The CT Barfly Thread

[CT Barfly]

OK guys, I've been asked to stay on topic...which is extremely hard for me to do sometimes.

So I figure the solution is to put up an anything goes thread where you can ask me anything and I can post anything (within the rules, of course). I've read a bunch of threads in here and I have some experience in CT which guides my viewpoint(s). I'm right about a lot of things, and I am wrong about a lot of things. Hopefully we can work on identifying the latter by hashing out the issues in this thread.

Here's a loaded question to start us off:

Should you appeal to the BFPE if the State or IA is delaying your PP application?

My take: HELL NO.

My reasoning:

1. loss of anonymity (your name is google famous on the BFPE's online docket! why would you want that??!?!)
2. delay, delay, delay (the BFPE gets pretty salty when you ask them to expedite your process since it's mere delay, i've gotten some nastygrams from them about this)
3. "denial history" (do you really want to acknowledge a denial before it has actually happened? when you go for your Utah or Florida, what will you say to the "have you been denied" question?)

Basically, and in my opinion, the BFPE is (and should be) for people who have been DENIED or REVOKED. Getting into the kiddie swimming pool with them just makes you smell like them. No bueno.

There are other avenues that work and should be explored...they involve common sense and being insistent. You are your own best advocate. Don't take buck-passing and blame shifting, insist on ANSWERS and NAMES not "we're overwhelmed".

Part and parcel of this is understanding who is involved and what has to happen to trigger your rights under the CGS...without that, you can't really push buttons and make stuff happen.

Alright, how's that for a follow-up?

 

[CT Barfly]

Another topic for commentary:

Does anyone find it curious that the Gov rammed through the new legislation and at the very same time the DESPP is saying "we're receiving an overwhelming number of applications"? Common sense would dictate that if there are large numbers of people acting to take advantage of the OLD law, there might actually be a lot of folks who don't want the law to change...at the very least it's a draw and E-cert was FAR from necessary (particularly in light of the delay until the provisions become fully effective).

I am hopeful that the pending suit will be successful. A stay sounds like a reasonable provisional remedy (no clue if that has been ruled on).

 

[Rich B]

I don't really understand why you are opposed to the very concept of forums and partitioning threads and topics so people can use them as a resource later.

When you make it difficult for other people to use the information in the future, it makes people who are busy and knowledgeable not want to answer your questions since it is effectively a waste of time.

</rant>

Should you appeal to the BFPE if the State or IA is delaying your PP application?

Yes.

1. loss of anonymity (your name is google famous on the BFPE's online docket! why would you want that??!?!)

More importantly, who cares? Want to stay off the radar and anonymous? Don't submit your information to the state.

2. delay, delay, delay (the BFPE gets pretty salty when you ask them to expedite your process since it's mere delay, i've gotten some nastygrams from them about this)

This has not been our experience. I think this might be a problem with individual mannerisms and attitude. The BFPE is, in fact, scheduling multiple hearings per month right now to address these denials due to delays.

3. "denial history" (do you really want to acknowledge a denial before it has actually happened? when you go for your Utah or Florida, what will you say to the "have you been denied" question?)

I have no idea how this is related to anything you asked previously.

Basically, and in my opinion, the BFPE is (and should be) for people who have been DENIED or REVOKED.

Except it isn't, so I don't really see what your point is.

There are other avenues that work and should be explored...they involve common sense and being insistent. You are your own best advocate. Don't take buck-passing and blame shifting, insist on ANSWERS and NAMES not "we're overwhelmed".

Part and parcel of this is understanding who is involved and what has to happen to trigger your rights under the CGS...without that, you can't really push buttons and make stuff happen.

How would you outline the instructions for an applicant with a department that tells them they are swamped and to stop calling?

How many cases do you have experience in seeing through the entire process? Which towns were they in?

 

[CT Barfly]

I don't really understand why you are opposed to the very concept of forums and partitioning threads and topics so people can use them as a resource later.

