I heard about it on the news last night again. They like to mention it after a story where someone was shot. Doesn't matter if the gun in the story was not reported stolen or it was...because obviously this is the law that will prevent anyone from getting shot ever again.

And WTF are These Guys ......http://www.gunguys.com/?p=1837 . I found them while trying to get more info as to where we stand on this issue.  

Do people actually think these guys are Gun Guys? It akes 5 seconds on their page to realize they are AntiGunGheyGuys!

Here I think you'll like these guys better


http://www.assaultweaponwatch.com/

It's still on the table.

Public hearing next week; it looks like it will pass. This version lacks the "prima facie" clause the previous ones did.

Quoted: Public hearing next week; it looks like it will pass. This version lacks the "prima facie" clause the previous ones did.

What do you mean by 'prima facie' ?  

PUBLIC HEARING *JUDICIARY COMMITTEE * TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 2007

The Judiciary Committee will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, April 10, 2007 at 1: 00 P. M. in Room 1E of the LOB. Please submit 60 copies of written testimony to Committee staff two hours prior to the start of the hearing in Room 2500 of the LOB. The first hour of the hearing is reserved for Legislators, Constitutional Officers, State Agency Heads and Municipal Chief Elected Officials. After the first hour, speaker order will be determined by a lottery system. Lottery numbers will be drawn from 9: 00 A. M. to 12: 00 P. M. in Room 2500 of the LOB. Anyone wishing to testify after the completion of the drawing will have their names placed at the end of the list. Speakers will be limited to 3 minutes of testimony.

* S.B. No. 903 (COMM) AN ACT CONCERNING LOST OR STOLEN FIREARMS.


Introducer(s):
Judiciary Committee

Title: AN ACT CONCERNING LOST OR STOLEN FIREARMS.

Statement of Purpose: To reduce the number of illegally obtained guns used in the commission of crimes.

Bill History:

01/22/07 REFERRED TO JOINT COMMITTEE ON Judiciary Committee
02/05/07 VOTE TO DRAFT
03/20/07 DRAFTED BY COMMITTEE
03/21/07 REFERRED TO JOINT COMMITTEE ON Judiciary Committee
04/05/07 PUBLIC HEARING 04/10

Co-sponsor(s):
Sen. Martin M. Looney, 11th Dist.     Sen. Toni Nathaniel Harp, 10th Dist.

Proposed Bill

General Assembly           Proposed Bill No. 903

January Session, 2007
 
LCO No. 2215
 
Referred to Committee on Judiciary

Introduced by:

SEN. LOONEY, 11th Dist.

SEN. HARP, 10th Dist.


AN ACT CONCERNING LOST OR STOLEN FIREARMS.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

That the general statutes be amended to require that when a firearm is not in the actual physical possession of the owner it be stored or kept in a manner so as to reduce the risk that it will be stolen or otherwise come into the possession of another person, to require the owner of a firearm to report the loss or theft of that firearm to a law enforcement agency within seventy-two hours of the time when such owner knew or should have known of such theft or loss, and to provide that a violation of these provisions shall be classified as an infraction for the first offense and a crime for a subsequent offense.

Statement of Purpose:

To reduce the number of illegally obtained guns used in the commission of crimes.

Committee Bill

General Assembly           Committee Bill No. 903

January Session, 2007
 
LCO No. 5956
 
*05956SB00903JUD*

Referred to Committee on Judiciary

Introduced by:

(JUD)

AN ACT CONCERNING LOST OR STOLEN FIREARMS.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2007) (a) Whenever a person who possesses a firearm, as defined in section 53a-3 of the general statutes, does not have actual physical possession of such firearm, such person shall store or keep such firearm in such a manner as to ensure that there is not a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such firearm will be stolen or otherwise come into the possession of another person without authorization. Such risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.

(b) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section and such firearm is seized or recovered by a law enforcement agency while not in the possession of such person shall commit an infraction for a first offense, be guilty of a class C misdemeanor for a second offense and be guilty of a class A misdemeanor for any subsequent offense.

Sec. 2. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2007) (a) Any person who possesses a firearm, as defined in section 53a-3 of the general statutes, that is stolen from such person or that such person loses shall report such theft or loss to the organized local police department for the town in which the theft or loss occurred or, if such town does not have an organized local police department, to the state police troop having jurisdiction for such town, not later than seventy-two hours after such person knew or should have known of such theft or loss. Such department or troop shall forthwith forward a copy of such report to the Commissioner of Public Safety.

