Posted: 4/22/2013 5:38:13 PM EDT
|
Is anyone else concerned about the state claiming that all of our thumb prints are illegible and making us reapply for registration, but waiting to do so until it's too late to reapply and then confiscating all of our unregistered AWs that they would then know where to find?
I mean, they already said they won't have the form available until around July (hopefully). So they put that off until August. They're guaranteed to be overwhelmed with applications anyway. Then they wait until late December (or even January) to tell us all they couldn't make out our thumb print and to reapply. Only, it's now past the deadline. Just seems to me they put the thumb print on the form as something they could reject your application for that you don't really have any way of contesting. ETA: Even if they did this to half of the applicants actually, they would theoretically get half of the AWs out of CT and then would have the other half who were approved to play against those they denied as proof they were "being fair" and that the half they denied "really were illegible" |
|
I don't think they would have any legal ground since you attempted to register before the cut off date, but look at how many pistol permit prints get rejected.
They are going to have to extend the deadline as DPS is going to get slammed. They can't even process the current pp let alone aw registration whenever that form comes out. Not to mention rifle and ammo permits and the ridiculous mag registration, which they have t even decided on a process to do so. |
|
Quoted:
I don't think they would have any legal ground since you attempted to register before the cut off date, but look at how many pistol permit prints get rejected. They are going to have to extend the deadline as DPS is going to get slammed. They can't even process the current pp let alone aw registration whenever that form comes out. Not to mention rifle and ammo permits and the ridiculous mag registration, which they have t even decided on a process to do so. It's pretty much going to be to the point that they are going to register anything you send appropriate paperwork in on. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't think they would have any legal ground since you attempted to register before the cut off date, but look at how many pistol permit prints get rejected. They are going to have to extend the deadline as DPS is going to get slammed. They can't even process the current pp let alone aw registration whenever that form comes out. Not to mention rifle and ammo permits and the ridiculous mag registration, which they have t even decided on a process to do so. It's pretty much going to be to the point that they are going to register anything you send appropriate paperwork in on. I might register a jelly donut. Or high cap #2 pencil. |
| The politicians would love to find ways to screw us, but unfortunately for them they have to deligate the application process to the police, and the police do not support the new law and have no interest in seizing people's rightful property on behalf of Malloy and his brownshirts. In fact, I would not even rule out the police refusing to enforce the new bans. |
|
Quoted: The politicians would love to find ways to screw us, but unfortunately for them they have to deligate the application process to the police, and the police do not support the new law and have no interest in seizing people's rightful property on behalf of Malloy and his brownshirts. In fact, I would not even rule out the police refusing to enforce the new bans. lol, you don't know the police too well do you? Yeah there's some of them that are cool, but there's A LOT of them who are anti- civilians owning guns, and would just love for any excuse to take them away from people.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The politicians would love to find ways to screw us, but unfortunately for them they have to deligate the application process to the police, and the police do not support the new law and have no interest in seizing people's rightful property on behalf of Malloy and his brownshirts. In fact, I would not even rule out the police refusing to enforce the new bans. lol, you don't know the police too well do you? Yeah there's some of them that are cool, but there's A LOT of them who are anti- civilians owning guns, and would just love for any excuse to take them away from people. I'm afraid he's not the one out of touch with prevalent attitudes among law enforcement. While you are correct, unfortunately, that many of the higher ranking police officers who owe their jobs to a politician in some way or another are anti-gun, the vast majority support civilian gun ownership. The few regular guys who express anti-civilian attitudes are usually the guys everyone hates anyway. http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-lessons-from-officers-perspectives/ The problem we have in CT is that of the majority who support us, far too many are apathetic in their support. Which is to say they don't care one way or another since the law doesn't usually effect them, and they leave it to us to change the laws we don't like. ("I don't make the law, I just enforce it.") |
