Opinion
Hartford, CT – In a move that’s raising serious alarms among gun owners and defenders of the Second Amendment, the Connecticut House of Representatives passed a controversial bill Wednesday that could dramatically expand lawsuits against the firearms industry and make it harder for residents to get pistol permits.
House Bill 7042 passed on a 100–46 vote, mostly along party lines. Five Republicans joined Democrats in support, while five moderate Democrats broke ranks and voted no. The bill now moves to the state Senate for consideration.
Gun Makers in the Crosshairs
At the heart of the legislation is a provision that allows lawsuits to be filed against gun manufacturers, distributors, and sellers who allegedly fail to implement so-called “reasonable controls” to prevent firearms from reaching criminals or prohibited individuals.
Rep. Steve Stafstrom (D-Bridgeport), a trial lawyer and co-chair of the Judiciary Committee, championed the bill. He claims it closes a “loophole” in the 2005 federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which shields gun makers from most liability. Stafstrom said the bill simply provides “civil remedies” for victims, citing the Sandy Hook lawsuit against Remington as precedent. That case ended in a $73 million settlement under Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act.
But critics aren’t buying it.
“A Trial Lawyer’s Dream”
“This is probably a trial lawyer’s dream,” said House Minority Leader Vincent Candelora (R-North Branford). “It certainly will make lawyers a lot richer. It does nothing to make Connecticut residents safer.”
Rep. Craig Fishbein (R-Wallingford), a constitutional conservative and the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, called the bill a double standard. “We are saying to the firearm industry, ‘You’re going to be held to a different standard,’” he said, comparing it to suing car companies for drunk driving crashes.
Rep. Doug Dubitsky (R-Chaplin), a longtime Second Amendment supporter, warned of the slippery slope. “There is no constitutional right to buy a washing machine. But there is a constitutional right to own a firearm. If you drive gun manufacturers out of business with lawsuits, you destroy that right.”
Who Gets Sued?
The bill defines “firearm industry member” broadly: anyone involved in the manufacture, distribution, marketing, or sale of guns, ammo, magazines, and even parts like frames or bump stocks. Private person-to-person gun sales are not affected.
However, opponents note that vague language in the bill makes it difficult to determine exactly who could be sued. “Yes, we are splitting hairs,” said Dubitsky, “because this determines who will get sued.”
Making Permits Harder to Get
In addition to targeting the industry, the bill also cracks down on who can obtain a pistol permit in Connecticut. Current law disqualifies residents with certain misdemeanor convictions. But until now, people convicted of those same crimes in other states could still get a permit after moving to Connecticut.
The bill closes that gap, barring applicants with similar out-of-state misdemeanors in the past eight years. Crimes include threatening, assault, inciting riots, and drug offenses.
Gov. Ned Lamont said the current loophole “doesn’t make much sense.”
More Red Tape, Less Freedom?
Gun dealers have warned that the bill may push smaller shops out of business due to skyrocketing insurance costs. Edward Rando, owner of Ron’s Guns in East Lyme, said his liability insurance has already quadrupled over 40 years—from $5,000 to $20,000—and this bill could make it worse.
Stonington police officer and State Rep. Greg Howard (R) summed up the frustration on the House floor: “When are we going to blame the criminals? When are we going to pin the tail on the donkey?”
Bottom Line: House Bill 7042 is being praised by anti-gun activists and trial lawyers, but many see it as a direct attack on lawful gun ownership and a dangerous precedent that could drive manufacturers out of Connecticut. The bill now heads to the Senate, where Second Amendment supporters are bracing for another battle.
Stay alert. Stay free.
State Attorneys Claim Hunting Rifles Not Constitutionally Protected in Connecticut
Defendant has Standing to Contest Connecticut’s Ban on Carry in State Parks
Maybe one day a demarxist will be able to articulate, in a somewhat reasonable manner, just what “reasonable controls” they suggest be enacted to keep a criminal from committing a crime. By that very definition the criminal is breaking any number of laws. So, what makes these mental midgets think that this bill will change any thought process for someone that already wants to break the law? Oh, wait. It’s (D)ifferent. Got it.
I’ve said it many times before, and I’ll keep saying it:
All the gun manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, gun stores, repairers…….need to form a loose coalition such that whenever any of these Deep Blue states passes an anti 2A law, they all need to say with one voice, “NO GUNZ FOR YOU”. and that includes anyone in that state legislature AND their bodyguards AND the po-po.
These LibTards need to feel the actions of their consequences in their attempts to disarm the average law abiding citizens.
All these New England states fought to preserve firearms ownership when their dictators were British, but now that they’re democrats, they let them crap on them. Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.
Are there any gun manufacturers left in Connecticut? If so, which ones? Why are they staying there? Gun shops and gun manufacturers move to Free America, relocate to Wyoming and Montana! Do it now before it’s too late! Trial lawyers are scumbags. They will and do sue every manufacturer for anything, just to line their pockets with money. Why, they would even sue their own grandmother if they could get enough money! This is what happens when you get uneducated ignorant sleeple voting for far leftist liberal democrats. Steve Strafstorm does not belong in politics, Steve belongs in a prison… Read more »
“Five Republicans joined Democrats in support”…are these Republicans related to Connecticut offspring, Benedict Arnold?
Just a thought:
If a State government refuses to properly implement a Supreme Court decision or, worse, openly defies one, or if a State passes legislation contradictory to Federal law, could not that State be said to have entered into a state of open rebellion against the United States of America? Would not the proper response to such, as set by precedent in 1861, be to send in the army to quash said rebellion?