JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE HEARINGS

JUDICIARY PART 13 3943 - 4275

2009 224 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Thank you for your patience, sir.

Could you hit -- there you go.

JEFFREY KESTENBAND: My name is Jeff Kestenband. I practice with the law firm of Tindall & Kestenband in Waterbury. I've been a lawyer for 11 years, and for the past six years, my practice has focused primarily on criminal law.

I come here today as a member of the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association to speak in opposition to Raised Bill 538, An Act Concerning Plea Agreements by Sex Offenders.

There's several reasons that this bill should not be passed by the legislature. The first is that the bill as it's currently written violates the separation of powers clause.

Plea bargaining has always been a process that resides exclusively within the judicial and the executive branches of government which is carried out by prosecutors and judges and defense lawyers.

The Connecticut Supreme Court tell us that the legislature cannot pass a law that significantly interferes with the orderly administration of the courts, and that the legislature also cannot exercise its power in an area that lies exclusively within another branch of government.

What Raised Bill 538 does is it limits the discretion of prosecutors to plea bargain, and it limits the discretion of judges to accept plea agreements. And for that reason, it interferes with the powers of another branch of government, and it also inserts itself into 225 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

an area that lies exclusively with other branches of government, in this case, the executive and judicial.

So for those reasons, Raised Bill 538 should not be passed. There are other practical reasons why it also should not be passed. One is that it would promote unfair plea bargaining in certain cases.

Prosecutors will sometimes overcharge a case in order to gain leverage during the plea-bargaining process. What ultimately ends up happening is that during a plea-bargaining process, the charge may become lowered to a charge that's more or better supported by the evidence.

What Raised Bill 538 does is before a prosecutor can do that, he or she has to state on the record why sex offender registration would not be necessary for public safety. No prosecutor is going to admit overcharging a case on the record.

Since that's not a reason under this bill that would permit a charge to be reduced, what would end up happening is fewer plea bargains.

Raised will 538 would also -- I see my time is up. I have a few more comments.

SENATOR McDONALD: How about if I give you about 30 seconds?

JEFFREY KESTENBAND: That would be great.

SENATOR McDONALD: All right.

JEFFREY KESTENBAND: The last point I made, which was that it would result in fewer plea bargains, it would obviously result in more 226 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

trials.•

There are a lot of reasons why this committee and this legislature should be concerned about more trials, but I'll focus on just one, which I think would resonate within this body particularly during these times, and that's that trials are very, very expensive. Each one costs thousands and thousands of dollars to put on. Plea bargaining is an essential part of the process, and we should not pass a bill that would undermine that process.

SENATOR McDONALD: Thank you for your testimony. The bill just talks about prosecutor giving a reason. It doesn't -- it doesn't say it high school to be a -- a persuasive reason, does it?

JEFFREY KESTENBAND: I would think that that would be implicit in the bill.

SENATOR McDONALD: Well, I mean, it -- I guess my question, then is -- to your point that it could be an1 intrusion of another branch of government, the prosecutors still have an ability to give an explanation why they were pleading out the case.

JEFFREY KESTENBAND: The explanation would have to [inaudible] as a public safety concern. The prosecutor, for example, could not say I decided to drop the charge because the victim in my case doesn't want to testify. There are a lot of reasons why the victim of a sexual assault might not want to take an oath, an oath in court and testify in front of a [inaudible].

SENATOR McDONALD: I appreciate your point. Thank you very much. Are there any questions? Thank you for your time. 227 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

JEFFREY KESTENBAND: Thank you.

SENATOR McDONALD: One more time, is Chris O'Connor here? Okay. Anthony Corito? Robert Smith? Jason Wallace?

Representative Penny Bacchiochi is next.

REP. BACCHIOCHI: Good afternoon, Senator McDonald and esteemed members of the Judiciary Committee.

For the record, my name is Representative Penny Bacchiochi, and I am here to testify on Committee Bill 6009, An Act Concerning the Failure of a Witness to Report a Serious Crime.

I come before you today to ask you to use your expertise to create a bill that will appropriately punish individuals who neglect their responsibility as members of this society to report serious crimes.

I was very surprised to learn that Connecticut does not require individuals to report murder, rape, kidnapping or other serious crimes that they may witness. While I am not sure -- while I am sure that there are circumstances that exist in which the failure to report is acceptable, more often than not this failure to report should be a crime.

Just as many of the laws that have passed, such as Megan's law, Jessica's law, the national Amber alert, the genesis of which started with concerned parents or loved ones who wanted to come before the legislature and tell their story so that in the future crimes could be treated in a way that would be more appropriate. 228 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

So that is why I'm here today, senator, with my constituent, Dawn Titus. She's the mother of a woman who was raped, and she has a story to tell that I would like you to see how it -- she wants to prevent something like this happening in the future, and she's nervous, but I think she'll do a great job.

DAWN TITUS: Thank you, Senator.

SENATOR McDONALD: Well, first of all, there's nothing to be nervous about. We're -- we're people here who are here to listen to your testimony. And I just want to tell you what a great representative you have sitting next to you.

And just so we're clear, I'd like to start the time again, that the introduction doesn't apply to your time, ma'am. Please feel free to share your testimony with the committee.

DAWN TITUS: My name is Dawn Titus, I'm here to testify in support of committee bill number 6009. The man who raped my daughter and other girls, Scott Shefelbine, took a plea and pled guilty and was sentenced to 25 years in prison. The following is a portion of the statement I read in court just before his sentencing.

How do I begin to express the damage this rapist has done to your only beautiful daughter? Scott Shefelbine was arrested and charged with 11 felonies for his conduct with our daughter. These charges consisted of five counts of sexual assault in the first degree, kidnapping, unlawful restraint, and others. Eleven felonies.

He stalked her, terrorized her and made her 003948 229 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

life a living hell. In 2005, our daughter was an 18-year-old high school senior with big dreams. She was going to become a special education teacher, working with children with learning disabilities, or she was going to pursue a career in law enforcement, somehow focusing on helping children.

Then her world came crashing down when her dad was diagnosed with cancer. She has -- she has always been daddy's little girl, the sparkle in his eye. She was devastated by his diagnosis, along with the rest of our family. Our family has always been very close.

During this awful time, our family -- for our family, Scott Shefelbine took full advantage of our daughter. Scott Shefelbine lied to our daughter from the very moment he met her. First he was a teacher at Ellington High School, then he was a teacher at Tolland High School. Scott Shefelbine used lies and deceit to develop a friendship with our daughter at a time when she was at her most vulnerable.

Our daughter felt she was develop a friendship with a man close to her age, and he had a responsible job and wanted to help her through a difficult time. Instead, he exploited this friendship, began to physically and sexually abuse her.

Scott Shefelbine used our daughter's fear that her father was going to die to further isolate her from her family. Scott Shefelbine threatened to hurt other members of her family if she told anyone.

He terrorized our daughter at a time when she was at her most vulnerable. Our daughter stopped being the person we knew and became very withdrawn, unable to eat, unable to March 16, 2009 JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M. sleep.

At a time I attributed it to her dad's illness, but I knew something was terribly wrong. When I finally found out what had happened to our daughter, I encouraged her to report these awful crimes. It look a lot of encouragement and support to get her to a place where she could talk about these unthinkable things that Scott had done to her.

It took amazing courage and strength and at a time when she was trying to support her dad through his illness. But she did it. She reported all these awful details, and that is why we are here today, to end this case.

Our daughter does not look at these events with Scott Shefelbine as the worst thing that could ever happen to her. In October of 2007, my husband lost his battle with cancer and passed away. There can be nothing worse than holding my husband's hand and telling him that it's okay to let go, and then looking over at the faces of our children and watching them watch their dad take his last breath.

He fought with everything he had. The last conversation I had with my husband was about our daughter and this case. He made me promise to do whatever it took to get justice.

My husband was in law enforcement for over 3 0 years, and I will tell you it took everything he had not to take the law into his own hands.

Scott Shefelbine had hurt his little girl, and he wanted to be sure that he paid for it. He wasn't just a dad. He was a daddy to his little girl and a best friend sons and a soulmate to me. March 16, 2009 JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Our daughter is definitely a changed person. She will never be the same. When her dad died, she felt like no one could protect her anymore. What she has come to realize is that her brothers and I will protect her and will always be there for her. No one will ever hurt her like this again.

What Scott Shefelbine did to her will take years to come to terms with. She has already gone through more than what most adults go through in their entire lifetime. She is a survivor.

I also have to address the rapist's mother, and that's why I'm here today. Our daughter begged for help, and the rapist's mother ignored her. And what I said in court was how could you call yourself a mother? And I put down -- I said in court I'm going to be working with the state legislature to try to change the laws in Connecticut so that under similar circumstances, it will be a crime not to act.

My daughter while he was raping her cried out for help numerous times, and Scott's mother came to the door and ignored my daughter's cries. Opened the door, saw what her son was doing, and ignored it and walked away.

And I ended this with as a mother, what I do anything to protect my children? Absolutely. Would I be there for them if they were in trouble? Absolutely. Would I guide them on the right road for that problem? Absolutely. Would I love them unconditionally? Absolutely.

Would I keep bailing them out if numerous victims claimed similar crimes and there was evidence supporting it? Absolutely not. 232 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

I'm just asking that you consider changing doing something in Connecticut to make it a law that if you witness some horrible crime in your home or anyplace else and you walk away from it, that you should be charged. Because my husband and I wanted this woman to be charged with something, and we were told that she could not be charged, and she just sat in the courtroom smiling the whole time. Thank you.

SENATOR McDONALD: Well, thank you very much for your testimony, and for your strength in being here today.

You know, we in the Judiciary Committee cover a lot of topics that are emotional in a lot of ways, but I think I can speak for all of the members of this committee that nothing is more difficult for us as legislator than to see individuals such as yourself come forward and share such personally difficult stories.

But I want to thank you for doing that, because it's extraordinarily important for us to hear about those stories. And, you know, it's one thing to read about them in newspapers, but it's another to have parents -- and in many ways, you're a victim yourself.

And so I want to -- I want to thank you for being here and certainly express my condolences to you on the loss of your husband. But I've got to tell you, your daughter has one really strong mom. And I -- I want to thank you very much for your advocacy and for the honor you give to your husband's memory and the example you give to your daughter. So thank you very much. 233 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry, was it Ms. Titus?

DAWN TITUS: Yes.

SENATOR KISSEL: As much as people might want to tell you what it's going to be like in some way, shape or form when you become a parent, they just can't, it's a whole different world.

And as much as, you know, we can all love our spouses or significant others, when you have a child, all of a sudden your -- any moments that you have, your mind is somewhere else, because you're always so concerned about them.

And I can't imagine anything more horrible than losing a child or having your child be the victim of a crime, because you just love them.

How this mom could have been there and actually witness this and let it continue just boggles my mind. I can't fathom that for the life of me.

And I agree with Senator McDonald. You have exhibited such courage -- and I know you --we had met earlier, and you were nervous, but you did an outside standing job. But I have to say, folks that just take time out of their day to come and testify before this committee or any committee, the building is filled with people that get paid to lobby, that get paid to testify. They work for different groups, and it's all good. There's nothing wrong with that. That's how the system works, because we immediate to hear what different groups feel about different issues. 234 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

But when it's just a regular citizen -- and I actually shouldn't say "just." But when it's a regular citizen, to my mind, that carries a tremendous amount of weight, because you're advocating that a cause that you firmly believe in.

Representative Bacchiochi, I'm delighted that we share a district. I'm just -- my one point is are you aware of any other jurisdictions, any other states that have a substantially similar law to the one you're proposing?

REP. BACCHIOCHI: Yes, Senator. My limited research showed me that Ohio, Maine and Alaska currently have this in their state statutes.

SENATOR KISSEL: That's great. So I'm going to just make a mental note. And if they can do it in Ohio, Maine and Alaska -- that's a pretty diverse set of states, not noted for being radically one way or another, and a fellow New England -- sister New England state in there as well, perhaps I'll have some of our folks look at the Maine statute. Maybe we can add in a proposal -- and get something -- get some good out of this horrible set of circumstances.

Thank you both.

SENATOR McDONALD: Representative Labriola.

REP. LABRIOLA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, want to thank Mrs. Titus for your courageous testimony. It's about as brave as it gets, so we appreciate that.

And good afternoon, Penny. Just a couple of questions following up on Senator Kissel's. As a strong proponent of this particular bill, 003954 235 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

it's important to note that there is an exception carved out in the language if the failure to report a serious crime would result in injury to another; is that correct?

REP. BACCHIOCHI: Absolutely. The three states that I looked at all had statutory language stating that if you -- if the person felt that their life or another member of their family's lives would be in jeopardy by making such a report, they could use that as a defense as to why they did not report the crime.

SENATOR McDONALD: Is there anything further from the committee?

REP. BACCHIOCHI: Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR McDONALD: Yes.

REP. BACCHIOCHI: Mrs. Titus also brought a close fame friend that has a brief testimony. Would it be acceptable to you for her to take my chair and provide that to the committee?

SENATOR McDONALD: Unless there -- it's a little out of our rules, but unless there's objection from members of the committee, every statement would be appropriate.

REP. BACCHIOCHI: Thank you.

HEIDI AUGUSTE: Hi, I'm Heidi Auguste, and I've \W> 400*1 been friends with the Titus family for the past ten years. These are some of the most caring people I've ever known in my life.

When I met Dawn's daughter, Christy, she had the biggest smile. She could light up a room. After this horrible thing happened to her, her smile doesn't light up the room like it used it to. She doesn't have the confidence that 236 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

she used to have. She wanted to work in law enforcement, as her mother said.

I, myself, as a mom of a teenaged daughter, can't imagine having somebody watch my daughter go through such a thing and walk away. I'm actually almost appalled that it's not already a law and I'm here today to testify to this.

Dawn's daughter is not a victim. She's a survivor. And she wants to be known as a survivor. And I think this bill should be passed in her name, and in all the other survivors from the past and the future. Thank you.

SENATOR McDONALD: Thank you. Representative Klarides.

REP. KLARIDES: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also want to say how amazed I am that you had the strength to do this. It's, as our Chairman mentioned, it's -- these are the testimonies that really get our attention, because we know how -- how much it takes for us to come up here and share your story with perfect strangers.

So I have unbelievable admiration for -- for both of you.

If I can just ask one question, and I hate to bring up any specifics, but was there ever any conversation or information that you knew as to why the woman would not testify and report as to what she saw?

DAWN TITUS: She -- they literally kept bailing him out - -

SENATOR McDONALD: I'm sorry, could you pull the 003956 237 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

microphone to you? Thank you.

DAWN TITUS: They bailed him out of every situation. He portrayed himself as an 18-year-old. He was really I believe 33. And he wore wigs and disguises. He fooled us. My husband was in law enforcement, like I said, for 3 0 years, and he fooled us.

And they kept bailing him out. No matter what he did, they bailed him out, and that's what I was so angry about in court. It was like, you know, how many times does your child -- I don't care what age they are -- have to do something wrong until you finally say, you know, enough. You're on your own.

But they never -- to this day they're claiming his innocence. There's so much evidence against him, and they're still claiming his innocence.

So they don't see it, and they're just -- she actually was going to be charged -- she was being charged with perjury, because she lied so horribly on the stand, but part of his plea agreement for him was that his mother would not get charged.

So this whole case was just heart-wrenching for our family and all the other victims' families, because she literally got to walk away, and my daughter was the only one that was victimized in her house, but for our family, it was horrendous because of what she had done to my daughter, and then to perjure herself so terribly in court, and she -- we thought, okay, well, at least she's going to be charged with that. I mean, that little bit would have given us a little bit of justice. That was taken away from us, because that was part of the plea agreement. 003957 238 March 16, 2009 JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. KLARIDES: I mean, from my perspective, and I certainly support this bill, there are certain things that we would hope that people have -- feel a moral obligation to do. And think in one, whether it's themselves or no people can say that, you know, we'll defend our children to the end of the day.

But I guess the state -- it made it the state's obligation to step in and say when there's a serious violent crime being committed, it's knots just your moral obligation, it's your legal obligation.

DAWN TITUS: Well, they wanted to get him into prison, and my daughter had the most charges -- serious charges, and she just lost her dad. When this was going to court, she just lost her dad. So I really think it would have -- it was too much.

So they needed to plead, and they pled him out. And he got 25 years, and we just -- my daughter was very angry that he only got 25 years, but he was -- even the judge when his bail -- his bail was revoked because this -- this guy, this man, was wearing an ankle bracelet, and he was on, what do you call that, house arrest or whatever. He was sticking his foot into a bucket to deactivate the ankle bracelet, and he went and victimized another child while he was on this ankle bracelet.

So we're not talking about somebody that is just -- not that one person is, you know --he victimized several people, and his parents just kept bailing him out, and they actually were letting him use the car and lying about him not using the car, saying no, he was home, when he was out using the car. They just lied 003958 239 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

and lied and lied and covered up for him constantly.

And that's what I'm saying. I mean, she saw what he was doing to my daughter, and she turned her back twice. She went to the door and she turned her back and walked away. And I wanted her charged so bad. My husband I thought was going to lose it in the prosecutor's office, and she looked at him and said, I'm sorry, there's nothing I can do.

And we said right then and there we were going to fight. We were going to come here and fight to change the laws in Connecticut.

REP. KLARIDES: I'm very.sorry for your trouble and having this terrible thing happen to your family. And thank you again for coming up here, and I'm certainly with you.

DAWN TITUS: Thank you. Thank you.

SENATOR McDONALD: Are there any other questions? If not, thank you again for being here.

DAWN TITUS: Thank you.

SENATOR McDONALD: William Hillis. Is William Hillis here?

Krys Topher? Mr. Topher will be followed by -- is Josh Horowitz here? Okay. So Krys Topher, Josh Horowitz and then chief state's Attorney McShane.

Good afternoon, sir. Thanks for your patience today.

KRYSTOPHER DIBELLA: Good afternoon, senator. My McDonald. I'm pleased to be here right now. My name is Krystopher Dibella. I'm a 240 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

21-year-old, and I just recently received my pistol permit. And I just recently completed the NRA instructor's pistol safety course -- I mean the instructor course, sorry. And I --

SENATOR McDONALD: Sir, I'm sorry, we had a misprint. I apologize. I just want to make sure I are -- somebody wrote --

KRYSTOPHER DIBELLA: Not a problem, I understand.

SENATOR McDONALD: "Krys Topher," and you're "Krystopher."

KRYSTOPHER DIBELLA: Yes.

(Laughter.)

SENATOR McDONALD: Okay. So I don't want people to think I'm absolutely -- okay.

KRYSTOPHER DIBELLA: Not a problem. Things happen.

SENATOR McDONALD: Could you state your name again for the record?

KRYSTOPHER DIBELLA: Krystopher Dibella.

SENATOR McDONALD: Dibella.

KRYSTOPHER DIBELLA: Yes.

SENATOR McDONALD: Thank you very much, Mr. Dibella.

KRYSTOPHER DIBELLA: I actually prepared a pretty extensive speech for today on Bill 353, and I hate to say it, but everyone I think pretty of covered what I had to say.

So instead of reiterating what everyone said, personally I feel that, you know, groups like March 16, 2009 JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

the NRA are very good. They always promote gun safety. It was nice to hear somebody from the opposing side actually supporting Bill 353, just to hear the opposite argument.

I hope this bill, obviously, does not get passed. It does affect me greatly. A lot of people are collectors. To be honest, I hope that maybe eventually we can try to make a compromise on bills, make working with the NRA and developing new laws that will be both beneficial to legal gun owners, and we'll finally be able to prosecute criminals a little more harshly.

I believe that children at a young age should be developed -- sorry, I'm trying to get my wording here. I had to develop a new speech. Should be exposed to firearms in a safe manner to learn respect for the -- pretty much what they're doing. The problem is, a lot of kits kids nowadays don't really understand firearms. They see a video game, they see a movie and they think that this is real life. Okay. We can do this and everything else, and it's not.

Kids that seem to be brought up around firearms seem to have more respect.

You know, microstamping takes place, it is going to hurt the economy. It is going to hurt gun dealerships. It's going to hurt the NRA. It's going to hurt the legal citizens. A gun's microstamped? What's going to change?

A person steals a gun, goes out in the street, kill the someone. The gun goes back to the person -- the serial number goes back to the person that originally owned it. Well, the gun's still on the street. Doesn't matter what type of gun it is. It's still not in 242 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

that person's hands anymore, so crimes will still happen.

To be honest, I think we should strengthen the laws for people that are apprehended with illegal firearms, stolen firearms and people that commit crimes.

Frankly, I think the more we tighten up laws against gun runners, against people who are committing gang violence, the more we might see an improvement. The fact of the matter is that this is society. We don't live in a good world anymore, to be honest. I mean, we have to really start making advancements and working with special interest groups, such as the NRA, instead of, okay, well, we want to pass this legislation now. We're going to fight it.

We should work more with gun owners, legal gun owners to try to figure out ways that we could -- the word is properly -- make a good compromise I feel would be the best way to solve any problem in our system.

Again, I'm kind of pulling this speech out, so I'm sorry if I'm kind of stuttering a little bit. It's just that I don't want to keep repeating a lot of things that have been said.

SENATOR McDONALD: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Dibella.

First of all, I thought you did a great job, and you did add some new things there, so I appreciate your effort, pulling out some new comments and adding to or expanding on some of the prior statements that were made. I certainly appreciate it.

Are there any questions for Mr. Dibella? 243 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

If not, thanks very much, sir.

KRYSTOPHER DIBELLA: Thank you.

SENATOR McDONALD: Actually, Josh Horowitz had already testified, so we're going to move on to Kevin Kane.

[Inaudible].

SENATOR McDONALD: No, we don't do the substitution, so -- have you already signed up, sir, to testify?

[Inaudible].

SENATOR McDONALD: Okay. You'll have to wait your turn. Mr. Kane.

KEVIN KANE: Thank you, Senator McDonald and members of the Judiciary Committee. My name's Kevin Kane. I'm here to testify on behalf of the Division of Criminal Justice.

We have submitted written system concerning several bills. I'm not going to testify concerning those unless there's any questions that anybody has. If there are, I'll do my best to answer them.

I am here to testify specifically in support of Bill No. 6664, which is an Act Revising -- Making Revisions to Various Sections of the General Statutes.

This actually encompasses about ten different topics which could have been addressed under ten different bills. It seemed wiser to consolidate it into one bill. The issues seem to be issues that were noncontroversial -- they're not quite technical amendments, but they are the type of thing that lend itself to 003963 244 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

this consolidation.

The ten separate things 1111 go through very quickly and address some of them quickly, but I'd like to at least say what they are. The first one is to make juvenile prosecutors assistant state's attorneys.

Right now, juvenile prosecutors -- they were transferred to the Division of Criminal Justice from the judicial branch. Some were back in the 1990s. The judges -- the judicial branch appointed the juvenile prosecutors. They transferred them to the Division of Criminal Justice without requiring that they be made assistant state's attorneys or be appointed by the commission, as are other assistant state's attorneys.

Right now, they're appointed by the state's attorneys. We have agreed -- the state's attorneys -- among ourselves, and the commission, have agreed that with regard to future vacancies in the juvenile -- of juvenile prosecutors, we will ask the commission to appoint deputy assistant state's attorneys to fill those positions.

This step here is necessary to really integrate the existing juvenile prosecutors into the Division of Criminal Justice and make them full-fledged assistant state's attorneys, as they are entitled to be. It will -- it's all the more important with the raise of the age going through that we consolidate and make the whole division more effective and better -- better able to be managed properly, and this is a step in that direction.

The second -- No. 2 is sentencing transcripts. Right now, the law provides that after a sentencing where a sentence of greater than 003964 245 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

two years is imposed, the prosecutor must order the transcript and forward that transcript to the board of parole.

Right now we've set up a process working with judicial where judicial does it electronically. We still have to order it even though the purpose of getting that transcript is to benefit the board of parole and pardon and corrections.

And it would make more sense to expedite matters by having the judicial branch or a clerk order it automatically. Oftentimes in court the prosecutor at sentencing time has an awful lot of things he has to do -- or he or she has to do at that time, and remembering to order a transcript is kind of a clerical function, and that has the capacity to get overlooked very easily.

The judicial branch has to do it, and they could do it as a clerical function, that would make it easy -- easier.

The first thing, with the CGIS, of the new statutes last year, set up an electronic depository for criminal justice information. Part of that depository contemplated being able to -- have the police departments file reports electronically, and those reports would contain the full results of the police investigation and also statements of witnesses. They would name the witnesses. They would identify witnesses.

There the concept was that that information would be made available to the prosecutors. The prosecutors would then comply with all of the discovery rules that we have to do to make them available to defense attorneys, and at the appropriate time could make the reports 003965 246 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

available electronically to the Board of Pardons and Parole, to the commissioner of corrections, to probation, to had ever else needed testimony.

The purpose of this, the public defenders' office had been on -- are on the criminal justice information system. They will have access appropriately to a lot of the data in the electronic repository. This will provide that they cannot get police reports and statements directly from the electronic depository.

If this -- it's important because the prosecutors have to protect that information. It can prevent witnesses from getting hurt. It can prevent witnesses from getting killed. If we do not -- if we're careful not to have that information released.

The public defenders are entitled to have it when they represent a client in court, their defense attorneys. We have the obligation to provide them to the court. The only idea of this would be to make sure that they are not able to get it directly through the electronic repository and they have to rely on the traditional rules of discovery to get that information.

It's a minor change. I had thought the public defenders would have gone along with it. They did go along with it last year. I've just read their testimony where they appear to oppose it this morning.

I don't know whether there was a misunderstanding, but the design of it is not to prevent them from getting the information when they ultimately need it and when they need it to represent a client. That will be March 16, 2009 JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M. done.

It's just to prevent them from being able to access it without our knowledge from the electronical -- electronic base in a manner where they might not even be representing the client or the -- they may not even have a case.

If they have ability to access it directly, they could access information through this electronic database without even representing anybody.

I don't think they want that. I don't think that's -- that's what we intended last year when the statute was drawn up.

The fourth thing is failure to appear. Right now a person charged with violation of probation who fails to appear in court cannot be charged with a crime of failure to appear, as -- as any other criminal defendant can. This will enable us to charge a person who is charged with violation of probation in court, fails to appear on that charge, we can ask the court to order a re-arrest warrant and charge that person for failure to appear in cost.

The fifth thing is that with regard to sexual assault of a victim under ten years old. At present, sexual assaults in the first degree is a Class A or a Class B felony. Class -- in the penalty provision, it provides that if the victim of the sexual assault is a child under ten, then there's a mandatory ten-year minimum.

What that is, it's a sentence aggravant. We have to prove -- and a jury -- the defendant has a right to find jury -- have a jury find that the victim is, in fact, under ten years 003967 248 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

old. We're asking that this be made an element of the crime of sexual assault in the first degree, a separate element.

So they'll know that charge up front. It will be then dealt with at the at the guilt phase of the -- the case rather than have to hold the jury and have a separate penalty phase where that becomes an issue.

It's a -- it's an issue which there's a case, In re: Kirk R. -- not In re: Kirk R., it is, 271 Connecticut 499. The Connecticut Supreme Court recognized that distinction, has said that what -- clearly what it thought the legislature intended to do was to make this an aggravating factor, which meant the jury would have to find that fact.

The easiest and clearest way to do that is to implement that intent, would be to make an element -- make it an element of the crime of sexual assault in the first degree rather than an aggravating factor.

Number six would allow the court the discretion to suspend a mandatory ten-year minimum or a portion of it on sexual assault in the first degree if the defendant is under 18 or is significantly or mentally impaired. The reason for this is that we have had several cases around the state where we have transferred juveniles, 14-, 15-year-old, for instance, to the adult court on the charge of sexual assault in the first degree.

Part of the reasons for requesting those transfers is to make sure that there will be long enough supervision periods and enough controls to prevent that -- to do what really should be done to protect the public. To have the correct disposition. 003968 249 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

The problem is, with the sexual assault, it's a mandatory ten-year minimum, and there are cases where -- where the people because of their age, being under 18, or because of their mental impairment, which may be significant, where a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence is really not appropriate. There are not a lot of those cases, but there are enough.

And what that means, we either have to come off the sexual assault in the first degree charge and charge risk of injury or something elsewhere sexual assault would be much more appropriate.

We would ask that the statute change to give the court the discretion -- the court certainly wouldn't have to do it and in most cases maybe well would not do it, but at least the sentencing judge would have the discretion to come off that ten-year mandatory minimum when it felt it was proper to do so if the -- if the case involved a defendant under the age of 18 or with a significant mental impairment.

