Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 8.2-19

The defendant is charged [in count__] with unlawfully carrying a pistol or revolver without a

permit. The statute defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:

no person shall carry any pistol or revolver upon (his/her) person, except when such

person is within (his/her) dwelling house, on land leased or owned by (him/her) or

within the place of business of such person, without a permit to carry the pistol or

revolver.

For you to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the state must prove the following elements

beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Carried pistol or revolver

The first element is that the defendant carried a pistol or revolver upon (his/her) person. The

term “pistol or revolver” means any firearm having a barrel less than twelve inches.

1 A pistol or

revolver is “carried” if it is on one’s person and within the person’s control or dominion,

meaning that the person must be aware of its presence.2

Element 2 - Outside home, land or place of business

The second element is that the defendant was not within (his/her) dwelling, on land that (he/she)

leased or owned or within the place of business of the defendant. In other words, the defendant

had a pistol or revolver on (his/her) person in a public place.

Element 3 - Without a permit

The third element is that the defendant did not have a permit5 issued by the state to carry a pistol

or revolver in public.

Conclusion

In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) the defendant carried a pistol

or revolver, 2) (he/she) was outside (his/her) dwelling, off of (his/her) land and outside (his/her)

place of business, and 3) (he/she) did not have a permit for it.

If you unanimously find that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements

of the crime of carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit, then you shall find the defendant

guilty. On the other hand, if you unanimously find that the state has failed to prove beyond a

reasonable doubt any of the elements, you shall then find the defendant not guilty.

1 Operability of the pistol or revolver is not a requirement of this offense. See glossary entry for

pistol or revolver.

2 Proof of asportation of the pistol or revolver is not necessary. State v. Hopes, 26 Conn. App.

367, 374-75, cert. denied, 221 Conn. 915 (1992). “Because there is no temporal requirement in §

29-35 . . . and 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, within the meaning of the statute, by evidence proving, inter alia, that he grasped or

held it in his hands, arms or clothing or otherwise bore it upon his body for any period of time

while maintaining dominion or control over it.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v.

Jones, 210 Conn. App. 249, 269, cert. denied, 343 Conn. 901 (2022).

3 See State v. Hopes, supra, 26 Conn. App. 375 (statute is “concerned with prohibiting the use of

unlicensed weapons in public”). The “place of business” exception means only premises that

contain a business in which the defendant has a proprietary or possessory interest, not a location

at which the defendant is merely an employee. State v. Vickers, 260 Conn. 219, 221-22 (2002).

It is also limited to fixed places of business only and does not encompass taxicabs. State v.

Lutters, 270 Conn. 198, 208 (2004). A stairway and landing leading to the defendant’s

apartment was not in his exclusive control and thus did not come within the dwelling exception.

State v. Sealy, 208 Conn. 689, 694 (1988).

4 See State v. Beauton, 170 Conn. 234, 241 (1976) (“[T]he words of the statute ‘for which a

proper permit has not been issued as provided in Sec. 29-28’ appear as part of the enacting or

prohibition clause of the statute. It is not an exception but a descriptive negative . . . .”

[Footnote omitted.]).

5 This could be either a municipal license or a state license. In 2001, the system of issuing

municipal permits was replaced with a statewide system. See Public Acts 2001, No. 01-130.