answering the question. That guy has a big future as a politician...Never answering the question asked!!!!
    The Connecticut Citizens Defense League is a non-partisan, grassroots organization devoted to advocating rights affirmed by the Constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Connecticut. We are especially dedicated to protecting the unalienable right of all citizens to keep and bear arms, for the defense of both self and state, through public enlightenment and legislative action.
    Join Here: http://www.ccdl.us/membership

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Central, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    359

    Post imported post

    Clearly there wasn't a reason to answer. Goldberg had a gun! What more do you need to say?



  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    The court was asking the state whether or not open carry was legal in CT.

    The fact that Mr Goldberg was carrying a firearms has never been in dispute.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Central, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    359

    Post imported post

    I realize that. I was referring to the Assistant Attorney General. The main point he seemed concerned with was the mere fact that Goldberg had a gun, not it's manner of carry.

    I liked how the center judge started to call the Assistant Attorney General on the fact that he back pedaled after stating that open carry was legal. I wish that had been pursued.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Stratford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    646

    Post imported post

    I'm sure the transcripts of the hearing once they become available will make for some interesting reading.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Lenny Benedetto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    VP of CCDL, Inc., ,
    Posts
    470

    Post imported post

    Hopefully, we will at least hear of the courtsdecision soon...anticipation is killing me!!
    The Connecticut Citizens Defense League is a non-partisan, grassroots organization devoted to advocating rights affirmed by the Constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Connecticut. We are especially dedicated to protecting the unalienable right of all citizens to keep and bear arms, for the defense of both self and state, through public enlightenment and legislative action.
    Join Here: http://www.ccdl.us/membership

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    Anyone can write a letter to the Second Circuit Court and Request a transcript of what was said. Each case is $26.00 or $52.00 for both Kuck and Goldberg because they were combined and heard together.

    I'm sure there are many Connecticut Permit holders interested in what was said and the expected decsion.



Posting Permissions

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