Judiciary Committee

JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT

Bill No.:

HB-5540

Title:

AN ACT CONCERNING GHOST GUNS.

Vote Date:

4/3/2018

Vote Action:

Joint Favorable Substitute

PH Date:

3/23/2018

File No.:

591

Disclaimer: The following JOINT FAVORABLE Report is prepared for the benefit of the members of the General Assembly, solely for purposes of information, summarization and explanation and does not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber thereof for any purpose.

SPONSORS OF BILL:

Judiciary Committee

REASONS FOR BILL:

“Ghost Gun” is the colloquial term used to refer to partially completed receivers or frames that do not yet reach the federal definition of a firearm. These partially completed receivers are sold without a background check and then completed by the buyer, resulting in an untraceable firearm without a serial number. According to a CBS News report, it can take less than three hours to build the equivalent of a Glock 9mm handgun. Most prominently, ghost guns were used in mass shootings by people otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms in 2017 at Rancho Tehama Reserve and in 2013 at Santa Monica College.

SUBSTITUTE LANGUAGE:

This language adds to the end of the definition of “frame or lower receiver” as provided by Section 1, subsection 24, lines 118-122, the following: “, and which is designed and intended to be used in the 'assembly', as that term is defined in section 29-36, as amended by this act, of a functional firearm.” The substitute language addresses the concern that an unfinished frame or lower receiver, as defined under the bill, should not alone constitute a firearm. Consequently, the new language requires that in order to fall within the statutory definition of a “firearm,” a frame or lower receiver must be designed and intended to be used in the assembly of a firearm.

Significantly, the substitute language removes Section 4, lines 187-200, which would have allowed local authorities to interview members of the immediate family of a gun permit applicant during an investigation concerning suitability for such a permit. This provision was met with strong opposition by many who provided testimony on the bill and, thus, was removed to allay their concerns.

Finally, the substitute language makes a technical edit to the definition of “manufacture” under Section 2, subsection (i), lines 174-175, by adding “newly” before “fabricate or construct a firearm.”

RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:

Connecticut Commission on Women, Children and Seniors: Strongly supports the bill which, by regulating homemade guns and banning guns without serial numbers, will help prevent individuals from circumventing existing firearm law in Connecticut and ultimately putting the safety of our children in dire jeopardy.

NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:

Connecticut Police Chiefs Association: Supports this bill because it believes “ghost” guns are easily accessible for purchase and assembly by people of all ages, including minors, and the bill could help protect our communities and provide steps to ensure those only with the right to legally obtain a firearm can do so.

Central Connecticut Health District – Board of Health: Supports the bill because firearm-related injury and death, most of which are caused by deliberate acts of violence, are major public health concerns. The bill will help to eliminate illegal firearms in our state and is essential to furthering gun safety and preventing injuries and death through gun violence.

Connecticut Conference United Church of Christ: Supports the bill because guns should not be sold without background checks or serial numbers, and “do it yourself” kits or “ghost guns” must be regulated. There is no reason for a person to possess an unregistered, untraceable firearm. This bill amends the current definition of “firearm” in our statutes to include ghost guns, making them subject to our existing firearm laws.

Faith Lutheran Church, Reverend Kristian C. Kohler: Supports this bill because he personally has stood by the bedside of many individuals who were victims of gun violence, and believes ghost guns are a major problem contributing to gun violence and there are no valid reasons for anyone to own unregistered and untraceable firearms. The bill is a small step toward an end to gun violence in our state.

League of Women's Voters of Connecticut, Inc.: Supports the bill because believes ghost guns are a serious concern – kits to make them are readily available online; they contain no serial numbers, are untraceable and require no background check to purchase; and are clearly attractive to people prohibited from owning firearms and for selling on the black market. The bill closes a state loophole by including ghost guns in the definition of a “firearm”.

Connecticut Voices For Children: Supports the bill because evidence suggests that closing loopholes that might allow for the purchase or printing of gun parts and then assembling a weapon without a permit could prevent deaths related to such weapons.

CT Against Gun Violence, Jeremy I. Stein, Executive Director: Supports the bill because Connecticut should legislate proactively, rather than reactively, to regulate the sale of guns without serial numbers, and require the same scrutiny and safety measures with ghost guns as is required with finished firearms.

Newtown Action Alliance, Po Murray, Chairwoman: Supports the bill because untraceable homemade guns circumvent the strong gun laws that Connecticut passed in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy and we can and should do more to make our state the safest in the nation. She will deliver a petition signed by over 2100 Connecticut citizens who fully support the bill.

James S. Marpe, First Selectman, Westport, Connecticut: Supports the bill because he believes ghost guns are workarounds to the laws we already have in place in Connecticut to regulate who can own guns and what type of guns it is legal to own. The passage of a law to regulate guns which are otherwise completely untraceable and allow the purchaser to evade our own background-check laws should not be controversial. Also, the bill will give law enforcement the jurisdiction to better determine an applicant's suitability for a permit to carry a firearm in public.

Senator Martin M. Looney, President Pro Tempore: Supports the bill because it is easy for a person who wants to own a AR-15 semi-automatic rifle or a Glock semi-automatic pistol, but who can't legally own either, to purchase these weapons in a partially assembled state, assemble the parts (easily obtained online from websites like Ghost Runner), and then own an equivalent weapon. The resulting firearm, or ghost gun, is not required by current law to have a serial number because it was sold only partially assembled. Similarly, no background check and no registration is required. The bill would close this loophole in our gun control laws and make our state safer.

Joseph P. Ganim, Mayor of Bridgeport: Supports the bill as an “important, common sense gun safety reform” measure that will allow Connecticut to maintain its status as a national leader in gun reform. There is a major problem in Connecticut, especially in our cities, with guns that are illegally obtained (i.e., no license, no background check) and untraceable, and we should take pro-active steps to help law enforcement officer prevent more illegal guns from proliferating in our communities.

Representative John H. Frey: Supports the bill because believes it is reasonable, does not infringe on the rights of lawful gun owners, and will help to eliminate illegal firearms from our streets.

Heather Abreu (Meriden): Supports the bill as a common sense measure that will lessen the chances of a mass slaughter of children and adults simply participating in life's daily activities.

Joyce Acebo-Raguskus (Milford): Supports the bill because it is a bill of prevention and every step that the state takes towards strong gun policies and regulations will save a life.

Adam Agovino (Stamford): Supports the bill because unregulated firearms do not belong in the hands of citizens and children have the right to a safe childhood at home, school and in the community.

Amanda M. Aronson (West Hartford): Supports the bill as a common sense measure since “the last thing we need in our current climate of daily shootings and rising hate crimes is a market for untraceable guns.”

Nancy Axthelm (Westport): Supports the bill because we should prohibit weapons that have been attained or adapted to circumvent the definition of a “firearm” and the laws that protect us, our children and law enforcement officers. The bill would help put a stop to individuals evading background checks by making DIY guns at home and CT must act because there is no plan to regulate ghost guns at the federal level.

Paula Bacolini (Glastonbury): Supports the bill because ghost gun weapons are dangerous to both the public and law enforcement and the do it yourself kits give the purchaser the ability to make a firearm into an assault weapon.

