Source: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?115206-Another-issue-where-DESPP-SLFU-operates-outside-the-law-and-threatens-people
Timestamp: 2018-05-22 00:45:23
Document Index: 33053988

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 9', '§ 53', '§ 53', '§ 922', '§ 53', '§ 922', '§ 25', '§ 53', '§ 9', '§ 29', '§ 29', '§ 922']

Another issue where DESPP/SLFU operates outside the law and threatens people
Thread: Another issue where DESPP/SLFU operates outside the law and threatens people
Reuben F. Bradford, Commissioner
Middletown CT 06057
Email: reuben.bradford@ct.gov
Eric Cooke, Lieutenant
Commanding Officer, Regulatory and Support Services
Email: Eric.Cooke@ct.gov
Re: DESPP Misrepresentation of State and Federal Laws to Deprive Owner of Firearms
Demand for the DESPP’s Facilitation of the Transfer of Three Firearms
Notice of Representation – NAME CURRENTLY REDACTED
Dear Commissioner Bradford:
I represent NAME CURRENTLY REDACTED(“Mr. REDACTED”).
In accordance with a letter dated May 9, 2013, from Detective Barbara Mattson of the DESPP’s Special Licensing & Firearms Unit (SLFU), Mr. REDACTED transferred thirteen firearms, including seven pistols and six long guns, to a Federal Firearms Licensee. See enclosed letter. The May 9, 2013, SLFU letter informed Mr. REDACTED that, pursuant to Public Act (PA) 11-152, Mr. REDACTED was “ineligible to possess a firearm.” See enclosed letter. The letter informs Mr. REDACTED that “[c]riminal possession of a firearm is a Class D felony.”
However, Mr. REDACTED was not then on May 9, 2013, nor is he currently, nor has he ever been “ineligible to possess firearms.” An Ex Parte Restraining Order was issued against Mr. REDACTED on May 7, 2013, without notice or an opportunity to be heard. A hearing date in the Judicial District of Litchfield was noticed for May 20, 2013. No hearing was held and the Ex Parte Restraining Order dissolved on May 20, 2013.
PA 11-152, § 9,[1] provides that a person “ineligible to possess a pistol or revolver or other firearm” must transfer firearms in his or her possession not later than two business days “after the occurrence of any event that makes a person ineligible.”
· General Statutes § 53a-217(a), Criminal Possession of a Firearm, sets forth eight occurrences that result in a person’s ineligibility to possess a firearm. The occurrence applicable to the issuance of a restraining order is contained in subpart (3).
· General Statutes § 53a-217c(a), Criminal Possession of a Pistol or Revolver, sets forth five occurrences that result in a person’s ineligibility to possess a pistol or revolver. The occurrence applicable to the issuance of a restraining order is contained in subpart (5).
· 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), Unlawful Acts, sets forth nine occurrences that result in a person’s ineligibility to possess a firearm. The occurrence applicable to the issuance of a restraining order is contained in subpart (8).
General Statutes §§ 53a-217(a)(3) and 53a-217c(a)5) provide[2] that a person subject to (A) 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, …” is ineligible to possess a pistol, revolver, or firearm and is guilty of criminal possession of a firearm.
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) provides[3] that a person “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 …” is prohibited from possessing firearms.
Due to the passage of P.A. 13-3, § 25, amending General Statutes § 53-202a, the FFL currently in possession of three of Mr. REDACTED’s transferred firearms requires confirmation from the DESPP that the three firearms may return to Mr. REDACTED’s rightful possession. These firearms, lawfully in Mr. REDACTED’s possession prior to their transfer are now defined as prohibited “assault weapons.”
By informing Mr. REDACTED on May 9, 2013, that he was ineligible to possess firearms, the DESPP misrepresented state and federal laws for the specific purpose of depriving Mr. REDACTED of his property. The May 7, 2013, order was ex parte which by definition means the absence of notice and an opportunity to be heard. Mr. REDACTED was never ineligible to possess firearms.
Mr. REDACTED’s case has exposed perhaps a DESPP practice of falsely informing persons subject only to Ex Parte Restraining Orders of their ineligibility to possess firearms resulting in what maybe a widespread deprivation of property that by law must be preceded by actual notice and opportunity to be heard.
The transfers of Mr. REDACTEDt’s firearms based on a misrepresentation of the law by a government authority are null and void. The authorization numbers issued by the DESPP for the transfers are null and void. Mr. REDACTED demands that the DESPP contact the FFL to facilitate the return of the three firearms to Mr. REDACTED’s rightful possession.
Point #1: The DESPP threatened Mr. REDACTED with prosecution for criminal possession of a firearm unless he transferred or surrendered his firearms.
Point #2: The fact Mr. REDACTED was subject to an Ex Parte Restraining Order did not make him ineligible to possess firearms or subject him to
criminal arrest because Mr. REDACTED had received no actual notice of a hearing and an opportunity to be heard prior to the issuance of
Conclusion: The DESPP threatened Mr. REDACTED with arrest unless Mr. REDACTED transferred or surrendered firearms rightfully owned and possessed
by Mr. REDACTED.
As the Commissioner of a statewide law enforcement agency Mr. REDACTED expects that you will take all necessary and appropriate action in response to threats by law enforcement officers to arrest firearms owners who refuse to surrender firearms in their lawful possession.
Rachel M. Biard, Attorney
[1] P.A. 11-152, § 9, is codified at Connecticut General Statutes, § 29-36k.
[2] General Statutes §§§ 29-36k; 53a-217(a)(3), 53a-217c.
[3] 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8).
ouch! please keep this thread updated with the outcomes as they happen, I'm very curious to see how they different parties involved go about this whole thing.
I've talked with Lt. Cooke ... he is not adverse to lying.
Mr. Redacted should file a notice of trespass against the LEOs (local/state/fed) to let them know they are persona nongrata on his land.
I'm sure this letter went right into the trash can. They simply do not care about following the law.
They know they law (they have a zillion lawyers there).