• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

"suitability" question

C

ctfireman

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
80
Location
Bridgeport, Connecticut, USA
imported post

Until researching recently, i wasn't aware of the whole "suitability" thing here in CT. Now just for a bit of background i've never been in trouble with the law besides a few traffictickets as a teenager, nothing serious. If i passed the 14 day wait/background check for long guns (multiple times)is it a safe assumption that i should be approved for my permit? I meet all the criteria as far as no felony convictions or any of the 11 misdemeanors, no mental hospital, restraining orders, etc.....absolutely nothing. I've just been reading about alot of BS stories & was wondering what you guys think.
 
G

GoldCoaster

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
646
Location
Stratford, Connecticut, USA
imported post

Suitability is a tough thing to prove, if you had any disqualifying things in your past the state will deem you a prohibited person. You don't.

Unless you've pissed off the police chief then really it's a rubber stamp as far as suitability goes. If they do deny you (and I doubt they will) you can appeal to the SFLU and if that goes your way then you get the state carry permit anyway and Beepo can pound sand.
 
G

gluegun

Regular Member
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
359
Location
Central, Connecticut, USA
imported post

GoldCoaster wrote:
If they do deny you (and I doubt they will) you can appeal to the SFLU and if that goes your way then you get the state carry permit anyway and Beepo can pound sand.
Click to expand...
Point of clarification: You appeal to the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners which exists under DPS solely for administrative purposes as defined by statute. BFPE is not in any way run by DPS.
 
G

GoldCoaster

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
646
Location
Stratford, Connecticut, USA
imported post

Yeah used the wrong acronym, we've gotten almost as many acronyms in this arena as I do in my daily work as an IT person!

BFPE - Board of Firearm Permit Examiners (Volunteer board conducting hearings)
SFLU - Special Firearms Licensing Unit (part of DPS)

The BFPE are a good bunch of people judging from what we've seen/heard of their work via Ed's reports and recordings and such.
 
L

Leverdude

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
265
Location
Norwalk, Connecticut, USA
imported post

GoldCoaster wrote:
Yeah used the wrong acronym, we've gotten almost as many acronyms in this arena as I do in my daily work as an IT person!

BFPE - Board of Firearm Permit Examiners (Volunteer board conducting hearings)
SFLU - Special Firearms Licensing Unit (part of DPS)

The BFPE are a good bunch of people judging from what we've seen/heard of their work via Ed's reports and recordings and such.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the DPS trying to rid itself of the board last year?
 
G

GoldCoaster

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
646
Location
Stratford, Connecticut, USA
imported post

But from something we saw coming down from Bob Crook's group they are trying it again. We can't have impartial or pro-2nd amendment folks deciding the fate of the plebians pistol permits can we!
 
D

dynotime

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
19
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

SB28 came down from the Governors office.
This is the Bill to get rid of the Permit Board. As our
Governor is not running this year she just does not care about the Second Amendment and never did.
 
L

Leverdude

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
265
Location
Norwalk, Connecticut, USA
imported post

I'm not sure our governor should be concerned with the second amendment. She is a state official & state legislation is restricted in this matter by our own state constitution which has more direct & irrefutable language on our gun rights. Few of them wish to discus it but its very clear that every citizen of the state of CT has a right to bear arms in defense of himself & the state. Bear means carry so I cant see how our carry laws are remotely legal. Perhaps if we were truly "shall issue" but we are not.
 
D

dynotime

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
19
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

Sir while in theory you are correct, but just look at all the restrictions that are put on people so they cannot own a firearm or just all the road blocks that are in place to discourage someone from applying for there (so called Right).

So yes the states and the Fed's says you have the right.... but then go's on to say unless this, this, this, or that or this or that. So do we really have the right to own firearms?
Well only if they say it is ok. If we truly had the Right to own firearms then
everyone Must have this So called Right.