David Bailey (Hamden): Supports the bill because it would be irresponsible of our elected officials to let ghost guns continue to flow freely onto the streets of our cities by being untraceable and requiring no background checks.

JoAnne Bauer, Ph.D. (Hartford): Supports the bill because ghost guns have been used in mass shootings and in attacks against law enforcement and there is no rational reason for letting people evade gun laws by leaving loopholes in our statutes that threaten public safety.

Nettie Parker Bauman (West Hartford): Supports the bill because although she supports the right to own guns, believes that certain guns need to be regulated or banned, and that ghost guns/homemade guns are unnecessary, dangerous and frightening because they are untraceable and unregistered.

Paul Berger (Newtown): Supports the bill as a common sense step the state can take to try to reduce the spiraling epidemic of gun violence.

Sheela Bhatia (Westport): Supports the bill because after our state's history with one of worst mass shootings in the country, we should ban ghost guns for the safety and well-being of our residents.

Janelle Biggs (Stratford): Supports the bill because we underestimate what the Sandy Hook tragedy has done to us all, and believes that Connecticut must be a national leader and close every loop hole in our gun laws and make it illegal to own or obtain a ghost gun.

Paul Bluestein, M.D.: Supports the bill because the epidemic of gun violence is a public health crisis as real and deadly as the opoid epidemic and because the bill is a small step towards breaking the stranglehold the NRA has on our country.

Themis M. Bova (Ridgefield): Supports the bill because ghost guns are a threat to public safety and law enforcement, and victims have the right to know that their predators can be traced back to the crime committed via the gun identification marks.

Jody Boyd: Supports the bill because our gun laws should evolve in pace with technology advancements which give people bigger and better tools to exploit their access to certain weapons, like ghost guns. Without a serial number or registration, ghost guns are an “invitation for circulation on black market or people with evil intentions.”

Jane Owen Brash (Riverside): Supports the bill because there is no valid reason for anyone to possess unregistered, untraceable firearms which are attractive to people prohibited from possessing firearms and for selling on the black market, destined to be crime guns. Also supports interviewing immediate family members to determine an applicant's suitability for a gun permit (this provision was removed in substitute language).

Bobbi Brown: Supports the bill because we must make those holding power accountable to make the right choices for the safety of our children and implement common sense gun control.

Janet Bryant (Glastonbury): Supports the bill because ghost guns are untraceable and can be obtained without a background check, thus circumventing vital gun control protections for Connecticut citizens and making it much harder to bring shooters who use ghost guns to justice.

Elise Budnik (Newtown): Supports the bill because believes that ghost guns provide an insurmountable obstacle and physical danger to Connecticut residents and hinder police and judicial efforts to curb and/or solve crime in our state, and that people with a criminal record should not have access to firearms.

Sarah Caro (New Haven): Supports the bill because the availability of ghost guns will make people more likely to commit gun violence, emboldening them with untraceable weapons.

Alexander Chiu, M.D. (New Haven): Supports the bill because as a doctor at Yale New Haven Hospital, he has seen countless people die, become paralyzed and suffer debilitating injuries from gun violence and banning ghost guns would reduce gun availability to those who are barred from owning a firearm and help reduce the kind of handgun violence he and his colleagues most commonly encounter.

James R. and Jennifer J. Coffman (Westport): Support the bill as a common sense measure that will help reduce the likelihood of minors (who can't get access to locked gun cabinets in their home, for example) acquiring gun parts, assembling a ghost gun and potentially using it to cause the loss of life in our communities.

Erin Combs (Norwalk): Supports the bill because there does not seem as though anything is happening on the federal level with respect to regulating ghost guns and Connecticut must act and continue to be a national leader and role model in the battle against gun violence in our country.

Amanda S. Cordano (Ridgefield): Supports the bill because ghost guns have been used in mass shootings and attacks on law enforcement and we should not make it easier for people who are prohibited from possessing firearms or who want to sell guns on the black market to make, own or sell ghost guns, and make it harder for police to enforce our gun laws.

Carrie Cromwell-Hunt (Westport): Supports the bill because it is appalling and frightening that people can purchase a make-your-own gun kit online with no regulation and asks the legislators to consider the potential deadly consequences of not banning ghost guns.

Paul Danielewicz (New Britain): Supports the bill because allowing ghost guns would lead to more crime and violence. As long as ghost guns are legal in our state, it makes our current gun laws less effective. There is no good reason to possess a ghost gun unless you are a person prevented from owning a firearm or want to sell it on the black market, both illegal.

Patricia Dannies (New Haven): Supports the bill because there is no valid reason for anyone to possess unregistered, untraceable firearms, and the ability to trace guns is an important tool for our law enforcement agencies.

Philip J. Davis (Torrington): Supports the bill because unregulated firearms do not belong in the hands of civilians and the bill will help protect our communities, law enforcement officers, students, families and children.

Carole Dmytryshak (Salisbury): Supports the bill as another strong gun safety measure like the others that were enacted into law after the tragedy in Sandy Hook.

Kaela Dockray (Westport): Supports the bill as a step in the right direction in reducing gun violence. As a 15 year old student sensitized to the potential of gun violence in her own school, she believes the bill is a common sense measure so no one with access to the internet obtain a ready-to-assemble gun via mail any longer.

Mary Doherty (Southbury): Supports the bill because we as a civilized society must do everything within our power to reduce the number of senseless deaths from gun violence and sensible gun safety legislation would be a step in the right direction.

Ed Edelson (Southbury): Supports Mike Rosen (of the Southbury Board of Selectmen)'s testimony in support of the bill.

Suzanne Ellenthal (Wilton): Supports the bill because knows of no valid reason why any law-abiding, mentally healthy citizen would object to requiring serial numbers and regulation of homemade or “ghost” guns.

Monika Filipek (Fairfield): Supports the bill because our gun laws should evolve in pace with technology and what is available on the internet which give people bigger and better tools to exploit their access to certain weapons, like ghost guns. Without a serial number or registration, ghost guns are an “invitation for circulation on black market or people with evil intentions.”

Michele Rowell Finn (Middlebury): Supports the bill because thinks it is unreasonable for a person to be able to purchase and fairly easily assemble parts that in the end become a gun without any regulation – no registration, no serial number, no background check, etc. Also wants the most thorough and diligent permit process we can put into place as long as the law doesn't have unintended consequences that might affect privacy and other rights.

Karen Fischer (New London): Supports the bill because believes there is no reason for anyone to possess a gun with no serial numbers and with no background check for the possessor. The prevalence of ghost guns is increasing: they have been seized in CT, they have been used to commit murder by domestic violence perpetrators who are prohibited buyers, and according to a GAO Report, there is an emerging reliance by criminal organizations on ghost guns.

Ashley Gaudiano (Trumbull): Supports the bill because it will make our children and state safer, does not infringe on the Second Amendment, and will make it that much harder to kill and that much harder for a single person to destroy a family and a community.

Leah S. Glaser (Hamden): Supports the bill because the right to own a firearm does not supersede the right to life, and individual rights have never been able to undermine public safety.