Right now, the court doesn't have that discretion. The only way the discretion could be exercised to do that is for us to charge something other than sexual assault in the first degree when sexual assault in the first degree might actually be the appropriate charge. Or would be the appropriate charge.

Number eight is what we do with no-show jurors. Right now, in jurors doesn't show -- and every so often a fair percentage of jurors called for duty don't show -- it's a criminal penalty for failure to appear for jury duty.

That means we have issue a summons and prosecute. We have to be able to prove beyond 003969 250 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

a reasonable doubt that the person got the jury notice, that the person received it and that the person didn't appear.

If it could be changed to a civil penalty, number one, that would get the division -- the prosecutors out of the attempt to enforce jury duty, which makes it very awkward when people are showing up for jury duty only because of the threat that -- that we will arrest them if they don't, and then they're sitting on the jury of our cases.

This would make it a civil violation, and this is what done in our states. The civil penalty could be then collected by the Attorney General's Office, which would be a more appropriate way to handle it, or the judicial branch could set up a system of civil fines.

But it really is a judicial function. A judicial branch function, not a prosecutorial function to provide juries for the public to hear these cases.

Number nine, Section No. 9, this is the ninth thing the bill would do, is with regard to our forgery statute, right now, if somebody signs his true name but by doing that falsely represents that they have the capacity to sign it, like say I signed Kevin Kane, guardian ad litem for a child and I'm not a guardian ad litem at all. I haven't forged my name, because I've signed my real name, but I've signed it in the capacity -- I've fraudulently represented that I have a capacity to sign that.

We've had some cases involving a person who was not a building official who signed his true name reporting on a -- an inspection that he had made, but he didn't have the authority 251 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

to do it.

We1 re asking that the forgery statute be amended to include a situation where a person signs his true name but signs it in a fraudulent capacity, fraudulently represents that he has the capacity to sign it as he did.

And the tenth and final thing in the bill would be to allow police and prosecutors the same access to youthful offender records that they presently have to juvenile records.

There's a -- we've submitted in the written testimony and explained it more thoroughly, but that would correct what I think was just an oversight where we can get -- police and prosecutors can get information about juveniles but we can't get it about youthful offenders right now. I think that was an oversight, and this -- this would remedy that situation. Thank you.

SENATOR McDONALD: Thank you very much, Kevin. I appreciate you covering so much ground so thoroughly and quickly. Are there questions about it? You and I have had an opportunity to go over much of this stuff before.

KEVIN KANE: Yes.

SENATOR McDONALD: But if there are no questions, I thank you for your time.

KEVIN KANE: Attorney McShane is, I'm sorry, right behind me. He just said he had an observation about something important.

Mr. McShane is a supervisory assistant state's attorney [inaudible] New London. I'm sure he'll be extremely brief. I'm not sure what 252 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

it is. He poked me and said I missed something.

PETER McSHANE: He did. Kevin missed --

SENATOR McDONALD: I don't think he's ever missed anything. He's just reserved to you an opportunity further expand on his remarks.

(Laughter.)

PETER McSHANE: I was going to say, I love kicking Kevin out, just like I did --we kicked him out of New London, and here we are again kicking him out.

But I'm here on Committee Bill No. 6160. As Kevin told you, I'm Pete McShane. I'm the supervisor at GA10 at New London. I know that Representative Spallone has sponsored this bill, and I think it's been a long time in coming.

You know, down on the shoreline, we certainly realize the serious consequences of boating under the influence, impaired boaters. And I think what this bill does is -- is highlights that and puts on par with our current driving under the influence cases with motor vehicles.

I would like to see it -- and I'm sure the division would like to see the changes that are endorsed in this committee bill, because boating under the influence cases have just as serious consequences as cases involving motor vehicles, and this bill certainly takes that into effect. I've never testified before this committee, but all I can say is I hope you pass the bill.

Know that at least prosecutors on the shoreline are certainly aware of the 253 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

consequences, and I realize that all you good folks are as well, and I would like to see it passed in its present form.

I've had everyone in the office look at it, and they're ail in agreement with it, as anyone who has ever encountered boating under the influence cases. It really gives it the same bite as our DWI laws. Thank you.

SENATOR McDONALD: Thank you. And thanks for keeping it brief.

Are there any questions? Is Representative Spallone.

REP. SPILLONE: Thank you, Attorney McShane, for coming up here and waiting to testify.

Do you -- do you in your experience ever have so far -- and maybe you'd have to check the database -- people who have come in and who have had their driver's license suspended and then on the other track ended up having their safe boating certificate suspended because of behavior in both types of vehicles and vessels?

PETER McSHANE: You know, I can't, Representative Spallone, point to an exact number, and I don't even think we keep statistics on that, but I can tell you it happens frequently. And really, that is a sign of -- of a problem driver, a problem drinker, and somebody that we should all be concerned with.

And I think your bill does address that, and should make everyone feel safer that we're tracking not only some of these drinking and driving problems, but someone's drinking and boating problems as well. Thank you. 254 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. SPILLONE: Thank you. Very good, again, thank you for coming up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

PETER McSHANE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR McDONALD: Thank you. Robert Baron. Is Robert Baron here? Dr. Keith Bradley. Dr. Bradley.

Elisa Villa? Okay. Ms. Villa and then followed by Frank Fortunati. He'll be next.

SENATOR McDONALD: Good afternoon.

ELISA VILLA: Good afternoon, Senator McDonald, members of the committee of the judiciary. I'm here to speak on behalf of the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association on raised House Bill 6579, An Act Concerning the Immigration Consequences of the Guilty or Nolo Contendere.

The CCDLA supports this bill extending the time frame within which a person can withdraw a plea under the immigration advisement statute, which is 54-lj. We submit there's four good reasons for supporting this bill.

First of all, when the bill -- when the statute was originally adopted, there was no time limit as to when a person could withdraw a guilty plea if the advisement wasn't provided at the time the plea was accepted.

At that time -- currently, there is the three-year limit. It was introduced in 1997 by Representative Lawlor. He indicated at that time it wouldn't prevent withdrawal motions. It would only make them discretionary with the court after the three-year period. March 16, 2009 JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

It's been our experience, however, that history shows that courts cite the three-year limit as an automatic bar to withdrawing these pleas: As a result, the most direct and expedient form of relief is not available after three years.

And consequently, noncitizens must resort to more onerous legal procedures, and more judicial resources must be then expends as they matters then resolve into habeas petitions, writs of quae coram nobis and other post-conviction motions.

Secondly, in 1997, Representative Lawlor submitted that there was also a practical reason for imposing the three-year time limit. He indicated that records weren't often available after many years from the point of disposition.

This is no longer a concern. Currently transcripts are kept forever, for life, [inaudible] files are kept for ten years for misdemeanors, 20 years for felonies. From 1999 on, the state's attorney's files are kept from ten years beyond the appeal period expiration and A and B felonies, 2 0 years beyond.

Thirdly, we submit that the three-year time limit is not reasonable. Currently, 23 states, including the District of Columbia, have immigration advisement statutes or rules. These advisements require that judges make immigration advisements to defendants at the time they enter pleas.

This is the result of 2 0 years of immigration reformulation that have resulted in, in many cases, deportation as an automatic result of numerous types of convictions. 256 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Deportation and other harsh immigration consequences are no longer the contingency. They are pretty much direct and automatic consequences of guilty pleas in many cases. I'm sorry, may I finish, I have --

SENATOR McDONALD: You can have a few more seconds.

ELISA VILLA: Okay.

SENATOR McDONALD: Just make it --

ELISA VILLA: Thirdly, we would indicate that 51-4j [sic] is a statutory protection. It assures that please are knowing, and voluntary and as a matter of state and federal constitutional rights it should be noted that immigration consequences are automatically or readily discernable at the time of pleas.

Often they aren't triggered until an occurring event sometime later after the disposition of the case. And for that reason, the three-year time limit isn't reasonable and doesn't protect people's rights.

We would finally conclude that in the interest of justice and for interest supporting judicial economy, the three-year time extension should be extended to five years. Thank you.

SENATOR McDONALD: Thank you very much. Are there any questions? If not -- by the way, I should note for the record that Representative Lawlor is not here yet. He had a family emergency that required him to return to the stateroom, so that's why he hasn't been in the room this afternoon.

If there are no questions, I appreciate your 257 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

time. ELISA VILLA: Thank you.

And just for the record, I did submit written testimony for Representative Lawlor to read. SENATOR McDONALD: Thank you.

ELISA VILLA: Thank you.

SENATOR McDONALD: Frank Fortunati is next. And after Mr. Fortunati is Senator Looney.

Good afternoon, sir.

FRANK FORTUNATI: Good afternoon, Senator McDonald, members of the Judiciary Committee. Thank you for allowing me to speak in support of SB 660, An Act Requiring Drunken Drivers to Maintain a Period of Continuous Sobriety.

I am a child and adolescent and forensic psychiatrist practicing in New Haven, Connecticut, and affiliated with Saint Raphael's and with Yale University.

And I'm also president of Connecticut Alcohol Monitoring LLC, a partnership of psychiatrists and attorneys in Connecticut formed to bring continuous monitoring technology to Connecticut.

I'd like to point out that I've submitted written testimony in support of SB 66 0 and others -- other written testimony that's in your package from others who are not available today. Dr. Pantalon, a substance abuse psychologist from Yale, Attorney Sandra Lax, an attorney from Connecticut. Judge Michael Barrasse, DUI judge from Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania. Attorney General Larry Long from South Dakota, and Dave Wallace, director Of Center of DUI Courts. 003977 258 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SB 660 would give judges in Connecticut discretion on sentencing second and third convicted driving while intoxicated offenders. As the committee is aware, second conviction in Connecticut is actually most likely the third time that someone has been operating a motor vehicle under the influence.

And second convictions in Connecticut currently carry a mandatory minimum of 120 days in jail. SB 660 focuses on the§e repeat DUI offenders by giving judges discretion and options. And the option would be to reduce their mandatory minimum jail time from 12 0 days to 60 days in lieu of their then agreeing to maintain a period of sobriety, 120 days of sobriety, after they're out of jail.

By increasing or by increasing their abstinence, as measured by continuous alcohol monitoring, SB 660 increases the chances of sustained abstinence, hopefully reduced recidivism, and significantly -- especially in these economic times -- potentially reduce jail costs in Connecticut.

According to the Office of Fiscal Analysis, on average, there's 775 people per year who are convicted of a second violation for operating while under the influence and 75 for convicted of a third or subsequent violation.

By allowing these individuals to still serve some jail time but get back to work earlier, home with their family and take a significant step toward abstinence, and that is maintain sobriety as well as participating in treatment, SB 660 hopefully would help reduce jail costs in Connecticut and get people back to work earlier. 259 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Continuous alcohol monitoring is not a new technology. It's a technology that's been around for several years, and it's been in use throughout the -- most of the country since at least 2004. It's a method of measuring a person's insensible perspiration, that is, the perspiration that comes through their skin, and it's detected through a fuel cell which the person would wear on their -- on their wrist, and that gets transmitted to a company daily.

If I could just finish the thought, Senator McDonald?

SENATOR McDONALD: Briefly, please, sir.

FRANK FORTUNATI: With continuous alcohol monitoring, there's no need for reporting to probation, no need for monitoring urines. Across the country so far 85,000 offenders have been monitored with this technology throughout the country.

Currently in Connecticut, people are being placed -- are being ordered on it by other states where they've offended, and there's 9,000 people per month throughout the country who are monitored with this technology. Thank you very much, Senator.

SENATOR McDONALD: Thank you. And we do have your written testimony as well. Thank you very much.

FRANK FORTUNATI: Yes.

SENATOR McDONALD: Are there any questions? Representative Fox.

REP. FOX: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your testimony today. 260 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

But I am interested in how this would work. I know you were trying to beat the clock in terms of your testimony, but this is something, as it was explained to me a few days ago, would actually not have a fiscal impact.

Does the individual who's being monitored have to pay for all of this? Is that how it would ordinarily work?

FRANK FORTUNATI: That's correct, Representative Fox. Throughout the country, the way this program works in most jurisdictions is that the offender would pay for the monitoring so that, yes, it -- in most jurisdictions, it would not have a fiscal impact. We hope it would save money through the state by having people get out of jail earlier than they would be currently.

However, we -- we -- personally, I got into this as a psychiatrist because I've come across people who -- who were alcoholics, alcoholism is a problem, and monitoring urines and breathalyzers, we know we miss a great deal.

So we're very interested also in the treatment aspect of this and having a product like this open to as many people as possible.

Throughout the country and other states, the way they -- it's provided is there's [inaudible] different matters in which a program like this could be set up so that it ' could be available to the wide socioeconomic population. Sliding scales, indigent funds set aside for individuals who can't afford it.

So we think it's important that an individual 261 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

pay for the cost of the monitoring because I -- I think then they're more invested in remaining sober and more invested in trying to recover from -- from their addiction. But certainly any program should be constructed in a way and as a -- as a provider of this technology in Connecticut, we're very interested in structuring anything that we might provide in a way to accommodate as many individuals as possible.

REP. FOX: And do you know how much the monitoring costs?

FRANK FORTUNATI: On average, throughout date --on average, throughout the country, it's $12 or $13 a day. There are some providers in parts of the country who will charge more so that they can then slide a fee down for more -- for populations that can't afford it.

There are some providers throughout the country who will charge a daily monitoring rate based upon one hour's wages for that individual. So the individual earns minimum wage, they pay minimum wage. If the individual earns a lot more than that, they would pay up to a cap, say 20 or $25 a day, and that's how they might structure it.

It costs roughly $12 a day to provide that service, but in order to provide it for everybody, there's different ways of structuring that, so that individuals who can afford to pay more might pay more. Individuals who can't, the fee would be on a sliding scale.

We do think it's important that individuals pay something toward the cost of it, but something that is -- will work for them. And, as I say, there are some jurisdictions 262 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M. where it's as little as minimum wage, an hour's wages.

REP. FOX: And just, so I'm understanding this correctly, the way it would work, if an individual is a twice-convicted drunk driver, rather than serving 12 0 mandatory days, they would serve 60 days, at which time they would then have this monitor placed on them, and they would have to be completely sober then for another -- an additional 120 days.

Is that -- at least that's the minimum sentence that would be possible in that kind of scenario. And -- am I correct in that?

FRANK FORTUNATI: That is correct, Representative Fox.

REP. FOX: And how -- who monitors -- there's a monitor on there, but who's actually making sure that that doesn't take place?

For example, an individual doesn't have, say, two beers or something like that. Because if that did happen, I assume, then, that the monitor would indicate that that individual drank alcohol and there would be some sort of a violation.

FRANK FORTUNATI: Correct.

REP. FOX: Okay.

FRANK FORTUNATI: I think some of the details in terms of how that exactly would work would depend upon the judge and how a judge might want to order it and probation, but from a practical point of view, the way it works is the data is collected every hour, and once a day it's transmitted to -- to a monitoring company, a company that's based out of -- at 003982 263 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

least for this product, the continuous alcohol monitoring product that I'm familiar with and that technology, there may be others out there, but that is transmitted to a company that analyzes the data every day through certain computer formulas with which they look at the data.

They then have two levels of review should they find someone had a positive. And after two levels of review, they would confirm whether or not someone has, in fact, ingested alcohol or -- or perhaps if someone has tried to tamper with the bracelet, because there's ways to tamper with it.

And each day that data after it's analyzed would be communicated to whomever the -- the judge might want that communicated to, through the local provider. In that case, that may be us, Connecticut Alcohol Monitoring.

So in some of the cases in which we've used it in Connecticut, we've used it in family law cases in Connecticut where, for instance, one spouse is accusing another spouse of drinking and they don't want that person to have the kids.

And when someone comes in and wants to bear the bracelet voluntarily to show that they're not drinking when they're with their child or at any other time, there's usually an agreement at the outset in terms of how frequently do they want a report. Once a week, once a month. At least -- most jurisdictions throughout the country, it's once a month.

But when we notice a positive, the offender is notified. Hey, you drank last night. Or, hey, it looks like you stuck something in 264 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

between the bracelet and the monitor. It looks like you're, you know, fooling around with it. Come on in or we'll send somebody out to the house, let's take a look at the monitor and let's see how it's working.

But the frequency of reporting can be up to the judge. But certainly I think by the way the statute's worded, it's -- it's almost that it would be a 60-day sentence. And then as a requirement, you would -- part of your probation, you would need to prove 120 sober as evidenced by continuous alcohol monitoring.

So I think you would need a document from a provider that says that yes, you did obtain 12 0 days sober.

REP. FOX: Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR McDONALD: Thank you. Representative Hetherington.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So that the monitoring results could be transmitted at the end of the day and then an evaluation would be made and the authorities would be advised.

Is that right?

FRANK FORTUNATI: That's correct. Generally it would be in the middle of the night, it would be transmitted to a modem that's in someone's house, and the modem calls in to the company. And within -- by 9:00 or 10:00 that morning, we would know whether someone's had -- has consumed alcohol the previous 24 hours. That's correct.

REP. HETHERINGTON: But it -- you could get in the 265 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

car and drive, presumably, during the day, and you might not be picked up before you had driven and gotten into an accident or done some damage.

I mean, it doesn't keep them from driving, the thing that'you really want to prevent; isn't that correct?

FRANK FORTUNATI: Well, that is correct, but --it won't do that. However, what it will do is catch those people who are still driving. There are -- there are people who might -- I'm sorry, who are still drinking. There are people who might decide to drink five nights in a row, and then one night that they decide to drive, decide, well, I'm not going to drink, because I know, for instance, I have the ignition interlock device in my car.

But that's a technology that also has difficulties within and ways to circumvent that technology. It's a useful technology. It's.-- it's -- it's in Connecticut law. It's used throughout country, but there's ways of circumventing that technology as well.

What continuous alcohol monitoring offers to do is not to change the behavior of the person or the car, but to change the behavior of -- of the person. There's -- we know now -- and there's psychiatry literature and there's substance abuse literature -- that if someone can go -- the longer someone can go sober, the greater the chances that they will remain abstinent for a longer period of time.

And one of the largest studies, known as Project MATCH, data shows that if you can go one year without drinking, the chances of your succeeding at three years increases dramatically. 266 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

So this technology I think speaks to that. And changing someone's life and their addiction to alcohol by having them accountable for their -- for their actions.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Well, I -- you know, there's no question that's a social good, and you're a professional and -- in the behavioral field. I guess what troubles me is that what's against the law is driving while you're intoxicated.

It's not unlawful to be a drunk, but what this does is try to modify your behavior for the social good, undeniably good. But, you know, is that consistent, really, with the goals of a free society?

FRANK FORTUNATI: Well, Representative Hetherington, I would argue that that's why SB 660 leaves it to discretion. I -- I'm not a defense attorney, but I would imagine that if a client said to his attorney absolutely not, I don't want to wear that bracelet, I'd rather do 120 days in jail, that's what he's going to get.

This -- these -- as an option for a judge and to the judge's discretion. And I think it provides an option for those -- for that individual to -- to get on with work, treatment and abstinence earlier then they might have otherwise.

I think we all know stories of individuals who have been unfortunately caught up in -- in this where they served 12 0 days when you find out you're -- oh, my gosh, I can't believe that person had that -- that kind of a problem. 267 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

And I think it gives an option to judges and to defendants.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Well, that's very interesting. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR McDONALD: Thank you, Representative Hetherington.

Representative Green.

REP. GREEN: Yes, just one question. If a person chooses to go under the 60 days and go under this monitoring, if they violent that monitoring, there's no consequences? Are there any consequence for violating that, if you find out that a person is, in fact drinking.

So going under this system doesn't mean you can't drink and there's no violation if you drink?

FRANK FORTUNATI: I think, Representative Green, the way this -- the bill is written, it has 12 0 days of continuous sobriety as a part of the sentence. So I think that would be up to probation and perhaps the sentencing judge as to whether or not that would constitute a violation of those terms of probation.

Whether or not if someone, say, goes 4 0 days and then has a drink and it shows up on the bracelet and then goes another 80 days, I -- I -- I think it's hard to prescribe exactly what might happen in those situations. The intent here is to leave a certain amount of that discretion up to probation and up to the -- the sentencing judge to determine whether or not that should be a violation or not. 268 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. GREEN: Okay. There appear to be -- the legislature talks about 90 days after being sober that you can get your license back.

What about if we just extend the time in jail to make it 180 days and for six months, if in jail after the second conviction, can we maybe achieve the same goal as to helping a person become sober if we just extend their stay and get them in treatment while they're incarcerated?

FRANK FORTUNATI: Based upon my experience with -- with -- as a forensic psychiatrist, I mean, some of these persons frequently -- I -- I don't think so. It's easy to --

First of all, you can have access to elicit substances in prisons, and we all know that's possible. Whether or not it's on the frequency that -- that -- which some of these individuals might drink alcohol, it's not, clearly.

But access to some illicit substances is possible in prisons.

Secondly, the -- the difficulty with abstaining and remaining free from alcohol is when it's there in front of you and you're tempted to -- to use alcohol as a coping skill, as a mechanism of escaping from some of the other difficulties that you have. Unfortunately, in prison, individuals aren't learning skills that will help them when they leave.

I think we could probably leave someone -- wasted time in jail to a year. I don't -- I can't point to any studies that would show that if you increased the length of time in jail, you will increase the rate of abstinence 003988 269 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

of someone who is a substance user when they -- when they leave prison. I can't point to any.

And, in fact, I think that committee last year heard testimony from someone from Philadelphia, and I can't remember if it was part of the Siting Incentives Committee, that said specifically that we need to find more innovative ways of working with individuals with substance abuse disorders who are in our DOC population.

So I -- I think just extending that time in prison isn't -- isn't going to help the root cause, which is the -- the substance abuse. In this case, alcohol.

REP. GREEN: Thank you.

SENATOR McDONALD: Thank you very much. Are there any other questions? If not, thank you for your time.

FRANK FORTUNATI: Thank you.

SENATOR McDONALD: Senator Looney. And after Senator Looney is Dr. Ellen Eden here? How about Michael Day? Okay. You'll be next, Mr. Day.

SENATOR LOONEY: Good afternoon, Senator McDonald and vice chairman and Representative Fox and S6 133 members of the Judiciary Committee.

My name is Martin Looney. I represent the 11th Senate District, also serving as Senate majority leader, and I would like to express my support for several bills on the committee's agenda today. Two of these, Senate Bill 358, An Act Concerning Prohibiting the Transfer of Assault Weapons or Machine 003989 270 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Guns to Minors, and Senate Bill 353. An Act Concerning the Microstamping of Semiautomatic Pistols, would create better regulation of firearms.

I propose Senate Bill 358 in response to the tragedy of the gun show in Massachusetts. It's of vital importance that we keep young children safe from assault weapons and machine guns. The children should not be in possession of these powerful weapons which they may not be strong enough to control, even if they are under the supervision of an adult standing nearby.

It's unclear under current law whether children are strictly prohibited from possessing assault weapons and machine guns, and this ledge ladies and gentlemen would leave no doubt that Connecticut will protect its youth from this obvious danger and potential tragedy.

Senate Bill 353 would require microstamping of semiautomatic pistols. And microstamping uses lasers to make engravings on the firing pin or inside the firing chamber which are transferred to the casings when the gun is fired, and this process allows police~to link the evidence to the specific gun that fired the bullet.

And microstamping technology will help law enforcement identify and apprehend perpetrators of gun crime, because at times, as we know, the only evidence at a crime scene is a spent cartridge case.

Microstamping will allow police to link used cartridge cases recovered at a crime scene to a specific firearm and to the criminal who fired it. And in addition, microstamping will March 16, 2009 JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M. help reduce gun trafficking of new semiautomatic handguns, because legal purchasers who buy guns in condition Connecticut for illegal traffickers, known as straw buyers, will be deterred by the knowledge that crimes committed with the guns with be traced directly back to them.

And this proposal is based upon legislation that was passed in California in 2007, has an effective date there of 2010. The effective date of this bill would be January 2011.

I've also proposed Senate Bill 732, An Act Concerning the Sentencing of Drunken Drivers, which would require the use of an ignition interlock device by a person convicted for the first time of drunken driving. And it would also give judges the discretion in certain cases to sentence the person convicted of drunken driving to house arrest and monitoring by a global positions system in an alcohol consumption device rather than sending such person to prison.

This bill proposes commonsense changes to our laws regarding driving under the influence and would restore reasonable judicial discretion.

While DUI represents a serious violation of the law, the state should not create laws that entice citizens to break the law. The ignition interlock allows these violaters to remain productive citizens, and it keeps our state safe from' intoxicated drivers.

This bill would also create a significant savings. There are approximately 400 people who are incarcerated with 14-227a as their most serious offense. The average cost of incarceration per year is approximately $44,000. 272 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Therefore, if these offenders were released to house arrest, the state to save more than $17 million on this basis.

I would also like to express my support for House Bill 6576, An Act Concerning Larceny. "This bill would increase the amount a person would have to steal in order to be charged with the varying degrees of larceny.

As we know in many cases, the seriousness of a larceny crime is pegged to the value of the amount stolen, and those amounts have not been adjusted for some time, and this would reflect an inflation adjustment for those various offenses where the seriousness of the crime is pegged with a dollar value of the item stolen.

I finally would ask that House Bill 6664, An Act Concerning Revisions to the Various Statutes Concerning the Criminal Justice System be amended to include the federal public offenders as one of the federal agencies with access to the CGIS system. And this is a reasonable change, as US attorneys currently have access but the public defenders do not.

But thank you for hearing these important bills and for your attention to a wide range of important legislation in this session.

SENATOR McDONALD: Thank you very much, Senator. There were a number of people -- the room is actually much less crowded than it was earlier in the day, and most of the people who came and testified earlier were opposed to the microstamping bill for a variety of reasons, but one of the issues was the -- was the nature of the --of the transfer of a semiautomatic weapon. 273 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

And it was unclear -- I think it was unclear whether the transfer was intended to be -- and the language in there was intended to be a sale of a semiautomatic weapon or a temporary transfer, as in the case of handing a semiautomatic weapon to a particular individual.

I'm -- you know, what I apologize. I -- it was 358 that that was --

SENATOR LOONEY: 358.

SENATOR McDONALD: I'm sorry, wrong number, was whether you were talking -- transferring that to somebody under the age of 18 years of age, even with adult supervision.

And I'm just trying to get your impression about that issue, because it was a significant issue of concern for some folks.

SENATOR LOONEY: Yes, I think there had been some suggestive language to [inaudible] on that. The intent is that people below a certain age should not handle those weapons, even under adult supervision, because of the terrible tragedy in Massachusetts. Even when there was an adult standing nearby, in many cases, children handling those weapons, the recoil or the force of the weapon may cause a tragedy, as we saw in that case in Massachusetts.

Even when there is adult supervision, per se, the child holding and handling the weapon or in possession of that weapon is in great danger regardless of whether or not there is an adult in close proximity.

SENATOR McDONALD: Okay. Let me just --do other folks have questions? Representative 274 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Holder-Winfield.

REP. HOLDER-WINFIELD: Good afternoon, Senator Looney.

SENATOR LOONEY: Good afternoon, Representative.

REP. HOLDER-WINFIELD: How are you doing? I tend to be an antigun person, but when I come in the room, of course, I try to listen to all sides of the argument.

And listening to the people, as they testified earlier, I wonder if what this piece of legislation, Senate Bill 353, if we are doing the correct thing. And the reason why I wondered that is because I'm -- I'm not really sure what the outcome is.

And I know that California is working on it, and they have a bill that goes into effect in 2010, and so I'm just trying to get, since you are the person who introduced the bill, your thoughts on it. Because I'm wondering if -- even though I think it's an important thing to do, to control gun crime, it maybe we might not do better to first see what the result -- how the impact of the law in California --

Because I -- when we run up against Second Amendment rights, and we can have arguments about that, and I might tend to be on your side on those arguments, but had we run up against Second Amendment rights, I want to be careful about what we do.

So I just wanted to know if you could speak a little bit to what you think about the proposal that some people made that maybe we should way to see what impact this microstamping action has. 275 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR LOONEY: Well, first of all, this bill would have no impact on the Second Amendment at all. The Second Amendment does not provide a completely unregulated rights regarding gun possession. It does provide that -- that -- it does not cancel out the state's power under its police power to regulate -- to regulate weapons.

