Question on CT Pistol application

[Hawk 19]

I know of 2 individuals who were applying for a CT pistol permit. When they were at Middletown to complete the process there was a question on the application that asked why they were applying for a permit. Both of them wrote down "To exercise my Constitutional rights". The State Police Officer refused to accept this as an answer and return the paperwork. He would not accept the paperwork until they had written some other reason, i.e., "For home protection" or some other reason. I am of the mindset that if my reason truly was to exercise my rights and the Officer makes me change it then in effect the Officer is forcing me to lie on the form. Thoughts? Anyone else heard of this issue?

 

[LQM]

Permit Question

The answer to that question should be, "for all lawful purposes." End of story.

 

[davidmcbeth]

I would answer: not relevant (to most questions they ask)

you can just mail it in, right? Or give to your 1st selectman and have him review your answers ...

 

[dogsandhogs]

I would answer: not relevant (to most questions they ask)

you can just mail it in, right? Or give to your 1st selectman and have him review your answers ...

I believe the OP is talking about DPS-46-C which is a postcard-size document that you have to fill out at DPS after you get your temporary town permit. DPS-46-C, your temporary permit, and $70 are the requirements to get your state pistol permit. This form is not available online.

 

[IH8SPM]

I believe the OP is talking about DPS-46-C which is a postcard-size document that you have to fill out at DPS after you get your temporary town permit. DPS-46-C, your temporary permit, and $70 are the requirements to get your state pistol permit. This form is not available online.

Well if it is that form the answers they want are on the board next the form. I wrote target and home defense.

 

[brk913]

I have received calls from several of my students about this, for some reason the SLFU is no longer accepting "for all lawful purposes" or "to exercise my constitutional right" and are giving people a real hard time and a lot of attitude about it. I do not know why or under what authority someone at DPS made this decision, why should they be able to tell an applicant what they can and cannot put under Reason for Permit? Especially since CT law has no requirement to even have a reason for wanting a permit. I think someone needs to contact someone in the administrative area of SLFU or the BOFPE and get this straightened out, perhaps even removed off the card since CT does not require a reason to get a permit.

Wondering what would happen if someone writes target shooting or collecting/hobby or as stated above, home defense and winds up in a self defense situation outside their home, even if there is no shooting or injuries involved, like someone tries to rob you with a knife, you whip out your pistol and they run away but witnesses saw the whole thing, called the police and report to the responding officers that you produced your handgun, since you did not put self defense outside your home on that card they could actually say you lied on the form and then find you unsuitable for a permit or attempt to charge you with perjury?

Wonder how CT Carry feels about this situation? Rich?

 

[Rich B]

Wonder how CT Carry feels about this situation? Rich?

If they deny 'For all lawful purposes', they need to give that denial in writing and the applicant needs to appeal. They certainly have zero basis for a denial. There is no 'need' qualification in this state.

David's answer of 'not relevant' is also sufficient in my opinion.

With that said, if anyone has an issue with this, please have the person contact me and I will help them work on this. We always need people with a spine ready to stand up against this senseless bullying.

 

[brk913]

Has anyone ever had a permit denied by the SLFU after obtaining their temp permit? I can't imagine anyone wanting to make a stink and appeal at that point, pay the $70 and write what they want you to or file an appeal and have to wait 9 months+ for a hearing before the BOFPE not much of a choice for people who have already waited a ridiculous amount of time for their permit. How does one go about getting a Declaratory Ruling from the BOFPE? I am thinking this would fall right in their jurisdiction, as a ruling delivered to the SLFU telling them they cannot even ask that question would be ideal, at least telling them they must accept what the applicant writes. Looking for some input from Rich or Jonathan on how to get something like that started with the BOFPE or SLFU. I will be the lead horse on this I just don't know where to start.

 

[brk913]

OK, I found this and am going to write a Petition to the Board requesting a ruling removing the "Reason for Permit" line or stopping the SLFU from refusing answers that applicant's write on the final applcation card.

DECLARATORY RULINGS

Section 29-32b-15. Declaratory Rulings

The Board may, in its discretion, issue declaratory rulings as to the applicability of any statutory provision or of any regulation, decision, or order of the Board. Any person may petition the Board for such a ruling. The petition shall be made in writing, shall identify the particular statutory provision, regulation, decision, or order with respect to which such ruling is requested, shall state the name and address of the petitioner, and shall be mailed or delivered as specified in Sec. 29-32b-4 of these Regulations. Any such petition shall be acknowledged by the Board within thirty days after its receipt by the Board and, unless the petition is denied by the Board, a declaratory ruling in the matter shall be issued as expeditiously as circumstances permit.

(Effective May 1, 1975)

 

[davidmcbeth]

OK, I found this and am going to write a Petition to the Board requesting a ruling removing the "Reason for Permit" line or stopping the SLFU from refusing answers that applicant's write on the final applcation card.

