• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Consolidation of agencies - contact your reps

Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
1,687
Likes
160
Location
Central CT
Feedback: 13 / 0 / 0
This action could affect all CT pistol owners in a very negative way. Please give this serious consideration and communicate with your legislators and Governor.


SB28 - AN ACT CONSOLIDATING STATE AGENCIES AND ELIMINATING
CERTAIN LEGISLATIVE COMMISSIONS.

The attached bill SB28, calls for the independent Board of Firearms Permit Examiners to be deleted as an agency, and become subservient to the Department of Public Safety (DPS) again... the BFPE is the OPENING PARAGRAPH
of the proposed bill.

The BFPE currently has one employee (non-union) with a budget of less than $100,000. Last year, in previous budgets, attempts were made to transfer it to DPS, a Public Health group, and to the Department of Administrative Services (DAS). The one employee position appears to be eliminated and would have to be filled by DPS.

One has to question rational thought or wisdom of the proposal. Like the 100% increase in sportsmen's fees, the originator obviously has little experience or knowledge of the issue and a broad ax rather than a scalpel process is obvious.

Loss of the experienced employee will constitute loss of experience and institutional memory at a time when the BFPE is 18-24 months behind on appeals. Will a State Police officer or a civilian be a replacement at probably more cost and clearly with less experience? Why put the chickens in the fox's den ? CSP and associated Chiefs of Police are the ones who deny/revoke permits; the Board is a group that evaluates Police decisions. Are we to assume CSP will be fair and balanced and oppose decisions made by their police peers or superiors?

The BFPE MUST remain an independent agency, or a poorer solution placed under an agency that is neutral. Placing the Board under the State Police is the poorest solution.

CCS testified IN OPPOSITION to this same proposal last year and will do so again (Committee on Government Administration and Elections).

Contact Governor Rell & voice your opinion. Be clear but courteous. E-Mail [email protected] or Online Form http://www.ct.gov/governorrell/cwp/view.asp?a=1317&q=289136

E-mail, and Write, and Phone Call YOUR State Representative and State Senator - urge them to OPPOSE this transfer and leave the BFPE as an independent appeals agency. You can find your CT legislator at http://www.cga.ct.gov/maps/townlist.asp or in the Blue pages under "Connecticut, State of" then "Legislators".

Use the KISS principle, and please do not be insulting or negative towards Any Senator, Representative, or anyone else in the Capitol. Identify yourself and Town, state your position and why you Support or Oppose the BFPE transfer. Be Brief, if they have questions they will ask. Ask for a response to your communication.

Also, inform your friends/customers who have an interest. Ask them to communicate.
 
This is messed up?

Sec. 29-32b. Board of Firearms Permit Examiners. Appeals to board. Hearings. (a) There shall be established a Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, within the Department of Public Safety for administrative purposes only, hereinafter referred to as the board, to be comprised of seven members appointed by the Governor to serve during his term and until their successors are appointed and qualify. With the exception of public members, the members shall be appointed from nominees of the Commissioner of Public Safety, the Connecticut State Association of Chiefs of Police, the Commissioner of Environmental Protection, The Connecticut State Rifle and Revolver Association, Inc., and Ye Connecticut Gun Guild, Inc., and each of said organizations shall be entitled to representation on the board. At least one member of the board shall be a lawyer licensed to practice in this state, who shall act as chairman of the board during the hearing of appeals brought under this section.
...
(g) The board shall serve without compensation, but its members shall be entitled to reasonable subsistence and travel allowances in the performance of their duties.

There should be 7 members of this board, and according to section 'g', they should be a low budget agency as they have no real operating expenses per say. It's like they are using the hinderances provided to do away with the one resource the people have. Once under the control of the DPS, they might as well just do away with it. The DPS has already shown they do not have the ability to enforce the law as it is written without adding in their own agendas (concealed carry anyone?)
 
Back
Top Bottom