And as long as we saw the US Supreme Court in terms of the Washington, DC statute that was struck down, obviously an absolute ban is prohibited under the Second Amendment, but reasonable state regulation is not. And this is just another example of reasonable state regulation.

•As you know, those of us who represent cities like New Haven are constantly seeing incidents of gun violence where people are killed on the streets of our city. It is very difficult, often, to trace back the weapons and to find out what the -- what the source might be. Many unsolved murders occur in this state every year.

This would be just another tool in the arsenal of law enforcement to help deal with violent gun crimes. And the reason the effective date of this bill is made to be 2011, obviously, there would be an opportunity to have the California statute in place and working before this became operational.

But again, one of the other issues that I know that have been raised is a cost factor regarding weapons. California testimony regarding that bill indicated that the average per-weapon cost by incorporating microstamping technology would be about anywhere from 50 cents to $3 per weapon. So it would not be prohibitively expensive to add this in as -- 276 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M. as an advance in technology.

Again, in California, about 65 different law enforcement agencies endorse that bill as it was passed by the California assembly and signed by Governor Schwarzenegger two years ago.

REP. GREEN: Thank you, Senator Looney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR McDONALD: Thank you. Are there other questions? Thank you very much for your patience and testimony.

SENATOR LOONEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR McDONALD: Next is Michael Day. Is Moira Buckley here? Let me just see who's going to be next on -- Todd Lizotte. Is Todd Lizotte here? Jim Prosnit? Okay. Mr. Prosnit will be next.

Oh, I'm sorry, you're Mr. Lizotte. Okay. I apologize. Please proceed.

MICHAEL DAY: Thank you, Senator McDonald.

Good afternoon, members of the Joint Committee on Judiciary. My name is Michael Day, and I'm a northeast region manager for Alcohol Monitoring Systems. I am here today to testify in support of Senate Bill 660.

As a company focused on continuous alcohol monitoring, our five-year history has been committed to providing solutions to reduce alcohol-related offenses and reduce recidivism rates. Our programs change behavior and save money.

The National Center for State Courts recently 003996 277 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

conducted a thorough examination of the secure continuous remote alcohol monitor, a continuous alcohol monitoring device to determine its effectiveness in monitoring for continuous sobriety and reducing recidivism.

While participating in the program, 98 percent of the offenders did not commit a new offense, while second and subsequent convicted drunk drivers, the same population being addressed in Senate Bill 660, saw a decrease in recidivism by 45 percent, compared to a 35 percent increase in recidivism for offenders that did not participate in the program.

Since 2003, continuous alcohol monitoring programs had been fully implemented in 46 states, in over 1800 jurisdictions, and have monitored close to 100,000 people.

Jurisdictions can -- utilizing continuous alcohol monitoring include, but are not limited to, the district attorneys of New York City's five boroughs, the Department of Corrections of the State of Vermont, the Attorney General of the State of South Dakota, the Attorney General of the State of North Dakota, the City and County of Denver and the Department of Corrections of the State of Michigan, including many others.

Continuous alcohol monitoring programs remain successful in both large cities and small towns, and most are supported through an offender-pay model. Through 2008, our model, in conjunction with the courts, has saved the judicial system approximately $269 million in incarceration fees alone.

With the offender pay model in mind, we remain cognizant of those offenders that might not have the ability to pay. Our programs include 003997 278 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

some type of indigent funds to help support those in need of maintaining a period of continuous sobriety.

Keep in mind the ultimate goal of continuous alcohol monitoring is to find a program suitable for all offenders. Continuous alcohol monitoring is currently in use in the State of Connecticut. It has been used in domestic violence and family law courts, and in many family law cases.

Most jurisdictions utilize continuous alcohol monitoring as just one component in a comprehensive•toolbox used to manage, monitor and ultimately rehabilitate alcohol-addicted offenders.

Continuous alcohol monitoring devices aid the judges, courts, corrections and many other agencies in an effort to reduce recidivism, make a difference for their communities, and help those who need to maintain a period of continuous sobriety.

It-is of utmost importance for the members of this committee to support Senate Bill 660 for the following reasons: Cost savings the State of Connecticut will realize. The ability of the courts to continuously monitor multiple offenders when the court orders no drinking. And finally, enable offenders to reform those -- to reform their problems of battling addiction through a continued period of monitored sobriety.

In addition to my testimony here today, I ask you to take a look at the submitted testimony from Attorney General Larry Long of the State of South Dakota, County Judge Michael Barrasse of Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, David Wallace, director of the National Center of 279 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

DWI Courts, and Sandra Lax, private attorney of Fairfield County.

Thank you for your time.

REP. FOX: Thank you. I have a question for you about the science of how this works.

MICHAEL DAY: Yes, sir.

REP. FOX: Because as I understand it, you're not actually taking a blood sample or a urine sample or any kind of a breathalyzer being used. It's essentially -- detects the presence of alcohol by monitoring the skin, is that how it works?

MICHAEL DAY: Representative Fox, that's a great question. The science behind this is not new. It's over 70 years old. There's hundreds of peer-reviewed studies on it saying that it's accurate. And it is supported at the Frye and Daubert level hearing for the courts. So there's no question that it's accurate.

The device itself is attached to the body, mostly on the leg, where it continuously monitors your perspiration for the presence of alcohol.

REP. FOX: Now, does it give you a blood -- it doesn't give you a blood alcohol reading, does it?

MICHAEL DAY: It detects your transdermal alcohol concentration, and it's correlated to your blood alcohol.

REP. FOX: Okay, so you can't tell how much --

MICHAEL DAY: You can. 280 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FOX: For example, breathalyzer is what most people are used to, you know? If it's over .08, the person's --

MICHAEL DAY: And this device can do the same thing.

REP. FOX: Okay.

MICHAEL DAY: It can detect it and transmit it and correlate it to your blood alcohol curve by the number.

REP. FOX: But the way that it's been used, at least the way it's been explained to me, is zero tolerance essentially --

MICHAEL DAY: Correct.

REP. FOX: -- is what you're looking for.

MICHAEL DAY: The purpose of being able to correlate it to the blood alcohol content is so that the courts have the ability to know if this was a small, moderate or large amount of alcohol Consumed.

However, it's going to -- it will detect one drink or 100 drinks.

REP. FOX: Okay.

MICHAEL DAY: Is that clear for you?

REP. FOX: Yes. I'm going to learn more about it.

MICHAEL DAY: Okay.

REP. FOX: I do appreciate your testimony it. Any other questions? Representative Hetherington. 281 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Thank you. I -- thank you for being here. I didn't know [inaudible]. That said, is it used in a variety of offenses, domestic violence cases? DWI cases? MICHAEL DAY: Yes, Representative, thank you for that question.

The use of this device is anywhere in the judicial system where alcohol has been a factor or alcohol is a reason for the crime.

In domestic violence cases, we often hear the story of the child who comes before and says my father is great, but when he drinks, he beats my mother. Or, you know, I have the best mom in the world, but when she's drinking, she forgets to pick me up from school.

So what we intend to do in the domestic violence worlds address the root cause of the crime, eliminate the alcohol and give a sober parent back to the child. It's obvious the use in the DWI cases, but anywhere in the criminal justice system where alcohol is a component, this is where the device is being used.

REP. HETHERINGTON: You say it's how many states?

MICHAEL DAY: Forty-six states have fully implemented programs. And along with that is where they saw that cost savings of approximately $269 million.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Thank you.

MICHAEL DAY: Thank you, sir.

REP. FOX: Thank you. 282 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Are there any other questions? Thank you.

MICHAEL DAY: Thank you. Next is Todd Lizotte, followed by Jim Prosnit.

TODD LIZOTTE: I'd like to thank the committee today for allowing me to testify. I'm here -- I'm the coinventor of microstamping, a technique that I've been developing over the last 14 years for a variety of different applications, one being for firearms.

There's a lot of things that have been said about the technology. I've actually talked to a bunch of people out here that -- from the industry and also from the different sides of this, moderates plus some people who worry about the second coming of the revolution, that kind of thing.

But it's interesting talking to them, because there is actually pieces that we share. I know a lot of people think that when I say I'm a Second Amendment guy, they might be, sure, you are. The reality of it is the technology was specifically created to target tasking. So how does trafficking impact me as a -- as a gun owner?

Well, every time I see a news -- a news article or a TV thing which talks about some type of -- some level of gun violence, and most recently on the Mexican border, you know, the first things people do is try to say we want to take away gun rights.

Technology that we're looking at herein implementing is based on the fact that a firearm for over 100 years has already microstamping cartridges. It's the foundation and the basis of the forensic technology called firearms identification. 004002 283 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

What we're trying to do is say, well, what could we do to help law enforcement create our gathered data on trafficking? So when you look at a criminal enterprise that's dealing A with trafficking anything, drugs, human cargo or even firearms, there's a thing -- it's a pattern crime.

You have identify the pattern in order to intercede or disrupt this pattern. So what you try to do is you try to create data, potentials for data.

Right now the fire -- the police departments and law enforcement have to -- have to recover a firearm in order to do a trace. So they're missing more than half the picture, in most cases. So the idea was to shorten that time frame.

Instead of the point where the gun may be used three times in a crime, being able to identify it the first time it's used, even if the firearm is not recovered.

So when you look at these pattern crimes and trafficking in general, the idea is that you -- what you want to do is you want to map the trafficking pattern in what you call temporal and spatial -- the spatial mapping, which basically means in time and space.

And the shorter you can make that data point, the fresher the intell. Data equals information. Information translates to knowledge. Knowledge translates to intelligence. Intelligence is what law enforcement acts on to -- to combat trafficking.

So our idea is to get that -- the freshest 004003 284 March 16, 2009 JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

intell possible for law enforcement to target trafficking, not target innocent gun owners like myself and 99 percent of us, I would say, that do not traffic in firearms. Do not violate our Second Amendment rights but for an opportunity to make some money on the -- on that, on selling into criminal enterprise. The idea is to target trafficking.

I'm here today to offer any, you know, to answer any questions in regards to the technology, and to -- to -- any detail that anyone requires.

So if you have any questions...

REP. FOX: Representative Conway.

REP. CONWAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You've heard the testimony earlier today on the filing down of -- and things like that so that this can't be tracked.

Can you respond to that -- that testimony?

TODD LIZOTTE: Yes, sir. The -- I was looking at this as all technology can be defeated. No -- no forensic technology that's ever been implemented is automatically taken -- raised the intelligence of common criminals to criminal masterminds.

We've been looking at over the last 30 years data from the ATF. There's about a ten percent yield lost. There's ten percent of the firearms that typically are molested in some way or adjusted in some way. That leaves -- so that leaves 90 percent are not.

Criminals are not gun experts. I've proven this in showing people that are well knowledgeable about guns out in California. I 285 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

hand them the gun and say here, take it apart, and the first question -- the first comment I guess is "I'm not familiar with that firearm."

Even myself have to yank out -- I've got a number of guns. Sometimes I have to take out the manual just to figure out how to disassemble it. It's not an easy task.

Can it be defeated? Of course. I always look at it as this. Driver's licenses used to be typed on paper. You look at a modern license, driver's license, and what's happened? It's evolved over time.

My position has always been implement it in the easiest level for allowing the industry to -- to uptake it and upload it in and allow them to evolve the technology. They're intelligent and very smart.

I mean, the firearms industry is the last bastion of pure, unadulterated manufacturing in the United States. These guys are not simple tons. They are highly trained engineers. I believe they can come up with ingenious ways in which to create mechanisms which are not susceptible to tampering, or at least to a high percentage.

REP. HETHERINGTON: So I guess with that, would you say, then, the criminal that we would see that predominantly are with the guns that are committing crimes, say, on our streets wouldn't care or even know whether the gun that they were using in the course of that crime was one that was microstamped or not and would use it anyway, thus giving us something to track?

TODD LIZOTTE: Correct. If you look at the current data. That shows it. Not many touch the 004005 286 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

internal mechanism of the firearm. Because most of the cases that -- guns are either straw purchased or stolen. The guns that are stolen, they don't own.

The idea, though, is with tracking data is if you can find the source, you find out where it's located, you've got a route, a trafficking route. If you've got enough data, what you can find is a couple of things.

One is you might find a straw purchasers who purchases a lot of weapons and maybe files a lot of lost reports, but he's a high-priority subject.

If you could isolate him, then you can apply resource -- police resources more efficiently and effectively to target him in a sting operation or something to capture him to shut down that trafficking.

You have a situation with theft rings. If you all of a sudden find a lot of firearms that when you look at it are legitimately stolen, what you might have is a theft ring. And theft rings operate -- and this is something that's happening around this country, is criminal elements hang out at firing ranges, look at guys coming out, follow them home, stake out their house, steal their firearms.

If the police get data, fresh intell, then they can stop these trafficking -- these trafficking routes and these traffic -- these traffickers of firearms.

REP. HETHERINGTON: And with the guns today being registered, you're saying that this data through the microstamping will give them -- will enhance their ability to locate that gun? 004006 287 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

TODD LIZOTTE: Yes. If you -- if you think of it this way/ is that -- say -- say my firearm is stolen. My firearm is stolen. I file a police report and probably a homeowner's claim.

If that firearm ends up at a crime scene, I'm going to get a knock at the door and they're going to find I got a report.

If they don't find it, then the question becomes they -- but it's used at a crime, they can identify it, come to me, we can clear it. But what they can possibly do is try to find out how -- how my gun was stolen. Was I cased out with a theft ring, a theft ring operating in the area?

The key here is to try to attack the traffickers. And the more data you have, the more pinpoints who the -- where the target, your resource, is to stop the flow of trafficking firearms.

REP. HETHERINGTON: So they -- they don't find the gun, they track,it back to you through the microstamping and then can ask you when's the last time you --

TODD LIZOTTE: Right. And I'll give you a good example of this. In California, there was a gentleman who because the same model of firearm over and over. I believe in excess of 16 firearms.

And what he would do was file police reports in different counties across California. So what happened was, they started finding these -- these firearms, but they could never -- they could never -- they found one of them and linked it to him, but didn't understand he was a straw purchaser. 288 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

When they got the second one, which took over a year of investigative work, they found the second one, so he might be a straw purchaser. When they found out they were in two separate counties, they started investigating all the counties, and all of a sudden they found out this guy habitually loses firearms. He's definitely a straw purchaser.

But because of the time duration it didn't allow him enough time to -- to be able to try to isolate and create a sting operation to catch this guy in the act. The idea of a sting operation is you stake out this person, and you might be able to find out his contact. Who is he selling to. Is he selling into a firearm trafficking ring or to, say, a drug organization or something of that nature?

So the key is to create new intell for police.

REP. HETHERINGTON: And how then would in that particular case, how would the microstamping have enhanced or shortened a period of time that they could have traced it back or found that he was a straw purchaser?

TODD LIZOTTE: Well, what they found out was that there was quite a bit of -- quite a number of the firearms that were used, multiple -- one of the firearms was used multiple times.

If they were able to identify it the first time they were used, that would have established the shortest time to crime point. It would have gave them the freshest piece of intell to target him for either further scrutiny or further surveillance.

REP. HETHERINGTON: And how in those cases would they have -- have found that through this 289 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

technology?

TODD LIZOTTE: Because when you -- the majority of -- the majority of these incidents, there's the -- the firearm is not recovered. All that is left is the cartridge casing.

So what they would do -- and this is an example of the -- the code. There's an eight-digit code which gives the -- in this case, CA might be Colt Arms and this digit code.

They would go through the e-trace system. This information resides at the manufacturer. No new database. It's inside the manufacturing facility. They have to -- they'll tie had to the serial number, so they -- the ATF would go through the e-trace system down to the manufacturer, follow the same protocol to identify the make, model and serial number of the firearm without having to recover the firearm.

REP. HETHERINGTON: And there's nothing on that cartridge today that would be able to allow them to trace it back to that original gun?

TODD LIZOTTE: Not unless they recovered the firearm. That's the key with this technology. A lot of people want to say that this is something new. Firearms have -- for over 100 years have had microstamping cartridges. They're just microstamped with unintentional tool marks, leftovers of the manufacturing process.

What we've done is we've adopted the forensic method called "cycle of fire" analysis. So you take the firearm, you test it, you look at the surfaces that have interacted with the cartridge, and then what you do is you place 290 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

intentional tooling marks into those surfaces which take the form of an eight-digit code and an encoded gear code.

So the idea is you're using the same mechanics, the same physics. There's no difference between the unintentional marks versus the intentional, except for the intentional are optimized to the mechanics of the firearm. They're unique, and they -- they offer you a direct connection to the -- from the cartridge to the source of the firearm. And that's what's case, because that's the trafficking route.

REP. HETHERINGTON: And there's no other markings today on the cartridge that allow us to do that.

TODD LIZOTTE: Not in a scenario where you don't -- haven't recovered the firearm. Correct.

REP. HETHERINGTON: And in what percent of the cases are we recovering the cartridge?

TODD LIZOTTE: I believe it's greater than 40 percent but less than 50 percent.

REP. HETHERINGTON: And where we recover the firearm?

TODD LIZOTTE: Where the firearm is recovered, correct.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Okay. How about just the cartridge?

TODD LIZOTTE: Almost every crime scene you recover cartridges, almost every. The percentage is less than a percent that you don't.

REP. HETHERINGTON: Thank you. Thank you, 004010 291 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Mr. Chairman.

REP. FOX: Thank you, sir.

Are there any other questions? Thank you very much.

TODD LIZOTTE: Thank you for your time.

REP. FOX: Next is Jim Prosnit. How about Bruce Rozum? And just to go down the list, is there a Raymond Hanley here? You'll be -- you'll be next. Kathleen Foster and Don Watson.

Good evening.

BRUCE ROZUM: Chairman, representatives of the Judiciary Committee. What a segue. My name is Bruce Rozum. I'm the director of research and development at the Marlin Firearms Company located in North Haven, Connecticut. I'm here to vote -- voice Marlin's opposition to SB 353 pertaining to the microstamping on semiautomatic pistols in Connecticut.

For the past 140 years, Marlin Firearms Company has been manufacturing and lawfully selling supporting firearms within Connecticut and currently employs approximately 3 90 manufacturing-related workers, many of which are family members, longtime employees with 30-plus years of service, with retirement packages and such.

As of January 2008, Marlin had turned a new chapter and had been acquired by a private equity firm and is now operated by the Freedom Group, headquartered in North Carolina. I'm also here to vote or opposition to that same bill on account of the Freedom Group, who is representative in the following companies: Remington Arms, Bushmaster Firearms, DPMS 004011 292 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Panther Arms, H&R 1871 and New England Firearms, along with Marlin.

That group has manufacturing facilities in seven states, including New York, Maine, Minnesota, Connecticut, Kentucky, Arkansas and Ohio.

Since the acquisition, the Freedom Group has been actively involved in efforts to maximize the company's potential by improving quality and afford built and investing millions of dollars in modern, lean manufacturing principles, lengthy -- one-piece global processes for assemblies and manufacturing.

These initiatives were considered imperative to remain competitive and financially responsible in these current economic times and to ensure our highly-trained workforce remains intact.

With that being said, and following what we've kind of had some information on, there is two areas that we're going to try to touch base on. One would be the employees in the Marlin Firearms Company, and one being the company's -- as a whole.

The concern with the Marlin employees are the fact that we are undergoing a lot of changes at Marlin in the recent year, and everyone is on -- in scrutiny, because we're trying to limit all the -- all the amount of costs that we have in our firearms so that we can remain competitive, without removing -- having layoffs and such.

As soon as the acquisition happened, we saw one of our companies that we owned prior to the acquisition, H&R 1871, get moved from its location in Gardner, Massachusetts, to the 293 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

[inaudible] facility up in Remington Arms. They have a million-square-foot facility there and currently are using about half of it.

So there is a known commodity there that we are concerned with. And the other term that we would be considering is fact that the Marlin Firearms Company and its member groups are concerned with the fact that this process that we're trying to implement, microstamping, has not been proven for the fact that it needs more work.

There's been independent studies performed. There's documentation on that. And for a group to come in and take over where he, or Todd and ID Dynamics has left off, to further to use our resources to develop his process, which has been noted as being deficient in several sources, we are concerned with the outlay and financial money, because we've already invested lots of money in trying to become very competitive and to keep our current workforce on point.

REP. FOX: Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony.

Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Doing a great job?

What town are you based out of?

BRUCE ROZUM: North Haven, Connecticut.

SENATOR KISSEL: North Haven. So you're talking about 4 00 jobs, give or take.

BRUCE ROZUM: Three hundred currently. 294 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR KISSEL: And I would guess that you have subcontractors, too?

BRUCE ROZUM: Yes, yes, we have a very large base of locally -- vendors of which there is initiative in place with all the member companies to try to consolidate -- they're selecting vendors that are within Connecticut to be sole source for the entire group.

And there's training going on with those vendors to improve their quality to become into some -- improving their way of thinking when Six Sigma approaches and stuff like that.

SENATOR KISSEL: So you've made a considerable financial investment. In the parent corporation in the State of Connecticut?

BRUCE ROSUM: That is correct.

SENATOR KISSEL: And what does the parent corporation think about when they hear these bill proposals? Do they feel that it creates a very unfriendly climate for their business?

BRUCE ROZUM: It depends on the type of bill, proposals.

SENATOR KISSEL: Well, for example, earlier, way earlier this morning, before noontime, we had the general counsel for Colt, and he testified that this is the second year in the role this bill, proposal has been here, and that it really causes that corporation to think should we continue to manufacture in Connecticut.

They want to stay here. They're the largest employer in the Town of West Hartford, apparently. They don't want to go. They want to be a good corporate citizen. But again, 295 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

this kind of proposal, the microstamping, is going to undermine their ability to make a profit and conduct their business that they've been -- they've been here in Connecticut for -- since the 1830s.

And does that sort of same thought process happen at Marlin?

BRUCE ROZUM: Well, as the organization, they have a goal of diversifying, and they are in the process -- I've read off the number of companies they've purchased in the last two years. The word is they're not done yet.

There's a lot of areas that we've been working on at Marlin to streamline our operations to open up floor space and bring more manufacturing into the facility so that we could make -- under the same roof -- more money and have the same amount of labor or more labor, but be able to accommodate new products.

SENATOR KISSEL: So --

BRUCE ROZUM: As such, some of these products may come under the microstamping type of application where if they go into the hands, in market, for instance, it would -- unless it's proven, would be financial [inaudible].

SENATOR KISSEL: Right. So in this economy with financials being so tight and margins being so small, we have a manufacturer that has made a considerable financial investment in the State of Connecticut, sort of a -- it's a good story.

They're looking to do more investing in our state in an area where people are looking for jobs in manufacturing, an area that we're -- 296 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

we still have a lot of opportunities, and at the same time while I believe the proponents -- and Senator Looney and I have known each other for years and years and years and years, I mean, despite the concerns over the Second Amendment, which are not minimal at all, but the goal of the proposal is laudable to try to help law enforcement, even though this is the second year in a row I am hear from one manufacture remembering after another it's unproven technology, and I've got to believe that the firearms market, being what it is, if anybody thought they could do this and still make a profit, they would be the first one out there -- that they would be out there doing it, because they would have the backing of a variety of other groups.

But since no one's out there doing this, it sort of tells me that the -- the technology has not been refined such that it can be effectively utilized in the manufacturing process.

Would that be accurate?

BRUCE ROZUM: Yes.

SENATOR KISSEL: Now, what are you -- what are you folks going to did about California? Because they passed this. It's not effective yet, but are manufacturers -- because I'm sure you go to conferences and things like that and you're aware of what other manufacturers in the -- in the industry are doing.

Are they leaving California? Can they even sell arms in California? Is California essentially being written off for the future because they have this?

Because to my mind, there's no one that's 297 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

manufacturing guns with this microstamping on it.

BRUCE ROZUM: Well, for one, California hasn't drafted regulations yet after two years because there are issues with trying to come up with an actual standard for which the -- to implement this technology.

It's now April of 2009, and in 2010, in January, they're supposed to be green light on this. And right now, the manufacturers don't know what to make the products, what are the specifications to --

SENATOR KISSEL: So when the proponents -- God bless you -- so when the proponents come before us and they hold up California as the shining example, and it's the only state in the union that's passed such legislation, California hasn't gotten its act together. My guess is that they're extraordinarily financially strapped, so who even knows if they have personnel sitting in any room out there trying to many could up with regulations.

But if here it is March, they haven't come up with regulations, they're expecting manufacturers throughout the United States, and, indeed, the world, to comply with something the manufacturers don't even know what they have to comply with, my guess is that this is going to completely shatter sales of firearms in California come the beginning of next year.

Would that be a correct assessment?

BRUCE ROZUM: I would also be concerned with actual law enforcement community and their acquisition of firearms. If there are none 298 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

available in the state, it would be some kind of a safety problem [inaudible].

SENATOR KISSEL: So, so clearly, we have a state that has chartered a course that's less than a year from implementing a pattern -- a course of action, and there is a distinct possibility, unless the legislature races in and buys them more time, that state and local police officers, private security firms, law-abiding citizens, that nobody in the State of California is going to be able to purchase any firearms that are compliant with that law because there's no way for the manufacturers to even figure out at this point in time what the State of California wants?

BRUCE ROZUM: That is correct.

SENATOR KISSEL: I would suggest to you that your testimony is very helpful. I cannot imagine why the State of Connecticut would follow a state that hasn't even gotten its act together when we are scrambling to keep the jobs that we have in our state, when, in my view, the testimony has been lacking as to how this would effectively help law enforcement when we have so many other gun control laws on the books as it is right now.

And I would hope, as I said to the gentleman from Colt, that whatever we do, please don't leave the State of Connecticut. We need you folks here. We need those good jobs so that people can pay their taxes and have good employment, and I appreciate you coming here and spending all day to come here and testify. Thank you, sir.

BRUCE ROZUM: Thank you for listening.

REP. FOX: Representative Green. 299 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. GREEN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I listened to the conversation you had with -- with the representatives here, and you referenced a gentleman that spoke before, and I found his presentation to be somewhat interesting. I don't know a lot about this issue.

But first let me talk -- ask you some issues about the -- your company and the number of people in the sense that you say that you thought that your company would go under if this system was instituted in Connecticut.

How did you answer that question? I just want to refresh my memory.

BRUCE ROSUM: The Marlin Firearms Company in general or the organization?

If it was implemented in Connecticut, Marlin Firearms currently is making Centerfire rifles and lever-action rifles. We are [inaudible] firearms. At this point, the pistol regulations did not impact Marlin Firearms, so in the short term, unless the next bill comes around after this is implemented, then the next, you know, amendment comes on where they add Centerfire pistol caliber rifles and semiautomatic rifles are the same as pistols, then we will start seeing impact.

Where we may see impact is when the pistol manufacturers can no longer sell in the State of Connecticut and the retailers and the distributors pack up shop and leave town. Then we will have no more distribution network for our firearms to the normal people that are purchasing. In other words --

REP. GREEN: All right. I'm just trying to understand. 004019 300 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

So one, your company probably will not be affected with this, because you said -- you kind of projected if.

So right now, currently, if this were to pass as it is, you don't see really any detriment on your employees right now. Maybe on this market in terms of who can sell, but that's another question.

Your company right now, you can't project whether or not you will see any losses?

BRUCE ROZUM: The only -- the only caveat would be that my company is run by a larger organization.

REP. GREEN: Okay. I understand. I'm understand that. I'm just trying to get the direct impact of this legislation, this current legislation on what it might do, because there was some discussions about employment opportunity and the health of our companies, and I'm just trying to get a clear answer.

And so right now, you can't quantify that in saying yes, we're going to lost 100 people or 4 00 people right now under this current statute?

BRUCE ROZUM: Right.

REP. GREEN: Thank you. Now, under this particular piece of legislation, if we were to use this microstamping, has your company looked at what it would cause you to do under [inaudible] -- current law, do you make those type of guns that this technology would have to be implemented?

BRUCE ROZUM: Marlin Firearms Company does not. 301 March 16, 2009 -jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

I'm sorry.

REP. GREEN: Okay. The Marlin Firearms Company do not make the pistols that this law would apply to.

BRUCE ROZUM: Yes, sir.

REP. GREEN: Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

REP. FOX: Thank you. 1

Are there any other questions? Thank you very much.

Next, Raymond Hanley, followed by Kathleen Foster, followed by Dawn Watson, followed by William Misenti.

RAYMOND HANLEY: Afternoon, Chairman Fox, members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Ray Hanley. I'm from Southbury Connecticut, president of High Rock Shooting Association, and I'm here this afternoon to voice opposition to Bill 353, and I'd like to comment on Bill 358.