Not just the few that the federal gov or the state gov say's it is ok for you to own a firearm but not for this person. IF something can be taken from you, you never had the Right in the first place.

This Whole subject is just like the TV commercial with the little girl and her Bike in the RED Rectangle. The Man goes on to say to the girl you can ride your bike but only in the red Rectangle, the Rectangle is no bigger than the Bike itself. What kind of right is that? (The Girl and the Bike) is the Second Amendment, the man is the Federal gov and the state gov all in one telling the girl to stay in the red area.
This Red Rectangle gets smaller and smaller every day. Just follow the NRA ILA site and you will see every day that someone tries to make it harder and harder to own a firearm, soon if you get a Traffic ticket you might loose your so called right to own a gun. The sad part of this is that it only takes one time that a restrictive laws goes into place and it stays there for ever.

We keep trying to stop Restrictive laws but once in is passed we loose another so called Right.

Now on the Reality side of this, yes there are some people that should never own a firearm. But who draws the line in the sand and why does the line keep moving?

This is just a personal view on this topic, I will always defend the Second Amendment but as you all know it just get's harder and harder every day.
 
L

Leverdude

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
265
Location
Norwalk, Connecticut, USA
imported post

dynotime wrote:
Sir while in theory you are correct, but just look at all the restrictions that are put on people so they cannot own a firearm or just all the road blocks that are in place to discourage someone from applying for there (so called Right).

So yes the states and the Fed's says you have the right.... but then go's on to say unless this, this, this, or that or this or that. So do we really have the right to own firearms?
Well only if they say it is ok. If we truly had the Right to own firearms then
everyone Must have this So called Right.

Not just the few that the federal gov or the state gov say's it is ok for you to own a firearm but not for this person. IF something can be taken from you, you never had the Right in the first place.

This Whole subject is just like the TV commercial with the little girl and her Bike in the RED Rectangle. The Man goes on to say to the girl you can ride your bike but only in the red Rectangle, the Rectangle is no bigger than the Bike itself. What kind of right is that? (The Girl and the Bike) is the Second Amendment, the man is the Federal gov and the state gov all in one telling the girl to stay in the red area.
This Red Rectangle gets smaller and smaller every day. Just follow the NRA ILA site and you will see every day that someone tries to make it harder and harder to own a firearm, soon if you get a Traffic ticket you might loose your so called right to own a gun. The sad part of this is that it only takes one time that a restrictive laws goes into place and it stays there for ever.

We keep trying to stop Restrictive laws but once in is passed we loose another so called Right.

Now on the Reality side of this, yes there are some people that should never own a firearm. But who draws the line in the sand and why does the line keep moving?

This is just a personal view on this topic, I will always defend the Second Amendment but as you all know it just get's harder and harder every day.
Click to expand...

Nothing like that appears in the state or American Constitution. Its all simple illegal infringement that the citizenry has chosen to tolerate.

If the constitutions are limitations on legislation, and they are, then any legislation violating them is illegal.

Its very hard to decide who can & who cant have a gun based on conjecture and thats what is being attempted. My opinion? Those who are free have a right to bear arms.
Violent criminals belong in prison & people truly mentally handicapped shouldn't. By truly mentally handicapped I mean just that. Not someone who used to see a shrink or suffered depression. If a person is capable of taking care of themselves they should have their rights respected.
 
L

Leverdude

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
265
Location
Norwalk, Connecticut, USA
imported post

dynotime wrote:
your Statement any one that's Free, Meaning not locked up or in a Mental Hospital?
I agree 100%.
Click to expand...

More or less. There are many mentally handicapped people not locked up but who cannot care for themselves. Many are in the care of family etc. They would be the only acceptable exception that I could think of. I have a cousin who is mentally retarded. He is not capable of careing for himself and would pose a danger with a gun, mostly to himself but doesnt need to be locked up. He cant drive or vote either. Rational mature judgment would make this easy, its a shame most politicians in general seem to lack that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top