Opinion ID: 4536769
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Comparison of the federal and state statutes

Text: The central question before us is whether the “firearms offense” defined in the INA, as codified in section 1227(a)(2)(C), and the Connecticut offense set out in section 29-35(a), concerning the public carrying of pistols and revolvers without a permit, are categorical matches. The answer to that question, in turn, depends on whether the statutes’ respective exceptions for use of antique firearms under federal and state law are coextensive. We turn to that question now.
We first examine the most glaring distinction between the two statutes: their treatment of conduct related to antique firearms that are loaded. Connecticut criminalizes unlicensed carrying and transportation of loaded antique firearms; the federal definition excludes such conduct. The Connecticut exception for “transporting” antique pistols and revolvers by its terms applies only to “unloaded” pistols and revolvers. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-35(a) (“’transporting a pistol or revolver’ means 7 transporting a pistol or revolver that is unloaded”). In contrast, section 921(a)(3) of title 18, whose definition of “firearm” the INA adopts, provides without reference to whether the firearm is loaded that “[t]he term ‘firearm’ . . . does not include an antique firearm.” The state prohibition and INA offense definition therefore do not match. In its decision, the BIA failed to make any mention of this distinction. The textual difference is fatal, however, to its decision that Williams’s Connecticut conviction is a removable offense. While we need not go further to find that the state statute is not a categorical match, we do so only to confirm our reading.
In its written opinion, the BIA focused on what in its view was the absence of a meaningful distinction between “carrying” and “transporting.” Even considering this aspect of the statute alone, however, we would hold that the state statute is categorically broader than the federal definition. The BIA read the state’s explicit exception for “transportation” of (unloaded) antique pistols or revolvers as establishing that “carrying” an antique pistol or revolver, too, was fully exempt from the statute’s general prohibition. The BIA found the distinction urged by Williams between “carrying” and “transporting” antique firearms to be “exceedingly implausible,” stating that “the respondent’s distinction between ‘transportation’ and ‘carrying’ makes no practical sense in this context,” because “it is evident that one who ‘transports’ an antique pistol must also ‘carry’ it.” CAR at 3–4. It reasoned that the exception for transporting antique firearms must be read as also exempting “carrying” such firearms: the statute may not be understood as “extending an ‘antique’ exception to one who moves about while carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit, yet as denying the exception to one who commits the lesser act of 8 standing still while doing so.” Id. at 4 (emphases omitted). We think the BIA dismissed the statute’s distinction between “carrying” and “transporting” too quickly, without giving due deference to the Connecticut legislature’s intentions. Textual analysis. As described above, the text of the Connecticut statute excludes only the “transporting” of “unloaded” antique pistols or revolvers from its general prohibition on “carrying” unpermitted pistols and revolvers “upon [one’s] person.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-35(a). The INA definition of “firearm offense,” in contrast, expressly excludes all conduct involving antique firearms. Although the state statute is not a paragon of clarity, the BIA misconstrued the statute and misunderstood Williams’s argument. First, we cannot overlook the legislature’s wording choices so readily. See United States v. Mason, 692 F.3d 178, 182 (2d Cir. 2012) (“[T]he use of different words within the same statutory context strongly suggests that different meanings were intended.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The legislature differentiated “carrying” from “transporting”: although we will leave a definitive construction of section 29-35(a) to the Connecticut courts, the statute’s framing convinces us that the legislature intended “carrying” to encompass a broader range of activity than “transporting.” The six “transporting” exceptions to the carrying prohibition focus on moving firearms from one place to another for a designated purpose. This is suggested not only by the differential word choice, but the structure of the subsection—moving from a broad general prohibition on unpermitted public “carrying,” through specific exceptions for classes of people who are discharging their public duties, and then to exceptions for “transporting” that address movement for specific purposes done under specific conditions, and, presumably, that were designed to address specific needs and risks. 9 Thus, the first sentence of the statute states the general prohibition for the “carrying” on one’s person, and outside of one’s home or place of business, of unpermitted pistols and revolvers. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-35(a). Then, the statute exempts from the prohibition several classes of people: “parole officer[s] or peace officer[s],” federal law enforcement officials, and members of the armed forces, if “carrying” a pistol or revolver in circumstances related to their public safety roles. Id. Only then does the statute delineate several exceptions related to the “transportation” of such firearms: in approximate terms, its exempts their “transportation” (1) as “merchandise”; (2) to a residence or place of business after purchase, as “originally wrapped at the time of sale” at a store; (3) for repair purposes; (4) for “competitions” or training purposes; and (5) for certain authorized testing purposes. Id.; see also State v. Lutters, 270 Conn. 198, 210, 853 A.2d 434, 441 (Conn. 2004) (“[T]he legislature has placed severe restrictions on the manner in which an unlicensed handgun may be transported in accordance with . . . one of . . . six . . . exceptions.”). The last of the six listed “transportation” exceptions refers to the transporting of an antique firearm. Thus, in prosecuting a violation of the unlicensed “carry” prohibition, the exceptions are in the nature of a defense: that the firearm was being moved outside the home or place of business for a particular authorized purpose and in a particular authorized fashion. These give us additional reasons to disagree with the BIA’s conclusion that the statute implies that Connecticut law generally allows “carrying” an antique firearm without a license. Connecticut case law. This construction, differentiating between “carrying” and “transporting,” finds support in Connecticut case law. In 1992, the Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the use of a jury instruction interpreting section 29-35. In doing so, the state court distinguished between “carrying” and “transporting.” It held that, to prove an illegal “carry[ing]” of a pistol or revolver, “there does not have to be 10 proof that the defendant physically moved or transported the pistol over space while carrying an unlicensed pistol.” State v. Hopes, 26 Conn. App. 367, 375, 602 A.2d 23, 27 (Conn. App. Ct. 1992). 2 More recently, Connecticut appellate courts have agreed, citing Hopes for the proposition that unlawful “carrying” under section 29-35(a) does not necessitate any kind of transport, and thereby confirming that “carrying” under section 29-35(a) should be read as describing a broader range of conduct. See State v. Crespo, 145 Conn. App. 547, 573–74, 76 A.3d 664, 683 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013) (“Because there is . . . no requirement that the pistol or revolver be moved from one place to another to prove that it was carried, a defendant can be shown to have carried a pistol or revolver upon his person . . . [if he] bore it upon his body for any period of time while maintaining dominion or control over it.” (citation omitted)), aff’d, 115 A.3d 447 (Conn. 2015); State v. Slade, 97 Conn. App. 404, 412–13, 905 A.2d 689, 695 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006) (“Because § 29-35(a) does not require proof that the defendant physically moved or transported the revolver[,] the inferences tending to demonstrate that the defendant cocked the revolver in the vehicle would show that the defendant carried the revolver in contravention of § 29-35(a).” (citation omitted)). The Connecticut case law thus reinforces the conclusion drawn from the text that a defendant may be prosecuted for “carrying” an unloaded firearm on his person in public without being shown to be “transporting” it from one location to another, and therefore that a person may “carry” 2In its discussion, the Hopes court used the term “asportation” apparently as interchangeable with the term “transportation.” Hopes, 26 Conn. App. at 375, 602 A.2d at 27 (“[A]sportation is not required to prove a violation of § 29-35 . . . .”). Black’s Law Dictionary defines “asportation” as “[t]he act of carrying away or removing (property or a person),”and advises that it is “a necessary element of larceny.” Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). The Hopes court did not dwell on the distinction, however, instead stressing only that proof that the defendant “moved or transported” the pistol or revolver is not required. Hopes, 26 Conn. App. at 375, 602 A.2d at 27. 