Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Suggestions to those with appeals to the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners

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

    Suggestions to those with appeals to the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners

    PLANNING AND PREPARATION FOR AN APPEAL
    TO THE
    BOARD OF FIREARMS PERMIT EXAMINERS

    It's not science, it's commons sense

    If you intend on going forward with an appeal to the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, keep in mind that attorneys can, (and often do), make a difference during a hearing and can effect the outcome
    .

    This outline is based on my experience and understanding of the Board and the areas they consider in making their decisions.

    It is also a good idea to listen to some of the audio clips of hearings and deliberations which can be found on the Board's website.

    In most cases, the only issue being appealed is the appellant’s SUITABILITY.

    With any type of documented Federal or State dis-qualifier, the board will not be able to hear your appeal.

    DURING THE HEARING, DO NOT offer more than is necessary to prove that you are a SUITABLE person.

    Regardless of whether or not you intend to be represented by an attorney, prepare for your appeal and stick to the BASIC facts.

    Denial of Permit - Application Facts


    Be prepared to list and discuss the mandated and supporting items that made up the application packet.

    Application
    Proof of citizenship or legal status in the United States
    Forms of Positive I.D. presented/supplied
    Current set of Fingerprints
    Documentation of required Training
    Documentation of Separation from Military Service (if applicable)
    Required Federal, State and local monetary payments
    Other types of firearm permits if possessed and/or submitted

    Date that a Sufficient Application was submitted to the issuing authority _________________

    Date that the payment to the issuing authority for a State Criminal History check was cashed _________________


    Date that the payment for SPBI to conduct a National Criminal History check was cashed _________________


    Revocation of Permit – Background Facts


    Date original permit was issued or obtained

    Length of time permit has been possessed


    Reasons for denial or revocation DUE TO SUITABILITY ISSUE

    Let the issuing or revoking authority give their opening statement to tell their story without interruption.

    Take notes but DO NOT deny or argue about facts that are true.


    Make your opening statementby offering a brief explanationand admit what you may have done wrong and the fact
    that you consider the revocation and appeal process to be an educational experience.

    REMEMBER THAT YOU ARE SEEKING A POSITIVE SUITABILITY DETERMINATION

    Let the issuing authority or SLFU representative put their witnesses on while you take notesduring any witness testimony.

    If a witness offers evidence that is material and incorrect take notes, THINK and then ask questions to correct the testimony.


    If your denial or revocation was based on a court case, be prepared to offer evidence that the court case was resolved favorably.

    Be prepared to offer the following types of background information and evidence that will document and support why you are CURRENTLY A SUITABILITY person.


    Your Date of Birth/age

    Your Level of Education or specialized training

    Any Federal or State Professional Licenses you have held or currently hold

    Verification of any employment related needs to possess and carry a firearm

    For revocation cases, you should state the length of time a permit to carry has been possessed WITHOUT INCIDENT.

    Your Criminal History or lack of same

    Your Driving Record/History

    Your Marital Status

    The Number of any Children in your home or that you support

    Whether you own or rent at your current residence

    Your Credit History/score if known

    Your type of employment

    Your employment history and type of work performed

    The length of time in current employment

    Any civic involvement in the Community

    Character reference letters from family, neighbors, friends and professionals, (Notarized if possible), that clearly acknowledge
    that they are aware of your appeal to obtain or restore the ability to carry Pistols or Revolvers
    .
    Last edited by Edward Peruta; 12-28-2011 at 08:27 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    From my website at www.ctpistolpermitissues.com:

    OK, so now you contacted the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners (BFPE) and are awaiting your hearing. What can you expect? Do you need an attorney? How can you prepare? How is the BFPE organized/run? All good questions I will address here.

    The best way to describe the board comes from their website:

    The Board is comprised of seven members appointed by the Governor to serve during her term and until their successors are appointed and qualify. The members are appointed from nominees of the Commissioner of Public Safety, Connecticut Police Chiefs Association, the Commissioner of Environmental Protection, The Connecticut State Rifle and Revolver Association, Inc. and Ye Connecticut Gun Guild, Inc. Two members of the public are appointed with at least one member of the Board shall be a lawyer licensed to practice in Connecticut, who shall act as Chairman of the Board during the hearing of appeals.

    “Do I need an attorney?”. Short answer, depends. If it is not going to be a hard on you financially, I’d say go for it. Get an experienced attorney that understands the process and gun laws. Ask them how many of these have they done before. I wouldn’t look for a criminal attorney, they usually cost more and don’t have experience with these type of hearings and the format is different from criminal law. These hearings are called “Administrative Hearings”. So, they do run a little different then your average court process (though not entirely dissimilar). If you have experience in this sort of thing, you can indeed go it alone. Just follow some of the tips on this page to help you through the process.

    On the day of your hearing, bring all your exhibits (anything you plan on submitting to the board) 1 original (if needed) and 9 copies. If you have a witness that cannot attend (but have knowledge of a specific situation like why a permit was revoked), have them write a statement and have it notarized (don’t forget the 9 copies). Character witnesses don’t need to be notarized. Letters are important. Don’t say “call my boss” or “call my neighbor”. If they aren’t there, it doesn’t matter. Have them write a letter.

    You only need 9 copies if you don’t submit them to the board prior to your hearing. You can submit paperwork ahead of time (at least two business days prior to your hearing date). You can either mail or fax your exhibits to the board. If you do this, make sure you put your name and case number on your cover letter.

    Bring a notepad and something to write with (you may catch something at someone else’s hearing that may help your case. This is also very helpful when the issuing authority or DPS makes an inaccurate statement. Remain calm. Don’t make facial gestures and such, let them continue. Write down whatever statement was wrong and you can counter that statement or even get it corrected when it’s your turn to interview the witness. Also, if you’re diabetic or have similar conditions, bring something to drink and snack on. These hearings can take quite some time. If you don’t have strong English speaking skills, you can bring someone to help you. You or your witness can write their testimony.

    Finally, when preparing your testimony, there are a few things to avoid. Don’t quote the second amendment. The members of the BFPE are well aware of those 27 words that guarantee your freedom. Don’t make bizarre statements like “Nazi Germany” or statements like “Communism”, “I’m an American”, etc. They aren’t facts that are pertinent to your case. Keep your statements and arguments simple and concise.

    Here is how the meeting of the BFPE hearing is organized. There are usually 5 parts to a meeting/hearing. They are:

    Call to order. This includes a roll call for the present members of this meeting of the BFPE. A roll call for all appellants and issuing authorities present. Administration of the oath (everyone testifying is sworn in). An introductory statement. This is the overview of the overall process and what you can expect.
    Hearings. The reason you are here.
    Secretary’s report.
    Cases scheduled and resolved after review
    Meeting is adjourned.

