Take care in how we make our points

KIX said:

BFPE would be a much more expedient process to getting your permit returned if revoked by law enforcement.

Click to expand...

If there was no suitability, I don't see what their mission statement would be. They only deal in situations of suitability. Other than that, the courts are the remedy.

Hearings are much less formal and not like a court proceeding. No court costs, easier to comprehend for those that have to endure a process without legal experience or the money to hire representation.

Click to expand...

They also hold none of the power of a court.

Unless, you think permits in CT will not be confiscated just because we have suitability.......

Click to expand...

If suitability were to be erased from the laws, the only thing they could revoke for is being a 'prohibited person'. To solve that status, you would have to go through court anyway, at which time your permit would have to returned to you anyway.

Again, does any other state that doesn't have suitability have anything like the BFPE?

They don't only deal with suitability, they deal with revocation as well.

Help me understand how suitability comes into play when a cop takes your permit? They aren't just involved in issuing permits.

They don't have the authority of a court..... agreed. However, there are hundreds of people that have had their permit returned to them after appearing in front of the board. If my time comes, I'd rather deal with the board as it is now than a court. The process is more neutral for those that aren't lawyers and such. Courts are much more rigid.

Not being thick headed here, just trying to understand where you're coming from. Cyberspace is a cold, cold place!

Jonathan

KIX said:

They don't only deal with suitability, they deal with revocation as well.

Click to expand...

What revocation are they dealing with and have authority over that doesn't utilize suitability as the reason for revocation? Either you are being revoked for suitability or because you are a 'prohibited person'. BFPE can only successfully rule on suitability. They cannot reinstate a permit to a 'prohibited person'.

Help me understand how suitability comes into play when a cop takes your permit? They aren't just involved in issuing permits.

Click to expand...

A local police officer in CT may not take your permit to begin with. Only the DPS may revoke a permit.

They don't have the authority of a court..... agreed. However, there are hundreds of people that have had their permit returned to them after appearing in front of the board. If my time comes, I'd rather deal with the board as it is now than a court. The process is more neutral for those that aren't lawyers and such. Courts are much more rigid.

Click to expand...

And if the issuing authority decides to not abide by the BFPE's ruling you will still be going to court.


Regardless, if there was no suitability clause in the law, BFPE wouldn't have anything to do anyway. It is not a matter of whether I like them or not or anything else. It is a matter of they are our only stop gap in a legal area that is flawed because of the suitability clause of the permit process. Take the suitability requirement away and everything becomes less muddy and complicated.

Rich B said:

What revocation are they dealing with and have authority over that doesn't utilize suitability as the reason for revocation? Either you are being revoked for suitability or because you are a 'prohibited person'. BFPE can only successfully rule on suitability. They cannot reinstate a permit to a 'prohibited person'.



A local police officer in CT may not take your permit to begin with. Only the DPS may revoke a permit.

Click to expand...

But it happens often. I've seen cases where someone gets a permit taken by a local LEO. Remember, how many of them think that open carry is illegal. The same guys think they have the right to take your permit with your firearms on sight.

I think it boils down to this.........

We agree on suitability.

i don't think CT will totally put an end to suitability, but I'll never stop trying!

I think I've just seen too much poor law enforcement in this state to think that many of 'em will ever get it right. Maybe it's because of all the stuff I've listened in on when I go to the hearings. Hearing some of these LEOs plead their case is rather interesting.

With all I've been involved with in this state, I just don't see us making the big leap. I think it's going to have to be whittled away bill by bill until we get where we want to be.

Jonathan

On topic

http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/new_haven_cty/ansonia-man-says-comments-misunderstood

KIX said:

But it happens often. I've seen cases where someone gets a permit taken by a local LEO. Remember, how many of them think that open carry is illegal. The same guys think they have the right to take your permit with your firearms on sight.

Click to expand...

That is neither here nor there. They don't have the power to do so. Just because people are not defending themselves against this is irrelevant. It is very similar to open carry in that we already have the law on our side, now we just have to insist on the law being enforced correctly.

