
Backlog for firearms appeals pushes hearings into 2026
Nov. 2—When 65-year-old John Hinman of Avon applied for a pistol permit to the Avon Police Department on July 19, 2022, he did not foresee any problems.
The U.S. Army veteran had never had a run-in with the law and could think of no reason he would be denied a permit. Hinman said he simply wanted to be able to carry a gun to the shooting range with his son-in-law, as is his constitutional right.
But it took him more than two years to get approval after his initial denial for "suitability" from the Avon Police Department. Hinman had been denied because of the circumstances of how he left the Army in the 1970s, which he claims was related to a medical condition.
Hinman is one of hundreds of people who appeal to the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners each year either to fight a denial or have a permit reinstated after it was revoked.
The reason it took Hinman so long to get a hearing is the backlog of cases ― 1,217 as of October.
The backlog has been a recurring problem and has delayed the appeals process for at least two decades, since 2001, according to the most recent state audit of the Office of Governmental Accountability. The audit showed a backlog of 1260 cases ― 735 revocations and 525 denials ― in 2022.
"The considerable delay between the receipt of appeal requests and the related hearing or negotiated (Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection) settlement may deny appellants their right to a timely hearing," the audit concluded.
DESPP reinstates some of the revocations on its own, such as when it is notified that a court order barring an individual from holding a permit expires.
The current backlog means that anyone filing an appeal now will be scheduled for a meeting in May 2026 despite efforts in recent years by the nine-member volunteer board to increase the number of hearings. The board meets twice monthly and schedules up to 30 cases per meeting, knowing many have been resolved before the hearing date.
Even though some revocations are handled by state police, auditors found a lack of notice to the board resulted in hearings being scheduled that had already been resolved.
In fiscal year 2023-24, the board held 21 meetings and heard 193 cases but processed 781 cases, the board's office manager, Nancy Lotas, said.
New Britain-based attorney Ralph Sherman, who frequently represents clients coming before the board, said the wait is "egregious" and leads to other problems, such as clients moving before a hearing date and being forced to reapply to a different agency, starting the entire process over.
"It's not the board's fault. They can only go through so many cases because they only have so much manpower," Sherman said.
His suggestion is to increase the number of board members and split the group up to hold more meetings. There are eight members on the board, nominees from a mix of state agencies, gun groups and individuals, all appointed by the governor. The chairman is attorney Carolyn Futtner, who was appointed as a member of the public.
While he understands that volunteering on a board with so much work is likely difficult, Sherman also thinks the problem has been largely ignored.
"Why? I don't know why," Sherman said.
Denials and revocations
In Connecticut, people are disqualified from obtaining a gun permit if they are convicted of any felony and certain misdemeanor crimes ― everything from third-degree assault to second-degree stalking. A criminal conviction is not the only grounds for a denial, however. A person can be denied for reasons that include restraining or protective orders, mental illness or lack of suitability, as was the case for Hinman.
Permits can similarly be revoked for things like driving while intoxicated with a firearm or criminal conviction.
Someone applying for a temporary pistol permit must first go to the local police chief or equivalent. That person or agency has eight weeks to make a decision, and the approval at the local level ultimately leads to a decision by the the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection's Special Licensing and Firearms Unit, the agency that issues the state permit.
As with pistol permit holders, the names of people filing an appeal are kept confidential. Hinman agreed to provide his name after his meeting in September. He said he was stunned by the length of time it took before he could be heard and disagreed with the initial denial.
"I had to wait two years," Hinman said with a head shake.
Hinman said he was just as perturbed by the denial. During his hearing on Sept. 19, Avon Police Sgt. Jeff Gilbert explained to the board that Hinman was denied for suitability because he checked "no" to a question about whether his discharge from the Army was "less than honorable."
"I had no intentions of lying on my application," Hinman said. "It does not say less than honorable. It says 'other than honorable.' I did not serve less than honorably. When I was in the service I served honorably. I was discharged for medical reasons."
Hinman explained to the board that he worked on an aircraft carrier in the 1970s and was getting sick during renovations to the ship that included exposure to asbestos. Hinman said he served aboard the USS Forrestal.
Hinman's is among a variety of cases to come before the board in recent weeks, several on that September date and others in which people waited more than a year to be told a criminal conviction automatically disqualifies them from obtaining a permit.
One man who appeared before the board last month had been denied a permit for lack of suitability by the Naugatuck Police Department.