    The public is usually only there for parts one and two. After an appellant has their hearing, they usually leave. We will now focus on these two sections.

    Part 1 is rather quick. It is used to get the meeting started. State for the record which BFPE members are present. Roll call so they know what cases they will hear. This is important because after the first hour of the meeting, they will do this again (or after the current case is concluded). Usually, after the hour has passed, they will check for any cases missing parties. Usually, if only one party shows, then the board automatically rules in their favor. Finally, the oath is administered so all parties present can be sworn in. These are legal proceedings and everyone needs to be sworn in before they can testify.

    Hearings

    OK, this is the part you are waiting for. What happens when your name is called? Parties are called up to the board. There are tables opposite the board. As you face the board, the issuing authority/DPS (Department of Public Safety) will be on the left. Appellant will sit on the right. The Appellant is either the person that has been denied a permit or the person that is appealing their permit revocation. The attorneys on either side will sit in the middle next to each other.

    Opening Statements

    The issuing authority/DPS is given the first opportunity to state their case and why an appellant has been denied (or permit revoked). Then it’s the appellant (your) turn. This is where you tell the board about your case. Where the state/issuing authority may be wrong in their decision and how you plan to prove you deserve your permit. Don’t be afraid to ask questions if you have any about the process at this time. Any question about the process that is not directly about your case is acceptable here before you give your opening statement. Also, make sure you speak in a clear and audible manner. Think of it as your “outside” voice. You want to make sure you are heard by every member of the board.

    Issuing Authority/DPS Calling of Witnesses

    Again, the state/issuing authority goes first to outline their case. This is usually either an officer of the issuing authority that has denied or revoked a permit. This is where most of the case is laid out for the board. The DPS has someone that is either an attorney or represents the case for the state. The local issuing authority is often represented by an officer that appears on behalf of the Chief. Sometimes, the Chief of Police will appear at a permit denial hearing. They will start asking questions of their witness first.

    Then, the appellant or their attorney will have the opportunity to cross examine this witness. Always in the form of a question. This is important. This is not where the appellant testifies (usually the biggest error here is when an appellant starts actually refuting presented information and it turns into their own testimony). If the witness made any factually deficient statements, here is where the appellant can ask any questions they think would be helpful to their case, like:

    Was the appellant cooperative through the entire process?
    Was the pistol stored properly?
    Did the appellant exercise good judgement when they……….

    These types of things that improve the appellants case. This is where the appellant can outline what they did well. The state/issuing authority will not bring this up – they want to deny or revoke your permit! If there are any good points to be made from the issuing authority/officer, this is the time to do it.

    This continues until the issuing authority/DPS is done with all their witnesses. If a board member has a point that requires clarification, they may ask that at any time (through the Chairman of the Board). When the witness is done testifying, the board can ask any questions they may have. The board can do this after any witness, regardless of whether they testify on behalf of the issuing authority/DPS or the appellant.

    Appellant Calling of Witnesses or Testimony

    This is where the appellant starts to make their case. Either calling witnesses to support their argument or testifying on their own behalf. There is no specific order for who will testify. Obviously, the appellant would want questions asked of their witness that will help them plead their case. The biggest mistake I see here is under cross examination. Remember, when you interview a witness, you ask questions. The biggest mistake I see an appellant or their witness make is offering extra information. This information is often meant to be harmless. But once it’s offered, the issuing authority/DPS may cross examine that new information. I’ll give a gross example to illustrate this point:

    DPS/Issuing Authority: “Did you see <appellant> exercise good judgement while drinking alcoholic beverages on this night?”

    Witness: “Yes, not like when we were kids, he has grown a lot”

    DPS/Issuing Authority: “When you were kids, please explain”

    Witness: “Well, when we were in our early twenties, we liked to party, have a good time. Often there would be alcohol or marijuana. Back then, I don’t think <appellant> would refuse free beer or a joint. But since then, he has matured and showed great responsibility in his everyday life”

    DPS/Issuing Authority: “So, he has used illicit drugs and drank to excess in the past?”

    You can see where this goes. I said this was a gross exaggeration, but I did see a case that was very much like this one. A simple “Yes” to the first question would be fine. But by adding extra information, you opened the door to further examination of someones past. May not reflect on the person as they are today, but indeed can admit more information. In no way can a partying lifestyle be a positive, regardless of how long it has been. But, by offering the extra information…………

    When asked a “Yes/No” question, just answer with a yes or no.

    Appellant Testimony

    This is where the appellant can tell their side of the story. They don’t have to testify, but if they do not, the board can draw on what is called “adverse inference”. The link to the left will go into further detail. When the appellant doesn’t testify on their own behalf, the board can wonder why they are afraid to testify. What might they not want to accidentally let slip. Looking at the witness testimony example above, the appellant needs to follow the same advice. When asked a yes/no question, do just that, answer yes or no.

    The appellant (or their attorney) then bring out information to support their case and then the DPS/issuing authority can cross examine. This is much like previous testimony.

    Closing arguments

    The DPS/issuing authority will plead why they think the appellant should not have a pistol permit and how they feel they proved their case. The good part, the appellant goes next and can explain why they are a suitable candidate for a pistol permit. Here are some good things to bring up here:

    any points to illustrate how they exercise good judgement (especially useful when dealing with permit revocation case).
    Military discharge/honorable discharge papers.
    Why is the appellant a good candidate. Do they have a job? Family? Own their own home? Community involvement? Church? Volunteer or civic organizations? All these can provide positive reinforcement as to the character of the appellant. Often, if you don’t bring this up, the board will often ask the appellant to tell a little about themselves.
    Prior employment or personal life experience that relied on good judgement skills
    Letters from friends, former employers, coworkers that can attest to your overall GOOD character.

    Deliberation

    Starting with the Chairman of the Board, deliberation will commence. Each board member will reveal how they vote. They will often offer information as to how they came up with this conclusion. They will vote in one of three ways:

    Approve – support for the appellant to get their permit.
    Denied – do not feel the appellant should have their permit.
    Denied, at this time – this is where the board thinks the appellant isn’t ready to get their permit, but thinks they will be and are on the right path. Often, this is when someone has done something that questions their judgement in the past, but for a period of time, has been shown to be doing better. If they continue on this path, they can often re-apply and mention that they were told “at this time” and often the second time around, get their permit. The average is a year and a half or so of additional “good judgement” time.

