CT · jury_instructions
Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 2.9-3
Inoperability of Firearm
The defendant has raised the affirmative defense that the <insert type of firearm> was not a
weapon from which a shot could be discharged. In other words, the <insert type of firearm>
was inoperable.1
<See Affirmative Defense, Instruction 2.9-1.>
1 On the use of the term “inoperable,” see State v. Darryl W., 303 Conn. 353, 357 n.5.
Provenance
- Source
- jud.ct.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-23
- Edition
- 2026-08-23
- Content hash
989805aed433ed28fd76ffbaff5d7b507f8b3208bbf7235f4ef0d9afaaa7c23f
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.