The man, who was not identified, applied for a pistol permit on June 17, 2022. Police said a database search found two instances in which interactions with police and emergency committals led to the decision. The man was taking medication for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
At an Oct. 24 meeting before the board, the man talked about his faith, his visions and being a prophet.
He also seemed to indicate he believed he had killed someone with his mind.
Attorney Stephen Sanetti, a board member and member of Ye Connecticut Gun Guild, asked the man, "It sounded like you were either dreaming or hearing voices and something about people that were bad people out there you wished bad things about?"
The man explained that a woman had shamed him in front of his co-workers. The man did not explain who the woman was or how she embarrassed him.
"I've heard of curses and stuff like that. I didn't know they would actually work at that time. I simply sent her a curse in my head. I said what I wanted to have happen. And two weeks later I found out she had passed. I felt bad," the man said.
"In your mind do you think you might have helped caused that?" Sanetti asked.
The man said he did. His appeal was denied.
In its response to the state audit in 2022, the board agreed with recommendations that it reduce its backlog and said it looked forward to DESPP's new background check system feature being implemented.
The new system, according to DESPP, has a feature that allows for an electronic interface between DESPP and the board, allowing notices to be sent when a permit is reinstated.
Sgt. Brianna Maurice, a member of the Connecticut State Police Special Licensing and Firearms Unit, said the notification system was implemented in 2022. It generates an email to the BFPE when permits have been reinstated, so the staff there can remove people from the docket list immediately.
Maurice said her unit on a daily basis handles revocations for protective orders, restraining orders and mental health check-ins ― both voluntary and involuntary. It is also the unit that revokes permits due to referrals based on investigations conducted by state and local police.
Requests for comment from the board were not answered. Along with Futtner, and Sanetti, other members of the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners are: Col. Kyle E. Overturf, a representative of the Connecticut State Rifles and Revolvers Association; Dr. Cynthia Conrad, a representative from the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services; Elbert Gray III, public member appointed by Gov. Ned Lamont; Gudrun Johnson, a representative of the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection; Chris Lewis, a representative of the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection; and Chief Carl Rosensweig, a representative of Connecticut Police Chiefs Association.
g.smith@theday.com
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Gerry Adams's lawyer to pursue chatbots for libel
The high-profile media lawyer who represented Gerry Adams in his libel trial against the BBC is now preparing to sue the world's most powerful AI chatbots for defamation. As one of the most prominent libel lawyers in the UK, Paul Tweed said that artificial intelligence was the 'new battleground' in trying to prevent misinformation about his clients from being spread online. Mr Tweed is turning his attention to tech after he recently helped the former Sinn Fein leader secure a €100,000 (£84,000) payout over a BBC documentary that falsely claimed he sanctioned the murder of a British spy. The Belfast-based solicitor said he was already building a test case against Meta that could trigger a flurry of similar lawsuits, as he claims to have exposed falsehoods shared by chatbots on Facebook and Instagram. It is not the first time tech giants have been sued for defamation over questionable responses spewed out by their chatbots. Robby Starbuck, the US activist known for targeting diversity schemes at major companies, has sued Meta for defamation alleging that its AI chatbot spread a number of false claims about him, including that he took part in the Capitol riots. A Norwegian man also filed a complaint against OpenAI after its ChatGPT software incorrectly stated that he had killed two of his sons and been jailed for 21 years. Mr Tweed, who has represented celebrities such as Johnny Depp, Harrison Ford and Jennifer Lopez, said: 'My pet subject is generative AI and the consequences of them repeating or regurgitating disinformation and misinformation.' He believes statements put out by AI chatbots fall outside the protections afforded to social media companies, which have traditionally seen them avoid liability for libel. If successful, Mr Tweed will expose social media companies that have previously argued they should not be responsible for claims made on their platforms because they are technology companies rather than traditional publishers. Mr Tweed said: 'I've been liaising with a number of well-known legal professors on both sides of the Atlantic and they agree that there's a very strong argument that generative AI will fall outside the legislative protections.' The lawyer said that chatbots are actually creating new content, meaning they should be considered publishers. He said that the decision by many tech giants to move their headquarters to Ireland for lower tax rates had also opened them up to being sued in Dublin's high courts, where libel cases are typically decided by a jury. This setup is often seen as more favourable to claimants, which Mr Tweed himself says has fuelled a wave of 'libel tourism' in Ireland. He also said Dublin's high courts are attractive as a lower price option compared to London, where he said the costs of filing libel claims are 'eye-watering'. He said: 'I think it's absurd now, the level of costs that are being claimed. The libel courts in London are becoming very, very expensive and highly risky now. The moment you issue your claim form, the costs go into the stratosphere. 'It's not in anyone's interest for people to be deprived of access to justice. It will get to the point where nobody sues for libel unless you're a billionaire.' Meta was contacted for comment. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Hedge Funds Face California Rebuke Over Role in Wildfire Claims
