Kinda reminds me of Doutel, woman denied because of who she is married to

http://ctpistolpermitissues.com/

First post.

The Doutel case came to mind since it was a "spousal related" case.

There were actually a few others, but this struck a nerve because a suitable candidate was denied her permit simply because of who she is married to.

Jonathan

Wow, I just read your post on your site. They really dropped the ball here. As you stated toward the end she is fully qualified to obtain her Eligibility Certificate (you wrote it as suitability certificate in case you want to fix it). If she does so she can then buy as many handguns as she wants for the house, additionally she can buy any rifle or shotgun she wants right now with a 2 week wait. She can pile as many guns as she wants in the house and there would really be nothing Glastonbury or the SLFU could do about it. That being the case why not allow her a permit so she can take them out of the house? Seems like a no brainer but she did not represent herself well, had she introduced these facts into the hearing the end result may have been different. She should go get her eligibility certificate buy any gun she wants and when she wants to go shooting with her sisters they can pick her up and transport her gun for her (as long as they have a permit of course). I feel she should also take this decision into the court system, we may get a ruling that "suitability" is not a standard that should be reviewed as it is to subjective ot the person doing the looking.

Corrected, thanx for the correction.

Spent six hours there yesterday, then came to work with a ton of stuff to do. Kinda got mixed up there.

My jaw dropped that it went 5-1. It is usually a bit more fair.

Jonathan

Wow!

There are folks in other states who are either married to or otherwise have felons living in the same dwelling and are not denied the right to kep and bear arms. They are at best cautioned on how to lawfully keep their arms so that the felon is not placed in jeopardy of being in constructive possession.

Would it be possible to educate this woman and assist her in reapplying using that approach?

If G. Gordon Liddy's wife can have guns in the house without breaking the law then this woman ought to be allowed to as well.

stay safe.

It sounds like Glastonbury and the BPFE believe that domestic violence victims should be denied their gun rights, if they are still in a relationship with the abuser. This woman might not be concerned that she will have to defend herself against her husband, but the board's exact same logic would apply if she was: because he is a prohibited person, then she must be denied as well.

skidmark said:

If G. Gordon Liddy's wife can have guns in the house without breaking the law then this woman ought to be allowed to as well.

Click to expand...

Possibly not the best example; if we believe it as he tells it, he is in constructive possession.

Not that there should be anything wrong with that, but the government disagrees with me on that point.

I don't think constructive possession is as much of a point.

As long as he doesn't hold it in his hands.......

I get rather PO'd either way. If you didn't commit a violent crime, why should you be denied the right to defend yourself with a firearm?

Jonathan

KIX said:

I don't think constructive possession is as much of a point.

As long as he doesn't hold it in his hands.......

Click to expand...

That seemed to be the entire point for Glastonbury and BFPE: that her husband is prohibited, and might gain illegal access to her firearm.

Oh, and constructive possession counts exactly the same as holding it in his hands, so far as the law is concerned.

But, if she has it in a safe, it it still constructive possession?

Either way, denying her her own individual rights is shoddy.

Jonathan