CT: Board of Firearm Permit Examiners member recent statements re: McDonald case

[GSG]

This is an excerpt from the minutes of the July 22, 2010 meeting of the Conecticut Board of Firearm Permit Examiners.

Discussion regarding document submitted by Board Member Kuck:

Chairman Corradino spoke to the issue with Board Member Kuck, regarding the intent of a document filed by Mr. Kuck at the last meeting to be included in the July 8, 2010 minutes. Corradino read from the last paragraph of Mr. Kuck’s document:



“Therefore when an appellant comes before the Board with no federal disqualifying factors and the appellant meets Connecticut eligibility factors I will vote for the appellant. I will cast my votes using the legal standard as set forth in the McDonald v Chicago case and the guarantees provided Connecticut’s citizens under article 1 section 15 of the Connecticut Constitution until such time as the Courts rule that the use of this Supreme Court ruling and our states constitution is improper.”

The rest can be seen at the link http://www.ct.gov/bfpe/cwp/view.asp?a=3291&Q=463674

In short, one board member is saying he'll vote to issue a pistol permit to anyone who's not legally prohibited, and some of the other board members aren't too happy about it.

 

[terraformer]

In short, one board member is saying he'll vote to issue a pistol permit to anyone who's not legally prohibited, and some of the other board members aren't too happy about it.

I can't imagine why...

 

[Lignum Vitea]

Maybe this glimmer of common sense seeping into the Ct. Firearm Board will creep it's way north. NOT!

 

[buketduder]

In all honesty though, the Board always issues permits if you have no disqualifiers as far as I can see....If you read the minutes..and to this day..I have yet to meet anyone who has ever been denied a permit for "suitability" in CT.....It wasn't too long ago I think it was Waterbury holding up Permits and the Board gave everyone waiting their Permit...like 15-20 people in 1 day....

 

[JasonG]

Yeah, in CT the main issue is that your local PD/Issuing authority is required to respond in a certain time frame and often they drag on and on. From what I can tell, they no longer refuse people outright. Oh, and they doubled the fees in a midnight session a while back, which caused those of us who were mid-process to incur additional fees because we had to get new bank checks.

I had been expecting a top-down overhaul of the process in a way that would make it more difficult but then McDonald came through, so I think that's far less likely, now.

 

[Mr Weebles]

Corradino said that the Chicago case has no bearing on anything that the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners does because 1. Connecticut wasn’t a party and 2. The facts of the Chicago case are entirely different from anything the Board does.

This person is exceptionally dumb.

Connecticut wasn't a party to Miranda v. Arizona, Brown v. Board of Education or Roe v. Wade either but you can bet your ass Connecticut is bound by those decisions.

 

[Bill Nance]

Let me get this straight: CT has a state board, that is, taxpayer paid people who's sole job is to approve or deny applications for CCW permits? Are you Fing serious? That's even more ridiculous than MA's crappy system. Why don't they just issue the damned criteria and if you meet it, you automatically get it? How stinkin hard is it to read a NICS report? Anyone who's not completely retarded can do it.

WTF is it with the Northeast? COPS as flaggers? Firearm licensing boards? Jesus no doubt I'm missing the Permission To Take a Dump Bureau and the Check if the Sky Is Still Blue Dept.

Note to CT. There is this thing called the State Police. They have computers. They can check Criminal Records. Tell them to issue the damned permits unless there's a DQ..problem solved.

Of course I realize this would deprive some legislator's cousin Joey of a job or some such, but hey, you think they could give it a shot?

 

[Mr Weebles]

No, that board just handles appeals. Towns and cities handle the licensing.

 

[GSG]

In all honesty though, the Board always issues permits if you have no disqualifiers as far as I can see....If you read the minutes..and to this day..I have yet to meet anyone who has ever been denied a permit for "suitability" in CT

I've heard of people being denied by their local chief, but not once it's appealed to the board.

This person is exceptionally dumb.

Connecticut wasn't a party to Miranda v. Arizona, Brown v. Board of Education or Roe v. Wade either but you can bet your ass Connecticut is bound by those decisions.

Good catch, I missed that.

Let me get this straight: CT has a state board, that is, taxpayer paid people who's sole job is to approve or deny applications for CCW permits?

Sort of. The local chiefs have "suitability" discretion similar to how they do in Mass., this board hears appeals when people are denied or when the licensing process takes too long. Two good things about the CT system are that even if the permit is revoked for suitability you can still have handguns in the home, and that if revoked you can appeal the case to this board. The downside is that when you appeal your case to this board, they print your name and town you live in online saying that you have a permit.

Overall I think CT's laws are leaps and bounds better than the one's in Mass., but to 90% of the US they're still unusually restrictive.

 

[Jose]

WTF is it with the Northeast? COPS as flaggers? Firearm licensing boards? Jesus no doubt I'm missing the Permission To Take a Dump Bureau and the Check if the Sky Is Still Blue Dept.

Don't forget not being able to pump your own gas in NJ.........