DECLARATORY RULINGS

Section 29-32b-15. Declaratory Rulings

The Board may, in its discretion, issue declaratory rulings as to the applicability of any statutory provision or of any regulation, decision, or order of the Board. Any person may petition the Board for such a ruling. The petition shall be made in writing, shall identify the particular statutory provision, regulation, decision, or order with respect to which such ruling is requested, shall state the name and address of the petitioner, and shall be mailed or delivered as specified in Sec. 29-32b-4 of these Regulations. Any such petition shall be acknowledged by the Board within thirty days after its receipt by the Board and, unless the petition is denied by the Board, a declaratory ruling in the matter shall be issued as expeditiously as circumstances permit.

(Effective May 1, 1975)

Why not include ALL suitability requirements .. if you are going to expend energy ..

 

[davidmcbeth]

If they deny 'For all lawful purposes', they need to give that denial in writing and the applicant needs to appeal. They certainly have zero basis for a denial. There is no 'need' qualification in this state.

David's answer of 'not relevant' is also sufficient in my opinion.

With that said, if anyone has an issue with this, please have the person contact me and I will help them work on this. We always need people with a spine ready to stand up against this senseless bullying.

Or put down "for drive by shootings, of course!" lol

DESPP finally responded to my April 2012 freedom of information act request where I asked for the following:

Item #1: Any documents related to any submission of a CCW permit application by the requestor.
Item #2:All departmental documents that outline policies, procedures, and other information in respect to permitting processes that the agency is involved with.
Item #3:All documents produced or received in respect to this FOIA request.

they answered that there are no documents in respect to item #2 .... I find this response unbelievable .... they have no procedures???!!!!

I already filed a FIC appeal back in early May when they did not respond ... so this will be up in august I would assume before the FIC

 

[brk913]

Why not include ALL suitability requirements .. if you are going to expend energy ..

Because suitability is listed within state statute and the Board has no power to declare state statutes unconstitutional or to disregard them. The question, "Reason for Permit" on the other hand has zero basis in CT law and you should not be required to answer it at all, let alone have the DPS tell you what you can and cannot write in that field on their form. I spoke with an Attorney from my club today and he is going to help me write the petition. We'll see what happens....

 

[KIX]

I just received notes from a couple of people going through the same issue.

Seems rather childish........

Looking forward to an update from Brian on this one.

Jonathan

 

[Rich B]

Because suitability is listed within state statute and the Board has no power to declare state statutes unconstitutional or to disregard them. The question, "Reason for Permit" on the other hand has zero basis in CT law and you should not be required to answer it at all, let alone have the DPS tell you what you can and cannot write in that field on their form. I spoke with an Attorney from my club today and he is going to help me write the petition. We'll see what happens....

This would be approximately the same way I would go. Start banging on doors, see what happens. Let me know how it goes, we can post what you get and put some sunlight on this issue as it gets exposed.

 

[brk913]

This would be approximately the same way I would go. Start banging on doors, see what happens. Let me know how it goes, we can post what you get and put some sunlight on this issue as it gets exposed.

I thought about contacting the SLFU myself to discuss this issue but figured I would just get the same bad attitude treatment they are giving the applicants, especially since in reality I have no standing to complain since they have had my card for over 20 years, I do remember what I wrote back then and it was "for all lawful purposes".

 

[davidmcbeth]

Because suitability is listed within state statute and the Board has no power to declare state statutes unconstitutional

I dont think that is correct ... the board should look at their own regulations and see if they comply with current case law ...

 

[brk913]

I dont think that is correct ... the board should look at their own regulations and see if they comply with current case law ...

What is not correct?

Suitability is listed in statute here: http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap529.htm#Sec29-28.htm
"such chief of police, warden or selectman may issue a temporary state permit to such person to carry a pistol or revolver within the state, provided such authority shall find that such applicant intends to make no use of any pistol or revolver which such applicant may be permitted to carry under such permit other than a lawful use and that such person is a suitable person to receive such permit."

The BoFPE Regulations are here: http://www.ct.gov/bfpe/cwp/view.asp?a=4076&Q=504466
No where in the authority granted to them can they challenge state statutes or compare them to case law, it's not there job, that belongs to the courts and the legislature...

 

[KIX]

I'm thinking I want to see the policies and procedures manual for the department as a whole.

Might be a FOIA bit to get and worth it..... at fifty cents a page, might be costly too!

I'm lookin' into that this week unless anyone else has tried this route.

Could be an interesting read.

Jonathan

 

[davidmcbeth]

I'm thinking I want to see the policies and procedures manual for the department as a whole.

Might be a FOIA bit to get and worth it..... at fifty cents a page, might be costly too!

I'm lookin' into that this week unless anyone else has tried this route.

Could be an interesting read.

Jonathan

Just ask to review & bring a scanner ... you can scan them w/o costs with your own scanner but beware -- they'll claim an exemption .... plus they already answered my foia as not having any documents at all ... they all lie at despp, ag, etc...

 

[KIX]

they already answered my foia as not having any documents at all ...

Did they respond to you in writing by any chance?

Jonathan