• 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.

I am thinking about applying for my Handgun/Pistol Permit: Need Advice

brk913

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2007
Messages
370
Location
Plainville, CT
Where is it illegal to discuss this? Statute? Would be helpful in basing an argument on this in the future.

Suitability or not they cannot use any information from an arrest that was adjuducated under the statutes you quoted yourself earlier in this thread, bringing up any of these incidents is a violation of the erasure statutes (I know, it's not like LEO follow the statutes anyway but they are supposed to), a civil suit can arise from the disclosure or discussion of such erased records, it's worded in the below statutes, ".:

"Upon the entry of such an erasure order, all references including arrest, complaint, referrals, petitions, reports and orders, shall be removed from all agency, official and institutional files. The persons in charge of such records shall not disclose to any person, except the subject of the record, upon submission of satisfactory proof of the subject's identity in accordance with guidelines prescribed by the Chief Court Administrator, information pertaining to the record so erased."

"Upon the entry of such an erasure order, all references including arrest, complaint, referrals, petitions, reports and orders, shall be removed from all agency, official and institutional files. The persons in charge of such records shall not disclose to any person, except the subject of the record, upon submission of satisfactory proof of the subject's identity in accordance with guidelines prescribed by the Chief Court Administrator, information pertaining to the record so erased. "

"such records shall be deemed erased by operation of law and the clerk or the person charged with the retention and control of such records shall not disclose to anyone their existence or any information pertaining to any charge so erased"

These above statement from the below statutes include the actual officer who made the arrest as well as court officers and all records departments. Just speaking about it is a violation of the statute even if it is just personal knowledge of the case. I worked for the Judicial Branch for 13 years in Parole, Bail and both Juvenile and Adult Probation, we are clearly instructed that once the erasure takes place we cannot speak of the erasure, the case, the arrest, the investigation or anything leading up to it.



"Sec. 46b-146. (Formerly Sec. 51-327). Erasure of police and court records. Whenever any child has been convicted as delinquent, has been adjudicated a member of a family with service needs or has signed a statement of responsibility admitting to having committed a delinquent act, and has subsequently been discharged from the supervision of the Superior Court or from the custody of the Department of Children and Families or from the care of any other institution or agency to whom the child has been committed by the court, such child, or the child's parent or guardian, may file a petition with the Superior Court. If such court finds (1) that at least two years or, in the case of a child convicted as delinquent for the commission of a serious juvenile offense, four years have elapsed from the date of such discharge, (2) that no subsequent juvenile proceeding or adult criminal proceeding is pending against such child, (3) that such child has not been convicted of a delinquent act that would constitute a felony or misdemeanor if committed by an adult during such two-year or four-year period, (4) that such child has not been convicted as an adult of a felony or misdemeanor during such two-year or four-year period, and (5) that such child has reached eighteen years of age, the court shall order all police and court records pertaining to such child to be erased. Upon the entry of such an erasure order, all references including arrest, complaint, referrals, petitions, reports and orders, shall be removed from all agency, official and institutional files, and a finding of delinquency or that the child was a member of a family with service needs shall be deemed never to have occurred. The persons in charge of such records shall not disclose to any person information pertaining to the record so erased, except that the fact of such erasure may be substantiated where, in the opinion of the court, it is in the best interests of such child to do so. No child who has been the subject of such an erasure order shall be deemed to have been arrested ab initio, within the meaning of the general statutes, with respect to proceedings so erased. Copies of the erasure order shall be sent to all persons, agencies, officials or institutions known to have information pertaining to the delinquency or family with service needs proceedings affecting such child. Whenever a child is dismissed as not delinquent or as not being a member of a family with service needs, all police and court records pertaining to such charge shall be ordered erased immediately, without the filing of a petition. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the court from granting a petition to erase a child's records on a showing of good cause, after a hearing, before the time when such records could be erased."

Sec. 54-76o. Erasure of police and court records of youthful offender. Whenever any person has been adjudicated a youthful offender and has subsequently been discharged from the supervision of the court or from the care of any institution or agency to whom he has been committed by the court, all police and court records pertaining to such youthful offender shall be automatically erased when such person attains twenty-one years of age, provided such person has not subsequent to being adjudged a youthful offender been convicted of a felony, as defined in section 53a-25, prior to attaining such age. Youthful offender status shall not be deemed conviction of a crime for the purposes of this section. Upon the entry of such an erasure order, all references including arrest, complaint, referrals, petitions, reports and orders, shall be removed from all agency, official and institutional files. The persons in charge of such records shall not disclose to any person, except the subject of the record, upon submission of satisfactory proof of the subject's identity in accordance with guidelines prescribed by the Chief Court Administrator, information pertaining to the record so erased. No youth who has been the subject of such an erasure order shall be deemed to have been arrested ab initio, within the meaning of the general statutes, with respect to proceedings so erased. Copies of the erasure order shall be sent to all persons, agencies, officials or institutions known to have information pertaining to the proceedings affecting such youth.

