-
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.
-
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.
Permit application deadlines
- Thread starter Rich B
- Start date
Rich B
Regular Member
Edward Peruta
Regular Member
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
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
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:
brk913
Regular Member
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.
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:
Rich B
Regular Member
I believe that analysis is wrong. 29-28 does not 'give the local issuing authority 8 weeks to investigate', it sets a maximum time limit for the entire permit process.
29-29(c) simply goes into detail on the exact deadlines for the local issuing authority.
29-29(c) simply goes into detail on the exact deadlines for the local issuing authority.
brk913
Regular Member
And there lies the problem why would 2 separate statutes provide 2 different time frames. You choose to follow 29-29, others follow 29-28a, the BOFPE has stated (from what I read here) that 29-29 is part of this and they rely on it to render a decision and again due to shoddy work at the LOB it surely is and should be looked at. Simply due to the history of the 2 statutes I have to side (my opinion again) with the 8 weeks granted to the issuing authority in 29-28a as that was the statute that was concentrated on when redesigning the permit sytem. I remember the old langauage used to be 12 weeks for a local permit and if then denied you had till week 14 to file an appeal or forever hold your peace, I will have to dig through my old papers to find which statute had that time frame and language but I am sure I have it somewhere.
Rich B
Regular Member
That is not true. The two statutes agree on 8 weeks as a deadline if the FBI report takes that long, but 29-28a clearly provides a time span for the overall permit process. 29-29 clearly gives time spans for each part of the local issuing authority's process.
They are not providing two different time frames, one is talking about the whole process, one is talking about specific parts. That in practice one should be shorter than the other is inconsequential.
29-28a does not guarantee 8 weeks to the local issuing authority.
brk913
Regular Member
I assure you that if you were to read the history of both statutes you would see that the 29-29 time frame was talking about the issuance of a local permit not a temporary state permit, when they changed the process to be for a temporary state permit they did not address the conflict in time frames, the one week after the report had nothing to do with the temp ct permit, it had to do with the issuance of a local permit and they just "forgot" to address that issue when redesigning the system.
Again, you can keep saying it over and over and I can too but neither of our opinions matter, I wish this would reach the court level to be clarified or maybe one of our legislators will take the initiative to do something right for once and fix the statutes to read properly.
Last edited:
Rich B
Regular Member
Why? Why don't you just want to see it enforced the way it is?
Why would anyone prefer the 8 week wait over the ~3-4 week wait?
brk913
Regular Member
Fianlly a question I can answer based on fact. The short answer is I don't want them to change the way they are enforcing it, 3-4 weeks is even to long in my opinion. I have students completing this in Windsor in less that a week, Enfield in 6 weeks, Naugatuck 9 days...If I got to set the rules we would be a Constitutional Carry State or at least a shall issue within 3 or 4 business days.
The reason I seem to be in disagreement with you is I am reading this through what I believe a court would say. They would look at the history of 29-29 realize that time frame listed was initally put in place for the issuance of a local permit and make the same claim I have that it was an oversight when the process changed and is in error. Definitly not saying I like it just what I think would happen if it made it that far.
ETA: I would want it to make it the the court regardless of the outcome so that it can be clarified and we would not have to have a discussion like this, I am sure we are not the first nor will be the last to try to interpret this ...
The reason I seem to be in disagreement with you is I am reading this through what I believe a court would say. They would look at the history of 29-29 realize that time frame listed was initally put in place for the issuance of a local permit and make the same claim I have that it was an oversight when the process changed and is in error. Definitly not saying I like it just what I think would happen if it made it that far.
ETA: I would want it to make it the the court regardless of the outcome so that it can be clarified and we would not have to have a discussion like this, I am sure we are not the first nor will be the last to try to interpret this ...
Last edited:
Rich B
Regular Member
I don't agree that would be the outcome, but it would result in an 8 week permit period.
I am not willing to double or triple the permit period to stop reasoned debate.
brk913
Regular Member
I just reread the statutes again. I believe I have made an error and now believe Rich is correct, 29-29 now deals specifically with the required background checks and sets out the time frames the local issuing authority should be following as he and others have stated. I was reading to much into the old Local Permit issue and am now going to advise my students to start their inquiry 2 - 3 weeks after application submission asking what date the background check was sent to DPS, has it come back yet, etc..I will then advise them to contact DPS after 1 or 2 more weeks to see if they sent the results back to the town, I have had some students who were able to get that information, others who were not, I guess it depends who answers at DPS that day.