 

[buketduder]

Let me get this straight: CT has a state board, that is, taxpayer paid people who's sole job is to approve or deny applications for CCW permits? Are you Fing serious? That's even more ridiculous than MA's crappy system. Why don't they just issue the damned criteria and if you meet it, you automatically get it? How stinkin hard is it to read a NICS report? Anyone who's not completely retarded can do it.

WTF is it with the Northeast? COPS as flaggers? Firearm licensing boards? Jesus no doubt I'm missing the Permission To Take a Dump Bureau and the Check if the Sky Is Still Blue Dept.

Note to CT. There is this thing called the State Police. They have computers. They can check Criminal Records. Tell them to issue the damned permits unless there's a DQ..problem solved.

Of course I realize this would deprive some legislator's cousin Joey of a job or some such, but hey, you think they could give it a shot?

1. Everyone on the Board is volunteers, expect the Clerk.
2. While not as good as most states, it is a hell of a lot better then the system in Mass. (No reference letters, no restrictions, a little cheaper, etc)
3. CT does NOT issue CCW Permits. Its a Permit to Carry, however you choose.
4. If you go in front of the Board, have nothing disqualifying you from getting a permit, they WILL issue you one.
5. Yes, that makes the Board completely pointless because they should just get a permit in the 1st place (well technically you should not need one).

 

[Bill Nance]

1. Everyone on the Board is volunteers, expect the Clerk.
2. While not as good as most states, it is a hell of a lot better then the system in Mass. (No reference letters, no restrictions, a little cheaper, etc)
3. CT does NOT issue CCW Permits. Its a Permit to Carry, however you choose.
4. If you go in front of the Board, have nothing disqualifying you from getting a permit, they WILL issue you one.
5. Yes, that makes the Board completely pointless because they should just get a permit in the 1st place (well technically you should not need one).

I realize it's better than Mass. But then "Better than Mass." is kind of like saying "It's not as hot in the 7th circle of Hell as it is in the 8th."

 

[bullseye]

Ct still has an unfair system, the board will refuse you on suitability, especially if you are refused from your local town, bring it to the board and you have a couple instances with the law that by themselves are not dis qualifiers, but the board will couple them together and say no to the permit. There is a current case pending before the state supreme court regarding a denial based on this.
Also. I know of a guy who has been denied his permit because of a cocaine possession 21 YEARS AGO in Bermuda, less than a 1/2 gram, a misdemeanor drug conviction, and it was EXPUNGED by the Bermuda courts, but in CT if you have been institutionalized Mentally defective and 20 years passes without an incident. they will issue. So CT is actually still full of its problems. Oh, and the guy who shot up the beer distributor, he had a permit to carry.
There is no perfect system, that is why unless you are in the big house, you should be allowed to carry.
The other thing is, CT allows you to purchase with an ELIGIBILITY certificate, but the gun CANNOT leave the house for you to shoot with, so, in other words, you can buy your gun, but you may not practice safe shooting or get to know how to use it. I think CT needs to change the ability to purchase and bring it to the range with or someone is going to shoot themselves and sue the state because they were not allowed the right to shoot it.
OH, I forgot to mention, the guy that was denied with the Bermuda incident has quite a rifle collection and is also an RSO and a member of several ranges.

 

[GSG]

Also. I know of a guy who has been denied his permit because of a cocaine possession 21 YEARS AGO in Bermuda, less than a 1/2 gram, a misdemeanor drug conviction, and it was EXPUNGED by the Bermuda courts, but in CT if you have been institutionalized Mentally defective and 20 years passes without an incident. they will issue. So CT is actually still full of its problems.

Huh? I'm a little bit confused here. Was your friend adjudicated mentally defective in Bermuda as well?

I'm going to guess one of two things if he wasn't. Either the US has a treaty with Bermuda similar to Mexico's, or CT DQ's based on any conviction anywhere, even if it's been expunged (the same as Mass.).

The cases US v. Bean and Small v. US may help with clarification of that.

ETA:

A reading of CT law on the subject doesn't appear to specify a location of the conviction. I wonder, has the review board ruled on this issue? I don't believe the state courts have in CT.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I'm going to guess one of two things if he wasn't. Either the US has a treaty with Bermuda similar to Mexico's, or CT DQ's based on any conviction anywhere, even if it's been expunged (the same as Mass.).

CT is "may issue", but they don't use "need" as a criteria in deciding if the applicant gets a permit. Items that are not statutory disqualifiers may be used to deny a permit, but the bar for doing so is much higher than in MA - so much higher that many people consider CT to be "shall issue" (it nearly is in practice). The BFPE reviews applications from those denied and applies their own standard, which is quite different from the MA judicial standard where the court is not to determine if it would have made the same decision the chief did, just if the chief had a reason that was not arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion.

So, there is no need said drug offense to be a specified disqualifier - but the local issuing authority and the BFPE may be unwilling to go on record as allowing a cocaine convict to carry a handgun.

 

[GSG]

So, there is no need said drug offense to be a specified disqualifier - but the local issuing authority and the BFPE may be unwilling to go on record as allowing a cocaine convict to carry a handgun.

Agreed, however, CT law specifies that any drug conviction is a lifetime DQ for a carry permit there. Unlike federal law, it doesn't require that such conviction have been within the US. Well, it doesn't in text, and I'm not aware of any CT case law on the subject.