Ann Godzwon (Ridgefield): Supports the bill because it helps protect life. Ghost guns largely circumvent our laws, putting innocent people and law enforcement officers in danger.

Brad Greene (Sandy Hook): Supports the bill because ghost guns exist to allow individuals to circumvent background checks and to create an untraceable weapon which has the effect of putting deadly weapons in the hands of people who should not have them and are a danger to us all.

Trudie Gubitz (Westport): Supports the bill as a common sense measure that will help reduce the likelihood of minors (who can't get access to locked gun cabinets in their home, for example) acquiring gun parts, assembling a ghost gun and potentially using it to cause the loss of life in our communities.

Lois B. Hager (Bloomfield): Supports the bill because it will close loopholes in Connecticut's gun control laws, making it illegal to own guns without serial numbers and harder to convert a gun into an automatic weapon, and will help protect us from more gun violence, and because the right to bear arms was never intended to take precedence over the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Jessica Hill (Westport): Supports the bill because rejects the argument that we need to secure schools rather than limit access to guns as a solution to mass school shootings; the Second Amendment does not prohibit restrictions and regulations on gun use; and believes the bill will help reduce the likelihood of minors (who can't get access to locked gun cabinets in their home, for example) acquiring gun parts, assembling a ghost gun and potentially using it to cause the loss of life in our communities.

Judith Hochstadt, M.D.: Supports the bill because the epidemic of gun violence is a public health crisis as real and deadly as the opioid epidemic and because the bill is a small step towards breaking the stranglehold the NRA has on our country.

Beth A. Hogan (Niantic): Supports the bill on the grounds that there is no reasonable argument that can be made to support the rationale that it is alright for anyone to possess unregistered, untraceable firearms.

Maria Horn (Salisbury): Supports the bill because, as a former federal prosecutor, she knows first-hand the problems for law enforcement when a crime is committed with an untraceable gun. Criminal organizations have been increasingly relying on homemade assault weapons, and we can't continue to make law enforcement's job more difficult by allowing these weapons to eviscerate the gun safety laws that were enacted to protect CT residents from gun violence.

Annie Hornish (Suffield): As a permit-carrying gun owner, strongly supports the bill as a step in the right direction of enacting stricter gun laws.

Laura Hunyadi-Baldwin, RN: As a psychiatric nurse who was part of the Behavioral Health Team that responded to the Sandy Hook school shooting, supports the bill because ghost guns are a threat to public safety and it is ridiculous to allow prohibited persons to evade background checks by making untraceable guns at home.

Laura Iorfino (Wilton): Supports the bill because it removes the loophole that allows people, particular prohibited gun possessors, to evade gun laws and background checks by making ghost guns at home and because there is no plan to regulate ghost guns at the federal level.

Marty Isaac, President of the Board, Connecticut Against Gun Violence (Trumbull): Supports the bill because the parts to make ghost guns are easily attained online; ghost guns have been used in mass shootings and attacks on law enforcement; and ghost guns are a threat to public safety and enable our residents to easily bypass state laws requiring registration, background checks and serial numbers.

Dawn Jolly (Ridgefield): Supports the bill because it closes the loophole that allows people, particular prohibited gun possessors, to evade gun laws and background checks by making ghost guns at home and because there is no plan to regulate ghost guns at the federal level.

Terri Eberle Katz (Ridgefield): Supports the bill because, while Connecticut has very strong gun legislation, we must lead the way and continue to be aware of and seek to restrict weapons and situations that are dangerous and not covered by existing legislation in order to prevent additional loss of life and shattered families and communities like Newtown.

Deb Kelleher (Cheshire): Supports the bill because Connecticut's current statutory definition of a “firearm” does not make ghost guns subject to our firearm laws and regulations. The bill would close this loophole. We must do everything we can do to change the gun culture in our country so that our children are not afraid to be in their schools.

Lindsay Kelly (Darien): Supports the bill because there is no rational reason for letting people – particularly people who are prohibited from owning a gun -- evade our gun laws by making a gun at home. Also, DIY guns have been used in mass shootings. CT should protect its citizens because there does not seem to be a plan to regulate ghost guns on the federal level.

Amy Ford Keohane (Riverside): Supports the bill because its goal is to reduce the chance of guns and true weapons of war from falling into the hands of people who should not have them and to reduce senseless killings. Under the Heller Supreme Court decision, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

Adelheid Koepfer (Wallingford): Supports the bill because although Connecticut has banned assault weapons, the fact that the selling and buying of the parts to make an assault weapon at home is legal and the self-assembled gun does not have to be registered means that effectively not all assault weapons are banned. Also supports the provision that would allow a background check to include an interview with a member of the applicant's immediate family. (This provision was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

Katherine Kohrman, PsyD. (Newtown): As a resident of a traumatized town, she supports the bill because it furthers Connecticut's status as a leader in gun safety and gun sensibility and because the bill would further limit the possibilities of gun violence. More importantly, it would help people feel safer in CT.

Ross Kristal (New Haven): Supports the bill because ghost guns are a threat to public safety and are precisely ideal for those who are prohibited from possessing firearms or want to commit crimes. If a hobbyist wants to enjoy assembling a firearm, that person should still have to adhere to all of our state gun laws and the bill would ensure that.

Ned Lamont: Supports the bill because Connecticut must continue to lead the nation in gun safety; there is more work to do; and he cannot imagine a reason why someone would need to own an unregistered firearm if not to do harm.

Nancy Lefkowitz (Fairfield): Supports the bill because she believes strong gun laws work and that her children's lives depend on Connecticut banning ghost guns.

Lindy Lilien (Greenwich): Supports the bill as a measure that would enhance public safety and because we must do everything in our power to decrease gun violence. Ghost guns have been shown to be a real threat to public safety and should be outlawed.

Alysse Melville Loomis (Cromwell): Supports the bill as a common sense gun measure because it does not infringe upon the rights of responsible gun owners but rather emphasizes the need to follow appropriate channels if one wants to be a gun owner.

Gina Magennis (Canton): Supports the bill as a step to make us safer and because there is no valid reason for anyone to possess unregistered, untraceable firearms.

Laura Marks (West Hartford): Supports the bill because we cannot let prohibited individuals evade background checks by making guns at home. Connecticut is in a position to set an example at the state level by regulating ghost guns.

Debra Marrone (Weston): Supports the bill because currently the mentally ill or prohibited individuals can evade background checks by making homemade assault weapons that cannot be traced.

Mary Ellen Masciale (New London): Supports the bill because ghost guns are flagrant “work arounds” of our existing laws and it is time to tighten up our good laws in Connecticut so that any owned gun follows the intent of the laws on our books. Also, the bill does not take away people's guns or right to own guns.

Patrick McCann (Durham): Supports the bill because, as a country, we do little to nothing to control the high incidence of needless deaths caused by gun violence and there is no valid argument for anyone to possess unregistered, untraceable firearms.

