On June 21, 2013 the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP) filed suit against the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners (BFPE) and a Mr. Glenn Pennell. The lawsuit is an appeal to the courts to overturn the decision of the BFPE to return Mr. Pennell’s pistol permit.

Paragraph #17 of the complaint alleges:

                “17. By reinstating Pennell’s Permit at a future time and subject to one or more conditions, the Board has exceeded its statutory authority and created obligations for the plaintiff with respect to the issuance of this permit that are not permitted by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-32b. These conditions are not available to issuing authorities such as the plaintiff and other municipalities as set forth in [sic]”

The above cited allegation is particularly interesting given an exchange in a BFPE hearing, the recording of which was captured and pointed out by Connecticut Carry Director Edward Peruta. Kenneth Tramadeo, a public member of the BFPE inquired of Detective Barbara Matson why and how she was making ‘deals’ with permit appellants before BFPE hearings and how those appellants were chosen.

The particular ‘deal’ discussed in that recording is extremely similar to the ruling that the BFPE made regarding Mr. Pennell’s permit being returned. The ‘deal’ directly conflicts with the DESPP’s assertion in its complaint that both the DESPP and BFPE lack the authority to make this kind of a deal. Detective Barbara Matson, in fact, indicates that this kind of thing is quite common.

Connecticut Carry has made the Detective Matson audio available on its YouTube channel, for public consumption. Also, please review the court complaint from the DESPP’s court case.

Has the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection been knowingly violating its authority for years? Or is it suddenly trying to forget its common practices so that it can push a political agenda that smears the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners?

The Connecticut State Police through the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection have been sending threatening and misleading letters to Connecticut residents telling them that they must turn in their firearms to the State Police without any lawful justification.

In one such example, a resident was the subject of an ex parte restraining order. State law clearly states that such an individual is only ineligible to possess firearms when:

a restraining or protective order of a court of this state that has been issued against such person, after notice and an opportunity to be heard has been provided to such person, … -- 53a-217(a)(3) and 53a-217c(a)5

Federal law provides that a person is ineligible to possess firearms when they are:

subject to a court order that (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which time such person had an opportunity to participate … -- 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)

Instead of following the law and waiting until the resident had been given notice and an opportunity to be heard as the law prescribes; the State Police sent a letter threatening arrest if the resident did not turn over all of their firearms. The restraining order ended up being dissolved before the resident became ineligible to possess firearms, but because of the 2013 gun ban that went into effect 4/4/2013, some of the firearms and magazines this person possessed can never be transferred back to them.

Because of the Connecticut State Police and DESPP not knowing or following the law, a resident of Connecticut may have permanently lost property that rightfully belongs to him and should have never been in the possession of the State Police to begin with. This is yet another case involving the seizure of firearms where members of the State Police, DESPP and the Special License and Firearms Unit (SLFU) have been found doing business their way rather than following the law.

                

Attorney Rachel Baird is the attorney investigating this particular instance as well as several other questionable practices and misunderstandings of existing laws. She went on to address these in a recent letter to Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP) Commissioner Reuben Bradford.

 

Cases like this demonstrate the fact that experienced members of law enforcement who are assigned to firearm related cases on a daily basis lack the required understanding of firearm laws.

 

Connecticut Carry will continue to work to educate members of the public and the members of these state agencies as well as local police departments about the rights of the public and the laws of the state. We will also work to stop these rogue units from engaging in abusive behavior towards the public.

 

More information on this issue can be found on http://www.ctcarry.com.

Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.
 

Contact:
Richard Burgess
President
Connecticut Carry, Inc
Ph: 203-208-9577
Email:
http://www.ctcarry.com

In a move to further restrict the rights of the citizens of Connecticut from lawful self-defense, Governor Dannel Malloy has sent a letter to the Ye Connecticut Gun Guild. This letter seeks four nominees as replacements for the longest serving and most outspoken member of the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, Mr. Peter Kuck. The letter follows a series of articles detailing issues in the pistol permit process in Connecticut caused by rogue police agencies and being addressed by the board.

Mr. Peter Kuck is a patriot with strong and principled opinions on what rights mean. He serves on the board as a representative of the citizens of Connecticut and has therefore taken the Board of Firearms Permit to task on several occasions for not following the law or keeping the best interests of the public in mind. This has meant taking the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners to court several times.

