2015 Legislation

This is the full list of all gun bills CCDL is tracking for the 2015 Connecticut Legislative Session.
Last updated 1/24/2015


Proposed H.B. No. 5146 REP. SAMPSON, 80th DIST. ‘AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CARRYING OF A HANDGUN FOR SELF-DEFENSE IN STATE PARKS AND FORESTS’, to allow persons to carry handguns in state parks and state forests for the purpose of self-defense.

Proposed H.B. No. 5196 REP. SAMPSON, 80th DIST. ‘AN ACT REPEALING CERTAIN GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION’, to repeal gun control legislation enacted in 2013.

Proposed H.B. No. 5200 REP. SAMPSON, 80th DIST. ‘AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEFENSE OF A PERSON’S HOME, MOTOR VEHICLE OR BUSINESS’, to establish a rebuttable presumption in a self-defense claim that, when a person believes it necessary to use deadly force to repel an intruder, such belief is a reasonable belief.

Proposed H.B. No. 5222 REP. FLOREN, 149th DIST. ‘AN ACT CONCERNING ELIGIBILITY FOR A PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER’, to provide that any applicant for a state or temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver be disqualified from receiving such permit if such applicant has been convicted of a criminal offense in another state or subdivision of the United States, the essential elements of which are the same as a disqualifying criminal offense for such permit under section 29-28 of the general statutes.

Proposed H.B. No. 5223 REP. SAMPSON, 80th DIST. ‘AN ACT CONCERNING FIREARMS DURING A CIVIL PREPAREDNESS EMERGENCY’, to prohibit the Governor or any municipality from restricting lawful possession of a firearm or ammunition during a civil preparedness emergency.

Proposed H.B. No. 5224 REP. DUBITSKY, 47th DIST. ‘AN ACT CONCERNING FIREARM PERMIT AND CERTIFICATE RECIPROCITY’, to secure firearm permit or certificate reciprocity between Connecticut and other states that have substantially similar standards for carrying a concealed firearm.

Proposed H.B. No. 5225 REP. SAMPSON, 80th DIST. ‘AN ACT CONCERING THE APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR A TEMPORARY STATE PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER’, to specify uniform criteria for an application for a temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver.

Proposed H.B. No. 5295 REP. SAMPSON, 80th DIST. ‘AN ACT ESTABLISHING A TAX CREDIT UNDER THE PERSONAL INCOME TAX FOR THE PURCHASE OF GUN SAFES’, to establish a nonrefundable personal income tax credit of up to one hundred fifty dollars for the purchase of gun safes for personal use.

Proposed S.B. No. 56 SEN. WITKOS, 8th DIST. ‘AN ACT CONCERNING COURT AUTHORITY TO TEMPORARILY ORDER THAT A PERSON TRANSFER HIS OR HER FIREARMS UPON THE ISSUANCE OF A RESTRAINING ORDER, CIVIL PROTECTION ORDER OR FAMILY VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE ORDER AGAINST SUCH PERSON’, to provide a court with the authority to enter an order concerning a respondent’s temporary transfer of firearms upon the issuance of a restraining order, civil protection order or family violence protective order against such respondent.

Proposed H.B. No. 5381 REP. SAMPSON, 80th DIST. ‘AN ACT REMOVING VOLUNTARY ADMISSION TO A HOSPITAL FOR PSYCHIATRIC DISABILITIES AS A REASON TO DENY A FIREARM PERMIT OR CERTIFICATE’, to encourage a person to voluntarily admit himself or herself to a hospital for psychiatric disabilities by not disqualifying such person from receiving a firearm permit or certificate based solely on such voluntary admission.

Proposed S.B. No. 75 SEN. CHAPIN, 30th DIST.; REP. SMITH, 108th DIST. ‘AN ACT REQUIRING FIREARM SAFETY COURSES TO BE CONDUCTED AND ATTENDED IN PERSON’, to require that any applicant for a firearm permit receive hands-on practice in the use of firearms.