But first on 353, if 353 were to pass, it would mandate to the hard-pressed taxpayers of Connecticut to gamble on an unproven theory of linking used cartridge to a firearm that fires requiring the microstamping of semiautomatic pistols.

This legislation was passed in California, as has been pointed out, but hasn't been implemented, so no data is available as to its reliability.

Maryland and New York have passed similar legislation called ballistic fingerprinting. The report updated July 8, 2008, Maryland March 16, 2009 JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

State Police recommended suspending the ballistic ID system. The report states that so far, two and a half million dollars has been spent on this system, and they recommend using that money for more proven crime-fighting techniques.

The report further states the system has failed to provide any meaningful hits. Colonel Thomas Hutching, superintendent of the Maryland State Police, further states, This system so far is really not doing anything.

In New York state, its seven-year handgun fingerprint database has yet to yield one criminal prosecution. Since March of '01, information from more than 200,000 handguns sold in New York that has been entered into the database with no result.

Cost estimate in New York, more than a million dollars a year. In these hard-pressed economic times, why should the State of Connecticut and its taxpayers gamble on a program that has no proven record, has the potential of costing more workers the loss of jobs, and has an aura of "maybe some day" ring to it? Quite honestly, we don't need it. We can't afford it.

Now, in regard to 358, I would like to say that there's more testimony coming on that, and there's no one in this room more interested in handgun safety or firearms safety than what many of these instructors, including myself, are.

That tragedy that occurred up in Massachusetts, beyond explanation. Do we have to be more careful? Absolutely. But the bottom line here is education. And we have to begin that at an age earlier that 18. I would 303 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M. sincerely ask that that age be reconsidered and looked at very carefully. I'll answer any questions that I can. Thank you for your time, gentlemen, ladies.

REP. FOX: Thank you very much, sir. Representative Tong.

REP. TONG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I asked the question earlier, somebody -- actually, with Representative Miner, if he was aware, and as an instructor, I'll ask you, do you require parental permission for use to practice with assault weapons today?

RAYMOND HANLEY: I don't exactly know what an assault weapon is, sir. If you're referring to what's defined in our statutes as a legal assault weapon, yes, I would.

REP. TONG: You do or you would? Do you instruct now?

RAYMOND HANLEY: I do not instruct with a .223 right now, sir. I know there are other people in the room that do. But I limit my instructing to the younger group, to shotguns and to .22s, primarily.

REP. TONG: Is there any particular reason why you personally choose to limit it?

RAYMOND HANLEY: Well, because of what I instruct primarily, I do a lot of instructing with Boy Scouts, and we use .22s and shotguns. I don't have .223s on the range there.

Would I? In another life, I would. But it would certainly require a different type of training.

REP. TONG: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, 004023 304 March 16, 2009 10:00 A.M. jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Mr. Chairman. RAYMOND HANLEY: You're welcome.

REP. FOX: Thank you. Senator McLachlan.

SENATOR McLACHLAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Hanley, thank you for your testimony today.

RAYMOND HANLEY: Thank you.

SENATOR McLACHLAN: And for your hard work with the Boy Scouts. I think that's commendable, what you're doing.

RAYMOND HANLEY: Thank you.

SENATOR McLACHLAN: I'd like to -- it seems that you pay pretty close attention to this business, of firearm business and the laws that are affecting the business. >353 Have you heard of any technology similar to SR microstamping that is proven or works anywhere?

RAYMOND HANLEY: I haven't heard of -- or have I ever read -- of any success along that line. I know it's been around for quite a while, but as to its reliability, no, sir, I can't honestly say I've known any degree of success with it.

SENATOR McLACHLAN: Thank you.

REP. FOX: Are there any other questions? Thank you.

RAYMOND HANLEY: Excuse me, could I make one more comment? And that's in regard to our firearms industry in the state. I don't wish to go out 305 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

on the [inaudible], but the firearms industry in the state has been very cooperative and very helpful to the Boy Scouts and the instructing I'm doing with the Scouts. The industry has been more than generous to us, and I appreciate that. Thank you.

REP. FOX: Thank you. Thank you, sir. Now there's a few names I just have to go through. Kathleen Foster? She's not here. Okay. Don Watson?

DON WATSON: I'm Don Watson, Town of Rocky Hill.

REP. FOX: Okay. Good evening.

DON WATSON: And I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the opportunity to talk to the committee. I have a great deal of difficulty with this three -- SB 353 bill. I want to ask you to turn it down.

The -- to pass a bill, you certainly want it to be effective, and I don't see how this bill can be very effective.

First of all, the microstamping can be removed by picking up a stone off the ground and rubbing it on the firing pin. That quick. It's gone.

Secondly, criminals do not buy guns legally. So the question comes up, if someone is shot with one of these shrugs from a microstamped gun, and maybe it was a situation where other guns were fired as well, how do you know which gun that slug came out of since there's no markings on the slugs?

If someone picks up his own shells and reloads, he knocks off the primer. It's the firing pin that hits the primer that's March 16, 2009 JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M. supposed to leave this identification on it.

The next question, of course, is, is this a form of registration? In other words, when someone buys a gun, this particular mark, microstamping, will it be registered in his name and therefore is a form of registration.

I think that raises a very serious question. And, of course, as we heard this morning from the representative for Colt, this is a very expensive operation to put into the [inaudible]. If they don't plan to do it, they may under those kinds of circumstances have to move away from Connecticut.

And as someone pointed out, that doesn't stop other manufacturers that aren't residing here in Connecticut from selling guns. It's also going to cost them a lot of money. It's going to cost Colt a lot of money to do this.

And why would they bother if they're not in this state to even bother with it? They'll sell elsewhere. It also raises the question of loss of jobs of all these people, and the question of the sports shops, a lot of other people that hold jobs in the State of Connecticut, what happens to their businesses when they can't sell these guns?

I think all these things have to be looked at. Passing a bill that's ineffective is not going to accomplish anything. And your chances of trying to get at the criminal are extremely slim.

So what is the result of this? It's hurting a lot of good, legal operating citizens, sportsmen, jobs for people in the State of Connecticut. Manufacturing concerns in the State of Connecticut. 307 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

I request that you turn this bill down and don't pass it. Thank you.

REP. FOX: Thank you, Mr. Watson. Are there any questions? Thank you very much for waiting all day to testify.

DON WATSON: Thank you.

REP. FOX: Thank you. Next is William Misenti. He will be followed by Erin Romano, followed by Chris Powell.

WILLIAM MISENTI: Good evening. First time I've ever been up here, so you're going to have to give me a little break, but I'm here on -- in front of you all you gentlemen and ladies because I oppose now two bills, 33 - - „. 3 5 3, my

reason for that is the technology isn't (- proven, it can be easily done away with. 1

In my lifetime, I've had several jobs, some of them security, some of them carrying a gun for a nuclear plant, and I'm very familiar with a lot of law enforcement people, including family members.

So I have been following this since I was a young tad. And so that was a long time ago. But this method of tagging the brass does not stop people from using revolvers, which there are more revolvers around, and it only does it for pistols, which will limit pistols.

Now I have a few pistols. By this law going into effect, I won't be able to transfer these. I already have a gun through your assault bill because it says "Colt "on it. No other assault guns can be sold in this state because they're pre-banned. I can't sell my Colt. I have to will it to my nephew. It's 004027 308 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

already done.

But the idea is that takes all my guns, and it's now going to make them illegally for me to transfer to somebody in this state. That means I'll have to transfer them somewhere out of state.

That doesn't solve your problem. People haven't mentioned this, but there are automatic weapons that are in this state that were made in 1911 and are still being fired. You're going to start and put a tag on a gun this year or two years from now or three years from now or ten years from now when they finally figure out how they can do it, because that's the part that1s not done.

And unless you've been in manufacturing, saying you're going to do something and doing it runs into a lot of monkeys, and they don't all work the way they're supposed to.

And then you're going to have these guns that are around, what, 50 years? They got all those guns from 1911 up till now, and they are there's tons of them around. You're going to make everybody hand in their gun? You're going to pay me for them, because I've got some real collector's items. I spent a lot of my taxpayer money which you ended up getting a portion of when I paid my taxes on that purchase.

Now, the other thing I'm going to bring up is also this 358. Now, assault weapons, I have two nephews that are into guns. I have several nephews that aren't into guns. One of them is a sergeant, I won't say where, but he's in forensics, so this is also interesting. But, if I could take a little longer, I learned how to shoot when I was in 004028 309 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

the Boy Scouts. That's how I learned. I was about 12 years old, and that's how I learned how to shoot.

My nephew shot my assault weapon when he was probably 16. That was after he had quite a few lessons in other guns and how to shoot. But once he got to that point, he was taller than me, stronger than me, and he learned how to shoot an assault weapon.

His father showed him how to shoot previous, what you would consider of their day, assault weapons, semiautomatics, which could be almost anything. A 1022, which is a .22 rifle, dolled up with a few little doodads looks more like an assault rifle than some of the modern assault rifles.

And those guns are how kids learned. They learned safely. They learned what a gun can do, what a gun can't do. And the proper thing is we should be educating all children in all schools that guns around toys. They're tools. And they are dangerous. But in the right hands, they can be used to have fun. They can be used to go hunting and put food on your table, and they can do a lot of things law f enforcement and otherwise. That's what my nephew got into. Any questions?

REP. FOX: Thank you very much for your testimony. Are there any questions? Thank you very much for spending your day with us.

Next is Erin Romano. She's not here, then next is Chris Powell, followed by James Weissmann, follows by George Sipila.

CHRISTOPHER POWELL: Good evening. Judiciary j-ffi hlnl0 Committee members, Chairman McDonald, thanks March 16, 2009 JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M. for your work here today and the opportunity to be heard again.

My name is Chris Powell. I live in Manchester. I'm the managing editor of the journal Inquirer there, and I'm legislative chairman for the Connecticut Council on Freedom of Information, which I represent in opposing Raised Bill 6670, An Act Concerning the Rights of Crime Victims and the Duty of the Office of Victim Advocate.

My group's objection arises from this bill's rewriting of the central provision of Connecticut's Freedom of Information Act, Section 1-210, of the Connecticut General Statutes, so that much more information held by government would be exempt from disclosure if there is a claim of invasion of personal privacy.

The bill would allow personal privacy claims to be made for files other than the current files that can be withheld under claims of personal privacy. That is, personal -- personnel and medical files. The bill would provide exemption from disclosure not only for these files but also for other files, documents, materials, photographs, audio or visual recordings, or tangible objects. In short, just about anything in government's possession.

Connecticut's Freedom of Information Commission and its courts have adjudicated many years of cases under the current provision involving personal privacy. Broadening this provision, as proposed by Raised Bill 6670, would create much uncertainty and require many more years of litigation to determine what constitutes an invasion of personal privacy in regard to the March 16, 2009 JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M. new categories of documents be subjected to a personal privacy claim.

The need to expand the privacy exemption with regard to victims of crime particularly is not clear to us. Connecticut's Freedom of Information Act already exempts from disclosure information collecting by police investigating complaints of crime and information used in a criminal prosecution.

The law already exempts information collecting by police involving uncorroborated allegations. But when information collected by police becomes evidence in court, it must become public to uphold the right of defendants and the public itself to public trials.

Of course the publicity that comes with trials can be painful to defendants and accusers alike, but the alternative are secret trials, which are tyrannical.

Connecticut's Freedom of Information Act already strikes a good balance between the right to know and personal privacy. Please don't upset that balance.

And if I could add off the top of my head here, from listening to the two advocates of the bill that testified today, it appears this privacy bill originates in complaints about a cellphone video of a murder scene in New Haven. The officer from the New Haven Police Department testified here today that that video was never introduced as evidence in the -- in the murder trial.

I would have to contend that if that evidence was not made public, the public may have a very good right to -- to see it. How do we 312 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M. know that the case was decided correctly if that significant evidence was withheld? It's not as if the New Haven Police Department has covered itself with glory lately. There's been a very serious corruption problem down there, as we all know. Thank you.

REP. FOX: Thank you. Are there any questions? Thank you very much.

Is James Weissmann here? I'm just going to go through a list of names, so I'm not sure who's here. George Sipila. He'll be followed by George Baktis. This is George -- yes. Ron Pinciaro I saw earlier. Okay. Good evening.

GEORGE SIPILA: Good afternoon, sir, ladies and gentlemen. I'm George Sipila. I'm the shooting -- the only reason I'm here, I'm the shooting sports director at June Norcross Webster Scout Reservation. I'm an NRA-certified training counselor, as well as instructor for almost every discipline there is in NRA. I'm also a range safety officer. I'm a retired military officer [inaudible], and I spent my time in Vietnam, so I am very familiar with all sorts of weapons, et cetera.

Very interesting note, California, when that new law goes into effect, not a problem. On the light side, the Marines at Camp Pendleton have been using rubber guns, so that if they already know how to yell "hoo-wah," they can go bang, bang, bang.

Okay. Continuing on.

(Laughter.)

GEORGE SIPILA: At the scout reservation, we use primarily .22 caliber rifles and pistols. On 004032 313 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

the shotgun range, we use shotguns, of course. The Venture Crew members are authorized to use pistols, various calibers. The only reason we use .22 is because their ammunition is cheap. We don't have to reload it. Keep the costs down.

Now, one of the problems that's -- and like last summer, we went through approximately 6500 rounds just on pistols alone. That's out of 60,000 rounds that we expended.

One of the problems that this will create as I see is the transfer problem. Right now, I'm a shooting sports director. Therefore, the weapons, when they were purchased, they were purchased under my name. I signed for them. The only problem is, in a couple of years if I want to retire, I do want to retire, so who do I transfer them to? If I can't, that means I'm stuck being the shooting sports director until the day I croak. I don't want to wait that long.

The imprinting, it's an interesting theory. Is it practical? I'll leave that up to the engineers. If you have my blurb, which I have highlighted here, you can -- on one of them, I have -- on the back side I listed various pressures involved and problems that that might cause.

But, like me, when I shoot my own pistol, firearm, because I reload, I click my own brass. Reload it and it gets used again and again.

The most popular firearm out there is a .22 long rifle caliber pistol, because it is -- it is inexpensive, and I have some empty casings here, which I can show and will leave [inaudible]. 314 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR McDONALD: Sir, we won't be able to pick up any of your them unless you're in front of the microphone.

GEORGE SIPILA: As you can see, the .22 caliber long rifle casing is very small. If they want to use a --

SENATOR McDONALD: These are all empty, right?

GEORGE SIPILA: They're all empty.

SENATOR McDONALD: Okay. Just checking.

GEORGE SIPILA: They were all expended Saturday, because I had to go to the range to -- for a couple of Venture Crews that were there from Massachusetts that wanted to have a shooting sports weekend, so we did rifle, shotgun, archery, pistol.

So you can see how small that is. And imprinting stuff on -- in two places on that cartridge could prove a challenge. But then again, that's what engineers are for, and that's what they get paid for?

Like I said, I reload my own brass. Therefore, if I use it in a different firearm, it's going to have different imprints on it. How soon it's going to be illegible to read the different imprints because one is superimposed on the other, that's a problem. That could be a problem.

On my .22, for example, I have a Smith & Wesson Model 41, I can change out the barrel. I can change out the slide, which contains the firing pin and everything. No problem. They're all interchangeable. I use one for just pointing around. I use the other 315 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

one for competition. That's why I change parts, competition.

Okay. The next problem, is this going to , affect the military?

SENATOR McDONALD: Sir?

GEORGE SIPILA: Yes.

SENATOR McDONALD: The three'minutes is up. Could you just --do you have any concluding -- quick concluding remark?

GEORGE SIPILA: Yes, my recommendation is we take in a [inaudible]. It's going to prove to be a problem.

SENATOR McDONALD: Okay.

GEORGE SIPILA: On Bill 358, one comment, you can't legislate stupidity. The father should have been right there and had the common sense to control his son.

SENATOR McDONALD: Thank you very much. Thank you.

GEORGE SIPILA: Thank you.

SENATOR McDONALD: Are there any questions? Thanks for your time, sir.

GEORGE SIPILA: Thank you, sir.

SENATOR McDONALD: I believe George Baktis is next, High Rock Shooting Association.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, it's someone else.

SENATOR McDONALD: Oh, there you go and Ron Pinciaro. 316 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

GEORGE BAKTIS: Good afternoon. My name is George Baktis. I'm treasurer of High Rock Shooting Association. I've been their treasurer for 17 years.

I'd like to make a comment on 358. I've heard testimony here today concerning the assault rifles. And nobody's actually defined "assault rifle."

I don't know if anybody on the panel here knows the actual definition. But Connecticut defines "assault rifle" as any firearm capable of semiautomatic -- I'm nervous -- full automatic and burst fire at the action of the user, which means it's a selective firearm.

And then it goes on to name 60 different firearms that don't fit your own definition. And also, it goes on even farther to say that any firearm with a detachable magazine that has a combination of any of the two, which is a flash suppressor, a bayonet lug, gratuity pistol grip, folding or a classical stock.

So under this law, if I were to take my grandson to the range, and my AR has a bayonet lug on it, and it has -- it will have the protruding pistol grip, it's an illegal firearm. If I take a grinder, take off the bayonet lug, it's now a legal firearm.

Now, it has nothing to do with the function of the firearm whatsoever. And I can't understand how we can legislate things on appearance and not how they function. When you give a definition of an item, and none of these firearms that we're talking about here fit your own definition, how can we try to ban them or say I can't take my 13-year-old grandson and let him fire that firearm. 004036 317 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

It doesn't make sense to me, and I don't know if anybody can explain it to me. So that's really about all I have to say. And the one thing I would like you all to remember is that we can't legislate away crime. You know, that we cannot do. If we did, we wouldn't be here having this discussion, because there would be no crime. We'd be living in a perfect world. And obviously we aren't.

That's all I have to say. Thank you.

SENATOR McDONALD: Thank you.

Are there any questions? Thanks for your time today, sir. Ron Pinciaro, followed by Thomas Walker. Is Mr. Walker here? He'll be next.

RON PINCIARO: Good evening, Senator McDonald, members of the committee. I'm Ron Pinciaro, executive director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence, and I'm speaking in support of SB 353, because microstamping is an important tool that will help law enforcement solve gun crime.

The national clearance rate for homicide cases was approximately 60 percent in 2007. And over 3,000 gun homicide cases went unsolved. At approximately half of gun homicide investigations, a spent cartridge casing but not a firearm is recovered at the crime scene.

Today that cartridge can only be tied to the gun that shot it if the gun itself is found. Microstamping will allow police to positively link used cartridge cases recovered at crime scenes to the exact guns that fired them without having the gun in their possession.

In the first six weeks of this year, ten shootings in Hartford, New Haven and March 16, 2009 JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Bridgeport have gone unsolved where police might have been able to identify the gun if the microstamping technology had been applied because they had the casings.

The technology will also be a deterrent to the illegal gun trafficking that allows children and criminals easy access to guns. In Connecticut, more than 85 percent of gun crimes are committed by people who cannot legally purchase a gun, so where do they get the gun?

The ATF reports that two-thirds of firearms traced in Connecticut were first purchased legally right here in the state. Some of those were straw purchases, where a person legally buys guns and then sells them to prohibited users.

Microstamping will discourage straw purchasers if they know a gun can easily be traced back to them after being used in a crime. We've heard a lot today from people that say that microstamping won't help to solve crimes. But the International Association of Chiefs of Police has endorsed microstamping because they see it as an important tool to help solve gun crimes.

I have submitted written testimony, and I included the resolution from the IACP from their San Diego convention in November.

Microstamping is already required for all new-model semiautomatic pistols sold in California after January 1, 2010. Manufacturing already have to incorporate the technology into their manufacturing process if they want to sell guns into that important state. So it's really not a matter of whether you're a Connecticut manufacturer or not. 004038 319 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Connecticut -- it's not where the gun is manufactured. It's where it can or can't be sold. So if a manufacturer were to leave the State of Connecticut-and try to sell guns in California, they still couldn't sell guns in California. Doesn't matter where they reside.

It is also now a requirement of the District of Columbia, and in New York it has passed in the House, which they call their Assembly, and is currently considered in the Senate.

It only makes sense that Connecticut, a state that has always been forward-thinking about gun violence prevention, would be the next state to pass this legislation.

I also would like to support SB 3 58, An Act Concerning Prohibiting the Transfer of Assault Weapons or Machine Guns to Minors. It's only common sense not to give children machine guns.

As the tragedy involving the child from Ashford, Connecticut last year shows, even when supervised by adults, these weapons can and do kill children. And we urge you to support both of these bills. None of these provisions interfere with the right of law-abiding citizens to own as many guns as they choose.

SENATOR McDONALD: Okay, Ron, thank you. Thank you very much. We want to give everybody an equal chance here.

Let me just ask you, the legislation that was passed in California, you know, in the world of state legislatures, I guess California and New York are two of the 800-pound gorillas, so if microstamping is going to be California, is 320 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

it roughly the same as the proposal under this proposed bill?

RON PINCIARO: Yes, it is. It specifically says new-model semiautomatic pistols.

SENATOR McDONALD: So if that's true, I guess I'm confused. How would this work with manufacturers -- given the fact that, what is there, 35 million people or something in California, something like that, it's been ten percent of the population, I think.

Given that -- given the fact that manufacturers would have to provide this technology to market or sell semiautomatic weapons in California, why would -- if you know, why would that be any more difficult for them to -- to sell the same type of weapons in Connecticut, if you know?

RON PINCIARO: It would --

SENATOR McDONALD: I think --

RON PINCIARO: It would be easier -- it would be -- it would be more difficult not to. Once they have to -- once they have to use that technology on a particular model, they're not going to put it on some units of that model and not others.

SENATOR McDONALD: Do you know that or are you speculating?

RON PINCIARO: I guess I'm speculating, but I can't -- I can't think of any manufacturing process that would be -- where it would be cheaper to do some but not everything in the production line.

SENATOR McDONALD: Which is one of my issues on 321 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

this whole thing, is, you know, if -- if that is really going to -- if California is going to drive the market, if you will, I don't know if that's true, but if that is true, it wouldn't be the first time.

You know, clean air emissions acts or mot.or vehicles and all the rest of it start in California.

If that's true, do you know if there's a trend in the industry? I [inaudible] actually ask Mr. Chen this when he was here from Colt. I just thought about it.

But do you know if there's any trend from the industry of manufacturing that once they -- once they retool their equipment to comply with the California law, that they are actually going to run separate production lines, one for California and Washington, DC and another for the rest of the world?

RON PINCIARO: Well, you know, I can't state that empirically, never having been involved in the industry, but I have been involved in other industries. And, as I said, I can't imagine a production line that would benefit from producing the same product two different ways.

SENATOR McDONALD: Okay.

Well, I know there are a couple of or people signed up later on -- I hope they're still here; they may be able to answer those questions for me -- that appear to be from manufacturers. I'll ask them that. Thank you for your testimony.

Representative Holder-Winfield.

REP. HOLDER-WINFIELD: I know we've probably gone 004041 322 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

over this already, but I get the trafficking thing. I'm just not quite getting the stolen gun thing.

So if you could kind of explain briefly, because I'm sure we've gone -- I just it kind of missed me, so if you could help me with that, how this works to help in that respect.

RON PINCIARO: Well, the --if you -- all guns start with a legal sale, okay. Unlike drug sales, there has to be a legal sale to begin with. So it's very important to law enforcement to have very early evidence after a crime is committed. And knowing, knowings what gun fired that round right away is a very important clue. It's some place to start.

They can then trace the train of ownership from that original purchaser to where that bill eventually ended up. And, as you know, two years ago, we passed ledge ladies and gentlemen here in Connecticut requiring the reporting of stolen firearms.

So that would help us with that straw purchaser, because now when they go back to the original purchaser of that weapon, they can no longer say, as straw buyers used to, that, yeah, I had that gun but it was stolen from me. Because now we can say to them, well, did you report it stolen? And if it wasn't reported as stolen, again, we have the possibility of a straw purchaser.

As Chief Strillacci from West Hartford I remember saying a couple of years ago at that time, before we had reporting of lost and stolen firearms, he said all we could do is give the guy a dirty look, and the investigation stopped there. 004042 323 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Now we can -- we can at least have important early evidence that we can --we could trace it from. It's a tool. You know, it's riot going to solve every crime. We've never -- we've never said that; we never would.

REP. HOLDER-WINFIELD: No, I understand that. But you were just talking about -- because when I've been listening today, we've been talking about guns being stolen and guns being trafficked and using straw purchasers.

And my question was -- because some people seem to indicate -- and maybe I just heard wrong all along, but some people seem to indicate that this would help with the trafficking and the straw purchasers, and also with guns that are just outright stolen.

And so my question was about the guns that are outright stolen, and you talked about straw purchasers, which, from my understanding, goes to the trafficking side of it.

RON PINCIARO: Right.

REP. HOLDER-WINFIELD: So my question was about a gun that's just outright stolen, how -- because people have been talking about how it would help with that, and I'm -- that's the part I'm missing. So I don't know if you can or can't speak to it, but --

RON PINCIARO: I really can't it. I think where it goes more to what we know is that -- I think the -- the primary thing to stop is the -- the rogue dealer. We know, for instance, that 57 percent --

When ATF traces guns from crime scenes back to 324 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

the original purchase, we know that 57 percent of guns found at crime scenes are traced back to one percent of the dealers. Those are usually the rogue dealers, okay?

And that's important information to have. If we can shut down the rogue dealers, like if we can shut down the rogue dealers, for instance, now that are selling those assault weapons into Mexico on that border problem that would -- that would be a very important step to stop illegal trafficking.

I happen to believe that that's the biggest source of the problem. Much more than the stolen gun or perhaps even the straw buyer, although the straw buyer is very closely linked to the rogue dealer.

But that's where I see the big help to law enforcement, finding out where the rogue Dealers are and dealing with that.

REP. HOLDER-WINFIELD: I thank you for that, because it did seem that people are talking about both issues, and I -- I'm fully on board and understand the one issue, but I don't grasp the other.

So I thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SENATOR McDONALD: Thank you. Representative Tong.

REP. TONG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ron, thanks for being with us tonight. I want to pick up on what Representative Holder-Winfield -- Winfield has asked about in terms of straw purchasers.

And you said that every gun sales or transfer 325 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

begins with a legal sale.

RON PINCIARO: Correct.

REP. TONG: So we've heard a lot of testimony today about the impairment of rights of law-abiding gun owners, and I can tell you that it's not my intention to impair the rights of the law-abiding gun owner.

RON PINCIARO: Nor mine.

REP. TONG: But the person who buys guns for resale and sells them to somebody who can't buy them, that person starts out as a legal gun owner; is that right?

RON PINCIARO: That's correct.

REP. TONG: And so they have the legal, lawful right to purchase products, guns, and then to sell them to other people.

And then once they cross the line, though, and sell them to somebody who's, you know, a drug dealer, gang member, somebody who -- a felon who's not lawfully allowed to own a gun, that person crosses the line from law-abiding gun owner to criminal.

Isn't that right?

RON PINCIARO: Yes.

REP. TONG: So what we're -- my understanding of the legislation is that it's trying to target a class of criminal once that person has crossed that line.

Is that your understanding of the purpose of this bill? 004045 326 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

RON PINCIARO: The purpose -- oh, yes. The purpose of this bill is to -- part of the purpose of this bill is to help identify those rogue dealers.

REP. TONG: Right.

RON PINCIARO: Who are often in association with those straw buyers.

REP. TONG: Do -- is -- we talked about this issue with the lost and stolen firearms, and I think you make a good observation that they're almost companion bills, in a way.

Is straw purchasing a problem in this state?

RON PINCIARO: Absolutely. I mean, just one anecdotal piece of evidence that happened a couple of years ago with the D'Andrade Gun Shop, D'Andrade was only detected as a rogue dealer after one of the biggest drug lords in testimony in a separate trial testified that he had bought hundreds of guns from D'Andrade that he used to give to the people in his gang in which he said dozens of murders had committed with those guns that were purchased from D'Andrade.

REP. TONG: What --

RON PINCIARO: We knew from the last ATF study that was allowed to be released in ATF that D'Andrade was one of those rogue dealers that was part of that one percent.

REP. TONG: But he's sort of the big -- the big fish in this story in Connecticut, and we've heard a lot about his case.

One that really -- if I recall correctly, one that stuck with me was a chiropractor, I 004046 327 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

think, in South Windsor. And what was the story with him?