Sec. 54-142a. (Formerly Sec. 54-90). Erasure of criminal records. (a) Whenever in any criminal case, on or after October 1, 1969, the accused, by a final judgment, is found not guilty of the charge or the charge is dismissed, all police and court records and records of any state's attorney pertaining to such charge shall be erased upon the expiration of the time to file a writ of error or take an appeal, if an appeal is not taken, or upon final determination of the appeal sustaining a finding of not guilty or a dismissal, if an appeal is taken. Nothing in this subsection shall require the erasure of any record pertaining to a charge for which the defendant was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect or guilty but not criminally responsible by reason of mental disease or defect.

(b) Whenever in any criminal case prior to October 1, 1969, the accused, by a final judgment, was found not guilty of the charge or the charge was dismissed, all police and court records and records of the state's or prosecuting attorney or the prosecuting grand juror pertaining to such charge shall be erased by operation of law and the clerk or Upon the entry of such an erasure order, all references including arrest, complaint, referrals, petitions, reports and orders, shall be removed from all agency, official and institutional files. The persons in charge of such records shall not disclose to any person, except the subject of the record, upon submission of satisfactory proof of the subject's identity in accordance with guidelines prescribed by the Chief Court Administrator, information pertaining to the record so erased. provided nothing in this subsection shall prohibit the arrested person or any one of his heirs from filing a petition for erasure with the court granting such not guilty judgment or dismissal, or, where the matter had been before a municipal court, a trial justice, the Circuit Court or the Court of Common Pleas with the records center of the Judicial Department and thereupon all police and court records and records of the state's attorney, prosecuting attorney or prosecuting grand juror pertaining to such charge shall be erased. Nothing in this subsection shall require the erasure of any record pertaining to a charge for which the defendant was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect.

(c) (1) Whenever any charge in a criminal case has been nolled in the Superior Court, or in the Court of Common Pleas, if at least thirteen months have elapsed since such nolle, all police and court records and records of the state's or prosecuting attorney or the prosecuting grand juror pertaining to such charge shall be erased, except that in cases of nolles entered in the Superior Court, Court of Common Pleas, Circuit Court, municipal court or by a justice of the peace prior to April 1, 1972, such records shall be deemed erased by operation of law and the clerk or the person charged with the retention and control of such records shall not disclose to anyone their existence or any information pertaining to any charge so erased, provided nothing in this subsection shall prohibit the arrested person or any one of his heirs from filing a petition to the court or to the records center of the Judicial Department, as the case may be, to have such records erased, in which case such records shall be erased.

(2) Whenever any charge in a criminal case has been continued at the request of the prosecuting attorney, and a period of thirteen months has elapsed since the granting of such continuance during which period there has been no prosecution or other disposition of the matter, the charge shall be construed to have been nolled as of the date of termination of such thirteen-month period and such erasure may thereafter be effected or a petition filed therefor, as the case may be, as provided in this subsection for nolled cases.

(d) (1) Whenever prior to October 1, 1974, any person who has been convicted of an offense in any court of this state has received an absolute pardon for such offense, such person or any one of his heirs may, at any time subsequent to such pardon, file a petition with the superior court at the location in which such conviction was effected, or with the superior court at the location having custody of the records of such conviction or with the records center of the Judicial Department if such conviction was in the Court of Common Pleas, Circuit Court, municipal court or by a trial justice court, for an order of erasure, and the Superior Court or records center of the Judicial Department shall direct all police and court records and records of the state's or prosecuting attorney pertaining to such case to be erased.

(2) Whenever such absolute pardon was received on or after October 1, 1974, such records shall be erased.