Proposed S.B. No. 78 SEN. GUGLIELMO, 35th DIST. ‘AN ACT PROVIDING FUNDING FOR THE STATE-WIDE FIREARMS TRAFFICKING TASK FORCE’, to provide funding to the state-wide firearms trafficking task force to reduce the number of illegal guns on the streets.

Proposed H.B. No. 5534 REP. MULLIGAN, 55th DIST. ‘AN ACT ESTABLISHING AN ONLINE RENEWAL PROCESS FOR FIREARM PERMITS AND CERTIFICATES’, to establish an online renewal process for firearm permits and ammunition certificates.

Proposed H.B. No. 5641 REP. YACCARINO, 87th DIST. ‘AN ACT WAIVING FIREARM TRAINING COURSE REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN VETERANS’, to allow for waiver of certain gun safety courses for veterans.

Proposed S.B. No. 149 SEN. LINARES, 33rd DIST. ‘AN ACT CONCERNING THE REQUIREMENT FOR AN AMMUNITION OR GUN PERMIT FOR THE PURCHASE OF SHOTGUN SHELLS’, to facilitate the purchase of shotgun shells by hunters.

Proposed H.B. No. 5695 REP. CASE, 63rd DIST. ‘AN ACT PROHIBITING THE USE OF FIREARMS TO SHOOT OR KILL A DOMESTIC ANIMAL ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ABSENT THE NEED FOR SELF DEFENSE’, to prohibit the use of firearms on private property to kill domestic animals.


Proposed H.B. No. 6199 REP. ORANGE, 48th DIST. ‘AN ACT CONCERNING ACCESS TO THE STATE-WIDE DATABASE BY PAROLE OFFICERS’, to grant parole officers access to the state-wide firearms database.

Proposed H.B. No. 6301 REP. CARTER, 2nd DIST. ‘AN ACT CREATING A DATABASE OF INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE PROHIBITED FROM PURCHASING OR POSSESSING A FIREARM DUE TO PSYCHIATRIC OR PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDER’, to protect the public by creating a system that identifies individuals who should not be permitted to possess or purchase firearms due to psychiatric or psychological disorder.

Proposed H.B. No. 6302 REP. CARTER, 2nd DIST.; SEN. HWANG, 28th DIST. ‘AN ACT REQUIRING THE SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS’, to require the safe storage of firearms.

Proposed H.B. No. 6306 REP. FRANCE, 42nd DIST. ‘AN ACT CONCERNING THE FIREARM PERMIT APPEALS PROCESS’, to limit the time frame during which firearm permit appeals must be heard by the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners.

roposed H.B. No. 6493 REP. CARPINO, 32nd DIST. ‘AN ACT CONCERNING BACKGROUND CHECKS’, to expand background checks in Connecticut to include a nation-wide background check.

Proposed H.B. No. 6495 REP. FRANCE, 42nd DIST. ‘AN ACT CONCERNING REINSTATEMENT OF FIREARMS PERMITS’, to permit a person whose firearms permit was wrongfully revoked to have such permit reinstated without having to go through an additional administrative appeals process.

Proposed H.B. No. 6496 REP. MINER, 66th DIST. ‘AN ACT CONCERNING THE SALE OF FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION TO OUT-OF-STATE PURCHASERS’, to allow for the sale of firearms and ammunition to out-of-state purchasers by providing reciprocity of firearm credentials between Connecticut and other states that have substantially similar or higher standards for carrying a firearm and purchasing ammunition.

Proposed H.B. No. 6497 REP. MINER, 66th DIST. ‘AN ACT CONCERNING THE REGISTRATION OF ASSAULT WEAPONS AND POSSESSION OF LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINES BY PERSONS WHO MOVE INTO CONNECTICUT’, to allow any person who moves into Connecticut to register an assault weapon or declare possession of a large capacity magazine.

Proposed S.B. No. 645 SEN. LOONEY, 11th DIST. ‘AN ACT CONCERNING DEFINITIONS OF “DEADLY WEAPON” AND “DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT”‘, to clarify the statutes concerning definitions and classifications of weapons.

