Discussions are currently taking place to organize a group that will advocate and litigate key firearm issues in CT.

Monday, October 24, 2011

 Re:  The need for a Civil Litigation Support Fund in Connecticut

Thank you for visiting this website and allowing me to explain the need for a fund to support SPECIFIC firearm-related cases that affect ALL firearms owners in Connecticut.

The FUND’S mission would not be to distribute fees to attorneys representing individuals in these cases, but to offer a degree of financial support to offset the financial burdens associated with the costs of these cases.  Such costs include filing fees, marshal fees for service of the complaint, security bonds imposed upon plaintiffs, and deposition and transcript costs borne by individuals who choose the courts to resolve issues that have not been resolved otherwise. 

As you know, there are several cases pending in the State and Federal Courts here in Connecticut that affect ALL firearms owners.

I would like to offer the following five examples of important firearm related cases for your review:

            Kuck v. Danaher (Combined with Goldberg v. Danaher)

                         Currently in the Federal District Court on remand from the Second Circuit  Court of  Appeals and combined with the case of Goldberg v. Danaher.

This combined case involves several important issues following successful oral arguments and a remand back to the District Court from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the recent decision to deny a motion to dismiss key aspects of the two combined cases.  In a September 29, 2011, decision the district court determined that Kuck and Goldberg may proceed on (1) their claim that the wait period for individuals requesting hearings on their appeals from state permit denial and revocation decisions violates due process; (2) Goldberg’s claim that the state police fail to investigate prior to revoking state permits in violation; and (3) Goldberg’s claim that the state police violate the law by allowing and condoning municipal law enforcement to seize state permits prior to revocation.

           Goldberg v. Glastonbury

                        Currently at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York following an unfavorable decision rendered by Judge Stephan Underhill.  The case is currently scheduled for oral argument at the Second Circuit on November 21, 2011.

                         This case, regardless of how the initial three-judge appellate court panel decides, will have significant ramifications in Connecticut, states within the jurisdiction of the Second Circuit, and potentially the entire country.  

           Barbara Doutel v. Norwalk

                        Recently filed and currently in the Federal District Court.

This case is significant in that it involves the undisputed, well-established CORE right of a spouse to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights to possess firearms in the home regardless of what a spouse is ALLEGED to have done.   The case involves the well-established requirement that local law enforcement personnel seek and obtain a search and/or seize warrant (time permitting) PRIOR TO the removal of any firearms from a law-abiding person’s residence.

             State of Connecticut v. Duane Doutel

                         This case has not yet been filed in part because a criminal case is still pending against Duane Doutel in the Norwalk Superior Court.  Mr. Doutel has made it known to the state that he will accept NO offers of any type in this case and fully intends to seek a full and complete dismissal of the charges or a jury trial to a verdict.

                         This case is significant in part because the Norwalk Police Department arrested Mr. Doutel outside his home without evidence that a crime had been committed or a warrant and then proceeded to search his home and seize firearms  without the required “AT RISK WARRANT” mandated by Section 29-28c of the Connecticut General Statutes.

            Richard Burgess v. Wallingford

                        Recently filed and currently in the Federal District Court.

            Anthony Scirpo v. Gina McCarthy, et al.

                         Currently pending in the Federal District Court, this case asks whether an individual who shoots a black bear in Connecticut is denied the right to due process when state law denies that individual the right to assert a claim of self-defense upon arrest and prosecution.

These cases will establish, in one manner or another, mandates and guidelines for legislators and other elected and appointed public officials to follow in implement laws and regulations affecting Second Amendment Rights.  These individuals who have stepped forward to bring these cases ensure the proper exercise of state governance in issues affecting Second Amendment rights and should not bear the burden alone.