|
Cops travel in packs, especially when they respond to a call or disturbance. Even if 2 out of 3 are pro-civilians owning guns, usually the most aggressive and bossy one of the group that makes the decision is the anti-gunner, who's hell bent on taking them, while the other 2 don't put up much resistance to his idea of taking them away even if they may not totally agree with it. So yeah I can agree that many cops are cool with the 2A, its just that there's always one a-hole somewhere in their group calling the shots. |
|
Quoted:
Cops travel in packs, especially when they respond to a call or disturbance. Even if 2 out of 3 are pro-civilians owning guns, usually the most aggressive and bossy one of the group that makes the decision is the anti-gunner, who's hell bent on taking them, while the other 2 don't put up much resistance to his idea of taking them away even if they may not totally agree with it. So yeah I can agree that many cops are cool with the 2A, its just that there's always one a-hole somewhere in their group calling the shots. I guess I should count myself lucky... Here in Bethel my father and I received our permits at the same time, and were surprised at how pro-2a all of the officers we interacted with seemed to be. "More people should carry" etc. |
|
It varies from town to town what kind of police you have to deal with. I'm from a small town originally myself, where the local town cops were fine when it comes to gun rights. CT state cops have issues though if you ever have to deal with them, I'd say most of them are anti-civilians owning guns.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cops travel in packs, especially when they respond to a call or disturbance. Even if 2 out of 3 are pro-civilians owning guns, usually the most aggressive and bossy one of the group that makes the decision is the anti-gunner, who's hell bent on taking them, while the other 2 don't put up much resistance to his idea of taking them away even if they may not totally agree with it. So yeah I can agree that many cops are cool with the 2A, its just that there's always one a-hole somewhere in their group calling the shots. I guess I should count myself lucky... Here in Bethel my father and I received our permits at the same time, and were surprised at how pro-2a all of the officers we interacted with seemed to be. "More people should carry" etc. Bethel cops are a bunch of good guys. Well most of them. |
|
Kinda on the same topic, but where would you go to get the fingerprinting? When I did mine for my Pistol Permit, I had them done at my local PD.
If we have to do this at DPS, there would be so many people there that nothing would get done. If local PD had to do it, then they would also be able to look at what you are registering and could potentially build their own list of whats in town. |
|
Quoted:
Cops travel in packs, especially when they respond to a call or disturbance. Even if 2 out of 3 are pro-civilians owning guns, usually the most aggressive and bossy one of the group that makes the decision is the anti-gunner, who's hell bent on taking them, while the other 2 don't put up much resistance to his idea of taking them away even if they may not totally agree with it. So yeah I can agree that many cops are cool with the 2A, its just that there's always one a-hole somewhere in their group calling the shots. It seems every other post you make you are spewing hate about cops & guns with no facts. Statements like yours belong in the zoo that is General Discussion, not here in the CT forum 
|
|
The thumb print issue is a non-issue. We did this before in '94...wasn't a problem then...really an over reach to allege the police will consciously conspire to do this.
I would love to hear more about thisright's experience with LE. He may have indeed found "that guy", but usually there's more to the event...in my experience as a CT cop. Cops travel in packs, especially when they respond to a call or disturbance.