Proposed S.B. No. 650 SEN. LOONEY, 11th DIST.; SEN. DUFF, 25th DIST.; SEN. BYE, 5th DIST.; SEN. BARTOLOMEO, 13th DIST.; SEN. CASSANO, 4th DIST.; SEN. COLEMAN, 2nd DIST.; SEN. CRISCO, 17th DIST.; SEN. KENNEDY, 12th DIST.; SEN. FLEXER, 29th DIST.; SEN. LARSON, 3rd DIST.; SEN. WINFIELD, 10th DIST. ‘AN ACT CONCERNING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS’, to provide greater protection to applicants who are granted temporary restraining orders by Connecticut courts.

Proposed H.B. No. 6581 REP. MINER, 66th DIST. ‘AN ACT REQUIRING THE ADOPTION OF FIREARM REGULATIONS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND PUBLIC PROTECTION’, to require the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection to abide by the regulatory review process to implement gun control policies.

Proposed H.B. No. 6582 REP. MINER, 66th DIST. ‘AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEADLINE FOR REGISTERING AN ASSAULT WEAPON AND DECLARING POSSESSION OF A LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINE’, to extend the deadline for registering an assault weapon and declaring possession of a large capacity magazine.

Proposed S.B. No. 801 SEN. KISSEL, 7th DIST. ‘AN ACT PROHIBITING LOCAL REGULATION OF FIREARMS’, to prevent gun control by municipalities.

64 thoughts on “2015 Legislation

  1. Pingback: And They’re Off! | CCDL Blog

  2. So it looks like Rep Fritz wants to have all firearms removed from the residence of a person who is under a restraining order. On the surface this doesn’t look to bad.
    Too bad it really will mean removing firearms from ones possession.

  3. Pingback: Proposed Gun Bills For 1/9/2015 | CCDL Blog

  4. Domestic violence is unacceptable. To this bill I would add in addition to guns the following: Knives (all kitchen knives including the butter knife); Forks, all forks and especially the ones used on Thanksgiving; spoons, the metal handle can be used as a weapon; Screw drivers; box cutters; finger nail files; finger nail cutters; all make up (may contain poison used in food); hair curlers(can take out an eye); hair irons; irons for clothing(ever get hit by a flying iron?); cast iron fry pans and pots; all cooking pots and fry pans; all non-paper dishes; rat poison; any and all pest control products and anti-freeze. To do less and claim protection from domestic violence would be hypocritical.
    In other words, if TSA does not allow it on an aircraft, it should not be allowed in a home with domestic violence or one with a “restraining order”.

    • Well it looks like we forgot to include pillows, blankets, wire and rope that could be used to strangle and smother. And how about eliminating sinks, bath tubs and toilets for their drowning potential. We should also think about eliminating electricity, gas and water supplies as potential dangers.

  5. H.B. 5196 a law repealing Governor Malloy’s 2013 gun bill should be supported. His gun bill does not contain one item that would have prevented another Sandy Hook. Malloy’s Law is just another Michael Bloomberg Law to take guns away from legal gun owners and to make criminals out of law abiding citizens. Malloy’s Law is morally wrong.

  6. H.B. 5223. Pass this law. Anyone remember Louisiana and Hurricane Katrina? Rouge Law Enforcement routinely confiscated all weapons including hunting rifles and shot guns in the guise of “public safety”. Home owners and businesses could no longer protect themselves, their families or their property from looters and acts of violence against themselves or families. Anyone remember that? It made national news.

      • We need to let our law makers know what a screwed up job they are doing and make the law makers accountable. You lose your guns, the individual law makers who voted for that law pay. It’s only fair.

      • The court required people to show proof of ownership .. like receipts etc…most could not. Who saves those things? Why did they HANDED their guns to the cops instead of shooting them in the head….

        • If the first Amendment of the Constitution grants me the freedom of Speech and Religion, and it is my choice whether or not I want to A: Practice that right B: Don’t disclose what religion I am to anyone. Why should I disclose to what kinds of firearms I own? Why should I even show the proof of ownership?