RON PINCIARO: He was a person with a drug habit that was legally purchasing guns and then selling them in exchange for drugs, basically.

REP. TONG: So he was a law -- again, a legal gun owner. I wouldn't called him law-abiding, but he was a legal gun owner, went out and bought guns locally in South Windsor, or wherever -- I don't know if there's a gun shop in South Windsor, but wherever his local shop was, and then would turn around and put those guns on the street?

RON PINCIARO: And -- and tell them to drug dealers in exchange for drugs.

REP. TONG: I assume in the Hartford area or locally?

RON PINCIARO: Primarily in Hartford.

REP. TONG: You know, just to complete sort of the chain that Representative Holder-Winfield was going down, we've heard a lot of testimony today from people who've said that law-abiding gun owners go to a gun shop, they go to Cabela's or whatever and they buy a gun and they follow the law, and criminals don't do that.

And the only people who are going to be on the hook, so the argument goes, are law-abiding gun owners. It's only them who are going to have their guns microstamping, you know, the bullets that come out.

And I guess what Gary and I want to know is what's your response to that? You know, is -- is this not going to work because it only 004047 328 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

affects law-abiding gun owners? Or is there some other way that it helps law enforcement in the investigative process?

RON PINCIARO: I don't see where it hurts law-abiding gun owners at all, because law-abiding gun owners would not find the casings from their gun found at crime scenes.

The -- what it does, again, it's a tool. It gives law enforcement early evidence, immediately, you know, upon recognition of the crime, to start the trail of where that gun currently is. Because, you know, they have evidence traced --

If they don't -- if there's not microstampings on the case, they have nothing. If they don't have the gun and they don't have micro -- they don't have the gun identification on the casings, then they have nothing.

REP. TONG: But it's my understanding that they -- if the gun were stolen or sold illegally to somebody who couldn't legally own that gun, that if that gun were later used in the commission of a crime and a spent casing were found, that at least the police would go first to the registered owner of that gun and find out what happened to it.

RON PINCIARO: That's right.

REP. TONG: And does that have evidentiary value?

RON PINCIARO: Yes, because now, that --if that gun had been stolen from that legal purchaser, that legal purchaser would have reported that gun already as stolen, which would exonerate him?

REP. TONG: And if they did that, there would be no 329 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

problem?

RON PINCIARO: That's right.

REP. TONG: Okay.

RON PINCIARO: That's what I'm saying, there couldn't be a problem for the legal gun owner it.

REP. TONG: Okay. Thank you, Ron.

SENATOR McDONALD: Senator Gomes.

SENATOR GOMES: I'd j.ust like to make a clarification. You mentioned D'Andrade. In the City of Bridgeport, we tried to pass a gun ordinance.

Do you remember that?

RON PINCIARO: I sure do.

SENATOR GOMES: And one of the councilmen saw fit to table the motion in order to bring D'Andrade in there for the next meeting and testify.

RON PINCIARO: That's correct, after I gave testimony at that --

SENATOR GOMES: And he testified the reason why our ordinance was no good is -- is because it caused too much paperwork and that gun dealers were going to be strapped with too much paperwork.

RON PINCIARO: That's correct.

SENATOR GOMES: And D'Andrade sold over 100 guns illegally, which a good deal of them were involved in murderers dealing with the biggest 004049 330 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

drug mob in Bridgeport.

RON PINCIARO: That's right.

SENATOR GOMES: I just wanted to clarify that for somebody's edification.

SENATOR McDONALD: Are there any other questions from members of the committee? Thanks very much. Thomas -- Thomas Walker, followed by Raymond Holdridge.

Is Mr. Holdridge here? Mr. Holdridge?

Steven Loban, you'll be the next person up. Good evening, sir.

THOMAS WALKER: Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Thomas Walker. I'm from Ashford, Connecticut. I'm a small businessman, and I'm here representing myself and my family.

I'd first like to touch on Bill 6009. This is the kind of legislation you people should all be passing. This is good.' This should be passed as quickly as possible. I wasn't aware of that before I came here, but this is a very good bill.

The faster we can get criminals off the street by any means, or make people be responsible, the sooner we'll all be safe.

Next, I'd like to talk on Bill No. 353. This bill has no merit whatsoever. It's been shot full of holes. The people that are for it really don't have any hard evidence that this works.

I'm not a criminal. I've never -- my biggest 004050 331 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

crime in life, I got stopped for a traffic infraction. I was seven miles over the speed limit in central Massachusetts two years ago. I've been driving since I was 16 years old.

I can think of a number of ways to beat this. If I was one of these straw buyers you spoke of, I just wouldn't deal in automatics anymore. I would sell revolvers. Done deal. No one knows what I did.

I can field-strip a semiautomatic in about 17 seconds and get to the firing pin, and there's just too many holes in it. It's an unproven -- it's going to be a burden to the people of the state and extra money.

A savvy criminal -- and they're smart; they're going to be smarter than we are, because they're looking for ways around the laws as soon as you make them -- is going to go to a shooting range, pick up empty casings. Who's to say he's not going to throw them on the ground or throw the police off the trail, while the police are out wasting valuable time and money chasing the wrong person.

They could actually use this legislation to send the police on a wild goose chase. I oppose this, and I recommend that the committee issue no report in this public hearing so the The bill dies here.

There is no legislation you can enact that will counter the dark side of human nature. People are going to lie. They're going to cheat. You can't legislate common sense. There's a distinct lack of that in our society.

This 353 sounds like government marketing to 332 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

me. They're pushing a product that hasn't been tried. One person is trying to put this out. That I have a big problem with.

There's no law that will account for our lack of responsibility. We need harsher penalties. I would love to see you build more prisons in the in the state. I would gladly pay more taxes to get these people off the street and keep them there. We have plenty of laws. Let's enforce them to keep them off the street.

As far as Bill no. 358, are, anyone 17 years of age in this country can join the armed forces. They can handle automatic weapons. They can drive tanks. I think that this is way out of line. There was a'proposed bill, No. 5852, that it's my understanding will never reach this committee. It had language in it that was much more fitting to what you're trying to do here.

I understand that it's a tragedy that that young boy died at the machine gun shoot in Westfield. But would you hand an eight-year-old a chainsaw? An automatic weapon is the same thing, only it reached out farther.

Proper training and education is the key to stopping all this, not future legislation. It just ties people down. Thank you.

SENATOR McDONALD: Thank you, sir. And I appreciate you staying so close to the time.

THOMAS WALKER: You've been here a long time. I'm trying to get you out of here.

SENATOR McDONALD: Are there any questions? 333 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Representative Tong.

REP. TONG: You made an interesting point. You said that -- I think you just asked rhetorically whether you would hand a chainsaw to an eight-year-old.

THOMAS WALKER: Would anyone on committee do that, yes.

REP. TONG: I wouldn't. I don't imagine you would.

THOMAS WALKER: I wouldn't, no. I'm a logging contractor. I have an 18-year-old, that I won't give a chainsaw to.

REP. TONG: Right.

THOMAS WALKER: There's a balance there. We need to be responsible for our actions. That's our responsibility -- was it an accident? Yes, a tragic accident. But you're not going to prevent that with legislation.

REP. TONG: I guess my question is, it sounds like it just defies common sense, if I can just paraphrase what you're saying.

THOMAS WALKER: Uh-huh.

REP. TONG: It defies common sense, and I just -- I got my first chainsaw from my in-laws last year for Christmas, and I'm still working my way through it. Maybe they're trying to send me a message.

(Laughter.)

REP. TONG: They're from western Pennsylvania.

THOMAS WALKER: Maybe they're trying to get rid of you. 334 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. TONG: Maybe. But, you know, it is an inherently dangerous instrument.

THOMAS WALKER: Sure.

REP. TONG: And are you saying, then, that it defies common sense to hand an eight-year-old a chainsaw?

THOMAS WALKER: Sure.

REP. TONG: Okay. So does it defy common sense to hand an eight-year-old an automatic weapon?

-THOMAS WALKER: Yes.

REP. TONG: How about a ten-year-old?

THOMAS WALKER: I would say yes.

REP. TONG: Twelve-year-old?

THOMAS WALKER: At 12 years old, according to the DEP, you can take a hunter safety course, and you can start hunting with a legal guardian. That's what that bill that I referred to starts at.

REP. TONG: Okay.

THOMAS WALKER: At 12 years old. That's when I started hunting. That's when I started carrying a weapon.

REP. TONG: So the 12 --

THOMAS WALKER: Again, though, there's got to be some parental guidance --

REP. TONG: No, I understand -- 335 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

THOMAS WALKER: -- because --

REP. TONG: But there's a certain maturity, both mental and physical at that age?

THOMAS WALKER: Yes, yes, I agree with that.

REP. TONG: I do understand your statement that we cannot enact legislation -- we cannot legislate common sense. But at the same time, it is our obligation to protect the public from, you know, where we can, things that are inherently dangerous.

THOMAS WALKER: Uh-huh.

REP. TONG: There's a whole body of law about that. If you and I can agree right here that handing an eight-year-old an automatic weapon is not smart and should not be done under any circumstances --

THOMAS WALKER: I agree.

REP. TONG: -- you and I would not do it, what would be the harm in us saying then you can't do it?

THOMAS WALKER: Do it at all?

REP. TONG: Yes.

THOMAS WALKER: What if you had a child that was 15 years old and decided he wanted a career in the military --

REP. TONG: No, no, I'm talking about the eight-year-old.

THOMAS WALKER: Oh, I agree with an eight-year-old.

REP. TONG: Okay. So we've agreed now -- 336 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

THOMAS WALKER: I agree with an eight-year old --

REP. TONG: Ten-year-old up to a 12-year-old.

THOMAS WALKER: I mean, there's definitely an age limit --

SENATOR McDONALD: Folks, folks, just so you know, there's some poor person who's actually going to have to transcribe this.

REP. TONG: Sorry, you're right.

SENATOR McDONALD: You need to allow people to finish their conversation.

THOMAS WALKER: I didn't mean to bait you.

REP. TONG: No, that's all right. Please.

THOMAS WALKER: I think you were talking.

REP. TONG: Okay.

THOMAS WALKER: Sorry.

REP. TONG: Eight-year-old, 10-year-old, up to 12. There is some number at which it stops and it doesn't make sense to hand somebody an --

THOMAS WALKER: Yes.

The DEP has a guideline for hunter safety, a point where young adults may start handling a firearm in a semi-supervised situation, which is 12 years old.

A machine gun at 12 years old? Probably not. I have one son that at 12 would have been fine with it. I have another one at 18 that I wouldn't do it. 337 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

(Laughter.)

THOMAS WALKER: I mean, that -- that's something that the parent has to be responsible for.

REP. TONG: Yes.

THOMAS WALKER: It's important to keep them -- I mean, our families have collapsed to the point where anything we can do as citizens and as legislators to bring that back together is only going to be good.

REP. TONG: I appreciate your spending time with us.

THOMAS WALKER: Thank you for listening.

SENATOR McDONALD: Are there any other questions? Thanks for your time.

THOMAS WALKER: Thank you.

Next is Steve Loban and is Bob Malinowski here? Is Mr. Malinowski here? Randy Bieler, Bieler". You'll be next.

Please proceed, sir.

STEVEN LOBAN: Thank you. Good evening, Chairman McDonald, members of the committee. My name is Steve Loban. I reside in Naugatuck, and I'll be speaking in evening in opposition to 353 and 358. • -

It seems like a deja vu experience. We were here a year ago -- I was here a year ago -- many of the same faces and some new faces, talking about the same bill, the same arguments as last year. 004057 338 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

My question is, why is microstamping such a priority? Why is it on the agenda? We've heard the arguments before. It's impractical. It actually constitutes a de facto ban and denies citizens access to new pistols. That's very clear. That's in the legislation. It hasn't been brought up tonight. So it's unconstitutional on that basis.

I want to bring up Senator McDonald's point earlier when Josh Horowitz was testifying. And again, the example of California came up. California doesn't know how to implement this.

And might I add, this bill has failed in Illinois, failed in Maryland and in other states that are strong gun law states. Why is that? And they don't even want to introduce it on the federal level, because they don't know how it will play out in California.

You know, we've heard how law-abiding citizens -- you know, impact on law-abiding citizens. Of course it will, you know, for that reason.

You know, law-abiding gun owners, we're your neighbors. We pay taxes. Consult us on these things. We have solutions for some of these problems. We heard other -- of your colleagues speak, hey, it's about crime and the violence. We don't want to ban guns.

There are solutions for that. This isn't one of them.

Regarding 358, my issue here is the term "assault weapon," more so the "machine gun." I''11 be happy to engage you to clarify differences on there.

I began shooting competitively when I was 13 004058 339 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

years old, and some of the shotguns and rifles I shoot might be assault weapons if future federal legislation passes. It. Last year, Mary Fritz commented I'm not sure we're going down the right road with these bills. Well, what road are we seeking to travel by bringing it back up?

I would welcome an opportunity to engage the committee to discuss solutions that work, to reduce crime and preserve the rights of the people, which we all have an obligation to uphold.

The microstamping bill offers nothing to aid law enforcement and everything to deny Connecticut citizens access to [inaudible]. Thank you.

SENATOR McDONALD: Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate your patience all day.

Are there any questions? Thanks very much.

STEVEN LOBAN: Thank you.

SENATOR McDONALD: Randy Bieler. Joseph Knott, is Joseph Knott here? You'll be after Mr. Bieler, and you can tell me if I've mispronounced his name.

RANDY BIELER: Bieler is all right. That's good. Thank you, representatives, members of the committee, my name is Randy Bieler. I'm a citizen of Cheshire, Connecticut, and I'm also the president of the Connecticut State Rifle and Revolver Association.

I'm opposed to the language on the 3 58 bill because it talks about an assault weapon. And I've always asked myself the same question. March 16, 2009 JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

It could be a golf club, it could be a baseball bat, it could be a tennis racket. I don't know what a weapon is.

In Connecticut, most of the soon yours start in competition -- shooting competitions around the age of ten. Our Connecticut juniors have competed in national and Olympics competitions, winning and taking home medals for Connecticut and some actually, at the age of 12.

They've broken national records, and now you want to take away their privilege and their right to compete.

Being a Boy Scout leader for 25 years, I'm a father of two Eagle Scouts, and a shooting coach for 3 0 years, I can tell you that the Connecticut Junior Shooting Team has the same has the same morales, the ethics and the laws the same as the Boy Scouts. Trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly and all the rest of them.

With the help of these parents -- with the help of their parents and the teachers that they have learn from, their coaches and their peers, they are going to be outstanding citizens. Through the years, our juniors have grown to be excellent citizens, top of their classes at high schools and colleges, such as RIT, Annapolis and West Point, just to name a few. ,Have become pharmacists, lawyers, engineers, surveyors, air traffic controllers, et cetera, paralegals.

All these jobs can be used in Connecticut, and we don't want them to move to another state just so they can stay active in shooting sports. 341 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

I would not like to go to the national championships this year and say that Connecticut has passed a law that says that Connecticut juniors cannot compete any longer: If you have to pick a new age, do some little discussion about an age, like I said, at the age of ten, they -- they shoot in the small board competition. At the age of 12, we have them fully -- fully shooting in high-power competitions.

So if you have to pick an age, I would say make it the same as the NRA. Make it 12.

As far as the microstamping bill, opposed to that also. It has never proven to solve any crimes. And there's no criminal that's going to turn in their illegal pistols and get them microstamped. It's only going to attack us honest citizens. In Connecticut, we have drive-by shootings. We have drive-through jail items.

We even drop the early release inmates at Downtown Haven to start it all over again. I think we should enforce and increase the jail times.

And the last thing, representative over here asked a question about innocent citizens were being microstamped. If I'm at the range and I fire seven rounds out of my weapon and I leave one round on the ground, somebody could pick that up and use it at a crime, [inaudible] knocking on my door and saying what did I do, shoot somebody.

So yes, it could affect an innocent person. Thank you.

SENATOR McDONALD: Thanks for your testimony, sir. 004061 342 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Are there any questions? Thanks a lot.

RANDY BIELER: Thank you.

SENATOR McDONALD: Joseph Knott. Larry -- and after Mr. Knott, is Larry Cabbler here? Mr. Cabbler. Ronald Hayman? Ronald Hayman? Okay. Greg Bates? Maurice Lajoie? Give me one second, sir.

Stephen Labuda. Bruce Barna. You'll be next, Mr. Barna.

Thanks for your patience, Mr. Knott.

JOSEPH KNOTT: No problem. I'd just like to say my first paragraph of the written testimony you will all have a copy of. I was a little bit persnickety with you, and I just wanted you to take that on to the fact that I've been coming here almost every year since 1968 to preserve rights that are guaranteed not only in the state constitution but the federal Constitution.

Also, let me get started, Senator Looney and some members of this committee do not like firearms. They dislike firearms so much they're willing to use any excuse to deny citizens of Connecticut the right to bear arms and to pass their firearms on to their descendents.

Many of the firearms that would be banned from being transferred are of great historical value, valuable antiques, great sentimental value to the family, firearms that have been passed down from generation to generation, and custom firearms that are of substantial value.

Now, I guarantee you, if I can't transfer my guns to my son and daughter when I die, March 16, 2009 JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M. they're going to come after you for the money that those firearms are worth, and there is a constitutional requirement to compensate for property taken by the state.

Now, Senator Looney was somewhat remiss in some of the statements he made. Does he -- the law enforcement backing of the California bill came only after they were exempted from having to have their guns microstamped.

The Looney bill would force manufacturers of firearms to adopt an unproven technology that several studies show is unreliable and of limited or useless value to police and prosecutors.

In actuality, the Looney bill is an attempt over a period of time to seize as many legally owned firearms, because once we die and these firearms can't be transferred or given to anybody legally, I assume you have to turn them in to the state.

And I think, quite frankly, in my opinion, Senator Looney and some of the people on this committee don't care whether microstamping works or not. Their main interest is to get as many guns from legally owned people as they can. Okay.

And I point out strongly legally owned firearms. This bill does absolutely nothing to prevent criminals from using or obtaining firearms.

I've attached the results in my written testimony of two studies on the reliability of microstamping that show it does not live up to the hype being spouted by the proponents.

These studies were done by the Suffolk County 004063 344 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Crime Lab in Suffolk, New York and the University of California Davis. And in the written testimony, they attach footnotes so that those who care to can go on the Web and get the full results and see the whole thing.

In closing, I'd just like to say that some of the stuff that -- talk about tracing guns and stuff like this -- is baloney. Don't take my word for it. I'll finish as fast as I can I can here. And I hope you'll have some questions for me.

SENATOR McDONALD: Are there any questions? If not, thanks very much, sir.

JOSEPH KNOTT: Okay.

SENATOR McDONALD: Bruce Barna. As Mr. Barna comes up, let me just try and line up the next person. It's Kevin Reid. Mr. Reid, you'll be next.

Good evening, Mr. Barna. 35.3 BRUCE BARNA: Good evening, sir, and good evening Sfo to the committee. I'm going to try and take as little time as possible.

I served 42 months overseas. I'm an ex-combat medic. When I came back, the country had changed. And it's been changing ever since. About ten years ago I was targeted for a mugging, and things that happened in legislature councils don't all affect what happens on the street or that perhaps they should.

Contrary to what the antigun crowd would have you believe, the fellow that was attempting to mug me didn't get shot. The presence of the firearm, some command presence, a step 004064 345 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

backward in and the display of the firearm ended what was going to be a pretty severe felony. The fellow ran off, I'm glad to report.

I don't think I was right for about two days afterwards.

You're talking about the way people protect themselves. So what you do here is of tremendous importance. We look to the legislature to protect and look out for the well-being. Drying up firearms and taking them away from law-abiding citizens does not look out for us. Police cannot be everywhere. This technology that we're discussed is bankrupt. I think that's pretty obvious.

We're talking about implementing a technology for a tightly strapped industry that's going to run several hundred thousand to several million dollars that a 13-year-old with his mother's fingernail file can disable.

I shoot regularly. I reload. I disassemble firearms. When the fellow from the tech company tells you that he hasn't run into people that can readily disassemble firearms, he is being disingenuous.

Most of people in this room would have no trouble disassembling a 1911 Pattern Colt, an M9 Beretta or anything else.

What I'd like to see happen is not have Tom Jefferson's prophecy fulfilled that no one's liberties are safe when the legislature is in session. I think you guys are a lot better than that.

Heller v. Washington said we do have a Second Amendment right. Most of us knew that anyway. 346 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

It also said that you can regulate it, and I think most of us are okay with that. But really what I think we're pleading for is really sensible regulations. The law that's being proposed here with this microtechnology isn't reasonable, isn't sensible, isn't practical, and, in fact, it doesn't work.

On my 1911, it's got about 20,000 rounds through it. I've put in three firing pins. Now the gun will be worth nothing. I won't be able to transfer it to my son, who's currently in Iraq, when he comes home or when I pass away.

I think this would really qualify as ill-conceived legislation. Please don't do it, guys.

SENATOR McDONALD: Thank you very much for your testimony. And for your service to the country, your son's service. Let me see just if anybody has any questions. I believe Representative Green did.

BRUCE BARNA: Yes, sir.

REP. GREEN: Thank you.

I heard a lot about, you know crime and illegal guns and guns in the hands of criminals. There's also, I think, another issue that I think --

BRUCE BARNA: Could I say something, just --

REP. GREEN: If I could finish, please, sir?

BRUCE BARNA: Oh, I'm -- yes.

REP. GREEN: There's another issue that I think I would also be concerned about, and that is 347 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

what I consider the unintentional harm that is caused to children by, in fact, folks having legal guns and -- in the homes.

Do you know -- two particular situations concerning me, and that is the way the suicide by use of firearms and unintentional harm by the use of firearms by folks.

Do you know that most suicides, if it's done by a gun, is done by a gun that a person finds their home?

BRUCE BARNA: That's not true, sir.

REP. GREEN: Okay. So I guess this report I'm reading is incorrect.

BRUCE BARNA: Well, we can talk about this briefly. IACP, the organization that California touted, has never seen an antigun regulation that it wasn't in love with. So I think the organization or the report that you look at needs to stand some scrutiny.

Most murders in America aren't committed with handguns. They're committed with hands and feet.

REP. GREEN: I'm talking about suicide.

BRUCE BARNA: Suicides, how do you stop a suicide, sir? Do you take the guns away from all law-abiding citizens in the hope -- people that are going to suicide, unfortunately, and I've seen some of this, are going to suicide. I've seen people do it in the most incommodious ways, but they did it because they were destined to. They were determined to.

I don't think you can legislate a law that's 348 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

going to prevent suicide. It hasn't seemed to be that way.

REP. GREEN: I just was trying to make the point that the death of young people by firearms is also not just in a sense on the street by crime.

BRUCE BARNA: Oh, absolutely.

REP. GREEN: That possession of that gun is also a serious issue around the safety within the home also.

BRUCE BARNA: I think that's true.

REP. GREEN: Okay.

BRUCE BARNA: And I think that can be answered. I'll tell you how some of the ways it can be. I have guns at my home. They're in a safe. I think most gun owners have their guns in safes. The technology to prevent guns from being handled by people that shouldn't handle them already exists. Trigger locks, safes, locked-up boxes.

When I had younger children and I didn't have a safe, my guns were disassembled. None of them were put together and none of the pieces, you know, were continuous. They are all in separate places.

I understand what you're saying. There was a child that went to reach for her father's Glock, which is a gun that's -- can be discharged, what's called an AD, and shot herself. It was a deplorable accident. The father was a policeman. These things happen. It's not an excuse. It's not a justification. 349 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M. As the fellow before me tried it make the point, they are dangerous. My experience over a lifetime is the way to make dangerous things safe is by education and training and not by drawing back from them.

REP. GREEN: You mentioned this [inaudible] idea of people with legal firearms in their homes. You mentioned yourself that you practice some safety --

BRUCE BARNA: I have a safe, yes.

REP. GREEN: But when you see a statistic like over half of young people who commit suicide get guns from the home, someone's not practicing --

BRUCE BARNA: I'm aware that's [inaudible].

REP. GREEN: Someone's not practicing that. And it might lead to believe that those individuals who -- that have legal guns and we already have laws addressed to safety, are not following them.

It may make me come to that conclusion, so I just want --

BRUCE BARNA: One of the --

REP. GREEN: I just want to say that there's to me another concern, just about the safety of guns, not only what -- in terms of identifying --

BRUCE BARNA: I think we all should be concerned with it.

REP. GREEN: All right, thank you.

BRUCE BARNA: One of the studies I saw on young I 004069 350 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

people and guns, when you looked at the study closely, the young people's age was up to 25. And what they included were a lot of people who were engaging in criminal activity, and they were being folded into that young-person study.

SENATOR McDONALD: Thank you very much, sir. Kevin Reid. And as Mr. Reid comes forward, is Cheryll Pittera here?

You'll be next, Ms. Pittera. Good evening, sir.

KEVIN REID: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for enduring such a long day. I appreciate the opportunity to speak here tonight.

Again, my name is Kevin Reid. I'm the vice president and general counsel of Sturm Ruger & Company, which has been a -- you probably know is headquartered in Southport, Connecticut. We've been there for 60 years. 2009 is actually our 60th anniversary.

We are one of the largest manufacturers of firearms in the country, including the full line of firearms for law enforcement and sporting purposes, including rifles, pistols, shotguns and revolvers.

Now, I have to tell you, I -- I had made some prepared notes. And I heard so many interesting comments today that I -- I'm inclined to just push them aside and just hit a few of those, so I think I'm going to do that, at my own peril.

Yesterday in preparation for this, I observed the testimony almost a year ago today before this very committee on a similar microstamping March 16, 2009 JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M. bill. My predecessor at Ruger, Steve Smitty, began his testimony or at least in his preparatory remarks, stated that good intentions don't make good inventions.

And I think we can all agree that the intentions of this legislation are, indeed, good. It's designed to be -- or claimed to be -- a tool to help law enforcement solve crimes. And I don't think that there's anybody -- I can't pretend to speak for our entire industry, but I don't think that there's anybody here that spoke on behalf of the industry today that would argue that they don't support that laudable goal.

On the contrary, I think that many of us can point to all sorts of things that we do to cooperate with police departments, ATF and others, to do everything we can to make sure that those that use guns in crimes or illegally purchase guns are prosecuted correctly.

The problem with this legislation is that the invention does not support the intention. One of the things that I've -- that frankly [inaudible] my -- and I don't understand, and it doesn't seem to have come out, at least not in a way that I've seen, is this doesn't work. Okay?

It doesn't work in a way that justifies the legislation that is before this committee. This legislation says it's going to work 100 percent of the time. Every single firearm that is manufactured by Ruger, if this legislation were enacted, every single semiautomatic pistol as it comes out would have to be tested, okay, and would have to introduce these microscopic marks on the cartridge case. 352 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Now, you heard Mr. Horowitz today, and I -- I'm sure it's not -- [inaudible] that he's a very strong advocate of this technology, and it would be certain that he would certainly promote the best efficacy study he can. He said, well, we have a new study -- I don't think it was actually a study; I think it was a paper written by the patent holder -- that says this is 90 percent effective.

Now, I think if you go back and look at Mr. Lizotte's testimony from last year, and I encourage you to do that, because unlike today, I don't think he mentioned trafficking once, that's somewhat unusual to me that this was designed to address trafficking with you he didn't mention it after [inaudible] when he was here last year.

In any event, if you go back to look at his testimony,.what he said a number of times is even if it only works 50 percent of the time, then that's 50 percent -- that's exponentially more dated than we have already for police officers to: use.

The problem is, are you telling me I can't sell 50 percent of my guns? That at the end of the day, at the end of the manufacturing process, 50 percent of those firearms will not work because this technology has not been proven? That's what they're saying.

SENATOR McDONALD: Let me -- let me just cut you off there and ask you a question --

KEVIN REID: Sure, sure.

SENATOR McDONALD: -- because I should have asked this of Mr. Chen, I asked of it Mr. Pinciaro, but I suspect you're probably a better source 353 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

for the question.

What is -- what is the plan -- what is the likelihood of the -- any changes in manufacturing -- manufacturing giving -- long day.

What are the chances of the manufacturing process being essentially bifurcated for -- for firearms that are going to be sold in California versus the rest of the country, if you know?

KEVIN REID: I do know. And, if I may, and I'm not [inaudible], I'd like to answer a different question first, if I may, because --

SENATOR McDONALD: You are a lawyer --

(Laughter.)

