2008
City of Groton

- requires 3 reference letters
- interview with detective
- called after 8 week elapsed, took another 3 weeks to get permit

RF

I'm submitting my application tomorrow in Ledyard, after having taken the NRA Basic Pistol course twice (I procrastinated in submitting my paperwork after passing the first time, lost the certificate, and had to take it a second time).  I need to include 3 money orders (two $35 money orders, and one $19.25 money order), as well as three letters of recommendation (each person I got a letter from I've known for at least ten years).  Hopefully it won't take 8 weeks.

Thanks and thanks.  More data is great to have.  I'll update my current list with yours.

Rome

Cabinetman I see you have already brought this to the attention of someone but here is my experience so far. I handed my application in today in the town of Sterling where I have lived most of my life (lived 4 years in the Stonington happy I moved from reading your daughters experience). Anyway was given an application, 2 fingerprint cards and 3 character reference affidavit forms for three people to fill out. I was told the references forms were not required to be filled out and would not affect my application if not turned in. I could use any kind of check I wanted, the application did have to be notarized which the lady did when I handed it in for $5 cash. The biggest pain was getting fingerprints, State Police said they do it at shift changes 8,4, and midnight I just went to DPS in and out in 10 minutes. Also was told it should take 3-4 weeks. Sterling also doesn't have a police department.  Actually quite easy compared to other towns I have read about. I talked to my sister in law who with my brother took the course with me and are trying to get their application moving but they are in Plainfield. She said  they have to get fingerprinted at the Plainfield Police dept. they won't even give them the fingerprint cards, can use only a bank certified check no money orders or personal checks and have to have 3 letters of reference required. Every time they go to get fingerprinted during a shift change when they were told to show up no one is there to do it.I know it is a little long but hopefully it helps. By the way I did not hand in the reference affidavits with my application.

welcome to arfcom

Natvin, thanks for your post.......and your first post at that!.  It was very informative and an excellent description of the problem I'm trying to bring to the attention of the legislature.  There is too much of a descrepancy between towns.  Sterling is like Enfield in that the process the state outlined is followed to a "t".  Plainfield, however, appears to have an agenda and is making it almost impossible to submit your app.  Don't these people realize that we are their bosses and it is we who pay their paychecks?  I'm just flummuxed.

Yes, I've submitted my initial finding but I'm happy to add your report and anyone elses report to the list.  Eventually I'm going to submit a list that's been sorted out and hopefully it'll be attached as a sticky so a resident of that town can see what they're in for.

Thanks! And, oh yes, welcome to Arfcom!  

Rome

My friend who applied in Beacon falls and went through all the letters of reference BS along with the FBI supposedly "losing" his prints and a 3+ month wait just got a call that his prints were in and he would be able to come in for a meeting with the mayor after they completed INTERVIEWING HIS NEIGHBORS!!! This has got to stop. Soon.

I apologize for not uploading this sooner. I just realized I mentioned it in an earlier post. This is the sheet that was stapled to the green application from the state when I picked up the forms in Oxford.

Thanks for that documentation.  Notice, however, that no where does it indicate any other requirements.  That attachment is precisely what the State has laid out, nothing more or less.  If they are interviewing neighbors and requiring any other documents or referrals, it's extraneous to the normal application process.  

Rome

Right, I should clarify. That is everything that Oxford required. They didn't do anything else that I know of, and didn't require me to submit anything other than what was on that sheet. I think the only deviation from the State requirements was the requirement of bank checks. If it weren't for my fingerprints getting rejected by the FBI multiple times, the Oxford process woudl have been super simple. I just had to go to the Resident State Trooper's Offfice, grab a packet from inside the door, get all the things listed on the sheet, and stop back to get printed.

I know my friend in Beacon Falls who is having the neighbors interviewed also got a sheet like that attached to his application. I'll try to get a copy to see if it spells out the other requirements they've imposed.

I guess I will throw my hat into the ring on this one.

2009
Town of Montville CT. Required the basic for CT, plus three character reference letters. Took 18 weeks. Called at the 10 week point as I was told to do and was told that it "is on the detective's desk". Called at 12, 14, 16 and 17 weeks and was told the same. I was always given the option to leave a message on the LT's voicemail when I called and the call was never returned. At 18 weeks I called and was given the actual detectives voicemail, he called me back the next day and said that it had been with the LT since the second week of March. That was on a Wednesday, and on Friday I was called saying it was ready to pick up.

Where does the second week of March fall in your timeline?

Guess I should have mentioned that, I turned my application in on Jan 6.

