The legislature’s Judiciary Committee was inundated Monday in public testimony as more than 160 residents signed up to speak and thousands submitted written feedback on four bills intended to reduce gun violence or revise firearm regulation in Connecticut.
The proposals on the panel’s public hearing agenda ran the gamut of gun-related policies. All told, the committee heard several hours of testimony, which was ongoing by mid-day, and accepted more than 5,000 written comments both opposing and supporting the proposals.
Among the concepts was a wide-ranging bill from Gov. Ned Lamont, which, among other things, would eliminate an exemption in the state’s assault weapon’s ban applying certain semi-automatic weapons manufactured prior to 1994 when an earlier prohibition took effect.
The governor’s bill also attempts to ban weapons modified to evade prohibition under another gun law, which was passed in response to the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Another provision broadens an existing Connecticut law requiring guns to be locked up when children and other high-risk individuals are in a home. Lamont’s bill seeks to prevent gun theft by requiring safe storage of weapons regardless of a home’s occupants.
Jeremy Stein, executive director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence, spoke in support of the provision and recalled Clinton Howell, a 12 year-old Bridgeport boy who was killed during a drive-by shooting in 2018.
“He would be alive today if someone had locked up their gun,” Stein said. “The gun that was used was stolen.”
A separate proposal raised by the committee would raise the age to purchase ammunition from 18 to 21 years-old and study the feasibility of requiring pistols to be capable of microstamping, a new forensic technology used to track spent rounds back to the guns that fired them. The bill would also restrict the sale and possession of body armor.
During the hearing, a representative of the firearms industry opposed the study of microstamping technology. Jake McGuigan, managing director for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, argued the system was ineffective and that manufacturers avoided states like California, where it is required.
Rep. Steve Stafstrom, a Bridgeport Democrat who co-chairs the committee, questioned what Connecticut stood to lose by studying the issue.
“What I haven’t really heard you say is, what’s the actual risk? What’s the downside?” Stafstrom said. “Even if it effectively solves five crimes, 10 crimes, 20 crimes, for those 10% of cases where it’s not a stolen firearm. What’s the downside?”
Although the committee’s bill does not mandate microstamping, McGuigan argued that such a mandate would require manufacturers to use a flawed technology that would result in additional costs to gun consumers.
“Let’s assume you’re implementing microstamping and it’s going to cost $200 on top of the firearm, I mean, where does it end?” McGuigan said.
Another policy raised for consideration Monday came from several mayors of Connecticut cities and proposes to reduce gun violence by creating a new classification of “serious firearm offenses” and keeping repeat offenders of those crimes behind bars for longer. The bill would increase bail requirements for people with certain past firearm convictions, restrict their ability to participate in early release programs, and make it easier to revoke their parole or probation for subsequent offenses.
Waterbury Police Chief Fernando Spagnolo testified in support of the bill and told the committee that violent crime in his city had increased “exponentially” in the past year, including 280 incidents of gun fire, resulting in 108 shootings and 12 deaths.
Statistics have long indicated that prior offenders make up most perpetrators and many of the victims of gun violence. According to Spagnolo, 70% of those arrested for shootings last year in Waterbury were pending charges on a form pretrial release.
“We must start to recognize the forever lasting trauma this prevalent gun violence is having on our residents in our community,” Spagnolo said. “Many families are being torn apart by these few individuals that continue to wreak havoc and engage in senseless gun violence.”
However, some members of the Judiciary Committee — where leaders have favored policies to address the root causes of crime rather than punitive measures — are skeptical of the proposal. Sen. Gary Winfield, a New Haven Democrat who co-chairs the committee, said the new classification of serious offenses would end up applying to most gun crimes.
Meanwhile, Stafstrom, the panel’s other chair, suggested that by increasing the penalties for certain crimes, the bill may result in those crimes being prosecuted less often. Criminal justice experts point to an inverse relationship between successful prosecutions and severe punishments, he said.
“The higher the penalty is for something, the less likely it is to be prosecuted and the less likely it is to result in a conviction,” Stafstrom said. “The more you increase a penalty for something, you actually end up sort of with less actual culpability.”
A fourth bill, raised by a group of Republican lawmakers, seeks to scale back restrictions on gun owners through more than a dozen policies that range from eliminating fees related to acquiring or renewing a pistol permit and requiring the state officials to issue pistol permits to residents if they had not expressly denied the application after eight days. Other policies in the bill would ease rules on selling or transferring restricted weapons and establishing a state “castle doctrine.”
Resident Mary Forgues testified in support of the bill. During the hearing she described being attacked by a man in her home.
“I want you to imagine fighting for your life for 10 minutes,” Forgues said. “Without my gun I would have become the statistic that nobody wants to see.”
