Given the discussion, I figured I'd give a little detail on what went down at the legislative office building yesterday.
Below is my written testimony, but as I said in other posts, I deviated from that in order to address some insane ramblings from our pal Senator Looney and a detective in New Haven (same detective on the channel 8 piece).
First, let me give a quick recap
HB 5800 AN ACT REQUIRING REGISTRATION OF ALL FIREARMS
Would be interesting to see where this goes. Committee members seemed to have some mixed feelings. Testimony from many stated that criminals won't register their firearms. Might have sunk in a little, tough read on some.
SB 42 AN ACT CONCERNING GUN SAFETY STANDARDS FOR FIRING RANGES
I wouldn't be surprised if this passed, but using the NRA range development guide. Now, even if that is the guidelines that ends up in the final bill, I fail to understand how this would have any effect on the Blue Trail case.
HB 6185 AN ACT CREATING A GUN OFFENDER REGISTRY.
Again, ton of banter on this topic with criminals keeping data current. I made the point of how insane this is when the state already has the information on those with NCIC and various other databases (there was discussion that the towns have access to information. New Haven Police and and Senator Looney seem to think that this tool would help and cited towns with similar registries and made insane comparisons to the sex offender registry.
i countered that the towns he mentioned have increased police efforts and community involvements and to say that a registry was the sole reason does an injustice to both the communities and their increased law enforcement efforts.
I also mentioned that there is NO comparison between the sex offenders registry as the purpose is completely different. The Sex Offender Registry (SOR) is meant to keep the public informed and notify them of information they wouldn't normally have access to. I followed with the gun offender registry, the government clearly has the information.
There were plenty of other attacks on this one - it was a popular topic.
HB 5263 AN ACT AUTHORIZING RENEWAL OF STATE PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER BY MAIL.
HB 5270 AN ACT AUTHORIZING RENEWAL OF STATE PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER BY MAIL OR BY ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION.
The former minority whip was a great asset to us on this one. I met her when she got her permit and we were both rather frustrated. She had some good visuals of renewals by mail (private detective, bail enforcement agent, bondsmen and a few others). That seemed like it might sink in with them.
HB 5643 AN ACT CONCERNING THE CARRYING OF FIREARMS BY OUT-OF-STATE RESIDENTS.
There was testimony comparing us to other states. I focused more on the positive economic impact that this can have on the state. No idea how they will go on this one.
SB 547 AN ACT CONCERNING FIREARMS. To revise the applicability of the statute regulating the sale, delivery and transfer of handguns and to modify the definition of "assault weapon.
There was a bit of discussion mostly on the "select fire" portion. Seems like they might make the changes. One testimony I heard was a LEO (don't remember which agency).
SB 554 AN ACT CONCERNING THE PISTOL PERMIT APPEALS PROCESS.
I went on the details of the time from the local to the state level (in my testimony below). One rep who seems very anti-gun for some reason went on the cost to obtain a permit. I simply went with permitting fees and required training approx. $400.00. I probably should have mentioned that this is an unconstitutional barrier to people who are low income and prevents them from having access to their rights
I would've continued, but was really concerned about time. I was really surprised I was given almost three times the allotted time with the Q&A portion but didn't want to blow it.
My written below was based on a couple factors. I knew many would go on the constitution and what others have done. Rather than repeat that, I figured I'd go another route. The state is going through massive restructuring suggestions and fiscal issues. I figured I'd go on how much a lot of this would cost when much of it is already redundant.
Cheers,
Jonathan
February 10, 2011
Good afternoon members of the Public Safety and Security Committee
E. Jonathan Hardy/CT Gun Safety
Middletown, CT
Member of the Connecticut Citizens Defense League
I am here to testify on many pieces of proposed legislation, but the theme is the same. Redundancy and cost to our citizens in an already suffering economy.
I oppose:
HB 5800 AN ACT REQUIRING REGISTRATION OF ALL FIREARMS Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened: That section 29-33 of the general statutes be amended to (1) require that (A) any person who purchases a firearm register the firearm within ten days of purchase, (B) any person who purchased a firearm prior to this statute's effective date register that firearm within ten days of the effective date, (C) any person owning a firearm renew registration every five years, and (D) anyone whose registered firearm is sold, stolen or lost report such sale, theft or loss within ten days of such event; and (2) provide that the Department of Public Safety receive the registrations required by subdivision (1) of this section. Statement of Purpose: To require registration of all firearms.
There are several reasons why this proposed legislation isn’t good for Connecticut.
Pistols and revolvers are already recorded at the time of purchase. Any time the state needs to find who has purchased one of these firearms, there is a process to look up this information. A registry would not only make this process redundant and repetitious, it forces citizens with already recorded firearms purchases to “rerecord” that information with the state, and if they fail to do so, make them a criminal for an already registered firearm. This process not only is duplicates current effort, but also will cost the state a tremendous amount of money. There is not enough language yet on this bill, but it would be interesting to find out where the funding could be procured for such a registry. There is not one state or nation that has created similar registries and come anywhere near the actual forecasted costs.
There is another issue that I find particularly frightening, the ten day lost or stolen provision of the bill. If a firearm owner is on vacation, sick leave or any similar absence from their home or storage location of a firearm for an extended period of time – they may not know their firearms are yet missing. They can be rendered an instant criminal.
I fail to understand why creating a redundant process would benefit the state, especially at the financial expense involved.
SB 42 AN ACT CONCERNING GUN SAFETY STANDARDS FOR FIRING RANGES Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened: That chapter 943 of the general statutes be amended to require gun safety standards for any target range that holds a regulatory or business license for the purpose of practicing shooting at that target range. Statement of Purpose: To establish gun safety standards for all firing ranges.
So far, from the current language, I see nothing here that would make any improvements to the range systems here in the state without incurring yet another unneeded financial burden in Connecticut.
As a firearms instructor, I frequent a good number of ranges here in CT (indoor and outdoor) and they all practice very high safety standards that either meet or exceed those used at state facilities (where I practice on a regular basis). It is already in a range’s best interest to make sure the range operates safely and I cannot see why any new standards would be needed without any current major issues.
HB 6185 AN ACT CREATING A GUN OFFENDER REGISTRY. Purpose: To require that persons convicted of certain gun crimes register their names and addresses with the local police department for the municipality in which they reside.
We already have a process in place where we need a background check when we purchase a firearm. That check already verifies whether a purchaser is indeed valid. I can’t see any reason why we need yet another expensive process to create more redundancy in the current system.
SUPPORT
HB 5263 AN ACT AUTHORIZING RENEWAL OF STATE PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER BY MAIL. Purpose: To permit the holder of a state pistol permit to renew the permit by mail.
HB 5270 AN ACT AUTHORIZING RENEWAL OF STATE PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER BY MAIL OR BY ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION. Purpose: To permit the holder of a state permit to carry a pistol or revolver to renew said permit by mail or by electronic submission
These two bills can save a lot of travel, time and expense with the current system. When I went procure my permit last year, there was a wait of almost two hours, for approximately 20 people in line. This has to be costing the state tons of money in wasted revenue for a simple renewal.
HB 5643 AN ACT CONCERNING THE CARRYING OF FIREARMS BY OUT-OF-STATE RESIDENTS. Purpose: To allow an out-of-state resident who holds a license or permit to carry from another state to carry firearms in this state
This could create revenue for the state by allowing the growing firearms competition market to bring larger firearms events to CT. These events are often multi-day competition events and can bring plenty of much needed revenue to CT in the form of range fees, ammunition, food and lodging and other similar travel expenses.
SB 547 AN ACT CONCERNING FIREARMS. To revise the applicability of the statute regulating the sale, delivery and transfer of handguns and to modify the definition of "assault weapon.
SB 554 AN ACT CONCERNING THE PISTOL PERMIT APPEALS PROCESS. Purpose To set certain time limits for pistol permit
We have a large backlog for appeals. Many of these appeals are unjust denials at the local issuing authority level and are very often overturned at hearings. As a firearms instructor, I help students go through the process of acquiring their local permit (which is used to acquire a state permit). Many towns are not complying with current statues and forcing citizens to wait far in excess of statutory time limits to grant or deny a permit.
Right now, we are in the beginning of February and the earliest time for an appeal according to the Board Firearms Permit Examiners website is mid November. If you add that to the time it takes for many people going through the local process, it can take over a year and a half to get a permit.
This is clearly unacceptable.
I thank the committee for their time and am available to answer any questions at any time if needed.
Below is my written testimony, but as I said in other posts, I deviated from that in order to address some insane ramblings from our pal Senator Looney and a detective in New Haven (same detective on the channel 8 piece).
First, let me give a quick recap
HB 5800 AN ACT REQUIRING REGISTRATION OF ALL FIREARMS
Would be interesting to see where this goes. Committee members seemed to have some mixed feelings. Testimony from many stated that criminals won't register their firearms. Might have sunk in a little, tough read on some.
SB 42 AN ACT CONCERNING GUN SAFETY STANDARDS FOR FIRING RANGES
I wouldn't be surprised if this passed, but using the NRA range development guide. Now, even if that is the guidelines that ends up in the final bill, I fail to understand how this would have any effect on the Blue Trail case.
HB 6185 AN ACT CREATING A GUN OFFENDER REGISTRY.
Again, ton of banter on this topic with criminals keeping data current. I made the point of how insane this is when the state already has the information on those with NCIC and various other databases (there was discussion that the towns have access to information. New Haven Police and and Senator Looney seem to think that this tool would help and cited towns with similar registries and made insane comparisons to the sex offender registry.
i countered that the towns he mentioned have increased police efforts and community involvements and to say that a registry was the sole reason does an injustice to both the communities and their increased law enforcement efforts.
I also mentioned that there is NO comparison between the sex offenders registry as the purpose is completely different. The Sex Offender Registry (SOR) is meant to keep the public informed and notify them of information they wouldn't normally have access to. I followed with the gun offender registry, the government clearly has the information.
There were plenty of other attacks on this one - it was a popular topic.
HB 5263 AN ACT AUTHORIZING RENEWAL OF STATE PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER BY MAIL.
HB 5270 AN ACT AUTHORIZING RENEWAL OF STATE PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER BY MAIL OR BY ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION.
The former minority whip was a great asset to us on this one. I met her when she got her permit and we were both rather frustrated. She had some good visuals of renewals by mail (private detective, bail enforcement agent, bondsmen and a few others). That seemed like it might sink in with them.
HB 5643 AN ACT CONCERNING THE CARRYING OF FIREARMS BY OUT-OF-STATE RESIDENTS.
There was testimony comparing us to other states. I focused more on the positive economic impact that this can have on the state. No idea how they will go on this one.
SB 547 AN ACT CONCERNING FIREARMS. To revise the applicability of the statute regulating the sale, delivery and transfer of handguns and to modify the definition of "assault weapon.
There was a bit of discussion mostly on the "select fire" portion. Seems like they might make the changes. One testimony I heard was a LEO (don't remember which agency).
SB 554 AN ACT CONCERNING THE PISTOL PERMIT APPEALS PROCESS.
I went on the details of the time from the local to the state level (in my testimony below). One rep who seems very anti-gun for some reason went on the cost to obtain a permit. I simply went with permitting fees and required training approx. $400.00. I probably should have mentioned that this is an unconstitutional barrier to people who are low income and prevents them from having access to their rights
I would've continued, but was really concerned about time. I was really surprised I was given almost three times the allotted time with the Q&A portion but didn't want to blow it.
My written below was based on a couple factors. I knew many would go on the constitution and what others have done. Rather than repeat that, I figured I'd go another route. The state is going through massive restructuring suggestions and fiscal issues. I figured I'd go on how much a lot of this would cost when much of it is already redundant.
Cheers,
Jonathan
February 10, 2011
Good afternoon members of the Public Safety and Security Committee
E. Jonathan Hardy/CT Gun Safety
Middletown, CT
Member of the Connecticut Citizens Defense League
I am here to testify on many pieces of proposed legislation, but the theme is the same. Redundancy and cost to our citizens in an already suffering economy.
I oppose:
HB 5800 AN ACT REQUIRING REGISTRATION OF ALL FIREARMS Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened: That section 29-33 of the general statutes be amended to (1) require that (A) any person who purchases a firearm register the firearm within ten days of purchase, (B) any person who purchased a firearm prior to this statute's effective date register that firearm within ten days of the effective date, (C) any person owning a firearm renew registration every five years, and (D) anyone whose registered firearm is sold, stolen or lost report such sale, theft or loss within ten days of such event; and (2) provide that the Department of Public Safety receive the registrations required by subdivision (1) of this section. Statement of Purpose: To require registration of all firearms.
There are several reasons why this proposed legislation isn’t good for Connecticut.
Pistols and revolvers are already recorded at the time of purchase. Any time the state needs to find who has purchased one of these firearms, there is a process to look up this information. A registry would not only make this process redundant and repetitious, it forces citizens with already recorded firearms purchases to “rerecord” that information with the state, and if they fail to do so, make them a criminal for an already registered firearm. This process not only is duplicates current effort, but also will cost the state a tremendous amount of money. There is not enough language yet on this bill, but it would be interesting to find out where the funding could be procured for such a registry. There is not one state or nation that has created similar registries and come anywhere near the actual forecasted costs.
There is another issue that I find particularly frightening, the ten day lost or stolen provision of the bill. If a firearm owner is on vacation, sick leave or any similar absence from their home or storage location of a firearm for an extended period of time – they may not know their firearms are yet missing. They can be rendered an instant criminal.
I fail to understand why creating a redundant process would benefit the state, especially at the financial expense involved.
SB 42 AN ACT CONCERNING GUN SAFETY STANDARDS FOR FIRING RANGES Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened: That chapter 943 of the general statutes be amended to require gun safety standards for any target range that holds a regulatory or business license for the purpose of practicing shooting at that target range. Statement of Purpose: To establish gun safety standards for all firing ranges.
So far, from the current language, I see nothing here that would make any improvements to the range systems here in the state without incurring yet another unneeded financial burden in Connecticut.
As a firearms instructor, I frequent a good number of ranges here in CT (indoor and outdoor) and they all practice very high safety standards that either meet or exceed those used at state facilities (where I practice on a regular basis). It is already in a range’s best interest to make sure the range operates safely and I cannot see why any new standards would be needed without any current major issues.
HB 6185 AN ACT CREATING A GUN OFFENDER REGISTRY. Purpose: To require that persons convicted of certain gun crimes register their names and addresses with the local police department for the municipality in which they reside.
We already have a process in place where we need a background check when we purchase a firearm. That check already verifies whether a purchaser is indeed valid. I can’t see any reason why we need yet another expensive process to create more redundancy in the current system.
SUPPORT
HB 5263 AN ACT AUTHORIZING RENEWAL OF STATE PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER BY MAIL. Purpose: To permit the holder of a state pistol permit to renew the permit by mail.
HB 5270 AN ACT AUTHORIZING RENEWAL OF STATE PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER BY MAIL OR BY ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION. Purpose: To permit the holder of a state permit to carry a pistol or revolver to renew said permit by mail or by electronic submission
These two bills can save a lot of travel, time and expense with the current system. When I went procure my permit last year, there was a wait of almost two hours, for approximately 20 people in line. This has to be costing the state tons of money in wasted revenue for a simple renewal.
HB 5643 AN ACT CONCERNING THE CARRYING OF FIREARMS BY OUT-OF-STATE RESIDENTS. Purpose: To allow an out-of-state resident who holds a license or permit to carry from another state to carry firearms in this state
This could create revenue for the state by allowing the growing firearms competition market to bring larger firearms events to CT. These events are often multi-day competition events and can bring plenty of much needed revenue to CT in the form of range fees, ammunition, food and lodging and other similar travel expenses.
SB 547 AN ACT CONCERNING FIREARMS. To revise the applicability of the statute regulating the sale, delivery and transfer of handguns and to modify the definition of "assault weapon.
SB 554 AN ACT CONCERNING THE PISTOL PERMIT APPEALS PROCESS. Purpose To set certain time limits for pistol permit
We have a large backlog for appeals. Many of these appeals are unjust denials at the local issuing authority level and are very often overturned at hearings. As a firearms instructor, I help students go through the process of acquiring their local permit (which is used to acquire a state permit). Many towns are not complying with current statues and forcing citizens to wait far in excess of statutory time limits to grant or deny a permit.
Right now, we are in the beginning of February and the earliest time for an appeal according to the Board Firearms Permit Examiners website is mid November. If you add that to the time it takes for many people going through the local process, it can take over a year and a half to get a permit.
This is clearly unacceptable.
I thank the committee for their time and am available to answer any questions at any time if needed.