HARTFORD, Conn. — Connecticut’s most wide-ranging gun control measure since the 2013 law enacted after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting takes effect Sunday, with proponents vowing to pursue more gun legislation despite legal challenges happening across the country.
The new law, signed by Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont in June, bans the open carrying of firearms and prohibits the sale of more than three handguns within 30 days to any one person, with some exceptions for instructors and others.
“We will not take a break and we cannot stop now, and we will continue to pass life-saving laws until we end gun violence in Connecticut. Our lives depend on it,” said Jeremy Stein, executive director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence.
Immediately after it was passed, the law was challenged in court by gun rights supporters. Connecticut’s landmark 2013 gun law, passed in response to the 2012 elementary school shooting in Newtown that claimed 26 lives, is also being contested in court.
Besides Connecticut, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, other politically liberal-leaning states including California, Washington, Colorado and Maryland also have passed gun laws this year that face legal challenges. They come in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court last year expanding gun rights.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom this week signed nearly two dozen gun control measures, including laws banning firearms being carried in most public places while doubling taxes on guns and ammunition sold in the state. He acknowledged some might not survive a legal challenge. Last week, a federal judge struck down a California law banning guns with detachable magazines that carry more than 10 rounds.
“We feel very strongly that these bills meet the (new standard), and they were drafted accordingly,” Newsom said. “But I’m not naive about the recklessness of the federal courts and the ideological agenda.” Court challenges ahead
Connecticut gun rights advocates held a rally at the state Capitol on Saturday to mark the last day that carrying a visible firearm is legal there. But they are hopeful the law will eventually be overturned in court, arguing it’s an infringement on Second Amendment rights.
The new law also increases bail and toughens probation and parole for what officials called a narrow group of people with repeated serious gun offenses; expands the state’s current assault weapons ban; stiffens penalties for possession of large-capacity magazines; expands safe-storage rules to include more settings; and adds some domestic violence crimes to the list of disqualifications for having a gun.
Republican legislative leaders, who represent the minority party in the state General Assembly, accused Democrats of bragging about how safe Connecticut is because of the gun laws when there have been carjackings, serious property crimes and other acts of violence. House Minority Leader Vincent Candelora, a Republican from North Branford, said claims Connecticut is one of the safest states are a “slap in the face” to residents.
“Enough with the news conferences — Democrats should step away from the lectern and tap into what’s happening in their districts,” he said in a statement.
State Senate President Pro Tempore Martin Looney, a Democrat from New Haven, called the legislation a “very significant initiative” but stressed “the battle is not over.”
Connecticut is vulnerable to states with looser gun laws, Looney said. He wants to pursue further limits on monthly gun purchases and require microlabeling or ammunition microstamping to help law enforcement trace bullet casings to specific firearms makes and modes.
Lamont, who proposed the newly enacted law, said he is interested in working with fellow governors in the Northeast to draft similar laws, given how the technology is changing so fast and Connecticut “can only do so much within our small state and within our borders.”
Fine. Kinda. Are there exceptions for hunting, camping and private property?
Fuck is that supposed to solve?! “Gosh, I’d better put of my emotional and/or planned killing spree! I only got 2 new pistols this month!” It costs political capital making the law a new loss for gun safety.
I say again, this technology does not exist and cannot exist. These idiots watch too many cop shows.
Probably aimed at reducing straw purchases.
deleted by creator
Has Connecticut managed to provide some data highlighting straw purchases as some sort of incredible problem to solve?
Of course they haven’t. Straw purchases are notoriously hard to prosecute.
I don’t mind the other provisions but the micro stamping doesn’t seem like it would work. Bullets are usually obliterated and putting a stamp on the casing would make it easy to scratch off.
I thought open carry had a built in exception for private property (where you’re presumably hunting). And you can always have an unloaded gun in a case in the back seat or in your trunk or wherever while you drive out to your property.
I could be wrong. We barely have any gun laws where I live (Louisiana). But I understood open carry as “visible to others but not in a threatening position.” And concealed is obviously hidden and what constitutes a threatening position varies. (So, maybe Connecticut considers it brandishing if it’s loaded, Louisiana and other big hunting states draw the line at aiming at a person with the safety off, and Texas allows fancy gun handling and a few warning shots at the feet if you’re making a city boy dance.)
It bothers me that there’s a law that explicitly allows breaking one of the cardinal rules of firearm safety. If you point a gun at someone, that’s threatening deadly injury, period. Either that or “Don’t point your gun at anything you don’t intend to destroy” is a bad rule.
Yeah you’re right. It’s a losing battle
If we can’t devise quote “effective” gun control legislation (whatever that means to you, to me it means no guns at all), let’s just let everyone have access to guns, per their constitutional right. That will curb these mass shootings. If not, those shooters were mentally ill and the outcome was unavoidable!
Won’t somebody think of the hunters or the property owners?!? Their way of life, shattered. I can name half a dozen people who hunt in the state of CT and they’re happy about more gun control
Or, phrased so as to correctly highlight where the burdens lie, if a restrictive firearm measure isn’t directly tied to a facet of firearm violence as an attempt to address a specific problem supported by an abundance of data and reasoning - aka well-justified - it should be resisted as yet another ineffective measure that can only serve as an incremental move toward defacto bans.