Megan McLeod (Greenwich): Supports the bill and believes that if we do not ban ghost guns we are ignoring a critical and common-sense gun control issue. Says that one reason the bill is necessary is that currently ghost guns are not statutorily classified as “firearms” and thus purchasing the parts to make a ghost gun and owning one can be done without a background check.

Meredith Meadows, M.D. (Simsbury): Supports the bill because believes it would help reduce access to firearms used in an unlicensed and unsafe way and thus decrease dangerous and inappropriate use of firearms.

Denise Michalowski (Westport): Supports the bill because Congress's failure to enact stricter gun laws in the wake of the tragedy in Sandy Hook was directly against the public good and our state loophole allowing a person to purchase gun parts from a website where such a person would not be required to complete a background check and obtain a permit is also against the public good. The bill is sensible gun control legislation.

Susan Miller (Windsor): Supports the bill as another rational step our state can take to prevent gun deaths, and believes that ghost guns are not for hunting food, but rather for killing other human beings and there is no reason for them to be available to anyone.

Meri Miselis: Supports the bill because there remains room for improvement in having reasonable, rational gun laws in our state and because our First Amendment right to assemble safely is more sacred than the right of a person to possess a weapon whose sole purpose is murder and destruction. The bill does not infringe on Second Amendment rights.

Barbra R. Mockalis (Southport): Supports the bill because there is no acceptable reason to allow ghost guns anywhere and passing this bill will keep Connecticut residents safer their schools, home and public areas.

Geraldine Monahan (Fairfield): Supports the bill because prohibiting the ability to make your own illegal gun does not take away from a person's right to own a gun through legal channels and there is no reason to give individuals, who would most likely not qualify to own a weapon under existing laws, the ability to make their own ghost guns and either sell these to criminals illegally or use them themselves to take more lives.

Jean P. Moore (Greenwich): Supports the bill because many horrific crimes have been committed using ghost guns and there is no rationale for allowing people to evade our gun control laws because of the loophole that a ghost gun does not fall within the definition of a “firearm.”

Mary Ellen Moore (Darien): Supports the bill as a baby step we need to begin protecting our citizens in a nation where mass murders surpass that in all other educated countries.

Caitlin O'Brien (Guilford): Supports the bill because ghost guns circumvent the reasonable standard (supported by the majority of Americans) of a background check being a criterion of gun ownership.

Laura Orban (Brookfield): Supports the bill because ghost guns have nothing to do with hunting or home protection and should be banned. Laws regarding background checks should not be rendered useless by allowing anyone to go online and purchase a ghost gun.

Christine Palm (Chester): Supports the bill because ghost guns are simply an illegal means around a legal procedure and because guns without serial numbers and those sold in a form requiring the buyer to finish assembly make it extremely difficult for law enforcement to trace criminal activity. Also supports the provision that would allow a background check to include an interview with a member of the applicant's immediate family. (This provision was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

Deborah G. Palmieri (Trumbull): Supports the bill because ghost guns are a real threat to public safety, there is no plan to regulate them on a federal level, and there is no valid argument for anyone to evade our gun laws and possess unregistered, untraceable firearms.

Dr. Audrey Paul (Westport): Supports the bill because we must address firearm injuries or deaths as a public health crisis just as we did with motor vehicle collisions and household poisonings and continue to impose restrictions on firearms to keep children and vulnerable persons safe. The bill supports one of 9 proposals from the American College of Emergency Physicians to reduce firearm injuries: support new legislation that prevents high risk and prohibited individuals from obtaining firearms by any means.

Elizabeth Perry (Greenwich): Supports the bill because right now anyone in Connecticut with a credit card can order an untraceable gun, including a gun that is otherwise banned in our state. The shooter in the 2013 UC Santa Barbara killings had failed a firearms background check but built a homemade assault rifle and was able to act on his violent impulses.

Amy Pines (Westport): Supports the bill because a ghost gun is a “work around” of our existing laws and a ghost gun is not “an innocent, do it yourself craft” but rather “an unregulated, untraceable, dangerous weapon, which would be in the hands of anyone – with no background check.”

Monica Prihoda (Old Greenwich): Supports the bill because believes the loss of innocent lives like at Sandy Hook Elementary and Parkland High School will continue to happen unless we pass sensible gun regulations for public safety while also protecting people's right to have guns.

Monica Pullano (Southbury): Supports the bill because believes only people with ill intent would possess ghost guns and allowing guns that are not traceable is unacceptable.

Kerstin Rao (Westport): Supports the bill because ghost guns are a serious public health hazard, there is no credible reason for anyone to be allowed to have one, and we must have laws that prohibit making ghost guns, with possession punishable to the fullest extent of the law.

Sarah Raskin (West Hartford): Supports the bill because making a ghost gun is a blatant method to circumvent gun laws. The bill will close the current loophole allowing people to possess these guns without a background check, a requirement of ownership that the vast majority of people in our country supports.

Ethan Rodriquez-Torrent (New Haven): Supports the bill because it ensures that privately produced firearms are subject to minimal identification and safety requirements and the provision that would allow a background check to include an interview with a member of the applicant's immediate family adds an extra measure of safety. (This latter provision was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

Mike Rosen (Southbury): Supports the bill because there is no personal safety need, no moral place and no Constitutional right in our country to own a “ghost gun.” The bill is a common sense action to enhance public safety and reduce the threat and impact of gun violence.

Julia Rosenberg, M.D. (New Haven): As a pediatrician who has cared for child survivors of gun violence, supports the bill as a necessary step to protect Connecticut's children. Guns and gun violence leave lasting impacts on children's growth and development into adulthood.

Steven J. Rubin (Greenwich): Supports the bill as a measure to help curb the epidemic of gun violence in our country. Ghost guns allow people to evade background checks and have been used in mass shootings and in attacks against law enforcement. Connecticut needs to take immediate action since there is no plan for the Federal government to regulate ghost guns.

Cheryl Schechter: Supports the bill because we have too many firearms and it is “too easy to erase the serial numbers rendering a gun a 'ghost gun' and nontraceable” and it is long past the time to change our gun laws to make this country a safer place.

Scott Schweizer (Norwalk): Supports the bill because supports better regulation of ghost guns and because we must act to protect public safety.

Dr. Kishori Scott (Riverside): Supports the bill as common sense legislation and while she offers no specifics as to the bill, she states that it has been very difficult to see innocent children being murdered by these weapons and worries that next time a victim will be someone she loves.

Patti Singer (Southbury): Supports the bill because she believes ghost guns allow those who should not have access to firearms – those convicted of domestic violence and those convicted of violent felonies, for instance -- to obtain one. Unregulated firearms do not belong in the hands of civilians.

Guy Smith: Supports the bill but believes we need stricter laws at the federal level because a state by state regulatory system leaves us all vulnerable to the rules in the most lax states. He has two suggested amendments to the bill, neither of which was included in the bill's substitute language: (1) direct the Governor and other constitutional officers to demand all major credit card companies to stop processing all financial transactions for semiautomatic assault rifles, and (2) direct the Governor, other constitutional officers and legislative leadership to collaborate with like-minded states to bring shareholder and consumer pressure on publically traded corporations who have it in their power to stop sale of assault weapons.