I am also going to make a part of my student kit the form letter from the BOFPE so my students can simply fill in the blanks to keep an eye on their time frames.
Now IMHO I think 29-28a needs to be modified to emphasis the tighter time frame.
I am also going to make a part of my student kit the form letter from the BOFPE so my students can simply fill in the blanks to keep an eye on their time frames.
Now IMHO I think 29-28a needs to be modified to emphasis the tighter time frame.
Edward Peruta
Regular Member
Who is the requesting party and what are they entitled to receive
The state can't have it both ways.
If we are considered the consumer requesting the criminal history checks, why shouldn't we be able to check on the progress and receive a copy of what is returned to the issuing authority at the same time!!
If local and state law enforcement agencies are going to demand, take and cash our checks for state and federal background checks on the premise, (even if incorrect legally), that we are the person requesting same, then they must deal directly with applicants like any other consumerin answering our questions regarding when and if the state and national criminal histories are completed and the facts regarding when they are sent to the issuing authorities.
Why are we the applicants who have paid NOT entitled to receive a copy of what is sent to the issuing authority.
Don't kid yourself, this issue is ripe for litigation based on the facts.
The State Police Bureau of Identification unit that does the State and Federal Criminal History Records Checks AT THE REQUEST OF LOCAL ISSUING AUTHORITIES, (WITHOUT LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL), implemented and began REQUIRING THE COLLECTION, (as of October 1, 2009), of a $50.00 fee for STATE records checks on the misguided belief that it is the APPLICANT who is requesting the records check.
As shown in Section 29-29, the applicants are required to "SUBMIT' to state and national criminal history records checks, and are NOT the person or agency that requests same.
Sec. 29-29. Information concerning criminal records of applicants for permits. (a) No temporary state permit for carrying any pistol or revolver shall be issued under the provisions of section 29-28 unless the applicant for such permit gives to the local authority, upon its request, full information concerning the applicant's criminal record. The local authority shall require the applicant to submit to state and national criminal history records checks. The local authority shall take a full description of such applicant and make an investigation concerning the applicant's suitability to carry any such weapons.
The statute is very clear in EXEMPTING local police departments:
Sec. 29-11. State Police Bureau of Identification. Fees. Regulations. (a) The bureau in the Division of State Police within the Department of Public Safety known as the State Police Bureau of Identification shall be maintained for the purposes (1) of providing an authentic record of each person sixteen years of age or over who is charged with the commission of any crime involving moral turpitude, (2) of providing definite information relative to the identity of each person so arrested, (3) of providing a record of the final judgment of the court resulting from such arrest, unless such record has been erased pursuant to section 54-142a, and (4) for maintaining a central repository of complete criminal history record disposition information. The Commissioner of Public Safety is directed to maintain the State Police Bureau of Identification, which bureau shall receive, classify and file in an orderly manner all fingerprints, pictures and descriptions, including previous criminal records as far as known of all persons so arrested, and shall classify and file in a like manner all identification material and records received from the government of the United States and from the various state governments and subdivisions thereof, and shall cooperate with such governmental units in the exchange of information relative to criminals. The State Police Bureau of Identification shall accept fingerprints of applicants for admission to the bar of the state and, to the extent permitted by federal law, shall exchange state, multistate and federal criminal history records with the State Bar Examining Committee for purposes of investigation of the qualifications of any applicant for admission as an attorney under section 51-80. The record of all arrests reported to the bureau after March 16, 1976, shall contain information of any disposition within ninety days after the disposition has occurred.
(b) Any cost incurred by the State Police Bureau of Identification in conducting any name search and fingerprinting of applicants for admission to the bar of the state shall be paid from fees collected by the State Bar Examining Committee.
(c) The Commissioner of Public Safety shall charge the following fees for the service indicated: (1) Name search, thirty-six dollars; (2) fingerprint search, fifty dollars; (3) personal record search, fifty dollars; (4) letters of good conduct search, fifty dollars; (5) bar association search, fifty dollars; (6) fingerprinting, fifteen dollars; (7) criminal history record information search, fifty dollars. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any federal, state or municipal agency.
(d) The Commissioner of Public Safety may adopt regulations, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 54, necessary to implement the provisions of the National Child Protection Act of 1993, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the Volunteers for Children Act of 1998, and the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact as provided in section 29-164f to provide for national criminal history records checks to determine an employee's or volunteer's suitability and fitness to care for the safety and well-being of children, the elderly and individuals with disabilities.