New Haven 2008.  
Fees as outlined on CT application.
New Haven wanted their own notarized form, a passport photo, and a copy of my birth certificate.
One "interview" with a police officer.  Basically, what do you do, have you ever beaten your wife, do you have any feuds with your neighbors.

14 weeks from application to permit.

i waited 3 months for my applaction to get denied and i have no felony record i had 2 speeding tickets and the pd said i have poor judgement in friends.i moved out of town 4 months later to north branford and they approve me in 6 weeks.easthaven pd sucks.

So, you were denied because of your referrals.  Unbelievable.

Did you do your three referrals for North Branford?

I had everything ready to go on my 21st except 1 of 3 letters, so I inquired about why they need the letters/they're not mandatory in terms of state requirements. They basically said that just just need them and its part of their requirements. It was a losing battle, so now I'm stilling waiting on one damn letter. This guys dragging ass, I'll be calling someone else soon.

I will give you the god damn letter. PM me.

This kind of shit is intolerable.

north branford needs 3 letters also.i also moved back to easthaven with my new permit and a 50 cal barrett rifle

I've been waiting for over 5 months in East Haven, not one of my references has even been contacted yet.

well it took me about 4 weeks and i now have my state permit in hand.

UPDATE on my Daughter's Stonington application.  

If you've followed the saga, my daughter made her application on the 12th of May to Stonington's PD for her permit.  During all this time, a detective there has been calling ALL of her referrals (including her CEO boss) and even challenged my credentials requiring me to fax him a copy of my NRA certificate to teach!  And, you may recall all the very inproper and personal questions he grilled her with during the initial interview.  

Well, something is fishy because she received.....in the mail.....her temporary permit.  Her initial application was submitted on the 12th of May.  She got her permit in the mail on the 4th of June.  4 weeks.  Great, right?  Well, it's curious that during that short time this detective turned over every stone he could regarding her history.  So, the question begs was he doing his job as ordered or engaging in some extraneous investigating on his own.  

The point is, however, that she did receive her temp and will head to Montville to get her permanent permit.  For her I'm pleased but, boy or boy the process sure is buggered up.

Rome

Simsbury
permit took ~4 weeks after submital, went for state permit 2 weeks after that, issued 2/08
met with civilian PD employee as he went over my application, no nasty questions asked
bank checks or money orders for fees
no letters of reference or anything beyond state requirements

Both


I know Stonington is not a high-crime town by any means.  And, while some portion of the thorough vetting process is probably politically motivated at some level, the rest of it may be proper due-dilligence at the recommendation of the town or dept attourney.  Then, a third element may be that you have detectives in a very low-crime area possibly needing to suddenly become "busy" in a recession.

Nice town.  Very nice actually.  But like any town, it is vulnerable to the recession and your public officials will act accordingly.  

Applied for mine on May 12, Trumbull. Detective seemed like a good guy, only expressed some concern that my app might take a while, especially since I just moved here from the People's Republic of Maryland. And forget about ANY permit there!!
He said the delays are caused by the election, and the new(?) laws, raising their workload from 1-2 permit apps per week to 35 or more.

Anyway, just the State requirements, no reference letters or anything, he told me to call in 60 days if I haven't heard anything.

Wish me luck!

New record for New Haven... 10 weeks to the day... I pick it up in the a.m.

Hi all.


Due to vacations and holidays it's been a while since I've been able to present my survey and getting my point across with my complaint to the State.  However, today, July 8th, I've been invited to Hartford with John Kissel (my state senator) to meet with some senior law enforcement individuals and to air my complaint to them and present them with my documentation.

Do I think that anything will come of this meeting?  Well, probably not.  One never knows, however, what might happen because right now Sen. Kissel is working "behind the scenes" in an attempt to see if he can bring to light the many inequities in the permitting process between towns.  Where any of this will lead is anyone's guess.  I have John's support, however, and he's willing to burn some favors to see what can be done.  

I will provide as detailed a report as I can depending on what transpires and can be shared publicly after today's meeting.  I'll be in Hartford at 3pm at the Legislative Office Building with Senator Kissel.  Cross your fingers and wish me luck but don’t hold your breath!  This isn’t what I had in mind when I started this but I’ll take it as far as possible with the limited time I can spare.

Rome

Canton spring 2009 - smooth and courteous

• Paid w/ personal check
  From fingerprint to temp permit - about 5 weeks
  No calls to employer/neighbors/etc
  No special letters of recommendation or anything like that

I love this town

Good for you and way to go, Canton.  That's the way it should be, too, and is in many communities in our fair state.  However, many towns and cities have muddied the process to the extreme.  Let's see if we can reverse some of this.