I should have clarified my post with a question: was the guy statutorily DQ'ed, or DQ'ed for suitability?

 

[bullseye]

DQ,D statutorily and with suitability, and no he was not mentally defective, quite the opposite actually. The board used non-disqualifying instance, a marital problem coupled with what happened 21 years ago and said no. Most states will allow such misdemeanor convictions, especially with expunged conviction, to not be a problem after 5- 7 or 10 years. All southern states and most western states use guidelines of X number of years to pass without issues and issue permits. CT is open ended with NO time limit, you got busted 40 years ago for possession of pot or some blow, NO PERMIT even if you are a role model citizen.
The guy is going to reapply and if denied again, is going to the board but with a heavy legal team ready to go to CT Superior court to challenge since there is no definition of time or case law regarding this, the McDonald case helped with the application of rights to the states. The wheels are already in motion.

 

[Garys]

This person is exceptionally dumb.

Connecticut wasn't a party to Miranda v. Arizona, Brown v. Board of Education or Roe v. Wade either but you can bet your ass Connecticut is bound by those decisions.

This. Apparently he's not clear on the concept of the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

[Garys]

Don't forget not being able to pump your own gas in NJ.........

And Oregon.

 

[Amazon]

Originally Posted by Jose
Don't forget not being able to pump your own gas in NJ.........

And Oregon.

....and the People's Republic of Arlington

 

[StevieP]

And Oregon.

or to buy a six-pack in PA.

 

[GSG]

And Oregon.

Speaking of Oregon, the state that issues CCW's to two different kinds of federally prohibited person.

 

[buketduder]

DQ,D statutorily and with suitability, and no he was not mentally defective, quite the opposite actually. The board used non-disqualifying instance, a marital problem coupled with what happened 21 years ago and said no. Most states will allow such misdemeanor convictions, especially with expunged conviction, to not be a problem after 5- 7 or 10 years. All southern states and most western states use guidelines of X number of years to pass without issues and issue permits. CT is open ended with NO time limit, you got busted 40 years ago for possession of pot or some blow, NO PERMIT even if you are a role model citizen.
The guy is going to reapply and if denied again, is going to the board but with a heavy legal team ready to go to CT Superior court to challenge since there is no definition of time or case law regarding this, the McDonald case helped with the application of rights to the states. The wheels are already in motion.

That is WRONG. There are plenty of people in CT with pot convictions and permits...Under 4 Oz's

 

[bullseye]

If your local chief signs off on it, your good to go, if he doesn't and you go to the board, your denied. It depends if the chief takes a few minutes to read and understand the individuals circumstances, some chiefs will not even give it the time of day and if they here drug conviction, your shot down, sort of like red town green town B.S. Your from CT and you must realize that some chiefs are shitheads and some are understanding.

Firearm Prohibitors
1. No person convicted for a Felony or a Misdemeanor crime of domestic violence involving the use or threatened use of physical force or a deadly weapon may possess any firearms in Connecticut.

2. No person may obtain a Pistol Permit, Eligibility Certificate, or possess any handguns if they are less than 21 years of age, subject to a Protective or Restraining Order, or if they have been convicted of a felony, or convicted in Connecticut for any of the following misdemeanors:

* Illegal possession of narcotics or other controlled substances - 21a-279(c)

This is a blanket and without a time frame for eligibility, in this case the guy had an issue 21 years ago and it was expunged by the Bermuda courts, I see it as a double jeopardy punishment.

 

[terraformer]

It's only potentially double jeopardy if the license requires post date the conviction. Otherwise your challenge is to the requirement itself being unjust and unconstitutional.

 

[GSG]

That is WRONG. There are plenty of people in CT with pot convictions and permits...Under 4 Oz's

I believe that's because of CT's "conviction" setup WRT simple possession of marijuana crimes. If one were convicted in another state though where there wasn't a first offense "whoopsie" allowance he'd be out of luck. He's also confronting "suitability."

 

[bullseye]

When a conviction is expunged here in the states, it is removed from ones record so it does not show up on an FBI background check. Bermuda's expunged record still shows up as a record of what occurred and the expungement, that is why he has such a problem. The guy even received from the Bermuda Police Services a letter stating forgiveness and expunged record from the Magistrate's office and also expressed a level of uneasiness with the states refusal to believe and recognize the expunged record. It really is F----d up. The guy is a great shooter and has nice collection of rifles, an RSO, member of NRA, member at 2 different sportsmans clubs, go figure, he's definitely getting a bad rap.
Once the board got it, they coupled this episode with a marital issue, non - violent and said NO. His lawyer was not that helpful from what I read of the record.

 

[buketduder]

I actually went through this with a friend who had some charges...He was told they would be off his record if he did X and X..he did it....2 years later he wants a pistol permit..his lawyer said just write down you have never been arrested...he did..3 weeks later pistol permit in his hand...I don't know..maybe it's the town..but I know people from so many different towns throughout Northern CT and I have NEVER heard of a single issue getting a permit..or anyone being challanged for suitability...and I will mention this includes Hartford...which can be a 6-8 week wait..but never an issue..