Daniela Snow (Norwalk): Supports the bill because our gun laws should evolve in pace with technology and what is available on the internet, which give people bigger and better tools to exploit their access to certain weapons, like ghost guns. Without a serial number or registration, ghost guns are an “invitation for circulation on the black market or people with evil intentions.”

Ben Soroff (Norwalk): Supports the bill because the epidemic of gun violence is a public health crisis, the federal government has abandoned the citizens of Connecticut and deadly weapons should have serial numbers and be traceable, given that even a toaster has a serial number.

Alice Stokes (Southport): Supports the bill because banning ghost guns is a cheap investment today which pales in comparison to the life-long cost to our children who have been impacted by gun violence – cost in lost inventions, professors, problem solvers and experts, not to mention the cost of mental health care for irreparably damaged witnesses as they grow into adulthood and beyond.

Amy Strickland (Norwalk): Supports the bill because ghost guns require no background checks and our state should not let prohibited individuals have access to firearms. Also, ghost guns have been used in mass shootings and in attacks against law enforcement. Connecticut needs to take action since there is no plan for the Federal government to regulate ghost guns.

Garrett Sullivan: Supports the bill because ghost guns have no reason to be in the hands of citizens. Other countries, such as Australia, have seen substantial improvement in rates of violence after limiting citizen access to deadly firearms.

Shira Tarantino (Stamford): Supports the bill because there is no rational reason for letting people evade our gun laws by allowing ghost guns.

Danielle Teplica (Westport): Supports the bill because all guns need some regulation and currently ghost guns bypass even the most minimal regulation. Ghost guns must be illegal because they have proven to too often be the recourse taken by shooters who intend to harm others or themselves.

Joan Thakor (Riverside): Supports the bill as a step to correct loopholes in our current laws. If we do not allow for the sale of assault weapons we should not allow such weapons to be built at home, particularly without the ability to register and trace them.

Paula Tommins (Fairfield): Supports the bill because there is no valid reason for anyone to own unregistered, untraceable firearms. Ghost guns are clearly attractive to people prohibited from possessing firearms and people who want to sell on the black market.

Mary Verel (Norwalk): Supports the bill because gun violence is a public health issue that can be mitigated with sensible measures like this bill. There is no valid reason for anyone to own an unregistered, untraceable firearm.

Elizabeth Williams (Westport): Supports this bill because it is both appalling and something we should be very concerned with that people can purchase a make your own gun kit online with no regulation whatsoever.

Lauren Williams, RN BSN: Supports the bill because the epidemic of gun violence is a public health crisis as real and deadly as the opioid epidemic, the stranglehold the NRA has on our country needs to be broken; and the bill is a step on the long road to gun reform.

Susannah Wood (Norfolk): Supports the bill because it will make untraceable guns less available and shows a willingness of our state to respond to new threats and problems, with respect to gun violence, as they arise.

Yvonne L. Bastien Zeisler (Fairfield): Supports the bill because Connecticut needs to protect and strengthen our gun laws and there is no reason to give anyone the right to make an unregistered gun.

STUDENTS:

Paula Autard (Westport, high school sophomore): Supports the bill because ghost guns make it incredibly easy for a troubled individual to get their hands on a weapon that can kill a hated teacher or an innocent group of students. Connecticut should join California in regulating ghost guns.

Audrey Bernstein (Westport, high school sophomore): Supports the bill because ghost guns directly allow for tragedy to take place, as “do it yourself” kits provide instructions and material to create AR-15s, the gun used in recent tragedies. Ghost guns can directly contribute to more deaths of teachers, students and civilians.

Adam Kaufman (Greenwich, middle school student): Supports the bill because he believes that it does not affect the average gun owner who buys and uses his gun for recreational purposes or self-defense. At the same time it will make it difficult for a criminal to purchase or build a ghost gun and kill innocent people.

Matt Kuroghlian (Trumbull, high school senior): Supports the bill because views the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School as the final straw in a horrific pattern and because more reform must be made to counter mass killings in what are supposed to be havens of peace – schools.

Emma Lieberman (Westport, high school student): Supports the bill because a few weeks before testifying her school went into lockdown based on a student's threat of violence, and it is not okay for students to wonder every day if they will be the next victims of a school shooting. While she explains her reasons for supporting a ban on “bump stocks,” she does not provide any more detail specifically related to her support of regulating ghost guns.

Melanie Lust (Westport, high school student): Supports the bill because easy access to dangerous firearms are the means by which perpetrators are able to kill and because guns may not be the reason why children are killed in their classrooms, but they are how children die.

Kristina Adler; Elizabeth Alcorn (Bridgeport); Lisa Berger (Newtown); Margaret Brown (Redding); Tom Burgess (Wilton); Mark Cameron (Hamden); Thomas Campbell (Danbury); Laura Carlson (Salisbury); Lisa Catanese (Coventry); Laura Colebank (Clinton); Connie Cooper (Sandy Hook); Ellen and Murray Darvick (Ridgefield); Sheila Dravis; James van B. Dresser (Salisbury); Dwayne Escola (Ridgefield); John Fallon; Michael Filipek (Southport); Elizabeth Gardner (Fairfield); Jill Grieveson (Glastonbury); Will Haskell; Paula Hersh; Barbara Kage; Lisa Kaplan (Westport); Bert and Janet Krauss (Bridgeport); Alison Mark (Wilton); Julia K. Massengill (Norwalk); Darrell McChesney (Milford); Tiffani McGinnis (West Hartford); Katherine McLennan (Old Greenwich); Alfred and Nancy Mueller (Wallingford); Gayle Oko (Mystic); Melissa de la Cruz Prosdocimo; Barbara Richardson (Sandy Hook); Robin Roscillo (Wilton); Yvonne Ruddy-Stein (Ridgefield); Lauren N. Santos (West Hartford); Diane Schapira (Lakeville); Allison Wiele; James C. Weaver (West Hartford); Jean Griffin Walter (Newtown); Susan Van Kleef (Tariffville): Support the bill.

NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:

Connecticut Citizens Defense League (CCDL), Ray Belvis, Legislative Coordinator: Opposes the bill because it requires any person wishing to manufacture or assemble a firearm to first obtain a unique serial number from DESPP but provides no time period within which DESPP must provide the serial number. Currently, DESPP has a backlog of 21,000 firearm sales/transfer forms (DPS-3) that need to be entered into the database. CCDL asks how DESPP will handle the additional workload engendered by the bill, particularly what will the fiscal impact be in the context of a state financial crisis.

Libertarian Party of Connecticut, Dan Reale, Chair: Opposes the bill because he believes it infringes on Second Amendment rights, targets the law-abiding, and would have no effect on promoting public safety and stopping acts of mass violence.

Peter Arcano: Opposes the bill because there should be stronger enforcement of current gun control laws (stiffer punishment for criminals). Rather than taking Second Amendment rights away from law-abiding citizens who should not have to pay for government's failure to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and people with severe mental illness.

Fred Barber, Jr (Groton): Opposes the bill as another “feel good” law that does not actually “do good” in reducing crime. While tracing serial numbers might aid in tracing the provenance of a firearm used in a crime, it doesn't stop the crime from happening in the first place.

