Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 105

Thread: Permit application deadlines

  1. #1
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910

    Permit application deadlines

    It is time for everyone to get on the same page about this and make sure the proper information is being stated. NRA instructors have to know this inside and out, or they should not be dispensing advice.

    The timeline for a pistol permit in the State of Connecticut is the following:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Peruta
    Day One - Applicant submits “a sufficient application” as required.
    Delivery is verified and applicant possesses copies of everything submitted together with verification of delivery.

    Day Five – The request for a State and Federal Criminal History Record Check must be forwarded, “The local authority shall record the date the fingerprints were taken in the applicant's file and, within five business days of such date, shall forward such fingerprints or other positive identifying information to the State Police Bureau of Identification which shall conduct criminal history records checks in accordance with section 29-17a.

    Day Six – Call issuing authority to verify that request and prints have been properly forwarded as required by law and the method they were sent to SPBI.

    Days six through ten - A Reasonable amount of time for request to arrive at SPBI, (State Police Bureau of Identification).

    Days eleven to Fourteen – the time it should take for SPBI to “LIVE SCAN” the paper prints into the system to the CJIS computer background system. (The FBI’s CJIS in West Virginia does not accept paper fingerprints from SPBI for Pistol Permit Applicants).

    Days Fourteen to Sixteen – The FBI’s CJIS system returns Live Scan results electronically back to SPBI within 48 hours unless there is some type of glitch.

    Days Sixteen to Twenty – A reasonable amount of time for SPBI to get the National and State Criminal History results returned and into the possession of the requesting local issuing authority.

    Days Twenty eight or later – The applicant contacts the local issuing authority, SPBI and the FBI’s CJIS system to obtain and verify the specific dates that requests, (with or without prints), were made and received by each.
    For extraordinary delays, the statutes prescribe that 8 weeks is the limit. The only real variable here is the FBI check which should only take a maximum of 48 hours. If this 8 weeks is to be exceeded, the issuing authority must state the cause of the delay in writing to the applicant.

    This is supported by CGS 29-28a and 29-29(c):

    Quote Originally Posted by 29-28a
    (b) The local authority shall, not later than eight weeks after a sufficient application for a temporary state permit has been made, inform the applicant that such applicant's request for a temporary state permit has been approved or denied. The local authority shall forward a copy of the application indicating approval or denial of the temporary state permit to the Commissioner of Public Safety. If the local authority has denied the application for a temporary state permit, no state permit may be issued. The commissioner shall, not later than eight weeks after receiving an application indicating approval from the local authority, inform the applicant in writing that the applicant's application for a state permit has been approved or denied, or that the results of the national criminal history records check have not been received. If grounds for denial become known after a temporary state permit has been obtained, the temporary state permit shall be immediately revoked pursuant to section 29-32.
    Quote Originally Posted by 29-29
    (c) The local authority may, in its discretion, issue a temporary state permit before a national criminal history records check relative to such applicant's record has been received. Upon receipt of the results of such national criminal history records check, the commissioner shall send a copy of the results of such national criminal history records check to the local authority, which shall inform the applicant and render a decision on the application within one week of the receipt of such results. If such results have not been received within eight weeks after a sufficient application for a permit has been made, the local authority shall inform the applicant of such delay, in writing. No temporary state permit shall be issued if the local authority has reason to believe the applicant has ever been convicted of a felony, or that any other condition exists for which the issuance of a permit for possession of a pistol or revolver is prohibited under state or federal law.
    The BFPE's form letter for appealing a delay which is based on the same statutes should be used for applicants who experience anything outside this timeline:

    http://www.ct.gov/bfpe/cwp/view.asp?a=1253&Q=458262

    This is clear statutory language. The BFPE is clear on what is stated here and the statutes involved.

    If anyone would like to dispute the BFPE's understanding of this or mine, please cite the relevant definitive proof.

  2. #2
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    For now, I'll focus on the statutes.

    Sec. 29-28. Application for permit. Notice of decision to applicant. This statute is where my 8 week argument comes from, seems cut and dry there. This statute outlines the process for the application itself.