(e) (1) The clerk of the court or any person charged with retention and control of such records in the records center of the Judicial Department or any law enforcement agency having information contained in such erased records shall not disclose to anyone, except the subject of the record, upon submission pursuant to guidelines prescribed by the Office of the Chief Court Administrator of satisfactory proof of the subject's identity, information pertaining to any charge erased under any provision of this section and such clerk or person charged with the retention and control of such records shall forward a notice of such erasure to any law enforcement agency to which he knows information concerning the arrest has been disseminated and such disseminated information shall be erased from the records of such law enforcement agency. Such clerk or such person, as the case may be, shall provide adequate security measures to safeguard against unauthorized access to or dissemination of such records or upon the request of the accused cause the actual physical destruction of such records, except that such clerk or such person shall not cause the actual physical destruction of such records until three years have elapsed from the date of the final disposition of the criminal case to which such records pertain.

(2) No fee shall be charged in any court with respect to any petition under this section.

(3) Any person who shall have been the subject of such an erasure shall be deemed to have never been arrested within the meaning of the general statutes with respect to the proceedings so erased and may so swear under oath.

(f) Upon motion properly brought, the court or a judge thereof, if such court is not in session, may order disclosure of such records (1) to a defendant in an action for false arrest arising out of the proceedings so erased, or (2) to the prosecuting attorney and defense counsel in connection with any perjury charges which the prosecutor alleges may have arisen from the testimony elicited during the trial. Such disclosure of such records is subject also to any records destruction program pursuant to which the records may have been destroyed. The jury charge in connection with erased offenses may be ordered by the judge for use by the judiciary, provided the names of the accused and the witnesses are omitted therefrom.

(g) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any police or court records or the records of any state's attorney or prosecuting attorney with respect to any information or indictment containing more than one count (1) while the criminal case is pending, or (2) when the criminal case is disposed of unless and until all counts are entitled to erasure in accordance with the provisions of this section, except that when the criminal case is disposed of, electronic records or portions of electronic records released to the public that reference a charge that would otherwise be entitled to erasure under this section shall be erased in accordance with the provisions of this section. Nothing in this section shall require the erasure of any information contained in the registry of protective orders established pursuant to section 51-5c. For the purposes of this subsection, "electronic record" means any police or court record or the record of any state's attorney or prosecuting attorney that is an electronic record, as defined in section 1-267, or a computer printout.

(h) For the purposes of this section, "court records" shall not include a record or transcript of the proceedings made or prepared by an official court reporter, assistant court reporter or monitor.
 

brk913

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2007
Messages
370
Location
Plainville, CT
Goldberg didn't break a law, that was why he got his permit back. Nothing to do with the arrest or anything.

Whether he broke the law or not is immaterial in this case, the DPS took his permit, they were basing it on his suitability due to an arrest that "did not happen". They could not send a representative into the BOFPE hearing and speak of it (it is a violation of state statute). That is why they returned his permit prior to his hearing, otherwise they would have looked really stupid when asked why they took his permit, by law they would have had to say, "I don't know."
 

sgrindrod

New member
Joined
Apr 3, 2011
Messages
7
Location
ct
Was this because they "knew" you or because an arrest showed up when they ran your history?

Really curious as I help people with the permit process and it would be handy to know.

Thanx for the input!

Jonathan

It was information that came up when they ran my history. I'm fairly new in town, so they don't know me at all.
 

sgrindrod

New member
Joined
Apr 3, 2011
Messages
7
Location
ct
It was information that came up when they ran my history. I'm fairly new in town, so they don't know me at all.

To give more of the story, I was initially denied based on these two misdemeanors from when I was 19 years old. I was able to meet with the chief and plead my case and thats when they hit me with the details of the cases. One of them was a sealed case because I had used my AR at that time. The details given were very specific. Technically neither of the charges are allowable reasons for a denial.
 

KIX

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
960
Location
, ,
@BRK913

I think int he confines of cyberspace, we might have missed something.... I wasn't disputing or wanting you to "prove" based on my not totally agreeing with you, it's a different area of law than where I'm heavily studying - specifically Volume 9, Chapter 529, sec. 29-27 through 29-38D. I specifically wanted information that can be of help to others in the future.

For that, I say thanx!

On the issue of what I've said previously, I wasn't saying from the perspective of "they can" (I agree, that is what I said)... I meant "they can" as THEY HAVE. This gives me heavy ammo in another section of criminal law that is indeed of help to many and I will indeed spread the word on this via my site. I think this info is INCREDIBLY valuable.

I'm looking at it like I can point them to the statute, so when it is brought up, they now have a valid argument for an objection. Would be interesting to see how far that goes.

For the record, BFPE is a civil proceeding, so they give a ton more leniency on how an argument can be structured (something I'm not in total agreement with, but it is what it is......).

