Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: This was unnecessary

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

    This was unnecessary

    RETURN DATE:
    JANUARY 11, 2011: SUPERIOR COURT

    CONNECTICUT BOARD
    OF JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD

    FIREARMS
    PERMIT EXAMINERS

    V.

    GERALD D. NAROWSKI, CHIEF OF :


    POLICE FOR THE TOWN OF DERBY :
    POLICE DEPARTMENT



    DECEMBER 8,2010
    VERIFIED COMPLAINT SEEKING

    APPLICATION FOR


    WRIT OF MANDAMUS


    1.
    This petition and complaint is presented and brought pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 29-32b(e).


    2.
    The plaintiff is the State of Connecticut Board of Firearms Permit Examiners and is an agency within the Department of Public Safety for administrative purposes only, pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes §29-32b(a), to inquire into and determine
    facts, de novo, whether there is just and proper cause to deny or revoke a permit to carry a pistol.


    3.
    The defendant is Gerald D. Narowski, and is Chief of Police, Town of Derby
    Police Department.


    4.
    On January 8, 2009, the defendant denied Mr. Stanley A. Angel a permit to carry
    pistols and revolvers.


    5.
    On May 4, 2009, Mr. Stanley A. Angel appealed the decision of the defendant.


    6.
    In accordance with Connecticut General Statutes 29-32b(b), the plaintiff held a hearing on May 25, 2010 to determine whether the defendant has just and proper cause to deny Mr. Stanley A. Angel a permit to carry pistbls and revolvers.


    7.
    At the hearing, the defendant failed to submit any evidence demonstrating the unsuitability of Mr. Stanley A. Angel.



    8.
    On May 25, 2010, pursuant to Section 29-32b of the Connecticut General Statutes, the plaintiff voted to order the defendant to issue Mr. Stanley A. Angel a pistol permit to carry pistols and revolvers.


    9.
    A memorandum of decision was sent to plaintiff on June 23, 2010 in which the defendant was ordered to issue Mr. Stanley A. Angel a pistol permit to carry pistols and revolvers.


    10.
    The defendant has neglected or refused to comply with the decision of the plaintiff within ten days of having received the decision.


    11.
    The decision of the plaintiff was not appealed by the defendant, in accordance
    with C.G.S. §4-183.


    12.
    Having failed to appeal the decision of the plaintiff, the defendant has a ministerial, statutory duty to comply with the plaintiff's order and issue a permit to Mr. Stanley A. Angel.


    13.
    The defendant continues to refuse to comply with the decision of the plaintiff despite repeated attempts by the Office of the Attorney General to resolve the issue prior to filing application for writ of mandamus.


    PRAYER
    FOR RELIEF



    1. Issue a writ of mandamus compelling the defendant to issue Mr. Stanley







    ________________________ A. Angel a pistol permit to carry
    pistols-and-revolvers.________________________________________ ___________________________



    PLAINTIFF,



    BOARD OF FIREARMS PERMIT EXAMINERS
    Last edited by Edward Peruta; 03-15-2011 at 02:16 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    104

    ?? Why was the PD Compled not to Comply ??

    ????????????????????????Why did the Derby PD, defy the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners and Rufuse to work with the Attorney General's office, & go to such great lengths to do so[SIZE="4"]????????????????????????????????????????????????[/SIZE]

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Goldsboro, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    91
    ..sooooo the guys was denied, for apparently no reason? or the reason being there the chief just didnt show up to present it...then im assuming he was busy during those 10 days and just didnt get to the guys permit.....?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Norwalk, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    265
    I'm curious how such dereliction of duty by a sworn officer and refusal to abide by a court decision is not a criminal offense. Is it not a crime to ignore a court decision?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Plainville, CT, ,
    Posts
    120
    It's completely ridiculous that it even has to come to this. The town police should have no part in issuing a STATE granted right.

  6. #6
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    This is why I'm working on the suitability mess.

    However, the bill that may become law, requiring 8 weeks is a step in the right direction..... sorta.

