- Tue Aug 14, 2012 12:33 pm
#40887
Going to attach it to my application when I get fingerprinted Thursday. If something should glaringly change please let me know. I'm on the last line of the 2nd page, so would prefer to not make it any longer. I know it's long, but hopefully it gets the point across and gets him thinking about his unfair requirements.
Mr. Michael D. Custer,
I am attaching this note regarding the “Character Reference” letters that Rocky Hill Police Department requests in addition to the information required by the State of Connecticut and the Connecticut Board of Firearms Permit Examiners for application for a Temporary State Pistol Permit.
I recently moved to Connecticut from New Jersey, and cannot in good conscience ask anyone in New Jersey to spend their valuable time to fill out a “character reference” form, then go to the Town Hall to have it notarized and mail it back to me, when it is against the Connecticut General Statute 28-29a(b) and the ruling by the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners made on the issue on October 8, 2009, adopted January 14th 2010. Attached you will find a copy of the ruling; though since you are listed as one of the Parties I am sure you are already aware of this ruling and the corresponding Statute.
Last week I spoke to one of your officers regarding the matter, and she understood my concerns and recommended I attach a note that I had recently moved from New Jersey. I briefly discussed with her the ruling made by the Board as well as the corresponding Statute, and she sounded well-informed on the subject. She also advised me recently that another individual recently submitted his application without the “Character References,” though I did not find out the progress of his/her application.
It was ruled by the BFPE that these additional letters of reference “are of little utility in the initial suitability determination inasmuch as they are solicited directly by the applicant from persons presumably friendly to him….. A careful analysis of the applicable law by this Board reveals no authorization for such requirements contained in the statutes.”(Final Decision p10).
I am aware that most jurisdictions do not require any additional information, though a few have chosen to maintain their requirements though the state of Connecticut does not require any additional information. Again referencing the attached Board of Firearms Permit Examiners document, we find “it therefore follows logically that the issuing authority may require an applicant to provide additional information concerning eligibility or suitability once an issue arises during the course of the investigation.” I understand, and the ruling agrees, that additional material may be requested if issues arise during the initial background investigation.
I previously completed a similar process in New Jersey in regards to the application process, as the process is similar to CT in reference to purchasing firearms. Though the state requires references listed, they do not ask for a reference form that correspondingly requires notarization: they simply ask for a telephone number to contact if something arises in the background check and they wish to obtain more information. As I have known and listed the ex-Mayor and ex-Chief of Police my whole life, this was obviously not an issue.
If there are any problems with my application or if you would like to discuss the matter further, feel free to contact me at the email address or phone number listed below. I hope I will not have to go through process that some in Waterbury are facing where the applicant is refused a background check, and following “they may appeal to the board where Waterbury would need to answer as to the cause of letters being requested" (http://ctcarry.com/PermitRequirements/Waterbury). Though I have no desire, nor the spare time, I will go through this appeal process if necessary to hopefully aid future applicants in receiving a fair and consistent process across the state of Connecticut.
Regards,
Christopher van Stolk
Mr. Michael D. Custer,
I am attaching this note regarding the “Character Reference” letters that Rocky Hill Police Department requests in addition to the information required by the State of Connecticut and the Connecticut Board of Firearms Permit Examiners for application for a Temporary State Pistol Permit.
I recently moved to Connecticut from New Jersey, and cannot in good conscience ask anyone in New Jersey to spend their valuable time to fill out a “character reference” form, then go to the Town Hall to have it notarized and mail it back to me, when it is against the Connecticut General Statute 28-29a(b) and the ruling by the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners made on the issue on October 8, 2009, adopted January 14th 2010. Attached you will find a copy of the ruling; though since you are listed as one of the Parties I am sure you are already aware of this ruling and the corresponding Statute.
Last week I spoke to one of your officers regarding the matter, and she understood my concerns and recommended I attach a note that I had recently moved from New Jersey. I briefly discussed with her the ruling made by the Board as well as the corresponding Statute, and she sounded well-informed on the subject. She also advised me recently that another individual recently submitted his application without the “Character References,” though I did not find out the progress of his/her application.
It was ruled by the BFPE that these additional letters of reference “are of little utility in the initial suitability determination inasmuch as they are solicited directly by the applicant from persons presumably friendly to him….. A careful analysis of the applicable law by this Board reveals no authorization for such requirements contained in the statutes.”(Final Decision p10).
I am aware that most jurisdictions do not require any additional information, though a few have chosen to maintain their requirements though the state of Connecticut does not require any additional information. Again referencing the attached Board of Firearms Permit Examiners document, we find “it therefore follows logically that the issuing authority may require an applicant to provide additional information concerning eligibility or suitability once an issue arises during the course of the investigation.” I understand, and the ruling agrees, that additional material may be requested if issues arise during the initial background investigation.
I previously completed a similar process in New Jersey in regards to the application process, as the process is similar to CT in reference to purchasing firearms. Though the state requires references listed, they do not ask for a reference form that correspondingly requires notarization: they simply ask for a telephone number to contact if something arises in the background check and they wish to obtain more information. As I have known and listed the ex-Mayor and ex-Chief of Police my whole life, this was obviously not an issue.
If there are any problems with my application or if you would like to discuss the matter further, feel free to contact me at the email address or phone number listed below. I hope I will not have to go through process that some in Waterbury are facing where the applicant is refused a background check, and following “they may appeal to the board where Waterbury would need to answer as to the cause of letters being requested" (http://ctcarry.com/PermitRequirements/Waterbury). Though I have no desire, nor the spare time, I will go through this appeal process if necessary to hopefully aid future applicants in receiving a fair and consistent process across the state of Connecticut.
Regards,
Christopher van Stolk