Hundreds get gun permits despite Conn. cops' rejection

PoliceOne / The Hartford Courant ^ | June 23, 2013 | Matthew Kauffman and Dave Altimari

[2ndDivisionVet]

When Jesse Hovanesian applied for a pistol permit two years ago, he did not mention his criminal conviction in a case where police said he fled on foot toward his house after a traffic stop, yelling, "You can't come in here without a warrant," before the officer grabbed him at the front door and wrestled him to the ground.

When Bristol police dug a little deeper, records show, they found the unemployed 23-year-old had been a suspect in a variety of drug and larceny investigations, along with a road-rage incident in which he was accused of a slashing another driver with a knife. He was not convicted or charged in most of the cases.

But in the end, none of it mattered.

After Bristol's police chief rejected his application to carry a gun, Hovanesian appealed to the Connecticut Board of Firearm Permit Examiners, which found that the chief was a few days late in submitting a written explanation of his denial -- a deadline for which the board shows no mercy. As a result, when Hovanesian's case was called in March, the board took no testimony and voted immediately and unanimously to overturn the police chief's denial and give Hovanesian a pistol permit by default.

"I did have some complications in the past; I'm not going to deny that," Hovanesian said last week. "I had to jump through some hoops, but it all worked out and I got my permit."

In outcome, if not in speed, that is the typical result of the board's deliberations. In more than two-thirds of permit-denial cases in recent years, the board has rejected a local official's judgment that an individual cannot be trusted to carry a gun in public, a Courant examination of board records reveals.....

[Sporke]

“IIRC, a person “accused” of domestic violence loses their right to firearms.”

That is true, especially in CA and NY.

[Sporke]

“There is absolutely nothing wrong with giving a person a 15 year prison sentence AND a lifetime restriction on their liberty. Fifteen years in prison didn’t make them a better citizen, nor did it pay any debt. It just kept them away from the innocent.

There are already legal means by which a felon can regain their voting and 2A rights, let them use those.”

Prisons are where we punish those who break our laws. That should be the ONLY place. The only reasons we have parole/probation, and the other creative sentencing options is because it’s cheaper for the taxpayer. If we have so many people in jail that we can’t afford to keep them, then just maybe we have to many people in prison, because of stupid laws.
As for felons filing motions to get their rights back, yes, it can be done. All it takes is several thousand dollars and a sympathetic DA and Judge. If you don’t have both, you have donated your cash to the state.

I am a simple person. I believe if a person is convicted of a crime, he is sentenced and goes to prison, if the crime is worthy of it. The day the sentence is completed, every right should be restored. Since our rights aren’t given to us by the state, they should have no right to take them from us.

[SampleMan]

Prisons are where we punish those who break our laws. That should be the ONLY place.

Well, that's an opinion, but I don't agree. I think penal labor is a great form of punishment and has many good uses. Let someone that embezzles pay back 150% of what they stole.

The only reasons we have parole/probation, and the other creative sentencing options is because it’s cheaper for the taxpayer.

Its a reason, but there are many suitable punishments besides being confined to a cell.

As for felons filing motions to get their rights back, yes, it can be done. All it takes is several thousand dollars and a sympathetic DA and Judge. If you don’t have both, you have donated your cash to the state.

I would hope it would take more than money and sympathy, like a good judgment of whether the person is still to be considered a violent threat to others.

I am a simple person. I believe if a person is convicted of a crime, he is sentenced and goes to prison, if the crime is worthy of it. The day the sentence is completed, every right should be restored. Since our rights aren’t given to us by the state, they should have no right to take them from us.

Either you believe in the state having the power to take away rights, or you don't, which is it? Its all about due process. When someone rapes a child, I want the state to have the power to strip them of their rights, as free people do not reside in prison, nor are free people put to death. As for the automatic full restitution of rights, their status as a dangerous person has not changed. If Bob tries to kill Bill with a hammer, but only succeeds in wounding Bill, he's only going to get about 5 years, but Bob is still a very dangerous, homicidal person.

If I accept your logic that people should only be punished in prison and be automatically fully restored thereafter, then I will revert to pre-1800 sentencing, and seek the death sentence for most all violent crimes, and prison sentences stretching into old age for the others.