(b) Any person who fails to make a report required by subsection (a) of this section within the prescribed time period shall commit an infraction for a first offense, be guilty of a class C misdemeanor for a second offense and be guilty of a class A misdemeanor for any subsequent offense, except that, if such person intentionally fails to make such report within the prescribed time period, such person shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor for a first offense and a class D felony for any subsequent offense.

Sec. 3. Section 53-202g of the general statutes is repealed. (Effective October 1, 2007)



This act shall take effect as follows and shall amend the following sections:

Section 1        October 1, 2007       New section

Sec. 2            October 1, 2007        New section

Sec. 3            October 1, 2007         Repealer section

Statement of Purpose:

To reduce the number of illegally obtained guns used in the commission of crimes.

[Proposed deletions are enclosed in brackets. Proposed additions are indicated by underline, except that when the entire text of a bill or resolution or a section of a bill or resolution is new, it is not underlined.]

Co-Sponsors:


SEN. LOONEY, 11th Dist.; SEN. HARP, 10th Dist.

Phil, the "prima facie" language was in earlier versions of the bill from 2005 & 2006.
It meant you would have NO DEFENSE if your gun(s) was/were stolen and recovered by police before you reported it. You would be automatically guilty without a defense.

Such prima facie clauses are contrary to the US Constitution and I believe were deliberately inserted in previous versions intending them NOT to pass.

This year, it will pass.

So what constitutes reasonable care taken to insure firearms not be stolen?

Quoted: So what constitutes reasonable care taken to insure firearms not be stolen?

The Department of Public Safety is charged with setting that standard. Take a guess.

I missed that. Where in the bill does it say state police will determine the standard of reasonable care and where is that standard in writing?

If the bill is to vague it can't be upheld. Did anyone go to th hearing?  I had to work.

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/scn-sa-guns3apr12,0,5553336.story?track=rss

Lost gun law advances in Hartford
By Brian Lockhart
Staff Writer

April 12, 2007

HARTFORD - Legislation giving private gun owners 72 hours to notify police that a firearm had been lost or stolen will be considered by the Public Safety Committee.

First-time offenders would receive only a ticket and a fine, but subsequent offenses would be considered felonies and result in loss of a gun permit or more.

The bill, approved by the Judiciary Committee yesterday, is viewed by legislators from both sides of the aisle as a major step in cracking down on illegal gun trafficking.

"I think this has real teeth," said freshman state Rep. William Tong, D-Stamford, who campaigned last fall on stiffer gun control measures and defeated Republican incumbent Donald Sherer.

Judiciary Committee co-chairman Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven, a former prosecutor with the state's attorney's office in New Haven, agreed.

"Right now, there's no legal obligation to report it," Lawlor said. "Our argument has always been, 'You want to own a gun, fine. Just take responsibility for it.' "

A similar proposal was approved last year by the Senate but struck down in the House, 79-66. At the time, Sherer voted against the bill, saying he was concerned the legislation could target unsuspecting citizens.

Tong has high hopes this year's bill will survive because it has the support of the Judiciary Committee's ranking Republican, state Rep. Arthur O'Neill of Southbury.

Tong said at "the eleventh hour" Tuesday, after a lengthy public hearing on the legislation, O'Neill proposed compromise language that he said would ensure his vote.

"To get him to flip on it is very, very significant," Tong said.

After yesterday's 36-3 committee vote, O'Neill acknowledged he has had an "A-plus" legislative rating with the National Rifle Association for years.

He said one compromise was specifying that gun owners file a report within 72 hours of "having discovered or reasonably should have discovered" a missing firearm. Last year's bill would have required a report within 72 hours when an owner "knew or should have known" a gun was missing.

O'Neill and others said that language could have been used by over-aggressive prosecutors to build cases against vacationing gun owners or hunters with cabins who may not learn for some time of a break-in.

"It's not an unfounded concern," said Tong, who is an attorney. "I know in layman's terms it's tough to parse the differences, but there's a meaningful difference."

The legislation approved yesterday also requires firearms to be stored safely and not in a manner considered "reckless and irresponsible" by investigating police.

First-time offenders could be ticketed and fined up to $90 depending on the circumstances. Last year's failed bill would have stripped first-time offenders of their gun permits.

"But it kicks up to a felony pretty quick in second and third offenses," Tong said.