11 an unloaded antique firearm unlawfully, notwithstanding the “transportation” exception. The Connecticut Supreme Court appears to endorse this restricted view of the exception as well. In a 2004 decision, it described the statute’s listed exceptions for “transporting” as “narrowly circumscribed,” reinforcing our conclusion that the exception for “transporting an antique pistol or revolver” should not be read to swallow the generic prohibition. Lutters, 270 Conn. at 210, 853 A.2d at 441 (internal quotation marks omitted). In Lutters, that court wrote: These six limited [“transporting”] exceptions to § 29–35’s general prohibition of the possession of a handgun without a permit outside of a dwelling house or place of business represent the legislature’s recognition that, on occasion, it may be necessary to transport an unlicensed handgun from a dwelling house or place of business to another location for a specific and limited purpose, including, for example, the repair of the handgun. The narrowly circumscribed nature of these exceptions, however, is indicative of the overriding purpose of § 29–35(a), namely, to curtail the possession of unlicensed handguns in the public arena. Id. The court distinguished “the possession of unlicensed handguns in the public arena,” i.e., the “carrying” of pistols or revolvers (“handguns”), on the one hand, from the act of “transport[ing] an unlicensed handgun from a dwelling house or place of business to another location.” Id. 1999 revision of the Connecticut statute. Finally, the particulars of a significant overhaul of section 29-35(a) made by the Connecticut General Assembly in 1999 also confirm our reading of the text. Before 1999, the statute—then much abbreviated in many respects—included a general exception to its prohibition on unpermitted carrying in public for persons “carrying” an antique pistol or revolver, and (like the current 12 federal statute) placed no limitations on that exception with regard to transporting or other conduct. 3 In 1999, however, the General Assembly revamped the statute. It replaced “carrying” with “transporting” in its statement of the antique firearm exception and added the limiting definition of “transporting”—restricting it to unloaded firearms—that we have focused on and that has led to some confusion. 1999 Conn. Legis. Serv. P.A. 99212 (S.S.B. 1166). The 1999 law also changed “carrying” to “transporting” for the five other “transportation” exceptions that the Lutters court recognized and called “narrowly circumscribed.” Lutters, 270 Conn. at 210, 853 A.2d at 441. The 1999 amendment thus strongly suggests that the legislature intended to jettison the prior blanket exception for carrying antique pistols or revolvers in favor of a narrower version. The suggestion is further strengthened by the state legislature’s enactment, in the same overhaul bill, of a provision codified at section 29-33 regarding the “Sale, delivery or transfer of pistols and revolvers.” That section disallows, among other acts, the transfer of pistols or revolvers to certain classes of persons, such as felons. See generally Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-33; 1999 Conn. Legis. Serv. P.A. 99-212 (S.S.B. 1166). Subsection (f) of that statute (as codified) expressly establishes a blanket exception for such transactions insofar as they would otherwise apply to antiques: “The provisions of this section shall not apply to antique pistols or revolvers.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-33(f). The 1999 enactment thus demonstrates a legislative intent to differentiate between that conduct (sale, delivery, and transfer of pistols and revolvers) as to which it 3Before the 1999 amendment, the statute provided that it did not apply to “any person carrying an antique pistol or revolver, as defined in section 29-33.” 1988 Conn. Legis. Serv. P.A. 88-128, § 1. 13 allowed a wholesale exception with respect to antique firearms, and that conduct as to which it did not (“carrying” unpermitted pistols and revolvers). In short, the Connecticut General Assembly took a deliberate step in 1999 when it declined to adopt in section 29-35(a) an across-the-board “carry” exception for antique pistols and revolvers. We need not adopt precise definitions of the terms to conclude that the word “carrying” as used in the Connecticut law encompasses a larger range of conduct than does “transporting.” C. Additional requirements for transportation by motor vehicle The Connecticut statute also imposes locational requirements that must be met for the exception regarding “transporting” pistols or revolvers in a motor vehicle to apply. At the threshold, as discussed above, the statute’s several exceptions for “transporting a pistol or revolver” do not reach conduct involving loaded pistols or revolvers, whether antique or otherwise: as the section instructs, “‘transporting a pistol or revolver’ means transporting a pistol or revolver that is unloaded.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-35(a) (emphasis added). But in addition, the statute imposes other, independent requirements (such as where in the vehicle the firearm must be placed) if the unpermitted firearm is being “transported” in a motor vehicle: “transporting a pistol or revolver” means transporting a pistol or revolver that is unloaded and, if such pistol or revolver is being transported in a motor vehicle, is not readily accessible or directly accessible from the passenger compartment of the vehicle or, if such pistol or revolver is being transported in a motor vehicle that does not have a compartment separate from the passenger compartment, such pistol or revolver shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console. 14 Id. If those conditions are not met, the transportation is not exempt; rather, it amounts to unpermitted carrying—including of an unloaded antique pistol or revolver—and may be subject to prosecution.