“The SLFU has operated as a rogue unit within the DPS without oversight or regard for the law or the individual rights of state permit holders.” – Peter Kuck in his Federal Complaint against the DESPP

With Governor Malloy seeking to replace a good man who has volunteered a tremendous amount of his own time in service to the public in Connecticut and has also volunteered his money and resources to fight injustices within the board and State of Connecticut when the need arose, this is yet again a brazen attack on the rights of the people of Connecticut.

Governor Malloy is simply not satisfied with his overreaching and unconstitutional gun ban implemented in April. Now he is using alternative means to try and remove rights from law abiding people by denigrating a good man.

Instead of attacking the people of Connecticut and the patriots who do all they can to help keep them safe, perhaps Governor Malloy could get involved in figuring out why the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection has been illegally collecting millions of dollars’ worth of fees on pistol permit applicants? Or he could get involved with figuring out why the DESPP is delaying pistol permit background checks that are supposed to be instant and making them take weeks or months.

Of course, most of these issues could be solved through a simple legislative change to make our resident pistol permit process the same as non-resident pistol permits which would remove the local police departments from our pistol permit process and with it, the issue of suitability.

• The letter: http://www.ctcarry.com/Document/Download/a6735147-7bc5-42fa-aa78-54210a57e965
• First Courant Article published on June 23rd: http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-gun-permits-20130622,0,1847793.story
• Second Courant Article published on June 24th: http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-gunboard-kuck-0624-20130623,0,3161750.story
• Bob Englehart editorial with cartoon published on June 24th: http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/cartoons/hc-connecticut-board-of-firearms-permit-examiners-20130624,0,5044305.story

 

Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

 

Contact:
Richard Burgess
President
Connecticut Carry, Inc
Ph: 203-208-9577
Email:
http://www.ctcarry.com

In response to Connecticut Carry’s challenge to the State’s power to charge $50 USD for background check fees and our subsequent Demand to Cease and Desist the collection of the unlawful fees, as well as our lawsuit against Torrington and the State of Connecticut; the Town of Wethersfield has done the right thing and issued a letter to their pistol permit applicants. The letter is given out to pistol permit applicants and informs applicants of our challenge to the fee and what applicants who refuse the fee may expect.

This is an important step in our process of removing this unlawful fee that is used as a hurdle to the rights of citizens here in Connecticut.

Connecticut Carry would like to thank Chief James Cetran and the Town of Wethersfield for issuing this letter to pistol permit applicants and for standing up against an unlawful practice when it is not popular or easy to do so. This letter shows character on Wethersfield’s side and Connecticut Carry will work with Wethersfield to make sure their efforts are not in vain.

Connecticut Carry urges other towns to make the same admissions to their applicants and to make sure that towns do not place themselves in positions of liability as agents of the state when the state is breaking the law.

Please note that pistol permit applicants who deny any town the collection of this fee could potentially be turned down by the state, but that they have not lost their right to appeal to the BFPE and that Connecticut Carry is here and prepared to assist with the appeal process whenever needed.

For more information on our stance on background check fees: http://www.ctcarry.com/BackgroundCheckFee/Fees

Wethersfield’s letter to applicants: http://www.ctcarry.com/Document/Download/36f74095-b474-413f-883b-c3ee553617d1

Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.
 

Contact:
Richard Burgess
President
Connecticut Carry, Inc
Ph: 203-208-9577
Email:
http://www.ctcarry.com

In their 2013 ‘Legislative package’, the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection set out to mislead the state legislature in an attempt to make their unlawful collection of background check fees lawful.

The ‘AAC Fees Charged for Criminal History Background Checks’ proposal stated in part:

This statutory change would create a new and appropriate revenue stream by charging for individuals in the private sector that currently do not pay any state fees for criminal history background checks performed by the agency’s State Police Bureau of Investigation

In fact, the DESPP has been collecting this fee since October 1, 2009. The DESPP, as well as all local issuing authorities in the state received a Cease and Desist order for this unlawful practice in April 2012. A lawsuit was filed in May of 2013.

The same proposal went on:

Other changes will delete unnecessary and misleading language from the fee structure for criminal history background checks.
 

Except that the language to be ‘deleted’ is actually additional language which instead of exempting local police departments and municipalities from background check fees, it changes that to only apply if the requesting agency is requesting the background check for employment purposes. This specifically targets the only other main reason why someone would get a background check fee through a local police department: Pistol permits. And it is a fee that DESPP has collected over $1 million of since they unlawfully started collecting it on October 1, 2009.

This misleading and dishonest proposal resulted in Senate Bill 969.

Connecticut Carry urges the legislature to condemn the dishonest and unlawful actions of the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection and urge them to discontinue their collections of such fees.

