• 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.

Recently filed APPEAL regarding SUITABILITY and THE USE OF ERASED RECORD INFORMATION

Edward Peruta

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
1,247
Location
Connecticut USA
This appeal was filed today by Attorney Rachel Baird of Torrington, CT on behalf of her Client.

It is simple to the point and refreshing.
 
Last edited:

Edward Peruta

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
1,247
Location
Connecticut USA
Added TIMELY informaiton

I posted this information recently, but with the appeal filed by Attorney Rachel Baird, it seems like a good time to post the informaiton again in this area.

Disqualifying events/factors vs. Suitability



With the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in McDonald v. Chicago, the use of “SUITABILITY” to determine who gets or keeps a Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers in Connecticut will be challenged in the courts. The arbitrary and capricious manner in which “SUITABILITY” is determined will certainly be examined in depth BY THE LEGISLATURE AND/OR THE COURTS.

Everyone needs to take a very close look at how “SUITABILITY” intentionally or not, is used and abused by public employees and officials in determining who gets to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

I for one have committed my time and a great amount of financial resources to defend my second amendment rights, and ask everyone who reads this document to do likewise.


I’m asking everyone who supports firearm rights to do some research and find at least one National and one State organization that advocates and fights to defend our collective right to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

Once you find a National and State organization, I ask that you commit a small but continuing amount of money to support their activities on a monthly basis.


The reason I suggest support for both a National and State organization is because most National Organizations do not have the time or resources to get state specific in their activities. On the other hand, State level organizations tend to target state specific issues and spend most of their time and financial resources in the state where they are located.


The issue that I believe needs to be discussed and challenged in Connecticut is “SUITABILITY”.


I’VE TAKEN THE TIME TO PUT MY THOUGHTS IN WRITING FOR EVERYONE TO READ.


In Connecticut decisions to issue, renew, or revoke Permits to Carry Pistols and Revolvers are based exclusively on two factors, those being, Disqualifying events/factors and Suitability:

Currently Permits to Carry are decided on Disqualifying events/factors and/or Suitability nothing more and nothing less.

To understand the two factors, one must first understand what they are.


Disqualifying events/factors


Disqualifying events/factors are widely published, established and understood at the Federal and State level, and easily determined and understood by most individuals. The clear understanding of disqualifying events and factors prevents public employees or members of the public from misunderstanding exactly what they are and arriving at different conclusions as to who is or is not a disqualified person.

You either are or are not a disqualified person when applying for or possessing a permit to own or carry a firearm based on the well established written lists of disqualifying, events or factors.

Most if not all disqualifying factors can be found by a local state or national criminal history records check or a search of various government databases which are available and used by Federal, State and local issuing authorities.

Suitability

Suitability on the other hand has been and is based on a variety of unpublished undefined factors, and is currently determined in an arbitrary and capricious manner by individual employees and/or the issuing authorities who are authorized by law to make determinations of a person’s suitability.

A voluminous amount of hard copy and electronically stored public records currently exist which demonstrate when and how suitability has been determined, and offer undisputable evidence of the extremely differing determinations on suitability even when based on similar circumstances.

Unlike disqualifying factors/events, the public records available clearly show that determinations of a person’s suitability have been, (and currently are), affected by a wide variety of personal, political and other beliefs which have in the past, (and will in the future), result in a wide range of differing determinations using the same set of facts.

Example 1, Individuals may have their application denied because they failed to correctly answer a question on the application, therefore creating the situation where they are considered an unsuitable person because they signed a notarized document with incorrect information.

The actual crime of signing an incorrect notarized statement is NOT a disqualifying crime and can easily be overcome by submission of a corrected application.

Example 2, Individuals may have a permit renewal rejected because they refuse to provide additional information requested by issuing authorities. The refusal to provide additional information results in a de facto determination of the right to possess a valid permit to carry based only on the issuing authorities belief that failure to supply the additional information makes the current permit holder an unsuitable person.

The possession of the valid permit to carry should be considered prima fascia evidence that all appropriate information is currently on file for the renewal of the permit and that the person was and is suitable to obtain a renewal.

Example 3, Individuals who legally carry their weapon(s) openly or concealed, have been and may still become the subject of a revocation action following an arrest for such crimes as Breach of Peace, Disorderly Conduct or other non disqualifying charge(s) simply because someone has seen the legally carried weapon call the police and complained about being upset or alarmed.

Charges and/or convictions for Breach of Peace or Disorderly Conduct are NOT disqualifying events, and do not disqualify a person from applying for or obtaining a permit to carry.

