The plaintiffs, among them a longtime Stratford gun dealer, claim that the Department of Public Safety is unable to administer the regulations in a uniform manner.

The suit charges two other plaintiffs purchased identical weapons, but when they attempted to register them on successive days with State Police in Canaan last summer, one rifle was seized, while the other owner was allowed to keep his.

The case was filed Thursday in state Superior Court in Litchfield, the site of the failed 1994 attempt to overturn the state's controversial restrictions on so-called assault weapons.

Ralph D. Sherman, a West Hartford lawyer, said Friday that the suit asks the court to declare the regulations void and order DPS Commissioner Arthur L. Spada to neither enforce them nor arrest anyone for possessing weapons previously deemed illegal.

The suit also requests the termination of a DPS database on such weaponry.

"They are phony regulations," said Sherman, who is the chairman of Gunsafe, an organization of Connecticut firearm owners. "The Department of Public Safety has changed its mind several times on what these regulations are supposed to be. It's a major challenge to an administrative agency that's not following correct procedure."

Sherman charged that the DPS might now say that thousands of weapons purchased legally since 1993 may now be illegal.

The plaintiffs include Daniel Patten Sr. of upstate Norfolk, Lawrence DeLuca of nearby Barkhamsted and Frank D'Andrea, owner of D'Andrea's Gun Case, on Barnum Avenue in Stratford. Sherman's co-counsel is Andrew J. Buzzi Jr. of Danbury.

The lawsuit claims that Patten received a letter from the DPS telling him to register his Hungarian AKM target rifle. On Aug. 6, he went to the Troop B Barracks in Canaan and was told that since he purchased it back in the 1980s they would have to seize it.

The next day, DeLuca brought his Hungarian AKM, with a serial number nearly identical to that of Patten's weapon, to the barracks and was given a certificate of possession, Sherman said.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, D-East Haven, a chief legislative proponent of gun control, on Friday defended the state's assault-weapons ban.

Blumenthal said the state Supreme Court has upheld the 1993 law.

Lawlor said if there's a problem in registration procedures, the General Assembly can revisit the ban.

Last year, a law was passed to allow owners of legally purchased weapons, including Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47 type, MAC-10, MAC-11 and others until Oct. 1, 2003, to apply for a state certificate to possess their weapons if they were purchased between October 1993 and May of last year.

It is a Class D felony, punishable by five years in prison and $5,000 fines, to illegally possess the assault-type weapons.

Robert Crook, president of the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen, a plaintiff in the 1994 appeal, said Friday that as the Oct. 1 deadline approaches, more and more rifle owners are baffled by the state's rules.

"The court case is needed because, based upon the state police policy, or whatever their interpretation is, nobody knows what guns they have to register," said Crook, whose group is providing financial support for the new court challenge.

Lawlor, co-chairman of the Legislature's Judiciary Committee that drew up the regulatory language, said that even if a state trooper in the field made a mistake, the legislation itself might not be flawed.

"Apparently it's a misunderstanding on the part of at least one state trooper about what the law is," Lawlor said in a phone interview. "I don't necessarily think the regulations are the problem."

Lawlor recalled that Crook and the National Rifle Association took part in drafting last year's legislation and supported it when it came to a vote last spring.

Blumenthal said Friday he had not yet read the lawsuit, but the state's assault weapon ban has been upheld by Connecticut's highest court.

Blumenthal said that in past challenges to the 1993 law claims were made that the regulations were too vague to permit consistent enforcement and were rejected. "If the criticism is the law should be enforced more rigorously, we could certainly sit down and discuss that," he said.

D'Andrea said the Department of Public Safety seems confused with the regulations. "It seems like nobody really knows what's going on," he said of the reception state troopers give gun owners. "Whoever's in charge at one point sees it one way and someone else the next day sees it another way."

Another apparent problem is the DPS' inability to get the rules out to all gun dealers and enthusiasts.

"We can't go by what we think," said D'Andrea, who's been in the gun business for 32 years and was a plaintiff in the unsuccessful 1994 attempt to overturn the weapons ban.

Lawlor said the gun lobby makes it a struggle to enact gun-control legislation. "I wish we could regulate guns as easily as we regulate toys," he said. "We can keep unsafe toys off the market, but we can't keep unsafe guns off the market."

http://www.connpost.com/Stories/0,1413,96%7E3750%7E1336749,00.html

My name is Richard Millo, I am the owner of Valley Firearms in Shelton, CT.

I am writing in regard to the article in the April 19, 2003, Connecticut Post entitled "Owners file suit to avoid gun ban." 

First of all, banning the ownership of certain firearms because they look "menacing" is absolutely ridiculous, and is a direct infringement on our constitutional rights, but unfortunately that is what the Connecticut assault weapons ban intends to do.