Dom Basile: Opposes the bill because it is already a felony for a firearm, manufactured after 1968, to either not have a serial number or have an obliterated serial number. It is legal for citizens to make a Title 1 firearm for personal use as long as they first submit a Form 1 with BATFE and get approval. Part kits are just spare parts legally sold in accordance with BATFE regulations. Also opposes the provision that would allow a background check to include an interview with any member of the applicant's immediate family. (This provision was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

Neal Berko (Sandy Hook): Opposes the bill. Crime statistics in CT for 2017-2018 do not support further gun control regulations that punish legal and law-abiding gun owners who comprise close to 10 percent of our citizenry. Also specifically opposes provision (removed in substitute language) that would allow local authorities to interview family members of an applicant during the permit process – believes it is intrusive at best and unconstitutional at worst.

Alan Blaschik (East Haddam): Opposes the bill. Concerned that collectors of antique firearms that were made before serial numbers were required could be considered felons under the bill (note: our laws except guns manufactured prior to 1968), and (2) opposes allowing local authorities to interview immediate family members as part of an applicant's background check. (This provision was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

Peter Brown (Middlefield): Opposes the bill because of the section that provides in part that no person can manufacture or assemble any firearm from polymer plastic, unless such plastic is embedded with 3.7 ounces of material type 17-4 PH stainless steel. This provision was removed in the bill's amendment.

John R. Buckley (New Britain): Opposes the bill as an infringement on the Second Amendment rights of legal gun owners.

Mike Burke (Andover): Opposes bill because he doesn't believe the government has a need for serial numbers on a gun and also opposes the provision allowing local authorities to interview immediate family members as part of an applicant's background check. (This provision was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

Gary Carle (Bristol): Opposes the bill on the grounds that our current gun laws are onerous at best to honest, law abiding gun owners and no law will prevent a “criminal or insane person” from attacking innocent people with a gun or otherwise.

Heather Colletti (Lisbon): Opposes the bill on the grounds that family members should not be allowed to diagnose a person's suitability for a pistol permit and that people who build ghost guns are hobbyists and it is a waste of time to make them subject to more regulation. (The ground for her opposition was removed by the substituted language.)

Brian Corbino (Southington): Opposes the bill because there is scant evidence to suggest that ghost guns are ever used in the commission of a crime, and the lack of traceability of a ghost gun is no different than the typical stolen gun with an obliterated serial number. Also expresses concern that amending the definition of firearm under 53a-3(19) to include any unfinished frame or lower receiver affects the definition of a long gun under 29-37a and would mean that a billet of aluminum is now defined as a long gun. Under 29-37(b), a sixteen year old can't buy a piece of aluminum to make a new throttle body for his car engine because it's legally a firearm.

Andrew Covell: Opposes the bill as a large intrusion on privacy and a hindrance to applying for a pistol or revolver permit.

William D. Curlew: Opposes the bill because ghost guns don't pose an additional threat to the public; unless you have a manufacturer's license, it is already illegal to make a 80% lower into a firearm for resale; it is also already illegal to make a 80% lower into any banned weapon like an AR-15. It is in contravention of existing law to allow immediate family members to determine a permit applicant's suitability versus the public records of the applicant. (The ground for his opposition was removed by the substituted language.)

Linda Czapliniski: Opposes the bill because banning ghost guns is covered under existing laws and because the current vetting process for a person seeking a firearm permit will not benefit from the subjective opinion of a family member who on the one hand could be coerced or on the other hand biased. (This provision, allowing local authorities to interview immediate family members as part of an applicant's background check, was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

Susan Dagostino (East Lyme): Opposes the bill because believes gun control laws do not work in preventing mentally impaired persons or violent criminals from committing violent crimes.

Arthur Daigle (Plymouth): Opposes the bill because it will only be obeyed by those that typically do not violate laws to begin with, having no impact on crime. There is no provision exempted pre-1968 firearms (not required to have serial numbers), and the law mainly applies to the AR-15 style rifle that is already banned.

Randy DaRos (Coventry): Opposes the bill because the definition of a firearm is overbroad and would literally ban the sale of pipe and tubing by any person not possessing an FFL. It also makes no provision for those home manufactured firearms that already exist and are lawfully possessed; and it allows local authorities to interview immediate family members as part of an applicant's background check (this was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

Todd Dillon: Opposes bill because criminals do not obey laws and the bill will not reduce crime but will infringe on the Liberty and Freedom of law-abiding citizens.

Elizabeth Drysdale of Cheshire: Opposes the bill because it is more restrictive than federal laws and regulations which it cannot be and because the small group of people that have the knowledge, machines and skill to make a ghost gun makes the bill impractical.

Michael Easter of Newtown: Opposes the bill on the grounds that under federal ATF regulations any person who is not prohibited from possessing a firearm is allowed to manufacture one for personal use. The majority of manufactured “ghost guns” are finished by law abiding citizens who are allowed to possess a firearm.

Glen Fettes of Milford: Opposes the bill because of the provision allowing local authorities to interview immediate family members as part of an applicant's permit process. (This was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

David Fuchs of Bridgeport: Opposes the bill because he believes we already have an “assault weapons” ban in CT and anyone who orders a “ghost gun” kit commits a felony as soon as the receiver is completely drilled and therefore the legislation is redundant.

Jenn Gleason of Waterbury: Opposes the bill because of the provision allowing local authorities to interview immediate family members as part of an applicant's permit process. (This was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

David Godbout of East Lyme: Opposes the bill because owning any type of firearm itself should never be considered a crime. Our right to own a firearm or firearm related items or to use the firearm to defend ourselves by definition cannot be taken away, modified or limited by the government.

Martin Graebeck of Wethersfield: Opposes the bill because there is no good reason for a serial number given the unique features of a crafted gun and the bill burdens small business customer gun crafters. Also opposes the provision allowing local authorities to interview immediate family members as part of an applicant's permit process. (This was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

Bill Grace of East Windsor: Opposes the bill because firearms manufactured before 1968 – antique and curio firearms -- did not always have serial numbers and therefore an entire class of owners and collectors of such firearms would be outlaws under the bill.

Walter Hagedorn of Milford: Opposes the bill as an over-regulation in that people have been building and modifying different types of guns for as long as there have been guns. 99.99% of them are honest and hardworking and enjoying the liberty to tinker.

E. Jonathan Hardy of Meriden: Opposes the bill, in particular Section 2 (b) which bans manufacture of any firearm from polymer plastic, with exceptions, and the provision allowing local authorities to interview immediate family members as part of an applicant's permit process. (Both were removed in the bill's substitute language.)

William G. Hillman of Bethel: Opposes the bill because it makes little sense for an un-machined piece of metal to be considered a firearm. Also opposes Section 2(g) as well as Section 3 (a) which allows local authorities to interview immediate family members as part of an applicant's permit process, the latter of which was removed in the bill's substitute language. (The ground for his opposition was removed by the substituted language.)