The "disturbance" call is the one where most cops get killed. It's not traveling in packs, it's called backup. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cops travel in packs, especially when they respond to a call or disturbance. Even if 2 out of 3 are pro-civilians owning guns, usually the most aggressive and bossy one of the group that makes the decision is the anti-gunner, who's hell bent on taking them, while the other 2 don't put up much resistance to his idea of taking them away even if they may not totally agree with it. So yeah I can agree that many cops are cool with the 2A, its just that there's always one a-hole somewhere in their group calling the shots. It seems every other post you make you are spewing hate about cops & guns with no facts. Statements like yours belong in the zoo that is General Discussion, not here in the CT forum a 13'er is doing this...I am shocked! Police enforce the law without passion or prejudice(or they are supposed to anyway). If it is the law they are going to enforce it despite what there personal misgivings about said law are...it is there job. I am sure there will be instances of a little leeway (ie your caught with 11 round instead of 10 in a magazine I could see a LEO letting you slide if you are honest and cool about it.If ,you start spouting how the lawmakers are assholes and the cops that enforce those laws are jackbooted thugs then yeah you are going to jail guaranteed). But if you are caught January 2nd coming into the state via I-84 with a trunk full of 30rd Pmags I dont think that is something a LEO may let you slide on. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Cops travel in packs, especially when they respond to a call or disturbance. Even if 2 out of 3 are pro-civilians owning guns, usually the most aggressive and bossy one of the group that makes the decision is the anti-gunner, who's hell bent on taking them, while the other 2 don't put up much resistance to his idea of taking them away even if they may not totally agree with it. So yeah I can agree that many cops are cool with the 2A, its just that there's always one a-hole somewhere in their group calling the shots. It seems every other post you make you are spewing hate about cops & guns with no facts. Statements like yours belong in the zoo that is General Discussion, not here in the CT forum This is something that a lot of people in the state already know about, including the Coalition of CT Sportsmen who have said openly several times over the years they don't believe the state police want anyone to get their permit. There's also lawyers/sportsmen who know more about what goes on than you do. Check out this article from just a couple months ago... Police slam Connecticut firearms board over permit denials"The board has been established and has been working well,” Rebimbas said. "Why are they asking for this? Is it an ego thing, because people don’t want their decisions overturned?” Rebimbas said she would want hard data on how often any people who got permits because of a board decision go out and commit crimes afterward. Police reached this past week did not have any statistics on cases in which the board gave out a permit and the individual then committed a crime. "Common sense would dictate that if something is not broken, don’t try to fix it,” Rebimbas said. "The last thing we want to do is put a financial burden on people, who’d have to take their case to court and hire an attorney, and bog down our judicial system, if the board is working.” While permit issuing authorities can consider one’s "suitability” for a permit now, Looney has also proposed a bill that provides greater detail on what could be considered while determining one’s suitability to have one. The proposal would allow authorities to even consider one’s association with persons who are not eligible to obtain a permit, for example. Looney’s bill would give issuing authorities 12 weeks to render a decision instead of eight. It would allow authorities to require applicants to consent to the release of any documents or evidence it reasonably believes will assist in determining suitability. It would delineate that an issuing authority may consider factors such as psychiatric disabilities, attempted suicide, participation in violent crime, arrests or convictions for use or distribution of a controlled substance, military service record, incidents of workplace violence, or any other factors which the issuing authority reasonably believes contributes to the applicant’s suitability. "According to the police chiefs, there are times when there is some disagreement about what is suitable, and there needs to be more clarification,” Looney said. "This could and should mean other people in a household.” According to Looney, there have been cases in which a relative without a criminal record applies for a permit, in a household where someone has recently been released from prison. "Then, the spouse with a clean record applies — which raises questions,” Looney said. The police chiefs’ association would like the extension for determining suitability to 12 weeks because sometimes there are delays in getting background information on candidates from other agencies, according to Salvatore. "We would like to see suitability addressed, to allow the local chief to require any documentation that is necessary and consider matters like mental health,” Salvatore said. "We can consider suitability now, but are asking for a specific definition.” John DeCarlo, a former Branford police chief who is now an associate professor of criminal justice at the University of New Haven, said the bill addressing suitability is a great idea. "It gives the issuing authority more time and the ability to ask for more documentation,” DeCarlo said. Sherman, however, asserted that police and other issuing authorities abuse the "suitability” standard. "I’ve seen police turn people down because a relative has a criminal