(Bloomberg) -- Hedge funds are facing pushback in California as their bets tied to insurance claims stemming from the Los Angeles wildfires are attacked as unethical. Next Stop: Rancho Cucamonga! Where Public Transit Systems Are Bouncing Back Around the World ICE Moves to DNA-Test Families Targeted for Deportation with New Contract Trump Said He Fired the National Portrait Gallery Director. She's Still There. US Housing Agency Vulnerable to Fraud After DOGE Cuts, Documents Warn The transactions in focus are tied to so-called subrogation claims, which hedge funds, private equity firms and other alternative investment managers have been buying from insurers over the past few months. Subrogation kicks in if a third party such as a utility is suspected of being responsible for losses covered by insurers. Hedge funds buying these claims from insurers are now under attack from the California Earthquake Authority, which is the administrator of the California Wildfire Fund. It has described such transactions as 'opportunistic, profit-driven investment speculation,' and says it's planning to take on 'hedge funds and other speculators' that it claims 'are actively seeking to profit from California's devastating wildfire catastrophes.' In practice, that means the authority will try to block the payout of what it says could end up being 'billions of dollars' to the investors that bought the claims, according to materials prepared ahead of a meeting that took place last month with the California Catastrophe Response Council, which oversees the fund. To that end, it plans to engage California's state legislature, according to a transcript of comments made during the meeting and seen by Bloomberg. A spokesperson for the authority declined to comment. Bradley Max, a director at Cherokee Acquisition, a New York-based investment bank that trades and invests in subrogation claims, says the development has 'put a chill on bidding,' which is already visible in pricing. Subrogation rights tied to the Eaton Fire that ripped through Southern California in January were trading as high as 50 cents on the dollar at one point, but have now dropped 'at least a few points lower,' Max said. Still, even though the political development has led to lower prices on the subrogation claims, it hasn't held back transactions, he said. Cherokee said in April it had brokered deals linked to the Los Angeles fires for 'larger, more sophisticated distressed debt hedge funds.' And by April 15, investment bank Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. had executed 10 transactions tied to the Eaton and Palisades fires totaling over $1 billion worth of recovery rights, Ronald Ryder, co-head of special assets at Oppenheimer, told the California Earthquake Authority. That includes over $125 million in claims traded in just one day, Ryder wrote. A spokesperson for Oppenheimer declined to comment. Cherokee didn't name the hedge funds for which it brokered deals. In an email to the California Earthquake Authority, Ryder said that as catastrophic weather events become 'more prevalent,' insurers are increasingly resorting to 'recovery subrogation in the secondary market to fortify the balance sheet.' There's a growing consensus that insurers can't cover the rising costs of weather-related catastrophes alone, especially as climate change fuels more extreme events. For that reason, the industry is looking for ways to shift part of its financial risk over to capital markets, with alternative asset managers often the only investor class willing to step in. Efforts to prevent investors from profiting from the subrogation claims they've bought represent 'a politically motivated attempt to not pay legitimate obligations,' Max at Cherokee said. They're 'trying to beat up deep-pocketed hedge funds, despite the ethical and legal implications,' he said. Recovery of subrogation claims is costly and can take years to play out, which is why insurers have started selling them in exchange for an upfront cash payment. The hedge funds buying them are betting that the recovery sum at the end of the process will exceed the amount they paid the insurer to buy the claim. The market for investing in subrogation claims is characterized by over-the-counter deals with little to no transparency. Subrogation deals had a seminal moment more than half a decade ago, when faulty power lines and equipment failures at California utility PG&E Corp. were blamed for wildfires in the state. Back then, hedge fund Baupost Group LLC purchased claims against PG&E worth $6.8 billion. Bloomberg has previously reported that Baupost may have generated an estimated $1 billion of profits. The California Wildfire Fund, which is administered by the state's Earthquake Authority and overseen by the California Catastrophe Response Council, was set up in 2019 to help reimburse claims arising from wildfires caused by utility companies. If hedge funds prevail in their subrogation claims, some of the money could end up coming from the California Wildfire Fund. The fund, which sits on about $13 billion in liquid assets, is partly capitalized by three utilities — San Diego Gas & Electric Co., Edison International's Southern California Edison and PG&E. While the cause of the January fires remains under investigation, it's already clear that the Eaton Fire started inside the service territory of Edison and therefore leaves the fund potentially exposed, the authority said. With current estimates for insured losses as high as $45 billion, the January Southern California wildfires are expected to be the costliest in US history, according to the California Earthquake Authority. The Earthquake Authority and Catastrophe Response Council are now reviewing claims and administration procedures as they take the matter to the state legislature. Cavs Owner Dan Gilbert Wants to Donate His Billions—and Walk Again The SEC Pinned Its Hack on a Few Hapless Day Traders. The Full Story Is Far More Troubling Is Elon Musk's Political Capital Spent? What Does Musk-Trump Split Mean for a 'Big, Beautiful Bill'? Cuts to US Aid Imperil the World's Largest HIV Treatment Program ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.


