#28

The Connecticut Sportsmen's Alliance supported this bill. Status Dead.

CTHB 5827, AN ACT CONCERNING DANGEROUS WEAPONS submitted by the
Connecticut Board of Firearm Permit Examiners. This bill would have
corrected long standing problems with the dangerous weapons statute
and particularly those provisions which make sportsmen susceptible to
arrest as felons.  Specifically, the bill would eliminate air rifles
and BB guns from the statutes;  would authorize the carrying of a
knife over four inches "travelling to and from, or while engaged in
outdoor recreational activity or lawful employment activity" without
a permit; and would establish a statewide dangerous weapons permit,
issued by the towns, for those items retained for which the statute
was originally written, e.g. blackjack, brass knuckles, switch blade
knives, stilettos, electronic defense weapons and others.

This bill is particularly important to sportsmen, hunters, fishermen,
trappers, knife collectors and others who carry for use in their
sport knives over four inches.  The fisherman carrying a standard
filet knife, for example, is subject to arrest which carries a
penalty of a $500 dollar fine or imprisoned for not more than three
years or both. If carried in a vehicle the penalty is $1000 or five
years or both. Air rifles and BB guns are subject to the same
penalties. More important to the prohibition of the use of these items
by citizens and the potential of being classed as a felon, is that
the law is not being enforced or obeyed.  It provides enforcement
agencies the ability for selective enforcement allowing for arbitrary
or discriminatory arrests and does not provide that measure of
certainty citizens must have to obey the law. Clearly the law was not
passed to prosecute law abiding fishermen, hunters, firearms trainers
and others engaged in legitimate an d beneficial activities, yet by
the statute they are considered criminals.

At the public hearing held in early March, there was no opposition to
the bill. The Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association, Connecticut
Criminal Lawyers Association, and sportsmen testified in favor of the
bill.  However, just prior to consideration at a Judiciary Committee
meeting, the Chairmen received a letter in opposition from the Chief
States Attorney's office which effectively killed the bill.

Additionally, both chairmen were concerned with the phrase "engaged in
outdoor recreational activity" as being too broad.  A compromise was
reached to change the wording to "engaged in hunting or fishing
activity" and to allow the bill to be considered. The bill was then
favorably reported out of committee to the House on a 25-0 vote. The
bill then sat on the calendar for several days with no action.

A request from the Judiciary chairman for the Alliance lobbyist to
meet with the Chief States Attorney's liaison to discuss a "Ban
Pistol Grip Shotguns" amendment was then received. During this
discussion, the liaison stated the Hartford Police had determined
"the pistol grip shotgun was becoming the Los Macheteros' (the Puerto
Rican Liberation group involved in the Brink's robbery) weapon of
choice", and for that reason should be banned. When asked for
documentation of this "fact" or of other criminal use, an instance of
one drug dealer killing another and a robbery was cited. The liaison
also related that the police also opposed air rifles and pistols
being deleted because of possible use in holdups, knives for the same
reason, and generally opposed any change in the dangerous weapon
statute. He further stated that sportsmen didn't understand the
problems of prosecuting attorneys and that we were weakening the law.
The Alliance's response was that the liaison's office had not
testified opposing the bill, nor had they provided any input until
the eleventh hour. The police associations had not taken any position
and if the Hartford police were concerned, they also had the ability
to be present.  In general, poor legislative procedure.  Secondly, as a
state agency the liaison should have conferred with the Board of
Firearms Permit Examiners, the initiator of the bill and another
state agency. Third, the liaison did not appear to be aware or
concerned with the impact of this poorly written law on legitimate
citizens. The point was made his office works for the people not the
police. We also commented that his "facts" were reported by police
with no documentation, and from a city that has a bias concerning any
type weapon - legitimate or illegitimate.  Finally, he did hear the
facts on pistol grip shotguns and that we would not accept a ban on
any device unless the negative outweighted the positive and that fact
could be documented. Needless to say, we found little philosophical
common ground. One positive factor was an invitation to coordinate
future legislation.

Based upon this conversation and a potential shotgun ban, the
Alliance again geared up a Legislative Alert mailing and received
confirmation from National Rifle Association that they would do the
same for same for their 38,000 Connecticut members. The Alliance then
reported to the Judiciary chairman that no agreement could be reached
and that we were poles apart philosophically.  The bill, now perceived
to be a "talker" was recommitted to committee and effectively killed.
The alert mailing was then stopped.

We believe it is essential that this bill pass and will consider it a
priority bill for the 1989 session. It is essential that this bill
pass to remove the onerous cloud of felonious behavior attached to
our legitimate and beneficial activities. Spor tsmen cannot and will
not continue to accept that they are potential felons based on an
admittedly poorly written law beneficial only to the police for
selective enforcement. Start now. Call your legislator and tell them
it is time for a change!

=============================================================================