record,” Sherman said. "Police can do almost anything with this ‘suitability’ standard, and can pretty much turn people down for any reason. It is shameful.” "It is clear Looney wants to give police more power,” Sherman added. New Fairfield First Selectman John Hodge said many applicants appear to be deliberately deceptive on the applications when questioned about prior arrests or convictions. There are specific cases when an individual doesn’t have to acknowledge an arrest, such as if the charge was dismissed or nolled, if they were acquitted or received an absolute pardon. However, Hodge said he has gotten applications that don’t disclose the information that should be disclosed. "There is great responsibility with owning and carrying a gun, and if you can’t get past the first step with honesty and candor, then that is a problem,” Hodge said. "There was one gentleman who said he was never arrested, but the background check showed seven different charges. It is not uncommon, and it takes a lot of legwork, and I get frustrated.” Hodge said he has approached state lawmakers about pursuing penalties for people who provide false information, such as making them wait at least a year before being eligible to apply again. While applicants are warned on the application that they could be subject to a second-degree false statement charge, a misdemeanor, if they lie, Hodge said he doesn’t believe this is enforced now. With much of the gun discussion coming in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Looney said his proposals are "not necessarily directly related to the circumstances of the Lanza case.” Adam Lanza fatally shot 20 children and six adults at the Newtown school on Dec. 14, using a weapon owned by his mother, Nancy Lanza, who he also shot to death. Police seized a Bushmaster .223 caliber rifle with a high capacity 30-round magazine, a Glock 10 mm handgun, and a Sig-Sauer 9 mm handgun from inside the school, and a 12 gauge shotgun from Lanza’s vehicle in the parking lot, according to state police. The Bushmaster was used on the victims in the school, and Lanza shot himself with a handgun, according to Vance. Vance has refused to say whether Nancy Lanza had a pistol permit, which allows an individual to carry a pistol, or an eligibility certificate, which allows someone to purchase a firearm and transport it to their home or place of business. One solely needs an eligibility certificate to purchase the Bushmaster, according to Vance. Newtown police Chief Michael Kehoe deferred comment to Vance. The board has indicated they have had not had any hearings involving the Lanza family. Scott Wilson, president of the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, noted that Adam Lanza committed the murders without any permit. The 20-year-old Adam Lanza was too young to even apply for either a pistol permit or an eligibility certificate. "Now that there is a window open after this atrocity, (some lawmakers) are trying to put everything under the sun on the table,” Wilson said. "It is not fair to the law-abiding citizens of Connecticut.” Wilson said he thinks the board should remain in place, as he asserted that many denials are made because an issuing authority just doesn’t want to issue a permit. "(The board’s hearings are) a fair process, and going to the board is a better option than going to court,” Wilson said. "The board has voluntary members who work very hard. They are very fair. If they have an instance where someone is unsuitable, they are going to stand by it. We have a system that works. It would be a shame to force people to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars in court.” Wilson claimed some municipalities make it harder to get permits than others, such as Hartford and New Haven. "We need an impartial board,” Wilson said. Vance said police don’t keep a list of how many permit applicants are rejected and why. Typically, an applicant will be rejected "because they don’t meet the statutory qualifications,” Vance said. Felony convictions, certain misdemeanor convictions, pending restraining or protective orders and being deemed "unsuitable” to carry a pistol or revolver, can result in being denied. Many cases are withdrawn or resolved before they come before the board. "We don’t keep statistics on how often we side with police versus an appellant,” Knapp said. "It truly is on a case by case basis. Sometimes we find for the issuing authority, and sometimes the reasons for the denial were ridiculous and we found for the appellant. Sometimes the appellants have a good day, and other days, people might wonder ‘Why bother appeal?’” In response to proposals to eliminate the board or change who is on it, Knapp said, "I know police chiefs — I was one. Some have big egos. I can give ridiculous reasons why people have been denied, like vindictiveness — one chief was getting back at someone who had competed against him for the police chief’s job.” "If they want to expand and put a psychiatrist on the board, then do it,” Knapp said. Knapp said he doesn’t know of any cases in which someone committed a crime with a gun after the board overruled a permit denial or revocation. "The board works very hard for long hours,” Knapp said. "One time, we went until 5 a.m., and we are volunteers. If there is no board, people who appeal would have to spend money and add to the court docket.” |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
This whole thread is pointless mental mastebation Holy shit guys. 
I'm sorry for starting it, I'm just a little paranoid about losing my AWs as they're my favorites  Then dont register them. Every firearm owner has 3 options. a). Register them and keep them in the state. b). Register them and move them out of state. c). Don't Register them. Each firearm owner has to do what they think is right for them and their families. I dont think there will be a court decision until after Jan.1 2014(wheels of justice move slowly). |