(1949 Rev., S. 3653; P.A. 76-333, S. 1; P.A. 77-614, S. 486, 610; P.A. 78-200, S. 3; P.A. 90-151, S. 1, 3; May Sp. Sess. P.A. 92-6, S. 55, 117; P.A. 94-117, S. 3; P.A. 98-170; P.A. 07-246, S. 1; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 09-3, S. 307.)
History: P.A. 76-333 added word "police" in references to "state police bureau of identification"; P.A. 77-614 made state police department a division within the department of public safety and replaced commissioner of state police with commissioner of public safety, effective January 1, 1979; P.A. 78-200 set off purposes for maintaining identification bureau with Subdiv. indicators, substituted "sixteen years of age or over" for "over sixteen years of age" in Subdiv. (1), added reference to erasure of records in Subdiv. (3), added new Subdiv. (4) re central repository of criminal history record disposition information and required that arrest records contain disposition information within 90 days of disposition after March 16, 1976; P.A. 90-151 added provisions re acceptance of fingerprints of applicants for admission to the bar and exchange of criminal history records with the bar examining committee; May Sp. Sess. P.A. 92-6 added new Subsec. (c) to establish fees for name search, fingerprint search, personal record search, letters of good conduct, bar association search and fingerprinting; P.A. 94-117 amended Subsec. (c) by adding fee of $15 for criminal history record search and $10 for each copy of a search; P.A. 98-170 amended Subsec. (c) by increasing the fee for a name search to $18 and the fees for a fingerprint search, personal record search, letters of good conduct search, bar association search or criminal history record information search to $25 and by deleting fee for copies of searches; P.A. 07-246 added Subsec. (d) re regulations; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 09-3 amended Subsec. (c) to increase fees.
Cited. 196 C. 430.
Cited. 40 CA 705; judgment reversed, see 240 C. 590.
Subsec. (c):
Since request for digital copy of information for every adult in data base of Department of Correction not a request for criminal history information under statute, fee for information established under Sec. 1-211(a). 261 C. 86.
The state can't have it both ways.
If we are considered the consumer requesting the criminal history checks, why shouldn't we be able to check on the progress and receive a copy of what is returned to the issuing authority at the same time!!
If local and state law enforcement agencies are going to demand, take and cash our checks for state and federal background checks on the premise, (even if incorrect legally), that we are the person requesting same, then they must deal directly with applicants like any other consumerin answering our questions regarding when and if the state and national criminal histories are completed and the facts regarding when they are sent to the issuing authorities.
Why are we the applicants who have paid NOT entitled to receive a copy of what is sent to the issuing authority.
Don't kid yourself, this issue is ripe for litigation based on the facts.
The State Police Bureau of Identification unit that does the State and Federal Criminal History Records Checks AT THE REQUEST OF LOCAL ISSUING AUTHORITIES, (WITHOUT LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL), implemented and began REQUIRING THE COLLECTION, (as of October 1, 2009), of a $50.00 fee for STATE records checks on the misguided belief that it is the APPLICANT who is requesting the records check.
As shown in Section 29-29, the applicants are required to "SUBMIT' to state and national criminal history records checks, and are NOT the person or agency that requests same.
Sec. 29-29. Information concerning criminal records of applicants for permits. (a) No temporary state permit for carrying any pistol or revolver shall be issued under the provisions of section 29-28 unless the applicant for such permit gives to the local authority, upon its request, full information concerning the applicant's criminal record. The local authority shall require the applicant to submit to state and national criminal history records checks. The local authority shall take a full description of such applicant and make an investigation concerning the applicant's suitability to carry any such weapons.
The statute is very clear in EXEMPTING local police departments:
Sec. 29-11. State Police Bureau of Identification. Fees. Regulations. (a) The bureau in the Division of State Police within the Department of Public Safety known as the State Police Bureau of Identification shall be maintained for the purposes (1) of providing an authentic record of each person sixteen years of age or over who is charged with the commission of any crime involving moral turpitude, (2) of providing definite information relative to the identity of each person so arrested, (3) of providing a record of the final judgment of the court resulting from such arrest, unless such record has been erased pursuant to section 54-142a, and (4) for maintaining a central repository of complete criminal history record disposition information. The Commissioner of Public Safety is directed to maintain the State Police Bureau of Identification, which bureau shall receive, classify and file in an orderly manner all fingerprints, pictures and descriptions, including previous criminal records as far as known of all persons so arrested, and shall classify and file in a like manner all identification material and records received from the government of the United States and from the various state governments and subdivisions thereof, and shall cooperate with such governmental units in the exchange of information relative to criminals. The State Police Bureau of Identification shall accept fingerprints of applicants for admission to the bar of the state and, to the extent permitted by federal law, shall exchange state, multistate and federal criminal history records with the State Bar Examining Committee for purposes of investigation of the qualifications of any applicant for admission as an attorney under section 51-80. The record of all arrests reported to the bureau after March 16, 1976, shall contain information of any disposition within ninety days after the disposition has occurred.