KEVIN REID: No, but I think it's germane, okay? And the reason it's germane is because in California, that legislation -- there were a couple things that I think -- that strike me as being a little unclear here, and hopefully I -- I can do something to help clarify.

California has a roster of handguns certified and approved for sale. To be legally made available for sale in California, a handgun, single-action revolvers are exempted, must appear on that roster. Okay?

Handguns as I recall -- it's been a while since I looked at the California legislation, are grandfathered in. So that means that all the handguns, all the semiautomatic pistols that are on that roster as of December 31, 009, do not have to comply with the microstamping bill. 354 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

That means that all those handguns that are manufactured -- for example, we make an SR9 pistol. That's on the roster in California. We will be able to sell newly manufactured SR9 pistols in California without the microstamping technology. It really applies to firearms that are added to the roster on or after January 1, 2010, okay?

So everything else that's already on the roster, which are many hundreds of guns, I suspect, are already grandfathered in. It only applies to newly manufactured -- newly designed guns that have to be added to the roster.

SENATOR McDONALD: Newly designed or newly manufactured.

KEVIN REID: No, because the SR9 -- for example, I could manufacture -- an SR9 pistol, models that we're manufacturing right now, is listed on the California roster of approved handguns.

And I -- we could make one of those on January -- January 30th, 2010, and legally sell it in California because it was on the roster before the effective date of the microstamping bill.

If we came out with a new gun and called it an SR27 -- I'm making that up, okay -- and went and sought approval from California to have that handgun added on the roster, by adding that on to the roster after January 1, 2010, that would be required to have the microstamping technology, assuming, to answer your question, or part of your question, that the attorney general in California certifies that technology as being unencumbered by a patent. 355 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

To my knowledge, there has been no certification by the attorney general in California that is it's not encumbered by a patent, because, guess what, there's a patent, and the fact that someone's willing to grant a royalty-free license doesn't mean that it's not encumbered by a patent.

That's got to happen first. And then the California Department of Justice has to undertake efforts, have a rule-making procedure, including a stakeholders meeting and everything else.

There's been no effort of which I'm aware, and I assure you that were there an effort I probably would be aware, to undertake the effort to create the microstamping legislation, because there has not yet been the prerequisite certification by the California Attorney General.

SENATOR McDONALD: And just briefly, is that process substantially different than what's going to happen in Washington, DC?

KEVIN REID: I'm not familiar with the Washington, DC process. I can tell you that the California process is difficult.

SENATOR McDONALD: I was going to say, it sounds complicated. Thank you very much.

Are there other questions from members of the committee? Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL: Thank you.

So, again, California's touted as the state as the model, and yet everybody's telling me through this public hearing -- and last year as well -- that the manufacturers are just not 356 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

doing anything to try to do this, because, A, it's not cost-effective, and B, the technology is -- isn't really there to implement.

And I'm struggling with this, because it would strike me that if this was something that was doable, somebody out there in the marketplace would be doing it and trying to get credit for it and trying to -- to carve out a niche. Even if it wasn't costly. If it was possible, my guess is, with so many manufacturers, somebody would -- would be out there. And yet to this day, no one's out there doing it.

So is it because every manufacturer's figuring we're just not going to change our guns after this, after the end of this year? We're just going to keep sending the same guns into California?

And if that's the case, then effectively, there's no change in California.

KEVIN REID: That's -- that's a lot of questions all rolled into one, and obviously I can't speak for other manufacturers. I can say that, you know, we at Ruger pride ourselves on incorporating safety devices into our firearms.

We have, to my knowledge, the only loaded-chamber indicator that satisfies the new California standards, something that recently got added to the roster.

We've done a number of other things, including internal locks. Every single one of our firearms is shipped with a Cali fornia-Department-of-Just i ce-approved firearm safety device, a gun lock that you can attach to your firearm to prevent unauthorized access. 004076 357 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

So we pride ourselves very much on those sorts of things. We get all kinds of proposals from people, some interesting, some not so interesting, and we look at them.

The problem here is that with this legislation, the studies that do exist -- there was some questions earlier today about what are the manufacturers doing?

Well, I'm not a microstamping expert. Ruger is not a microstamping expert, but the National Academy of Sciences, they're a bunch of sharp folks over there. And if they say additional study is required, that's good enough for me, because they're independent, unlike Mr. Lizotte, or anybody else that has a dog in the fight, as my dad used to say, okay?

They don't. And when they look at this and say it's got some interesting potential, but it really needs additional study. The problem with this bill is it requires us to implement a technology and make it work 100 percent of the time. And there isn't a single study anywhere that suggests that's possible.

And it doesn't address the breech face. There's been a lot of talk about the firing pin, but there's no talk about that second place, the breech face or rimfire pistols or all sorts of our manufacturing variables that necessarily have to be considered when enacting this kind of legislation.

So to ask manufacturers to do this when there are too many unknowns, I'm sure I would be real popular with my CEO if I went to him and I said let's spend a lot of money to investigate this, because it's -- it's too premature. 358 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

And that's -- if there's one message I could convey to this panel, it's it ain't ripe yet, okay? It's not ready for prime time. There needs to be additional study. That's what needs to happen. And eventually, sure, maybe this will have potential. It will be adopted, it will get used. It's a laudable goal. But it's not ready now.

But to try to force manufacturers to try to do something that the National Academy of Sciences says can't be done is frolicky.

SENATOR KISSEL: Thank you very much.

KEVIN REID: Thank you.

SENATOR McDONALD: Other questions? Representative.

REP. TONG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here today.

KEVIN REID: You're welcome.

REP. TONG: You're going to have to make close to the same drive the three of us are going to have to make, I think, back home after tonight's hearing.

The question about California, I don't think I've heard an answer yet, which is, you know, after 2010, does Ruger intend to sell new-designed firearms into the California market with the technology?

KEVIN REID: I can't answer that question, because Ruger is a publicly traded company and new designs under consideration are material inside information. I wouldn't be comfortable with that. 359 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. TONG: You're a very good lawyer.

(Laughter.)

KEVIN REID: Thank you. Would you please send this CEO, please?

REP. TONG: Well done.

So we'll have to wait and see; is that the idea?

KEVIN REID: That's a fair statement.

REP. TONG: Okay, because it's trade secrets. It's interesting, you -- I appreciate your comments, and I'm glad that you stuck around, because you did affirm that what many of us are trying to do here is achieve, you know, a laudable goal.

KEVIN REID: I agree.

REP. TONG: To figure out whether technology can help us advance the investigation, the forensic investigation of crime, and how catch criminals and reduce the incidence of crime by criminals.

And you've also said, though, that your estimation of the testimony -- of the technology isn't right. So would you be willing to sit down with -- with other members of the industry, perhaps Mr. Lizotte, myself, and have a conversation about whether it's ripe or not and what we can did to work together to investigate how to get it to be ripe?

KEVIN REID: I'm hesitating because I'm thinking of the antitrust implications of sitting down 360 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

with other -- other members of the industry.

REP. TONG: We're not -- I'm not asking you to collude -- it would be a legislatively sponsored conversation at my request.

KEVIN REID: I understand. What -- would be willing to consider that, but what I would ask you to do, Representative Tong, is to ask Mr. Lizotte whether he even would be willing to provide firing pins to others so that they can conduct their own independent studies.

REP. TONG: I will ask him to do that.

KEVIN REID: I can tell you that -- I don't know this for a fact, because I've not talk to Mr. Lizotte, but it's my understanding that he has been requested to provide firing pins and has been unwilling to do so because he wanted to be there to make sure the firing pins were optimized.

I know that there's been some discussion -- I understand there's some discussion of what that actually means, but I -- I don't want to get into the whole cost issue.

REP. TONG: I hear you.

KEVIN REID: But there's a lot more to it "> than that. Would I be willing to listen? We're always willing to listen. I think there's [inaudible] always going to listen, but we also, as you can I'm sure appreciate it, are somewhat skeptical of Mr. Lizotte, given the change in positions he's taken, number one; and, number two, given that what he's saying really flies in the face of what independent -- independents like the National Academy of Sciences, like George Kavost [phonetic], and others says it really requires 361 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

additional study.

So -- but we'd be certainly willing to have a conversation.

REP. TONG: Would you be willing to attend an

actual demonstration of the technology in use?

KEVIN REID: Certainly.

REP. TONG: Thank you.

KEVIN REID: You're welcome. SENATOR McDONALD: Are there any other questions? Representative Green.

REP. GREEN: I'm sorry, I [inaudible]. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.

I do want to talk about this issue of cost, because sometimes I think companies' bottom line is, you know, how much it's going to cost.

Have your company -- since this has been discussed, I guess, in other states, have you done any research as to how much it will cost your company to put this identification on the [inaudible]?

KEVIN REID: We have not, because it doesn't work. To try to evaluate the cost of something when it hasn't been proven reliable really puts the cart before the horse.

But let me say this. I have heard a number of costs bandied about here today, and because we have not done that cost figure, I can't tell you what the right number is.

I can tell you this, it ain't six bucks, okay? March 16, 2009 JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Because if you look in just a very simple, logical way of how we manufacture today, the way that we mass-produce and purchase our firearms and then billed into that what's going to be required to now track a part that's got a number on it which, by the way, you can't see without the aid of a scanning electron microscope, it's not as though the person sitting there can look at it and say, yeah, that's the right one that goes with this firearm, I haven't heard anybody talking about the cost of totally reconfiguring all of the manufacturing lines in which our semiautomatic pistols are manufactured. I haven't heard anybody talk about that.

Or the cost of creating IT infrastructure -- I've heard a lot of people say, well, it's the same database. Really? Where is this magical, mythical eight-character database and where does it exist? Because I'd you're like to see it. It doesn't exist anyplace. It has to be created.

And, oh, by the way, there's the technology that -- there's the six bucks that people say you can use to put it on there. There's a lot more to it than this. There absolutely is a lot more to it than this, and it's going to complicate the manufacturing process. It's going to create additional steps, which are going to require people who are going to have to be paid, benefits.

And I'm not saying that cost is the be-all/end-all, but I'm telling you that the costs -- the minimal costs that are being bandied about we now question. Have not taken into consideration many of the real-world manufacturing costs that are absolutely going to come into play. 363 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. GREEN: So as the manufacturer if I'm trying to figure out my position on this, because I've actually learned a lot today, wouldn't it -- wouldn't it --

When you begin to do research, when you begin to look at a new way of doing things, a new product, you don't do a cost analysis in and since this has been batted around here for at least a year and in other states, you don't feel that you should at least say from at least a manufacturer's point of view this is what we believe the cost would have done -- would be?

KEVIN REID: The answer to that is no, I don't, because, again, it's not been proven. Why look at --

REP. GREEN: Okay. I'm not asking about the proof or not.

KEVIN REID: No, no, no, but --

REP. GREEN: The cost of doing it.

KEVIN REID: But one -- one --

If I were to say to you, you know, people have been talking about sending a man to Mars for years, people have been talking about that for, geez, way since the 1920s, don't you think the government ought to be evaluating the cost of sending a man to Mars? And the answer is no, because we don't have the technology. It's not feasible.

Until there is some technology where you can look at it and say now we have the ability to do this, what's it going to cost, how can you calculate what it's going to cost if you can't do it? 364 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

And therein lies the problem. There's nothing that says we can do this, that we can achieve the level of repeatability this legislation requires. And until this is produced to us, evaluating the costs puts the cart before the horse.

REP. GREEN: I -- that would have helped me with some of my analysis of where I stand on this bill.

KEVIN REID: Okay.

REP. GREEN: If the manufacturer says you can't do it but they haven't talked to me about the cost factor, they haven't talked to me about, you know, the impact on employer companies' ability to survive with this additional cost or not.

I mean, I don't know this $6. If somebody else put out that figure, which I didn't hear, I may not have been here for the testimony, if that was the figure that came out --

You're saying there's no information to dispute that?

KEVIN REID: Well, respectfully, if you can't do it, how do you evaluate the cost? How do you know what something costs that you can't do?

That's -- that's sort of my point.

REP. GREEN: Okay.

KEVIN REID: But I can tell you it isn't $6.

REP. GREEN: We do cost analysis all the time. Okay, thank you. 365 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR McDONALD: Representative Holder-Winfield.

REP. HOLDER-WINFIELD: Yes, sir. Good evening. I have -- I have a question about the cost also, because I heard the attorney earlier for Colt talk about costs, and he threw out the number $200, which a lot of people have thrown out.

And I just think that it would be more useful for this body if we actually had a sense of where these numbers come from and what you see as the cost.

And because it has been something that has been talked about, we all know it has, I just think it would be useful to us to know what the impact really is financially, because one of the arguments that's being used by the companies is that it's going to have a cost which is prohibitive.

And so it would be it useful to me, at least. I think to the body, but to me at least. And just in response to your last suggestion that we want to send a man to Mars but we don't know the cost, we -- the government has actually estimated what the cost would be.

KEVIN REID: Our tax dollars at work.

REP. HOLDER-WINFIELD: But if you're going to do something, it makes sense to kind of have a sense of what it's going to cost you and whether or not it's feasible or not. It's always --

I would just suggest to you that I think it would be a good idea that at least it would be useful to us.

KEVIN REID: And I -- I can appreciate that cost is 366 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

a consideration, because it's going to suggest how much the firearms -- how much more they're going to cost, whether they're going to be priced out of the market and all sorts of other very important considerations.

But from my perspective as a manufacturer, to evaluate the cost of trying to do something that the National Academy of Sciences has already told me can't be done at this stage makes no sense, and that's -- that's simply put. But I understand your point.

SENATOR McDONALD: Anything further? Thanks for your time.

KEVIN REID: Thank you very much.

SENATOR McDONALD: Cheryll Pittera, followed by -- is Dado Coric here? You'll be next.

CHERYLL PITTERA: Well, good evening.

SENATOR McDONALD: Good evening.

CHERYLL PITTERA: Chairman McDonald, members of the committee, my name is Cheryll Pittera. I'm a resident of Fairfield, Connecticut. And as a mother and citizen, I share the concerns about crime and gun safety, but I must express my opposition to SB 353.

It's not going to work. I'm not going to go over all the information and be redundant. I feel that it was stated well by experts and a lot of people why it doesn't work.

But I do want to say that, you know, in shooting, I feel like this is -- this is an infringement on me. And part of that reason is my shooting sport of choice is shotguns. And I truly believe that this is not just 004086 367 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

about pistols, and I do believe that sooner or later, my heritage will be infringed upon, and this is going to end up falling down to ripe old shotguns and so on.

So the picture that I handed you was just to show you the heritage of shooting in Connecticut, which we've talked about before. I'm board of director at our club, and at our little club in New England, we see probably 700 grandchildren, great-grandchildren of the people in that picture who come and shoot with us.

And they, you know -- these kids and these parents are enjoying the sport, like I am myself. They -- for hunting and for protecting themselves in their home.

I believe that we and my friends have every reason to expect that the antigun element pushing this flawed piece of legislation will target shotguns in the future, and it's only logical that if you support legislation affecting law-abiding citizens' access to pistols, then we can see equally or more-flawed legislation passed affecting our shotguns.

If the rights of law-abiding citizens who choose to own pistols aren't upheld, then I don't have a whole lot of faith or reason to believe that I won't be affected as a shotgun owner either.

So I'm going to ask you to please stop this now. Please do not pass SB 353. Better yet, enforce the existing laws that we have. Look at mandatory sentencing for criminal acts with guns, but please don't pass a flawed legislation that will keep law-abiding mothers, like me, from having the choice of 368 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

buying pistols I need for protection.

So don't open the door for another piece of legislation that will also affect my shotgun and my fellow club members' shotguns. Thank you.

SENATOR McDONALD: Thanks very much for your testimony.

CHERYLL PITTERA: My pleasure.

SENATOR McDONALD: Are there any questions? Thank you very much.

Dado Coric and followed by Jay Woresna. Is Mr. Woresna here? I don't see him. Okay.

Chief Salvatore? Is Chief Strillacci? Give me one second, sir.

DADO CORIC: No problem.

SENATOR McDONALD: Jake McGuigan? You'll be next.

Good evening.

DADO CORIC: Thank you. Good evening, Senator McDonald and members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Dado Coric, and I'm a partner in Connecticut Alcohol Monitoring, LLC of New Haven, as well as a practicing attorney and a partner in the New London law firm of Traystman & Coric, LLC.

My practice is devoted extensively to civil and criminal litigation here in Connecticut, both in the state court system, the federal court system and the tribal courts. I've been a practicing attorney since 1987.

I'm submitting my testimony in support of Bill March 16, 2009 JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

660, An Act Requiring Drunk Drivers to Maintain a Period of Continuous Sobriety.

Having represented well over a thousand criminal defendants in my 21-year legal career, I'm well-acquainted with the traditional aims of criminal statutes: Punishment and rehabilitation.

Punishment provides retribution for past bad acts and deterrence of future bad acts. Rehabilitation is accomplished by allowing conditional liberty properly dependent on observance of special restrictions meant to assure genuine rehabilitation and to safeguard t he c ommun i ty.

Criminal sentencing can be vindictive in nature, used chiefly to inflict penalty as a retribution for misdeeds, with little or no expectation of correction or improvement, or, when well-considered, can be used specifically with the idea of bringing about improvement by inflicting a penalty that will educate and/or establish useful habits.

Bill 6.60 is a well-considered penalty that couples retribution for misdeeds (a sentence of incarceration) with the establishment of useful habits, and that would be verifiable sobriety.

The bill targets the most dangerous of drunk drivers, repeat offenders with two or more convictions, providing a reduced sentence of incarceration in exchange for significantly greater overall period of penalty.

Coupling mandatory incarceration with continuous alcohol monitoring thus satisfies the petitional aims of punishment and rehabilitation, while most effectively March 16, 2009 JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M. safeguarding the community.

Imposing a period of incarceration followed by a period of conditional liberty will not only serve to more effectively punish and deter the repeat offender, but will wean the repeat offender from the culture of alcohol that permeates repeat offenders' existence, thereby offering real hope of rehabilitation.

This forced time away from alcohol will serve to safeguard the community at large and will provide the repeat offender with the opportunity to establish a functional, sustainable and sober lifestyle.

I've also submitted written testimony, and attached to my written testimony is some information from a state's attorney in Illinois, and they've used the program since 2002 and the device that we're talking about since I think 2004.

Before ending, I would just like to touch upon a question I believe Representative Green had of Dr. Fortunati earlier when he testified as to if somebody opted into this program and then decided that they weren't going to do the sobriety aspect of it, what would happen?

Typically, when somebody is sentenced, especially repeat offenders, second and third convictions, they have time hanging over their heads, usually a minimum of two years, and they're placed on probation for an extended period of time.

This being a condition of their probation, if they were to violate this, the court could then sentence them up to the remaining time they have serving or hanging over their heads, so it would be up to the two years minus the 371 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

6 0 or 90 days they've already served.

Given my many years of practice, I know of no state's attorney nor any judge who would simply tell them, okay, you violated this, we're going to let you go. Quite frankly, they would extend the period, the minimum mandatory, even greater because of this violation.

And so I think that this -- this law -- this bill has real teeth in it that would benefit people.

And I don't know if there's any questions.

SENATOR McDONALD: Thanks for your testimony, sir. Are there any questions? Representative Green.

REP. GREEN: Yes, just a couple of quick questions.

Again, a lot of good intent, and I don't know if we're going to get at -- to do this. If there's a period of probation, you get a sentence -- somebody has to do 12 0 days. It's not like it's under a certain number of arrests you get maybe two years' probation, maybe ten years, I don't know.

Shouldn't we be -- I'm thinking a low -- a more harsh -- because I think it's a serious offense to be arrested for the second time.

Do you have any information on whether or not a person has been arrested more than three times for drunken driving? I've heard cases of individuals arrested for drinking and driving a number of times, and they don't tend to stop.

If they've been DUI a couple of times. The 004091 372 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

sentencing part has not tended to prevent them from driving drunk.

DADO CORIC: I think the sentencing alone, incarceration alone, doesn't do anything to help them. That's where the rehabilitation comes in.

And a lot of these people -- and I have a lot of clients. I do a lot of criminal work. I have a lot of clients who basically live in a -- what I call a culture of alcohol. Their friends, their parents, their relatives, they're all heavy drinkers, hard drinkers.

And I'm not talking about, you know, a glass of wine with dinner. I'm talking about maybe, you know, a couple of six-packs in the evening, partying till you pass out in the evening. That's the norm today. People get used to what they see around them.

And I'm representing a kid right now who's -- who just turned 18 who came from a situation like that. Picked up on two DWIs very quickly and looked like he was going to have some real trouble.

We got him into rehab. He got sober. And for the first time probably in his life, he's now been in a situation where he's not drinking. He realizes what life is like without alcohol.

The advantage of a bracelet like this is that typically when somebody's on probation, you can't verify whether they've been drinking or not, because the reality is, well, probation is allowed to do random urines.

And that's a typical condition of probation, which the Probation Office, being as tight as it is now and as understaffed as it is, the 004092 373 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

reality is they don't stop by your house anymore and say, hey, we want a random urine. They give you an appointment.

When you come in for your appointment, they may ask you for a random urine, so you know when you're going to have to give it. Given that scenario, you know when to stop drinking.

Alcohol, unlike marijuana or other substances, doesn't stay in your system long. So if you stop drinking 12 or 16 hours ago, you're not going to have that alcohol in your system now when you go in for a random urine. There's no way for probation to see that you haven't been drinking.

And unfortunately, under our laws, if somebody gets picked up for a DUI when they're sitting at home and not being monitored, especially the second and third offenders, that's what we're talking about, those people, there's nothing to keep them from just drinking and getting drunk and doing whatever they want to. So they never have that sobriety.

By making this a condition -- and the carrot here is that you let them spend less time in jail. But the stick is if they violate this, they actually go and spend more time in jail. And so it's -- it's a way to give them some incentive to not drink. And it's the only way to not see those repeat offenders.

REP. GREEN: I had asked the gentleman earlier, and I was trying to figure out, if you are under the system where you're at home and you have the system, if you drink, you're not in violation. It sounds like if you drink and drive, you're in violation.

DADO CORIC: No, no. 374 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Under this system, it requires 24/7 sobriety. You cannot drink period under Bill 660. You cannot drink during this period of time. And that's the difference between this bill and, say, not having this bill.

Because otherwise, in Connecticut it is -- it is perfectly legal to drink and drive as long as you're able to -- it is absolutely perfectly --

I've tried these cases, and I tell this to the jurors. In Connecticut, it's legal to drink and drive, so long as your ability to operate the motor vehicle is not impaired by the alcohol. Okay?

So if you have a drink and your ability to operate is not impaired, it's okay to drive. You can have two drinks and if your ability is not impaired or if you're under the per se limit, which is .08, your ability is not impaired and you're not over the per se and it's okay. It's legal to do that.

So the problem becomes -- is that people who have been drinking then make a bad decision, I'm going to drive, because they don't know that they're over .8 or they're not sure when their ability to operate is impaired.

The advantage of something like this is they don't drink period. So because they're not drinking, they won't make that bad decision of, you know, now I should -- now I'm going to go and drive, when they shouldn't, or I'm going to be --

REP. GREEN: I get it. Thank you for clarifying.

DADO CORIC: Very good. Thank you for your 004094 375 March 16, 2009 10:00 A.M. jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

question. REP. FOX: Thank you.

Are there any other questions from members of the committee? Thank you very much for your testimony.

DADO CORIC: Thank you very much.

REP. FOX: Next is Jake McGuigan. He's here? Oh, thanks. And then John Palmer. Thank you. You'll be next.

Good evening. Go ahead.

JAKE McGUIGAN: Good evening, Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Jake McGuigan. I'm director of government relations for the National Shooting Sports Foundation. We're the trade association for the firearms and ammunition manufacturers based in Newtown, Connecticut, and we are opposed to SB 353.

I'm not going to repeat what our member companies have already covered about the manufacturing process. I'd rather first touch upon earlier testimony by Josh Horowitz from the Brady campaign when he claimed that a study by Todd Lizotte was conducted that attributed microstamping to a 90 percent success rate.

First and foremost, that study has not been peer-reviewed. And secondly, I would conclude that a ten percent failure rate would symbolize the need for further study, especially when you're asking for manufacturers to have a 100 percent compliance rate.

This view of further study is also supported 004095 376 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10 : 00 A.M.

by the Connecticut Fraternal Order of Police and the acting director of the ATF. Last year, the patent holder, Todd Lizotte, even admitted that further study is necessary.

A question that needs to be posed is why hasn't Mr. Lizotte worked with the ATF or other federal agencies on a study and supplied them with firing pins?

Earlier, Colt Firearms was asked why they have not met with Mr. Lizotte, but nobody has asked him why he has not worked with the ATF or given firing pins to these manufacturers.

Let's take a quick look at this specific bill, SB 353. The language states that all handguns must be microstamped. Well, that means it would apply to .22 caliber rimfire firearms as well. There has not been a single study or test of rimfire applications of microstamping. And Mr. Lizotte has admitted he does not know how this would be accomplished.

Second, we keep hearing that firearm manufacturers are going to have to maintain a database that will link microstamped firing pins with certain firearms, especially since there will be a code on the firing pin, not the make, model and serial number that is in the legislation.

Yet nobody has mentioned the fact that the ATF and manufacturers have no way to keep these records. There are no provisions in the Brady gun control act that gives any agency this authority.

So what does this mean to the State of Connecticut? It means that they will have to have a centralized database that will have to be maintained by the state with firing pins 377 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

and the numbers associated with them in that database.

What type of fiscal impact would that have in these uncertain budget times? I don't think it would be very good at all.

Finally, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, our member companies, employees, unions and Connecticut law enforcement urge you to oppose SB 353.

I appreciate your time and being here all evening. Thank you.

REP. FOX: Thank you. Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL: Thank you for your testimony. What do you think's going to happen in California when that law takes effect?

JAKE McGUIGAN: In California specifically, we've had other manufacturers earlier today discuss that, that come January 1, 2010, new models have to be microstamped.

There is a similar situation where they had a chamber-loaded indicator back in January 1 of 2008 which Kevin Reid from Ruger spoke about.

There has only been one new model introduced into the State of California since that chamber-loaded indicator has passed. So come January 1, 2010, there will not be new models introduced into the State of California. They will still have the other models in place.

But you have to look at it from a practical standpoint. In any industry, as manufacturers progress with research and development, they move forward and create safer products, but what they're doing in California with this 378 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

legislation, like the chamber-loaded indicator, like microstamping, is you're cutting out new models that manufacturers are moving forward and making safer, like Kevin spoke about with internal locking mechanisms, more safeties on the firearms.

Those are no longer in the State of California. You still have older models in there, so there aren't any new models being introduced.

SENATOR KISSEL: So essentially, with all the well-meaning in the world, California is going to freeze itself in time. Manufacturers are still going to make whatever profits they can make by selling the old models that will be on the -- this list as of the end of this year.

And so the whole notion that California will be driving this technology is absolutely false.

JAKE McGUIGAN: Yes. Yes, sir, Senator. Actually, I am originally from Massachusetts. I'm now a Danbury resident, here in Connecticut.

There is a similar situation in Massachusetts. They have their own assault weapons ban, but in Massachusetts, they grandfather in guns made prior to 1994.

So there is a premium on guns in Massachusetts, first-generation Glocks, which you could say would get safer as time goes on. So there is a premium in Massachusetts for individuals and for residents to go buy firearms that are now 14, 15, 16, 17 years old, as opposed to newly introduced safer firearms that are introduced in 2009.

REP. FOX: Thank you. Are there any other 379 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

questions? Representative Green.

REP. GREEN: Yes, just two quick questions. Research and development, you mentioned that manufacturers do this especially with building new guns.

Do you know through your association, does manufacturers spend money on research and development and sometimes actually don't do the kinds of developments they have a gun that they might have researched before?

JAKE McGUIGAN: I can't speak specifically to companies; but yes, there are situations where, you know, they do a lot of focus group testing and a lot of testing on whether it be a chamber-loaded indicator, similar to what's happening in California, or a safeties -- you know, various safeties on the firearms, whether it's a thumb safety or what have you.

So given the research and development on those issues, yes, they do do that.

REP. GREEN: So manufacturers might spend money to end up and find out that it's just not worth it to do.

In Massachusetts, you -- you made an interesting point. People who tend to try to find -- you call it Glock, I don't know what the guns are called --

JAKE McGUIGAN: Yes, various firearms prior to --

REP. GREEN: -- before 1994 because it --

JAKE McGUIGAN: Yes.