Mark Howard of Plainfield: Opposes bill because the word “assemble” is ambiguous and can lead to vague interpretation and because the provision allowing local authorities to interview immediate family members as part of an applicant's permit process will further burden the permit issuing authority that already has a backlog and will infringe on one's due process rights.

Ronald J. Iannucci Jr of Naugatuck: Opposes the bill because it exceeds restrictions imposed by federal law, has overbroad language that would make nearly any solid, raw materials a “firearm,” and allows local authorities to interview immediate family members as part of an applicant's permit process, and because federal law already mandates that firearms contain a certain amount of metal content to be detectable.

Timothy Jones of Newington: Opposes the bill because we need criminal justice reform to curb the crime rate rather than more regulations barring law-abiding citizens the possession and use of firearms. Also strongly opposes the provision allowing local authorities to interview immediate family members as part of an applicant's permit process. (This was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

George Kenyon of East Haven: Opposes the bill because stolen guns rather than ghost guns are the primary weapons used to commit crimes. Ghost guns require time, resources, and skill to assemble, implying they are less prevalent than portrayed by proponents of the bill. Also opposes, on many grounds, the provision allowing local authorities to interview immediate family members as part of an applicant's permit process. (This was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

Kathy Kinley: Opposes the bill because it undermines the individual inventive process and because of its provision allowing local authorities to interview an applicant's immediate family members as part of the permit process. (This was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

Brian Kowalczyk of Plainville: Opposes the bill because (1) the definition of firearm would seem to cover every chunk of metal, plastic and maybe even wood, and (2) the provision allowing local authorities to interview immediate family members as part of an applicant's permit process would delay the issuance of a permit even further than it is delayed now. (The ground for this opposition is removed by the substituted language.)

John Lelas of Guilford: Opposes bill because ghost guns don't pose an additional threat to the public; unless you have a manufacturer's license, it is already illegal to make a 80% lower into a firearm for resale. It is also already illegal to make a 80% lower into any banned weapon like an AR-15; and criminals generally don't use ghost guns but they steal them or use straw purchasers instead, both already illegal activities. Being able to trace a serial number doesn't stop the crime from happening in the first place.

Chris Lemos of Stratford: Opposes the bill because every possible criminal use of a home built firearm is already prohibited by existing laws, the new definition of a firearm is overly broad, requiring serial number marking is well beyond the financial means of the average hobbyist, and authorizing local police to interview family members of a pistol permit applicant is both dangerous and a severe breach of privacy.

Edward S. Maccio, Jr. of Bristol: Opposes the bill because it is an effort to supersede existing federal law and regulations. In addition, the provision allowing local authorities to interview immediate family members as part of an applicant's permit process violates the applicant's privacy and will be used to delay the issuance of a permit. (This was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

Brendan Malone of Suffield: Opposes the bill because believes an unintended consequence would be to criminalize over 61,700 young men and women of Connecticut's scouting programs and many others who simply possess firearms that just happen to have been manufactured before 1968.

Devin Maloney of Stonington: Opposes the bill because one more gun law will not solve the problem. Criminals are generally not ambitious and yet the efforts required to build a firearm are quite ambitious. Also opposes the provision allowing local authorities to interview immediate family members as part of an applicant's permit process. (This was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

David Marchetti: Opposes the bill because additional legislation seems to be a moot issue since laws only apply to the law-abiding in society and not the criminal element. While you can secure schools by any reasonable, necessary means, it cannot be at the cost of the inherent right to own a firearm. The bill seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to the tragedies of Sandy Hook and Parkland, Florida rather than the result of “sound logical rational reasoning skills.”

Dan Marcil of Thomaston: Opposes the bill based on its ambiguous language that seems to “imply that an unfinished block of metal or plastic poses a danger to the community and anyone in its possession intends to harm others.”

Michael Marek of Windsor Locks: Opposes the bill because non-serial numbered firearms are legal under federal law as long as the firearm is for personal use and not sold and historically many firearms were manufactured and sold without serial numbers. Believes bill is a solution in search of a problem.

Mark T. Marganski of Naugatuck: Opposes the bill because it is too broad and many antique and collectible firearms would fall under the language, doing nothing to impact criminals but making criminals out of law abiding citizens and collectors. Also opposes the provision allowing local authorities to interview immediate family members as part of an applicant's permit process. (This was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

Mike Ninteau of Lebanon: Opposes the bill based on questions of a valid need for it (“Is there a massive crime wave being fed by such weapons?”) and of its constitutionality. Also opposes the provision allowing local authorities to interview immediate family members as part of an applicant's permit process. (This was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

Sam Nolan: Opposes the bill because banning the manufacture of homemade firearms, which is a time-honored American tradition, only serves to hurt those willing to follow the law in the first place. The definition of firearm reclassifies anything that can be machined into a firearm receiver as a firearm, arguably making any block of metal or polymer a “frame” under the definition. Also opposes the provision allowing local authorities to interview immediate family members as part of an applicant's permit process. (This was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

Stephen Obert: Opposes the bill for many reasons, including the overly broad definition of “firearm” as well as the requirement to obtain a serial number from the state. Also opposes the provision allowing local authorities to interview an applicant's immediate family members as part of the permit process on the basis it violates state law prohibiting the identities of permit holders and applicants from being disclosed. (This was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

Jeff Palazzo: Opposes the bill because it erodes the Fourth Amendment rights of persons who have broken no laws.

Donald Palmer of Manchester: Opposes the bill for many reasons, including that it seems to try to overrule the authority of the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) which allows individuals to manufacture their own firearms without a serial number requirement, as long as they do not sell them. The bill's redefinition of “firearm” is also broader than that of the ATF which requires that the “lower” be 100% completed and fully functional to be categorized as a firearm. Also opposes the provision allowing local authorities to interview an applicant's immediate family members as part of the permit process. (This was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

Michael Phelps of Newington: Opposes the bill based on some restrictive consequences of the language being vague or poorly written. Also opposes the provision allowing local authorities to interview an applicant's immediate family members as part of the permit process. (This was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

Kyle Potenziani of Madison: Opposes the bill because the use of “ghost guns” in our country is “hardly an epidemic,” the ATF already has regulations regarding firearms manufactured by a person for personal use, and its vague language could allow the State to charge a person who possesses a simple piece of billet aluminum with attempting to construct a firearm. Also opposes the provision allowing local authorities to interview an applicant's immediate family members as part of the permit process. (This was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

Raymond Protano: Opposes the bill based on the provision allowing local authorities to interview an applicant's immediate family members as part of the permit process. (This was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

Edward Rio of Manchester: Opposes the bill not only as an infringement on Second Amendment rights, but also as a violation of the privacy and safety of minorities in high crime neighborhoods by announcing through the interview (and hearsay) of relatives that they are pursuing a pistol permit. (Referring to a provision removed in the bill's substitute language.)