(b) Any cost incurred by the State Police Bureau of Identification in conducting any name search and fingerprinting of applicants for admission to the bar of the state shall be paid from fees collected by the State Bar Examining Committee.
(c) The Commissioner of Public Safety shall charge the following fees for the service indicated: (1) Name search, thirty-six dollars; (2) fingerprint search, fifty dollars; (3) personal record search, fifty dollars; (4) letters of good conduct search, fifty dollars; (5) bar association search, fifty dollars; (6) fingerprinting, fifteen dollars; (7) criminal history record information search, fifty dollars. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any federal, state or municipal agency.
(d) The Commissioner of Public Safety may adopt regulations, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 54, necessary to implement the provisions of the National Child Protection Act of 1993, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the Volunteers for Children Act of 1998, and the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact as provided in section 29-164f to provide for national criminal history records checks to determine an employee's or volunteer's suitability and fitness to care for the safety and well-being of children, the elderly and individuals with disabilities.
(1949 Rev., S. 3653; P.A. 76-333, S. 1; P.A. 77-614, S. 486, 610; P.A. 78-200, S. 3; P.A. 90-151, S. 1, 3; May Sp. Sess. P.A. 92-6, S. 55, 117; P.A. 94-117, S. 3; P.A. 98-170; P.A. 07-246, S. 1; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 09-3, S. 307.)
History: P.A. 76-333 added word "police" in references to "state police bureau of identification"; P.A. 77-614 made state police department a division within the department of public safety and replaced commissioner of state police with commissioner of public safety, effective January 1, 1979; P.A. 78-200 set off purposes for maintaining identification bureau with Subdiv. indicators, substituted "sixteen years of age or over" for "over sixteen years of age" in Subdiv. (1), added reference to erasure of records in Subdiv. (3), added new Subdiv. (4) re central repository of criminal history record disposition information and required that arrest records contain disposition information within 90 days of disposition after March 16, 1976; P.A. 90-151 added provisions re acceptance of fingerprints of applicants for admission to the bar and exchange of criminal history records with the bar examining committee; May Sp. Sess. P.A. 92-6 added new Subsec. (c) to establish fees for name search, fingerprint search, personal record search, letters of good conduct, bar association search and fingerprinting; P.A. 94-117 amended Subsec. (c) by adding fee of $15 for criminal history record search and $10 for each copy of a search; P.A. 98-170 amended Subsec. (c) by increasing the fee for a name search to $18 and the fees for a fingerprint search, personal record search, letters of good conduct search, bar association search or criminal history record information search to $25 and by deleting fee for copies of searches; P.A. 07-246 added Subsec. (d) re regulations; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 09-3 amended Subsec. (c) to increase fees.
Cited. 196 C. 430.
Cited. 40 CA 705; judgment reversed, see 240 C. 590.
Subsec. (c):
Since request for digital copy of information for every adult in data base of Department of Correction not a request for criminal history information under statute, fee for information established under Sec. 1-211(a). 261 C. 86.
Last edited:
BRK sees the same thing I do, and that's my point. Hell, I want to get rid of the process altogether and go constitutional carry, but that's another story.
29-28 is clearly the lat that discusses the process, and it states 8 weeks.
29-29 talks about the criminal background checks.
I can see BRK's point about writing two different statutes (horribly). The language does need to be clarified, some of you disagree - so be it. But we all have our permits.
Maybe Ed is right, litigation may get us in the right direction towards putting a nail in this one. I want to see this the way Rich and Ed do, but I simply can't. Either that or the law courses I took were a complete waste. So far, them courses have saved me TONS of money in my lifetime so I think I did pretty good there.
Now.......
If there was a update to the current law to correct and incorporate 29-29, I'd be the first in line testifying in support of it.
