Guns: CT House approves bill to make lawsuits easier to file and gun permits harder to get

Yahoo

30-04-2025

State legislators clashed Wednesday before approving a controversial bill that would make it easier to file civil lawsuits against gun manufacturers and make it harder for some residents to obtain a pistol permit.
After more than two hours of debate over the Second Amendment and liability in the state House of Representatives, the measure passed by 100 to 46 with five Republicans in favor and five moderate Democrats against.
House Republican leader Vincent Candelora of North Branford said the bill has multiple flaws in allowing more lawsuits against firearms manufacturers, marketers, distributors and retailers.
'Generally, the concern is that this is probably a trial lawyer's dream,' Candelora told reporters outside the historic Hall of the House. 'I don't think it does anything to make Connecticut residents safer from gun violence. It certainly will make lawyers a lot richer.'
Candelora added, 'This would be like making the car manufacturers liable for the accidents on our roads.'
The debate started at 12:37 p.m. and was completed by 3 p.m. Wednesday.
Moderate Democrats Kerry Wood of Rocky Hill, Jill Barry of Glastonbury, Patrick Boyd of Pomfret, Chris Poulos of Southington and Michael DiGiovancarlo of Waterbury voted against the bill. Five Republicans: Devin Carney of Old Saybrook, Tina Courpas of Greenwich, Tracy Marra of Darien, Chris Aniskovich of Clinton, and Tom Delnicki of South Windsor voted with the Democratic majority in favor.
State Rep. Craig Fishbein, the ranking House Republican on the legislature's judiciary committee, described the measure as 'groundbreaking legislation' in how the gun industry was being treated.
'There's never been a bill up here treating the alcohol industry in the same fashion,' said Fishbein, who voted against the measure. 'We don't have liability for the purveyor of that beer' in a fatal drunken-driving accident.
'I understand that there are people in this building who just don't like guns. I used to be one of them,' Fishbein said. 'It's already difficult to do business in this state. … Also, firearms can be dangerous. I got it.'
Rep. Steven Stafstrom, a Bridgeport Democrat who co-chairs the legislature's judiciary committee, said House Bill 7042 allows the state attorney general, as well as private citizens and cities and towns, to file civil lawsuits against those 'who fail to implement so-called reasonable controls in preventing the sale of firearms to straw purchasers, firearm traffickers, and individuals who are prevented from purchasing firearms under our laws.'
Stafstrom added that the bill is necessary because the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, known as PLCAA, was passed by Congress in 2005 that 'provided special immunity protections just to gun manufacturers that are not available to almost any other product manufacturer out there.'
So far, nine other states have passed similar legislation to expand the possibility of gun-related lawsuits, including New York, New Jersey, California, Maryland, Illinois, Colorado and others.
'We didn't single out anyone. Congress did,' Stafstrom said. 'Connecticut will be the 10th state.'
The measure focuses on gun manufacturers and 'firearms industry members,' meaning that private sales between individuals would not be subject to the provisions of the bill, Stafstrom said.
Liability, he said, is important.
'We're not creating a new body of law here. This is product liability law 101,' Stafstrom said, adding that the Connecticut law is needed because the gun industry was 'singled out for immunity by Congress.'
At the committee level, the bill was debated in March during a six-hour hearing by the judiciary committee that brought out proponents and opponents.
The multi-pronged bill also makes it harder for some residents to obtain a gun permit if they committed crimes in other states. Currently, Connecticut residents who commit felonies and 11 'disqualifier misdemeanors' are not permitted to obtain a pistol or revolver permit. But residents who commit essentially the same misdemeanors in other states, and then move to Connecticut, are still able to obtain a permit.
The bill would cover anyone convicted of those misdemeanors in another state during the past eight years; they would now be blocked from getting a pistol or revolver permit, lawmakers said.
Under Connecticut's 'clean slate' law, convictions for certain misdemeanors are erased. But Connecticut's clean slate law does not apply to out-of-state convictions.
'Under current law, frankly we're treating our own residents more harshly than those who just moved into the state,' Stafstrom told reporters.
The misdemeanors in question concern 'violence against another person, extreme indifference to human life, inciting a riot, or possession of certain controlled substances,' Stafstrom said.
In a longtime oversight, police and attorneys somehow overlooked the provision in the law and never noticed that out-of-state convictions were handled differently, officials said.
When told about the different treatment depending on whether a person committed the crime out of state or in Connecticut, Gov. Ned Lamont said, 'It doesn't make much sense to me.'
On the House floor, Stafstrom said anyone who was engaged in the manufacturing of guns would be subject to the provisions of the bill.
Separately, attorneys for the families of victims of the shootings at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown in 2012 filed a civil lawsuit under a different provision of the law concerning unfair trade practices. The provisions in the bill would be in addition to the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, known as CUTPA.
A non-partisan legislative analysis provided comprehensive details on who would be covered.
'Under the bill, a 'firearm industry member' is a person, entity, or association (e.g., corporation or trade association) engaged in the manufacture, distribution, importation, marketing, or sale – wholesale or retail – of firearm industry products,' the analysis says. 'These products are firearms, ammunition or firearm magazines, unfinished frames or lower receivers – generally used to make 'ghost guns' – or rates of firearm enhancement (e.g., 'bump stocks') that are or were sold, made, or distributed in the state or possessed in the state and it was reasonably foreseeable that this would occur.'
State Rep. Doug Dubitsky, a Republican attorney who supports the Second Amendment, said some gun manufacturers have already left the state.
'Ruger used to manufacture almost all of their firearms in Connecticut, and now they do not,' Dubitsky said.
Dubitsky asked a series of questions on exactly who is determined to be a gun manufacturer and whether they would be covered by the bill.
'Yes, we are splitting hairs because this determines who will get sued,' he said. 'These people do this for a living. … You want to know who is going to be named.'
Guns, he said, are a different product under the Second Amendment.
'There is no constitutional right to buy a washing machine,' Dubitsky said on the House floor. 'There is no constitutional right to buy a car. … You can't buy a firearm if all of the gun manufacturers have been shut down.'
Rep. Greg Howard, a Republican who also serves as a longtime police officer in Stonington, said that liability is being deflected to other parties and away from the person who actually pulled the trigger in a gun crime. He said he has carried a gun every day for the past 23 years.
'When are we going to pin the tail on the donkey?' Howard asked on the House floor. 'When are we going to blame the criminals?'
Christopher Keating can be reached at [e-mail]