Issues about suitability challenges for Shall Issue permits

At the CCDL meeting tonight, we discussed going after the problem of suitability in our state pistol permit system.

In order to be effective, we will need to provide very well reasoned points regarding the issues and we will need to appeal to the people we are presenting this to.

Here are some thoughts:

- How many towns do we have in this state? Approximately 190? Each one is an issuing authority with at least one officer who has the job of issuing permits. Wouldn't eliminating suitability put at least 200 officers back on the streets to deal with actual crime?

- Would the state be able to afford a DMV style license review board? This would be the only other direction things should go to allow people who have been declined or revoked to get their permit, and this will cost a lot of money. How much does it cost the DMV?

- Aren't there cases already in the court system regarding suitability? Why don't we get on board with them and see how we can assist them? Winning against suitability in the courts should be easier than trying to drag legislators onto our side.

More thoughts? Comments? Lets get prepared!

Suitability

Rich,

I believe there are approximately just over 100 law enforcement agencies in CT. I had to send written notice by way of a certified letter to each as part of my Declaratory Ruling case.

There is a scheduled Appellate Court Hearing scheduled for argument on January 4th in Hartford and "SUITABILITY" is part of the argument to be made by Attorney Rachel Baird.

If "SUITABILITY" is removed as a requirement to obtain and retain a permit, the Board of Firearms is no longer necessary, the current backlog disappears and the opinions of local issuing authorities are no longer necessary.

It is obvious by the information and documentation I have acquired in the past four years that "SUITABILITY" is the single biggest factor in almost all of the current firearm problems in CT.

Why can't the legislature simply implement the same procedures for Permits to Carry as those currently in place to obtain an Eligibility Certificate? There are NO SUITABILITY requirements in the Eligibility Certificate application and approval process.

You are 100% correct in your statement that elimination of "SUITABILITY" would put officers and detectives back on the street catching bad guys instead of fingerprinting and investigating those with no record of current DISQUALIFING events.

I look forward to making myself available to any group that begins to do the heavy lifting necessary to advance SHALL ISSUE in CT.

What you really need is the contact information from everyone who is willing to stand up and be counted.

Open a Gmail account and post it on all the message boards and see if you get a good response.

Ed Peruta

My only fear on the topic stems from the political climate we will face over the next two years.

Get rid of the BFPE and the local process...... but at the same time, all our eggs will be in the DPS basket. The very people issuing, can also deny.

I agree with EVERYTHING both of you are saying, but if it doesn't go 100 percent our way, I think things can actually get worse.

Though, as Rich knows, I'm more than willing to be the fly in the ointment of issuing authorities in trying to ascertain issues with the permitting process or illegal stops by LEO's.

Jonathan

KIX said:

The very people issuing, can also deny.

Click to expand...

Not if we remove the suitability requirement.

No lose proposition

As the song goes, there are 169 towns in Connecticut. But as Ed said, probably many of them don't have an officer dedicated full-time to permit issues. And the towns will likely argue that making it an entirely State permit would require more State police dedicated to permit issues, though I fail to see how that could be.

KIX, I see your point about possibly getting rid of the BPFE but not getting rid of suitability, however it's suitability that the CCDL is going after. The BPFE's departure would be a side-effect of removing the suitability requirement. If there is no suitability requirement, then the only reason someone could lose or be denied a permit is because they don't meet the Federal standards for owning a firearm, which for the most part means they've committed certain felonies. At that point, it's effectively out of the State's hands, whether someone can have a permit or not, which is basically what we mean by "shall issue". If you're eligable for a permit, you get one for the asking, and if you're not, you don't.

Of course, the State could make the permit process much more costly and onerous, which I'm expecting the incoming administration to try anyway. Or they could try the classic Corrupticut tactics like "we didn't get/lost your paperwork" or "we don't feel like complying with our own laws" or "we interpret the law to mean something totally nonsensical", but as I said, that's the sort of thing to expect from the incoming administration anyway, and that will be just as easy or hard to shoot down whether we have a BPFE or not.

In a shall-issue environment, you'd lose your permit only if convicted in court. Same as you would in our current environment, except that you wouldn't also lose your permit if you do something legal which the BPFE members disagree with, such as locking your gun in your car.

I don't think there's any real downside, except that we'll have to spend a lot of effort and extra time to get this done than we would if we had an administration which liked to obey the law.

Again, I agree with suitability and shall issue.

I'm just not being selectively myopic here.

We focus on the suitability and shall issue as it sits in front of us, I just don't see it at least during the next couple of years and especially with Malloy.

Regarding the officers on the streets argument..... I think very few towns actually use "streetworthy" cops to handle the processing. My interview, printing and such was done by an administrative assistant that not only didn't know the law, but couldn't tell how a notarized document should look (she swore that it had to have an embossed seal on it).... silly town employee.......

*****

Back to our normally scheduled discussion.....

I seriously think that we can indeed shoot for the moon. I also think with the current climate, when we miss, we won't even be near the stars when we miss........

I will, do all I can in the fight though.

Jonathan

Definition of “Suitability” & “Cause” by Connecticut Court CGS 29-32

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).



SUITABILY IS A JOKE!

Can "A LOT" of letters of reference make you suitable, if no statue bars you???

They certainly will help, on an appeal under alot of circumstances, as they establish your reputation in the community!


Letters of reference


VIGNERI v. BOARD OF FIREARMS PER. EXMR., No. CV 96 056 04 86 (Apr. 22, 1997)
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
MALONEY, J.

One board member, for example,
stated, "character references are essentially worthless because
no one's ever seen a bad one, so don't strain too much over
reviewing them."

In its brief to the court in opposition to the plaintiff's
appeal, the board cites Smith's Appeal from County
Commissioners, 65 Conn. 135 (1884), as authority for its
definition of "suitable" as applied to the gun permit laws. That
case holds:

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 tan activity) which the law regards as so
dangerous to public welfare that its
transaction by any other than a carefully
selected person duly licensed is a criminal
offense. (Emphasis added.)

This rule, which has endured for more than one hundred years,
obviously required the board to consider evidence beyond that
pertaining to the single isolated incident, which, the court
notes, did not involve the use or display of a gun. The board
apparently agreed and accepted the double hearsay statements of
Patrick Prue concerning the plaintiff's alleged threat to him
about a year prior to the incident at his house. But the board
adamantly rejected the plaintiff's attempts to introduce
testimony favorable to her character and reputation and
denigrated the written evidence that it did allow.


FARMINGTON v. BD. OF FIREARMS PER. EXMR., No. CV 95-0550258S (Feb. 23, 1996)
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
DYER, J.

With respect to the requirement for three letters of
character reference, Farmington maintains that this condition is
a tool which aids police in their statutorily mandated (General
Statutes § 29-29) investigation of an applicant's suitability
to carry firearms.

Suitabilty does nothing to protect more so than shall issue states. Statistic's dont lie!