Shipping ammo

rpseraph

New member
I have a friend who moved to Connecticut and wants ammo. Apparently you need to have a permit to purchase ammo and the office that supplies that permit is closed! Is there any way I can send him some? Or would that vote Connecticut law to ship to that state? I told him he should just drive to ride island or Vermont and buy some at a LGS! I also told him he shouldn't have moved, lol.

Thanks!
 

Rockrivr1

New member
CT has gone draconian in regards to buying ammo. I'm in MA and can no longer visit gun stores in CT to buy ammo unless I get an Out of State LTC. He can't come to MA as all ammo sales also need a license as well. Gun store are open in NH, VT and ME and as Jonnyc said, he'd have to drive there. Though many of those stores are pretty picked over due to panic buying. If he's going to take a road trip he may want to call ahead to see if a store has what he wants.

<<THIS POST HAS BEEN EDITED TO REMOVE A SUGGESTION THAT WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF THE APPLICABLE LAW.>>
 
The fact that the cops might not know does not make an illegal act legal. The question was whether shipping ammo to him would violate Connecticut law, and the answer is "Yes." It would violate Connecticut law. Unless:

The permit he is referring to is an ammunition eligibility certificate. It's a nanny state permission slip that allows the holder to buy ammunition, but not guns.

Next up is a "long gun eligibility certificate." That allows the holder to purchase rifles, shotguns, and ammunition for rifles and shotguns.

And then there is the "Permit to Carry Pistol or Revolver." Holders of a Connecticut pistol permit can buy any type of firearm, and any type of ammunition.

If your friend has a pistol permit or one of the other certificates, he can send you a photocopy or scan of the permit and his driver's license, and you can then send him ammunition. If he doesn't have any of those documents, he cannot legally procure loaded ammunition by any means while he is in Connecticut. This is what the on-line ammo (and magazine) vendors do -- they have the customer mail or e-mail a scan of their permit and driver's license, and they maintain that on file for proof of eligibility.

What he can do legally is drive to Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, or Vermont and buy ammunition there. The law does not appear to address importation by the end user from out of state.

The text of the statute reads:

Sec. 29-38m. Sale of ammunition or ammunition magazine.
(a) For the purposes of this section and sections 29-38n to 29-38p, inclusive, “ammunition” means a loaded cartridge, consisting of a primed case, propellant or projectile, designed for use in any firearm, “firearm” has the meaning provided in section 53a-3, and “magazine” means any firearm magazine, belt, drum, feed strip or similar device that accepts ammunition.
(b) No person, firm or corporation shall sell ammunition or an ammunition magazine to any person under eighteen years of age.
(c) On and after October 1, 2013, no person, firm or corporation shall sell ammunition or an ammunition magazine to any person unless such person holds a valid permit to carry a pistol or revolver issued pursuant to subsection (b) of section 29-28, a valid permit to sell at retail a pistol or revolver issued pursuant to subsection (a) of section 29-28, a valid eligibility certificate for a pistol or revolver issued pursuant to section 29-36f or a valid long gun eligibility certificate issued pursuant to section 29-37p and presents to the transferor such permit or certificate, or unless such person holds a valid ammunition certificate issued pursuant to section 29-38n and presents to the transferor such certificate and such person's motor vehicle operator's license, passport or other valid form of identification issued by the federal government or a state or municipal government that contains such person's date of birth and photograph.

Source: https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_529.htm#sec_29-38m

I know -- it says no one shall "sell" ammunition. Does that mean you could give him a few boxes of ammo? I don't know; I'm not a lawyer. Section (c) of the statute makes multiple reference to "transferor," not "vendor" or "seller." Based on this, I think it's safe to conclude that the legislative intent is that nobody in Connecticut can obtain loaded ammunition without holding one of the aforementioned permission slips. I had a friend (now deceased) who was an NRA training counselor in Connecticut. He told me that the State Police were interpreting this law so strictly that when NRA instructors taught the metallic cartridge reloading class, they weren't even allowed to let the students take with them the cartridges they (the students) had loaded in the class. Personally, I wouldn't take the chance.

The other (and, IMHO, better) work-around is to reload. The law defines "ammunition" as loaded cartridges; it does not address components. Your friend can buy all the powder, projectiles, brass and primers he wants and load as much ammunition as he can possibly shoot without being subject to the provisions of this law.

In the long term, your friend should get a pistol permit. It wasn't stated if he shoots rifles, handguns, or shotguns. If it's handguns -- he can't even take a handgun from his home to a range for practice unless he has a pistol permit, so it really behooves any firearms owner to get the carry permit. That also allows the purchase of handguns, long guns, and ammunition, so it's the most useful of the several permission slips Connecticut offers.
 

DaleA

New member
Connecticut...good land! Permit to buy ammunition. Permit to buy long guns. Permit to...What part of "---shall not be infringed." do they not understand?

That's a rhetorical question.

I'm chiming in here because I'm sure "Protect Minnesota" would LOVE to have these same laws enacted in my state and we've got a Governor that would probably go along with this and a State House that would go along with it and just a very few votes in our State Senate that are preventing this.

I personally need a reminder of how bad things could get. I had a wake up call when Virginia, a state I thought was okay, went bonkers, and now this dash of cold water.

Yes, this could happen to me in my state. What about the rest of you?

Note: The organization "Protect Minnesota" in the last couple of years has told its supporters to dial down on the "gun nut" rhetoric and try to engage gun owners to pass just two and only two laws, the Universal Background Check law and the Red Flag Gun Confiscation law.

Protetct Minnesota has been telling their supporters to put aside all other gun laws/restrictions and just concentrate on these two. Does that make me feel better? Well it's nice they quit insulting gun owners but they lie about the current gun laws and UBC is useless and RF-GC is dumb.
 
DaleA said:
Connecticut...good land! Permit to buy ammunition. Permit to buy long guns. Permit to...What part of "---shall not be infringed." do they not understand?
All of it.

Both the long gun permission requirement and the ammo permission requirement were part of Connecticut's post-Sandy Hook omnibus gun control law. Remember, Sandy Hook is in Connecticut. The irony is, unfortunately, that none of the strict requirements the new law imposed would or could have prevented the shooting. The guns involved and the ammunition were purchased -- legally -- by the shooter's mother, whom he killed prior to taking the guns to shoot up the school. The new laws would not have affected anything, but they were nonetheless passed overwhelmingly (in the dead of night -- literally) in a knee-jerk, "we have to do something" response to the shooting.
 

DaleA

New member
The irony is, unfortunately, that none of the strict requirements the new law imposed would or could have prevented the shooting.

Thank you for posting that.

It's a fact that should be mentioned whenever new gun laws are proposed.

Our next door state N.D. had a Democrat Senator Heidi Heitkamp (she lost her last election) who was pilloried by her own "supporters" for saying she didn't support all the gun control laws because they wouldn't really do anything to stop "gun violence". Very much a "common sense" comment and her own party took her to task over it.
 
Top