    Sec. 29-29. Information concerning criminal records of applicants for permits. Clearly discusses the criminal records portion of the law (clue: it's in the title of the statue). When you highlight and bold the second sentence, you completely leave out the first:

    The local authority may, in its discretion, issue a temporary state permit before a national criminal history records check relative to such applicant's record has been received. Upon receipt of the results of such national criminal history records check, the commissioner shall send a copy of the results of such national criminal history records check to the local authority, which shall inform the applicant and render a decision on the application within one week of the receipt of such results.

    As I read it, this statute illustrates what the procedure is if the local issuing authority issues a temporary permit BEFORE the criminal records check has been received. In such situation, when they do receive the background check MUST notify the applicant that was issued the temporary permit.

    Look at the background/history as well (documented in the statutes, not my opinion)

    History: P.A. 92-130 required issuing authority to record date fingerprints were taken, authorized forwarding of fingerprints to FBI for national criminal history records check, authorized issuing authority to issue permit before report from FBI is received, required issuing authority to inform applicant and render a decision on application within one week of receipt of report, and, if report has not been received within eight weeks after application is made, to inform applicant of delay, and prohibited issuance of permit if issuing authority has reason to believe applicant has been convicted of a felony;

    *******
    So, yes, I'm playing the role of Devil's Advocate here, but this is how I read the statutes.

    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.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by KIX View Post
    The local authority may, in its discretion, issue a temporary state permit before a national criminal history records check relative to such applicant's record has been received. Upon receipt of the results of such national criminal history records check, the commissioner shall send a copy of the results of such national criminal history records check to the local authority, which shall inform the applicant and render a decision on the application within one week of the receipt of such results.

    As I read it, this statute illustrates what the procedure is if the local issuing authority issues a temporary permit BEFORE the criminal records check has been received. In such situation, when they do receive the background check MUST notify the applicant that was issued the temporary permit.
    Your reading of the statute makes no sense.

    These are two independent statements:

    - The local authority may issue a temp permit before the FBI report is complete.
    - The local authority must notify the applicant of a decision when the FBI report is received.

    They are not dependent on each other. This is quite obvious. The first part of the second point CLEARLY says: "Upon receipt of the results of such national criminal history records check". So how then could the second point possibly be in the event of the FBI report not coming back?

    It is silly to even argue this. This is not how our language works, and it is certainly not how the statutes work. The two statements are independent and clear.

    Look at the background/history as well (documented in the statutes, not my opinion)

    History: P.A. 92-130 required issuing authority to record date fingerprints were taken, authorized forwarding of fingerprints to FBI for national criminal history records check, authorized issuing authority to issue permit before report from FBI is received, required issuing authority to inform applicant and render a decision on application within one week of receipt of report, and, if report has not been received within eight weeks after application is made, to inform applicant of delay, and prohibited issuance of permit if issuing authority has reason to believe applicant has been convicted of a felony;
    This only serves to further negate your point. If you parse as the English language has to be parsed, you get:

    - required issuing authority to record date fingerprints were taken
    - authorized forwarding of fingerprints to FBI for national criminal history records check
    - authorized issuing authority to issue permit before report from FBI is received
    - required issuing authority to inform applicant and render a decision on application within one week of receipt of report
    - if report has not been received within eight weeks after application is made, to inform applicant of delay
    - prohibited issuance of permit if issuing authority has reason to believe applicant has been convicted of a felony;

    All are true. All make sense. All are adequately described in my OP.
    Last edited by Rich B; 10-25-2011 at 12:24 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post


    This only serves to further negate your point. If you parse as the English language has to be parsed, you get:

    - required issuing authority to record date fingerprints were taken
    - authorized forwarding of fingerprints to FBI for national criminal history records check[/b]
    - [b]authorized issuing authority to issue permit before report from FBI is received
    - required issuing authority to inform applicant and render a decision on application within one week of receipt of report
    - if report has not been received within eight weeks after application is made, to inform applicant of delay
    - prohibited issuance of permit if issuing authority has reason to believe applicant has been convicted of a felony;

    All are true. All make sense. All are adequately described in my OP.
    Furthering my point.

