Snake,
I agree with everything you said. Except that this law relating to the definition of pistols and revolvers is totally unambiguous. It is however (upon further reading) modified with the statement "as used in sections 29-28 to 29-38".
So I need to go read those statutes. I'll report back here. **Done, see following post for how those statutes are affected by this definition**
What you have described above is a fairly common disconnect between what LEOs think the law is and what the statute actually reads.
When this happens the chain of events is typically that the person is arrested and then charges are dropped.
Go onto the web site opencarry.org and go to the CT forum. Its pretty interesting. As I'm guessing you know, there is no law in CT prohibiting open carry. People used to get arrested for this. Now they rarely even get hassled. Its clear that since the Goldberg case, which could end up costing the local PD hundreds of thousands of dollars, PDs have made sure that the rank and file know not to arrest someone for open carry.
Check this audio out:
http://subtlehustle.org/NewHavenRudeOfficer/New Haven OC incident 4-2-2011.mp3
In it the NH cop aggressively confronts an open carrier. The OCer replies in a way that suggests he knows the law. The NH cop immediately backs down, with almost a pleading tone.
This would not have happened 2 years ago. The guy would have been face down on the sidewalk.
I'm not interested in a debate on OC. I'm just using this to illustrate that this disconnect between the actual statute and what most LEOs believe the statute to be can be corrected.
At various times I've been told by LEOs that:
1) It is illegal to carry a loaded handgun on my person in a car. Even with a pistol permit.
2) I need to show ID if requested by a LEO if I'm shooting rifles on private property in the company of the property owner.
This disconnect between what LEOs think and what the statute says happens all the time in CT.
Many LEOs understandably just want to "keep the peace" even if it means infringing on my rights.
I've had LEOs come onto a friends private property and tell us to stop shooting, that we were frightening neighbors. I've politely refused and told them that we were in compliance with all laws.
When threatened with arrest for breach of peace, I've essentially said that they were welcome to arrest me if they felt it necessary (I have permission from my wife to get arrested for this reason. Yes, I fear my wife), then reminded them that their right to trespass ended when they saw that that there was no unlawful activity going on, so please leave.
These days, when I'm going to shoot my submachine gun at a friends private land, I will call our local PD dispatch and give them a general time and location. The response is always "if someone calls, we have to respond". But its gone better since then because the cops at least know that they are not walking into an active shooter situation. In most cases the cops were courteous. Once one of them asked for "my paperwork" on the sub gun. I told him I wasn't required by law to carry it. It ended there.
Another time the officer immediately called dispatch and told them that "The lady is just going to have to deal with it". Nice guy.
Don
p.s. I don't want to give the impression that I'm anti LEO. I've had many positive encounters with LEOs. The local resident trooper was a godsend when I was divorcing my psycho ex-wife. But I always follow the law. If the law says I can't do something, I don't. Then I work to change the law if I don't like it. But I also expect to be left alone if I am in compliance with the law.