  7. H.B. 5146. Ever get mugged or raped in a State Forest or Park? There are no police around to protect you or your loved ones. Ever get kidnapped or have a family member held for ransom? Can’t happen you say? It happened with the Petit Family in their own home in Cheshire, Connecticut. Anyone remember that? Three women were murdered and violated.

  8. Richard- You forgot a lot of sporting equipment, like baseball bats, golf clubs (CLUBS!), gardening tools, tools in general, etc. And take off all of the table and chair legs. Also remove any walls- heads can be rammed into them. Better di something about fists, and while you are at it, gravity. Damn gravity has given me a lot of trouble over the years.

  9. H.B. 5224. We allow other drivers to drive in Connecticut; right? Other states allow us to drive in their state. We need a “common sense” law here in Connecticut that will allow responsible gun owners an opportunity to protect themselves and their loved ones. It’s just “common sense”. It should not even have to be a law.

    • We just need to say it like they do:

      Look folks, certainly we need to add in anything that kills more people per year than “assault weapons”. As stated on FBI.gov . It’s only “Common sense” legislation, For the protection of our citizens. 98% of all democrats agree with common sense legislation so there’s no way it can’t be included.

      • Jeff: Here in New England, New York and California, “Common Sense” has become a very “uncommon virtue”. If just one member of the Petit Family had a gun and was not afraid to use it in self defense, maybe, just maybe, those three Petit Women from Cheshire, Connecticut would still be alive. The fact that Dr. Petit escaped with his life was a miracle. They would have killed him also.

        Sometimes folks do or believe in behavior or action that will keep them safe. The reason Obama or Biden do not need to personally have a gun for protection is because they are surrounded 24/7 by trained professionals with actual military grade assault weapons. You and I are not allowed that same protection. Neither was the Petit Family.

        Some months prior to the Petit Family Tragedy, an elderly couple was found shot to death in their West Hartford Home. Their cars and valuables had been stolen. They had no guns.
        The two thugs were, after months of diligent investigation, caught. These two elderly people were killed because the “thugs” had prior records and did not want to be identified and sent back to prison. Self defense is not a privilege. It’s a basic human right.

        Anyone watch the History Channel’s “Revolutionary War”? The southern plantation owners refused to arm their slaves to fight against the British because the owners felt the guns would be used against them. The revolution against the British could have been won much, much sooner if the thirty to forty thousand slaves of the south were turned into soldiers. “Gun control” is not about guns. It’s about “control”.

  10. Pingback: Proposed Bills for January 13 | CCDL Blog

  11. Pingback: Proposed Gun Bills For January 14th | CCDL Blog

  12. these are all proposed bills (all proposed bills are due on friday the 16th) – these will be dealt with behind closed doors in secret. I support not finding anyone guilty of any crime until all gun laws are repealed.

  13. Pingback: New Proposed Bills for January 15 | CCDL Blog

  14. “Dealt with behind closed doors and in secret”? Sounds like a Malloy Ploy. I am a democrat and I detest this governor. I did not vote for him the last time and I tried to persuade others to do the same. This governor is making exactly the same political moves made by a government official in Germany prior to WWII. Many of you would recognize the name: Adolf Hitler. No joke and no exaggeration. Read your history.

  15. My Senator has proposed S.B. 78, Trafficking Task Force, one million to go into this fund. This is funding to specifically take guns away from criminals and gang members. My senator is NRA. Malloy eliminated spending in this area. That prompted those in the city to vote for him because he “lied” to them.

  16. How do the rest of you feel about S.B.78? Unless the gun grabbers adulterate it and make it into something it was never intended to be, I strongly support it. Senator Tony Guglielmo is NRA and a good guy.

    • Its all BS. The real question is, if you already pursue criminals who you know or are highly suspect of having firearms illegally, then why do we need another program and more money to do the same job?

      How many more criminals will be made of ordinarily upstanding citizens from abuse of another bureaucratic program with no strenuous oversight?

      This should not even be considered until the rights of the citizenry is fully recognized and respected without an undue political or monetary liability. We recognize that it is common practice to prosecute innocent people through the pocket book in attorney fees, lost hours at work, and court costs; that is abusive; and even if the accused wins, they still .loose.