Yet certain individuals who possess the authority to deny or revoke permits, (depending on the jurisdiction where you make application), use non disqualifying arrests and convictions as the basis to consider an individual unsuitable.

The ramifications of using “SUITABILITY” as a required factor in obtaining or possessing a Permit to Carry a Pistol or Revolver must end in order to protect the equal rights of every individual who is otherwise qualified to possess and carry a firearm for self defense.

Now if you choose, take the time to read this appeal brief that was recently filed in the Connecticut Appeallate Court.
 

KIX

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
960
Location
, ,
This state needs to become a shall issue state. Meeting all the requirements and still being denied is simply wrong.

Jonathan
 

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
This state needs to become a shall issue state. Meeting all the requirements and still being denied is simply wrong.

This state needs to become a constitutional carry state. Permits are useless and wrong.

Remember, we are 'the constitution state' after all. And our state constitution agrees with the second amendment. Shouldn't we have been leading the way?
 

KIX

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
960
Location
, ,
No doubt. But if we can't even agree on open carrying and such........

I agree, you shouldn't have to ask permission for a right..... but there is precedent. How about holding a protest?

Not saying it's right...... I'm just sayin'.......
 

KIX

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
960
Location
, ,
Not really a protest, but an awareness event.

It is amazing how much non-gun owners don't understand.

I'm not thinking a G8 summit style protest....... just more of an awareness event of sorts.

We talk about these issues amongst ourselves, but we need more support outside our ranks as permit and suitability certificate holders.

Jonathan
 

KIX

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
960
Location
, ,
Educating the public about what is legal and what is not.

It is amazing not only the misconceptions that non permit holders believe to be a reality, but our elected officials as well.

Combined with legislation sure to make it's way on the federal and state government this year, it's better to be proactive before misconceptions continue to get media attention and we are stuck backpedaling out way to getting the record straight.

Like the "what are we not agreeing" on above. Rich, you, the members of this form and myself agree on topics related to carrying and such in this state. The general public, however, has no clue.

Hell, even many safety course instructors still continue to say open carrying is illegal. I took another course last year with my mother and many still think that it's illegal.

We have groups of interested parties, organized now in this state. It would be a shame to not use the available talent and start educating the public about what is and what isn't legal.

Jonathan
 

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
Educating the public about what is legal and what is not.

It is amazing not only the misconceptions that non permit holders believe to be a reality, but our elected officials as well.

Combined with legislation sure to make it's way on the federal and state government this year, it's better to be proactive before misconceptions continue to get media attention and we are stuck backpedaling out way to getting the record straight.

Like the "what are we not agreeing" on above. Rich, you, the members of this form and myself agree on topics related to carrying and such in this state. The general public, however, has no clue.

Hell, even many safety course instructors still continue to say open carrying is illegal. I took another course last year with my mother and many still think that it's illegal.

We have groups of interested parties, organized now in this state. It would be a shame to not use the available talent and start educating the public about what is and what isn't legal.

Jonathan


I am still not clear on what you are proposing. How do we educate these people further? I think we are doing a pretty good job already.

I still say one of the best ways I can come up with educating people about open carry is to do it everyday.

If the suggestion is things like open carry trash pickups and stuff, I am not really for it. Open carry picnics? I don't see the point.

Just carry how you are comfortable everywhere (that is legal) and everyday. Always be polite and professional and be willing to talk to people and educate them.

I am open to suggestions, propose some.
 

KIX

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
960
Location
, ,
For starters.... rallies.

Every time there is a law proposed that goes against 2A rights, we need to make our opinions heard.

EVERY TIME there is an issue with a local town/municipality, we need to do the same thing. The more we are out in public, and actually talking about 2A rights, handing out flyers to those interested helps educate the general citizenry that may not exercise their 2A rights.

CCDL flyer is a great example, I've had a lot of people ask me for the pamphlet and read it and then find out that they didn't know HALF of what was in there.

Better representation in the mass media. The NRA is great at this at a national level, but we don't really have ANY real strong representation at the state level (as seen by recent article in the Hartford Courant).

Community outreach.

Look at all the fairs and such going on in this state, would be great to have booths at these fairs and show videos, hand out pamphlets and build interest. Part of this could be handing out literature at these events with an invitation to join (sponsoring group) at a range for an "intro to firearms" type of event. Might be a good stepping stone for instructors to get more people in classes.

While I'm at it, more instructors need to promote activism (even if only for five minutes) in their programs. I have talked to a couple of people, new to firearms, that think there is NO threat to their 2A rights.

There are several ways to do this, this is just a start to what could be a good discussion on building up the ranks of 2A support in CT.

