• 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.

ALRIGHT ALREADY -- I'll go and apply for a CCW --- but ..

dcmdon

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
469
Location
Old Saybrook, CT
David,

I have to say that when you first started this, I thought you were a nut.

I still think you are a nut, but I applaud what you are trying to do and wish you the best of luck. I'm glad you are on our side.

Don
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
David,

I have to say that when you first started this, I thought you were a nut.

I still think you are a nut, but I applaud what you are trying to do and wish you the best of luck. I'm glad you are on our side.

Don

Its a simple concept really. I already legally own a gun. I should be able to practice with it. A permit should be issued w/o any further examination of any other facts because I need one to transport the gun to a range. As to the procedural aspects, it is meant to limit facts that the issuing authority can or is able to disclose to the board so more of my facts and argument are made into the record. My goal is that only my testimony and argument will be heard. I think it is an achievable goal.
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
Its a simple concept really. I already legally own a gun. I should be able to practice with it. A permit should be issued w/o any further examination of any other facts because I need one to transport the gun to a range. As to the procedural aspects, it is meant to limit facts that the issuing authority can or is able to disclose to the board so more of my facts and argument are made into the record. My goal is that only my testimony and argument will be heard. I think it is an achievable goal.

(*thumbs up*) Good luck!

This sounds like a fight well worth fighting! Thankfully, most of this is not necessary in North Carolina...although the whole "pistol purchase permit" needs to go away.
 

Good Citizen

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
Messages
104
Location
US
Hi !

Any one know of any significant case law in respect to the board's procedures or board opinions or rulings?

Just doing hearing prep.

I do, I gleaned 50 cases of appellants who lost at the board, and appealed, from the law library, and sent myself the judicial opinions and I narrowed down to see what the procedures are To build myself a rulebook, of What the board should be doing. What I noticed through a year and a half of hearings is that the board members are nice guys, they at time's, talk to you like there your friend a lot of times trying to get things on record, depending which one, they are attempting to screw you out of your permit. Due to their own opinion, not based on the law or the definitions, in these judicial rulings. I saw a lot of things, totally unorthodox when it comes to the rules of evidence, there is a way to present a case, and under Most circumstances a one line simple objection "needs to be made", the case must be presented in essence "to the judicial review board", or the other option most take, is to go in and beg for their right, you don't appear to be a beggar.

Some of the board members try to make you feel like you have to "come clean" to their questions they actually have no right to ask, And if you answer you're totally screwed because you're begging for something you're not going to get, a simple objection would suffice, comfort knowing that this is going to the judicial review process and that is the only way to guarantee your permit and that the rules are followed. Most appellants including their attorneys are lazy and say thing's on record hoping to get a quick fix, ie the board to vote to issue the permit, But the problem with that is some of the board members vote based on their personal opinion and not the law. In essence answering the unfounded questions you just screwed yourself during the judicial review process the judge will say that you answered the questions therefore no rules were broken, I saw that come up time and time again.

When one reads through this many judicial opinions you get a sense and written understanding from judges, with what the board should and shouldn't be doing, the judges, Make very clear in every judicial opinion that their job is not do not retry the case, they simply make sure that the rules were not broken, as laxed
As they are.

It probably wouldn't hurt to put in some case law with judicial opinions from appellants, V. the board of firearms examiners on record. I also was able to draw the inference the volunteer board members don't like when people file appeals because it, from what I was able to gather, is a very laborfull process for them, and there volunteers. It's a little harder than just showing up listening to some stories and voting.
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
I agree with everything you have said but would note that with lawyers representing a complainant a lawyer may see that filing an objection to certain things just are not worth the hassle as some things, they see, as being a non-issue. So for a lawyer, some things they let go I just say "I would have objected" and with other things they let go I would say "Man, that should have been objected to!".

As far as administrative appeals to the Superior court, you are correct, all admin rulings appeals generally just look at the record that was made before the agency that ruled. Questions of law can be re-argued as these are de novo issues but questions of fact and new evidence admission are generally not allowed; the burden against a losing part in respect to the merits of the case to a losing party is "against the manifest evidence" meaning if the superior court could see any logical reason why the board ruled in the manner it did then the court will sustain the ruling..a very hard burden to overcome. Hence my work to get this changed where admin appeals are heard totally de novo by a superior court. I don't think this will go anywhere unless numerous examples are shown to our legislature of the abuse of the system by the various administrative agencies. After all, this would turn back 100 years of law in respect to admin appeals!

