3/26 Final; Judiciary Committee
DEADLINE: H. B. No. 5742 (RAISED)
AN ACT CONCERNING THE POSSESSION OR USE OF CERTAIN FIREARMS FOR PURPOSES
OTHER THAN HUNTING OR SELF-DEFENSE [.50 Cal./Registration].
Not
on Agenda/NOT Addressed- DEAD!!
Remember NO bill is truly DEAD until the
Session ends!
*****
JUDICIARY Committee Bill DEADLINE is MONDAY,
MARCH 25, 2002. All bills that are to
survive the Committee HAVE to be voted upon by 5pm. A committee meeting
will begin @ 10AM. H. B. No. 5742 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING THE
POSSESSION OR USE OF CERTAIN FIREARMS FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN HUNTING OR
SELF-DEFENSE, which has effectively turned into a .50 Cal. bill as a
forerunner to other "undesirable" firearms and complete
registration, possibly leading to confiscation (California SKS and NYC
long guns, Austrailia, Great Britain), will undoubtedly be considered.
Sen
Jepsen testified Monday and made it clear he wanted this bill as a
"public safety" effort and said he expected .50 Cal. to be first
on the list of those guns not suitable for hunting or self-defense. The
Chiefs of Police testified they would be happy with any bill that
increased Registration so they could identify ownership before entering a
home. The State Police didn't testify but submitted written testimony
OPPOSED to the bill in that they were not capable of determining guns
that were not suitable for hunting and were not happy with additional
responsibilities. No anti-gun lobbyists/public testified.
Reasons to OPPOSE the bill
(from a member):
The bill is: "to
require the Department of Public Safety to annually determine if there
are firearms that are not suitable for hunting or self-defense and
whose possession and use should be treated like the possession and use
of machine guns."
Reasons I am opposed to this bill
are:
1. This bill states identification
of "firearms that are not suitable for hunting or
self-defense". Does this mean that target or collectable antique
firearms should should be treated as machine guns?
2. What guns cannot be used for
hunting or self-defense?
3. What is the reason for
registering these guns?
4. This bill states guns "that
are not suitable principally for use in hunting or self-defense".
Specifically what criteria would be used to determine what "not
suitable principally" is? This is a very broad definition that can
include virtually all guns.
5. Why is Judiciary raising this
gun bill? Isn't this the domain of the Public Safety Committee?
6. What supporting data exists to
indicate a need for this bill?
7. What is the State Police position on this
bill? They will have to implement it! How much real law enforcement
time will be lost?
This bill appears to have no
purpose other than to cripple the sport of target shooting and serve
an anti-gun agenda.
Without substantial input from YOU, We expect the
bill will be JF'd to the Floor with modifications, then
will be referred to Public Safety Committee. There will be no Public
Hearing in Public Safety - members will vote during a committee meeting
after it is referred to them from the floor. Your calls/e-mail can
stop this bill now in Judiciary!
****
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Public Hearing
Results
MONDAY, MARCH 18, 2002
Arriving at 8:30 AM ("Sign-up for the hearing will begin at 9: 30
A. M.") I found I was #60 on the list. Several other sportsmen came
in after me. Those courageous souls that were left at 10PM finally got
to testify on H. B. No. 5742 and
closed the hearing at 11PM. Sen Jepsen testified early, made it clear he
wanted this bill as a public safety effort and said he expected .50 Cal. to
be first on the list of those guns not suitable for hunting or self-defense.
The Chiefs of Police testified they would be happy with any bill that
increased Registration so they could identify ownership before entering a
home. The State Police didn't testify but submitted written testimony
OPPOSED to the bill in that they were not capable of determining guns
that were not suitable for hunting. No anti-gun lobbyists/public testified.
Evidently we're sending a lot of e-mails and they're being read. Lawlor in
response to my testimony concerning "Committee of Cognizance" said
he had received many. Our testimony was positive (average length about 20
minutes) and I felt Lawlor was on the defensive, particularly when he
quizzed us not on the relevance of the bill, but digressed into "would
we allow hand grenades?" There were only three legislators left
when we testified (Lawlor, Sen. Coleman, & Rep. Green (Hartford)).
Coleman asked no questions - Green who does not like guns, asked reasoned
questions. We expect the bill will be JF'd to the Floor with
modifications, then will be referred to Public Safety Committee.
There will be no Public Hearing in Public Safety - members will vote during
a committee meeting. It was a good day, but long. We urge you to follow-up
with your concerns on this bill. When this bill gets referred to Public
Safety we will notify you to communicate with committee members.
****
3/14: Lots of e-mail on this one!! And, gunowners
ARE reading Sec (i) right! This is most likely the .50 Cal. bill (Lawlor/Jepsen)
- EXPANDED. Their initial idea
was to treat .50 Cal. like full-auto requiring REGISTRATION, thereby
increasing gunowner administration to reduce ownership/use. This bill
accomplishes that if you believe that firearms have uses ONLY for Hunting or
Self-Defense.
The first question to be asked is how
can Judiciary raise ANY gun bill? The joint rules state:
(6) A committee on JUDICIARY which shall
have cognizance of all matters relating to courts, judicial procedures,
criminal law, probate courts, probation, parole, wills, estates, adoption,
divorce, bankruptcy, escheat, law libraries, deeds, mortgages, conveyancing,
preservation of land records and other public documents, the law of business
organizations, uniform laws, validations, authorizations to sue and to appeal,
claims against the state, all judicial nominations, all nominations of
workers' compensation commissioners, and all matters relating to the Judicial
Department, the Department of Correction and to the commission on Human Rights
and Opportunities; all bills carrying civil penalties which exceed the sum of,
or which may exceed in the aggregate, five thousand dollars; and all bills
carrying criminal penalties, other than infractions, favorably reported by any
other committee shall be referred to said committee, provided the committee's
consideration shall be limited to the criminal penalties established in such
bills and shall not extend to their substantive provisions or purpose.
[Nowhere does it mention firearms or police functions - now see Public
Safety:]
(16) A committee on PUBLIC SAFETY which
shall have cognizance of all matters relating to the Department of Public
Safety, including state police, state organized task force on crime, municipal
police training, fire marshals, the fire safety code and the state building
code, civil preparedness, games of chance and legalized gambling, and military
and veterans' affairs, except veterans' pensions.
[Public Safety is clearly the Committee of Cognizance and Judiciary
has NO BUSINESS raising gun bills or those that pertain to the State Police
(responsible for all gun activity in the state)].
This bill, along with other gun bills raised by Judiciary, is an
insult and usurpation of authority of the Public Safety Committee. Please
convey that to Sen. Penn and Rep. Dargan, Chairmen of Public Safety.
The second question is WHAT guns cannot be
used for self-defense or hunting? "Not suitable principally" is the
key phrase - broad enough to encompass anything. What that means is subjective
analysis, with a mandatory report - which politically must include something. [Example:
.50 Cal; Military style semi-automatics, target guns; Blank pistols
(?)] Will they include antiques; collectables ; specialty firearms not
suitable principally for use in hunting or self-defense?
What is the purpose for registering these guns? What will be
the cost and State Police manpower diversion to something so asinine? How will
this be promoted: Crime control?; Terrorist control?; Danger to society?
The probability is this bill will change dramatically after the public
hearing into something different, and probably more onerous. This is standard
procedure for the proponents. If they follow their standard scheme, we should
also expect a quickly scheduled Public Hearing -
possibly next Monday so you have minimal time to communicate. Do it now!
(i) The Department of Public Safety shall annually determine whether there
are firearms other than machine guns that are not suitable principally for use
in hunting or self-defense and whose possession or use should be subject to
the provisions of this section. Not later than January 15, 2003, and annually
thereafter, the department shall report its findings and recommendations to
the joint standing committee of the General Assembly on judiciary in
accordance with the provisions of section 11-4a.