He called the ticket for first-time offenders a "buffer."

"It's to protect otherwise law-abiding gun owners from a mistake," Tong said. "It sends a message: 'You do this again, you're really going to get whacked.' "

O'Neill said he has faith most gun owners who go through that first "bad experience" with police will be more responsible.

"Most people who get a speeding ticket stop speeding, at least for a while," he said.

O'Neill said he also supported the legislation because it would be accompanied by state investments in the Firearms Trafficking Task Force and in hiring two additional prosecutors to focus on illegal gun sales.

Lawlor yesterday speculated that last fall's victories by Tong, state Rep. Kim Fawcett of Westport and a few other freshman Democrats who had campaigned on gun control has persuaded the Republican minority to craft a bill that will pass the General Assembly this session.

State Rep. Claudia "Dolly" Powers, R-Greenwich, another member of the Judiciary Committee, also voted in favor of the compromise legislation yesterday.

She disputed Lawlor's scenario.

"You had Republicans voting for it last year. The entire Greenwich delegation voted for it," Powers said. "I thought we were getting it last year. . . . My hope is with the tweaking we did it will be acceptable across the board. To me, it's just kind of common sense."

Does nayone have contact info for Arthur O'Neil?

My concern is still what does reasonable storage mean? What if I sleep with my CCW in my room wher it is in easy reach. That is certainly not "locked Up"

How does this affect "second hand sales" of long guns between individuals that are NOT required to obtain any NICS authorization and where no paperwork or reporting is required.

How many thousands of long guns that started with an SP-3 somewhere end up being sold among gun club members months and years later?

If the subsequent owner has that guns stolen, does the original owner get screwed?

If so, they've just made felons out of about 10,000 people at two dozen different gun clubs in the state.

Quoted: First-time offenders would receive only a ticket and a fine, but subsequent offenses would be considered felonies and result in loss of a gun permit or more.

Cops can and will pull your permit for anything they want, Who wants to bet with that " ticket and fine" A whole lot of folks get their permits pulled and at the very least have to go through a permit hearing , or worse. lose their permits permanently??

height=8

Quoted: Does anyone have contact info for Arthur O'Neil?

O Neill, Arthur J.
[email protected]
http://www.housegop.ct.gov/members/oneill.asp

http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/hlist.asp

Just checked my email and noticed this NRA Alert.

www.nraila.org:80/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=2911

The Connecticut “Gun Trafficker Protection Act” is Back!  
 
Friday, April 27, 2007

The "Gun Trafficker Protection Act" is back and is expected to be referred to the Senate Public Safety Committee.  Senate Bill 903, introduced by State Senators Martin Looney (D-11) and Toni Harp (D-10), has already cleared the JSenate udiciary Committee.  

SB 903 would make criminals out of burglary victims by making it a crime to fail to report a gun theft to police within 72 hours of when the owner "discovered or should have discovered" the theft.  SB 903 also includes language that would subject gun owners to criminal investigation and jeopardy of prosecution even if they report the theft within the required time period! Under the bill, a court would be given the ability to decide whether the firearm was stored in such a manner that provided a "substantial and unjustifiable risk" that it would be stolen.  

Not only does this bill put gun owners at risk, but it actually offers protection to gun traffickers! The proponents of this legislation claim their intent is to stop "straw purchasers" (buying for individuals who are prohibited from possessing firearms), from falsely claiming that the illegally transferred firearm(s) were stolen from them.  Are we to believe that a person who has made the choice to commit a Federal felony by purchasing a firearm for a prohibited person would not be above making a false report to the police, whether it's prior to the police tracking them down or after?  

Make no mistake -- there is no public safety rationale behind this proposal.  It simply does not work. Call your Connecticut state lawmakers TODAY at (860)-240-0100 and strongly urge them to OPPOSE SB 903!

I called the number anf they wer very nice however they transfered me around to three different offices.

I left a message at each one however I asked for the number I could "let my friends know to call" but they said that you would call the Democrats if your senator is a Dem and the Republicans if your Senator is a Rep.


Confusing as all hell but, Hey at least all three offices got the message.

OK guys, make some calls!

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/FC/2007SB-00903-R000613-FC.htm

You can find your Representative and Senator here: www.cga.ct.gov/maps/townlist.asp


www.cga.ct.gov/2007/FC/2007SB-00903-R000613-FC.htm