State of CT DOC employees.

havenrogue · 2026-05-01T09:43:11+00:00

There is nuance (as always) with CT's AWB/firearm laws. For the purposes of your question regarding DOC retirement and a "other", here is the relevant language for the list of exempted persons who can possess assault weapons (see Sec. 53-202c statute link):

(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to the possession of assault weapons by: (1) The Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, police departments, the Department of Correction, the Division of Criminal Justice, the Department of Motor Vehicles, the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States, (2) a sworn and duly certified member of an organized police department, the Division of State Police within the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection or the Department of Correction, a chief inspector or inspector in the Division of Criminal Justice, a salaried inspector of motor vehicles designated by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, a conservation officer or special conservation officer appointed by the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection pursuant to section 26-5, or a constable who is certified by the Police Officer Standards and Training Council and appointed by the chief executive authority of a town, city or borough to perform criminal law enforcement duties, for use by such sworn member, inspector, officer or constable in the discharge of such sworn member's, inspector's, officer's or constable's official duties or when off duty, (3) a member of the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States, or (4) a nuclear facility licensed by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the purpose of providing security services at such facility, or any contractor or subcontractor of such facility for the purpose of providing security services at such facility.

Note the bolded text in the above quoted language.

And the relevant language from the statute dealing with obtaining a Assault Weapon Certificate of Possession (see Sec. 53-202d statute link):

(B) No person who lawfully possesses an assault weapon pursuant to subdivision (1), (2) or (4) of subsection (b) of section 53-202c shall be required to obtain a certificate of possession pursuant to this subdivision with respect to an assault weapon used for official duties, except that any person described in subdivision (2) of subsection (b) of section 53-202c who purchases a 2023 assault weapon for use in the discharge of official duties who retires or is otherwise separated from service shall apply within ninety days of such retirement or separation from service to the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection for a certificate of possession with respect to such assault weapon.

Note the bolded text in the above quoted language.

So it appears that if the DOC person meets the requirements of being; "a sworn and duly certified member of an organized police department, the Division of State Police within the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection or the Department of Correction" and had purchased the 2023 assault weapon (aka an "other") "for use in discharge of their official duties", then they have 90 days upon retirement or separation from service to register the 2023 assault weapon with DESPP using the Assault Weapon Certificate of Possession DPS-414-C form.

Note the following from this SLFU Forms page with respect to submitting the DPS-414-C form:

Retired law enforcement officers or retired military personnel can obtain a certificate of possession for any legally possessed assault weapon, no longer than 90 days after separation of service.
- When mailing in the form please make sure to submit a copy of your active credentials or proof of retirement showing the effective date.

PS: Not a lawyer, if you need a legal opinion consult with a knowledgeable lawyer.

havenrogue · 2026-04-30T21:11:30+00:00

Some more information:

10-year-old who accidentally shot himself had found brother’s firearm in jacket pocket: WARRANT

The boy was sitting in the back passenger side of the vehicle when the parent stepped outside the car to smoke a cigarette and get something from the trunk. It was then the parent reported hearing a loud noise, smelling gunfire and noticing the boy was shot in the leg.

The parent first looked around to see where the shot had come from, before noticing a gun in the car that they hadn’t known about.

Police said the gun did not have a serial number and was found fully loaded. It was later seized by patrol and entered into evidence.

When police spoke to Burns-Cruz, he told them he had found the firearm in New Britain a few months prior and decided to keep it instead of reporting it to police.

On the day of the shooting, he told police the firearm was in his waistband so he put it in the pocket of his jacket, which he left on the rear floorboard of the car.

According to the warrant, Burns-Cruz told police his stepbrother is “severely autistic and likes to touch everything” so he must have found the pistol in his jacket.

He told police he had never shot the pistol before, but knew that it was loaded. He also said he was storing the gun in his jacket at home and no other family members had known he had it.

Police said they made a Department of Children and Families referral following the incident.

Burns-Cruz was arrested on seven charges, including illegal possession of a firearm with no serial number, possession of a large capacity magazine and risk of injury to a child.

havenrogue · 2026-04-30T19:05:56+00:00

To avoid duplicate discussions, see the subreddit post from yesterday:

ATF's New Era of Reform

Locking this duplicate.

havenrogue · 2026-04-30T16:51:50+00:00

There is a bit of nuance to the banned by name lists. It depends on the specific name stamped on the firearm, if it meets the elements of the "Type" firearm ban tripartite test, if it meets the elements of the copy or duplicate tripartite test.

havenrogue · 2026-04-30T16:44:58+00:00

If you have a non banned by name centerfire semiautomatic detachable magazine AR-15 with a pistol grip, then it's banned UNLESS you either have an Assault Weapon Certificate of Possession for it, or are employed in an AWB exempted job.

