http://www.ct.gov/despp/lib/despp/slfu/pistol_permits/dps-799-c.pdf
Above is the application form ^^^
When completed you sign it and its basically an affidavit. I see no need for further identification of fingerprints. Its outrageous.
Additionally, I think that we have a pre-constitutional and constitutional (2nd & 9th) RKBA ... no permit can be required.
I don't think anyone will argue that the idea of having to pay the government (on a recurring basis), and register yourself to exercise rights is repugnant. Getting a "permission slip", and all that sort of rubbish.
The problem is when the State requires it, and citizens are forced to either play the State's game, or not play.
It needs to be codified in local law to prevent the State from abusing its authority, and making these demands on citizens (like requiring fingerprints to be submitted).
I read that application that you linked, and cringed through the entire document. Wow, just wow.
Between the fee bilking, the countless levels of hoops to jump through, and the miscellaneous hassles, it is a nightmare. Clearly many layers of bureaucratic garbage designed to limit and dissuade.
I'm linking the New Hampshire license application as a point of reference, in how things codified in law reflect in the application.
New Hampshire, like Connecticut has "suitability". You guys might find it interesting how it was handled up here to make the State effectively shall issue, and eliminate the potential nonsense that can come up if it isn't tamed.
"Applicants not prohibited under federal or NH law from possession of a firearm shall be deemed suitable persons and the license shall be issued unless the applicant is so prohibited from possessing a firearm. The burden is on the licensing entity to prove by clear and convincing proof that the applicant is so prohibited from possessing a firearm."
That above quote is from the application at
http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/nhsp/ssb/permitslicensing/documents/dssp85.pdf