Board of Firearms Permit Examiners

You asked for information on how the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners operates and how the permit laws define “suitability.” An earlier report, OLR report 2000-R-0819, describes the statutes governing the board's operation.

The Board of Firearms Permit Examiners hears appeals from permit denials or revocations. The board conducts hearings informally and many individuals do not use an attorney. The hearings are civil administrative hearings and not criminal proceedings.

Prior to a hearing, each party fills out a questionnaire and this information is sent to the other party. At the hearing, both parties make an introductory statement. The issuing authority (police department, municipality, or state police) presents evidence to support the permit denial or revocation. This often includes police reports of convictions or arrests, information on domestic violence and civil retraining orders, and any other information that shows a person's unsuitability to possess a permit. The individual presents evidence supporting his application for a permit, showing his suitability, and countering the issuing authority's evidence with his explanation of events.

Both sides can call witnesses to address the issue of suitability and to explain the incidents that form the basis for the permit denial.

Each party can cross-examine witnesses. The board also questions witnesses, can ask questions at any time, and can request additional witnesses. The board can also compel the attendance of witnesses with subpoenas. At the end of the hearing, both parties make a closing statement. The board tapes proceedings but does not transcribe them unless requested (a fee is charged). Hearings are open to the public.

According to the statement read by the board to the parties before a hearing, the board must (1) determine the facts of the case and (2) decide whether there is just and proper cause for denying or revoking the permit. After hearing cases, the board goes into executive session to debate and vote. The board issues a brief decision letter that describes its findings and conclusions in a few sentences.

The statute establishing the board's procedures allows any “person” aggrieved by the board's decision to appeal to the Superior Court (CGS § 29-32b(f)). But this statute does not define the term “person.” The statute allows appeals “in accordance with the provisions of section 4-183.” CGS § 4-183 establishes procedures to appeal under the uniform administrative procedure act (UAPA). Under the UAPA, “person” includes any individual, government subdivision, or agency (CGS § 4-166(9)). It appears that both individuals and issuing authorities can appeal. We found one case where an issuing authority appealed to the Superior Court (Farmington v. Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, No. CV 95-0550258S, Feb. 23, 1996). The court stated that the issuing authority's appeal was “authorized by General Statutes § 4-183” and did not discuss the issue.

The law lists specific criteria for obtaining a handgun permit. In addition, the issuing authority must deny a permit if it finds that the applicant is unsuitable or wants to carry handguns for unlawful purposes (CGS § 29-29). The law does not define suitability, which is left to an issuing authority's discretion. Court cases dealing with suitability define the term broadly.

An individual appealing to the board must respond to a questionnaire from the board. The questionnaire asks for personal information and the reasons for requesting a permit. It also asks about:

1. arrests and motor vehicle violations;

2. the status of any pending charges, probation, parole, or nolle prosequi (formal agreements with prosecutors not to prosecute for an alleged crime);

3. emotional or psychological problems;

4. cases resulting in verdicts of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect;

5. confinements to a mental hospital under probate court order;

6. use of drugs and alcohol;

7. military service; and

8. firearms training.

The issuing authority must also respond to a questionnaire. It must provide the reason for denying the permit, information from investigations and criminal records, and any other relevant information.

According to the statement read by the board to the parties before a hearing, the board must (1) determine the facts of the case and (2) decide whether there is just and proper cause for denying or revoking the permit. According to board policy, the board generally upholds the issuing authority's decision to deny or revoke a permit if the person appealing the decision does not appear for the hearing. But in cases where the issuing authority does not appear, the board examines the individual and his evidence because of the board's responsibility to the public.

The board hears any evidence, whether or not it was available to the issuing authority when it made its decision. According to the board's statement, additional facts or circumstances can convince the board that justice is served by ordering issuance of the permit. But if there is no additional evidence, the board respects the issuing authority's decision if the decision was justified and was not without just and proper cause.

The board has the power to compel the attendance of witnesses with subpoenas. According to Philip Dukes, board chairman, the board has not used its subpoena power since he became chairman in May.

But he believes the board would use its power under certain circumstances, such as a case involving a serious charge where the board felt unable to decide due to insufficient testimony.

According to Susan Mazzaccoli, administrator for the board, the board usually does not conduct additional investigations but relies on the evidence presented by the parties. Responses to the initial questionnaires may raise questions that the board investigates prior to the hearing. This might result in further FBI checks or a search for civil restraining orders, for example. If a question comes up during a hearing, the board can request further information. She states that mental health issues are usually brought up by one of the parties.

The law does not define suitability, which is left to an issuing authority's discretion. The board states that:

“Even when there is no criminal record of any kind, the issuing authority is entitled to consider anything which pertains to the conduct, judgment, character, reputation, habits, behavior, physical condition, mental condition, etc. of the seeker of the permit—to the extent that it bears on the question of the suitability of the individual to carry handguns. While all the above may be considered, a permit may be denied (or revoked) only for just and proper cause. The issuing authority may not be arbitrary or capricious in refusing a permit” (Laws Pertaining to Firearms 2000, Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, p. 8).

The board also states that the ability to handle and fire a handgun safely is a proper requirement to help determine suitability.

In a recent Superior Court case, the court quoted an 1882 Connecticut Supreme Court opinion stating that suitability “is not defined by the law so that its application can be determined as mere matter of eye-sight, but it is left necessarily to be determined solely by the judgment of the commissioners based upon inquiry and information.

And that the particular manner of exercising such judgment cannot be controlled by any court is too obvious to require the citation of any authorities” (Lepri v. Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, No. CV 96-0055714, Sept. 29, 1998, citing Batters v. Dunning, 49 Conn. 479 (1882)).

Many court opinions dealing with suitability for gun permits cite an 1894 Connecticut Supreme Court decision which involved liquor licenses for the definition of suitability.

“The word “suitable” as descriptive of an applicant for license under the statute, is insusceptible of any legal definition that wholly excludes the personal views of the tribunal authorized to determine the suitability of the applicant. A person is “suitable” who by reason of his character – his reputation in the community, his previous conduct as a licensee – is shown to be suited or adapted to the orderly conduct of [an activity] which the law regards as so dangerous to public welfare that its transaction by any other than a carefully selected person duly licensed is made a criminal offense. It is patent that the adaptability of any person to such [an activity] depends upon facts and circumstances that may be indicated but cannot be fully defined by law, whose probative force will differ in different cases, and must in each case depend largely upon the sound judgment of the selecting tribunal” (Smith's Appeal from County Commissioners, 65 Conn. 135, 138 (1894)).

One court dealing with suitability stated that the government's interest “is to protect the safety of the general public from individuals whose conduct has shown them to be lacking the essential character or temperament necessary to be entrusted with a weapon” (Rabbit v. Leonard, 36 Conn. Sup. 108, 115 (1979)). Another court stated that the “personal views of the agency members are necessarily a factor in the decision, and similar facts and circumstances will have varying probative force in different cases” but the facts found by the board should provide a logical inference that the person poses some danger to the public if allowed to carry a weapon outside the home or business (Nicholson v. Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, No. CV 940541048, Sept. 28, 1995).

The board addressed 203 cases in 1999. These cases involved 135 state permit revocations, 2 state permit denials, 65 local permit denials, and one local permit revocation. The board held hearings in 67 cases, 135 cases were resolved without a hearing, and one case is on appeal to the Superior Court. The table below shows the outcome for these cases.


September 1, 2000		2000-R-0856
BOARD OF FIREARMS PERMIT EXAMINERS

By: Christopher Reinhart, Associate Attorney