Rome

Since my last reply to this thread I've eclipsed the six month mark waiting for my permit. It's ridiculous.

Great job Rome. Good luck at the meeting.

AAR?

Coventry, June of 2008.  No questions asked, no referrals, nothing.  Received the temporary after 5 weeks and 1 day.  Went and got the state the next day.

Hi all.

It was an interesting day. I arrived at the Legislative Office Building at 3pm as requested.  I had really no idea about what to expect or if anything I said would make a difference but I was willing to just hang it all out there.  My question to Sen. Kissel was/ “who will we be meeting with and why”.  Turns out we were meeting with the "legislative representatives" of the Chief's of Police from Connecticut and their lobbyist/lawyer.  

The two reps were both Chief's of Police from two well-known towns in CT.  I won't divulge their names as I don't really need to.  FYI, neither of their towns that make people jump through terrible hoops.  And, I will tell you right up front that they did let me speak my mind.  They did NOT once look 'down' on my complaint.  They took it as seriously as they could with any issue.  Know, too, that the only reason both Chiefs were there at this meeting was because Sen. Kissel called them in for it.  The senator felt that we would approach this issue from more of a "one-on-one" approach rather than begin any legislative initiatives.  We all agreed that we didn't want to pursue that option for the obvious reasons that doing so opens a Pandora’s Box.  I will tell you that Sen. Kissel is a staunch supporter of the 2nd and he told them so.  Both Chief's agreed that they were too so we were all there supposedly on the same plane.  The discussion we had around the table was interesting and forthcoming and surrounded the complaints/observations at hand.

The Senator introduced me and I basically stated my case, to wit: “The State of Connecticut has laid out a simple and effective application process for obtaining a pistol permit.  All towns should be required to follow their process and not "add" additional requirements because it is discriminatory and intimidating.  I also pointed out the fact that all that "extra" background work cost money and time: both of which are in short supply right now.  

The discussion went back and forth.  The Chiefs pointed out that they are criticized regularly by the anti-gun advocates out there every time there is a shooting of any kind.  They all agree that the bulk of those tragedies are anecdotal events but shootings make the papers.  The Chiefs also said that the basic background check required by the State is not a good indicator about an applicant so some additional background info is needed.  I argued about that with them saying that it's pretty intimidating to me that my fingerprints are being sent out to the FBI and my background is being investigated by them and the town.  They argued that the basic background check doesn't tell them enough about an individual and interviews with neighbors and obtaining referrals were needed to help them round out an applicant’s character.

This is where I make a point to them that really bugged me.  I told them that if the background checks into character were going to be done, they should be done in a way that doesn't tell the person being interviewed why they are being asked questions.  You can ask questions about an individual without tell the respondent that it's for a gun permit.  That was one of my biggest rubs.  I told the Chiefs in no uncertain terms that I felt that this was an invasion of privacy and, while they may pursue referrals and interview neighbors or even employers, the fact that a firearm permit was the reason should not be disclosed.  That got them thinking.  I told them that when I applied for my C&R license, the State Police did canvass some of my neighbors but not one knew why.  All they were told was that I had made an application for something that required a character references and that was that.  

I could go into a lot of details here and bore you all to death.  Suffice it to say they made a few good comments to support their contentions arguing that sometimes additional information should be required because there are individuals out there that don't have records that, at the same time, shouldn't own firearms.  We could have argued that position round and round but it wouldn't go anywhere.  What I brought them back to was some of the HUGE discrepancies between towns.   They both agreed that having to sign away your rights such as New Haven requires could be considered a bit over the top although let's face it.......they weren't going to sit there and agree with me on specific items.  I knew that we were going to have a conversation and they would listen to me and I would listen to them.   But, I don't believe either one of them knew about the release form requires by a city like New Haven existed.  They asked for it and I gave it to them along with my six page letter and all the documentation so they might see the discrepancies for themselves.

They did, however, admit that this was the FIRST TIME anyone/any citizen had ever brought this to their attention.  Like so many things in our lives, we tend to concentrate on the things directly in front of us and many times don't look at the more "macro" picture.  When you see the bulk of towns requiring only the basics except with maybe a few additional requirements and then see the handful of towns that go WAY over the top, it puts things into perspective.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I did not go to this meeting representing anyone by myself and my own ideas.  Fortunately, as a shooting sports community we do share many similar ideas.  I hope that something I said to these individuals brought to light the fact that we are watching what's happening out here and aren't happy about some of it.  

