Archive for the ‘Issues – State of CT’ Category

Posted by Jonathan at 2 October 2012

Category: CT Legislation, Issues - State of CT

Just an FYI and a heads up.  On October 1st, a few laws and changes take effect.  Some effect average citizens, some will have an impact on FFL’s (like the CT “Bound Book”).

I’m going to list those here with links to the CT legislature where you can do some further research:





The domestic violence is a lot of reading, but there are a few changes involving firearms.  As always, though we’re not lawyers, it is a good thing to have one.  I have an appointment with an attorney once a year just to discuss many of these types of changes and my personal knowledge of the law and how they pertain to me as a citizen with a permit to carry pistols and revolvers.

Posted by Jonathan at 23 April 2012

Category: Issues - State of CT

This bill is a huge benefit over the current system.

Right now, the majority of towns are asking citizens (demanding even) that citizens sign hold harmless agreements, medical release forms, town generated forms with extra information (including amputations, speech mannerisms, manner of dress, etc.), letters of reference, passport photos, instructor demographic information, etc.

The bill, as amended, would modify cgs 29-28 to include:

(b) An applicant for a temporary state permit shall provide the issuing authority the following: (1) A completed and notarized application on the form prescribed by the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, which form may not be modified or supplemented with information not required by statute; (2) proof of lawful presence in the United States consisting of (A) for citizens of the United States, a birth certificate, naturalization certificate or valid United States passport, or (B) for aliens, a permanent resident card; (3) a certificate of successful completion of a course in the safety and use of pistols and revolvers signed by an instructor certified by the National Rifle Association, the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, a law enforcement agency or a branch of the military service of the United States; and (4) two sets of fingerprints for purposes of section 29-29.

Of particular note is subsection B of part B:

which form may not be modified or supplemented with information not required by statute

As we have shown on, the majority of towns ask for additional information.  Especially the more populated towns having an effect on much more of CT’s population.

Some would argue that the bill now creates a standard of two sets of fingerprints.  We feel this is a minor issue considering the benefit illustrated above.  The VAST majority of towns (indeed probably virtually all towns) as a standard already take fingerprints for the background checks.

Given that the bill prevents towns from REQUIRING additional information, we find that this is a vast improvement.

The Board of Firearms Permit Examiners has stated that towns can not require citizens submit additional information.  This, has fallen on deaf ears as the declaratory ruling from the BFPE has no legal effect on how a local issuing authority handles the permit process.  Under the current system, the town can ask for the information, citizen refuse, town denies by drawing adverse inference as to why a citizen does not provide law enforcement with said information.  Then, appellants have to wait a rather long time in order to obtain a hearing.

Weighing the options, this bill helps the vast majority of applicants in this state with the least burden of additional requirements.

We will continue to support this bill moving forward.


Posted by Jonathan at 17 February 2012

Category: Issues - State of CT

Regardless of what the State of CT thinks, the rules do indeed apply to them as well.  Maybe I should correct that, LAWS.  They all too often refer to laws as rules – and I almost fell for it again.

As groups like CTCarry have mentioned, there is a backlog of over 1080 background checks.  There is, of course, no reason for this since the process is rather simple and electronic.  Scan print cards, send them to FBI, they get turned back rather quick.

There is a rather alarming problem with the backlog – it seems rather selective.  If you live in one town, you get your investigation done a lot quicker than if you live in another.  I know instructors that have citizens getting their permits in a month.  Why do the citizens on the backlog have to wait nearly four months?

Then, to make matters more interesting, the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection are sending out a memo telling local issuing authorities not to bother with checking on background checks unless it’s already been 14-16 weeks.  What, they sent out a memo that clearly shows they are violating the state statutes?  Yup!

Here is the link to the memo, read for yourself and decide.