Connecticut Carry will continue to fight these fees using the courts and whatever other lawful means they possess.

 

More information on this issue can be found on http://www.ctcarry.com/BackgroundCheckFee/Background.

The DESPP proposal can be found here: 

http://www.ct.gov/opm/lib/opm/budget/2014_2015_agency_cs_request_and_options/legislative_proposals/department_of_emergency_services_&_public_protection.pdf

Senate Bill 969 can be found here: http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=969&which_year=2013

 

Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.
 

Contact:
Richard Burgess
President
Connecticut Carry, Inc
Ph: 203-208-9577
Email:
http://www.ctcarry.com

 

 

In Connecticut Carry’s ongoing efforts to educate and to protect the rights of the citizens in Connecticut to bear arms, our legal counsel Attorney Rachel Baird has filed a lawsuit against the Connecticut DESPP and the town of Torrington for illegal collections of fees regarding pistol permits and the right to carry firearms.

Since October 1^st, 2009 the Department of Public Safety (now the DESPP) has conspired with local issuing authorities across Connecticut to collect a $50 fee for each Connecticut State Pistol Permit state background check. In the town of Torrington alone, there have been $22,250 $39,300 [1] in fees collected.

Statewide, this results in over $1 million of background check fees state wide being illegally collected.        

The DESPP has alleged repeatedly that they are entitled to this money, even though the Connecticut General Statutes make clear that the local issuing authorities are requesting the background checks and that they are exempt from the fees.

Connecticut Carry challenged this fee by issuing a cease and desist order to the local issuing authorities and to the DESPP. The Town of Windsor published a favorable opinion to each permit applicant that states that they agree that the fee has no basis in law, but that the DESPP might ‘deny’ permits based on this omission. Many towns and the DESPP have continued to collect this fee despite being informed of the legal issues with the collection.

In response to a FOI request for data related to information on this fee being collected in March, 2012 the DESPP destroyed documents after receiving FOI requests for the records from both Connecticut Carry and American News and Information Services.

In the recent 2013 legislative session, the DESPP requested and received a bill (SB 969) that would allow them to collect this fee, admitting that they lacked the statutory authority to collect the fee in the first place. This proposed legislation followed the cease and desist order from Connecticut Carry.

From the DESPP’s legislative proposal:

“[u]nder existing law all criminal history records checks coming from other agencies are not subject to any state fees.”

 

Confirming the intentions for the new statutory fee, and bringing into scrutiny DESPP’s current requests for further funding, the DESPP uses as a justification:

[the] “statutory change would create a new and appropriate revenue stream.”

This revenue stream would lack accountability since it was not defined via statute. Despite the DESPP collecting over $1 million dollars in unauthorized fees, they have continually fallen behind in their state background checks for pistol permits causing undue delays in pistol permit issuances.

The actions by the Connecticut DESPP are outrageous, especially when evaluated in parallel to the current requests by the DESPP for more funding and employees because of the completely unreasonable delays in the pistol permit process for applicant statewide.

 

More information on this issue can be found here: http://www.ctcarry.com/BackgroundCheckFee/Fees

The Cease and Desist can be found here: http://www.ctcarry.com/BackgroundCheckFee/Action1

The current lawsuit’s complaint can be found here: http://www.ctcarry.com/Document/Download/ea8bd9fe-52ca-43e5-8d57-e7d7e0001173

To find out more about Connecticut Carry: http://www.ctcarry.com.

 

Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.
 

Contact:
Richard Burgess
President
Connecticut Carry, Inc
Ph: 203-208-9577
Email:
http://www.ctcarry.com

 

[1]: Correction, clarification on actual amount received from Torrington Police Department.

Connecticut Carry has released the rap sheet and troubled past of Gun Ban Lobbyist Neil Heslin in response to an article published by News Times which failed to go into any significant journalistic depth on his troubled past, and only discussed his current criminal troubles including his failure to appear in court while he was in Washington D.C. lobbying.

The article by News Times failed to report the fact that records from the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection show a long history of criminal behavior and that Neil Heslin is a felon. All of which means that Neil Heslin is not allowed per State and Federal law to purchase, own or possess any firearms. So often we find that the strongest critics of the right to bear arms are those people who cannot be trusted with firearms themselves.

In fact, despite multiple convictions for drunk driving and losing his license, Mr. Heslin continued to drive and was eventually charged with driving under suspension.

