Observed BFPE board meeting yesterday

Interesting.

As an instructor, I wanted to observe the process at least once so I can have a better idea of what to tell potential permit holders what to expect if it should go this far, and how to prepare.

I was also rather curious as to the process in my 2A advocacy projects here in the state as well.

A couple of the board members seemed rather balanced and I was kinda surprised.

Some of the hearings....... OMG...... some people really should not have a firearm!!! I don't know how often this is, but....

Case No. 10-75-R, Efrosinie Mathews, represented by Atty. John O’Brien vs. Commissioner James M. Thomas, Dept. of Public Safety - http://www.ct.gov/bfpe/lib/bfpe/Mathews.MP3

This case is interesting to listen to with regards to the attorney and what he wants to present and object and how he is continually denied. Also think the prescriptions vs actual consumption part is interesting.

*****

Case No. 10-113-R, David Liptak vs. Commissioner James M. Thomas, Dept. of Public Safety - http://www.ct.gov/bfpe/lib/bfpe/Liptak.MP3

Can't say I would want this guy living next to me though. This case, is really HILARIOUS to listen to.... really..... listen to the reason why he discharges his firearm!!! I can't make this up.

******

Case No. 10-167-D, Pete Schoppenhauer, Jr. vs. Chief Neil O’Leary, Wolcott Police Department - http://www.ct.gov/bfpe/lib/bfpe/Schoppenhauer.MP3

Interesting, considering his denial reason: unidentified person on his property..... Wolcott could've taken the reasoning for this into consideration, but.... chose local issuing authority denial up front.

*****

Case No. 10-124-D, Jody Simpson vs. Chief Michael Maniago, Torrington Police Department - http://www.ct.gov/bfpe/lib/bfpe/Simpson.MP3

This case is interesting because the appellant did have a criminal history - BUT WAS CLEAN FOR ALMOST A QUARTER CENTURY!!!! The town could have just said that the guys past was a LONG time ago and has indeed straightened out his life - but no....... The board was unanimous on this one.

So far, I walk away with more reason why this state should indeed be a shall issue state (not that I needed much nudging on this one). Even is we are a shall issue state, wouldn't we still need to have hearings for people to recover their permit when it is revoked? Who would handle the hearings?

Jonathan

KIX said:

Even is we are a shall issue state, wouldn't we still need to have hearings for people to recover their permit when it is revoked? Who would handle the hearings?

Click to expand...

If there were no 'suitability' requirements on the permit, then the only reason they could revoke or deny a permit would be if you are a 'prohibited person' which would be a felon or mentally defective person. At that point, you would have to get whatever status that made you a 'prohibited person' reversed and then just reapply for the permit.

OK, but......

Two of those people, I think really probably shouldn't have a firearm. They would indeed pass, but are indeed "unsafe" by every stretch of the word.

Jonathan

KIX said:

Two of those people, I think really probably shouldn't have a firearm. They would indeed pass, but are indeed "unsafe" by every stretch of the word.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, but if they haven't done anything that is actually wrong, I don't see the point in the government stepping in to take away their rights.

There are plenty of people out there who (just through talking to them) I don't feel comfortable being on the road with, but until they are caught doing something stupid, I don't believe they should lose their license. And driving isn't even a constitutional right.

Not understanding

KIX, I'm confused. Are you saying the State should be a shall-issue state, which means that these people who don't seem suitable to own a gun but are legally allowed to would get to keep their permits? Or are you saying that the State should continue with the suitability requirement, and retain the ability to prevent these people from having permits?

I don't see any compromise between those positions disallowing the dangerous but legal people to have permits but letting everyone else have them.

Johnny W said:

KIX, I'm confused. Are you saying the State should be a shall-issue state, which means that these people who don't seem suitable to own a gun but are legally allowed to would get to keep their permits? Or are you saying that the State should continue with the suitability requirement, and retain the ability to prevent these people from having permits?

I don't see any compromise between those positions disallowing the dangerous but legal people to have permits but letting everyone else have them.

Click to expand...

