Rep. Greg Howard Explains Why House Bill 6667 is Not the Answer to Gun Violence

Yesterday, in the Judiciary Committee, I did not support HB-6667 AN ACT ADDRESSING GUN VIOLENCE and if it stays in current form, I have no intention of supporting it on the floor of the House either.  I feel it important to explain my position on why I voted against the bill.

1. The bill bans open carry; I’m actually ok with that generally
2. The bill bans legal permit holders from carrying in restaurants where there is a liquor permit.  One must go through a rigorous process to obtain a pistol permit proving their history of law-abiding behavior and their suitability.  Proponents of this bill have not offered one single incident where a person lawfully carrying a firearm at a permitted premise has led to a violent ending.  So, I do not see how this section will address gun violence.  What it would do is create another setting where an evil-doer can plan to do harm knowing that no one in that building can be equipped to defend themselves.
3. The bill limits firearm purchases to one-per-month.  Again, proponents have not pointed to one single incident where an individual legally purchasing more than one gun in a month has led to a violent ending.
4. The bill requires that once you purchase a firearm you must wait 10-days to pick it up.  Once again, proponents of this bill have not pointed to one incident where someone legally purchased a firearm and that led to a violent ending within 10 days.

There are several other sections, but the theme remains the same.  CT has very strict gun laws now, in fact, among the top 3 in the country.  In proposing the bill yesterday, Chairman Stafstrom stated publicly that the two leading causes of gun violence in our state are firearms illegally trafficked in from out-of-state and stolen firearms.  He is correct about that.  The only thing in the bill that could reasonably be interpreted to address this is the section that requires someone to lock their gun up when not home so if they are burglarized, it is harder for a burglar to steal the firearm.  Other than that, the proponents of this bill have made no argument for any section that would address the root cause of the gun violence.

On the contrary, the Democratic mayors of our 4 largest cities have proposed measures to get serious about prosecuting the gun crimes that we have.  I applaud the Governor for joining them; however Democratic legislators have watered those proposals down to the point they will be nearly ineffective.  And that speaks to the real ongoing problem: criminals.  Here is a link to an OLR report that shows the overwhelming number of times that gun charges are not prosecuted (nolle’d or dismissed).  The reason for the high number of nolle and dismissed cases is because those charges were dropped in favor of a more serious offense.  This tells us that the gun crimes committed in this state are being perpetrated by folks who are already ineligible to possess any firearms.  In fact, on February 15, our Chief State’s Attorney provided that 70% of identified shooters in CT’s largest cities were already convicted felons meaning their possession of a firearm was already illegal.  This is not to say that the other 30% were legally in possession of a firearm as there are several other disqualifiers besides being a convicted felon and there is quite a process one must go through to legally possess a firearm.  He also stated, “The sobering reality is that gun violence in Connecticut is largely driven by a small number of high-risk, repeat felony offenders in the 18- to 34-year-old range.”

I am proud of CT’s current laws.  I am able to articulate to you the lack of legal gun owners committing gun crimes in our state because of our current system.  In CT, you need a fingerprint supported background check to get a certificate to even purchase a bullet, much less a firearm.  This process, which takes more than 10 days, is precisely why no one can point to a reason for the 10-day waiting period or the one-per-month restriction; because to purchase legally one has already met several bars over some time.  Does the country need better laws around obtaining firearms?  Absolutely.  CT’s mandatory background check procedures (although I think the fees are bit unfair) is a model that every state should follow.  But, for CT to enact HB6667 given our current situation in our state is not the answer to gun violence, or really even part of the answer.

So, in my opinion, what is the answer?  Well, for one nationally we need better laws.  This will address the gun violence nationally and will also help limit the leading cause of gun violence in CT, which is guns being transported into our state because they were too easily purchased out of state.  Two, we need to get tougher on gun crimes.  We need to enforce mandatory minimum sentences on first offense for gun-related crimes.  As the Chief State’s Attorney noted, this will cut down on repeat offenders as they would be incarcerated.  Three, we need to continue the work that I have supported since getting elected around prevention that actually works and is proven to work: programs such as the credible messenger program and Project Longevity are phenomenal and do far more for ending gun violence than HB6667 ever will as it gets to the root of the actual problem.  And of course, as well as for many other reasons, we need to continue to work on the mental health crisis in our state.

Lastly, I watched the video from Nashville, and that shooter was in fact stopped by good guys with guns.  I don’t proport that arming every “good guy” is the answer to gun violence as you can see from my statement above, and further restricting those who have not contributed to gun violence is not part of it.  But my Democratic colleagues are trying to get police officers out of schools and have less lock down drills when it was lock down drills and police officers that saved many lives in Nashville.