When you make it difficult for other people to use the information in the future, it makes people who are busy and knowledgeable not want to answer your questions since it is effectively a waste of time.

</rant>



Yes.



More importantly, who cares? Want to stay off the radar and anonymous? Don't submit your information to the state.



This has not been our experience. I think this might be a problem with individual mannerisms and attitude. The BFPE is, in fact, scheduling multiple hearings per month right now to address these denials due to delays.



I have no idea how this is related to anything you asked previously.



Except it isn't, so I don't really see what your point is.



How would you outline the instructions for an applicant with a department that tells them they are swamped and to stop calling?

How many cases do you have experience in seeing through the entire process? Which towns were they in?

Did it myself in under 80 days after refusing to provide additional information to an IA that is decidedly ANTI 2A. Have also helped folks in NJ get their purchase permits expedited. It's a matter of keeping the lines of communication open, ensuring that ALL communications are kept in WRITING (the beauty of email exchanges cannot be overemphasized) and going up the chain of command until an aswer is given.

The IAs are chain of command structured...if the bosses hear that the folks down low aren't doing their job, or are generating additional work for them...they will reach down and force subordinates to get stuff done. Using this fact against the State/IA is key to encouraging timely action/decision. The State is currently the site of the backlog, the IAs aren't really in the biz of delaying (except at the very start of the process) and the State is subject to strict deadlines for acting which need to be understood and enforced by the applicant.

Right now, the biggest delays seem to be in forwarding applicant info to the FBI (for which there seems to be no set timeline) and the forwarding of the FBI results to the IA (which should take place immediately upon rececipt from FBI). This latter delay is where most people end up...in limbo. The State is well aware that the IAs has 7 days to make a decision from the time the IA receives the FBI results...the FBI results come back the SAME day as they are submitted, more or less...so the State is the only culprit. The State has a command structure, if you get bad answers from the FU or SPBI, go UP UP UP the chain until someone gets tired of hearing your voice. I have seen "next day action" from this strategy. Just have your ducks in a row when you contact them. You just have to understand that you are entitled to timely ACTION and a timely DECISION. The State doesn't approve apps, the IA does. If the State delays getting the info to IAs (in contravention of the CGS) then you have a legitimate legal beef with the State...and possible grounds for mandamus (to force an agency to take an action or refrain from an action it is statutorily required to take). Obviously, that's a way to get famous, but sometimes the threat of legal action is enough to get the ball rolling.

I'm not in the business of comparing "indian scalps"...I am offering advice which is worth what you paid for it. Take it or don't.

To answer your question, Rich, if you're going to insist that each thread be topically tailored/categorized (when my comment was arguably relevant as in the last thread) then this is my fallback. If people don't care to search for information or ask around, that's their business and it can't be forced.

 

[CT Barfly]

Regarding your disagreement with me on the BFPE's purpose...from a framework/structure standpoint...the CGS lays out the permit application process and the grievance/redress process. Logically speaking, if the State is engaging in undue delay in meeting the CGS-set deadlines, for whatever reason, the BFPE isn't really the place to go...mandamus in the Superior Court seems better. Now, obviously filing a writ is a big deal and costly, but it sets forth a timeline and allows an avenue for provisional remedy right away. Now, this is inside baseball and who cares really? what is important is not allowing the BFPE to be mis-used to allow unreasonable delay to become the norm...which by advising people to go to the BFPE for delay denials amounts to. the State knows the BFPE has a long timeline...so we can't allow them to get the benefit of this by directing people to that process.

the alternative? raise hell at DESPP to get them to take the actions that will set firm deadlines (forwarding FBI check to IA starting the 7-day countdown). come hell or high water, the DESPP is mandated to forwar that info upon receipt. that's not negotiable, they don't have to read the report or analyze it or write an opinion of it...they receive, and forward. done.

remember, "we're overwhelmed and can't meet the statute" is not a LEGAL defense until a judge says it is...and the State certainly doesn't want to take a risk that a judge will apply the statute to them firmly/definitively. rather than try to defend on that basis, they'll ship the applicant info out to the IA PDQ.