And 100% agree about "telling your story" and the ammo it gives to the board to deny. Loose lips sink ships is a motto for a litigant before the board. Less is more ... don't answer questions w/o objecting to the question posed ... it makes a record of a ruling of law that can be reviewed de novo by the court. Answering and then after losing arguing to the superior court "that ? should not have been asked" is not a winning argument because you waived any objection to the ? during your hearing. Even though the board is tasked with conducting an "investigation" under the law, this statue does not exist in a vacuum .. case law, other statues, and common law actually limit what type of questions they can ask. The board is not the opposing party, folks should not let them behave as if they are.


ps sent GC a PM
 
Last edited:

dmjs

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2011
Messages
47
Location
Rocky Hill CT
While I completely agree with what you are doing and applaud you for what you are doing, the pistol class IS required per state statute.

I completely agree though, how can someone be expected to be proficient with a pistol if they can not legall even handle or own one without a permit or eligibility certificate?

I hate to disagree here, there are some ranges that allow one to practice without a Pistol Permit. You only have to show your NRA Cert....

Sometimes in life stirring the pot no only makes bad soup for you, but also for your guests.
 
Last edited:

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
Sometimes in life stirring the pot no only makes bad soup for you, but also for your guests.

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
I hate to disagree here, there are some ranges that allow one to practice without a Pistol Permit. You only have to show your NRA Cert....

Sometimes in life stirring the pot no only makes bad soup for you, but also for your guests.

I know places where you need nothing to practice....Blue Trail range doesn't require anything. But how you gonna get your guns there? Ya cannot leave your house with a handgun w/o a permit?
 

dmjs

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2011
Messages
47
Location
Rocky Hill CT
Rent them

I know places where you need nothing to practice....Blue Trail range doesn't require anything. But how you gonna get your guns there? Ya cannot leave your house with a handgun w/o a permit?

Many ranges do rent firearms to you without a Permit, just a NRA cert
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Many ranges do rent firearms to you without a Permit, just a NRA cert

My gun is unique .. one of a kind ... so I kinda need to be able to transport this specific handgun .. (I put this fact into my appeal letter to the board)

Also, even in anti-carry Illinois, you can transport your gun to a range w/o violating any law ... not so in CT where you need a permit to leave your 4-walls of your dwelling.

I like this .. shoot me another argument, helping me get ready for the board.
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
I had a scheduled hearing later this month but the town requested a postponement due to the storm Sandy. I filed an objection to the postponement but the secretary Knapp granted it anyway.

How much is the board in the pockets of the towns? A little bit ...
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
New filings by town & objection to the filings by me

As you may recall, a low ranking policeman filed the board's questionnaire with the board in July 2012.

I filed an objection to and motion to strike the filings by the policeman. The board took the set of pleadings and issued out a notice that the set of motion/objection would be ruled upon just prior to the opening up of the show cause hearing.

Well, the lawyer for the town filed the same set of documents with the Board as the policeman filed (in fact, he just took my motion to strike's exhibits and turned these into the board) months before and are the subject matter of my motion to strike/objections to.

So, it seems as if the town has realized that a low ranking policeman cannot represent nor submit evidence and the questionnaire to the board.

Well, I am not to happy that the town is submitting a duplicate set of documents to the board when a motion to strike for various reasons beyond that of the policeman's filing status and standing is pending.

So I am filing a second set of objections with the board ... to strike the duplicate filing by the town of records that are the subject matter of a pending motion to strike. Otherwise the board might say "well, he filed the same stuff and you did not object to that filing? So your objections are moot." According to the board, anything submitted in respect to the questionnaire response (which could be anything & you can supplement your response) is considered as evidence w/o need for a foundation to be made....

so keep this in mind...if you see statements or documents you want to object to, then do it via a motion to strike & objection or the statements/docs may haunt you in the hearing.

The goal is to minimize the evidence that will hurt you in getting your permit ... fight the introduction of evidence and testimony through any means possible...

