You asked for background and legislative history on last year's gun bill (sHB 5818), An Act Concerning Lost or Stolen Firearms.

SUMMARY

sHB 5818 subjects people lawfully possessing firearms to criminal penalties if they do not store them in a way that limits the risk that they will be lost, stolen, or otherwise come into the possession of an unauthorized person. The bill specifies that the risk must be of a type that failing to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would use under the same circumstances. It requires those whose firearms are lost or stolen to file a police report within 72 hours and subjects those who fail to do so to criminal penalties. It creates a rebuttable presumption that an owner illegally sold his handgun if he does not report its loss or theft and it is not in his possession when the police recover it.

The bill started in the Judiciary Committee, which voted to report a substitute bill to the House (30 votes in favor and 10 against). The substitute bill added the criminal penalties for improper storage and the definition of risk. It eliminated the lack of criminal negligence as an affirmative defense (legal excuse) in cases involving the sale or transfer of handguns.

The bill's supporters included state officials such as the attorney general and child advocate, local officials such as Mayor Eddie Perez, and law enforcement officials. They argued that the bill would enhance public safety. It would reduce gun violence, the number of gun thefts, and the incidence of illegal secondary sales (“straw sales”). According to Senator Martin Looney, the bill would “make prosecution of the straw purchaser a possibility in Connecticut, and thus has the potential to reduce gun violence. ” And the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association said timely reporting of gun thefts would hasten the capture of thieves.

Those who opposed the bill said that it was “feel good” legislation that did nothing to advance public safety and was onerous to responsible gun owners. According to Robert Crook, director of the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen, “. . . the bill is not about public safety. If it were, legislators would pay more attention to the fact that most gun crimes are committed by people who cannot legally own a gun. The bill is simply an emotional do something effort which does nothing to affect criminal behavior, yet affects responsible gun owners by placing them in serious legal jeopardy. ”

The arguments are summarized in the Judiciary Committee's Joint favorable Report at http: //cgalites/2006/JFR/H/2006HB-05818-R00JUD-JFR. htm (copy attached).

The House did not take up the bill and it died on the House calendar. The bill summary is attached and is also available at http: //cgalites/2006/FC/2006HB-05818-R000506-FC. htm

VR: ts