Finally, the IA is NOT the site of the problem..it is the State that is engaging in the delays. Think about it, 169 towns really breaks up the demand...the State gets ALL of that traffic and has to process it. Naturally, they are attempting to hide behind this. The statute was written to force actions that would minimize bottlenecks by requiring immediate forwarding of FBI info to the 169 towns. Thankfully, contacting the FBI can be done with a 5 min phonecall to the right number to ascertain when the State received the return information...giving the applicant all they need to force action by the State.

 

[Rich B]

I'm not in the business of comparing "indian scalps"...I am offering advice which is worth what you paid for it. Take it or don't.

This to me says that experience in such matters is irrelevant, and it is not. Most 'differences' or 'questions' that newcomers have are easily answered by someone who has experience in such matters. Including how to get your permit in under 8 weeks (or 80 days!), since it is 6 weeks longer than necessary. Real moves and issues are being worked on in this regard.

To answer your question, Rich, if you're going to insist that each thread be topically tailored/categorized (when my comment was arguably relevant as in the last thread) then this is my fallback. If people don't care to search for information or ask around, that's their business and it can't be forced.

Then don't be surprised if people don't participate, or you are moderated quickly. A separate thread for a separate topic allows people to easily find the data they are looking for without scouring through each individual thread. We have thousands in this state forum alone, I am sure.

We spend our time trying to put out good information in as effective way as we can.

 

[Rich B]

Finally, the IA is NOT the site of the problem..it is the State that is engaging in the delays. Think about it, 169 towns really breaks up the demand...the State gets ALL of that traffic and has to process it. Naturally, they are attempting to hide behind this.

This is where I think a problem with lack of experience is shown. The state is a problem, but towns that follow the law have no problem turning a permit around in days, not weeks.

 

[CT Barfly]

This is where I think a problem with lack of experience is shown. The state is a problem, but towns that follow the law have no problem turning a permit around in days, not weeks.

Ah, with all due respect, my comments are useless for someone who gets their permit in a few days. My comments are only directed to people facing delays.

Work to get more towns to act faster is great, but hardly helpful to someone IN the process. The fact some towns get it done faster is irrelevant. The statute has room for discretionary grants by IA while the state gets its act together...but that's a "who ya know" issue.

I stand by my statement that delay denials do not belong before the BFPE and such action carries with it consequences. A decision is due within a statutory time period, irrespective of discretionary shortening. No involved agency has to act faster than the statute dictates.

 

[davidmcbeth]

remember, "we're overwhelmed and can't meet the statute" is not a LEGAL defense until a judge says it is....

A judge recently ruled that a 22 mo. delay caused by workload was OK and good cause for the BFPE for not deciding a case ... I think that a judge would rule in a similar manner regarding permit delays ... as there is no provision in the law that directs anyone to do anything in respect to the state/town delays past the deadlines other than file an appeal with the BFPE ... unless I missed something written in the appropriate statues

Otherwise, most or all of cases before the board regarding time issues of the permit process by the town would result in an automatic permit issuance.

But I agree with others: specific questions should be made in separate threads .. its easily done

 

[CT Barfly]

A judge recently ruled that a 22 mo. delay caused by workload was OK and good cause for the BFPE for not deciding a case ... I think that a judge would rule in a similar manner regarding permit delays ... as there is no provision in the law that directs anyone to do anything in respect to the state/town delays past the deadlines other than file an appeal with the BFPE ... unless I missed something written in the appropriate statues

Otherwise, most or all of cases before the board regarding time issues of the permit process by the town would result in an automatic permit issuance.

