Connecticut carry permits shut down

A

Aguila Blanca

Staff
The Connecticut Citizens' Defense League has filed a federal lawsuit against the Governor of Connecticut and several municipal police chiefs in the state because they have used the coronavirus situation to completely shut down the firearms permitting process. The CCDL issued an announcement of the lawsuit in an e-mail blast to their membership today, and with an announcement on their web site.

https://ccdl.us/legal-action/634-ccdl-v-lamont

From the web site:

The CCDL was forced to bring suit after the Governor’s March 17, 2020 Executive Order 7E suspended Connecticut General Statute § 29-17c, the law requiring state and local law enforcement to fingerprint, and process the applications of, Connecticut residents seeking State-issued permits to legally purchase and possess firearms, ammunition and magazines. As a result of the Governor’s Executive Order, law enforcement throughout the state are refusing to collect fingerprints for firearms permit purposes, and are refusing to process firearms applications, even while fingerprinting and application processing continues for other purposes. Under Executive Order 7E, state and local law enforcement have effectively shut down the issuance of all firearm permits in Connecticut. The CCDL cannot allow such blatant disregard for its members’ rights to go unchallenged.
Click to expand...

Because of Connecticut's draconian post-Sandy Hook anti-gun laws, this doesn't affect only handgun carry permits. In Connecticut, in addition to needing a permit to carry a handgun residents also need a "certificate of eligibility" to purchase long guns or ammunition. The handgun carry permit also allows the purchase of long guns and ammunition, but with the fingerprinting system on hold Connecticut residents who don't already have their nanny state permission slip have no way of getting one.

Link to the complaint: https://ccdl.us/images/2020-05-09_-_Complaint_-_CCDL_v_Lamont.pdf
 
This brings up the question, about all those states that require some kind of "training class" or even actual shooting, in order to apply for required licenses.

Even if they technically leave the application process open, but shut down required training classes due to the virus (can't gather together) would those states also be open to legal action???

The chilling effect would be the same, essentially denial of lawful ability to exercise a Constitutional right, or so it seems to me.

We are in a strange place, walking a thin line between things that are SEEN as necessary for public safety, and our rights in general, and some rights specifically. Govt is trying to walk that line, and as usual when Govt tries something like this, it does it badly.
 
Good point about classes. Especially since some states specify that on-line training is not acceptable.

One FFL I know who does permit training classes crams 12 to 15 people into a small classroom, with those wire-frame chairs that have the fold-up writing surface on them. If he's doing those classes now, he is certainly in violation of "social distancing" requirements/recommendations. Other instructors I know prefer to do only three to five students at a time, so unless they use an especially small room for the classroom portion of the classes, they should have no trouble adhering to social distancing criteria.

But that's no help if the issuing authorities won't even accept an application.

I mentioned this article to one of my instructor friends, and he responded that the SAF is filing suit against several states for having shut down their permitting processes. I haven't seen anything about that in any news feeds; I guess I should follow up on it.

[Edit to add] Well, that was easy: https://www.saf.org/category/legal/

It occurs to me that there's a [remote] possibility that this situation might bring the entire carry permit scheme into question. I am not alone (I think) in believing that the concept of having to obtain a license or permit to exercise a constitutional right is fundamentally flawed. These lawsuits all share in common language addressing that we [supposedly] have a right to possess and to carry firearms, and the lawsuits all point out that arbitrarily suspending the permitting process illegally prevents citizens from exercising that right. It's not a giant step to get from "You can't shut it down" to "You can't require permits, especially if you're going to play games about when you feel like suspending the process."
 
Sadly, the Supreme Court has not offered protections for the "bear" part of "keep and bear.". McDonald and Heller were about the right to keep a handgun at home (narrow ask to increase the chance of a favorable ruling).
 
raimius said:
Sadly, the Supreme Court has not offered protections for the "bear" part of "keep and bear.". McDonald and Heller were about the right to keep a handgun at home (narrow ask to increase the chance of a favorable ruling).
Click to expand...
Heller was about the right to keep an operable firearm in the home. McDonald was about whether or not the 2d Amendment applied to the states.

That said, you are correct. To date, the SCOTUS has not ruled on the right to bear arms outside the home. That was sort of my point -- if enough states curtail the ability to obtain the [unconstitutional] permission slip to exercise the right, the SCOTUS may be forced to take a case. If that happens, buy a BIG bag of popcorn and settle down to watch the show.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
I am not alone (I think) in believing that the concept of having to obtain a license or permit to exercise a constitutional right is fundamentally flawed.
Click to expand...

I know you aren't alone because I agree with you :) Unfortunately, the courts in general seem reluctant to take gun cases, much less striking down anti-gun laws.
 
Unfortunately, the courts in general seem reluctant to take gun cases, much less striking down anti-gun laws.
Click to expand...

quite possibly because below SCOTUS most judges are elected, and many of those appointed get there because they have views in line with the administration that appoints them. Those who believe they should be "activists" generally hold for more gun control, not less.

Right now, the news is full of the virus (and damn little else) and what the govt is doing about it, and very little attention is being paid to what rights are being trampled on, via the "state of emergency".

Right now, people's 1st and 2nd Amendment rights are being stepped on, in the name of public health & safety. We haven't yet seen 4th and 5th amendments violated, but that may yet happen.

Personally, I think we ought to be advised what we should do, not ordered to do what they think we should do, but then, I believe in other outmoded concepts like liberty and personal responsibility, too...:rolleyes:
 
On the third hand (I love that phrase) my state (Minnesota) was going to have a fight this legislative session about Red Flag Gun Confiscation laws and Universal Background Checks and both those issues have been put on hold due to the virus stuff.

Still, I know the anti-gun folk will be back. I look at Virginia and Connecticut and I sure hope everyone in my state realizes that could happen here.
 
Keywords: Taxpayer dollars.

Mostly law-abiding citizen dollars (and other government funds) will pay for the defense. Those people, if found in the wrong, will pay nothing personally, eh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top