    There has been a recent change as to when deliberations are held. Prior to the third quarter of 2011, deliberations used to be held at the end of all the hearings. They changed this recently and deliberate after the case is heard. This, is a good thing. After several hours of testimony, sometimes we may forget the particulars of a given case. I have seen cases last as short as 5 minutes and as long as 7 hours – for one case! Multiply this by several hearings and you can see why the newer process is indeed an improvement.

    Overall the process is fair. As far as a “may issue” state can be. I am for getting rid of the suitability issue altogether. This state should become a true “shall issue” state. That is the purpose of this website. To help people until we get to that point. Shall issue simply means that unless you have any barriers under federal law, you are granted your permit. No issuing authorities to deal with. The majority of states in the US are shall issue when it comes to pistol permits. Until the day comes when “The Constitution State” joins the rest of the nation, this is the process we must contend with.

    I hope this helps, feel free to fill out the contact page with any questions or corrections to this page.

    E. Jonathan Hardy
    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
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    104

    The Board “MUST” Provide logic from Testimony and Material the Appellant is Dangerous

    Suitability The Board “MUST” Provide logic from Testimony and Material the Appellant is a “Danger to the Public


    Judical opinions on people who lost at the Board then filed appeals



    CRANE v. CHAIRMAN, No. CV98 0058024S (Aug. 25, 1999)
    MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
    DYER, J.
    "General Statutes 29-28 through 29-38 clearly indicate a
    legislative intent to protect the safety of the general public
    from individuals whose conduct has shown them to be lacking the
    essential character or temperament necessary to be entrusted with
    a weapon." Rabbit v. Leonard, 36 Conn. Sup. 108, 115-116,
    413 A.2d 489 (1979); Dwyer v. Farrell, 193 Conn. 7, 12-13 (1984).
    (Internal quotation marks omitted). "The facts found by the board
    should show or provide a logical inference that a person poses
    some danger to the public if allowed to carry a weapon outside of
    the home or business." Fellows v. Board of Firearms Permit Examiners,
    (Maloney, J.), Judicial District of Hartford, CV 960558357,
    (February 7, 1997), citing Storace v. Mariano, 35 Conn. Sup. 28
    ,
    33 (1978).



    NICHOLSON v. BD./FIREARMS PERMIT EXMR., No. CV 940541048 (Sep. 28, 1995)
    MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
    MALONEY, J.
    The court presumes that the term "unsuitable" as
    used by the board means not "suitable" to hold a pistol
    permit within the meaning of § 29-28, the statute
    governing the issuance of such permits. In accordance
    with the Rabbitt v. Leonard and Storace v. Mariano cases,
    supra, an "unsuitable person" under that statute is one
    whose conduct indicates that he or she is potentially a
    danger to the public if entrusted with a handgun. In
    Smith's Appeal, the court indicates that the board may
    take into account the person's "reputation in the
    community" and "his previous conduct as a licensee."


    VIGNERI v. BOARD OF FIREARMS PER. EXMR., No. CV 96 056 04 86 (Apr. 22, 1997)
    MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
    MALONEY, J.

    In order to determine that a person is "unsuitable" to
    continue to hold a gun permit, the law requires that there be
    facts sufficient to show generally that he or she lacks "the
    essential character or temperament necessary to be entrusted with
    a weapon." Dwyer v. Farrell, 193 Conn. 7, 12 (1984); Rabbitt
    v. Leonard, 36 Conn. Sup. 108 (1979). More specifically, the
    facts found by the board should show or provide a logical
    inference that the person poses some danger to the public if
    allowed to carry a weapon outside the home or business. Storace
    v. Mariano, 35 Conn. Sup. 28, 33 (1978).



    FELLOWS v. BOARD OF FIREARMS PERMIT EXAM., No. CV 960558357 (Feb. 7,997)
    MEMORANDUM
    MALONEY, J.


    This court and other courts of the state have had numerous
    occasions to review conclusions by the defendant board that a
    permit holder is or is not a suitable person to hold a permit to
    carry a handgun within the meaning of General Statutes §§ 29-28
    to 29-32b. In order to determine that a person is "unsuitable" to
    continue to hold a gun permit, the law requires that there be
    facts sufficient to show generally that he or she lacks "the
    essential character or temperament necessary to be entrusted with
    a weapon." Dwyer v. Farrell, 193 Conn. 7, 12 (1994); Rabbitt v.
    Leonard, 36 Conn. Sup. 108 (1979). More specifically, the facts
    found by the board should show or provide a logical inference
    that the person poses some danger to the public if allowed to
    carry a weapon outside the home or business. Storace v. Mariano,
    35 Conn. Sup. 28, 33 (1978).




    FROSCENO v. BD. OF FIREARMS PERMIT EXAM., No. CV 96 056 33 92 (Mar. 5, 1997)
    EMORANDUM OF DECISION
    MALONEY, J.

    In order to determine that a person is "unsuitable" to
    continue to hold a gun permit, the law requires that there be
    facts sufficient to show generally that he or she lacks "the
    essential character or temperament necessary to be entrusted with
    a weapon." Dwyer v. Farrell, 193 Conn. 7, 12 (1984); Rabbitt v.
    Leonard, 36 Conn. Sup. 108 (1979). More specifically, the facts
    found by the board should show or provide a logical inference
    that the person poses some danger to the public if allowed to
    carry a weapon outside the home or business. Storace v. Mariano,
    35 Conn. Sup. 28, 33 (1978).



    LEPRI v. BOARD OF FIREARMS PERMIT EXAM., No. CV96-0055714 (Sep. 29, 1998)
    MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
    SYLVESTER, JUDGE.

    "More specifically, the facts found by the board should
    show or provide a logical inference that the person poses some
    danger to the public if allowed to carry a weapon outside the
    home or business." Fellows v. Board of Firearms Permit Examiners,
    supra, Superior Court, Docket No. 558357, citing Storace v.
    Mariano, 35 Conn. Sup. 28, 33, 391 A.2d 1347 (1978)


    HANSEN v. BD. OF FIREARMS PERMIT EXAMINERS, No. CV 960392053 (May 14, 1997)
    MEMORANDUM FILED MAY 14, 1997
    MALONEY, J.

    Our courts have repeatedly held that, in order to determine
    that a person is "unsuitable" to continue to hold a gun permit,
    the law requires that there be facts sufficient to show generally
    that he or she lacks "the essential character or temperament
    necessary to be entrusted with a weapon." Dwyer v. Farrell,
    193 Conn. 7, 12 (1984): Rabbitt v. Leonard, 36 Conn. Sup. 108 (1979).
    More specifically, the facts found by the board should show or at
    least allow a logical inference that the person poses some danger
    to the public if allowed to carry a weapon outside the home or
    business. Storace v. Mariano, 35 Conn. Sup. 28, 33 (1978).