American Military News
2 hours ago
- American Military News
Trump escalates battle with Columbia University, threatens accreditation
The Trump administration has launched a process to try to strip Columbia University of its accreditation over a finding the school had failed to meaningfully protect Jewish students from harassment. On Wednesday, the U.S. Education Department notified the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, Columbia's accreditor, that the school was in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws and accordingly does not meet the commission's standards. The government issued the finding May 22. 'Just as the Department of Education has an obligation to uphold federal anti-discrimination law, university accreditors have an obligation to ensure member institutions abide by their standards,' Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. A rep for the accreditor confirmed it had received the letter that afternoon but declined to comment further. The threat to Columbia's accreditation is a serious one. Most federal funding, including financial aid, hinges on a school being accredited. While it appears that only accreditors could revoke Columbia's status, the accrediting entities themselves have to be recognized by the Education Department. 'Columbia is aware of the concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights today to our accreditor, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education and we have addressed those concerns directly with Middle States,' said Columbia spokesperson Virginia Lam Abrams. 'Columbia is deeply committed to combating antisemitism on our campus. We take this issue seriously and are continuing to work with the federal government to address it.' The dramatic escalation of the Trump administration's assault on Columbia came as the New York City-based Ivy League school is negotiating with federal agencies over $400 million in canceled grants and contracts, mainly impacting medical research. The university has made various concessions to the government — including more oversight of Middle Eastern studies and ways of cracking down on pro-Palestinian protests — that have so far proved insufficient to restore the funding. McMahon's statement threatened the federal funding that Columbia receives through student financial aid. In a press release, the Education Department said accreditors must take 'appropriate action' against schools such as Columbia to come into compliance within a specified period. 'Accreditors have an enormous public responsibility as gatekeepers of federal student aid. They determine which institutions are eligible for federal student loans and Pell Grants,' McMahon said. 'We look forward to the commission keeping the department fully informed of actions taken to ensure Columbia's compliance with accreditation standards.' Columbia goes through the accreditation process about every 10 years and was recently being evaluated by the president of Johns Hopkins University, according to Stand Columbia Society, a group of faculty and alumni — who as of last month said the undertaking was 'going very smoothly.' 'Accreditation was never designed to be political. In fact, one of the things that has made accreditation so successful was how the apolitical and obscure machinery of quality control hummed in the background,' Stand Columbia wrote in a newsletter last month. 'But now, for the first time in a hundred years, that backstage machinery is being pulled into the political spotlight. Where it goes from here is uncertain. What's clear is that accreditation is no longer something most people can afford to ignore.' Columbia became the epicenter of campus protests against Israel's military campaign in Gaza when students pitched an encampment last spring calling on their administrators to divest from the war. The demonstration came to a head when a smaller group of protesters occupied Hamilton Hall, prompting the university to call in the NYPD and make mass arrests. More recently, dozens of students took over Butler Library to protest the detention of Mahmoud Khalil, a recent Columbia graduate student, and what they see as Columbia's role in his arrest by federal immigration authorities in early March. Pro-Palestinian students and their allies have accused Columbia and the Trump administration of conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism. ___ © 2025 New York Daily News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.