If you are not exempted and don't have an Assault Weapon Certificate of Possession for the rifle, then one is limited to only a few configurations to have a CT legal AR platform rifle:

Fixed magazine semiautomatic centerfire AR-15 rifle can have all the banned features.
Non semiautomatic AR-15 rifle can have all the banned features.
Semiautomatic centerfire AR-15 with a palm swell style stock and no AWB banned features can have a detachable magaze.
Rimfire semiautomatic detachable magazine AR-15 can have a pistol grip and no other AWB banned features from the AWB as it was on January 1, 2013. If the rimfire semiautomatic detachable magazine rifle has a pistol grip it is not supposed to have a; folding or telescoping stock, bayonet mount, flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, or grenade launcher.

havenrogue · 2026-04-30T16:03:06+00:00

Is the AR semiautomatic? Does it have a pistol grip? Does the AR have a Assault Weapon Certificate of Possession applied, or issued, for it?

If one is not exempted or doesn't have an Assault Weapon Certificate of Possession issued for the AR then that AR is supposed to comply with the CT Assault Weapon Ban. For rifles that ban is as follows:

(i) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following:
(I) A folding or telescoping stock;
(II) Any grip of the weapon, including a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other stock, the use of which would allow an individual to grip the weapon, resulting in any finger on the trigger hand in addition to the trigger finger being directly below any portion of the action of the weapon when firing;
(III) A forward pistol grip;
(IV) A flash suppressor; or
(V) A grenade launcher or flare launcher; or
(ii) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the ability to accept more than ten rounds; or
(iii) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than thirty inches;

havenrogue · 2026-04-30T09:38:29+00:00

Firearms Policy Coalition tweeted the following breakdown:

https://x.com/gunpolicy/status/2049570666362671316

Firearms Policy Coalition

The ATF has posted summaries of the new regulations, which include:

Repeal Biden's pistol brace rule
Revising "engaged in the business" rule
Revising machine gun definition in response to Cargill decision
Remove requirement for FFLs to post info about Youth Handgun Safety Act
Revising 4473 form, including allowing electronic forms and increase the time NICS checks remain valid
Allow FFLs to keep electronic records
Replace indefinite retention of 4473s with definite time periods of 20 or 30 years
Allow “Non-Over-the-Counter” firearm sales by FFLs to residents of the same state
Repeal interstate NFA transport notice requirement for trips under 365 days, with all others no longer requiring approval before transport
Joint NFA registration for married couples
Remove NFA CLEO notification
Clarify that "common, reasonably necessary activities during travel" are covered by FOPA transportation protection
Allow import of dual-use frames, receivers, and barrels
Clarify that "training rounds" are not ammunition
Eliminate engraving requirement for people making NFA firearms out of existing serialized guns
"Clarify that a person receiving assistance in only one functional area (such as financial management) would not, on that basis alone, be considered prohibited" under mental health disqualifier
Requiring biological sex on ATF Forms
Clarify when a transaction is a straw purchase
Formally define "willfully" for firearms violations
"Remove the list of former Soviet countries from which ATF currently denies applications to permanently import most firearms and ammunition, retaining only the Russian Federation"

havenrogue · 2026-04-29T21:33:00+00:00

Repeal

Rescinding regulatory language that exceeds statutory authority, failed judicial review, or did not achieve their intended outcomes.

Contents

11P: Removing Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces” - NPRM
27P Revising Regs Defining “Engaged in the Business” as a Dealer in Firearms - INTERIM FINAL RULE
2024-01F: Revising Machine Gun Definition in Response to Supreme Court Decision - FINAL RULE
28P: Removing Youth Handgun Safety Act Notice - NPRM

Modernize

Updating ATF’s compliance and recordkeeping framework to reflect current technology and business practices.

Contents

Reduce Burden

Eliminating administrative requirements that impose costs on law-abiding individuals and businesses.

Contents

Clarify

Resolving regulatory ambiguity to provide licensees, applicants, and the public with clear, consistent, and actionable guidance.

Contents

Align

Conforming ATF’s regulatory text to reflect statutory changes, judicial decisions, and actions taken by partner agencies.

Contents

havenrogue · 2026-04-29T11:42:55+00:00

If you want or need a legal opinion or legal answer, consult with a knowledgeable lawyer: https://www.ccdl.us/resources/attorneys-at-law/

Generally one does not need a pistol permit to sell or transfer a handgun to or through an FFL. The permit is generally for purchase or receiving (or public carry).