REP. GREEN: -- sounds like there's some other requirements you have to do if you buy newer 004099 380 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

guns.

If I want to get the safest model, just like the car, I can get an antique, but if I want the safest model that meets the requirements, it might cost me more.

However, as technology advances, I want to drive and be a safer driver, I would buy the safer car.

Are you suggesting that gun owners would prefer getting around regulations versus safer models, buying safer models?

JAKE McGUIGAN: No. Specifically in Massachusetts, what we just discussed, is it has to go through a lot of bureaucracy in Massachusetts to get on, once again, approved-weapons roster, Similar to what they're doing in California.

So these people are buying the firearms because they like the firearm. They would prefer the newer model, because they like whether it's Smith & Wesson, Glock, whatever it is. They would prefer the newer model, but that is not on the approved-weapons roster because some bureaucracy is in place, whether it's a police chief or a testing facility, all the way down the line, all the way to the attorney general.

They just end up paying a premium for older firearms as opposed to what they could get a newer one for.

REP. GREEN: Okay.

Let me understand it. If I --if I wanted to buy a newer, safer gun in Massachusetts, I might have to go through a lot of bureaucracy, 381 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE . 10:00 A.M.

but there's probably -- are you saying you can't buy it?

JAKE McGUIGAN: No, sir. It will not be on that approved roster because it did not go through the testing or what have you, the bureaucracy, in Massachusetts.

So if you want to buy that, it would be great to go and buy that, but it's not available on a retail market. There's a list from the attorney general that says what can be purchased through the retail channel.

REP. GREEN: Thank you.

JAKE McGUIGAN: Yes, sir.

REP. FOX: Are there any other questions? Thank you.

JAKE McGUIGAN: Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, members.

REP. FOX: Next is John Palmer. And can I just ask if Louis Lugo is here? Give me one second. Bob Crook? You'll be next. Thank you. Good evening.

JOHN PALMER: Good evening. Chairman, members of the Judiciary Committee, sincere thanks for hearing my testimony. I'm John H. Palmer, I'm vice chairman of Colt Unit Local 376 United Auto Workers. I've been employed at Colt for 2 8 years.

The proposed bill would have a devastating effect on -- you've heard the testimony today. We're one of the oldest, most recognizable manufacturers in Connecticut. The members of our unit own a portion of the business. Ownership implies risk. What's our risk? Our 382 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

jobs.

The additional costs of microstamping and the various costs, as we've determined today, would have a crippling effect and end most of our production.

Sum and substance, the amount of loss would be attributed to livelihoods. I strongly urge the committee to please reject this bill. In the interest of time and given the hour, I yield the remaining time to my associate, Jeffrey Bifolck, who's chief steward at Colt.

JEFFREY BIFOLCK: Good evening. My name is Jeffrey Bifolck. I'm the first shift chief steward on Local 376 UAW at Colt Defense and Colt Manufacturers. I'm also a member of the Town of Vernon volunteer fire department.

I'm here to represent employees of Colt. I've been an employee of Colt and a member of the UAW Local 376 for 18 years. On behalf of the employees of Colt and the UAW, we are opposing the microstamping bill SB 353.

If this bill were to pass, it would cost us our jobs. The cost of the pistols would increase, driving away customers and our jobs. In this day and age of our economy, there are enough jobs being lost. It's time to start saving jobs, and we have to start right here by opposing this bill.

Colt is a good-paying job with good benefits. We need to keep these jobs [inaudible]. Can't afford to give companies the motivation to move out of Connecticut and lose these positions.

We must stand up for the working people and say no to the microstamping billfSB 353. \ 004102 383 March 16, 2009 JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Thank you.

REP. FOX: Thank you, gentlemen. Are there any questions? Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL: First of all, we started this hearing around 10:00 -- 10:00 this morning?

REP. FOX: Yes.

SENATOR KISSEL: Yes, we did, and it's 20 past 7:00, so I want to thank you gentlemen for being here for nine -- almost nine and a half hours. That's great.

And please don't leave Connecticut. I don't want you guys to lose your jobs. I -- I believe the company spokespeople, and I believe you when you say that pushing forward on this technology that hasn't even proven to be effective or possible to do for manufacturers, I -- to me is a scary proposition.

And so you spent a lot of time, but at least the folks that are watching at home, I think, probably understand where you're coming from, and I certainly do, too. You hit the nail on the head.

The goal of this bill is laudable. Nonetheless, I don't think it's workable, and we cannot as a state afford to lose hundreds and hundreds of manufacturing jobs. And I want to see you guys continue to do the jobs that you love to do and be happily employed in the State of Connecticut, so thank you for coming.

JOHN PALMER: Thank you, Senator.

REP. FOX: Representative Green. 384 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. GREEN: Yes. I'm sorry, I had to step out of the room. I just wanted to see if you mentioned that -- are you from Colt Firearms in West Hartford?

JOHN PALMER: Yes, I am.

REP. GREEN: Okay.

I think I read a story a couple of months ago about a gentleman who worked for you guys who had stolen some guns there, and I think you had to rehire him even after he -- I think there's some other things that I thought was kind of not so good.

How do you consider your safety or your security methods at the [inaudible] where guns are not stolen from your -- your plant?

JOHN PALMER: Representative Green, we must say at this portion "allegedly." I'm not a lawyer, but we've been cautioned not to speak of this. We've taken -- learned from our mistakes as a company. You were out of the room. We do own part of the company, so we do have -- we are involved in the decision-making process.

We've taken several steps to modernize our security force, including cameras.

REP. GREEN: All right. Thank you.

REP. FOX: Are there any other questions? Thank you.

JOHN PALMER: Thank you.

REP. FOX: Next is Bob Crook, followed by Victor Benson. How about Hans Justus? Barbara Hillis? Henry Fijalkowski. Okay. You'll be 385 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

next.

Good evening. Thank you.

ROBERT CROOK: Good evening, Chairman Fox. My name is Bob Crook. I'm the executive director of the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen, testifying in opposition to.SB 353.

I'm not going to go into this. I think it's been covered. I would just like to say there's been three comprehensive studies done on this issue, one by the Journal of Forensic Firearms Examiners, University of California at Davis, and National Academy of Sciences.

All three conclude that the technology of firearms microstamping is easily defeated by criminals, flawed, unreliable and must be studied further before any legislature even considers mandating the technology.

And the bill I'm interested in more so is 358. This is on the machine gun incident. Federal law defines a machine gun as any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot automatically more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger.

OLR has published three reports on the accident in issue. The latter two rightfully address only machine guns. The question then becomes why are so-called assault weapons, which are not machine guns, in this bill?

So-called assault weapons, not machine guns, only semiautomatics, one shot, one pull of the trigger, under our statutes can be legally owned and used for legal purposes -- that's hunting, target shooting, self-defense or collecting -- if they have been registered. 004105 386 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Why would a restriction be placed on these activities by those under 18 when state law allows minors, age 12 to 16, to obtain a Department of Environmental junior firearms hunting license, allowing them to hunt with firearms, including the so-called assault weapons, if they're legally registered and under supervision?

People over age 16 may get a DEP license for unsupervised firearms hunting. Section 1 is clearly in conflict with longstanding current statutes that have worked. So we'd strongly suggest deletion of Section 1 of the bill as not appropriate to the issues.

By the way, if you're caught doing this, it's a six-year mandatory sentence. So we're going to say as a legal people -- of course I have to go in court and everything, but I think you understand it's in conflict. It doesn't make any sense.

Section 2 of the bill addresses the relevant cause in the Massachusetts accident, machine guns. We think the 18-year-old prohibition should be reduced also. This -- there's a couple of statutes. One is the DEP statute, which say 12, and there's another statute in there dealing with safe storage of firearms, which says "minor" means any person under the age of 16.

Additionally, there's no exemption in here for a 17-year-old who wants to familiarize himself with machine guns before going into the military, or for active National Guard Reserve members of the military to shoot machine guns.

So what we suggest is you make the determination on what is best for the age. We 387 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

think 12 is sufficient, but if you want to go with 16, that's fine. Eighteen is too high.

And we think the standardization is the key to compliance and enforcement. And there's a quote at the end of my -- my section by James Madison. Essentially, it says if you write too many laws and they can't be understood, then you're not doing the service [inaudible] to the public.

And if there's too many different age groups doing different things by law, that is confusing. So please standardize.

REP. FOX: Thank you.

Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL: Okay.

Just briefly so I understand where you're coming from, Bob, 12 and older for semiautomatic weapons comports with the DEP laws already on the books --

ROBERT CROOK: Yes.

SENATOR KISSEL: -- allows for training, Boy Scouts, all that kind of stuff. For machine guns, 16 and older, and you think those are the appropriate -- or you would be willing to accept those as appropriate guidelines.

ROBERT CROOK: I think we would be willing to accept 16, but what I'm really concerned about is -- is get rid of that first section, because that's -- that's -- it's in conflict with other statutes, and it will really penalize legitimate people.

SENATOR KISSEL: Okay. Thank you. 388 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FOX: Representative Labriola.

REP. LABRIOLA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Bob, I want to thank you for your continuing and longstanding advocacy on behalf of the Second Amendment.

Can we go back to the microstamping, the 353 proposal? One of the most powerful arguments against that proposal, I believe, is the economic impact that would result if it passed, that jobs would actually be lost here in Connecticut?

Could you speak to that?

ROBERT CROOK: Well, we know that Colt has over 500 union members. I think just saying that is significant.

I think last year, if I remember correctly, Colt said that they would not sell in this state. Smith & Wesson said they would not sell in this state. Colt inferred that they might move out of state.

So I think -- I think the job loss is -- is probably the most significant economic problem. I don't see how anybody can come in here and argue it isn't going to cost the companies a fortune.

Jake McGuigan, you know, said that there is no -- who's going to -- who's going to keep all this data? It's -- he said, essentially, it's against federal law to keep all this data, for the companies to do it, so that means the state's going to have to keep it.

They're going to have to have another 389 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

registration system in place. I don't understand how the companies can match a small firing pin, which you can't see the numbers on, to a -- a receiver, to a serial number on the gun, and then put all that data into the -- into the computer.

I don't see how -- why we're going from mass production of firearms into piecework, which we used to have years and years ago, which I've done personally when I was a kid, but that's what this is going to take. It's going to take piecework.

So I think anybody who stands up here and says it isn't going to cost the companies a lot of money and may even cost the state even more money is just -- is just not addressing the issue.

REP. LABRIOLA: Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

REP. FOX: Next is Henry Fijalkowski. And after you will be Amy Stegall. She's here? Okay.

HENRY FIJALKOWSKI: Okay, yes.

Good evening to the members of the Judiciary Committee here. My name is Henry Fijalkowski, and I'm the UAW servicing rep over at Colt Industries, and I'm also here on behalf of our director, UAW director, Robert Madore, to urge you to please oppose Senate Bill 353.

The UAW Region 9A represents over 50,000 members in New England, Metropolitan New York and Puerto Rico, and our membership is very diverse, including manufacturing workers, legal service and legal aid workers, attorneys, technical office professionals, casino dealers, auto mechanics, adjunct March 16, 2009 JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M. faculty and other university personnel.

In West Hartford, we represent 500 workers at Colt Firearms. As you know, due to the unfortunate closing of Wiremold in West Hartford, Colt Firearms is now the largest manufacturing company in West Hartford.

We1 re not here to talk to you about the challenges and complexities or even the merits of microstamping technology, nor are we here to debate the issue of guns and illegal gun ownership in our society.

That said, we're here to talk to you about the 500 people who earn a living wage and have a job and benefits and who work at Colt Firearms. Colt is one of the oldest and most reputable manufacturing companies that we have here in Connecticut.

As you have heard, technology required to microstamp semiautomatic pistols is expensive, difficult to obtain, fairly unproven in its ability to solve gun murders. It's very costly and potentially flawed. Increased costs borne by the company, as you can imagine, will simply have to be passed on to consumers, hurting the company and its workers.

We believe that forcing Colt Firearms and other Connecticut gun manufacturers to employ this unproven technology will put them at serious competitive disadvantage with other states, create an undue burden, and possibly force them out of business or out of the state.

This, in turn, would leave the state with 500 fewer jobs with living wages and benefits at a time when we can scarcely afford to be losing 391 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

any more j obs.

In effect, we urge you to please oppose this bill. The risk of forcing such unproven technology on Connecticut gun manufacturers is not worth the potential loss of 500 living wage jobs currently held by Connecticut residents here in West Hartford.

That said, we are sensitive to the need for better technology to solve gun murders, but we do not believe that this technology is the way to do it. Thank you.

REP. FOX: Thank you. Are there any questions? Representative Green.

REP. GREEN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. As the union president or representative, do you think that there1s a problem with guns being made at Colt Firearms that get put on the street illegally, either they're taken from the factory or there may be some -- I've heard that sometimes there's a number of guns that are illegally on the street that actually come through a gun manufacturer.

Do you believe that's a problem with Colt Firearms?

HENRY FIJALKOWSKI: I don't know. I've heard that there were some problems recently. I don't know the extent of those problems.

Certainly any guns coming on the street illegally is a serious problem, no matter how they got there.

REP. GREEN: As a union rep, have you had to in the past year defend any of your workers on possibly possessing firearms from the company that they were not supposed to be in 004111 392 March 16, 2009 10:00 A.M. jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

possession of? HENRY FIJALKOWSKI: No, I have not.

REP. GREEN: Is that an occurrence of your workers?

HENRY FIJALKOWSKI: No, I have not. I've only been the servicing representative. I'm just recently been reassigned there, within the last month, so I've not had that happen. But I've not been there for, you know, a long period of time.

REP. GREEN: Okay. Thank you.

REP. FOX: Thank you. And thank you for your testimony.

HENRY FIJALKOWSKI: Thank you.

REP. FOX: Next is Amy Stegall or Stegall, followed by Kenneth Hagenot, Hagenot. If you just wait one second, I just want to see who's next. How about Ben Noboyka or Noboyska? Matt Tyska? Marshall Robinson? George Brian Vachris? You'll be next.

Good evening.

AMY STEGALL: Good evening. My name is Amy Stegall, and I appreciate the opportunity to be heard on this legislation today. And against my own better judgment -- I've already submitted my written testimony, so you have that, and -- I'm just going to ad lib a little bit instead of reading from that in response to some of the things that I've heard here today.

The Connecticut Coalition Against Gun Violence mentioned earlier that the International 004112 393 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Association of Police Chiefs endorsed this technology, but I think it's important to note that our local police entities, specifically the Fraternal Order of Police and the commissioner of the Department of Public Safety, which oversees the state police, most submitted letters in opposition which are on file tonight.

So I think that should be holding more weight than an association that's not based here and won't be having to deal with this technology directly.

I would just like to stress that the people that you're seeing here tonight are sometimes viewed as, you know, gun owners being different. We're not different. We're your friends. We're your neighbors. We're coworkers. We're businesspeople, and we have the same concerns about public safety that all the people on this committee do.

And I think it's important to note that we're reasonable people and yet we see the flaws in this technology, and I think if we had something that was really workable and very doable, you would find most gun owners would be very supportive of that, because we value our safety and our families as well.

So I don't think that we should be viewed as a group that's against public safety, because we are the citizens, and that's why we're here today speaking out against this.

And I think, too, that's some of the reasons that you saw some of the hostility earlier today, too. Many gun owners are tired of being perennial whipping boys for all the social ills that are being seen in this country right now. 004113 394 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

And I think what is happening is that the legislature is addressing the symptom and not the disease. You're going after all sorts of gun-related laws, but I'm not seeing as much effort being put into addressing social ills that are causing violence, not just gun violence.

I read about stabbings in the paper in

Hartford all the time, Band the gun violence that I do read about in the paper greatly upsets me. I don't like to see gang shootings and things like that.

So I would challenge this legislature to look at ways to fix the social breakdown. Why are these kids on the street? Where are their families? Why are drugs so prevalent? Why are these kids not getting an education? Why can't people find jobs?

I think those are more important issues to address than microstamping, which may or may not help solve perhaps maybe one small crime. And frankly, I don't have a lot of confidence in the reports that I've seen.

I'm not an expert gunsmith or ballistics expert, but I have grave suspicions on something that was invented by someone who's also not a ballistics expert and stands to benefit from this directly by creating a monopoly. And this violates federal laws which don't say that you have to earn any money, just that you create a monopoly situation.

It also directly impacts me. It does take away my Second Amendment rights.

And, Senator Gomes, you had asked how. This 395 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

bill would prohibit me from selling my semiautomatic pistols to places like Cabela's for resale.

They would buy my pistol and resell it at retail, and this would prevent them from doing so. If they can't resell it, they won't buy it from me.

So here I am with a gun that I can't resell, and I can't purchase potentially another gun that I would like --my husband would very much like an older 1911, so we wouldn't be able to purchase that at retail anymore, so that prohibits me from doing so.

SENATOR McDONALD: Thank you very much. And Senator Kissel had a question.

SENATOR KISSEL: Thank you, Chairman McDonald. I just want to thank you. You brought common sense, you know, just nice insights, not a lot of rhetoric, and I'm in complete agreement with your testimony, and thank you for being so patient.

It's about 20 of 8:00 right now. This hearing started at 10:00 in the morning, so it's been a long, long day, but I think your testimony was -- was refreshing. Thank you.

AMY STEGALL: Thank you.

If I just might say, I find it ironic that some legislators are working to get the Colt building designated as a national historic landmark, and then we see other legislators pursuing a bill that potentially could put them out of business. Thank you.

SENATOR McDONALD: Okay. Other questions? Senator Green. 004115 396 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. GREEN: Thank you. And I do agree with you that society is faced with a lot of ills. You particularly talked about what you read in Hartford. I was a little taken aback by that, just because that I find that a number of our communities across the State of Connecticut have various social ills, and in the sense, to pick out a town, even though it has its issues, I think the point is that we want all our communities to be safe.

AMY STEGALL: Exactly.

SENATOR McDONALD: If there's nothing further, thanks very much for your testimony. And is it -- I believe S.D. Broder is next? Is that -- I'm sorry, forgive me. Is this -- is it George Vachris? I'm sorry, you were next. I apologize. And then Mr. Broder. Sorry.

Having been so patient, you were very kind not to immediately jump up and say, Wait a minute. Please proceed. Thanks for your patience.

GEORGE VACHRIS: Okay.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm George Vachris, George Brian Vachris. I use my middle name. I reside in Waterford. I'm a licensed professional engineer, chair of town political committee. I'm a former candidate for the General Assembly.

So -- actually, I'd rather be on the other side of the table.

(Laughter.)

GEORGE VACHRIS: I'm here to speak in opposition to March 16, 2009 JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Senate Bill 353. This bill amends current law to require a nonexistent type of firearm as the only semiautomatic pistol that can be sold or transferred in the state. This will effectively over the long run ban the use of semiautomatic pistols by all citizens, including police officers.

Many citizens purchase used pistols because they're less expensive than new ones. The effect of this bill would be to require the liquidation of a significant proportion of dealer inventory and deny citizen access to normally used weapons for defense of themselves and the state.

I'll discuss just two technical aspects of this legislation. First of all, what's the purpose of this bill? Isn't it to lead to the identification of some type of weapon that might be used in a murder or in an assault or related felony?

If enacted, of course, by effectively banning semiautomatic pistols, this bill would lead to the increased use of revolvers, a weapon that leaves no shell behind with any identifying mark when discharged.

I'm amazed when I hear some political leaders speak against semiautomatic pistols. A revolver retains the bullet casing inside the cylinder, whereas a semiautomatic pistol spits the bullet casing out to the side.

So with a revolver, you haven't got a clue. And with a semiautomatic pistol, the investigator knows the caliber, the approximate location of shooter and any unique marks left by the ejecting mechanism.

I might add one other note. There is a false 398 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

impression among many who are not familiar with firearms that semiautomatic pistols can be fired more quickly than revolvers. This is not necessarily the case.

There is a significant measurable time delay between each discharge of a semiautomatic weapon, and only one bullet can be fired per pull of the trigger. However, many revolvers can be fan-fired directly from the hammer, and the time between discharge is only restricted by the skill of the operator and the design of the revolver. And you can see this if you look at some [inaudible].

My cousin, who is retired from the FBI, first demonstrated this firing technique to me about 3 0 years ago. So why are you proposing this by enacting this legislation? You could, over the long run, make it more difficult to identify some weapons used in murder, assault and related crime, because people would switch to revolvers.

Thank you very much. Many other points here were discussed today I thought were very entertaining and lengthy.

SENATOR McDONALD: Absolutely. And I -- I appreciate you, however, at this hour not rehashing all of them but adding some very helpful comments in addition to them, so thank you.

GEORGE VACHRIS: Thank you, Senator.

SENATOR McDONALD: So are there any questions? If not, thanks so much.

REP. GREEN: Thank you.

SENATOR McDONALD: Mr. Broder? And as Mr. Broder 004118 399 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

comes up, is Drue Hontz still here? You'll be next, Mr. Hontz.

S.D. BRODER: Senator McDonald, the members of the committee, I also will not rehash what most of the people have said in opposition to Senate Bills 353 and 358. But I'd like to bring up something that at least I haven't heard of.

Americans, most Americans, are good people, and they believe -- they believe that if they have a problem, they can go to their state legislature or to their Congress and get something done to solve the problem.

So what happens? Somebody says there's a problem. We're finding shells at crime scenes, and somebody says let's pass a law. And so we go through the process.

Somebody else says in Massachusetts, a kid was killed by a machine gun. And what is the answer? Somebody jumps up and says let's pass a law. And if you look at the crazy [inaudible] of gun laws all over the country, you will see that this is what happens.

Now, so the law is passed, so who does it hurt? It never hurts the bad guy. Never hurts the bad guy. The criminal -- and I'm not talking about the person who does a crime of passion and becomes criminal. I'm talking about the person who does it for a living. That's his -- that's what he does. What do you do? Well, I'm a criminal. What does that mean? Well, I break the law. That criminal is never hurt. It just raises his cost of doing business.

Then you have -- at least in the past few years people talk about terrorists. The terrorist wants to destroy the law. He 400 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

doesn't care what the law is. He wants to destroy the system. The criminal wants to keep his cost of doing business as low as possible.

And then again, there's the person who is adjudged to have physical -- I'm sorry, to have mental and emotional problems. What will his excuse be if and when he's caught? He didn't understand.

Well, if the criminal, psychopath and the terrorist all have a built-in excuses, who is affected by the law? Joe Solid Citizen who fills out all the paperwork, takes all the exams, pays the money, does all the things he's supposed to do, but he's the only one adversely affected by the law.

People have said, well, microtechnology would not cost that much money. It doesn't matter how much "that much" is. $200 or someone said at this table 50 cents. Why should the good guys constantly pay for what the bad guys do?

There are principles here. It's not just dollars and cents. It's principles.

So that's part one. My other part is this: There are people -- oops. We'll never get to part two.

SENATOR McDONALD: Thank you very much, sir.

S.D. BRODER: Thank you.

SENATOR McDONALD: Thanks for your testimony. Are there any questions? Thanks very much.

Drue Hontz next. And as he comes forward, is Robert Ricado here? [Inaudible]. Daniel DeCostello? Brian Carey? Gregory Nolan? 004120 401 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

You'll be next, Mr. Nolan. Thanks for your patience [inaudible].

DRUE HONTZ: I thought I was going to be the last one to turn out the lights. I guess not. Judiciary Committee members, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Drue Hontz. I'm a resident of Old Saybrook, Connecticut.

My interest is in any legislation that intends to protect Connecticut citizens and their families. I am married with three small children. My interest in the public safety is purely selfish. I want my family to be safe.

I'm the holder of a Connecticut state permit to carry pistol and revolvers. I have not ever made a living or been paid by any company or individual, to the gun manufacturer or lobby group. I'm here representing myself and my family only.

I do not present you with a patent device that I will profit from. I'm here for my family.

Although I feel it is necessary to pass new legislation trying to make our society safer, I must strongly disagree with the referenced bill.

In my written testimony, I highlighted some of the executive summary from the Technical Evaluation: Feasibility Ballistic Imaging Database for All New Handgun Sales. This was done by the Sacramento and Santa Rosa Criminal Laboratories in California.

If you look in summary -- Executive Summary 1, it clearly states automatic computer-matching systems do not provide conclusive results. Rather, a list of potential candidates are 004121 402 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

presented that must be manually reviewed.

When applying this technology to the concept of mass sampling or manufacturing firearms, a huge inventory of potential candidates will be generated for manual review. This study indicates that this number of candidate cases will be so large as it is -- it will be impractical and will likely create complications so great that they may not be effectively addressed.

The way that the database works is it takes the imaging. It comes up with randomly -- usually the top 15, and it is given to an individual that reviews it.

One of the misnomers that is here is that the stamping is similar to DNA. That is consistent and constant.

My next highlighting on page 3, firearms that generate markings on cartridge casings can change with use and can also be readily altered by the user. They are not permanently defined identifiers, like a fingerprint or a DNA. Hence, images captured when the firearm is produced may not have a fixed relationship to the cartridge casing sequentially.

On page 4 is the results of this study. I am not an engineer and I am not giving you my opinion. You can reference this study. It's a 56-page document, so to save paper, I just highlighted some of the key things.

The testing is done two ways: They take a cartridge that was used in the gun by the same manufacturer. They shoot it. That's one. If they take a different manufacturer of a different piece of ammunition, the numbers change drastically. 403 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Do you see in the paper here that in the -- 48 percent were effective when it was fired with the same ammunition? When it was done with different ammunition, it drops to 22 percent efficiency. That's amazing.

This is the -- this is the study. This is not my opinion. I please would recommend to this board or committee that we look into further fact-finding. I've heard so many times tonight I don't know; I'll look into it. I don't know; I'll look into it. That's great, but don't pass a bill that those questions are still on the table.

So thank you very much for your time.

SENATOR McDONALD: Thank you. And, actually, that's what this entire process is about, is learning and educating ourselves in areas that we might have a responsibility to look into. But -- but this public hearing process, even though it can be long sometimes --

DRUE HONTZ: Long, oh.

SENATOR McDONALD: It's very helpful, as was your testimony.

DRUE HONTZ: Thank you.

SENATOR McDONALD: Thank you very much. Are there any questions for Mr. Hontz?

DRUE HONTZ: Thank you. I just want to make sure that you guys do have the study that was used for the California legislation.

SENATOR McDONALD: I don't know if we do have it, but if you happen to have a copy of it and you want to provide it to our staff, we can -- 404 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

DRUE HONTZ: It's standard -- it's in here.

SENATOR McDONALD: Okay, thank you.

DRUE HONTZ: Thank you.

SENATOR McDONALD: Let's see, Mr. Nolan, I believe, was next. Good evening, sir.

GREG NOLAN: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Greg Nolan. I'm an attorney, and I look at this issue as really just an issue of fundamental rights and freedom.

For me, I don't -- I don't really look at this issue as being much different than the Catholic church issue that I know came up just a couple of days ago. It -- you know, it's a chiseling away at our rights. And I think that it's important for the committee to look at the balance of -- of, you know, the benefits this could -- could create and the harm it's going to create.

I just feel as a citizen, as a gun owner, it's going to burden me more than it's going to help -- going to help the crime situation in our state. And when it comes to fundamental rights, I would ask you, you know, to tread very carefully on this issue.

We, as Americans, have a fundamental right to bear arms, and I just don't think that anything should be done, you know, unless it's almost completely necessary in this area. And that's really all I have to say, and I appreciate your time.

SENATOR McDONALD: Thank you, sir. Are there any questions? Thanks a lot. 405 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Nancy Kushins. And as she comes up, Conrad Seifert. You'll be next, Mr. Seifert.

Good to see you, Nancy.

NANCY KUSHINS: Good evening. Senator McDonald and members of the Judiciary Committee, my name is Nancy Kushins, I'm the executive director of Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services.

While ConnSACS has submitted written testimony on eight bills, I would like to focus my remarks today on three of those bills: Senate Bill 533, House Bill 6384 and House Bill 6669.

With respect to House Bill 6384, ConnSACS favors the establishment of a Sex Offender Registry Policy Advisory Committee.

Having served on the former Risk Assessment Board, ConnSACS appreciates the effort to improve the method and content of the information that's provided on the registry.

We look forward to the opportunity to continue our role in the committee with respect to ensuring that victims' voices are heard and to ensure that the registry data does not inadvertently identify victims.

