CT Law Question - Odd Situation

[waltherlover]

OK -

Here's the scenario. It's hypothetical, of course. And hypothetically it's already happened.

Son, with an expired LTC in MA has handguns. Son has mental issues, parents come from CT to "save the day," which includes taking the handguns to CT. It's unclear if the parents have any sort of permits in CT. I think you need a special permit to purchase a handgun in CT. Let's assume they don't have anything.

First - aside from not having a non-res MA permit and having possession of the guns in MA while they drive back to CT - what permits/licenses/stuff would they need in CT to "borrow" these guns from their son?

Second - Any advice on how this should be handled? Is there a clean way to deal with this? Assume they don't know anyone with handgun permits, etc.

Thanks.

 

[Len-2A Training]

PM dcmdon. He has considerable expertise wrt CT laws.

 

[dcmdon]

Lets assume the guns have already been moved.

In that case the parents are clean.

You need a pistol permit to buy or have a handgun transferred to you, that means legal ownership of the firearm changes.

There is nothing in CT law that requires you to have a pistol permit or any license of any kind to possess, keep or borrow handguns or any firearms that are legal to bring into CT. (Federal law doesn't allow you to loan out NFA stuff, but I'm guessing that doesn't apply here)

Assuming that ownership still resides with the son, the parents can keep the firearms as long as the son allows them to.

As far as longer term outlook, explain to me what "mental issues" means. Has he been adjudicated as mentally defective by a judge?
Does he have a legal guardian?

Don

 

[waltherlover]

The mental issues aren't that bad - he just has a controllable condition that he's been Section 12ed (3 day psych hold) twice for. In MA, that can be done by a medical professional or a police officer. No guardian, it's not that bad. But it basically means he has no chance of getting a MA LTC again without a lengthy process and lots of legal fees.

So then at that point, he'll either need to drive down to CT to transfer the ownership, or have them just sell the guns to a dealer or some private party in CT through a dealer. I'm not sure how that works at the federal level, but I think all the dealer needs is ID from the person he's buying them from. This is a slow burn issue anyway, given that they are legal with the guns. No need to take action anytime soon.

Thanks for clarifying all that. Nice to know they aren't going to jail for doing the right thing.

 

[dcmdon]

Len - can you confirm that while he's out of luck for a LTC, he should be OK, at least legally, with an FID.

Obviously his parents should use their best judgement. But if he gets better, an FID is "shall issue" as long as he's not a prohibited person.
If he or his parents don't think he should ever have them again, an FFL in CT could work the sale.

He would have to be present to sign the DPS 3, which must be completed for each firearm.

http://www.ct.gov/despp/lib/despp/slfu/firearms/dps-3-c.pdf

Don

 

[SGZip]

If you're asking whether an FID will cover a handgun, it will not. FID only covers certain long guns and their ammo.

You may be thinking of H.2259, which would have made all MA licenses into FIDs, and the FID would have become the new LTC-A, but I don't think that bill ever made it to a vote.

 

[Len-2A Training]

IIRC, mental health issues still apply wrt FID, so the PD can demand a sworn affidavit that he is "cured" and no longer has potential to harm himself or others. Multiple Section 12s run up a red flag for the PD and although "suitability" isn't in play the PD may still have an out to refuse if he is an "active case".

And as stated above FID has very limited value in MA. In my opinion it isn't worth the $100 unless you are under 21 yo and ineligible for a LTC, or you are strictly a skeet/trap/duck or deer hunter.

 

[dcmdon]

Thats right. I forgot a FID was only for long guns. Sorry about that.

I know that from a federal perspective, the mental health disqualifiers are very specific.

Go here: http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

Scroll down to the instructions for question 11F. It is a pretty stringent set of rules for you to be considered a prohibited person based on mental health grounds. Further, it is pretty EASY to comply with the EXCEPTIONs, which allows you to answer NO, which allows you to lawfullly purchase.

So LEN - what I'm saying is that with a FID some "mental issues" that don't rise to the level of making you a prohibited person are certainly reason for them to deny a LTC based on suitability.

