https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 2.70.0.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In Connecticut, you cannot acquire, possess, or carry a handgun without a state permit or
certificate. To get a permit or certificate, you must go to the local police or the Connecticut
Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (“DESPP”) to have an officer there
collect your fingerprints for purposes of a criminal background check.
Under Connecticut law, employees for the local police and DESPP may not refuse to
collect the fingerprints of a person who seeks to apply for a handgun permit or certificate. In
light of the exigencies of the COVID-19 pandemic, however, the Governor of Connecticut issued
an executive order nearly three months ago that indefinitely suspends this law for so long as the
COVID-19 emergency may continue. The executive order leaves it to the discretion of state and
local police whether to conduct fingerprinting, thus empowering the police to functionally deny
the right of new applicants to acquire, carry, and possess a handgun. Consistent with the
Governor’s order, DESPP and some unknown number of police departments have suspended all
fingerprint collection activities that the law used to require them to do.
The Connecticut Citizens Defense League and several of its members have sued the
Governor and the Commissioner of DESPP, claiming that the indefinite suspension of
fingerprinting violates their rights under the Second Amendment and other federal constitutional
provisions. They have moved for a preliminary injunction to require the resumption of
fingerprinting or some alternative means of acquiring a handgun permit pending the final
resolution of their constitutional claims.
I will grant the motion for a preliminary injunction. As an initial matter, I find no merit to
any of the Governor and Commissioner’s threshold jurisdictional arguments: that they are
entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, that plaintiffs have no standing, or that plaintiffs’
request for injunctive relief is moot. On the merits, I conclude that plaintiffs have demonstrated
irreparable harm, that they have a clear and substantial likelihood of success on the merits of
their Second Amendment claim, and that the balance of equities and public interest weighs in
favor of a grant of preliminary injunctive relief.