    THOMSON v. BOARD OF FIREARMS PERMIT EXMRS., NNH 95 0369628 (Jan. 4, 1996)
    MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
    HODGSON, JUDGE.

    The court presumes that the term "unsuitable" as
    used by the board means not "suitable" to hold a pistol
    permit within the meaning of § 29-28, the statute
    governing the issuance of such permits. In accordance
    with the Rabbitt v. Leonard and Storace v. Mariano cases,
    supra, an "unsuitable person" under that statute is one
    whose conduct indicates that he or she is potentially a
    danger to the public if entrusted with a handgun. In
    Smith's Appeal, the court indicates that the board may
    take into account the person's "reputation in the
    community" and "his previous conduct as a licensee."

    In the present case, the court concludes that the
    board incorrectly applied the law to the facts that it
    found or could reasonably have inferred from those facts.
    In order to determine that a person is "unsuitable" to
    continue to hold a gun permit, the law requires that
    there be facts sufficient to show generally that he or
    she lacks "the essential character or temperament
    necessary to be entrusted with a weapon." Rabbitt v.
    Leonard, supra, 36 Conn. Sup. 115. More specifically,
    the facts found by the board should show or provide a
    logical inference that the person poses some danger to
    the public if allowed to carry a weapon outside the home
    or business. Storace v. Mariano, supra, 35 Conn. Sup. 33.

    In the present case, the facts set forth in the
    board's decision do not support its ultimate conclusion.
    Although the board found that the plaintiff was arrested
    as the result of an incident involving violence, all of
    the other relevant facts found by the board tend to
    negate the conclusion that he lacks the proper character
    or temperament to be entrusted with a gun or that he
    poses some danger to the public if allowed to carry a gun
    outside his home or business. In particular, the board
    found that the plaintiff has a long unblemished record as
    a permit holder; that the isolated incident that
    precipitated the revocation did not involve the use of a
    gun; and that the plaintiff was not convicted of any
    crime in connection with the incident. Although no one of
    those facts, standing alone, might be sufficient to
    negate the board's conclusion, the totality of those
    facts overwhelms it. The court finds, therefore, that, in
    light of the evidence, the board's decision was
    unreasonable and an abuse of its discretion.

    The plaintiff's appeal is sustained. In accordance
    with General Statutes § 4-183 (k), the case is remanded to
    the board and the board is instructed to order that the
    plaintiff's permit be restored in accordance with § 29-32b(b).
    CT Page 11072




    FROSCENO v. BOARD OF FIREARMS EXAMINERS, No. CV97 0571959 (Mar. 10, 1998)
    MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
    DiPENTIMA, J.

    There were two findings in the first board decision:

    1. On November 17, 1995, the appellant was arrested
    for Larceny and Conspiracy to Commit Larceny as
    a result of theft of a computer from the
    store where he was employed.

    2. On April 23, 1996, the appellant plead guilty
    CT Page 3028
    to Larceny 4th.

    The court found that if the revocation is based upon the
    conviction of a misdemeanor not included in General Statutes
    § 29-28 (b), the board must examine the underlying conduct to
    determine suitability. Since the board had not made any such
    findings, the court remanded the case with the direction to
    articulate the facts it found that would support the conclusion
    that the plaintiff lacks "the essential character or temperament
    necessary to be entrusted with a weapon, that is, that he would
    pose a danger to the public if allowed to carry a gun outside his
    home or business." Frosceno v. Board of Firearms Permit
    Examiners, supra, p. 3.

    On remand, the board added one finding to the two findings it
    made in its previous decision. That finding reads:

    3. The Board did not find the appellant's testimony
    credible, and he violated the high trust place
    in him as a security officer by his employer.

    This finding does not provide the required articulation, which
    was to "fully state its findings and conclusions" ordered by the
    court. Further, it does not provide the requisite findings for a
    determination of suitability under Dwyer v. Farrell, 193 Conn. 7,
    12 (1984) and Rabbitt v. Leonard, 36 Conn. Sup. 108, 115-16
    (1979). See also Storale v. Mariano, 35 Conn. Sup.
    28
    , 32-33
    (1978). The court cannot substitute its judgment for the board's
    but it must sustain this appeal if it finds the decision clearly
    erroneous in light of the entire record of this case. While the
    court might find facts differently from the board, it cannot do
    so and must accept the findings of fact that are supported by the
    record. The findings here do not address the critical issue of
    whether the plaintiff is a suitable person to possess a gun
    permit. The underlying incident concerned the theft of a computer
    from the plaintiff's employer, the Wiz. The record contains no
    evidence that a gun was involved in the incident or that there
    was any threat of injury to any person. A general finding of a
    lack of credibility is clearly not enough. The board's bare
    finding that the plaintiff violated the high degree of trust of a
    security officer does not establish him as a danger to the public
    if he is allowed to carry a gun outside his home.

    The appeal is sustained.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    104

    Rules of Evidence & Hearsay

    Judical Reference to Rules of Evidence


    VIGNERI v. BOARD OF FIREARMS PER. EXMR., No. CV 96 056 04 86 (Apr. 22, 1997)
    MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
    MALONEY, J.
    "Hearings before administrative agencies, . . . although
    informal and conducted without regard to the strict rules of
    evidence, must be conducted so as not to violate the fundamental
    rules of natural justice." (Citations and internal quotation
    marks omitted). Huck v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Agency,
    203 Conn. 525, 536 (1987). "Due process of law requires . . .
    that at the hearing the parties involved have a right to produce
    relevant evidence, and an opportunity to know the facts on which
    the agency is asked to act, to cross-examine witnesses and to
    offer rebuttal evidence." Id. See also General Statutes
    §§ 4-177c and 4-178.



    Administrative hearings ” Rules Of Evidence” Due process

    HALL v. BOARD OF FIREARMS PERMIT EXAMINERS, No. CV 95 0069035 (Feb. 8, 1996)
    MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
    PICKETT, J.


