Posted on




Although none of the anti-gun bills scheduled for today actually moved out of committee, we have now seen the latest amendments for the bills.

SB 700, the “universal background check” bill would be amended to add to the list of people you could transfer a firearm to without asking permission of the police.

Previous amendments listed specific people who could receive a firearm and this amendment adds to that list by including step-children and “domestic partners.”

The bill will still prevent you from giving a gun to your favorite niece or a friend you’ve known for 30 years. Of course, this new rule will be completely ignored by all criminals, once again only harassing the law-abiding.

It a moment that can only be described as surreal, Senator Jackie Dingfelder sought to denigrate the idea that you should be allowed to give your son or daughter a firearm by reminding the room that the Connecticut shooter “got the gun from his parents” (sic)  No mention was made that he got it by shooting his mother in the face, something this bill, will not, of course, address.

SB 699, which started life as an attempt to ban concealed carry in the Capitol, has been amended several times.  This latest amendment would only allow concealed carry in a “public building” if the firearm was “concealed from view.”

A previous amendment required the firearm be “completely concealed.”  This new term does little to make the bill any better since in neither case was “concealed” or “completely concealed” defined.

Does the outline of a handgun printing through a jacket mean it’s not concealed? If  a person catches a glimpse of your gun when an outer garment is brushed aside are you now guilty of a felony?

SB 347, the “no guns in schools” bill has been amended once again. The latest version changes the way gun owners will be banned from schools. Instead of writing policies “allowing” CHL holders onto school property, now it requires that the school write a policy to forbid CHL holders it they want to keep them out. Again, it allows schools, if they choose to, to require that you unholster your firearm and place it in a school provided “safe.”  Why any school would encourage people to handle a firearm when it is safely holstered is anyone’s guess.

The new amendment (dash 8) also allows a parent to pick up or drop off a child while in possession of a firearm, but they may not come inside the building. This is absurd.  No one can explain why a licensed, rational, law-abiding parent can be trusted right up to the door, but after stepping across that line becomes a dangerous lunatic. Furthermore, no provision is made for grandparents or any other family member to pick-up or drop off a child. More pointless and unnecessary attacks on your rights.

Finally, we have seen amendments to SB 796.  The “dash 6” amendments once again change the required course of fire for new CHL applicants and now specify that a person may only attempt to qualify 3 times in a year. No mention is made in the bill on how this will be enforced. This may NOT be the amendment the committee will consider since at today’s work session Chairman Prozanski described a different amendment (not yet posted) that would remove the firing requirements and instead outlaw “on-line” training, and require a “live” instructor.  This, of course, would greatly impact people who live in places where firearms instructors are few and far between. We have seen no examples of why this new demand is needed.  As more and more classes and training move to the online environment, this is a great leap backward. Why limit the types of classes available when an online class by a world class instructor could be as good or better than a class with a “live” teacher? This bill provides fewer choices and greater expense. Another solution seeking a problem.

The bills have been held over until tomorrow for action but could very well be pushed back to Thursday or even Thursday night.  In short, there is nothing here that is good for gun owners and we need to keep the heat on.


Please contact the Senate Judiciary Committee and ask for a “no” vote on all four bills.