    At least, this will be a law. But, I dunno what would really happen if a chief didn't comply.... I doubt they'll end up in jail!

    Jonathan
    www.ctpistolpermitissues.com - tracking all the local issuing authority, DPS and other insanity with permit issues
    www.ctgunsafety.com - my blog and growing list of links useful to gun owners (especially in Connecticut).

    Rich B: My favorite argument against OC being legal in CT is "I have never seen someone OC in CT".
    I have never seen a person drink tea from a coke bottle while standing on their head, that doesn't mean it is illegal.

  7. #7
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by AGust82 View Post
    It's completely ridiculous that it even has to come to this. The town police should have no part in issuing a STATE granted right.
    Sorry to be nit-picky but that's recognized, and poorly at that. States and governments do not grant rights, they encumber them.
    Last edited by sharkey; 03-17-2011 at 02:33 AM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    Not really nit picky, IMHO.

    I hear all to often people that think rights are GRANTED. They are rights for a reason..... they are inherent.

    The more the authorities keep making you think you have to ask permission, the "grant" ideology seems to settle in peoples minds.

    Jonathan
    www.ctpistolpermitissues.com - tracking all the local issuing authority, DPS and other insanity with permit issues
    www.ctgunsafety.com - my blog and growing list of links useful to gun owners (especially in Connecticut).

    Rich B: My favorite argument against OC being legal in CT is "I have never seen someone OC in CT".
    I have never seen a person drink tea from a coke bottle while standing on their head, that doesn't mean it is illegal.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Old Saybrook, CT
    Posts
    469
    I'm new to this whole discussion, but please let me know if I've got this right.

    The chief refuses to issue a permit even though the BFPE ordered him to do so 2 years ago.

    Where has this left the original applicant?? Without a permit for 2 years?

    Or were there other administrative ways around this??

    What will the punishment be against the chief?
    I doubt the BFPE will go for financial renumerations.

    I'm kindof confused here.

    one other question. Am I correct that if the BFPE orders a chief to issue and refuse, there is no other way to get an applicant a permit??

    Don

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    17
    Bbb
    Last edited by RR917; 04-06-2016 at 08:42 AM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Leverdude View Post
    I'm curious how such dereliction of duty by a sworn officer and refusal to abide by a court decision is not a criminal offense. Is it not a crime to ignore a court decision?
    Contempt. But a writ of Mandamus is the usual remedy in these circumstances. If that is not followed, sanctions will be taken by the court.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    OK the writ was submitted Dec 2010 and signed Jan 11, 2011.

    It is now March 15, 2011. Does this poor guy have his permit yet?
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Norwalk, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    Contempt. But a writ of Mandamus is the usual remedy in these circumstances. If that is not followed, sanctions will be taken by the court.
    What sort of "sanctions"? My point is, imo, the officer should face criminal charges. I think a large part of our problem is that we treat LEO as above the law. They should be subject to the same laws & restrictions the reszt of us are. In this case he is denying a persons civil rights and his ability to defend himself. At the very least immediate irreversible termination would be apropriate.

    On another note our LEO personell should be made to obtain & maintain pistol permits on their own dime just like the rest of us as well. Often they are still going to work every day & carrying a gun after instances that would have us regular guys disarmed.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Leverdude View Post
    What sort of "sanctions"? My point is, imo, the officer should face criminal charges. I think a large part of our problem is that we treat LEO as above the law. They should be subject to the same laws & restrictions the reszt of us are. In this case he is denying a persons civil rights and his ability to defend himself. At the very least immediate irreversible termination would be apropriate.

    On another note our LEO personell should be made to obtain & maintain pistol permits on their own dime just like the rest of us as well. Often they are still going to work every day & carrying a gun after instances that would have us regular guys disarmed.
    Sanctions for contempt can be fines or jail. For an attorney, it could be disbarment. Barry Bonds's trainer has been in jail for a long time because he refuses to testify against him, for example. Charge? Contempt of Court.

Posting Permissions

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