A new bill signed into law by Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont poses a serious danger to gun retailers licensed by the state and federal governments, who will now be tasked with implementing unnamed and unspecified "reasonable controls" on their wares or else face the prospect of costly civil suits that could put them out of business.
The new law is modeled after similar statutes already in place in states like New Jersey, where Attorney General Matthew Platkin has used the law to sue several FFLs for supposedly not putting "reasonable controls" in place. As John Petrolino outlined:
In New Jersey, buyers of long gun ammunition do not need to provide any special documentation to complete a transaction. Buyers, however, must be above the age of 18. While federal law prohibits disqualified persons from possessing firearms or ammunition, there’s no provision in New Jersey’s–or the federal–law that requires eligibility to be proven prior to a sale. In the case of handgun or pistol ammunition, buyers in N.J. are required to present either a firearms owners identification card, pistol purchaser's permit, or permit to carry–and must be 21-years of age.
Attorney General Platkin took action against Butch’s Gun World because they legally sold “over a thousand rounds of AR-15 ammunition and other gun-related products in cash to undercover investigators.” Platkin further states that Butch’s Gun World allowed the sale to occur “without making any effort to determine if they could lawfully possess a firearm.” Resulting from the sting operation, Platkin sued Butch’s Gun World.
Attorney General Matthew Platkin created the Statewide Affirmative Firearms Enforcement Office in July 2022. The office was created in order to execute action using the Firearms Industry Public Safety Law. The law is a product of a growing tactic to use civil actions against Second Amendment related activity–such as so-called “red flag” laws–to strip those who are targeted from retaining any criminal protections. Such laws also leave a wide breadth for those leveraging action to use potentially questionable discretion.
No criminal statute was used in the actions against Butch’s Gun World, therefore they were not allowed any protections provided under the Constitution.
On July 22, a decision and summary judgment were issued against Butch’s Gun World. Superior Court Judge Robert Malestein wrote in the decision that “the facts clearly and convincingly establish that Butch’s Gun World, as a gun industry member, has failed to establish, implement, and enforce reasonable controls of the sale of gun-related products and under our statute, has engaged in conduct which is a public nuisance by violated [sic] N.J.S.A. 2C: 58-35(a)(2).”
Butch's Gun World wasn't required under state or federal law to demand customers prove they're legally eligible to possess ammunition before selling it to them, at least not specifically. Instead, they were (and are) subject to a vague and amorphous standard that depends on a judge's determination of what is "reasonable".
This same bit of lawfare will soon be deployed by Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, as well as gun control organizations who'll be more than happy to rep victims of violent crime who are looking to pin the blame on gun and ammo sellers instead of the trigger puller. Even if a store complies with federal and state statute, if a gun or ammunion they sell is used in a crime an attorney can argue that the store should have done more to prevent harm being done with something they sold to a third party.
Now, Connecticut already requires ammo buyers to produce a valid handgun carry permit, gun sales permit, long gun or handgun eligibility certificate, or ammunition certificate before they can purchase any ammunition, but that just begs the question; what other "reasonable" steps are gun stores supposed to take to ensure products do not fall into the wrong hands? Background checks aren't enough, apparently. Nor is the requirement for sellers to show a valid certificate allowing them to purchase ammunition. So what is "reasonable"? The law doesn't say, and that's the whole point.
This vague and fuzzy language is impossible to comply with, and will make doing business as an FFL in Connecticut much more difficult and legally dangerous. That, in turn, is likely to result in fewer FFLs operating in the state, which will make it even more difficult for residents to lawfully exercise their right to keep, bear, and acquire a firearm.
Editor’s Note: The gun control lobby will stop at nothing to enact their radical agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member