• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Audio of May 9th Hearing THE APPLICATION PROCESS

J

Jared

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
892
Location
Michigan, USA
Rich B said:
Are you moving to CT?
Click to expand...

Hello no.

I grew up on the Route 6 corridor in Rhode Island, just 10 miles from the CT state line.

I would never move to CT due to super high taxes, and bad gun laws. If I was to move back to New England, it would be New Hampshire. I will spend my older years most likely in either NH or OR.

I do come back to New England a couple of times a year due to a large amount of family and friends in CT, RI, MA, and VT... So I do frequent Route 6 and I-95 in CT.

The reason I stay involved in RI matters is because most of those chiefs need to be judicially slapped hard. The current pending case is found here http://www.hopkinscenter.org/gendreau-v-canario.html. It's good case and hopefully our hard work pays off.
 
davidmcbeth

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Jared said:
Dave,

Your case is classic spaghetti on the wall. And they were beyond frustrated with you. I don't know that it is clear that a completed application without listed employment would be denied.

Employment could be a rational question for a bounty hunter pistol permit or for a security guard permit, but a class 0 permit is a different story. If there was an applicant who's ONLY issue was not giving employment info, I'm not convinced the BFPE wold uphold a denial based on that sole fact.
Click to expand...

The board did say that EVERY query must be answered. Ah yes, they were flustered ... because I would not let them trod all over my rights w/o me objecting. I was going to appeal but I got side tracked with a medical issue.

The board is full of it, has been full of it, and need to meet folks like me...I told them that they can ASK for anything but that does not mean it is REQUIRED that everything that they ask for must be provided. I cited some case law as well, but they are not interested in case law ...

Some here believe that the board is a good agency but I would disagree ... in the most recent case, the Groton one, the board ruled in favor of the applicant BUT violated the applicant's rights in the process again and again... I would still have a negative viewpoint in such a set of circumstances because my due process rights are just as important as the outcome IMO.
 
J

Jared

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
892
Location
Michigan, USA
davidmcbeth said:
The board did say that EVERY query must be answered. Ah yes, they were flustered ... because I would not let them trod all over my rights w/o me objecting. I was going to appeal but I got side tracked with a medical issue.

The board is full of it, has been full of it, and need to meet folks like me...I told them that they can ASK for anything but that does not mean it is REQUIRED that everything that they ask for must be provided. I cited some case law as well, but they are not interested in case law ...

Some here believe that the board is a good agency but I would disagree ... in the most recent case, the Groton one, the board ruled in favor of the applicant BUT violated the applicant's rights in the process again and again... I would still have a negative viewpoint in such a set of circumstances because my due process rights are just as important as the outcome IMO.
Click to expand...

Just finished both of your YouTube clips. The board said they never considered employment and they simply pondered on the issue, but they didn't say either way.

The board is a good thing. The police chiefs hate the board for a reason. I wish RI had a board, currently, permit denials have to be appealed to the state Supreme Court..... Talk about a burden.

The Groton chief got slammed in that case. They went into his employment and security clearance because they basically issued him a temporary permit on the spot since Groton didn't do a background check.

Regarding your ability to appeal (at least to federal court under 42 USC 1983) you have two years to do so. So you can still do it if you wish after your medical issues are dealt with.
 
motoxmann

motoxmann

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
760
Location
Middletown, CT
davidmcbeth said:
the board said that ALL sections of the dps form must be completed ..

do you agree with that viewpoint?
Click to expand...

I'll post my opinion:
I agree with that viewpoint, because a field left blank is considered an incomplete application. but for the questions that are questionable or not applicable, I do firmly believe that a simple "N/A" entered into the field would be considered as completed.
the board has already stated that driving history and employment history are irrelevant when filing an appeal, and as stated before if someone is unemployed it can not deem them not suitable. so I imagine "n/a" in the employment section would suffice. also due to the other reasons people have listed, regarding not wanting the employer to know you have a permit because they may not have the same views as you and may terminate you after coming upon that knowledge.
 
davidmcbeth

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
motoxmann said:
I'll post my opinion:
I agree with that viewpoint, because a field left blank is considered an incomplete application. but for the questions that are questionable or not applicable, I do firmly believe that a simple "N/A" entered into the field would be considered as completed.
the board has already stated that driving history and employment history are irrelevant when filing an appeal, and as stated before if someone is unemployed it can not deem them not suitable. so I imagine "n/a" in the employment section would suffice. also due to the other reasons people have listed, regarding not wanting the employer to know you have a permit because they may not have the same views as you and may terminate you after coming upon that knowledge.
Click to expand...

http://www.ct.gov/bfpe/cwp/view.asp?a=3291&Q=419136

I would agree with what you have said .... but if the board has actually ruled on these issues, then why are they still asking for the information on their form linked above. CGS Chapter 54 specifically requires the commission to omit irrelevant queries from their admin processes. Seems like the board is violating the law then....

And CT Carry has not answered yet .... still waiting. May be I'll start a thread looking into each form (DPS & BFPE Questionnaire and see what is mandatory and what is BS to provide)..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top