I think I've just seen too much poor law enforcement in this state to think that many of 'em will ever get it right. Maybe it's because of all the stuff I've listened in on when I go to the hearings. Hearing some of these LEOs plead their case is rather interesting.

Click to expand...

It is not up to them to change. It is up to us to make them change. Many of the laws are already on our side. Now we just have to make sure the courts enforce the laws correctly.

With all I've been involved with in this state, I just don't see us making the big leap. I think it's going to have to be whittled away bill by bill until we get where we want to be.

Click to expand...

You assume it has to be done legislatively. That is not always how the fight is won.

Rich B said:

http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/new_haven_cty/ansonia-man-says-comments-misunderstood

Click to expand...

Could it be the liberal pos is also a liar who wants to profit from the AZ shooting? Do democraps ever lie? CT is the 'Constitution' state because they have one of the worst records in trampling on it.

Change, I feel will take time.

Given all the legislative testimony I've observed, I don't think we're going to get to suitability the way we would like. I think it's going to take several stabs at legislation to get there.

I think there is a start with the proposed bill that starts to put local issuing authority on the line for the 8 weeks to process paperwork.

Get them to process it on time, then illustrate that they still can't get it right and remove them from the equation. Probably will be DPS issuing. Then work on finally just going shall issue.

I want it, I want it bad. Would be nice to be a real American again!

Jonathan

And on that note....

If anyone from outside Connecticut (in a free State) is reading this, and knows of a company that needs an Information Technology guy with about fifteen years of solid experience, PLEASE send me a private message.

I'm willing to relocate almost immediately at my own expense.

I'm with ya.

I have to wait until my boy is a little older........ but I still dream!

Jonathan

Getting more ridiculous

http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/crime/protective-order-issued-for-lawmaker

I assume that is another step in procedure to make sure the police can keep his weapons for longer...

Unbelievable without having his case tried yet! The confiscation and the protective order are based on simple allegation alone. These are also things that will no doubt wind itself into a database, and will come back to haunt the guy even after an acquittal in court.

Permit to carry, a brady check when buying a firearm. I'd wager red flags will show up.


After having spent the last seven years in Nevada feeling safe with the second amendment situation, this stuff in Connecticut makes me feel like I'm on the front lines of a war.

Tactical9mm said:

Unbelievable without having his case tried yet!

Click to expand...

I wonder how many other people have had a non-domestic protective order issued against them when the only charge is second degree harassment?

Two of the comments at the bottom of that latest link really strike the mark.

"So much for politicians listening patiently to their constituents. This case is obviuosly BS and the cops know it, he wasnt even charged with threatening and had a low bond. Now on the other hand if your a 16 year old hardened drug dealing gang banging thug caught with a handgun because of new laws pushed by people like Martin Looney youll be treated like a juvie and home with momma for dinner ( this according to Lt John Velleca of the NHPD). Liberal Politicians and judges in this state go for the jugular on law abiding gun owners every chance they get and let minority inner city thugs get away literally with murder. Thus they keep gang banging and shooting because they know theyll walk. Great state we have here."

"This guy dared disagree with a progressive. Now the criminals know that this man has less means to defend himself. Say the magic words and "poof" it's a threat. Type a magic word here and "poof" the comment won' appear. Those in charge no longer look for content, but rather buzz words."

The war here does seems fairly obvious. Extremist politicians consistently going after law-abiding firearm owners. The agenda is clearly not about reducing crime, but rather about disarming the law-abiding public. Turning citizens into subjects, one little bit at a time.

Scares the hell out of me.

Real charges this time

http://www.ctnow.com/news/connectic...ity-hall-threat-0409-20110408,0,1201141.story

Real charges of threatening unlike the last case. I notice no mention of confiscation though.

Timing is suspect.

I want to find out if they ran his permit to check his inventory before starting this drama.

Just seems "wonky" to me.

Jonathan

This just caught my eye, and is yet another example of why the 1999 seizure law needs to be challenged in court or repealed.

I don't recall hearing about this in the media or here on this forum.

http://gunowners.org/op04132011.htm