NEW Insight - So you were arrested. Great news. It may mean nothing.

[dcmdon]

I recently found out that if your case is dismissed (which includes Accelerated Rehabilitation or a Nolle) or you are found not guilty, then ALL RECORDS held by the police and the courts must be destroyed.

So all those questions like "I was arrested when I was 17 . . . is it going to affect my ability to get a permit" . . well, most of them become irrelevant.

I've been worrying all these years over nothing.

Don

Citation:

Sec. 54-142a. (Formerly Sec. 54-90). Erasure of criminal records. (a) Whenever in any criminal case, on or after October 1, 1969, the accused, by a final judgment, is found not guilty of the charge or the charge is dismissed, all police and court records and records of any state's attorney pertaining to such charge shall be erased upon the expiration of the time to file a writ of error or take an appeal, if an appeal is not taken, or upon final determination of the appeal sustaining a finding of not guilty or a dismissal, if an appeal is taken.

Nothing in this subsection shall require the erasure of any record pertaining to a charge for which the defendant was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect or guilty but not criminally responsible by reason of mental disease or defect.

 

[bejay]

And we're going to trust the justice system to "erase" any recoeds?

With the alleged back log of cases in the court system, they'll claim beaurocratic error and you'll end up in court again asking to have your denial overturned.

I wouldn't change my answers. If you had a court case, say so unless this can be proven or on advice of legal counsel.

 

[bigtig50]

I know someone who was arrested at 16 for being a "minor in possession of alcohol". The result was a year's "probation". He got his LTC at 18 and has had it for 40 years. A couple times when that trip-up question arose on renewals he asked the licensing authority about putting down the "arrest" and was told to forget about it. He has never had an issue, EVER.

 

[dcmdon]

And we're going to trust the justice system to "erase" any recoeds?

With the alleged back log of cases in the court system, they'll claim beaurocratic error and you'll end up in court again asking to have your denial overturned.

I wouldn't change my answers. If you had a court case, say so unless this can be proven or on advice of legal counsel.

It doesn't matter. If its revealed, then it was done UNLAWFULLY. That information can not be used. Remember, CT is not MA. There is no real suitability requirement.

Its also big because if it is revealed, you can show the issuing authority the statute and have the conversation from there.

 

[terraformer]

Look, I don't know what CT's laws are like but in MA this is absolutely NOT the case and we have a very similar statute. You really need to confirm this with a CT attorney who specializes in firearms law before declaring this is absolutely true. And BTW: These statutes only "erase" what the state has access too. Arrests are typically transmitted to nationwide indexes within days.

Those wanting to believe the above is the case do so at their own peril.

 

[mark056]

Look, I don't know what CT's laws are like but in MA this is absolutely NOT the case and we have a very similar statute. You really need to confirm this with a CT attorney who specializes in firearms law before declaring this is absolutely true. And BTW: These statutes only "erase" what the state has access too. Arrests are typically transmitted to nationwide indexes within days.

Those wanting to believe the above is the case do so at their own peril.

I will verify what terraformer said about Mass. I cannot say about CT. I have personally viewed criminal records in Mass (not CORI but BOP) and have seen all arrests listed, and dispositions including not guilty findings. You can believe in unicorns if you want too.

 

[dcmdon]

Look, I don't know what CT's laws are like but in MA this is absolutely NOT the case and we have a very similar statute. You really need to confirm this with a CT attorney who specializes in firearms law before declaring this is absolutely true. And BTW: These statutes only "erase" what the state has access too. Arrests are typically transmitted to nationwide indexes within days.

Those wanting to believe the above is the case do so at their own peril.

I understand, but again, you are not at the mercy of the CLEO of the issuing authority like you are in MA.
So here is the huge thing. You DON'T CARE if you piss off the issuing authority. They can obstruct, but any denial will be overturned by the BFPE.

In CT you have rights.

In MA you are allowed to be armed at the discretion of the issuing authority.

Huge difference.

 

[Jose]

in MA this is absolutely NOT the case and we have a very similar statute.

So your state routinely violates its own laws to infringe on peoples' rights?

Who knew?

 

[terraformer]

So your state routinely violates its own laws to infringe on peoples' rights?

Who knew?

We all knew. They started doing it in 2008ish and then as cover got the law changed about 6 months ago. My point is that a lot of laws that "seal" or "expunge" records don't apply to the state and these exceptions exist elsewhere in the statutes making them hard to find. Expungement/sealing sometimes only applies to what the state is allowed to divulge to outside parties. Hence my caution that the above should be confirmed with an attorney before people go and get themselves in hot water.

 

[In God We Trust]

I have an assault and battery charge on my BOP that was dismissed from when I was 14. I still had to explain the circumstances to the chief of my very green town when I applied almost 25 years later. I was given the LTC no restrictions, but was worried because he wanted more info on the case despite the fact that it was dismissed.

Nothing goes away EVER I promise you this. A friend of mine dated a nut job when he was a teenager and when he dumper her, she falsly accused him of rape to get revenge. She later admitted it was a lie and the charges were immediately dismissed. Guess what is still on his record though 30 years later?

 

[bigtig50]

So your state routinely violates its own laws to infringe on peoples' rights?

