• 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.

Study help needed, workign on ending useless suitability

KIX

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
960
Location
, ,
Hello all,

I am working on a few fronts to end the suitability requirement here in CT. I'm working with a few people on a few issues and compiling data for every town (yep, 169 of 'em) in CT. At least as many as possible.

I can use help from people here on one front.

If you attend CCDL meetings or you are willing to snail mail me, it could help me considerably.

All I need is for people to go down to their local PD or first selectman and ask for a copy of the paperwork needed to obtain a pistol permit.

There are several towns that are asking for extra information above and beyond statutory requirement. We'd like to compile as much of this data as possible going forward.

If you have a scanner and can scan a high quality scan, you can email them to me as well jonathan@ctgunsafety.com

Snail mail address available via PM.

Thanx in advance for any help in this matter, 169 towns is a lot and I need as much help as I can get!

Jonathan
 

KIX

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
960
Location
, ,
So far, Goshen, Middletown and I'll hit a few tomorrow.

I really need the 'Stavens (New, East, North). Problems in all three too!

Jonathan
 

KIX

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
960
Location
, ,
Yep, even if they don't ask for anything extra, the data is useful.

it helps me balance out data based on ALL towns. I prefer to construct an argument based on real data. the anti's way is easier, but, factually deficient.

Thanx!

Again, they can be emailed to be at jonathan@ctgunsafety.com

Jonathan
 

KIX

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
960
Location
, ,
Middletown and New Britain added.

Only about 160 to go!

Jonathan
 

KIX

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
960
Location
, ,
Please do!

I want to make sure I don't do what the "anti's" do and make sure at least my data is factually sound.

Thanx,

Jonathan
 

KIX

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
960
Location
, ,
Midnight, scanned copies are just fine.

Gluegun - thanx. I'll use them to fill in any gaps if needed. Also, they have one added benefit.

Curious if a few of those towns ever took into effect last years January 20 letter to the towns and first selectman.

Any idea when you acquired them? How far did you get on your exercise? What was your purpose? Just curious. My study is two pronged. One for the need for suitability and the other to track towns that are doing extra stuff that isn't required, but being used to deny a permit (that only gets approved by the board anyway).

The preliminary data is interesting. All the towns where issuing authorities ask for additional information are exactly the towns with issues.

Sad that one area, a State LEO is asking for extra information. A statie is not following the states own guidelines!

Jonathan
 

Good Citizen

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
Messages
104
Location
US
Berlin Permit Application

The town of Berlin in their instruction's still ask for 3 reference's, even after the Board Of Firearms Permit Examiners declairatory ruleing was pointed out to the Chief & the Police Commision!:cuss:
 

KIX

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
960
Location
, ,
I read the BFPE ruling as......

"this is what the law states, we can't stop you from asking for other material, but if you use other material as the basis for denial of a permit, we'll overturn it".

Maybe others can comment on that further.

From the few hearings I've attended, they have seemed very fair to the appellant. Further reason to get this suitability crap done and over with. Many towns didn't like the fact that the legislature was looking at even removing the town from the equation. No surprise, the problem towns seemed to be the only ones that testified!

Jonathan
 

gluegun

Regular Member
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
359
Location
Central, Connecticut, USA
Gluegun - thanx. I'll use them to fill in any gaps if needed. Also, they have one added benefit.

Curious if a few of those towns ever took into effect last years January 20 letter to the towns and first selectman.

Any idea when you acquired them? How far did you get on your exercise? What was your purpose? Just curious. My study is two pronged. One for the need for suitability and the other to track towns that are doing extra stuff that isn't required, but being used to deny a permit (that only gets approved by the board anyway).

We started collecting information to find out what towns were requiring extra information. What I sent you was about the extent of it. Not many people were willing to participate by sending information.

I'm not sure when I received them, but the scanned copies were dated in Feb. of 2010. I'm assuming that all the applications/extra requirements were written prior to the Jan. 20th ruling.
 

gluegun

Regular Member
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
359
Location
Central, Connecticut, USA
QUOTE: I read the BFPE ruling as......

"this is what the law states, we can't stop you from asking for other material, but if you require other information without cause and use it as the basis for denial of a permit, we'll overturn it".

Maybe others can comment on that further.
/QUOTE

They stated that police COULD ask for additional information if what they saw on the application warranted further investigation. They could not require that additional information be provided up front.
 

brk913

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2007
Messages
370
Location
Plainville, CT
I read the BFPE ruling as......

"this is what the law states, we can't stop you from asking for other material, but if you use other material as the basis for denial of a permit, we'll overturn it".

Jonathan

The way I read it I understood it to mean that if an applicant refuses to provide this additional information at the time of initial application submission that the issuing authority could not use that refusal as a reason to not process the application or issue a denial. If during their "investigation" into "suitability" something arises that raises questions they can ask for additional information.
 

KIX

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
960
Location
, ,
BRK913 brings up something I'm noticing on forms this week.

Some towns like Middletown was chastised for the way they did their permitting and extra information. Now, they put the word "optional" in front of the request. I just received a Waterbury application from a few months ago that does not mention the word "option". would be nice to see if they deny a person for not having them.

I want to see if they get denied or hold indefinitely the permit until they get their wishes fulfilled.

Methinks I want to follow up on some Waterbury cases and investigate.

I wish I could think of a way for people having issues that don't go to CCDL meetings to notify me so I can assist them with all this BS. I'm finding too many people at gun shops having issues. I like to help, but man..... I think I'm going to make a web site devoted to permitting issues and this study.

Domain name ideas????

Jonathan
dL
 

ZechariahS

New member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
1
Location
CT, USA
I should be at the Bozrah town hall within the next month or so. I will try to remember to get you copies of their paperwork.
 
Top