The Senator asked both Chiefs to look into some of the discrepancies that I'd listed and see if maybe they could speak to those departments, at least, and asked them to review their processes.  I also interjected that the timelines that the State has posted has been exceeded by many months in some cases.  Their reaction to that info was that their departments have been overwhelmed with permit applications in some cases quadrupling and even quintupling the number of permits being requested.  Still, I said, it would appear that some towns are dragging their feet, even with the upsurge in applications being requested.

So, I'll close this post by saying that I was satisfied with Sen. Kissel's efforts here.  I was also satisfied that I got the ear of two of the most influential Chiefs representing the entire State of Chiefs.  I got to speak my mind.  We exchanged a bunch of information and ideas and spent the better part of 40 minutes in a small conference room staring at each other.  I felt that they took my initiative seriously and were made aware of things that they weren't aware of previously.  It did come down to the basics of the permit process, however, and from a Libertarian point of view, less is better in my book.  That wasn't the issue here, however.  I just hope that we'll have some follow up in the near future and that some of you might see a less onerous application process eventually.

Rome

Well done sir. I do hope they took you seriously. I have no doubt the Senator does, but I am curious to see if the Police come back with anything but excuses. I think I speak for everyone in thanking you for your continued efforts on the CT shooting community's behalf.

You're most certainly welcome.  I also wanted to individually thank all the posters, here, who were kinds enough to share their expereinces and gave my "survey" meat.

I am in the process of composing a follow-up letter to send to the Senator and the two chiefs and their lawyer.  After thinking long and hard about what transpired yesterday, I decided that if I could affect one small aspect of what has been happening it would be to preserve the privacy of any applicant during any phone or personal interviews.  There is little that I can do to affect what happens in New Haven or other communities.  However, if I could get these two gentlemen to relay to their fellow chiefs that telling a referral or an employer that someone has applied for their handgun permit is an invasion of the applicant's privacy and it should NOT be disclosed, then that would be something.  The reasoning I'm going to use is that it's none of anyone else's business that a particular person is applying for a permit.  You can always ask about character and still not disclose the reason you're interested.  When I applied for my C&R the LEOs who checked up on me never tipped their hand to any of my neighbors.  And, every time a reporter tries to get the list of permittees from a town, they're shot down because of "privacy issues".  So, why, then, should an applicant's privacy be any less...well.....private?  It shouldn't.  So, we'll see where that goes.  It's a start.

Rome

Great job sounds like the setting was right for what you wanted to bring to the table. Like you said they didnt even realize what some towns were doing and maybe now they will see the discrepancies between towns and get them thinking. Thank you for all your hard work and effort!

Wow, nice work man.  

As for me,
I'm waiting for my permit.  Montville, 3 reference letters, lady was very helpful.  It's 8 weeks now and no word.  From what I've read in this thread, I guess I should start worrying in a week or two.  I've always found the Lt. and the other officers over there to be good folks, so I'm not too worried yet.

ETA:  After re-reading the thread, I saw there was another Montville guy here who waited 18 weeks.  Any tips?

Hang in there.  It'll arrive sooner than later from that town, I believe.

Rome

Nicely done, Rome.  Hopefully it will have an effect, even some small improvement would be beneficial.

My initial thoughts on a comeback to the Chief's desire to do more thorough background checks is that pretty much anyone who passes the driving tests gets a license.  Typically the license doesn't get revoked until the person breaks the law.  I'm sure many of us know people who might make you nervous driving, yet we don't let the police revoke a driver's license because their neighbors don't like the way they drive.

Anyone have some better analogies?

Your analogy is fine and apt.  A car can certainly kill its occupant or fellow drivers or pedestrians and licenses are issued after a basic test.  Driver's licenses, however, are also reciprocal throughout the 50 US states and even Canada and Mexico.  Wouldn't our firearms licenses be wonderful if they were that broadly accepted!    

In a more perfect world, we wouldn't need no 'stinkin permit.  Vermont and Alaska don't have them so why should we?  But there it is.  Permits and licenses just place roadblocks in the way to obtaining firearms by honest citizens just like locks on doors keep honest people honest.  There will always be an element of society that are the "bad guys" and don't give a wit about laws and regulations and will obtain illegal firearms and break into honest people's homes because no home is a bank vault.  