Who knew?

Yeah! Big surprise, right?!

 

[SKS Brad]

In CT these laws are followed a the local authority is simply a processor, the state does the background check at the state and federal levels. I had some trouble in my younger years, over 20 years ago, but all charges were dismissed on the "big one" and the prices from earlier youth were AR and nolle. I legally answered that I did not get arrested, as that is the law in CT due to the record purge statues, as quoted above. In fact during that time of the last offense, I had my permit and it was not even revoked as the end state was dismissal after a year of visiting a PO weekly.

I let my permit lapse about 10 or more years ago and had to reapply from step 1, all went as smooth as could be.

Like many have said, CT and MA are completely different when it comes to issuance authority. Basically, in CT, unless you have a prohibited history or record, you will be issued your Permit to Carry Pistols & Revolvers.

Now if we could only have AK47's here ... Oh yeah, banned by name and style/caliber with the CT AWB. No go.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Besides the good info provided by Mark and Terra (this is wrt MA info) . . .

Based on listening to a dozen cities/towns or so on http://scanner.patriotledger.com/index.php what I continually hear on "contact" is "what do we have on him/her in-house?" queries! Every PD now logs EVERY contact with any person in their in-house computer system. Resolutions are NOT LOGGED, only initial contact and any charges filed.

So when you are stopped in the same town or apply for a LTC/FID, the first thing they do is check the in-house database. If it includes things where all charges were dismissed, found not guilty, CWOF or even if it was totally mundane (my chief mentioned that he found that I had called to complain about a loose barking dog at 0-dark-thirty some SEVEN YEARS earlier!), they DO take that into consideration in MA wrt "suitability".

You are very lucky if they don't do the same in CT!

 

[noddaduma]

You folks in MA might be suffering from blue-state-itis, where you believe if you have shitty laws then they must apply outside your borders. Trust me, this is not the case.

 

[dcmdon]

Please refer to the DPS-799 referenced in this link: http://www.ct.gov/despp/lib/despp/slfu/pistol_permits/dps-799-c.pdf

On page 3, section E criminal history, it asks if you have ever been arrested. Now here's the interesting point. The actual instructions make reference to the law requiring the destruction of records and tells you that if your arrest fits into that law, you do not have to disclose an arrest.

If only we actually read the directions. Ha.


The application instructions EXPLICITLY tell you when you do not have to disclose the arrest. Wow. I can't believe I never noticed that.

So it gets better. The presence of this law, in combination with the fact that the actual Pistol Permit application tells you NOT to disclose arrests that were ultimately dismissed, nolled, or acquitted, means you are TOTALLY clean by saying "no" in cases where your arrest was dispensed one of the ways listed above.

Its not even grey. If the cop says, why didn't you list, you simply point to the instructions on the form.

Don

 

[terraformer]

Please refer to the DPS-799 referenced in this link: http://www.ct.gov/despp/lib/despp/slfu/pistol_permits/dps-799-c.pdf

On page 3, section E criminal history, it asks if you have ever been arrested. Now here's the interesting point. The actual instructions make reference to the law requiring the destruction of records and tells you that if your arrest fits into that law, you do not have to disclose an arrest.

If only we actually read the directions. Ha.


The application instructions EXPLICITLY tell you when you do not have to disclose the arrest. Wow. I can't believe I never noticed that.

So it gets better. The presence of this law, in combination with the fact that the actual Pistol Permit application tells you NOT to disclose arrests that were ultimately dismissed, nolled, or acquitted, means you are TOTALLY clean by saying "no" in cases where your arrest was dispensed one of the ways listed above.

Its not even grey. If the cop says, why didn't you list, you simply point to the instructions on the form.

Don

That's better. It's official confirmation. I cautioned you for a reason.

 

[dcmdon]

Well, we all learned something here.

I'll put it in my "Why CT is better than MA when it comes to gun laws" file.

Don

 

[dcmdon]

Now if we could only have AK47's here ... Oh yeah, banned by name and style/caliber with the CT AWB. No go.

Brad,

If you are a fan of the AK, there are legal ways around the CT AWB. You simply can't have the AK in 7.62 x 39.
So what, its a shitty cartridge anyway, at least when your primary goal is to have fun. It cost more than 5.45x39 and you can't really reload it like you can .223.

You can buy a brand new "neutered" AK74. It actually makes for a nice, authentic looking gun. The '74 originally used a brake not a flash suppressor. So as long as its permanently attached, you are legal with its original muzzle end device.

If you stay away from folding stocks and simply remove the bayonet lug, you are in full compliance. Besides, have you ever actually shot an AK with an underfolder stock? Just terrible. Cool to look at. But just horrible.

So, in summary, an AK74 with a fixed stock, removed bayonet lug, and a permanently affixed brake is perfectly legal in CT.

If you want to spend some more $$, you can pick up a pre-ban Chinese (Norinco or Polytec) AK in .223 that can have all the evil features. Here's my pre-ban Norinco 84-S.

Its surprisingly accurate when used with high quality reloads. Especially considering the sights. I'd like to purchase a rear aperture sight for it. Tek Sights makes a replacement dust cover with one.

Don