No I think Kix is definitely saying that we need to be a Shall issue state, however the fact remains that under certain circumstances you will become ineligible for a permit and will require some type of appeal hearing.

I didn't listen to the last case but I did the first 2 and in my opinion they are both open and shut cases.

1) the first guy is ineligible because he broke the law, he illegally discharged a firearm and had consumed alcohol in the process. He was in no condition to be handling a gun. It didn't mention if he had been arrested or not but Even in a shall issue state he would become ineligible based on what he did.

2) This guy did nothing wrong and should never have made it to the appeal process. A normal well mannered father of 2 was denied for the very reason he was seeking the permit in the first place... to defend himself and his family.

3) Unfortunately he has a criminal record which makes him ineligible. Regardless of how long ago it was by the letter of the law he is not eligible. A shall issue state won't fix this guy. I have a friend of mine in the same situation who has been seeking a pardon for the last 20 years. he was convicted of a minor felony when he was VERY young and now that he is approaching his 50's he still has lost all of the rights that go with being a convicted felon even though he has led a squeaky clean life every day since then.

Shawn Mitola said:

under certain circumstances you will become ineligible for a permit and will require some type of appeal hearing.

Click to expand...

This would be done in front of a judge.

Pretty much what Rich said.

Observing the process made me think about a few things.

The appellant that had a record, but clean for over 25 years I think should have a permit. I mean, two and a half decades is a long time to stay clean and change your life. Under shall issue, he would have a record and be denied.

Also, there were a couple of appellants that clearly should not have a gun, yet would because they clearly had no record (but clearly don't demonstrate good judgment with firearms).

I'm saying I'm still a strong supporter of shall issue. Especially since the towns in CT have CLEARLY overstepped the law with the way the treat prospective permit holders. My observations have led me to look at things a bit different considering the cases above.

I think I'm going to go to at least the next hearing and such. It was clearly educational for me and I wish all instructors would go at least once, at least to be able to answer student questions when teaching the safety course.

Jonathan

Jonathan,

I have also attended the BFPE hearing as CDDL and someone that has had extensive contact with almost all the members of the board.
It is indeed educational and is something that everyone that has a permit should do, if they have the time.

I must agree that SOME of the folks that have and will continue to be denied due to their past "Life" should be allowed to carry. Again I will stress the SOME.

I feel bad for these folks, because I understand that getting a record expunged can be a very costly and possibly not effective.

Yep.

Also, keeping a pistol course requirement is a good thing. Last thing I want is a bunch of people with NO safety training...... but that can be a whole new can of worms!

Jonathan

I understand your position better now, KIX. You're right that simply changing our system to Shall-Issue would present its own problems.

However, those problems can be addressed. For instance, concurrant to a change to Shall Issue, some instances of unsafe gun handling could be criminalized, as crimes that would disqualify someone from having a permit or owning a firearm. Add to that a system where crimes which disqualify a person can be expunged, or the rights otherwise restored. Of course, that puts the onus squarely on the courts to justly and rightly convict or clear people accused of unsafe firearm handling. If the justice system always worked like it's supposed to, Shall-Issue would be a great system. But there are substantial failings in the court system, too. One glaring problem is the cost to citizens who need to hire lawyers and pay court fees.

Letter of the Law....That is a interesting concept since the laws are written by people, and people are NOT perfect by any stretch of the imagination. I think someone that kept their life clean for such a long time, 2.5 decades as someone said, should be allowed to have is rights restored without it being so damn costly. This is suppose to be the land of opportunity, but someone who has been a good citizen for over 20 years can't get a damn pardon? Sadly now i think this is the land of big brother watching and the government trying to control every little thing we do. Ok i'm done ranting, see ya folks

Shawn Mitola said:

3) Unfortunately he has a criminal record which makes him ineligible. Regardless of how long ago it was by the letter of the law he is not eligible. A shall issue state won't fix this guy. I have a friend of mine in the same situation who has been seeking a pardon for the last 20 years. he was convicted of a minor felony when he was VERY young and now that he is approaching his 50's he still has lost all of the rights that go with being a convicted felon even though he has led a squeaky clean life every day since then.

Click to expand...