Please Contact Judiciary Committee Members

The Judiciary Committee has held public hearings on four gun related bills so far. Over the next 10 days is the time to call, write, email, and/or visit these legislators and voice your opposition to the following bills:

  • SB0650 – AN ACT CONCERNING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS
  • HB6962 – AN ACT CONCERNING FIREARM SAFETY
  • HB6848 – AN ACT PROTECTING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
  • HB7028 – AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEPT OF CORRECTION, ACCESS TO THE FIREARMS DATABASE BY PAROLE OFFICERS, AND PRESENTATION OF A CARRY PERMIT.

Sometime between now and April 13th, the Judiciary Committee will vote to find these bills favorable or not. A Joint Favorable Bill that passes a committee will move to the next step, and become closer to becoming law. A simple voicemail message, letter, postcard, email, or visit can go along way. Now is also a great opportunity to start a dialog with your Representative and Senator and let them know that you are concerned and oppose these bills that are currently in the Judiciary Committee. They can influence other legislators. The committee information and members can be found online at: http://www.cga.ct.gov/jud/
You can also download a list of the Committee members contact information here: CCDL_Judiciary_Contact_List (pdf)

Now is also a great opportunity to start a dialog with your Representative and Senator and let them know that you are concerned and oppose these bills that are currently in the Judiciary Committee, they can influence other legislators. Your legislators can be found online here: http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/cgafindleg.asp

These things will only take a few minutes of your time this chilly March weekend. Imagine these legislators walking into their offices on Monday morning and finding hundreds of voice mails and emails from CCDL members concerned about the issues above. Wouldn’t that be great? Make it happen!

11 thoughts on “Please Contact Judiciary Committee Members

  1. .I write this letter today in almost disbelief that you could even consider this bill. 6960, Firearm Safety Section 2………….Any person whose act or omission constitutes a violation of section 29-37i, as amended by this act, shall be strictly liable for damages when another person obtains the firearm, as defined in section 53a-3, and causes the injury or death of himself or herself or any other person with such firearm.
    Strict Liability:
    Liability that does not depend on actual negligence but that is based on the breach of an absolute duty to make something safe…………..Strict Liability differs from ordinary negligence because strict liability establishes liability without fault. In other words, when a defendant is held strictly liable for harm caused to the plaintiff, he is held liable simply because the injury happened. The fact that the harm that the plaintiff suffered is not the defendant’s fault makes no difference.
    Strict liability for negligence typically involves cases where the plaintiff was injured either by the defendant’s animal or by an abnormally dangerous activity that the defendant had undertaken. The elements required for establishing a case of strict liability are the same duty, breach, cause, and harm elements required for establishing a case of ordinary negligence.
    The one difference between ordinary negligence and strict liability involves the nature of the duty owed to the plaintiff. In ordinary negligence, the duty owed is the duty of due care. For strict liability, the duty owed is the duty to avoid causing the plaintiff any harm.

    Now in Section 3 you make an exemption for a break in, but no such exemption in Section 2.
    Sec. 3. Section 53a-217a of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective October 1, 2015):
    (a) A person is guilty of criminally negligent storage of a firearm when such person violates the provisions of section 29-37i, as amended by this act, and another person obtains the firearm and causes the injury or death of himself or herself or any other person with such firearm.
    (b) The provisions of this section shall not apply if a person obtains the firearm as a result of an unlawful entry to any premises by any person.
    (c) Criminally negligent storage of a firearm is a class D felony.

    So let us put this together. You can live alone, have no one over and if you own a gun, and keep it in your home, loaded or now you have changed to unloaded also, someone breaks into your home and manages to get into your locked box or safe, you are liable. You wish to make a citizen responsible for the actions of the criminals who commit break ins in every town in CT. Let’s be honest here. If they manage to defeat the lock box, it will be claimed it was not secure. I know of a case where they cut into a safe with torches. Was that secure? With portable torches you can get into anything. These changes do not increase safety. They are nothing but contempt for citizens exercising the Constitutionally protected rights. Voting for this bill is an evil act.

      • Change the bill number to 6962. Also, note that this bill does not apply If someone breaks in. “The provisions of this section shall not apply if a person obtains the firearm as a result of an unlawful entry to any premises by any person.”

        • Thanks for the correction on the Bill number. I originally thought that there was an exemption for a break in however on closer reading the exemption for break in applies only to Sec. 3. Section 53a-217a of the general statutes. The Strict liability section is Sec. 2. Section 52-571g of the general statutes. That is what I believe and if true makes a gun owner liable for his unloaded and stolen firearm even if locked up or definitely if stored only with a trigger . What is your thoughts on re reading?

          • Damn that was meant to say stored only with a trigger lock. I wish you could edit your post here.

          • First of all this Bill is a bad idea, but if it is going through, the exemption should be based on defeating any security measure, not just unlawful entry. The case they are trying to make posthumously illegal is one where there was no illegal entry, because the killer/thief lived there but the lawful owner was killed for their weapons.

    • When does this end? If someone breaks into a secured home , finds a spare set of car keys,steals your car and commits a crime with stolen vehicle is owner of car held responsible?

  2. WE NEED TO LEAVE THIS STATE AND START A CAMPAIGN TO HAVE ALL FIRARMS MANUFACTURERS AND RELATED COMPANIES LEAVE AS WELL.

    THEY ARE GOING TO RAM THIS DOWN YOUR THROAT UNDER THE GUISE OF PUBLIC SAFETY.

    A LOT OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGES ARE BROUGHT UNDER FALSE PRETENSES AND ARE DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

    MEAN WHILE BRIDGEPORT DRIVE BYS WILL CONTINUE UNABATED!
    .

    • Right you are. The momentum that tyranny has gained in CT will not be stopped with simple letters, emails, etc. Something much more substantial has to be done.

      Firearms manufacturers shoukd not remain in such enemy territory.

      You shoukd all flee the state, move to a “free” state and instead of relaxing and allowing apathy to consume, get and stay involved in your new state, so that this globalist, leftist, tyrannical nonsense does not gain a foothold in the “free” state.

      Tyranny is here and spreading, slowly but surely from state to state.

      “When the government fears the people there is liberty, when the people fear the government there is tyranny”

  3. These bill are being decided behind closed doors in committee meetings held behind closed doors in violation of our open meetings laws [see http://www.ct.gov/foi/cwp/view.asp?a=4162&Q=519484 — committees (that are their own separate state agencies) cannot have such secret meetings)] —- all of us should stop convicting people of crimes that are passed by methods that violate our open meetings laws. Simple. Then they’ll actually have to do their business out in the open and these bills will be shown to be proposed by communists and they will go away.

  4. SB0650 has no provision of return on surrendered property unless it is in 29-28.

    HB6962 makes gun owners responsible for anybody that steals a gun and commits a crime. Stealing of a gun should absolve any gun owner. A gun does not have to be locked to be stolen.

    HB6848 removes the right to be heard before the guns may be confiscated. That means someone can lie and the gun owner does not even have a chance to reply to said accusations.

    The word needs to get out. The lawmakers keep helping criminals by hurting law abiding citizens.

Comments are closed.