CT Bans Private Sales

mu2bdriver

mu2bdriver

NES Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
1,528
Likes
2,062
Feedback: 5 / 0 / 0
I hope this gets the visibility it deserves here:

"Effective immediately, based on state law and federal NICS requirements, S L F U will no longer allow private sales of firearms between two individuals. All firearm sales must be facilitated through a firearms dealer. As a dealer, when assisting with a private sale, please let the staff know when you call for an authorization so we can code the background appropriately. As a general reminder, when assisting with a private sale, the firearm should still go in on your books and out on your books. Thank you for your cooperation."
 
It can't be a coincidence that CT pulls this shit right after New Mexico purports to ban lawful carry. Some memo went out. Maybe we should expect more and worse, soon.

"based on state law and federal NICS requirements . . ."

A question: Can any of our resident firearms lawyers comment on the bolded part? However broadly the gun grabbers might want to interpret the "federal NICS requirements" do said "requirements" apply to private sales? If so, how do the "prohibited person" criteria (or other "NICS requirement") apply to private sales? If this has been covered elsewhere, already, sorry!
 
horton21 said:
It can't be a coincidence that CT pulls this shit right after New Mexico purports to ban lawful carry. Some memo went out. Maybe we should expect more and worse, soon.

"based on state law and federal NICS requirements . . ."

A question: Can any of our resident firearms lawyers comment on the bolded part? However broadly the gun grabbers might want to interpret the "federal NICS requirements" do said "requirements" apply to private sales? If so, how do the "prohibited person" criteria (or other "NICS requirement") apply to private sales? If this has been covered elsewhere, already, sorry!
Click to expand...

Given that it’s illegal/impossible for a non dealer to do a NICS check, I don’t understand how one could apply to any private sale.
 
So, I cant find the quoted text in any CT general laws. maybe a link would help? I have a friend in CT so that's the only reason I try to keep somewhat current on the text. But this post sounds a lot more like Maura's letter from 2016 than an actual law. AKA, it means jack shit.
 
KH56010 said:
So, I cant find the quoted text in any CT general laws. maybe a link would help? I have a friend in CT so that's the only reason I try to keep somewhat current on the text. But this post sounds a lot more like Maura's letter from 2016 than an actual law. AKA, it means jack shit.
Click to expand...
It does though. In CT you need to call and get an authorization number from the SLFU to process a private sale. If SFLU is no longer providing authorizations for private parties, you can’t legally sell. It would be like if MA only allowed dealers to use the gun portal.

The OP’s post is what SLFU sent to all CT FFLs yesterday.


Does anyone know what changed (local or ATF) that caused this? I didn’t think anything in CT’s new gun bill touched this.
 
Last edited:
Ugh... this logic actually makes sense. NICS checks have always been restricted to FFL transfers. FFLs can't even do a check unless they're actually engaged in a transfer.

The problem here (and not in Mass.) is that the FLSU was doing NICS checks contrary to federal law. Unless CT law says they must use NICS, they can easily fix this by simply trusting their own background check system (stop using NICS).

But "fix this" isn't really something they have any motivation to do.

In Mass the eFA10 system doesn't use NICS, so we're "OK" for now.
 
KH56010 said:
So, I cant find the quoted text in any CT general laws. maybe a link would help? I have a friend in CT so that's the only reason I try to keep somewhat current on the text. But this post sounds a lot more like Maura's letter from 2016 than an actual law. AKA, it means jack shit.
Click to expand...
Laws...lololololololololololololololololololol
Maura...lololololololololololololololololololol
Jack shit...
lololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololol

ETA: you're reading the laws...man, you're really swinging for the fences with that post.
 
Now that I've recovered from that well-needed laugh, if you just realized that CT (and other States, people, et al) hate you and have no regard for the law, you'll see the outrageous humor of your comment.
 
Says the FFL must take it in on their books and then log it out. So seems dealer can perform the background check -- not a private party running the check. Query in MA how this can work b/c MA has the roster of guns dealers can and cannot transfer.
 
LittleCalm said:
Says the FFL must take it in on their books and then log it out. So seems dealer can perform the background check -- not a private party running the check. Query in MA how this can work b/c MA has the roster of guns dealers can and cannot transfer.
Click to expand...
That's the whole point. I am guessing here is what went down. Connecticut created a hybrid system that mandated the use of their SLFU hotline by those conducting private person-to-person sales. On the back end, presumably flunkies would then run NICS checks, and either respond to the private seller with authorization or not. The problem was it is not legal to conduct NICS checks for private p2p sales. So NICS issued a cease and desist, and the state DESPP responded by disallowing private sellers from receiving authorizations from the SLFU.

The immediate result is UBCs now being required for private sales--without an additional bill even being filed. This is a big win for the Democratic-fiream prohibitionist bloc in CT over firearm ownership.

I gather this failure mode was baked into the law that mandated the SLFU requirement to achieve this result.
 
The A Team 80S GIF
 
S L F U - we put the "FU" right into our name.

Read this last night, mentioned it to my wife, and she echoed my thoughts - "so glad we're out of CT".

My son was over for dinner a couple weeks ago. Told me that his oldest was interested in learning to shoot a pistol, (he already has a .22 rifle). Went to the safe, took out a spare BuckMark, grabbed a couple of mags and some ammo and gave it to him.

No paperwork, no laws broken.
 

Similar threads

New CT 'Assault Weapons' registration now open....
Replies
22
Views
902
MoRivera
M
Benelli M4, CT Compliance & 922R compliance
Replies
2
Views
266
SuzukiGS750EZ
S
Chopping a 10/22 CT "assault weapon"?
Replies
4
Views
273
KBCraig
KBCraig
Flying from Florida to ct
Replies
7
Views
563
jakeroub
J
April 2023 - proposed laws in CT; Updated 05/07/2023
Replies
12
Views
848
MoRivera
M
Back
Top Bottom