But I agree with others: specific questions should be made in separate threads .. its easily done

good info and thanks for posting it.

apologies for not responding sooner (tho i suspect some were relieved and thought i'd faded away).

nevertheless, and there is always a but:

- too many people gloss over the "upon receipt" language which compels the state to forward CJIS results to the IA...thereby triggering the seven day clock for the IA to issue a decision. upon receipt means what it means. there's no judgment involved and CJIS gets the info back within a day or so. further, CJIS will tell an applicant when it returned fingerprint info to the state...which puts the applicant in the driver's seat. there really is no room for delay here and applicants should insist upon timely forwarding (rather than favorable decisions). the state has been lax about "upon receipt" and has continued to feed applicants the "we're overwhelmed" language in a bid to delay approvals because they know that once they forward CJIS results permits will be approved PDQ for suitable applicants. the key is to INSIST UPON STATUTORY TIMELY FORWARDING...and NOTHING ELSE. CGS says what it says and applicants don't get anything more.

2. again, BFPE appeals are costly in a number of ways and should be avoided for mere delay. the state appears to be afraid of having suitability defined by caselaw and knows that it has a statutory obligation. applicants have to insist upon statute adherence first and foremost without asking for more than they are entitled to.

i have successfully achieved "next-week" issues by explaining to the DESPP that they have failed to meet the statute and kindly requesting their compliance. they are remarkably responsive when applicants do not adopt a combative or disagreeable stance. it's a finesse move, but it pays dividends without the need for a full blown appeal. applicants must not be satisfied with "we're overwhelmed" as an answer. SPBI MUST SEND UPON RECEIPT...no ifs/ands/buts. folks should be prepared to read the statute (which i believe was written by a bright person who is somewhat pro 2A) and act accordingly. however, applicants cannot ask for rmore than than they are entitled to.

 

[motoxmann]

you still have failed to prove why delays do not justify an appeal. everything you have stated regarding delay appeals is strictly your personal opinion.

BFPE recommends appealing for delays.
CT statute recommends appealing for delays.
CT statute lays out a timeline for the IA and DESPP, and if they don't follow it they are breaking the law. And the BFPE is entirely designed to fight against and/or over-rule the law-breaking IA's.

I strongly suggest you stop spreading personal opinion as "fact". Everything CT PP related has a process, and appeals are a strong factor in that process, and people should NOT be deterred from utilizing all that is given to them within the law to exercise their constitutional rights.

 

[Rich B]

you still have failed to prove why delays do not justify an appeal. everything you have stated regarding delay appeals is strictly your personal opinion.

BFPE recommends appealing for delays.
CT statute recommends appealing for delays.
CT statute lays out a timeline for the IA and DESPP, and if they don't follow it they are breaking the law. And the BFPE is entirely designed to fight against and/or over-rule the law-breaking IA's.

I strongly suggest you stop spreading personal opinion as "fact". Everything CT PP related has a process, and appeals are a strong factor in that process, and people should NOT be deterred from utilizing all that is given to them within the law to exercise their constitutional rights.

This, and if someone has a better idea for how to help people through the process, they should not be pushing their ideas onto other people for them to take responsibility for. If you feel this is the perfect way, by all means take the wheel and show us all how. Or show the comparison of the two ways.

I am unclear what the goal of the OP is, so I have no real response for him. The way we are doing things is getting the permits to the people and compiling a great dataset and procedure for a bigger push. We are always open to ideas, but throwing everything out because someone had an idea that most of our experience seems to refute is 'unappealing'.

 

[motoxmann]

throwing everything out because someone had an idea that most of our experience seems to refute is 'unappealing'.

haha, I see what you did there

 

[Rich B]

haha, I see what you did there

I have my moments.

 

[CT Barfly]

you still have failed to prove why delays do not justify an appeal. everything you have stated regarding delay appeals is strictly your personal opinion.

BFPE recommends appealing for delays.
CT statute recommends appealing for delays.
CT statute lays out a timeline for the IA and DESPP, and if they don't follow it they are breaking the law. And the BFPE is entirely designed to fight against and/or over-rule the law-breaking IA's.

