Yesterday, the State Judiciary Committee held a public hearing on a spate of gun-related legislation, sparking debate between gun control and gun rights advocates.
While four of the five bills open to public testimony were focused on firearms, one of them took up the vast majority of public attention; HB 7042, a bill that would allow firearm manufacturers and dealers to be sued for failure to “exercise reasonable control over firearm industry products.”
Proponents of the bill argued it to be a necessary step in holding weapon manufacturers and dealers accountable for unsafe business practices, such as the sale of weapons to straw buyers or illegal arms traffickers. They argued that the legal protections provided to gun manufacturers and dealers with the passage of the Federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005 has provided the industry a level of undue protection, allowing the industry to participate in reckless marketing or sales strategies.
A handful of representatives from pro-gun control organizations spoke in support of the bill, such as Connecticut Against Gun Violence (CAGV) and Advancing Research, Methods and Scholarship (ARMS). Attorney General William Tong also submitted written testimony in support of the bill, claiming the bill would “bolster accountability” without punishing “responsible gun owners or responsible industry professionals.”
“I do believe that the bill incentivizes gun manufacturers to act in the safest way possible to produce, market and sell their products, products that happen to be extremely dangerous if misused,” said Barbara Patrick, a board member for CAGV. “It strikes me as common sense to promote accountability in this industry, as we do with other U.S. industries.”
Opponents argued it would be too punitive to manufacturers and dealers, opening them up to lawsuits anytime a gun, even if legally sold, was later used in the commission of a crime. They argued that the bill would put an unfair burden on gun shop owners, and would put a tighter squeeze on the finances of manufacturers and licensed dealers across the state. Opponents also stressed the strength of Connecticut’s already extant gun regulation, which is ranked third in the nation by the Giffords Law Center, a statistic referred to frequently by legislators and members of the public alike.
“As somebody who’s been involved in CCDL (Connecticut Citizens’ Defense League) and advocacy for quite some time, I find it frustrating to see the amount of duress put on legal gun owners trying to stay legal,” said Tom Maloney, Research Coordinator for CCDL. “I’ve seen people melt down in arguments about how to obey the law, and that’s not where the win in public safety is, going after the same group over and over.”
Republican committee members Rep. Craig Fishbein (R-Middlefield), Sen. John Kissel (R- Enfield) and Rep. Greg Howard (R-Ledyard) cross-examined the bill’s advocates, while supporting the testimony of its opponents. Earl Bloodworth, Executive Director of CGAV, was the first bill proponent to face their questioning.
“Currently, there is an accountability gap when it comes to firearms,” said Earl Bloodworth, Executive Director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence. “Unlike virtually every other industry, firearms manufacturers and dealers operate under a unique shield of federal protection that makes it exceptionally difficult to hold bad faith actors in the firearms industry responsible when their reckless practices contribute to crime, violence and death.”
Fishbein challenged Bloodworth to name another industry as regulated as the firearms industry. He also asked him what should happen in instances of government failure to properly read background checks, arguing that the bill’s current language would hold the seller responsible even if it was a government official who falsely cleared the buyer.
“I recently had a case where the government screwed up on the background check, and they allowed a convicted felon to acquire a firearm,” said Fishbein. “So they’ve been through the system, the government system, but the liability would fall on the gun store under this legislation.”
Howard noted Bloodworth’s mention of the nine other states who had already passed similar laws, asking if they had laws as stringent as Connecticut’s. Bloodworth noted he was not an expert on the legislation present in other states.
“What I’m driving at is, in the state of Connecticut, we have what I believe is the most robust background check to purchase firearms in the country,” said Howard. “So to say, well, nine of the states have passed some legislation, but they don’t have the robust foundation or framework that we do, may not be a fair comparison.”
Howard went a step further, suggesting that the bill would not advance gun safety, but would be used to financially punish the state’s firearms industry.
“I would suggest to you that the laws that we currently have on the books already prevent those sorts of illegal sales, straw purchases, illegal transfers of firearms, etc,” said Howard. “We have all of those laws existing. I would submit to you that this piece of legislation is aimed at driving up the cost of insurance, driving up the cost of doing business for firearm manufacturers to run them out of this state.”
The potential fiscal impact on licensed dealers was echoed by Maloney and other bill opponents throughout their testimony. Another issue of contention among opponent’s was the bill’s inclusion of sellers of “firearms accessories” in its language. Michelle McBrien, Owner of PatriotWare Holsters in Waterbury, stressed the fact that she doesn’t even sell firearms, yet might be subject to litigation if the bill is passed.
“This bill that is on the table will literally put us out of business with one civil lawsuit,” said McBrien. “I don’t sell firearms. I sell holsters, I sell belts, and I sell weapon lights and carry needs.”
Proponents pushed back against this characterization of the bill, saying that it intended not to introduce another avenue for frivolous litigation, but as a way to crack down only on the industry’s worst-faith actors. UConn Professor Jennifer Dineen, Associate Director for ARMS, who testified in support of both HB 7042, proved perhaps to be the most capable of the bill’s proponents.
“History has shown that industry liability is an effective tool for improving health and safety outcomes for products that, through negligence, accidents or misuse, can cause harm,” said Dineen. “Even when manufacturers do not voluntarily enhance safety measures, evidence demonstrates that litigation can drive improvements.”
Dineen cited the Ford Pinto as one such example; sold in the 70’s, the car became notable for its faulty gas tank that was liable to start fires. Dineen said that Ford recalled and revised the vehicle only after facing litigation. Dineen stated that while it is too early to come to definitive conclusions, other states that have recently passed similar bills, such as New York, which passed its own version in 2021, have issued studies claiming “that the crimes that they were targeting with this bill decreased significantly.”
Of the other four firearms bills discussed at yesterday’s hearing, HB 7137, drew the second-most attention. The bill aims to bar state residents from purchasing or owning guns and ammo if they were charged in another state with what would be a disqualifying crime in Connecticut. While this language enjoyed some modicum of bipartisan support, other sections of the bill, which would mandate banks that work with gun and ammo retailers ascribe the proper merchant category code to them, were seen by gun-rights advocates as another attempt at financially harming the industry.
The other two bills, HB 7070 and HB 7194, were raised by Republican lawmakers. The first bill would abolish the state’s “right of retreat” laws in houses of worship, while the second would clarify extant language around the lawful discharge of firearms, and would allow gun-owners who have legally registered assault weapons and high-capacity magazines to transfer ownership of them to one another.
Ultimately, now that these bills have taken public hearing testimony, they will go back to the Judicial Committee to deliberate over its language, and ultimately vote on whether or not it will reach the Senate and House floors. Both HB 7042 and 7137 were raised by Judiciary Committee Co-Chair Steve Stafstrom (D-Bridgeport), and given that the committee is composed of 29 Democrats to only 12 Republicans, they are likely to pass.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Shall not be infringed.
Doesn’t mean today what the framers intended. Laws should be written to prevent hurtful behavior and actions against law abiding citizens, not to punish them.