    I wish I agreed with you. I think you are selectively taking the part that you want to be true, but aren't.

    You completely left out my comments on 29-28b.

    And, as you say makes no sense because they are not dependent on each other, I disagree. They are part of the same paragraph. Basic grammar dictates that if they are not, then they wouldn't be in the same paragraph.

    The same argument is used by anti-gun groups trying to refute the punctuation in the second amendment - and those are commas!

    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.

  5. #5
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    separate point:

    What's the point of 29-28b and 8 weeks?

    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.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by KIX View Post
    And, as you say makes no sense because they are not dependent on each other, I disagree. They are part of the same paragraph. Basic grammar dictates that if they are not, then they wouldn't be in the same paragraph.
    They are clearly separate points. There is no other way to read it.

    One discusses what can be done if the FBI report doesn't arrive back in a timely manner.

    The other discusses what has to be done when the FBI report comes back.

    If you read through the second point as being dependent on the first, it makes absolutely no sense.



    The history on the statue further illustrates this point.

  7. #7
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    And I completely disagree and think the history PROVES my point.

    Next stop, get a legal opinion. If I'm wrong, great! I just have serious reservations on your view of the deadlines.

    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.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by KIX View Post
    separate point:

    What's the point of 29-28b and 8 weeks?

    Jonathan
    Isn't it clear?

    It outlines an overall maximum timespan of 8 weeks. The entire process cannot take more than 8 weeks.

    That is clear as well.


    In the event that the local issuing authority does everything they are supposed to do:

    - Give application to applicant
    - Receive completed application with fingerprints
    - Within five days of receipt, send fingerprints to SPBI.
    - Upon receipt of FBI report, within 'one week' issue ruling

    And the permit cannot be issued within 8 weeks (the only variable being what happens during the FBI check which should take a maximum of 48 hours + the time on both ends for SPBI to turn this around), the local issuing authority must inform (in writing) the applicant of the reason for the delay.

    Failing anything above, the applicant is entitled to appeal.


    The local issuing authority should be in possession of the fingerprints for no more than 5 days.
    The local issuing authority should be in possession of the FBI report for no more than 'one week'.

  9. #9
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post


    The local issuing authority should be in possession of the fingerprints for no more than 5 days.
    The local issuing authority should be in possession of the FBI report for no more than 'one week'.
    Again, disagree with the selective quoting from various areas of the statute.

    But..... I have an idea. Why don't you and I get together, draft a letter and submit it for an opinion. I'm willing to meet up and put a nail in the coffin of this discussion. Maybe submit it for a few opinions even.

    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.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by KIX View Post
    And I completely disagree and think the history PROVES my point.
    Show me. Cite where this has been challenged unsuccessfully.

    Next stop, get a legal opinion. If I'm wrong, great! I just have serious reservations on your view of the deadlines.
    You can get one, but we already have the BFPE in agreement. It is their responsibility to get a legal opinion on the matter.


    You are arguing against clear statutory language and the same understanding of that by the BFPE.

    If you seriously want to change the BFPE's opinion on this matter, by all means go hire a lawyer to clear this up for you. Let me ask though. What do you (or anyone in Connecticut) stand to gain in pursuing trying to override the clear language of 29-29(c) requiring issuing authorities to turn the FBI report into a decision in 'one week'?

  11. #11
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by KIX View Post
    Why don't you and I get together, draft a letter and submit it for an opinion. I'm willing to meet up and put a nail in the coffin of this discussion. Maybe submit it for a few opinions even.
    I don't need any other opinions. The BFPE has given the opinion, we just need to make it happen. They just need the appeals to start rolling in.

    So far, you are the only person I have found that is willing to argue this point.

    The plan is to send people to the BFPE with appeals for their PDs failing to follow state law. That is how this will be settled.

    In the meantime, you are doing no one a service by telling people that they can only appeal after 8 weeks. The BFPE form letter to appeal based on delay should be more than enough to illustrate that to you.

  12. #12
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    my point. I haven't seen ANYTHING from the BFPE that proves this point - SQUAT!

    An appeal letter, that doesn't say jack about the five days bit.