The board is not your friend ... do not worry if you make them mad ... if you limit the evidence and testimony to the extent that they cannot show you should not get a permit, then you will get a permit.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Well had my hearing today .. argued that 29-28's provision requiring safety training cannot be mandatory for a person wishing to simply transport his gun via motor vehicle, as a permit is required under 29-38 and your right to practice is a core right and a core right cannot require a safety course.

They did not like that argument (I figured that they wouldn't).

They did allow me to introduce everything I wanted which is quite nice given the way other admin agencies treat me .. the case law cited really isn't binding upon the board due to venue (although they said that they cannot rule on statues but did anyway when if fit their needs by saying that a statue mandates things to be done, it seems to me that this is a ruling on a statue by saying that the statue mandates something) but it would allow for a start up the courts for review.

The board was pretty mad at me until they figured out that the permit application was a political application...so they did allow stuff to be submitted into evidence...

Anywho, here are the authorities I cited and they allowed into evidence:


“..Attend a firearms training or safety course providing "a total of at least one hour of firing training at a firing range and a total of at least 4 hours of classroom instruction." § 7-2502.03(a)(13)(A)… All of these requirements, such as the mandatory five hours of firearm training and instruction, § 7-2502.03(a)(13)(A), make it considerably more difficult for a person lawfully to acquire and keep a firearm, including a handgun, for the purpose of self-defense in the home — the "core lawful purpose" protected by the Second Amendment, Heller, 554 U.S. at 630…. With respect to ..7-2502.03(a)(13)(A)…the judgment is vacated and this matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion…”
Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F. 3d 1244 - Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit 2011.

“…The right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right to acquire and maintain proficiency in their use; the core right wouldn’t mean much without the training 36 No. 10‐3525 and practice that make it effective. Several passages in Heller support this understanding…”
Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F. 3d 684 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2011


The connecting the dots between 29-38 and 29-28 was just too much for the army guys to comprehend...go figure...they're republicans...don't expect to much of fresh thinking out of those guys.

I am surprised that NONE of them agreed with that the need for safety training was not needed ... just another fascists set of bureaucrats. And they think they are champions of gun rights...ha!

The fight continues ! I told them in my closing statements that the definition of "suitability" has changed and they just don't know it yet.

Most people I spoke to supported the positions with a few exceptions...to be expected.
 

motoxmann

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
760
Location
Middletown, CT
I'm very pro-gun, and I agree with all the legal points referenced that you "argued".
personally though, honestly, would you want people toting around guns that have zero experience and training? we have enough permit-holders that don't know the laws. do we really want people carrying around guns who don't know how to handle/clean/fire them responsibly?

I agree with your cause, and for the sake of not needing to take a training course in order to transport a gun to a range for practice/training. but in order to transport a gun, that person would have to own that gun, or be borrowing it from its owner. and they would need a permit to buy said gun. so doesn't this just go in a circle of pointlessness?

I do believe all law abiding citizens have the right to buy/own/carry a gun. But I also firmly believe that anyone looking to buy/own/carry a gun should have some form of formal training by an approved instructor before doing any of these, all to prevent mishaps and/or laws being broken.

IE: the number 1 thing my instructor repeated a thousand times: "it is unlawful to store a loaded handgun". burning that into peoples' brains is a good idea, to prevent children or criminals from gaining access to them, or even things like a gun going off in the event of a fire. whereas someone who never took a training course may never know that law, or be aware of the possible consequences, and may store a loaded gun. then when their child shoots themself or a friend, or the parent, on purpose or by accident, they'll regret it the rest of their life and not be able to change it.

so much more could be argued here. but basically my point is I believe anyone planning to buy/own/carry a firearm should have at least some formal training. and the NRA course really is not a difficult or expensive task to take on, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the safety of everyone
 

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
I'm very pro-gun, and I agree with all the legal points referenced that you "argued".
personally though, honestly, would you want people toting around guns that have zero experience and training? we have enough permit-holders that don't know the laws. do we really want people carrying around guns who don't know how to handle/clean/fire them responsibly?

Nope, but that is why training is encouraged no matter what. Mandating it through the government is silly though. Plenty of states have no training requirement and some have no permits. Are those states experiencing higher accident rates?



But I also firmly believe that anyone looking to buy/own/carry a gun should have some form of formal training by an approved instructor before doing any of these, all to prevent mishaps and/or laws being broken.