Mr. Heslin is living proof that the criminals we need to be concerned with do not follow permitting laws and that people who so callously risk other people’s lives continue to do so without regard for the laws.

“In 2010, 211 children were killed in drunk driving crashes. Out of those 211 deaths, 131 (62 percent) were riding with the drunk driver.” -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. “Traffic Safety Facts 2010: Alcohol Impaired Driving” Washington DC:National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2011.

Another major issue left out of the reporting so far has been Heslin’s financial and civil issues. He has been sued several times for not paying his bills through his businesses and for not paying child support as well. Now, Mr. Heslin has found the employment he has needed for so long lobbying against the rights of the citizens of Connecticut and the rest of the country as well.

While we all, as humans, share in the sorrow and outrage of Mr. Heslin’s tragic loss, as well as everyone who lost someone on that terrible day; we don’t all have to feel ok with Mr. Heslin profiting off of the tragedy and hurting the gun owning, law abiding citizens who did nothing wrong that day.

In lobbying for gun bans applicable only to people that can actually pass a background, unlike himself, Neil Heslin has had many opportunities to preach to politicians including President Obama himself. In fact, it is not difficult at all to find pictures of Neil Heslin standing within arm’s reach of President Obama and the first lady.

A felon within arm’s reach of the President of the administration so dead set on background checks. No better testimony to how ineffective background checks are needs to be presented.

 

Neil Heslin’s conviction history: http://www.ctcarry.com/Document/Download/fccf3833-f2f3-4f54-b804-153496b02154

Neil Heslin’s troubled past: http://www.ctcarry.com/Document/Download/d8e27118-22a6-437c-8577-63f032b9a085

News Time article on Neil Heslin’s newest criminal charges: http://www.newstimes.com/policereports/article/Away-from-the-spotlight-Sandy-Hook-parent-4496775.php

 

More information on this issue can be found on http://www.ctcarry.com.

 

Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.
 

Contact:
Richard Burgess
President
Connecticut Carry, Inc
Ph: 203-208-9577
Email:
http://www.ctcarry.com

 

It comes as no surprise to the well informed gun owners across the state, but the State Police are finally admitting something they have been reticent to do so far: There is no requirement to conceal your firearm when carrying it in public. If you have a handgun, you need a permit to open carry or to carry concealed.

For several years, Connecticut Carry and its directors along with active gun owners have pushed the state to put an end to bad arrests of people who are lawfully carrying their firearms unconcealed. Police departments have been sued in Federal court over this issue and still the State Police stood by, mostly silent on the issue. Finally, Connecticut Carry has come into possession of a training memo issued to State Police officers across the state that should put the issue of whether someone can be arrested for lawfully carrying a firearm unconcealed to bed once and for all.

Key points from the memo:

“In Connecticut there is NO state statute which makes it illegal for someone with a valid permit to openly carry a pistol in plain view”

“State Police personnel should NOT arrest a properly permitted individual merely for publicly carrying a hand gun or firearm in plain view”

“a complaint from someone that they were merely alarmed or in fear of an openly carried firearm would not arise to the level of a ‘breach of peace’ situation”

The memo simply confirms what informed Connecticut gun owners have known for a long time, open carry is legal in the State of Connecticut.

 

 

 

Will the politicians like Michael Lawlor now apologize for their statements that were clearly so incorrect and dishonest about this issue, or will they continue to stand by their assertions while the State Police break ranks and abandon them?

The memo can be found here: http://www.ctcarry.com/Document/Download/a034b530-1221-425d-a99f-53af710ff219

This memo was uncovered through an investigation by Connecticut Carry Director Ed Peruta and Attorney Rachel Baird and we appreciate their efforts in securing this document in an expedited fashion as soon as they caught word of it. This will hopefully be timely to help keep other citizens from being arrested for no reason.

 

More information on this issue can be found on http://www.ctcarry.com.

Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.
 

Contact:
Richard Burgess
President
Connecticut Carry, Inc
Ph: 203-208-9577
Email:
http://www.ctcarry.com

Thursday, April 4^rd,  2013 will live in infamy as the day that Connecticut legislators usurped the legislative process to pander to their anti-gun agenda with hopes of furthering their political careers. In one, fell, unethical swoop, the Connecticut legislature made clear that they had no regard or consideration for the rights and vocal opinions of their constituents.

Legislators spent much time during their respective sessions patting themselves on the back for making a united front against property rights, the right to self defense and the right to bear arms. They should be ashamed of themselves, if they can put aside their political goals long enough to feel the effects of what they have done to good people in Connecticut.

