Another bill winding its way through the process. This one would notify local police if one fails a firearm background check. It doesn't appear to indicate what the police should do however upon receipt of that notification, it just indicates they should be notified. Don't see anything (yet) from CCDL on their stance with this bill. There is an amendment to this bill so the links below to the current version of the bill may not be the final one they vote upon.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&which_year=2022&bill_num=5417

AN ACT CONCERNING JUVENILE JUSTICE AND SERVICES, FIREARMS BACKGROUND CHECKS, AND LARCENY OF A MOTOR VEHICLE.
To (1) provide for (A) more immediate arraignment and services for juvenile offenders, (B) electronic monitoring in certain circumstances, (C) expansion of provisions imposing upon a child special juvenile probation in the case of murder or first degree manslaughter, and (D) expansion of programs serving juveniles and reducing crime, and (2) require the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection to inform the Chief of Police or other appropriate official of the town in which a firearms permit applicant resides if such applicant fails a background check.

Current bill language:
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2022/FC/PDF/2022HB-05417-R000525-FC.PDF
https://search.cga.state.ct.us/dl2022/fc/doc/2022HB-05417-R000525-FC.docx

The proposed language to be added into subsection (c) of section 29-33 (sales/transfers of pistols):

, and (2) inform the chief of police of the town in which the applicant resides, or, where there is no chief of police, the warden of the borough or the first selectman of the town, as the case may be, that there exists a reason that would prohibit such applicant from possessing a pistol or revolver.

The proposed language to be added into subsection (d) of section 29-37a (sales/transfers of long guns):

, and (2) chief of police of the town in which the applicant resides, or, where there is no chief of police, the warden of the borough or the first selectman of the town, as the case may be, that the applicant is not eligible to receive a long gun.

Update today:
https://cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB-5417

5/4/2022In Concurrence
5/4/2022Senate Passed as Amended by House Amendment Schedule A
5/4/2022Senate Rejected Senate Amendment Schedule A 6478
5/4/2022Senate Adopted House Amendment Schedule A

So if I understand how things work this means they are going with the House Amendment Schedule A version (https://cga.ct.gov/2022/amd/H/pdf/2022HB-05417-R00HA-AMD.pdf). I assume this means both houses would vote on it then send it to Red Ned. That amended version still has the language indicating that SLFU will notify the locals when a person is denied a gun sale (handgun/long gun).

It's now a Public Act:
https://cga.ct.gov/2022/ACT/PA/PDF/2022PA-00115-R00HB-05417-PA.PDF

Presumably this wasn't a big deal as it wasn't mentioned by CCDL?

No idea if CCDL even knew about it. A search of 5417 and 22-115 in their book of faces group doesn't return any hits so no one appeared to be talking about it in there (at least under those terms).

Perhaps some or most don't see a problem with, or think its a good idea, that DESPP/SLFU would notify the local police when a resident in their town/city is denied during a firearm sale/transfer sales authorization call.

didn't some of the pro gun reps in the legislature vote for this amendment?  That maybe why CCDL didn't talk much about it.  Plus, isn't a failed background check with no investigation one of gun owners complaints.

The bill got overwhelming votes both to get out of committee and from both the House and Senate.

Edit to add: The bill doesn't appear to mandate an investigation by the locals, only that they be notified. The real question is, what will the locals do once notified? Will they expend time effort and budget to perform follow up investigations? Will they confiscate permits, certificates or even firearms (mags/ammo) based on denials? Will they make arrests based on those investigations and if so for what charge(s)?

Agreed, a seemingly good move to notify as the failed background check can indicate a prohibited person may be attempting to obtain a firearm. And I believe something similar was proposed by GOP congress reps but for illegal immigrants, and it didn't go anywhere.  Back to the CT bill, the real question to your point is "what next?".  Is this a feel-good move or will authorities follow up?  It may be the case it was a false alarm or system glitch, or it's really a prohibited person trying his or her luck.  I don't know why a prohibited person would go through a background check in the first place, but some people are stupid (a good thing when a criminal is stupid).