Ok, then become a trainer or help people obtain training. To support the state putting arbitrary mandates on people only further legitimizes their silliness.

IE: the number 1 thing my instructor repeated a thousand times: "it is unlawful to store a loaded handgun".

Except that is untrue. Your instructor should not be teaching that, nor should anyone else.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for the safety of everyone

Me too. The difference is that I am unwilling to force people to do it at the barrel of the government guns.
 

motoxmann

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
760
Location
Middletown, CT
Nope, but that is why training is encouraged no matter what. Mandating it through the government is silly though. Plenty of states have no training requirement and some have no permits. Are those states experiencing higher accident rates?

Me too. The difference is that I am unwilling to force people to do it at the barrel of the government guns.

To support the state putting arbitrary mandates on people only further legitimizes their silliness.


point taken


Ok, then become a trainer or help people obtain training.

I always have on a personal level. beyond that, I'd love to, just near impossible for me currently to find the time :(


Except that is untrue. Your instructor should not be teaching that, nor should anyone else.

It's not CT law that you can not store a loaded firearm? I could have sworn I even read it myself in the statutes. Guess I'll have to go back and read again...

edit: the actual statute:
Sec. 29-37i. (Formerly Sec. 29-37c). Responsibilities re storage of loaded firearms with respect to minors. No person shall store or keep any loaded firearm on any premises under his control if he knows or reasonably should know that a minor is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the parent or guardian of the minor unless such person (1) keeps the firearm in a securely locked box or other container or in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure or (2) carries the firearm on his person or within such close proximity thereto that he can readily retrieve and use it as if he carried it on his person. For the purposes of this section, "minor" means any person under the age of sixteen years.
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Nope, but that is why training is encouraged no matter what. Mandating it through the government is silly though. Plenty of states have no training requirement and some have no permits. Are those states experiencing higher accident rates?
.

I believe that in the moore v madigan case that there was a reference to a report that the court noted in their opinion in respect to the question if NRA training has any effect...I'm planning on getting the study and reviewing it.

In CT you need training to get a permit to carry but you also need a permit to transport so I think the legislature has (or the courts have) made a loophole here because you can't mandate training in respect to a core right....IMO
 

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
It's not CT law that you can not store a loaded firearm? I could have sworn I even read it myself in the statutes. Guess I'll have to go back and read again...

edit: the actual statute:
Sec. 29-37i. (Formerly Sec. 29-37c). Responsibilities re storage of loaded firearms with respect to minors. No person shall store or keep any loaded firearm on any premises under his control if he knows or reasonably should know that a minor is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the parent or guardian of the minor unless such person (1) keeps the firearm in a securely locked box or other container or in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure or (2) carries the firearm on his person or within such close proximity thereto that he can readily retrieve and use it as if he carried it on his person. For the purposes of this section, "minor" means any person under the age of sixteen years.

Right. So there is no such requirement. It is simply codifying common sense.

If you store a firearm where an unauthorized minor could access it, you are irresponsible. It makes absolutely no difference as to whether it is loaded or not.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
do we really want people carrying around guns who don't know how to handle/clean/fire them responsibly?.... NRA course really is not a difficult or expensive task to take on, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the safety of everyone

I understand how you feel .. but the data does not support the need for any training for the mere transportation of a firearm. As in Illinois, you can transport a handgun to go to a range w/o any safety training and can buy a gun w/o any safety training.

I provided the board with facts that do not support the claim that training is needed for the mere transportation of a firearm ... the opposing party offered nothing in respect to any data that safety training offers the public any improvement in safety.

The studies showing that safety is affected, are in respect to carry, not transport.

Ex: NRA Basic Pistol course (OK for the training requirement in CT, right) .... the NRA takes no position on transporting a handgun, so one can go through a proper course and learn nothing of transportation needs...if any are needed...and this question was answered in my hearing by facts presented (answer is no, as long as a person does not handle the gun during transport then the gun is basically just a piece of metal).

Also, common sense has nothing to do with law if facts are available. One of the board members looked like he was watching a horror film when I told him one does not need any training to get a permit because of the transportation-permit need. The board members have been in CT too long -- even they think guns have some type of evil nature attached to them.

And they are 1000% pro-cop. To the point of being biased and having unfair hearings. They have become the thing that they abhor ---
 
Last edited:
Top