The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
Formal Opinions
Page 27 of 42
-
The following is in response to your request of June 30, 1994, for an opinion concerning the applicability of the gun certification requirements of 1993 Conn. Pub. Acts No. 93-306, An Act Concerning Assault Weapons, to licensed firearms dealers and distributors. Specifically you ask: "Do licensed firearms dealers and distributors need to obtain a certificate of possession for all assault weapons in their possession that were 'in stock' as of October 1, 1993? Is a certificate needed with respect to assault weapons acquired after October 1, 1993?" The Act addresses "licensed gun dealers" and we assume, for the purposes of this opinion, that your questions concern these entities.
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion regarding Public Act 94-241 ("the Act") authorizing the establishment of "enterprise corridor zones" by three or more contiguous municipalities with the approval of the Commissioner of Economic Development. Businesses located within approved enterprise corridor zones receive the same tax benefits as those located in enterprise zones.
-
This is in response to your letter dated December 1, 1993, in which you request our opinion on whether the Department of Transportation's use of on-call consultants is contrary to the requirements of Sections 13b-20b through 13b-20l of the Connecticut General Statutes. http://www.cslib.org/attygenl/images/rainbow.gif
-
You have requested the opinion of this office as to whether "it would be possible for the Milford and Hartford Jai Alai to be the subject of wagering at off-track betting (OTB) facilities."
-
James A. Gasecki, Sheriffs' Advisory Board, 1994-016 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
In your letter of March 15, 1994, you indicate that in two lawsuits, Kennedy St. George v. Mak, Case No. 5:92-CV-00587(JAC), United States District Court, District of Connecticut, and Lewis v. Mak, Case No. 5:92-CV-00593(JAC), United States District Court, District of Connecticut, the Attorney General's Office has advised the High Sheriff of Fairfield County and several persons in his department that it would be inappropriate for the Attorney General's Office to continue to represent them in those cases. Consequently, on behalf of the Sheriffs' Advisory Board you have asked for legal advice on the following question: Does the Sheriff's Advisory Board have authority to appropriate funds for the defense of sheriffs, deputy sheriffs and special deputy sheriffs in lawsuits brought against them in their individual capacities after the Attorney General has determined that providing a defense would be inappropriate pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat.
-
You have requested our advice on several questions relating to the liability of the Second Injury Fund for payment of workers' compensation claims when an insurer of such claims has been determined to be insolvent. The Second Injury Fund ("the Fund") and the Connecticut Insurance Guaranty Association have asserted differing interpretations of the statutes governing such liability.
-
We are in receipt of your August 16, 1994 letter, wherein you seek our advice "[i]n anticipation of a possible freedom of information request." The anticipated request, we learned, may seek, inter alia, the addresses of state employees that you have in computer files maintained for state payroll purposes.
-
This is in response to your letter dated January 31, 1994, in which you request a formal opinion of the Attorney General concerning an issue relating to the jurisdiction of the tax review committee (hereinafter "the committee") under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-3a. Please advise me whether the tax review committee has statutory authority to consider and to waive any penalty in excess of one hundred dollars that the Commissioner of Revenue Services has determined not to waive.
-
At the close of the last Legislative session, you posed a number of questions about the Memorandum of Understanding executed by Governor Weicker and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe relating to the operation of video facsimile machines at the Foxwoods Casino on the Tribe's reservation in Ledyard.
-
This letter is in response to your joint request dated August 11, 1993, for a formal opinion concerning interior design. In particular, you have asked three questions: 1. What effect does the requirement of Conn.Gen.Stat.
-
You have requested an opinion regarding the applicability of the Freedom of Information Act ["FOIA"], Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-7 et seq., to the Connecticut Student Loan Foundation ["CSLF"]. Specifically, the issue you raised is whether the CSLF is a public agency subject to the public records and meeting requirements of the FOIA.
-
In your letter of June 16, 1994, you ask whether an employee of the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority (CRRA) may, upon election to the General Assembly, continue to hold his employment with CRRA, or be prohibited from holding the CRRA position due to the "dual job ban" set forth in either Conn. Const. Art. III,
-
We are in receipt of your letter of June 22, 1994 wherein you call our attention to P.A. 93-219, Sec. 10. In your letter you seek our advice as to what extent, if any, the provisions of this section affect the computation of discharge dates for sentences subject to this statute. Section 10 of this Act provides as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of the general statutes, any person convicted of a crime committed on or after October 1, 1994, shall be subject to supervision by personnel of the department of correction or the board of parole until the expiration of the maximum term or terms for which he was sentenced.
-
You have requested our opinion as to whether the State Insurance Purchasing Board (the "Board") has authority under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4a-20 to make payment on a premium for a surety bond purchased directly by the Treasurer.
-
John P. Burke, Department of Banking, 1995-017 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
Your department has sought our opinion on two questions relating to the interplay, if any, between Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 36a-380 and 42-202. The first question asks us: (1) Is a broker-dealer which is a member of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. or registered under CUSA [Connecticut Uniform Securities Act] a "registered broker-dealer", "authorized by law to act as an escrow agent", within the meaning of Section 42-202 of the Connecticut General Statutes? The second question was posed as follows: (2) Does Section 36-314 apply to a corporation that is appointed to act as escrow agent with regard to the money or securities received from the sale of funeral services contracts? If the answer to this question is in the affirmative: (a) Must such corporation obtain a special act of the Connecticut General Assembly in order to act as an escrow agent under Section 42-202, or is such corporation, by virtue of Section 42-202 or otherwise, "specifically empowered so to act by a general statute of this state" within the meaning of Section 36-314; and (b) Does such corporation come within the jurisdiction of both the Department of Banking and the Department of Public Health and Addiction Services?