Anyone with any firearm knowledge knows that less than 1% of the crimes committed in the US with a firearm are done so with a firearm the state of Connecticut calls an "assault weapon."

Connecticut is one of only a handful of states that has an Assault Weapons Ban, meaning, in the majority of the United States, the same guns that the law makers in Connecticut forbids residents to own, can be legally purchased and legally owned by residents of the majority of the United States.  Sounds like blatant geographical discrimination to me.  I live in Connecticut so I can't own a Colt AR-15, but if I live in New Hampshire I can?  What's wrong with that picture?

Why is it in Connecticut (the Constitution State) we can't own these guns, but in Florida, New Hampshire, Maine, and the majority of the US, residents can legally own the very same guns we are forbidden to own?

I will explain the reason that there is no need to ban any type of weapons in this state or any other state.  It is called NICS, (National Instant Check System).

NICS is the National Instant Check System.  Every time a gun buyer in the US wishes to purchase a firearm from a gun shop, the clerk is required by federal law to do an "instant check" (NICS).  In Connecticut, this requires the salesperson to pick up the phone, and call the Department of Public Safety Firearms Unit.  By doing the NICS check, the clerk in the gun shop gets an instant approval or denial to sell the gun to the potential buyer from the state police. 

If a buyer has any violence related misdemeanors, drug related misdemeanors, or any felony convictions, they are denied the purchase of the firearm.  Period.

The NICS system is in place, and it works.  Criminals simply cannot go into a gun shop and purchase any type of firearm.

So, with this in mind, the fact that criminals can't go into a gun shop and purchase any type of weapon, why then, is the state of Connecticut forbidding law abiding citizens from owning weapons that the state deems "too deadly" or "too menacing"?  We know that only law abiding citizens can walk into a gun shop and legally purchase a gun.  Why then is the state telling people who they know aren't breaking the law with the guns they are purchasing, what they can and cannot buy?

The Connecticut Assault Weapons ban has so many questions and problems, that even the law enforcement officials in the state do not know how to decipher the language.  The law is vague and open to individual interpretation.  Let's take the current lawsuit you wrote about as an example and explain the situation in greater detail.

The assault weapons ban went into effect in 1994.  One of the many firearms it banned was the "Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47 type."  Firearms dealers were told by the state police, that if the gun did not have "Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47" stamped on the gun, we as dealers were able to sell them.  What this meant is we were able to sell any AK-47 type firearm that was not produced by Avtomat Kalashnikov, we referred to these guns as AK clones.

All that changed in May of 2002.  In May of 2002, the state police "reinterpreted" the assault weapons ban, the language of the law was not changed, just "reinterpreted." Dealers were told that we were now forbidden to sell any AK-47 type weapons, regardless of manufacturer, the very same weapons they were allowing us to sell since 1994. 

As a gun store owner, I had to take all of my inventory of these guns, and at my expense, send them back to the wholesalers from which I received them.  I had to pay to ship them back, and I had to pay the restocking fees.  This was quite an expense to my business, all because the state police reinterpreted the existing assault weapons ban, the law wasn't changed, just look at a different way.

In 2003, all this changed yet again.  On February 20, 2003, I received a letter from the Department of Public Safety, Firearms Unit, reinterpreting the law once again.

The letter states that the assault weapons ban had yet again been reviewed, and was being reinterpreted again.  The state is now allowing us to sell all AK-47 copies, provided they are not chambered in the original Avtomat Kalashnikov caliber of 7.62X39.  So the very same weapons the state prohibit us from selling in May 2002, we are now told we can sell again.  Who knows for how long, and who knows when they may change their mind again and require me to remove all of these guns from my premises....again.

Sound confusing?  That's the point.  It is confusing.  Dealers don't know from one month to the next what guns we can legally sell to Connecticut residents.  Most dealers I know, work very hard to run a legitimate, organized businesses.  We are constantly scrutinized by both state inspectors, and federal inspectors from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF).  We want to obey the law to the exact letter.  But you can see the confusion and frustration we have to deal with day in and day out. 

Keep in mind, again, that all this is being done to ban guns that are legal in 90% of the United States, and also keep in mind, that this law is intended to keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.  Criminals can't come into my gun store and buy a gun, the NICS system prevents that from happening. 

So I have to ask again, why is the state of Connecticut banning guns from law abiding citizens, citizens they know aren't breaking the law with the guns they are legitimately buying from gun stores?

One word answers that question....control.  Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control.  And it's about time it stops.

Richard J. Millo Jr.
Owner
Valley Firearms
Shelton, CT

"AW" "TYPE" Court Case: