Connecticut Preparedness

[Rich_B]

Midnight last night marked the end of this legislative session.

Here is how we fared:

SB 64

A bill that would have lowered the allowable BAC while carrying a loaded firearm.

Position: Opposed.
Status: Dead.



SB 196

A bill that eliminates the redundant bound book requirement for FFLs.

Position: Supported.
Status: In Concurrence.



HB 5245

An ill-conceived but well-intentioned bill that sought to establish an explicit criteria for a pistol permit application. Unfortunately, it also changed the requirements to mandate fingerprinting which is not a requirement currently.

Position: Opposed (support withdrawn).
Status: Dead.



HB 5220

A truly terrible piece of potential legislation that sought to ban air guns, toy guns, air soft guns, etc from all private and public property within 1500 ft of school properties. This bill was fought heavily against by Connecticut Carry, and is still being investigated. Stay tuned for some interesting developments on this bill and the shenanigans behind the scenes.

Position: Opposed.
Status: Dead.



HB 5550

To provide federal probation officers with access to the state firearm database to determine whether persons serving a period of federal probation possess a permit to carry a firearm.

Position: Opposed.
Status: On Consent Calendar / In Concurrence.




Overall, I would say we had pretty good fortune this legislative session. We avoided some landmines that would have impacted our rights and our permitting process. We must stay vigilant. There was a lot that could have gone very wrong this session. Next session could be worse.

As always our session information can be found here: http://ctcarry.com/Legislative/Session2012

[Jason]

Thank you to those who took action and made efforts to protect our rights.

Also, thanks Rich for posting the updates. I've been traveling a lot lately and it's been tough to follow some of the goings-on. Your posts have been a good source of information.

[Mopar]

Interesting that CTCarry and the antigun Connecticut Against Gun Violence (CAGV) took the same position on a lot of these bills........

[nvisn]

Does seem curious.

[LTB45]

Interesting that CTCarry and the antigun Connecticut Against Gun Violence (CAGV) took the same position on a lot of these bills........

How could that possibly be????
An anti gun group and a SUPPOSED pro gun group agreeing on gun bills???
SAY IT AINT SO!!

[hayes1966]

I am curious about this one.

HB 5245

An ill-conceived but well-intentioned bill that sought to establish an explicit criteria for a pistol permit application. Unfortunately, it also changed the requirements to mandate fingerprinting which is not a requirement currently.

Position: Opposed (support withdrawn).
Status: Dead.

Currently you have to get your prints done for the background check so what was the issue?

[LTB45]

Currently you have to get your prints done for the background check so what was the issue?

In very RARE cases, a person that knows the law can actually get the Issuing Authority to realize that if prints have been taken in the past, that those can be used.

Something that would be and is lost on a newbie that wants to get his permit with as little hassle as possible.


Again I say RARE cases.

[Rich_B]

Currently you have to get your prints done for the background check so what was the issue?

There is currently no requirement that a person supply fingerprints with their application. The CGS allows for "other positive form of identification" to be utilized.

Hell, for the temp to be issued, there is no need even for either of the background checks to be done. It is only necessary for you to 'submit' to them. Technically, temp permits can be issued same day if an issuing authority is so inclined. We certainly see them issuing without waiting for background checks regularly.

National and state checks do not require fingerprinting. The state background is done by name and DOB for instance. An all the fingerprints do anyway is provide an easy and automated way to establish someone's ID.

I know of several permit holders and applicants that did not submit fingerprints.

Connecticut Carry will continue to work against any legislation that restricts our rights. Especially when that legislation performs no other useful purpose.

[nvisn]

So I guess moving in the right direction isn't good enough?