    There is substantial evidence in the record to support the
    Board's decision. Hearings before administrative agencies,
    although informal and conducted without regard to the strict rules
    of evidence, "must be conducted so as not to violate the
    fundamental rules of natural justice." Huck, 203 Conn. 536
    (citations omitted). In this regard, the courts have consistently
    held that the "procedures required by the UAPA exceed the minimal
    CT Page 1414-X
    procedural safeguards mandated by the due process clause." Pet v.
    Department of Health Services, 207 Conn. 346, 356-57 (1988)
    (citations omitted). An administrative hearing does not have to
    match the model of a trial in court. It must, however, meet some
    modicum of orderly and fair procedure. See Pagano v. Board of
    Education, 4 Conn. App. 1, 9-10 (1985). Due process of law at
    administrative proceedings requires not only that there be due
    notice of the hearing, but that at the hearing, the parties
    involved have a right to produce relevant evidence, and an
    opportunity to know the facts on which the agency is asked to act,
    to cross-examine witnesses and to offer rebuttal evidence. Huck,
    203 Conn. at 536.


    Hearsay,“Must be Objected to on the Record”?


    NICHOLSON v. BD./FIREARMS PERMIT EXMR., No. CV 940541048 (Sep. 28, 1995)
    MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
    MALONEY, J.
    The court concludes that,
    in the absence of any objection by the plaintiff at the
    hearing, it was not error for the board to admit the
    testimony, including the hearsay statements.


    The plaintiff advances two arguments in support of
    his appeal: (1) that the board wrongfully admitted and
    relied upon hearsay evidence;

    At the hearing before the board, a state police
    CT Page 11066
    detective testified as to the contents of the report of
    an Enfield police officer and affidavits made in support
    of the warrant for the plaintiff's arrest. An Enfield
    police officer also testified as to the contents of those
    documents. The reports and affidavits themselves were not
    admitted in evidence and the author of the police reports
    and the affiants were not present at the hearing. In his
    brief to this court on appeal, and with some
    justification, the plaintiff characterizes the allowance
    of this testimony as revealing "a complete and utter
    disregard for any form of evidentiary protocol."

    The problem with the plaintiff's objection to the
    board's allowance of the police officers' testimony
    concerning the contents of the documents is that it comes
    too late. NOTE:Plaintiff Didn’t object until judicial appeal. After losing BOFE hearing.

    "[w]hen hearsay
    statements have come into a case without objection they
    may be relied upon by the trier, in proof of the matters
    stated therein, for whatever they were worth on their
    face." (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted;
    emphasis added.) Volck v. Muzio, 204 Conn. 507, 518
    (1987).

    In the present case, the record clearly shows that
    the plaintiff made no objection to the testimony of the
    police officers at the hearing. In his testimony, he did
    attempt to contradict what they said, but he never
    objected to the admissibility of their statements.



    THOMSON v. BOARD OF FIREARMS PERMIT EXMRS., NNH 95 0369628 (Jan. 4, 1996)
    MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
    HODGSON, JUDGE.

    After the lateness of the questionnaire was mentioned, the
    plaintiff did not object to proceeding with the hearing, and he
    did not request a continuance in order to have additional time to
    inspect it. The plaintiff likewise did not object to the
    presentation of the information summarized above in the form of
    hearsay reports. The court finds that the plaintiff waived any
    objection to the procedure followed by the board. Burnham v.
    Administrator, 184 Conn. 317, 323 (1981).



    WEND v. BD. OF FIREARMS PERMIT EXAM., No. CV92-051 86 55 (May 28, 1993)
    MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
    MALONEY, J.

    Addressing first the plaintiff's claim regarding hearsay
    evidence, the court concludes that it may not be sustained. The
    statements in question were contained in the "questionnaire"
    completed by the state police, in behalf of the Commissioner,
    and submitted to the Board. They were evidently taken from a
    police report of the plaintiff's arrest on February 16, 1991.
    Even without those hearsay statements, however, the Board had
    ample and substantial evidence to support the findings it made.
    The plaintiff himself testified at the Board hearing and
    specifically corroborated the findings the Board made concerning
    the circumstances of his arrest. The court concludes,
    therefore, that the inclusion of the hearsay statements in the
    record did not prejudice a substantial right of the plaintiff so
    as to compel reversal of the Board's decision under 4-183.


    Dispute Evidence!
    GRIPPEN v. BD. OF FIREARMS PERMIT EXAM., No. CV 95 037 26 09 (Oct. 26, 1995)
    MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
    MALONEY, J.
    In the present case, the undisputed evidence before
    the board and cited in its decision plainly shows that
    the plaintiff was careless in the use of a handgun with
    the result that another person sustained personal injury.
    In the light of that evidence, the court concludes that
    the board's decision affirming the revocation of the
    plaintiff's gun permit was not unreasonable, arbitrary,
    or in abuse of its discretion. Pursuant to General
    Statutes § 4-183 (j), therefore, the court would have to
    affirm the board's decision.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    104

    Letters of refernce, hold alot of Judicaial Weight if the Board Denies You


    Letters of refernce, hold alot of Judicaial Weight if the Board Denies You, It's a huge part of "suitability your reputation in the community"
    Letters of reference


    FARMINGTON v. BD. OF FIREARMS PER. EXMR., No. CV 95-0550258S (Feb. 23, 1996)
    MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
    DYER, J.


    With respect to the requirement for three letters of
    character reference, Farmington maintains that this condition is
    a tool which aids police in their statutorily mandated (General
    Statutes § 29-29) investigation of an applicant's suitability
    to carry firearms.



    VIGNERI v. BOARD OF FIREARMS PER. EXMR., No. CV 96 056 04 86 (Apr. 22, 1997)
    MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
    MALONEY, J.

    One board member, for example,
    stated, "character references are essentially worthless because
    no one's ever seen a bad one, so don't strain too much over
    reviewing them."

    In its brief to the court in opposition to the plaintiff's
    appeal, the board cites Smith's Appeal from County
    Commissioners, 65 Conn. 135 (1884), as authority for its
    definition of "suitable" as applied to the gun permit laws. That
    case holds:

    A person is "suitable" who by reason of his
    character — his reputation in the community.
    his previous conduct as a licensee — is shown
    to be suited or adapted to the orderly conduct
    of tan activity) which the law regards as so
    dangerous to public welfare that its
    transaction by any other than a carefully
    selected person duly licensed is a criminal
    offense. (Emphasis added.)

    This rule, which has endured for more than one hundred years,
    obviously required the board to consider evidence beyond that
    pertaining to the single isolated incident
    , which, the court
    notes, did not involve the use or display of a gun. The board
    apparently agreed and accepted the double hearsay statements of
    Patrick Prue concerning the plaintiff's alleged threat to him
    about a year prior to the incident at his house. But the board
    adamantly rejected the plaintiff's attempts to introduce
    testimony favorable to her character and reputation and
    denigrated the written evidence that it did allow.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    104

    All evidence on record can outweigh any single piece and must be accessed as a whole!