    I ask you to CITE where within the 8 weeks, someone has gone up for their permit and got it based on the 5 day rule you argue.

    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.

  13. #13
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    For the record folks..... if you read this far.... Rich and I really are friends!

    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.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by KIX View Post
    my point. I haven't seen ANYTHING from the BFPE that proves this point - SQUAT!
    Because everyone keeps telling people (erroneously) that they can only appeal after 8 weeks.

    An appeal letter, that doesn't say jack about the five days bit.
    You are right. It says one week, just like the statute says:

    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.ct.gov/bfpe/cwp/view.asp?a=1253&Q=458262
    One week has past since the issuing authority received the results of the National Background check, and a total of __________weeks have passed since submitting my properly executed application.
    That CLEARLY negates your argument about it being tied to the clause that allows issuing authorities to use their discretion.

    I ask you to CITE where within the 8 weeks, someone has gone up for their permit and got it based on the 5 day rule you argue.
    You are using broken logic. You need to cite where someone has appealed for the same and failed.

    People don't appeal before the 8 weeks because people are giving them wrong information.

  15. #15
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    Again, I see your point as bolstering my argument.

    "One week has past since the issuing authority received the results of the National Background check, and a total of __________weeks have passed since submitting my properly executed application."

    They are asking for the amount of WEEKS RIGHT THERE!

    If the BFPE was concerned with the SOLE basis of your argument, they would leave the whole _____ weeks bit out. Your argument says, 5 days have passed and I have not received my permit.

    What does the BFPE ask how many weeks?

    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.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by KIX View Post
    Again, I see your point as bolstering my argument.

    "One week has past since the issuing authority received the results of the National Background check, and a total of __________weeks have passed since submitting my properly executed application."

    They are asking for the amount of WEEKS RIGHT THERE!
    Of course. That is relevant information. But they are not asking "and more than 8 weeks have passed" which would be the case if your interpretation was correct.

    Your argument says, 5 days have passed and I have not received my permit.
    No. You continue to misquote me and the statutes. 'One week' is what the statute says for the time the IA has to make a decision after they receive the FBI report.



    Let me ask this. Have you asked any of these questions to anyone at BFPE? I can tell you, I have. Personally.

  17. #17
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    5 days, 60 days, that is just habit from work and our work cycle. Wee, eight weeks......

    As far as asking the board, I have witnessed somewhere near 600 cases and NEVER saw it come up. Not a once. Majority of these cases being denials (though plenty of revocations mixed in).

    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.

  18. #18
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    Further......

    It could be a declaratory ruling.... however...... not that it holds much weight.

    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.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by KIX View Post
    As far as asking the board, I have witnessed somewhere near 600 cases and NEVER saw it come up. Not a once. Majority of these cases being denials (though plenty of revocations mixed in).
    Which means absolutely nothing.

    This reminds me of the quote you have of mine in your signature:

    Quote Originally Posted by Me
    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.
    Simple logic. Just because no one does it, does not mean the statutes prohibit it.
    Last edited by Rich B; 10-25-2011 at 01:36 PM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by KIX View Post
    It could be a declaratory ruling.... however...... not that it holds much weight.
    We don't need one. We just need to stop spreading bad information and start spreading correct information. Once the appeals stack up, things will start working the way they are supposed to.

    What is there to lose?

  21. #21
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    You hurt my feelings. This is the first time you turned down a good coffee!

    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.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by KIX View Post
    You hurt my feelings. This is the first time you turned down a good coffee!

    Jonathan
    I have never turned down a coffee.

    I only turned down any attempt to legitimize the notion that permit applicants must wait 8 weeks or more to appeal if the law has been broken in the application process.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Let's get to the heart of the situation

    Most people are fearfull of what will happen to their application if they refuse to do what is requested and don't want to do anything to prolong their obtaining a Permit to Carry.

    There are currently only six current members of the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners with one current vacancy.

    The Chairman and the Secretary together with two regular members and Sue at the board's office, KNOW of the 5 day, one week and eight week mandates.

    I have had private conversation with four of the current members on a one on one basis, and can assure everyone that each person I have spoken with understands what is going on with this and other issues discussed on this board.

