March 9, 2012
I write you today to express my extreme disappointment in the committee. What kind of message does your unanimous vote (http://cga.ct.gov/2012/TS/H/2012HB-05220-R00KID-CV5-TS.htm) in favor of HB 5220 send to the children and citizens of Connecticut?
- It tells the children (as well as your constituents whom you claim to represent) that you have reckless indifference for what constitutes personal property rights in this state. HB 5220 seeks to ban by law BB guns, air guns, paint ball guns, toys and other 'look-a-like firearms' from private property that happens to be within 1500 feet of a school. It does by force of law, but without consent of the governed, and does not compensate those people for the loss of their property.
- It tells the children (as well as your constituents whom you claim to represent) that when they learn in civics class that your job is to abide by the wishes of 'the people', what they are being taught has been lost in our state. The wishes of the people should have been made quite clear to you in the publicly available written testimony in front of you (http://cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/...). There is not a single piece of testimony there in support of HB 5220, and there are three pieces strongly against the bill raising very powerful and interesting points, including opposition by the Director of Delinquency Defense and Child Protection. All of which this committee chose to ignore.
- It tells the children (as well as your constituents whom you claim to represent) that you would favor another overly restrictive and silly law that does nothing to promote safety or peace, but has potential negative consequences for minorities (http://cga.ct.gov/2012/KIDdata/...). Where are this committee's priorities?
I note that this committee amended the bill to make this law an infraction. This is completely ignoring the arguments made by two out of the three pieces of written testimony you have (mine is attached to this email since your website returns an error for my testimony) that this bill would be banning the possession of a lawful item when the law already prohibits the bad behaviors you should be concerned with in CGS 53-206c.
The amendment also, in my opinion, demonstrates a guilty conscience on the part of this committee. Or at least I would like to think so. I would like to think that our state representatives and senators would understand why a law like this goes against common sense and good judgment, and most importantly, the will of the people.
Please reconsider your actions henceforth.
Connecticut Carry, Inc