    All evidence on record can outweigh any single piece and must be accessed as a whole!
    NICHOLSON v. BD./FIREARMS PERMIT EXMR., No. CV 940541048 (Sep. 28, 1995)
    MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
    MALONEY, J.

    In the present case, the facts set forth in the
    board's decision do not support its ultimate conclusion.
    Although the board found that the plaintiff was arrested
    as the result of an incident involving violence, all of
    the other relevant facts found by the board tend to
    negate the conclusion that he lacks the proper character
    or temperament to be entrusted with a gun or that he
    poses some danger to the public if allowed to carry a gun
    outside his home or business. In particular, the board
    found that the plaintiff has a long unblemished record as
    a permit holder; that the isolated incident that
    precipitated the revocation did not involve the use of a
    gun; and that the plaintiff was not convicted of any
    crime in connection with the incident. Although no one of
    those facts, standing alone, might be sufficient to
    negate the board's conclusion, the totality of those
    facts overwhelms it. The court finds, therefore, that, in
    light of the evidence, the board's decision was
    unreasonable and an abuse of its discretion.

    The plaintiff's appeal is sustained. In accordance
    with General Statutes § 4-183 (k), the case is remanded to
    the board and the board is instructed to order that the
    plaintiff's permit be restored in accordance with § 29-32b(b).
    CT Page 11072

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    104

    Dont get tricked into talking about things within the rules of Evidance U dnt have to

    Dont get tricked into talking about things within the rules of Evidance U dont have to, lawyer up, or be real careful or you get screwed out of your permit, BOFE is the wild west of court, almost anythin goes and it shouldent be that way
    Sec. 29-32b. Board of Firearms Permit Examiners. Appeals to board. Hearings


    Sec. 29-32b. Board of Firearms Permit Examiners. Appeals to board. Hearings
    …. e) All appeals hearings shall be conducted in an informal manner, but otherwise according to the rules of evidence,…...

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    104

    If you dont get your Paper work From the PD 10 days prior to your hearing, U win!

    If you dont get your Paper work From the PD 10 days prior to your hearing, U win!
    I have heard the board chairman say this one is negoatable, and he'll reschedule, well accoring to this judical opinion he's wrong!


    Rule” For Appellant Evidence Delivery“10 Day


    McCRAY v. BOARD OF FIREARMS, No. CV99-0118270 (Oct. 26, 2000)
    MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
    PURTILL, JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE


    As a general rule an indication of legislative intent that a time limit contained in a statute should be mandatory is language in the statute indicating a sanction in the event the rule is not followed. There is no language in the statute indicating a sanction if the Board fails to schedule the appeal. There is such language directed to the issuing authority requiring it to provide certain documentation to plaintiff at least ten days prior to the hearing or relief would be granted forthwith.

    VIGNERI v. BOARD OF FIREARMS PER. EXMR., No. CV 96 056 04 86 (Apr. 22, 1997)
    MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
    MALONEY, J.

    "Due process of law requires . . .
    that at the hearing the parties involved have a right to produce
    relevant evidence, and an opportunity to know the facts on which
    the agency is asked to act, to cross-examine witnesses and to
    offer rebuttal evidence." Id. See also General Statutes
    §§ 4-177c and 4-178.

  9. #9
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    Dunno where you heard the Chairman say this..... in almost all of the last 5 or so hearings I've seen towns lose on this alone.

    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
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    104

    Dont Get Played Statutory Disqualifiers legislature intended the list to be exclusive

    Dont Get Played Let the Board Know the the superior court appeal is comming if you dont get your permit
    Statutory Disqualifiers “..legislature intended the
    list to be exclusive."”



    FROSCENO v. BD. OF FIREARMS PERMIT EXAM., No. CV 96 056 33 92 (Mar. 5, 1997)
    EMORANDUM OF DECISION
    MALONEY, J.

    The board's findings, as set forth in its decision, are not
    adequate to support its conclusion that the plaintiff is not
    suitable to have a gun permit. With respect to the crime for
    which the plaintiff was convicted, Larceny in the Fourth Degree,
    a violation of General Statutes § 53a-125, it is not among
    the crimes specifically designated by the legislature as
    requiring revocation regardless of the circumstances. See §§
    29-32 and 29-28.
    "Unless there is evidence to the contrary,
    statutory itemization indicates that the legislature intended the
    list to be exclusive." Bridgeport Hospital v. Commission on Human
    Rights and Opportunities, 232 Conn. 91, 101 (1995).


    FROSCENO v. BOARD OF FIREARMS EXAMINERS, No. CV97 0571959 (Mar. 10, 1998)
    MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
    DiPENTIMA, J.

    General Statutes § 29-28 (b) provides in pertinent part:

    …No permit to carry a pistol or revolver
    shall be issued under this subsection if the
    applicant…..
    …(2) has
    been convicted of a felony or of a violation of
    subsection (c) of section 21a-279, section 53a-58,
    53a-61, 53a-61a, 53a-62, 53a-63, 53a-96, 53a-175,
    53a-176, 53a-178 or 53a-181d,
    (5) “is subject” to a restraining or protective order
    issued by a court in a case involving the use,
    attempted use or threatened use of physical force
    against another person


    HANSEN v. BD. OF FIREARMS PERMIT EXAMINERS, No. CV 960392053 (May 14, 1997)
    MEMORANDUM FILED MAY 14, 1997
    MALONEY, J.

    Finally, the plaintiff has never been convicted of any crime
    specifically designated by the legislature as requiring
    revocation regardless of the circumstances. See the list of
    crimes in §§ 29-32 and 29-28, which does not include Creating
    a Public Disturbance. "Unless there is evidence to the contrary,
    statutory itemization indicates that the legislature intended the
    list to be exclusive."
    Bridgeport Hospital v. Commission on Human
    Rights and Opportunities, 232 Conn. 91, 101 (1995). Conviction of
    CT Page 4791




    VIGNERI v. BOARD OF FIREARMS PER. EXMR., No. CV 96 056 04 86 (Apr. 22, 1997)
    MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
    MALONEY, J.

    First Degree, a violation of General Statutes § 53a-107, is a
    misdemeanor and is not among the crimes specifically designated
    by the legislature as requiring revocation regardless of the
    circumstances. See §§ 29-32 and 29-28. "Unless there is
    evidence to the contrary, statutory itemization indicates that
    the legislature intended the list to be exclusive."
    Bridgeport
    Hospital v. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities,
    232 Conn. 91, 101 (1995). Conviction of Criminal Trespass in the
    First Degree, therefore, does not per se require revocation of
    the accused's gun permit. Accordingly, even if the plaintiff had
    been convicted of that crime, which she had not, in order to
    justify revocation on the basis of such a conviction, the board
    would have to determine that her underlying conduct in committing
    the crime indicated unsuitability.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    104

    Dont Let the Dirty Laundry Get aired at the Board, Seal Old restraining Orders

    Dont Let the Dirty Laundry Get aired at the Board, The Board Is goverend under the UAPA


    CHAPTER 54*…. UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT

    Sec. 4-189. Repeal of inconsistent provisions. Any provisions in the general statutes that are inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter are repealed, provided nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to repeal provisions in the general statutes that provide for the confidentiality of records…..