@sgrindrod - As stated above, you still should be fine and good to go. If you end up at a hearing, feel free to chat with me (and maybe even head out for a coffee). I'm the one guy that doesn't stand up when the oath is sworn in.

I, of course hope, we don't need to meet under those circumstances and you get your permit.

Jonathan
 

sgrindrod

New member
Joined
Apr 3, 2011
Messages
7
Location
ct
@sgrindrod - As stated above, you still should be fine and good to go. If you end up at a hearing, feel free to chat with me (and maybe even head out for a coffee). I'm the one guy that doesn't stand up when the oath is sworn in.

I, of course hope, we don't need to meet under those circumstances and you get your permit.

Jonathan

Thanks Jonathan...I have my permit, but it took some serious explaining!
 
Last edited:

KIX

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
960
Location
, ,
Congrats and welcome to opencarry.org as well.

If you get the chance, maybe meet up at next Saturdays CCDL picnic.

www.ccdl.us for all the details.

Jonathan
 

Gregory Bembry

New member
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
5
Location
CT
I am in a similar boat.

Not sure if this thread is even active still since last post was in 2011 but here goes.

I am not sure what " Nothing in this section shall require the erasure of any information contained in the registry of protective orders established pursuant to section 51-5" means under section G of section Sec. 46b-146

I had a domestic in which a temporary protective order was issued back in 1996, but my record was eventually expunged after ARD. Does this line mean that even though my criminal record was expunged the TPO is still on file?

I am referring to the question on the applications asks " Have you ever been the subject of a Protective order or Restraining Order issued by a court in a case involving the use attempted use or threatened use of physical force against another person, regardless of the outcome or result of any related criminal case?”

I don't want to answer "NO" and have something pop up and automatically get denied, but I also don't want to answer "Yes" and have to risk any unnecessary scrutiny.


Greg
 

Gregory Bembry

New member
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
5
Location
CT
Sorry

You should be posting as a new thread, not resurrecting an old one.


I will open a new Thread sorry. I'm Kinda new at this. I Just posted here figuring that those who have responded in the past would have some experience on the matter.
 

Gregory Bembry

New member
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
5
Location
CT
Protective Order

Nothing in this section shall require the erasure of any information contained in the registry of protective orders established pursuant to section 51-5c


I am not sure what " Nothing in this section shall require the erasure of any information contained in the registry of protective orders established pursuant to section 51-5" means under Sec. 46b-146-G

I had a domestic in which I think but can't remember for sure that a temporary protective order was issued back in 1996, but my record was eventually expunged after ARD. Does this line mean that even though my criminal record was expunged the TPO is still on file?

I am referring to the question on the applications asks " Have you ever been the subject of a Protective order or Restraining Order issued by a court in a case involving the use attempted use or threatened use of physical force against another person, regardless of the outcome or result of any related criminal case?”

I don't want to answer "NO" and have something pop up and automatically get denied, but I also don't want to answer "Yes" and have to risk any unnecessary scrutiny.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
I had a domestic in which I think but can't remember for sure that a temporary protective order was issued back in 1996,

You maybe able to get the court record from this case...have you tried?

Best KNOW not "think". If not, you are good to go. If you put NO and there was, then you just lied on your application and the PD will likely deny it and the board, if appealed, will be all prissy about it.

My recommendation: keep copies of ANY document you provide to anyone.
 

Gregory Bembry

New member
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
5
Location
CT
You maybe able to get the court record from this case...have you tried?

Best KNOW not "think". If not, you are good to go. If you put NO and there was, then you just lied on your application and the PD will likely deny it and the board, if appealed, will be all prissy about it.

My recommendation: keep copies of ANY document you provide to anyone.


I have not tried but I think that's what I may do. But I am wondering even if there was a TPO 16 years ago on a case that was Nolled, would that disqualify my application.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
I have not tried but I think that's what I may do. But I am wondering even if there was a TPO 16 years ago on a case that was Nolled, would that disqualify my application.

I did not say that BUT if you lie on your application, that's another issue. You could object to the question saying its to broad and would include irrelevant information... that will 100% result in a denial but it would allow you to argue this point before the BFPE board...and the board does not care about this aspect so you would likely have to argue this point before a superior court judge.

Since you need a permit to take your gun outside the house and you cannot practice shooting inside your house I would argue that ALL the stupid questions are irrelevant unless they directly deal with your gun rights at present. I don't think that the safety training class can be required. But that's just me.

But this will get you a denial from the PD and BFPE ... its a legal question beyond their puny little minds.
 
Top