AGO 1991-031.

• Court: Connecticut

Connecticut Attorney General Opinions 1991. AGO 1991-031. 1991Opinion No. 1991-031The Honorable Nicholas A. CioffiCommissioner of Public Safety100 Washington StreetHartford, CT 06106 Dear Commissioner Cioffi: By letter dated March 14, 1991, you request our advice on the accuracy of certain guidelines issued by the Department of Public Safety concerning the provisions of Connecticut General Statutes §§ 29-37a, 29-37b and 29-37c. The statutes in question deal generally with the waiting period and paperwork applicable to the purchase of a firearm other than a pistol or revolver, the provision and use of trigger locking devices at the time of purchase of a firearm, and the proper storage of loaded firearms at the home or business of the owner. The Department of Public Safety has published the guidelines for the benefit of retail firearms dealers in the State of Connecticut. Following a thorough review of the statues under consideration, and of the extensive legislative histories associated therewith, it is our opinion that further clarification or modification of the subject guidelines is necessary.I.We begin our review with a brief summary of the applicable rules of statutory construction by which we have been guided in our response to your inquiry. It is a cardinal rule of construction that statutes must be construed so as to give effect to the intent of the legislature. State v. Parmalee, 197 Conn. 158, 161, 496 A.2d 186 (1985), quoting, State v. Campbell, 180 Conn. 557, 561, 429 A.2d 960 (1980). Where the language of the act is plain and unambiguous, legislative intent must be ascertained from the language incorporated into the act alone. Beloff v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., 203 Conn. 45, 54, 523 A.2d 477 (1987). Thus, "[w]here the language of the statute is unambiguous, we are confined to the intention expressed in the actual words used and will not search out any further intention of the legislature not expressed in the statute...." Harris Data Communications, Inc. v. Heffernan, 183 Conn. 194, 198, 438 A.2d 1178 (1981). Where the language of the statute is of doubtful or uncertain meaning, however, we must look beyond the words of the statute in order to ascertain and give effect to the legislature's actual intent. See State v. Kozlowski, 199 Conn. 667, 667, 509 A.2d 20 (1986). A statute is ambiguous where the language of that statute is of doubtful meaning, or contains a word or phrase which is not denied within that statute. See Link v. Shelton, 186 Conn. 623, 627, 443 A.2d 902 (1982). Ambiguity may further be established where a common sense interpretation of the statutory language leads to an "unreasonable result." State v. Delafose, 185 Conn. 517, 522, 441 A.2d 158 (1981). When confronted with such an ambiguous statute, we must look to the legislative history and circumstances surrounding the enactment of the statute as well as the purpose or objective with the legislation seeks to accomplish in order to find its true meaning. See State v. Campbell, 180 Conn. 557, 563, 429 A.2d 960 (1980). "Identifying the societal problems which the legislature sought to address may be particularly helpful in determining the true meaning of the statute." State v. Parmalee, 197 Conn. 158, 161-62, 496 A.2d 186 (1985). With this framework in mind, we now look to the specific statutory provisions the meaning of which you have requested us to interpret herein.II.Public Act No. 90-340, now codified at Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-37a (1991), provides as follows: No person, firm or corporation may deliver at retail, any firearm, as defined in section 53a-3, except a pistol or revolver, to any person unless such person makes application on a form prescribed and furnished by the commissioner...