    If you had restraing orders against you, they are civil files and the local pd will get them, and try to burn you with them, Using the Protective Order registery against it's legislative intent,,, if you are now "back in" with the filer or “Victim”, they can file a form at superior court that seals there name and adress and info, even if the order is not active it was determined by Chris Duryea who runs the protective order registery that the info is sealed and that sealing is applicable to the PD, and letters to the pd will be sent to the PD instructing them they cant divulge the information, they learned about Via SPFLU Protective registery. Infomation in the Protective order can be sealed by the “Victim or filer” .

  12. #12
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by Good Citizen View Post
    [CENTER][SIZE=2]
    If you had restraing orders against you, they are civil files and the local pd will get them, and try to burn you with them, Using the Protective Order registery against it's legislative intent,,, if you are now "back in" with the filer or “Victim”, they can file a form at superior court that seals there name and adress and info, even if the order is not active it was determined by Chris Duryea who runs the protective order registery that the info is sealed and that sealing is applicable to the PD, and letters to the pd will be sent to the PD instructing them they cant divulge the information, they learned about Via SPFLU Protective registery. Infomation in the Protective order can be sealed by the “Victim or filer” .
    Only problem here, they will know of the order, but not necessarily anything contained int if if it's sealed. Now, if you are questioned in front of the board because the issuing authority brought it up and they have no data, they can ask you about it. If you don't mention it on your application and they find it, they may still say they denied you because you didn't disclose the information.

    They then can ask you what the issue is with the sealed record. You can refuse. However, the board can draw an adverse inference on why you don't wan to talk about the issue. That adverse inference can go negatively toward you in your ability to prove suitability. It is the nature of such civil administrative hearings.

    Again, I said "CAN". I have seen similar issues at the board.

    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
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    104

    Defention of Suitability & Cause BOFE

    Definition of “Suitability” & “Cause” by Connecticut Court CGS 29-32

    CRANE v. CHAIRMAN (of BOFE), No. CV98 0058024S (Aug. 25, 1999)
    MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
    DYER, J.


    [fn4] A partial definition of the word "cause" in Ballentine's
    Law Dictionary (Third Edition, 1969) is ". . . that which
    supplies a motive; that which decides action or constitutes the
    reason why anything is done."

    The applicable statutes do not specifically define the terms
    "cause" and "suitable." Within the context of its usage in C.G.S.
    29-32, the court interprets "cause" to mean a valid reason
    justifying the action taken by the board.[fn4] The word
    "suitable," as it applies to license holders, was given the
    following meaning by one Connecticut Court:

    "A person is `suitable' who by reason of his character — his
    reputation in the community, his previous conduct as a
    licensee — is shown to be suited or adapted to the orderly
    conduct of a business which the law regards as so dangerous
    to public welfare that its transaction by any other than a
    carefully selected person duly licensed is made a criminal
    offense." Smith's Appeal from County Commissioners,
    65 Conn. 135, 138 (1894).

    "General Statutes 29-28 through 29-38 clearly indicate a
    legislative intent to protect the safety of the general public
    from individuals whose conduct has shown them to be lacking the
    essential character or temperament necessary to be entrusted with
    a weapon." Rabbit v. Leonard, 36 Conn. Sup. 108, 115-116,
    413 A.2d 489 (1979); Dwyer v. Farrell, 193 Conn. 7, 12-13 (1984).
    (Internal quotation marks omitted). "The facts found by the board
    should show or provide a logical inference that a person poses
    some danger to the public if allowed to carry a weapon outside of
    the home or business." Fellows v. Board of Firearms Permit Examiners,
    (Maloney, J.), Judicial District of Hartford, CV 960558357,
    (February 7, 1997), citing Storace v. Mariano, 35 Conn. Sup. 28
    ,
    33 (1978).

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    104

    Arrest without Conviction, BOFE Weighting. Watch out and file that Court appeal

    Arrest without Conviction

    WEND v. BD. OF FIREARMS PERMIT EXAM., No. CV92-051 86 55 (May 28, 1993)
    MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
    MALONEY, J.

    In the present case, the agency included in its findings
    the fact that the plaintiff was arrested for breach of peace,
    larceny 6th and possession of drug paraphernalia. Although it
    concedes in its brief to the court that mere arrest without
    conviction cannot be the basis of license revocation, it is not
    at all clear that the agency observed that principle in
    determining that the plaintiff is "unsuitable." Indeed, the
    prominence given to the fact of the plaintiff's arrest on three
    criminal charges strongly suggests otherwise.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by KIX View Post
    Only problem here, they will know of the order, but not necessarily anything contained int if if it's sealed. Now, if you are questioned in front of the board because the issuing authority brought it up and they have no data, they can ask you about it. If you don't mention it on your application and they find it, they may still say they denied you because you didn't disclose the information.

    They then can ask you what the issue is with the sealed record. You can refuse. However, the board can draw an adverse inference on why you don't wan to talk about the issue. That adverse inference can go negatively toward you in your ability to prove suitability. It is the nature of such civil administrative hearings.

    Again, I said "CAN". I have seen similar issues at the board.

    Jonathan
    You have to mention Resraining orders on your Firearms application period, and no it cant "legally" be held against you, if you dont want to disuss it, after it's sealed. Once there sealed the issueing authority cant mention them period. The Board can say and vote however it wants, a judical appeal superseads ther err of there ways, if there not following the rule's of evidance, by acknowlegding your objection in there vote, if they want to indiscrimintly violate the statutory disqualifyers, after a simle objection (THAT ALL THAT IS NEEDED), well all im saying is the hearing is alot simpler than they make it out to be you dont have to spill your guts, and air your laundry, people who do, i can say with certainty they dont know what they are doing. Object to any question or reference that has nothing to due with legislative intent, or statutory law to get a permit, and if some board members dont like it cause some are diging way to the left, not all members, it's none of there business and you have to feel comfortable knowing you will need to judicially appeal. An objection and silence if that is held against you and they are saying your deceptive then a judge is givin U your permit, a judge decides wether there was an err in law, not to rehear the case. If you go in there begging and confess everything and think that will get you your permit, not knowing your rights your screwed, most of the things asked dont even need to be responded to. You dont need to go in there subservient and beg for your permit, your entitled, and just understand if you get into answering everything your asked your a fool and will in essance be signing your own denial."