In contrast, these same issues, which don't make you a PP, should not be a factor with an FID, since the Issuing Authority is not supposed to be able to apply any suitability standard when issuing a FID.

Of course that's just the law. Reality may be different. We all know very few MA issuing authorities follow the law when it comes to issuing LTCs.

Don

 

[Kevlar]

...these same issues, which don't make you a PP, should not be a factor with an FID, since the Issuing Authority is not supposed to be able to apply any suitability standard when issuing a FID.

As Len said, MGLs prohibits the issuance of a FID to anyone who has been:

...confined to any hospital or institution for mental illness, unless the applicant submits with his application an affidavit of a registered physician attesting that such physician is familiar with the applicant's mental illness and that in such physician's opinion the applicant is not disabled by such an illness in a manner that should prevent the applicant from possessing a firearm, rifle or shotgun...

"Confined" is not defined in the statute.

 

[dcmdon]

Confined would seem to exclude voluntarily checking yourself in, right?

i.e. Confined implies you are sent there by force, against your will. Right?

Is that how its practically applied in MA?

 

[Kevlar]

Confined would seem to exclude voluntarily checking yourself in, right?

i.e. Confined implies you are sent there by force, against your will. Right?

Is that how its practically applied in MA?

Yes, that's the commonly accepted definition, and a cursory search of MA case law doesn't yield any clarification.

In the OP's hypothetical, I imagine any IA would require an affidavit prior to FID issuance.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Section 12 is not exactly "voluntarily". It also is not a statutory DQ. However most PDs treat it as a "confinement" (one can argue whether or not it really is, but I don't think that has ever been adjudicated . . . and I would never expect a MA judge to rule that "it's OK, no affidavit required"!) and demand the affidavit. And if the person is still undergoing treatment, I would expect most physicians to refuse to sign off that "it's OK to own/carry a gun" for that patient.

 

[waltherlover]

Just to clarify, this is (from what I understand) a bipolar disorder, which can take a while to get the meds adjusted right for. But one would expect if his meds get fixed (AND HE TAKES THEM - this apparently has been an issue) that he might get a letter from his physician. But again, this only gets him an FID. So his pistols go bye-bye.

From what I know - Section 12 is basically an EDP (Emotionally Disturbed Person) and is not voluntary until the three (business) days are complete. In this case he is staying 7-10 days voluntarily.

I don't think he cares about long guns, and not even sure if he owns one. So it's likely that he's done with guns. I also want to clarify that I don't know this person personally, I'm researching this for a friend of mine that works in the mental health field. And as LenS says, the FID is somewhat useless in MA - there's no clear definition of what ammo you can buy, etc - like many of the mangled MA laws. There's also the whole issue of his previous LTC-A being expired for three years.

There was also talk of a - I think it's called Roger's Guardian - to make sure he takes his meds. The mental health legal stuff is all way beyond me. I really just wanted to make sure his parents wouldn't go to jail for holding his guns. I'm sure all this will take a while to get resolved, so as I said earlier, it's a slow burn issue. Basically I think his odds of ever owning a gun legally in MA again - based on what I've seen here - are slim to none. Which is interesting, because he had a Boston permit with no restrictions.

Sorry this thread got hijacked from CT to MA law.

Thanks for all the info.

 

[RichM]

The handguns can't just be transferred from the MA resident to the CT resident per Federal law... they can be "borrowed" for sporting purposes. To actually effect the transfer, they MUST pass through (in this case) a CT FFL.

 

[dcmdon]

We've covered that.

But the point is that no licenses are required to possess or keep any kind of firearm in CT, including handguns. So he can loan the guns to his parents in CT indefinitely, and it is perfectly legal. No transfer means no dealer and no requirement for a CT Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers for the parents.

If the son decided to sell the guns in CT, they would have to go to a FFL if he was not a resident. If he had established residency in CT, which is not very difficult per CT statutes. He could sell them privately in-state. He would not need to get a pistol permit. Remember, we are talking about being a resident, not being domiciled in CT. You can be a resident of multiple states. If you have a weekend house in CT, you are a CT resident while you are at your weekend house, even if your domicile is in some other state.

Don