A "logical" person would interpret Item #3 to our benefit. However, some states are being much too conservative and are not reading the regs that way. Her'es my take on it.
After doing some additional checking, working C&R to C&R is still an ok way to deal in Connecticut. So, one CT C&R selling something to me (another CT C&R) remains status quo. The same goes for FFL to C&R or C&R to FFL.
However, if I'm a C&R and I come across a pistol from an estate or from a non-C&R seller in Connecticut, I have to obtain an "authorization number" from the State before it can be purchased and logged in. CT wants to know who the seller is, address, and phone number along with some other identification (pistol license or driver's license). Once it's in my possession however, I can deal with another C&R as normal. The same applies to any out-of-state civilian to C&R pistol purchases. In the "old days", just handing the seller my C&R was fine but now we have to get a CT authroization. (I've got a short story about a case I know about below.)
Originally, I, as a C&R holder, was able to just provide a copy of my license to the civilian owner regardless where they lived and that was that. Now it requires that authorization.
Here's why the suppliers are balking.
#3 is being interpreted too conservatitively by out-of-state FFLs. The out-of-state suppliers are assuming that all pistol sales have to be authroized by CT because of what the regs DON'T say. They DON'T say "Any Persons" who are licensed which would indicate that #3 only pertains to in-state purchases. It does not specifically include out-of-state puchases. What #3 should have included some global term that indicated both in and out-of-state persons were eligible. What some suppliers are saying is that since that "global" term is absent from the regulations, it only pertains to CT to CT transfers and NOT out-of-state to CT transfers.
At least that's what I understand as being the case.
The only thing I think that would clear this up is a call to the CSP and asking them if #3 pertains to ALL national FFLs or C&Rs or does it only pertain to those in the State of Connecticut only.
This is just one good example of a typical vaguely written regulation when it comes to firearms. In the current state of affairs with this state, suppliers are just being overly conservative, I believe, but can you blame them?
I'd be curious of your opinion on this.
Now, the story. (sorry for being so long but it's on point). A CT FFL and was offered the chance to purchase some modern (non-C&R) pistols from a private party in Massachusetts. This individual drove the pistols to his shop and the FFL called in for the authorization number to complete the transaction. When the FFL was asked for the ID of the person selling the pistol, and they found out that he was from MASS, the authroization agent wanted to immediately know how the pistol arrived in Connecticut! Fortunately the FFL had the where-with-all to say that he picked it up himself. It caught him completely unawares of the strictness that the State is looking at pistol sales. He would have gone to pick it up himself had he realized what had happened. Essentially, a non-licensed MASS resident had taking a gun to Connecticut without permission or the proper licenses. It would have landed him in hot water for sure.
In my mind one could make the argument that the pistols were being delivered to a valid FFL and one might argure the "peaceable passage" rules since they were being sold but that's not how the State agent interpreted it.
So, pistols are being monitored pretty seriously anymore. It's no wonder that suppliers are being very conservative. It is unfortunate, however, that we're having to "wonder" what the State means in #3, isn't it?
Rome