Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Raising fees...again?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    771

    Post imported post

    From CT Gun Rights dot com

    http://www.ctgunrights.com/03.Politi...-30%20fees.pdf

    Sorry if this has already been brought up...but it looks like they plan on raising the fees again to $100???
    States donít have rights. People do.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910

    Post imported post

    mrjam2jab wrote:
    From CT Gun Rights dot com
    Why the obfuscation?

    http://ctgunrights.com

    I am sure he won't mind the traffic.
    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: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

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

    Post imported post

    I thankALLvisitors to http://www.ctgunrights.com and want to say that these proposals were solicited by DPS from all departments in late summer.

    I could be that the legislative decision to double the fees makes the suggested increase moot.

    I can't be sure of what will or will not make it through the OPM and Governor's process, but felt it was important to let everyone know what was sent to OPM by DPS.

    Everything may change now that the Governor has said she will not be running for another term.

    IT'S GOING TO BE A VERY INTERESTING ELECTIONIN 2010 BECAUSE THE U.S. SUPREME COURT WILL HAVE HEARD AND RENDERED THEIR RULING IN THE CHICAGO CASE BY THE END OF JUNE 2010.

    FIREARMS ADVOCATES WILL GET A CHANCE TO ATTEND ELECTION APPEARANCES AND ASK THE CANDIDATES THEIR POSITION ON FIREARMS.



  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    771

    Post imported post

    Rich B wrote:
    mrjam2jab wrote:
    From CT Gun Rights dot com
    Why the obfuscation?

    http://ctgunrights.com

    I am sure he won't mind the traffic.
    For some reason i had some issues posting the clickable link for the document...kept getting the url brackets etc...I changed that one to "dot com" so i could tell which was which....:quirky
    States donít have rights. People do.

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

    Post imported post

    Actually, the fee proposed was $150 plus the FBI background check fee. $50 to local authority, 100 to DPS. $30 of that amount goes back to DPS and the other $70 is put into the general fund.

    If they want to raise fees, I have no problem making $50 go to the local authority and $30 directly to DPS while the general fund gets nothing. That's a net increase of $10 (11%) and both DPS and local authority get more money. Much more reasonable than increasing the fees 134%.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Stratford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    646

    Post imported post

    gluegun wrote:
    Actually, the fee proposed was $150 plus the FBI background check fee. $50 to local authority, 100 to DPS. $30 of that amount goes back to DPS and the other $70 is put into the general fund.

    If they want to raise fees, I have no problem making $50 go to the local authority and $30 directly to DPS while the general fund gets nothing. That's a net increase of $10 (11%) and both DPS and local authority get more money. Much more reasonable than increasing the fees 134%.
    I have a problem with being charged what is now rather a large amount of money to exercise a basic right as defined in the US and CT constitution. They need to be stopped, and pushed back into their boxes and hard.

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

    Post imported post

    GoldCoaster wrote:
    gluegun wrote:
    Actually, the fee proposed was $150 plus the FBI background check fee. $50 to local authority, 100 to DPS. $30 of that amount goes back to DPS and the other $70 is put into the general fund.

    If they want to raise fees, I have no problem making $50 go to the local authority and $30 directly to DPS while the general fund gets nothing. That's a net increase of $10 (11%) and both DPS and local authority get more money. Much more reasonable than increasing the fees 134%.
    I have a problem with being charged what is now rather a large amount of money to exercise a basic right as defined in the US and CT constitution. They need to be stopped, and pushed back into their boxes and hard.
    I agree. But if all DPS wants is $30/permit to administer the program, we could eliminate the towns all together leaving the total cost of obtaining a permit at $30+19.25(fbi check) = $49.25. I'm sure we could all agree to that.

    My previous statement was simply an "If we have to increase the fees, here's what we should do" sort of thing. It was meant to be a reasonable increase, rather than prohibitive.

    Of course, this is all predicated on the assumption that we must have some sort of permit process. I'd rather move to a VT style system.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    Don't lose track of the reason for fee increases. The State spends too much money on BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I for one wouldn't be against fee increases if the state was going to open a dozen more public shooting ranges with the fee increases.

    The problem is, it is about taking money from the haves and giving it to the have nots.



Posting Permissions

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