Jonathan
 

Johnny W

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
60
Location
CT
One on one

Educate the public by being the level headed, intelligent, well mannered gun owner friend who knows the laws and politely informs them about their misconceptions. Maybe one of those friends will be someone who can influence the so called leadership in this state.

And pass out Is That Legal flyers.
 

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
Educate the public by being the level headed, intelligent, well mannered gun owner friend who knows the laws and politely informs them about their misconceptions. Maybe one of those friends will be someone who can influence the so called leadership in this state.

And pass out Is That Legal flyers.

This.
 

Recon Marine

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2010
Messages
27
Location
Hartford County, Soviet Union
Definition of “Suitability” & “Cause” by Connecticut Court CGS 29-32

CRANE v. CHAIRMAN (of BOFE), No. CV98 0058024S (Aug. 25, 1999)
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
DYER, J.

[fn4] A partial definition of the word "cause" in Ballentine's
Law Dictionary (Third Edition, 1969) is ". . . that which
supplies a motive; that which decides action or constitutes the
reason why anything is done."

The applicable statutes do not specifically define the terms
"cause" and "suitable." Within the context of its usage in C.G.S.
29-32, the court interprets "cause" to mean a valid reason
justifying the action taken by the board.[fn4] The word
"suitable," as it applies to license holders, was given the
following meaning by one Connecticut Court:

"A person is `suitable' who by reason of his character — his
reputation in the community, his previous conduct as a
licensee — is shown to be suited or adapted to the orderly
conduct of a business which the law regards as so dangerous
to public welfare that its transaction by any other than a
carefully selected person duly licensed is made a criminal
offense." Smith's Appeal from County Commissioners,
65 Conn. 135, 138 (1894).

"General Statutes 29-28 through 29-38 clearly indicate a
legislative intent to protect the safety of the general public
from individuals whose conduct has shown them to be lacking the
essential character or temperament necessary to be entrusted with
a weapon." Rabbit v. Leonard, 36 Conn. Sup. 108, 115-116,
413 A.2d 489 (1979); Dwyer v. Farrell, 193 Conn. 7, 12-13 (1984).
(Internal quotation marks omitted). "The facts found by the board
should show or provide a logical inference that a person poses
some danger to the public if allowed to carry a weapon outside of
the home or business." Fellows v. Board of Firearms Permit Examiners,
(Maloney, J.), Judicial District of Hartford, CV 960558357,
(February 7, 1997), citing Storace v. Mariano, 35 Conn. Sup. 28
,
33 (1978).
 

Recon Marine

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2010
Messages
27
Location
Hartford County, Soviet Union
?Arrest without Conviction?

WEND v. BD. OF FIREARMS PERMIT EXAM., No. CV92-051 86 55 (May 28, 1993)
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
MALONEY, J.

In the present case, the agency included in its findings
the fact that the plaintiff was arrested for breach of peace,
larceny 6th and possession of drug paraphernalia. Although it
CONCEDES in its brief to the court that mere arrest without
conviction cannot be the basis of license revocation, it is not
at all clear that the agency observed that principle in
determining that the plaintiff is "unsuitable." Indeed, the
prominence given to the fact of the plaintiff's arrest on three
criminal charges strongly suggests otherwise.


All Connecticut agencies must follow the law, specifically and get their powers from those laws granted by legislature.


FARMINGTON v. BD. OF FIREARMS PER. EXMR., No. CV 95-0550258S (Feb. 23, 1996)
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
DYER, J.
Connecticut's municipalities have no inherent legislative
authority, and can wield only those powers expressly granted to
them by the legislature. Poprosky v. Shea, 21 Conn. App. 351, 355
(1990); Simons v. Canty, 195 Conn. 524, 530 (1985); Capalbo v.
Planning and Zoning Board of Appeals, 208 Conn. 480, 490 (1988).
"It is a well settled law that as a creation of the state, a
municipality has no inherent powers of its own . . . and that a
municipality possesses only such rights and powers that have been
granted expressly to it by the state or that are necessary to
discharge its duties and carry out its objectives and purposes."
Blue Sky Bar, Inc. v. Stratford, 203 Conn. 14, 19 (1987).

In the instant case, the Plaintiffs act pursuant to state
statute as the issuing authority for local pistol permits. As the
legislative history cited in the Defendant's brief suggests, it
is clear that the General Assembly intended that there be
uniformity among the state's cities and towns with respect to the
applications for, and issuance of, these permits. In promulgating
standardized procedures for the granting of local gun permits,
the Legislature clearly attempted to strike a balance between the
constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, and the
vital public safety concern that only responsible citizens be
CT Page 1331-D
allowed to carry lethal weapons.
 
Top