    I am totally convinced that the current members of the board will vote in favor of any appellants who suffer a time delay which violates the law.

    The problem is that most local issuing authorities will issue the permit just prior to the hearing so that the issue is NEVER heard.

    This is one of the allegations in the Kuck v. Danaher Federal Case currently in the Federal Courts here in CT.

    I have been attending BOFPE hearings since August of 2007 and have reviewed countless case files on denials and revocations.

    I do not talk much with board members Kyle Overturf and Art Carr but have no problem having private discussions with them prior to meetings, during breaks and after meetings.

    I can assure you that they will do the right thing if and when someone files an appeal regarding delays that VIOLATE published provisions of the law.

    Most people are fearfull of what will happen to their application if they refuse to do what is requested and don't want to do anything to prolong their obtaining a Permit to Carry.

    Much has changed since the summer of 2007:

    1. Open Carry is now recognized and discussed more than ever in the State of Connecticut.
    2. The Backlog of cases at the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners is down considerably.
    3. The public is no longer misled by published material on the Board's website.
    4. The current members of the Board have a broad understanding of the issues causing unnecessary denials and revocation and have attempted to address them.

    Let's hope that things continue to change for the better

  24. #24
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Peruta View Post

    Much has changed since the summer of 2007:

    1. Open Carry is now recognized and discussed more than ever in the State of Connecticut.
    2. The Backlog of cases at the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners is down considerably.
    3. The public is no longer misled by published material on the Board's website.
    4. The current members of the Board have a broad understanding of the issues causing unnecessary denials and revocation and have attempted to address them.

    Let's hope that things continue to change for the better
    Agreed.

    I collected data for use on suitability, but never really thought about how gathering a little more process could help applicants.

    Regardless of this topic, we all are fighting the good fight and hope it continues - glad to see some more people getting on board.

    I think without either more in the line of lawsuits, resolution of Kuck v. Danaher, etc. we will still have plenty to work on.

    You going to the hearing Thursday?

    Jonathan
    Last edited by KIX; 10-25-2011 at 03:11 PM. Reason: typo
    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.

  25. #25
    Regular Member brk913's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Plainville, CT
    Posts
    370
    Thought I would drop my .02 on this, the problem here is we have 2 statutes that clearly contradict each other. IMHO this really shows the ineptitude of our legislators to write clear statutes that express their intent without confusion. If you look at the History of 29-29 you will see this is the former statute regarding obtaining a local permit. Rather than rewrite the statute properly when they changed the permit system, they simply changed the language of local permit to temporary state permit without thinking about the consequences and examining the rest of the statute to see if it conflicts with other statutes.

    It would come down to this: A Judge deciding this question, what was the legislature's intent when drafting these statutes and their time frames?

    29-28a was clearly written to allow the issuing authority up to 8 weeks to complete their investigation into suitability of an applicant for a temporary state pistol permit (including any time required to complete other background checks). When they rewrote 29-28a they basically negated the need for a separate statue regarding local permits that were now no longer going to be issued, rather than deleting 29-29 in its entirety or moving any pertinent remaining text into 29-28a they simply changed a few words and put two statutes in conflict with each other.

    29-29 was originally written to deal with local permits and then modified, shoddily I might add.

    I believe (again my opinion only) an uniterested third party (Judge) would view that 29-28a (the 8 week time frame) was the intent of the legislature and that the hack job rewording done on 29-29 was a "technical error" that was not incorporated properly into the new permit system. I am not sure what would happen then, can a Judge "strike down" a statute? Can they send it to the legislature for clarification? Can the Judge make a Judicial Ruling that then becomes law? Probably a moot point since a majority of the BOFPE members have expressed they will enforce their interpretation of 29-29 to say 5 days after the record check is returned, actually a good thing for applicants but it will not help fix the language in the statutes as no one will have to take it into the court system.

    This is not the worst statute stand off in CT, there is one much worse when it comes to the use of deadly force in CT but that one is fodder for another post.
    Last edited by brk913; 10-25-2011 at 05:09 PM.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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