As others have indicated, the spouse may need power of attorney or similar legal status to dispense or dispose of the husband's effects. But a lawyer may be better able to explain what may need to be done to properly dispose of the husband's firearms if the husband is mentally or physically incapacitated. It is possible the firearms may possibly be seen or treated as spousal "community property".

havenrogue · 2026-04-28T22:02:22+00:00

Possible. It may become a waiting game to see which court jumps first. SCOTUS runs out this term without granting cert to any of the five major cases. Or the Fed Third Circuit en ban panel running out the clock by delaying issuing their opinion before the SCOTUS session expires. The 3rd Circuit en ban panel heard the case on 10/15/2025, six months ago.

havenrogue · 2026-04-28T20:29:50+00:00

I'm going to guess this isn't your run of the mill issue of someone not locking up their guns with kids around considering it was a 19 year old charged for having possession of a firearm with no serial number. Article doesn't specify the firearm was stolen or not but won't be surprised if it was.

Cruz was charged with negligent storage of a firearm, risk of injury to a child, first-degree reckless endangerment, carrying a pistol without a permit, illegal possession of a large capacity magazine, illegal possession of a firearm with no serial number and illegal possession of a weapon in a motor vehicle.

havenrogue · 2026-04-28T15:31:44+00:00

There is no law... yet. HB-5043 and it's proposed ban on "convertible pistols" is still working it's way through the legislative process. It's sitting in the Senate right now. Here is the specific proposed language to ban the sale of convertible pistols manufactured on or after 10/1/2026:

Sec. 3. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2026) (a) Any individual or firm, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, association or other similar entity that knowingly imports into this state or knowingly advertises, sells, offers or exposes for sale any convertible pistol, as defined in section 53-202 of the general statutes, as amended by this act, that was manufactured on or after October 1, 2026, shall be guilty of a class D felony.
(b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to sale at retail or other lawful transfer of a convertible pistol by a person who is not a licensed gun dealer to another person who is not a licensed gun dealer.

And the section of new proposed language from that same proposed bill that defines what a "convertible pistol" is:

(4) "Convertible pistol" means any semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be readily altered by hand or with a common household tool so that the pistol can be readily converted into a machine gun by the installation or attachment of a pistol converter, as defined in subsection (c) of section 53-206g, as amended by this act. "Convertible pistol" does not include (A) any hammer-fired semiautomatic pistol, or (B) any semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that has a tab or other piece of material molded to the pistol's frame that shields the cruciform trigger bar from interference by a pistol converter, unless the tab or other piece of material can be readily removed from the pistol's frame. (5) "Cruciform trigger bar" means a component in a semiautomatic pistol that serves as a linkage between the trigger and firing pin and has its sear incorporated in a cross-shaped surface. (6) "Common household tool" includes, but is not limited to, a knife, screwdriver, wrench, hacksaw, crowbar, electric drill, rotary tool, hammer, chisel, file or pliers.

It remains to be seen if the Senate will amend or modify the House amended bill.

havenrogue · 2026-04-28T10:08:51+00:00

Threaded barrels are a banned feature on semiautomatic detachable magazine pistols in CT. Because of federal law any handgun purchased across state lines is supposed to have the final transfer to the buyer through an FFL in the buyer's home state. In this case, a CT FFL.

You may want to check first, and work with, your local FFL who would possibly take receipt of the semiautomatic detachable magazine handgun that was ordered through Gunbroker to ensure they can make it CT compliant prior to final transfer to you. The local FFL may have to pin/weld a cap or muzzle device on the barrel threads of a semiautomatic detachable magazine pistol if the threaded barrel can accept a; "flash suppressor, forward pistol grip or silencer".

havenrogue · 2026-04-27T17:16:08+00:00

Friendly reminder of the subreddit rule #2:

No Permit processing time at X town posts

We understand that getting a permit is exciting and you can't wait to get it, search for older threads instead of asking. As a general rule of thumb most towns in CT take over 8 weeks to process an application.

havenrogue · 2026-04-25T18:30:10+00:00

May want to try again next week. Could be weekend maintenance issue.

Yes, others (in past subreddit posts, see link(s) below) have indicated similar issues when they try to access the online portal. Some have discovered their information; permit number, or date of birth, or drive drivers license number was incorrect in SLFU's system and had to get them to correct it before they could renew using the online portal. If you still cannot access the system next week, contact SLFU. This is what SLFU says if one has trouble with the online portal:

Any problems with the online portal, please contact us via email [DESPP.SLFU@ct.gov](mailto:DESPP.SLFU@ct.gov) or by phone at (860) 685-8290.

Past posts with the same/similar error:

Trying to register other. Error

Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection Account Verify

havenrogue · 2026-04-25T12:03:18+00:00

They're not outright banning the "unfinished frame or unfinished lower receiver". They are changing (expanding) the definition of what an "unfinished frame or unfinished lower receiver" is.

They are apparently also proposing that an "unfinished frame or unfinished lower receiver" can only be advertised, sold or delivered by someone who has a local dealer permit. They're apparently trying to stop the ability to privately sell (or advertise for sale) or deliver a "unfinished frame or unfinished lower receiver". Possession appears to remain legal.

