The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 17, 2008, at which time the complainants and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.

After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

 1. The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

2.      By letter dated October 12, 2007, the complainants made a request for a copy of "the gun applications and/or permits for Mr. Muslum 'Tony' Ayna for the timeframe from July 2003 through 2006."

3.      It is found that, by letter dated October 16, 2007, the respondents acknowledged the complainants' request for records, and informed them that the request would be processed in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act ("FOI Act").

4.      It is further found that, by letter dated October 17, 2007, the respondents denied the complainants' request, stating that they were "unable to provide any information which either acknowledges or denies that any individual has been issued a pistol permit."

5.      By letter dated November 14, 2007 and filed November 16, 2007, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents' denial of their request for records violated the FOI Act.

6.         Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides:

"Public records or files" means any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency, or to which a public agency is entitled to receive a copy by law or contract under 1-218, whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.

7.         Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person shall have the right to …                   (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with 1-212.

8.         Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that "[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record."

9.         It is found that, to the extent that they exist, the requested records are public records and must be disclosed in accordance with §§1-200(5), 1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., unless they are exempt from disclosure.

10.     Section 29-28(d), G.S., provides in relevant part:

Notwithstanding the provision of sections 1-210 and 1-211, the name and address of a person issued ... a state or temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, or a local permit to carry pistols and revolvers issued by local authorities prior to October 1, 2001, shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed.

11.     In this case, in regard to any pistol permit that may exist for the individual identified in paragraph 2, above, it is found that such record is exempt from disclosure pursuant to §29-­28(d), G.S., because the disclosure of such record would reveal "the name and address of a person issued . . . a state or temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver."

12.  The complainants contend that, under Nazarian v. Town of Griswold, Docket No. FIC 2002-528, the Commission determined that the names and addresses of applicants for pistol permits, as well as other information contained on a pistol permit application, are not exempt from disclosure.

13.  In Nazarian, the Commission did not address the applicability of §29-28(d), G.S. Specifically, the Commission concluded in paragraph 13 of that decision that "in the absence of federal law or state statute that bars disclosure of the information contained in the requested records, such records are disclosable pursuant to §1-210(a), G.S.”

14.  It is concluded that the respondents are not precluded from raising §29-28(d), G.S., in their defense, notwithstanding a different respondent's previous failure to raise the defense in Nazarian.

15.  It is concluded that the issue of whether §29-28(d), G.S., exempts from disclosure the names and addresses of applicants for pistol permits is not a question of first impression for the Commission. In Docket No. FIC 1998-327; Sherman v. Bd. of Firearms Permit Examiners  (August 25, 1999), the Commission concluded that the names and addresses of applicants who appealed the denial of their pistol permit applications and subsequently were granted permits were exempt from disclosure pursuant to §29-28(d), G.S. The Commission also concluded that the names and addresses of applicants who had pending appeals of denials of their pistol permit applications were also exempt from disclosure, because disclosure might reveal the names and addresses of persons who might be successful in their appeals and ultimately might be issued a permit.

16.     It is concluded that applications for pistol permits that have been denied and are not the subject of a pending appeal are not exempt from disclosure. See MariAn Gail Brown and  The Connecticut Post v. Chief, Police Dep't, City of Bridgeport, Docket No. FIC 2007-268 (Mar. 6, 2008).

17.     It is found that the respondents failed to present any evidence to prove that they do not have applications for pistol permits that have been denied and are not the subject of a pending appeal in their possession, which are relevant to the individual identified in paragraph 2, above.

18.     It is concluded that the respondents violated the FOI Act, as alleged.

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

1. The respondent shall forthwith provide the complainants with any denied application for a pistol permit in their possession which is not subject to a pending appeal, which is relevant to the individual identified in paragraph 2, above. In complying with this order, the respondents

may redact social security numbers, driver's license numbers, medical histories, birth dates and telephone numbers from any application.

2. If the respondents do not have any such denied pistol permit applications in their possession, they shall forthwith provide the complainants with an affidavit stating the same.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 14, 2008.

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S., THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

 

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

 

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and

Graebel Companies

c/o Timothy D. Ward, Esq.

McGann Bartlett & Brown LLC

111 Founders Plaza

Suite 1201

East Hartford, CT 06108

           

Commissioner, State of Connecticut,

Department of Public Safety; and State of

Connecticut, Department of Public Safety

c/o Neil Parille, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT 06105

 

 

 

 

______________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

FIC/2007-621FD/paj/5/22/2008