  17. The problem here is that restraining orders are handed out like candy. In almost any divorce case a restraining order will be issued. I think there should be a higher level of requirements to prove potential violence rather than a restraining order. Also, will the guns ever be returned to their rightful owner if the order is expired or lifted?
    During the aftermath of Katrina thousands of privately owned and legally registered were confiscated for the “Good and Welfare of the city.” and as far as I know none have ever been returned.

      • They are not going to want to return anything. TROs are handed like candy. The taking of any gun outside of a crime must be compensated. Lets say that they realize that when an order is found to be unnecessary and is lifted they have to return the guns. What about their dreaded AWs that cant be transferred. We could have a situation where the regular guns are not returned but AWs are not. The compensation should come directly from the court’s budget so should be careful on what they order. His “Honor” orders to many guns confiscated and it cuts into his booze and hooker budget.

  18. This is just another step in the ladder to total confiscation of all guns from all law abiding citizens. We already have enough laws to deal with criminals and gang members. It’s called the Power of Arrest and Search Warrant.
    Instead of spending another million tax payer dollars on a sneaky back door bill we should ENFORCE the laws we already have.

  19. Pingback: Gun Bill For January 16 | CCDL Blog

  20. Although I have to agree with everything said by the commenters her, and I love to hear the comments that sometimes sound as insane as the laws that are being put forward by some of these people, i.e. Rep Sampson, Rep Dubitsky, and Rep Mulligan, have put forth a number of bills that are not detrimental to our cause. I would like to thank them for their support. I would also hope to hear from our own members some realistic suggestions that could actually help to prevent passage of the bill that are most detrimental to our cause. Does anyone have any real ideas that we can implement to stop these peole from whittling down our rights?

    • Amazeau: Good point. Are you asking for comments on each specific law? Do you have any law in mind that we can discuss? Thank heaven, we have some law makers who have some “rational common sense”.

  21. Pingback: Sandy Hook Commission | CCDL Blog

  22. Pingback: Proposed Bills For January 20 | CCDL Blog

  23. Pingback: Proposed Bills For January 21 | CCDL Blog

  24. Pingback: Proposed Gun Bills for January 22 | CCDL Blog

  25. Pingback: New Proposed Bills – January 23 | CCDL Blog

  26. The problem is, this is pre hearing confiscation. So let’s say you want to attack a permit holder.
    How do you make sure you can attack them with out fear of them being armed?
    Get a restraining order, there’s no hearing for them to say ,”hey this psycho has been stalking me not the other way around. So now your guns are gone and the lunatic comes and finds you in armed and helpless.
    This could happen to anyone. Man, woman, ex spouse doesn’t matter. It takes away your ability to protect yourself when most needed. It can easily be abused.

    Do you think someone who is willing to harm or kill someone really cares if they break the law with a fake restraining order?
    This la is irresponsible at best even negligent.

  27. Does Rep Carter understand that requiring a gun safe to be constructed with 10 gauge steel will prevent the vast majority of safes from being compliant with his proposed bill? Only the most expensive Liberty safes would be compliant. Most of us do not have the ability to afford the compliant safes on the market. $3000.00 to 4500.00 anyone? Did he do his homework or is he really attempting to make most of us criminals? This man is a Republican? He certainly is no friend of gun owners.

    • I have contacted Rep Carter and provided him with my concerns about his bill. He understands my position and has promised to make changes to the bill (what constitutes an acceptable and affordable safe for gun storage) if the bill moves forward. He addressed my concerns on a timely basis.

      • They are simply trying to make it harder to own a gun, that will eliminate some owners, while also making other liable. The more they can dwindle the numbers of owners the more they can accomplish without resistance. It’s icremental death to the 2nd amendment
        They are after under the guise of safety.

  28. Pingback: Proposed Bills For January 26 | CCDL Blog

  29. Pingback: New Bill | CCDL Blog

  30. Pingback: Show Me Your Papers, Mach Schnell! | CCDL Blog

Leave a Reply