The hardest thing I experienced during our discussion was that we were talking about an extremely broad topic.  It was difficult to keep the discussion focused on the subject at hand: the inconsistencies of permitting in many Connecticut towns and cities.  I asked the Chiefs that they look over our survey and maybe try to rein-in some of the more onerous towns.  Still, that's a relatively vague request and one which would be hard to gauge any real progress.  But, as we came to the end of our discussion, it dawned on me that we might have a subject that we CAN make an immediate difference with and that would be with the pursuit of referrals, character references and calls to employers.  If I can make it a rule that PDs don't divulge the fact that the reason for the call is an application for a firearms permit, then I believe fewer applicants would be harmed by calls and also less intimidated.  Would I like to seem them eliminated entirely?  Sure.  Who wouldn’t?  But, if I can at least convince the Chiefs that divulging their reasons for calls or visits exposed the applicant's privacy and have them back off that one fact, then I believe we'll have made some progress.  

So, that's where I'm going to pick the scab.  One tiny but maybe significant bit of progress for our side.  

Rome

Wilton-2006, -had to have three letters of reference and an interview with a detective
                    -detective visited all my neighbors and told them I was applying for a permit and also inquired with them whether I threw parties,  
                    was loud or did drugs
                   - 12 weeks from application to receiving permit
                   - had to have a face to face with the chief before receiving permit

Thanks for that info about Wilton.

Here's what I've done.  I have a letter back to the Senator.  It's three pages long. I know, I know, long can be wordy or redundant but believe me when you deal with these guys you've got to cover all your bases or you sound like a radical.  I could distill my first 5 page letter down to two sentences but it wouldn't get me anywhere. I've got to document my efforts and cover bases that normal conversation wouldn't require.

What I've decided to pursue is this.  

I want Senator Kissel to work with these Chiefs we met with to eliminate ANY MENTION of the fact that an applicant is applying for a handgun permit when interviewing anyone.  They can do all the interviews they want but no mention of firearms can be made.

The reasoning I'm using is that I'm contending that it's an invasion of the applicant's privacy. Just because someone applies for a permit does NOT sign away their privacy rights.   If a department feels that it MUST do background or character interviews friends, neighbors, or employers, then they can NOT mention that it's a firearm application, period, end of discussion.  If the interviewee asks what this is about, the interviewer can simply say they can not divulge the reason, just answer the questions as best you can.

Neighbors don't need to know nor does an employer.  All the police need to do is get a good portrait of an individual but don't have divulge their reasons for asking questions.

Many communities across the country have fought to keep the permit holders identities hidden.  In the past reporters have gone to FOI to try to have the lists divulged publicly but in virtually every case, have been thwarted.  When the press's request has become public, the public has risen to block it every time threatening to sue if their names are published.  Why, then, should an applicant be any different?  Their decision to obtain a permit is a personal one and it's not their desire for their neighborhood to know.  If the police argue about it, why, then, not require a sign to be posted an applicant's front yard?  If the police interviewers are telling everyone the reason for their call that information is going to spread for sure.

I can't make much difference when it comes to the application disparity between towns.  It's too embedded but what I can do is make sure that any investigation into any applicant's character keeps their privacy in tact.  I believe we can do this without enacting any new laws.

That's the gist of my letter to Senator Kissel.  I hope he agrees and makes an effort to transmit that info to all the 160+ towns in the state.  At least applicants can know that their information will remain private.  If they want to tell their neighbors, they have that right but it's not up to the police to tell them.

Rome

That's what happened to me the first time I took the NRA course.  Eventually, I had to take the course over, and I actually sat down with my friends and we wrote the letters together.  I'm currently at 6 1/2 weeks 7 1/2 weeks.

Rome, even though you went in representing yourself, you are doing us all a great service with your endeavor.  I really hope some kind of positive change will develop from your lead on this issue.  NO ONE should have to jump through the hoops that these few towns require and it would be a travesty if this madness continues with the recent light you have shed on it.  Thank you very much for your efforts.

THanks.  My response letter went out to the Senator and we'll see if there's some way we can begin to change all of this slowly but surely.

Rome

Applied May 12, Trumbull, picked up the Town permit last Wednesday. Got my state permit at Troop G the next day.

Well after 28 weeks it seems they've finally started my investigation.

Last Friday night a detective came and interviewed my neighbor and yesterday they called my employer. And yes, they did tell them I was applying for a handgun permit.

I'm working on it......honest!  

Rome

I know you are and thank you for doing it.

I think I can safely say on behalf of CT firearms owners, thanks for everything you've done.


I know you're done with your survey, but I figured I'd bump that I just got my town permit finally.