In passing this legislation, the legislature has sent several clear and horrible messages:

·         Adults that can serve in war but are not yet 21 cannot own the civilian, semi-automatic versions of what they would be sent to war with.

·         A citizen who wishes to abide by the law will always be at a defensive disadvantage to their attacker who will not download their magazines with the state mandated 10 round limit.

·         The latest defensive technology will no longer be available to citizens, only to criminals. Future generations in Connecticut will be left completely without this technology.

·         Manufacturers of firearms and accessories that the state has demonized are no longer welcome in this state and the state will lose the revenue and all of the jobs associated.

·         Legislators have no interest in making anyone other than criminals safer.

Democrats blocked along party lines the motion to divide this bill into appropriate sub sections. This act alone is a great indicator of the political agenda that is being sought. There is no reasonable excuse why this would be a partisan issue. This issue has been fought against by Democrats and Republicans alike for its moral deficiencies. The only fair vote would be for each issue on its merits.

Democrats blocked the motion to deal with each issue on its own merit to force the issue down the citizens’ throats.

Hopefully legislators in Connecticut are about to face the same fate as the Federal legislators who were voted out following the Federal AWB of 1994. The State of Connecticut has kicked a hornet’s nest. Their vote tallies on this bill will make an excellent guide for the next election.

The legislators not only voted away the rights of the good citizens of Connecticut today, they did so with eagerness.

 

Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.
 

Contact:
Richard Burgess
President
Connecticut Carry, Inc
Ph: 203-208-9577
Email:
http://www.ctcarry.com

The Connecticut Senate made clear today that they have no respect for liberty, the rule of law or the rights of the citizens of Connecticut when they voted in favor of SB 1160 which is the ‘Emergency Certified’ bill which they formulated behind closed doors, in secret meetings, afforded no public hearings and then rushed through.

The fact that it was an Emergency Certified bill demonstrates the will of the Senate to destroy our constitutionally protected rights through deception and betrayal. The proposal was made public on Monday, 4/1. The bill’s text was completed on the morning of Wednesday, 4/3 and subsequently the Senate took up a vote the same day. Many Senators admitted to not having read the bill at all, or that they only scanned through it.

Various Senators posed real questions and called for amendments to the bills raising concerns about how this bill would impact law enforcement, the mentally ill and other matters. Senators repeatedly brought up the fact that mental health resources are being taken away by the state at a time when they are paying lip service to the problem and banning firearms and magazines. Indeed, they discussed many communications from constituents that they needed mental health services and that the programs had either been shut down previously or were on the table to be cut.

Connecticut Senators know that mental health services are being cut statewide, but have almost entirely ignored the topic devoting a tiny portion of SB 1160 to mental health related topics.

More alarmingly, the senators in support of SB 1160 repeatedly expressed their will to continue on the topic of gun bans in future legislative sessions and go for outright confiscation legislation next time.

Despite the fact that legislators stated that one of the intents of this bill was to provide for increased ‘Safe Storage’, a bill that would further facilitate the safe storage of firearms using tax credits for safes and lock boxes that was brought forward by Senator Kane.

Surreal moments of astounding ignorance were present at the session.

 

Senator Gary LeBeau compared the polarized fight over the right to bear arms to slavery during the civil war. There is little as shocking, offensive and completely facially ignorant as to compare gun owners to slave owners.

Senator Toni Harp downplayed 25 dead and 115 injured children in China when she stated that no kids died in China when madmen with knives attacked them. Senator Donald Williams repeated this ignorant lie calling the most common firearms in the country ‘weapons of war’ demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of what weapons are involved in wars.

Senator Carlo Leone stated that “It's the assault weapons with high capacity rounds that can fire multiple rounds in a minute”, which is also true of muskets, revolvers, single shot rifles and bolt actions. He clearly leaked his own personal feelings when advocating for banning as ‘Assault weapons’ every firearm in existence.

Senator Martin Looney confirmed that the gun ban language in the bill has been on a 20 year old agenda and that they simply have not had the emotional energy to pass the bill like they wanted to. This means the legislature is simply exploiting the Newtown Massacre for their legislative agenda.

The gun ban bill (SB 1160) will now move forward to the Connecticut House of Representatives.                                                                                                                        

 

The bill text is here: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/BA/2013SB-01160-R00-BA.htm

The bill status is here: http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=1160

 

Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.
 

Contact:
Richard Burgess
President
Connecticut Carry, Inc
Ph: 203-208-9577
Email:
http://www.ctcarry.com