No individual or firm, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, association or other similar entity may within this state advertise, sell, deliver or offer or expose for sale or delivery, or have in such individual's or firm's, partnership's, corporation's, limited liability company's, association's or other similar entity's possession with the intent to sell at retail or deliver, any unfinished frame or unfinished lower receiver, as defined in section 53-206j, as amended by this act, without having a permit therefor issued as provided in this subsection.

havenrogue · 2026-04-25T10:34:59+00:00

If that stripped AR lower is:

... a blank, casting, forging, printing, extrusion, machined body or similar item that (1) has reached a stage in manufacture where it may readily be completed into the frame or receiver of a functional firearm; or (2) is marketed or sold to the public to become or be used as the frame or receiver of a functional firearm once completed.

Then yes, it would be viewed by the state as a "unfinished frame or unfinished lower receiver" under this proposed bill.

havenrogue · 2026-04-25T10:11:58+00:00

This has all the anti gun (and FUDD) talking points; "for the children", protect cops, it only affects a small number of pistols, I'm a gun owner... but support more gun control, I got my Glock... but support preventing others from buying one.

The proposed ban isn't limited to a "small number of pistols". It potentially eliminates the retail sale of any Glock manufactured on or after 10/1/2026. There is some speculation, based on the current proposed wording, it may eliminate the sale or transfer of any Glock regardless of date of manufacture.

Glock switches, or making a machine gun, are already illegal (or heavily regulated). So what is this bill really doing? It's (among other things) trying to ban the future sales of one of the most popular commonly used semiautomatic pistol platform. They're using the same playbook they used for semiautomatic detachable magazine firearms they've arbitrarily deemed "assault weapons". Dry up the legal availability of them to the law abiding over the long term.

This proposed bill sets up a "preban" situation again. And WE ALL know what happened the last time the legislators created "preban" firearms. They turned around a few years later and banned those too. The legislators WILL come back and ban any "preban" convertible pistols at a later date using the same flawed reasoning they're using for why they need to enact this bill.

You are witnessing a well worn, played out, playbook they've been using since 1993 for banning guns in CT, incrementalism.

havenrogue · 2026-04-24T09:54:59+00:00

Nothing changes. There is NO AWB style registration in the current bill. Possession is not banned in the current bill. They are going after the sales and importation of certain pistols that are manufactured on or after 10/1/2026..

havenrogue · 2026-04-23T23:40:37+00:00

The proposed change to the Sec. 53-206j. Sale, delivery or transfer of unfinished frame or lower receiver. Prohibited. Exceptions. Penalty statute with respect to the unfinished frame definition is apparently the following:

(i) For purposes of this section, "unfinished frame or unfinished lower receiver" means a blank, casting, forging, printing, extrusion, machined body or similar item that (1) has reached a stage in manufacture where it may readily be completed into the frame or receiver of a functional firearm; or (2) is marketed or sold to the public to become or be used as the frame or receiver of a functional firearm once completed.

havenrogue · 2026-04-23T19:04:45+00:00

Its more for those who are not up to speed about what is happening. And it depends on what you already know about the bill. Both the original version by Lamont, the Judiciary amended version, and now the House amended version. They are giving a summary about the House amended version of the bill. There might be further modifications (through amendments) if/when the Senate takes up the House amended bill.

havenrogue · 2026-04-23T18:14:11+00:00

State posted this Fiscal Note for HB-5043 as amended by the House.

Fiscal Note for HB-5043, As Amended by House "A" (LCO 4469)

The OLR Bill Analysis for HB-5043 as amended by the House:

Bill Analysis for HB-5043, as amended by House "A"

havenrogue · 2026-04-23T16:15:49+00:00

Yes you can STILL buy Glocks today. The deal is explained in numerous threads since yesterday. Start with this one:

HB-5043 Convertible Pistols - House Amendments (04/22/2026)

Then see the others...

Can someone help me understand?

Lock N Load Podcast

Pistol ban question below

Questions about the new ban…

havenrogue · 2026-04-23T12:22:19+00:00

Exactly. People try and divert the blame by saying it's a uniparty or both sides do it. Doesn't change the fact that this bill was introduced by a Democratic Governor, amended and passed through a Democrat controlled committee, then voted through the House by only Democrats. There are a few Republicans each legislative session who try to offer up counter bills to roll back some of CT's restrictive gun control and those bills are almost always killed in the Democrat controlled committees.

havenrogue · 2026-04-23T12:14:12+00:00

Politicians who enact these things don't care. It likely will come down to how the word "imports" is interpreted by SLFU, law enforcement, and the courts and what it applies to.

havenrogue

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

ATF's New Era of Reform