James Ritchie of Bristol: Opposes the bill because it goes beyond federal law and ATF regulations regarding building firearms for personal use. Also opposes the provision allowing local authorities to interview an applicant's immediate family members as part of the permit process. (This was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

Ronald Robeson of Lisbon: Opposes the bill as an attempt to over-regulate the building of firearms for personal use, above and beyond what already exists in federal law and to create a gun registry of some sort. Also opposes the provision allowing local authorities to interview an applicant's immediate family members as part of the permit process. (This was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

Theodore C. Rupar: Opposes the bill because it goes beyond federal law and ATF regulations regarding building firearms for personal use. Also opposes the provision allowing local authorities to interview an applicant's immediate family members as part of the permit process. (This was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

Frank Russello: Opposes the bill because does not believe it will make us safer or solve the problem of mass shootings or reduce crime.

Ralph Russo: Opposes the bill because believes it would end the centuries old practice of manufacturing firearms for personal use by imposing requirements that far exceed those existing currently under federal law and regulations, and by creating an overly broad definition of a “firearm.” Also opposes the provision allowing local authorities to interview an applicant's immediate family members as part of the permit process. (This was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

Laura Springer of Southbury: Opposes the bill because believes it would end the centuries old practice of manufacturing firearms for personal use by imposing requirements that far exceed those existing currently under federal law and regulations, and by creating an overly broad definition of a “firearm.” Also opposes the provision allowing local authorities to interview an applicant's immediate family members as part of the permit process. (This was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

Robert Starr of Torrington: Opposes the bill because he is not aware of “ghost guns” being a problem as related to gun crime. Building these type of firearms is not within the capabilities of the average criminal due to the knowledge and tools required. Also believes the provision allowing local authorities to interview an applicant's immediate family members as part of the permit process is unnecessary because it is already permitted under current law. (This was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

Kathleen Stevens of East Hartford: Opposes the bill because she does not think it will reduce gun violence, and specifically opposes the provision allowing local authorities to interview an applicant's immediate family members as part of the permit process. (This was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

Warren Stevens of Southington: Opposes the bill because it is too broad and many antique and collectible firearms would fall under the language, doing nothing to impact criminals but making criminals out of law abiding citizens and collectors. In addition, federal law permits the creation and ownership of “ghost guns” (although requires special license to sell or distribute). Also opposes the provision allowing local authorities to interview immediate family members as part of an applicant's permit process. (This was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

Gary M. Sylvestre: Opposes the bill because another gun law will not solve “our problems,” particularly when the state doesn't even prosecute 70% of firearms felonies. Also opposes the provision allowing local authorities to interview immediate family members as part of an applicant's permit process. (This was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

Roger J. Szendy of New Milford: Opposes the bill because believes the provision allowing local authorities to interview immediate family members as part of an applicant's permit process would extend the already lengthy permit process and give an adversarial family member veto power over a person's constitutional rights. (This was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

Bruce A. Tolhurst of Marlborough: Opposes the bill as an over-regulation that will apply to the ownership of antique guns or replicas of such, and also apply to buying and building kits for “black powder” firearms that are common for hunting, recreational shooting, period events such as parades and Cowboy Mounted Shooting. Also believes that Section 2(e) would restrict a person from willing a firearm manufactured without a serial number, such as an antique gun, to his heirs. The bill's substitute language addresses this concern and makes it so that Section 2(e) does not apply to firearms manufactured before the effective date of the law.

Robert D. Tworkowski Jr. of Stratford: Opposes the bill because ghost guns don't pose an additional threat to the public; unless you have a manufacturer's license. It is already illegal to make a 80% lower into a firearm for resale; it is also already illegal to make a 80% lower into any banned weapon like an AR-15; and criminals generally don't use ghost guns but they steal them or use straw purchasers instead, both already illegal activities. Being able to trace a serial number doesn't stop the crime from happening in the first place.

Nancy Varkal of Bristol: Opposes the bill because it is more restrictive than federal law and ATF regulations regarding building firearms for personal use. Also opposes the provision allowing local authorities to interview an applicant's immediate family members as part of the permit process. (This was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

Peter Varkal of Bristol: Opposes the bill because it is more restrictive than federal law and ATF regulations regarding building firearms for personal use. Also opposes the provision allowing local authorities to interview an applicant's immediate family members as part of the permit process. (This was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

Robert Varkal of Bristol: Opposes the bill because it is more restrictive than federal law and ATF regulations regarding building firearms for personal use. Also opposes the provision allowing local authorities to interview an applicant's immediate family members as part of the permit process. (This was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

Frank Waluk of Bristol: Opposes the bill because it would be impossible to know when an unserialized firearm was made which would make enforcement of the law problematic and confusing. Making firearms, even using 80% receivers, is much more expensive and time consuming than buying a complete firearm so criminals don't really make and use them in their crimes.

John Weber, National Rifle Association: Opposes the bill because its restrictions are wholly unwarranted since state and federal laws already impose rigorous restrictions on the manufacture, transfer and possession of all types of firearms, because the definition of “firearm” is overly broad. The bill is more likely to impact manufacturers, whether in firearms or not, rather than keep weapons out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. Also opposes the provision allowing local authorities to interview an applicant's immediate family members as part of the permit process. (This was removed in the bill's substitute language.)

Kurt Weisheit of Terryville: Opposes the bill because the definition of “firearm” is broad and federal law is already sufficient with respect to providing the requirements for manufacturing and possessing a homemade non-serialized firearm.

Scott Wilcox: Opposes the bill for many reasons including that it would make illegal possessing any firearms that pre-date 1968 and do not have serial numbers on them; that manufacturing a ghost gun is far more difficult (costly, time-consuming, etc.) than illegally obtaining a firearm. Ghost guns are almost entirely manufactured by hobbyists and enthusiasts; and that the provision allowing local authorities to interview an applicant's immediate family members as part of the permit process is invasive and unnecessary.

Scott Wilson of New London: Primarily opposes the bill on the basis of the provision allowing local authorities to interview an applicant's immediate family members as part of the permit process, but also believes the bill is “simply a law looking for a place to happen.” (The ground for his opposition is removed by the substituted language.)

Matthew Zurell of Bristol: Opposes the bill as a very misguided measure in that given the staggering number of violent crimes in our country, it seems irrational to limit a gun owner's right to face these statistics and defend himself or his family.

Nafir Alvarez (Bridgeport); Bert J. Begin (Canton); Fred Belinsky (Norwalk); Diane Bradanini (Middletown); David F. Brede (Cromwell); Timothy Czaplinski (Oxford); Roy Downey (Higganum); Richard Frederick (Southbury); Wendy Gauthier (Voluntown); Jason Haner ( Uncasville); Jack Kavanaugh (Groton), Jens Larsen (Scotland), Cheryl Lemos (Stratford), BJ Liese; Chris Maldonado (North Haven); Christopher Marquette (Ledyard); Wayne Petroskey (Killingworth); Matthew Robbins; Rory Ronan (Bridgewater); Peter Santoro (South Windsor); Christopher Simo-Kinzer (Terryville); Andrew Starczewski (New Britain), Robert and Cathy Staurovsky; Jim Stuart; Eric Vallieres; Justin Volovski (Milford); John Walters (Trumbull); Mike Westkamper; Brent Wiltshire (Stonington), Holly Sullivan, Michael Ptaszynski, MD: Oppose the bill.

:

Reported by: Katherine Doolittle

Date: April 30, 2018