I strongly suggest you stop spreading personal opinion as "fact". Everything CT PP related has a process, and appeals are a strong factor in that process, and people should NOT be deterred from utilizing all that is given to them within the law to exercise their constitutional rights.

Hey guys, sorry I've been away...but you're wrong, too, so I feel compelled to respond:

Please tell me where the Statute says one should appeal for delays.
You're right that the CGS lays out the timeline...as for the BFPE's purpose, it is to review denials/revocations...not necessarily administrative failure to abide by statutory timelines. Whether you want to call delays denials is a separate question. Whether the BFPE cares about an individual applicant, I get the sense they are doing the best they can, and they sometimes make mistakes...but they are better than nothing. We shouldn't overwhelm them with appeals for routine delays though.

Not sure what kind of factors you would accept as PROOF as that is a word with a specific definition.

Nevertheless I will endeavor to share some factors which I believe counsel against going straight to the BFPE when the state takes too long:

1. Delay begets delay...a quick glance at the BFPE site shows they are scheduling hearings in 2014...for a process that should only take 8(now 12) weeks!!!!! why should an applicant with rights under the statute waive them and proceed to the BFPE when he still has rights to compel the state's immediate action on his application?????? Adopting a dim view of the state's regard for your 2A rights, going to the BFPE is what they WANT...because it shelves your application for a YEAR until the BFPE gets to it. Try getting the BFPE to expedite and you may get an angry response, or it may happen if you are being deployed soon...unreliable course of action at best.

2. Loss of privacy...the BFPE lists by revocation or denial the appellant's name and town on its docket list. Why would anyone want to have their name listed ON THE WEB beside the word DENIAL. Think about the reputational harm if your boss or coworker googled you and saw that. Why have that happen if there hasn't been a denial in fact?

The fact is that delayed applications have not been decided...and the statute is properly written to compel the state's action according to strict timelines. A citizen's recourse for an agency's failure to meet their duty under the state timeline is to request compliance with the statute, or demand it in the courts. Now, obviously the courts will be public, but a court ordering an agency's compliance with statute gets results FAST and the word DENIAL doesnt get published. If a denial is improper, the BFPE will still be there. The goal is to get a decision first, THEN appeal if necessary.

I love this site, you guys are great, carry on.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Don't recall anyone noting this: an excessive delay in the permitting process IS a denial.

But I understand why folks would not want their "name in lights".

In respect to pre-hearing motions, I had no issues with the BTFE. Its the actual hearings that they violate the administrative code.

And now scheduling out to 2014? Outrageous...you could go to court and get a decision faster. BFTE should be abolished.

Many folks have emotional attachment to members of the board; I put those aside and still see the board to be an encumbrance to the process.

 

[CT Barfly]

Don't recall anyone noting this: an excessive delay in the permitting process IS a denial.

But I understand why folks would not want their "name in lights".

In respect to pre-hearing motions, I had no issues with the BTFE. Its the actual hearings that they violate the administrative code.

And now scheduling out to 2014? Outrageous...you could go to court and get a decision faster. BFTE should be abolished.

Many folks have emotional attachment to members of the board; I put those aside and still see the board to be an encumbrance to the process.

I respectfully disagree. A delay is merely a failure to abide by the statute. Some might want to get fancy and call it a "constructive denial" but in reality, it's nothing that can't be resolved by forcing the agency to act.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with the BFPE when it comes to actual denials/revocations...it's good to give folks a cheap alternative to the courts. The delays have no excuse since the timelines are set by statute. I think the BFPE has screwed up a bit with wading into the open carry question, which should be left to the legislature as it is currently "not illegal"...their well-intentioned guidance about covering up does nothing but muddy the waters regarding "suitability." CT seems to have a problem with not letting each player have domain over its delegated powers...cops try to make law, judges try to make law, the legislature tries to make law...and everybody gets it wrong.