    No offence i dont really have time for an ongoing debate im simpley presenting research, that has been verified through the Cheif Court administrator Barbra Quinn's office and Chris Durye who runs the states protective order registry, and Tim Sigrue the States erasure gure in rocky hill at the states prosicuters office

    Your a good dude John and keep up the good work, Keep fighting the good fight! My info and research is solid and was conducted over the course of 1 year, with more hours spent then i even want to think about. Email me and i could send you some of my research, for your ongoing research.

  16. #16
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by Good Citizen View Post
    You have to mention Resraining orders on your Firearms application period,
    Agreed. However, I have also heard of ex parte restrainign orders not being checked off and all was fine. This was after the result of a recoreds check coming back clean.

    Quote Originally Posted by Good Citizen View Post
    , and no it cant "legally" be held against you, if you dont want to disuss it, after it's sealed.
    Yes, and no. There is no "legally" in a civil administrative hearing especially when the purpose is to decide suitability (ugh, I hate that!). You have the right to not speak on the issue, absolutely. Threre is nothing barring the state or Issuing Authority from bringing it up if you are "known" to the department. i.e. You're applying for your permit, cop recognizes your name. Asks the officer involved in the case what the deal is with your past. They can bring that officer in with knowledge of your case and say that that is the reason why they denied you. Before anyone calles Bravo Sierra on that one, I HAVE SEEN IT HAPPEN on more than one occassion!

    Quote Originally Posted by Good Citizen View Post
    The Board can say and vote however it wants, a judical appeal superseads ther err of there ways, if there not following the rule's of evidance, by acknowlegding your objection in there vote, if they want to indiscrimintly violate the statutory disqualifyers, after a simle objection (THAT ALL THAT IS NEEDED)
    Yes, that appeal is indeed an option (I think that also needs to be filed within 90 days (I'd have to double check on that one). The board says if that is the route you are going to take, they'll get you transcripts in a timely manner. Very few actually take it that far (unfortunately). I hope that with my site, I can get some if this informatio out there. Of course, my prior answers were BEFORE this appeal option and the person has been denied.

    Quote Originally Posted by Good Citizen View Post
    well all im saying is the hearing is alot simpler than they make it out to be you dont have to spill your guts, and air your laundry, people who do, i can say with certainty they dont know what they are doing. Object to any question or reference that has nothing to due with legislative intent, or statutory law to get a permit, and if some board members dont like it cause some are diging way to the left, not all members, it's none of there business and you have to feel comfortable knowing you will need to judicially appeal.
    All good reasons to have an attorney or do SERIOUS research like go to severl hearings before your actual hearing date to get an education. I see more people being their own worst witness - ALL THE TIME! That being said, VERY few objections are every sustained as the scope of these hearings is indeed very broad. Maybe more appeals to the superior court might change some of that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Good Citizen View Post
    and you have to feel comfortable knowing you will need to judicially appeal.
    A HUGE step for many. Not easily cheap, either. As I don't advise that route for 99% of citizens without an attorney.

    Quote Originally Posted by Good Citizen View Post
    An objection and silence if that is held against you and they are saying your deceptive then a judge is givin U your permit, a judge decides wether there was an err in law, not to rehear the case. If you go in there begging and confess everything and think that will get you your permit, not knowing your rights your screwed, most of the things asked dont even need to be responded to. You dont need to go in there subservient and beg for your permit, your entitled, and just understand if you get into answering everything your asked your a fool and will in essance be signing your own denial."
    This, I'm curious about, and looking at the cases you cite might shed some light. I don't think they get your permit (if that is what your sayin) they essentially are told that the denial based on certain admissions is unjust. Does that mean that they end up with another BFPE hearing and certain evidence is just not allowed? I'm curious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Good Citizen View Post

    No offence i dont really have time for an ongoing debate im simpley presenting research, that has been verified through the Cheif Court administrator Barbra Quinn's office and Chris Durye who runs the states protective order registry, and Tim Sigrue the States erasure gure in rocky hill at the states prosicuters office

    Your a good dude John and keep up the good work, Keep fighting the good fight! My info and research is solid and was conducted over the course of 1 year, with more hours spent then i even want to think about. Email me and i could send you some of my research, for your ongoing research.
    Not a debate.

    I've been discussing what happens at the BFPE hearing. Of which, I'm 100% correct. Your research deals with a lot of what happens after the denial..... and that is some of the material I want to work on for future research.

    For the record, if you ever want to get together for a discussion over coffee sometime, let me know. I'd like to learn more about your case material.

    Thanx for the info!

    Jonathan
    Last edited by KIX; 01-09-2012 at 11:04 AM. Reason: coffee invite
    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.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by KIX View Post
    Your research deals with a lot of what happens after the denial.....

    My info was my quest for a "judical road map" on how to present a case, it clearly outlines some things the board must & must not do, to find you suitable or unsuitable, within the paramerters of what they are doing. It is the judges scrutiny on their behaviors and voting..... i am not sure of what happens after, a loseing case (IE ruling of unsuitability) or the technical aspects on how to appeal it, i just wanted insite of the "rules of the game", at the BOFE, in some cases anything goes when the appelant dosent know any better, when all thats needed is an objection from the appelant which technically, can't be held against them, i have read about 54 judical opinions, witch all seem to have a pattern of behavior, amongst the rules of evidance, and natural justice that the board must respect in there rulings, or a judge will rule against the Board


    CHAPTER 54*…. UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT

    Sec. 4-189. Repeal of inconsistent provisions. Any provisions in the general statutes that are inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter are repealed, provided nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to repeal provisions in the general statutes that provide for the confidentiality of records…..

    Anything legally erased is none of the Administrative boards business, Your not unsuitable for objecting, alot of the PD's and state revocations are formed by Unlawfully axcessing information. Mainly using erased info to seek out the arresting officer to bring him in, that info is off limits even to law enforcement personel. It's blatently the fruit from the poisionus tree doctorine .

    Sec. 29-32b. Board of Firearms Permit Examiners. Appeals to board. Hearings


    Sec. 29-32b. Board of Firearms Permit Examiners. Appeals to board. Hearings
    …. e) All appeals hearings shall be conducted in an informal manner, but otherwise according to the rules of evidence,…...

    Rules of evidance, the Bold underlined says it all, you dont have to spill your guts, just follow the established procedures

Posting Permissions

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