As it's written, I still see multiple ways it can be argued. And not seeing anyone challenge it, I see how it can continue.
Bottom line, 8 weeks is the line that is being towed across the entire state from what I've seen in my study so far (longer in some areas, that's a whole 'nother argument).
Jonathan
29-28 is clearly the lat that discusses the process, and it states 8 weeks.
29-29 talks about the criminal background checks.
I can see BRK's point about writing two different statutes (horribly). The language does need to be clarified, some of you disagree - so be it. But we all have our permits.
Maybe Ed is right, litigation may get us in the right direction towards putting a nail in this one. I want to see this the way Rich and Ed do, but I simply can't. Either that or the law courses I took were a complete waste. So far, them courses have saved me TONS of money in my lifetime so I think I did pretty good there.
Now.......
If there was a update to the current law to correct and incorporate 29-29, I'd be the first in line testifying in support of it.
As it's written, I still see multiple ways it can be argued. And not seeing anyone challenge it, I see how it can continue.
Bottom line, 8 weeks is the line that is being towed across the entire state from what I've seen in my study so far (longer in some areas, that's a whole 'nother argument).
Jonathan
Rich B
Regular Member
Not after re-reading the statute he doesn't.
This is irrelevant.
The language is clear. Just because there is a small percentage of people who don't want it to be true and a much larger percentage of people who have simply never bothered to read 29-29 does not mean the statutes are unreadable.
I don't think Ed has advocated for litigating the 5 days, 1 week, 8 weeks rules. These laws are clear and so far the only person I see that is debating the meaning of the statutes is you. The BFPE are the ones who will be ruling on this and they understand the law as written.
So where do you think litigation or even debate is going to occur?
This is what worries me. Why are you so opposed to seeing what is clearly in front of you?
29-29 is already correct and is already incorporated.
Why would anyone challenge it if the NRA instructors and the people who profess to know the law the most are teaching them the wrong things?
And it is wrong. Are you going to fight the good fight to put truth out there or just keep towing the line that keeps people from getting their permits in the time prescribed by statute?
Last edited:
brk913
Regular Member
Sorry, I back tracked, guess you did not see it, post 33 above, I now agree that Rich is correct, I was reading way to much into this instead of taking it on its face. They should surely clarify this but I think what they were meaning to do in 29-28a was say that the issuing authority must give an answer within 8weeks or notify the applicant of the problem/delay in writing. Otherwise the time frames in 29-29 should be followed. Ed has also brought up an interesting point about the fees for background checks, I had always wondered how they slipped that extra $50 charge in there. If in fact you are (as the applicant) requesting any paying for the background check you should have full access to all the information on the time frames and information provided.
ETA: To fast for me again Rich...
Last edited:
Again, language. I'm not opposed, I see both arguments. Which, in law, means there is room for challenge. With all the work I do on the permitting issues, I see an argument local issuing authorities can, and seemingly have used. Do you clearly not get it??? I see two routes here. I'm far from the only one. Maybe a minority here, but I'm far from the only one who sees it both ways.
Irrelevant, as has been discussed in the past. We don't teach the law, we teach the NRA course. As I state in my courses, read the statutes yourself and seek the guidance of an attorney to answer your questions.
Rich, I like ya. I actually consider ya a friend, but.... YOU have absolutely NO FREAKING right to even come close to saying I'm towing the line or fight the good fight. I've been at this for awhile and put A TON of work into the fight. I read the statute and see an argument both ways. That's not towing the line when I want to see it done away with altogether. Just because I see an argument, doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
If you can't see that, you need to get out of your black and white world and realize that with law, there is a lot of grey matter.
Jonathan
Rich B
Regular Member
Who else sees it 'both ways'?
Not the BFPE. The BFPE will be the ones making the decision. Where is the problem or debate?
Local issuing authorities may not like it, but they will always lose.
This might be how it is supposed to be. This is not the majority case though. And this isn't just about what is taught in classes. This is about what we say on forums, what we say in meetings, what we say in conversations to people having an issue with the process.
You will be towing that line as long as you keep telling people and broadcasting that they must wait 8 weeks to appeal. It is clear that they do not. The BFPE is inviting them to appeal before that.
You are sticking to an emotional argument here, not one based on reason. I don't know why you are so invested in continuing with this 8 week concept.
Laws are not vague just because one person says they don't understand them. Laws do mean what they say.
Otherwise, open carry would be illegal just because Lawlor says he doesn't understand the law.