In addition to its use by law enforcement, the registry can be a tool for victims in the public. However, what we hear from both those groups is that the registry does not provide them with understandable information. And absent that, people are equally fearful of anyone classified as a sex offender.

That said, House Bill 6669 includes the important components of risk assessment, which we support. Numerous studies conducted by the March 16, 2009 JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, the Center for Sex Offender Management, and others, consider risk assessment one of the most important tasks to informed decisions related to family reunification, case management, supervision and treatment.

It can also enhance the usefulness of sex offender registry information, which other states currently place on their registries.

Senate Bill 533 opposes a concern. As written, when a sex offender on the registry is released into the community, this bill would require the Department of Public Safety to notify the superintendent of schools where the registrant resides.

This seems to presume that all sex offenders under the registry pose a risk to children, which is not the case. Should schools be informed when a high-risk sex offender who has perpetrated against children, particularly those children who are strangers, is being released into the community? Absolutely.

The fact is that here in Connecticut last year, of the sexual assault victims age 17 and under seen by our nine community-based rape crisis centers, 93 percent of those victims knew their perpetrator.

Providing information to school superintendents about all sex offenders does not serve to contribute to community safety as intended.

When we consider that somewhat between -- somewhere between 16 percent and 4 0 percent, depending on the study, of sexual assaults are reported to the police and that fewer than 407 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

that number are ever prosecuted or convicted, it's important to keep the sex offender registry and community notification in perspective.

When sex offenders are released into the community, what ConnSACS favors is a comprehensive approach to sex offender management. This would include sex offender treatment, a period of supervision, and the involvement of a victim advocate to provide post-conviction support to the victim and provide a victim perspective to the supervision process.

SENATOR McDONALD: Thank you very much. You covered a lot of ground, but, as usual, did a great job at it. Thanks for your -- thanks for your patience tonight.

NANCY KUSHINS: Thank you.

SENATOR McDONALD: And it's an important subject. Shouldn't get lost in this larger discussion we've been having, but thank you very much.

NANCY KUSHINS: Thank you.

SENATOR McDONALD: Are there questions for Nancy? Representative Green.

REP. GREEN: Just one question. And this is not a -- particularly in the bill, but one of the things I've been noticing is that local communities have tried to ban certain individuals with offenses from public places.

Maybe a quick thought on similar to notifying all the superintendents? I'm not sure where I am on that in the sense of has your organization found it to be an effective way of prevention. 004127 408 March 16, 2009 JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

NANCY KUSHINS: No. Actually, in the State of Iowa, where they've done some similar banning of past legislation where sex offenders couldn't live a thousand feet from a library or a school, that it has driven sex offenders underground.

And instead of having them as a part of the supervision process and where law enforcement can keep track of them and supervision of -- in probation and parole, they lose track of them, because then they're living under bridges and they're leaving the area. Unintended consequences.

SENATOR McDONALD: That happens around here sometimes. Thank you very much, Nancy. Thank you for your testimony.

NANCY KUSHINS: Thank you.

SENATOR McDONALD: Conrad Seifert. And is Robert Miller here? [Inaudible] Kosack? Dawn Titus? Christopher Sullivan? A.J. Campofiore? David Hodgman? You'll be next, Mr. Hodgman.

Good evening, sir.

CONRAD OST SEIFERT: Good evening, Chairman McDonald and distinguished committee members. My name is Conrad Seifert. I'm an attorney practicing in Old Lyme. I primarily practice appellate and criminal law. I am the president elect of the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, the CCDLA.

I filed written testimony on behalf of Bill No. 6576, An Act Concerning Larceny. And just very briefly as to that, in a sentence or two, in 1982, $10,000 was worth $10,000. In 2008, that same $10,000, due to inflation, is worth March 16, 2009 JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

$22,300. I think this raised bill is policy-neutral. It adjusts for inflation. The last time the financial thresholds were set was back in 1982.

Now, moving on to a bill the CCDLA and I personally strongly oppose, I'm speaking to Raised Bill 6009, An Act Concerning the Failure of a' Witness to Report a Serious Crime. This proposed act criminalizes the failure to report serious crimes by any person who merely witnesses these crimes but was otherwise not involved.

It makes all citizens who witness serious crimes mandatory reporters to law enforcement. And this would be a dramatic and radical change and would give law enforcement a powerful investigative tool, compelling people to tell police what they witness or else face criminal arrest.

If this bill is passed, you have enacted something that the State of Connecticut I don't think ever had. The old British common law crime of misprision of a felony. In 13th century England, it was a citizen's duty to raise the hue and cry by reporting felonies. And the failure to report a crime was itself a crime. And in those days, it's before police, so you were duty-bound to join a group and chase the bad guy.

Connecticut and 4 8 states don't recognize this to be a crime. There is a federal misprision of felony statute, 18 United States Code Section 4, still on the books. But please note that the federal misprision of felony statute is rarely prosecuted, but it does require that a defendant take affirmative steps to conceal someone else's felony, such as destroying evidence or lying to a police 410 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

officer or misleading law enforcement.

If this bill is passed, it imposes an affirmative duty on witnesses to, in a sense, become an arm of law enforcement. If an arrested person has the constitutional right to remain silent, does it make any sense to force an innocent witness to talk against their will?

Under this act, mere silence and nonreporting is sufficient. The witness does not even have to actively conceal or mislead to be guilty, as is the case with the federal misprision of felony statute.

In 1967, even England after centuries of common law history repealed its misprision of felony crime in it's 1967 criminal law act, and decades ago, the law -- may I please -- the law professors and drafters of the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code saw no need to have the offense of misprision of felony. Law enforcement does not need this passed in order to do its job. It's too powerful of a tool.

Although the proposed bill refers to witnessing murder assault, sexual assault and child abuse and does not refer to all felonies, passing it would be passing, in essence, a state misprision of felony statute and would be inconsistent with modern principles of personal freedom and the right to privacy.

SENATOR McDONALD: Thank you very much, Mr. Seifert. I don't think I've ever met you before.

CONRAD OST SEIFERT: You've not. 411 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR McDONALD: But congratulations --or condolences, as the case may be, on your election on -- the president elect of the CCDLA.

I believe the testimony earlier was that there are three states that have a similar law: Alaska, Maine and Ohio.

CONRAD OST SEIFERT: Well, I was speaking to the misprision of felony crime.

SENATOR McDONALD: Understood.

CONRAD OST SEIFERT: And I would say South Carolina, under its common law, has that.

This -- I don't know that'those three states are entitling it misprision of a felony. In a sense, it's expanding like a physician or a nurse's affirmative duty to report child abuse. It's turning all citizens into mandatory reporters of serious crimes that they witness.

SENATOR McDONALD: And I had a previous aside with Senator Kissel on this. If you know, what would happen i-f -- if a spouse witnessed a serious crime by another spouse? Would -- under the concept of the marital privileges, do you have any opinion on whether or not that would run afoul of any kind of evidentiary privilege or -- of the marital relationship?

CONRAD OST SEIFERT: No, I'm not sure how that would play out. There is that -- that common law prohibition of one spouse testifying against another.

I think it -- I think it's a dangerous statute. I don't -- I don't think it -- I don't think it's appropriate. I understand 412 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

that in rare, maybe one in a million, situations, you might have a mother of a vicious criminal defendant not calling the police to report a crime that's occurring in her presence, and apparently, she's -- apparently was still subpoenaed, and I only caught part of that hours ago, but apparently she perjured herself at the time of that trial.

SENATOR McDONALD: And obviously the testimony we heard was very compelling and moving.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any idea, any other crime with which that mother could have been charged if it -- you know, as the witness said, the mother apparently witnessed the sexual assault?

CONRAD OST SEIFERT: Well --

SENATOR McDONALD: Could there be any kind of conspiracy or --

CONRAD OST SEIFERT: I heard the word "perjury" mentioned. And if she lied -- it's okay to -- currently it's okay to remain silent and just say to a police officer "I prefer not to give a statement" --

SENATOR McDONALD: Right.

CONRAD OST SEIFERT: -- "or answer your questions," even though you're not a suspect or an arrestee.

But if she actively misled the police officers at the time or even later, federal misprision of a felony -- I would prefer not naming names, but a couple of years ago out of Greenwich, an attorney ended up being convicted under that. 004132 413 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR McDONALD: Understood. Thank you very much. Are there other questions? Thanks for your testimony.

CONRAD OST SEIFERT: Thank you, Senator.

SENATOR McDONALD: David Hodgman, I believe, is next. And then is Thomas Violante here? Mr. Violante, you'll be next.

DAVID HODGMAN: Good evening, Senator McDonald and committee. This is my first time here, so please be patient with me.

I think on the bright side, we've missed the rush hour for the ride home. Pretty much, being one of the last few into here, everybody has pretty much touched on what I had thought as far as the_353 and also the 358. I would like to be brief, as I'm sure you would appreciate that.

The -- 353, obviously since the underlying thing here is that it is not perfected yet, the thing that really is the clincher to this is the firearms that we now possess are no longer transferable.

So I can't hand anything down to my son. I can't go purchase a used firearm. Being a former firearms dealer, I do collect certain guns. Also, being a bail enforcement agent in the past -- actually, I'm in the process of finishing up probably in another few weeks -- couple weeks I should be back on the road again doing that, I've had the opportunity to deal with these criminals.

The criminals are not paying attention to the laws. We do, the bulk of us that are in here. We're here because we are law-abiding, and we 004133 414 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

want to basically try to get our thoughts across. That's what this is about.

It penalizes us. The criminals -- nobody even mentioned this. I don't even know how -- you know, there was the mention of the bag over the gun. That's been done. I've even seen fishnets, your fish tank fishnet strapped to the hand -- handle of the gun to catch the ejecting rounds.

Another individual mentioned taking some of the rounds from a -- from a range and dropping those in a crime scene, and now you're going to mislead police. I'm all about doing what's good for our public, for our safety.

I think maybe some of these individuals, instead of revolving them through the system, plea bargaining them, there really should be some serious charges when they use a gun in a commission of a crime, as opposed to plea-bargaining these guys down.

There's nothing worse than seeing some child hurt. Improper storage of a firearm, I think a responsible individual has a safe. They're locking their guns up so that if their house is broken into, those guns don't make it onto the streets.

But the guns that are out there, some of those guns can also -- once we start with these laws -- the heroin and cocaine -- nobody's going to Wal-Mart and buying that. That's coming in from another country. So can guns.

We have to -- we have to make room in the jails. That's where the control comes. I'm not saying throw the key away. Maybe lose it for a little while. But keep them in there. 415 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

As far as the assault weapon ban, and I'll be very fast and quick with that, my son started shooting with me, he was about ten years old. Now, unfortunately, these -- some of these guns qualify under assault weapon ban just because they're on a list.

Now, my son's not quite 18 yet, so now we can't do that any longer. We go to the range. We have a good time. It would now be illegal -- and I'd go to jail -- for doing what we've been doing.

The machine gun thing, it was a terrible thing what happened in Massachusetts. Appalling. Just tragic.

I think, as I said, 12 years old, kids can go hunting. Seventeen years old and you're in the service and given a machine gun.

I think that that should be -- both of those may need a little bit of rewriting, and microstamping at least perfected.

SENATOR McDONALD: Thank you very much, sir. Are there any questions? Thanks for your time.

DAVID HODGMAN: Thank you.

SENATOR McDONALD: Thomas Violante. And after Mr. Violante -- just with your indulgence, just let me run through this list.

I would like to get an idea how many people are left. Andrew Marcorini? He wasn't here to hear me brutalize his name. Edward Angelillo? Lee Friedman? Somebody with very elaborate script handwriting that I can't read. Maybe Joel Halliwell or something?

Barry Berger? Leo St. John? Ed Pancella? 416 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Michael Regan? James Regan? [Inaudible] Ward? Last name Ward? James Crew? Cren? Oh, 11m sorry.

The last printed one at the top, Noelle -- okay. Let's see, I'm sorry about that. Chris Donahue? Mitchell Cabe? Joseph Bovino? William Locksall? Raymond Joyner? Robert Mecca? R. Buciello? Frank McClintock?

Is there anybody who is here to testify that I haven't called?

Chuck Worsham? Okay. All right.

I apologize, Mr. Violante. Please proceed.

THOMAS VIOLANTE: Not a problem. Thanks for --to all of you for waiting this long. I know I got here at 7:15 this morning to line up to draw numbers, so we're heading into the 13th hour, and I'm hungry.

Good evening, distinguished members of the committee and Chairman McDonald. I'm here to testify in opposition to SB 353. But I'm not going to reiterate what you've already heard. We know that.

My name is Tom Violante, and I'm a New Haven resident. I don't ever doubt the sincerity of this committee or Senator Looney, who is a personal friend of mine, in his sincerity to seeks ways to stop crimes committed with guns. That's why we're all here. We want to see that stopped.

But you've been misinformed by the so-called experts in support of microstamping, that it will prevent criminals from committing these crimes. And you've heard the testimony of people on the economic impact and so on. 004136 417 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Illegal guns sold on the black market usually have their serial numbers defaced. Many illegal guns come into the country via smuggling operations with no serial numbers at all on them. They're manufactured in foreign countries, and they're snuck into the country.

I was a reporter at one time, and covering a story with the New Haven Police Department, I asked Chief Mel Wearing, How many guns on the table, because he had a confiscation thing going on, how many of those guns had serial numbers on them. And he said none.

And I looked them over. Some of them were spray-painted with paint. Some of them had ammunition jammed in them because the ammunition was wrong. Because criminals that commit crimes with guns don't care. They just want to shoot somebody with a gun, and if they can get a bullet into it, they'll pull the trigger.

Microstamping won't stop them. They don't care about laws.

Just a note that in 1997, a Department of Justice survey showed that 80 percent of the guns that were obtained to commit crimes are from the black market. And an ORL report says the most popular gun in committing the crime is the .38 revolver. Had nothing to do with a semiautomatic pistol.

It's a good thing, too, for New Haven Police, because they do solve over 80 percent of their crimes that are committed with guns using things like text messaging, tip lines, community policing and so on. So there are ways to combat this. 418 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

So microstamping won't reduce the use of firearms by criminals. Criminals will continue to buy black market guns. I think we should enforce the hundreds of laws that are already on the books to severely punish criminals who commit crimes with guns. I think we should establish a mandatory ten-year sentence for any gun crime, and there's no plea bargaining on that.

I think we should sanction or remove prosecutors and judges who make plea deals to eliminate gunlcharges. We should fully fund all the task forces that remove illegal guns from the streets and go after gunned criminals in society.

Remember, it's the user that kills with a gun or a knife or a car or a baseball bat. It's not the instrument. Shall we microstamp those items? Will that help? I don't think you should, and I think you should act responsibly and oppose SB 353.

Don't punish us law-abiding citizens of Connecticut. We are here to help you.

SENATOR McDONALD: Thank you very much. And thanks for getting here as early as 7:15 this morning. That's some stamina.

THOMAS VIOLANTE: We've memorized all the lights that are out, tiles, you know.

(Laughter.)

SENATOR McDONALD: Trying to save some energy here. Representative Tong.

REP. TONG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very quick statement. Thank you for coming so early and 419 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

being here all day.

And in case any of you wonder whether it1s worth it to stay here this long, when I walked in here today and I looked out at the crowd, I said, oh, there's Thomas Violante. So, you know, there was recognition there.

THOMAS VIOLANTE: Thank you.

REP. TONG: [inaudible] on these issues and it's worth it. Thank you.

THOMAS VIOLANTE: Thank you.

SENATOR McDONALD: Representative Green.

REP. GREEN: Just one clarification. Did you say that New Haven reports that 80 percent of their crimes -- gun crimes are solved?

THOMAS VIOLANTE: Yes.

REP. GREEN: Okay. That's a high percentage.

THOMAS VIOLANTE: And they're proud of it. I think if you check, there may even be --

REP. GREEN: I'm going to check.

THOMAS VIOLANTE: It may even be higher than that --

REP. GREEN: Okay.

THOMAS VIOLANTE: --at this time point.

REP. GREEN: I'm going to say it's probably not, but okay. I'll check. I'll check.

THOMAS VIOLANTE: Unfortunately, unfortunately, every time you read the paper in New Haven, 420 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

there's a trial going on about a gun crime that was -- a murder of some kind. And it's like every week --

REP. GREEN: Eighty percent of --

THOMAS VIOLANTE: That's what I was told, 80 percent.

REP. GREEN: All right. I am going to check on that. Thank you.

THOMAS VIOLANTE: Okay.

SENATOR McDONALD: Anything further? Thanks a lot.

THOMAS VIOLANTE: Thanks a lot.

SENATOR McDONALD: Noelle Feucht. I apologize. Feucht, except it's spelled F-E-U-C-H-T, right? Okay.

NOELLE FEUCHT: Feucht.

SENATOR McDONALD: Okay.

NOELLE FEUCHT: Good evening. My name is Noelle Feucht, and I'm here to view my opposition to 353, and the opposition of my fellow peers who have sent me here today.

I was born and raised in the Midwest, and with two incredibly loving parents. My father was a welder for John Deere, who later became disabled with a broken back. And my mother worked five jobs to support our family.

I moved to this great State of Connecticut in 1988, by choice, to make this my home because of its beauty and diverse outdoor activities. I was raised under the beliefs of any good American family, being taught to think for 004140 421 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

myself and learning to choose right from wrong over the years.

I've never picked up a gun until about five years ago. For me, this bill is a threefold issue. Number one, I'm a single woman living in Connecticut. I am a homeowner, and I'm concerned about my Second Amendment rights to defend myself, and I'm concerned that they are in jeopardy.

This bill directly affects my right to protect myself in my home, in my personal life, whether it be while out on a date or in a parking lot.

Being that I am a woman frequently•traveling throughout this state, this bill will absolutely take away my right to carry a newly purchased handgun. Being that there are no manufacturers currently using this microstamping, all new handguns will become illegal in the state. I am guaranteed by my Second Amendment right to defend myself in all of the above circumstances.

Secondly, I am a firearms engraver. You're seeing my work. It's being passed around. I am an FFL holder and a pistol permit holder. I do not currently own a pistol. I would like to purchase one some day.

Engraving firearms, including handguns, is my livelihood. If this ban is allowed to pass, my income will be directly affected, as well as sales of new handguns from everyone from the mom and pop gun supply stores, as well as such institutions as Cabel's. These gunsmith stores and new handgun owners are my customers.

These guns can be used for protection, leisure March 16, 2009 JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M. activity at a gun range, for pure collection or decoration. And that's where I come in.

Passing this bill will affect my business and the businesses throughout this state in an already struggling economy. I am a part of the economic impact you are about to make.

Lastly, I am the face of an outdoor sportsman in Connecticut. I am a neighbor. I'm your daughter. I'm your sister. I'm your wife, and I'm your friend.

I belong to several clubs, including Ansonia Rod & Gun Club, Pahquiogue in Danbury and Connecticut Travelers Sporting Clays Association, along with hundreds of other women and thousands of other men throughout this state, and I represent them today.

I want to keep my right to shoot at these clubs throughout the entire state and want this to remain the status quo, whether it be with a long firearm or a newly purchased handgun at a local indoor pistol range, sporting clays event or on a skeet and track field.

This is a choice I have made as a free citizen of this country. Please note, the gentleman pointed out earlier today regarding taking down a gun can be very difficult. I don't know what I'm doing. I can take apart any gun, and I can file down a part on a firing pin and I barely know what I'm doing, and I know it can be done with an emery board.

Even though I can remove the engraving and stamping, I can do it from any firing pin that I have touched. Please note, I'm a citizen of the United States, and I'd like you to protect my Second Amendment right to do business and 423 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

to bear arms. Thank you.

SENATOR McDONALD: Thank you for some very eloquent testimony. I appreciate it.

NOELLE FEUCHT: Thank you.

SENATOR McDONALD: By the way, I was looking at the photographs and it1s very impressive work that you do as well.

NOELLE FEUCHT: Thank you.

SENATOR McDONALD: Are there any questions for Noelle? Thanks so much.

NOELLE FEUCHT: Thank you.

SENATOR McDONALD: And if I am not mistaken, Mr. Worsham --

CHARLES WORSHAM: Yes.

SENATOR McDONALD: -- is the last member of the public who wishes to testify. Is that correct? Is there anybody else?

You have the last word, sir.

CHARLES WORSHAM: That figures. Been here since 9:00 myself.

Good evening, committee members. My name is Charles Worsham, and I'm a resident of the great State of Connecticut. I'm here to state my opposition to SB 353 and SB 358.

SB 358, if this bill had any hope of stopping crime consistently, I don't know anyone in the [inaudible] community that would oppose it. However, if this bill becomes law, it will do nothing except hinder those who care about the 004143 424 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

law and follow it.

Criminals don't legally buy guns. They don't follow the law. That's why they are criminals. And laws don't really help prevent any single crime that a criminal is intent on committing.

SB 353 fails on many levels. It fails on many levels in its objective to enhance public safety.

The first item is that it will violate the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. More specifically, the second or operative clause, which contains the word "infringement."

When the legislature proposes legislation which mandates the application of an unproven, untested, unavailable technology to a very common firearm in order to obtain that firearm, that will most certainly be construed as infringement.

This technology has no proven production platform, requires retooling and manufacturing changes; and since common semiautomatic handguns cannot be purchased or obtained until these hurdles are met, it doesn't take a scientist to figure out that this would easily construe infringement.

Secondly, this technology is so easy to defeat with common materials and tools that it borders on the ridiculous. You heard about a common item left at crime scenes, the shell casing. This may be true today, but who in their right mind would believe that this trend would continue if this legislation were enacted? March 16, 2009 JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

This bill may actually make less evidence available to law enforcement at present. Why? Because a criminal will take a common piece of evidence, the shell, with them.

Law enforcement will no longer have shell casings as evidence, as well as the handgun itself. After hearing testimony and questions all day long, I have come to the conclusion that most members of the committee have very little knowledge of the working of firearms. But you do have a great knowledge of legislation, so I pose these questions to you:

Would you pass legislation today on a rocket car technology that doesn't readily exist?

Would you make every car manufacturer selling cars in this state implement a technology with no production platform?

Would you mandate that no car could be sold or transferred until it was implemented not only on new cars, but on old ones?

I think not.

So if you can apply that simple logic, SB 353 makes no sense at this time either. I do know this: Its constitutionality will definitely be challenged. It will cost taxpayer dollars, and taxpayer dollars are very tight. Criminals will defeat it in minutes, if not in seconds, with common items where they'll simply collect the cases.

As with many gun-related public safety issues, a law-abiding citizen will suffer great inconvenience for little or nothing. Public safety should be based on solid technology which is proven and has a visible impact elsewhere. If it is not, if it's not public 426 March 16, 2009 jr JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

safety, it's just a waste.

SENATOR McDONALD: Thank you very much. Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL: Last, but not least, and I want to thank you for your testimony. I agree and I love the rocket car analogy.

CHARLES WORSHAM: Thank you.

(Laughter.)

SENATOR McDONALD: Are there any questions from the board? If not, thank you very much, sir.

CHARLES WORSHAM: Thank you.

SENATOR McDONALD: Seeing no further members of the public who would like to testify, I will draw the public hearing to a close. I appreciate your patience. Drive safely going home. 004146

To the Senate Judiciary committee: When it comes to protecting the people of the state of Connecticut ,the government of our state has failed. The legislature continues to pass gun control bills which have been , infective as proven by the rising crime rates in our cities. The geniuses in Hartford remain convinced that taking a firearm from a responsible owner in Litchfield county will somehow lower the murder rate in Hartford. They keep passing one lame gun control bill after another. Now we have .SB 353 , AN ACT CONCERNING THE MICROSTAMPING OF SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOLS. I liken this to the southern Democrats who passed Poll Taxes on minorities to infringe on their right to vote. You can't pay a poll tax, you can't vote. No micro stamping (which doesn't even exist yet) no guns. This amounts to a back door way to stop gun sales in Connecticut. Ask the Democrats, and they will tell you they have not stopped your right to own guns, but in reality, just like George Wallace, they are at the standing in the school house door denying law abiding citizens their constitutional rights. •How would the great Democrat George Wallace say it, Gun control now, Gun control forever. Why don't the Democrats in Hartford just raise up the flago f Dixie and be honest about denying a large portion of the citizens of our state their rights. They are bigots, consider all gun owners uneducated idiots, and look down on all of us. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, the same way, and expecting different results. There is a simple to stop crime. Keep violent offenders in jail. Our government has played with a 3 strikes and you are out law and not passed anything with any teeth. Just ask DR Petit. We have representatives who want to do away with the death penalty, and still infringe on the citizens constitutional right to own guns. And they are infringing, make no mistake about it The Democrats in Hartford want to get all the guns out of our state, but a little thing like the 2nd amendment of the US constitution (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the righto f the people to keep and bear arms shale not be infringe'd) and article first, section 15 of the Connecticut constitution (Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state) gets in their way. So what do they do, introduce a new bill, SB 353. This bill, if passed, will effectively end the ownership of pistols in Connecticut. It will require any gun manufacturer who sells pistols in Connecticut to design a way for a pistol to imprint a micro stamp on a casing the gun ejects after firing. The bill requires this by January 1, 2011. No firearms manufacturer currently has the technology to build a pistol to do this. Nor will they by 2011. People will not be able to buy new pistols, and those having old pistols, will not be able to transfer them to family, friends or to trade them in on a new pistol. These old design guns will have to be destroyed. Just like the George Wallace Democrats in Hartford want. It is simple really. Anyone who shoots at a public range and does not pick up the ejected shells from their pistol runs the risk of having someone else pick up these shells and drop them at the scene of a crime. There is no way to stop this. And any criminal using as revolver instead of a pistol, will not have micro stamped shells. It will be like identity theft." I am respectfully asking the Judiciary committee to kill SP353.. Bill Bastenbeck Winsted CT 004147

Just for your information:

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT ARTICLE FIRST. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SEC. 15. .Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state

The State Legislative Judiciary Committee in a public hearing on March 16, 2009 is considering bull number SB 353. AN ACT CONCERNING THE MICROSTAMPING OF SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOLS. (e) On and after January 1, 2011, no person, firm or corporation shall sell, deliver or otherwise transfer any semiautomatic pistol at retail unless such semiautomatic pistol is designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model and serial number of the pistol in two or more places on the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol and that are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the pistol is fired, provided the Attorney General certifies that the technology used to create the imprint is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions. For the purposes of this subsection, "semiautomatic pistol" means a pistol the operating mode of which uses the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to extract a fired cartridge and chamber a fresh cartridge with each single pull of the trigger. STATE OF CONNECTICUT

u—•

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER John A Danaherlll Lieutenant Edwin S Hemon Commissioner Chief of Staff

March 16, 2009

Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, Co-Chairman Sen. Andrew J. McDonald, Co-Chairman Judiciary Committee Legislative Office Building Hartford, CT 06106

SB 353 AN ACT CONCERNING THE MICROSTAMPING OF SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOLS

The Department of Public Safety advises of fiscal impact and questions necessity of mandating a new technology for identification of spent cartridges.

This bill would require semiautomatic pistols sold, delivered or otherwise transferred at retail to be designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters that identify their make, model and serial number on their internal parts and would imprint such identifiers on each cartridge case when the pistols are fired.

There is already a system in place that is extremely successful in identifying spent cartridge cases and linking them with guns used in previous crimes. Public Act 01-130, which is codified in Section 29-7h of the Connecticut General Statutes, required the Department of Public Safety's Division of Scientific Services to establish a firearms evidence databank. This firearms evidence data bank is a computer-based system that scans a test fire and stores an image of such test fire in a manner suitable for retrieval and comparison to other test fires and to other evidence in a case. The discharged ammunition consists of a cartridge case or a bullet or a fragment thereof, collected after a handgun is fired, and contains sufficient microscopic characteristics to compare to other discharged ammunition in order to determine the handgun from which the ammunition was fired. 004149

Test fire evidence submitted to the laboratory or collected from handguns submitted to the laboratory is entered into the databank. Jhe firearms evidence databank is used by laboratory personnel to compare two or more cartridge cases, bullets or other projectiles submitted to the laboratory or produced at the laboratory from a handgun. This is often done upon the request of a police department as part of a criminal case investigation; microscopic examination of any resulting match can verify the gun used. Any image of a cartridge case, bullet or fragment thereof that is not matched by a search of the databank is stored in the databank for future searches.

The statute requires a police department to submit to the laboratory any handgun that comes into police custody as the result of a criminal investigation, as found property, or for destruction, prior to the return or the destruction of the handgun.

A test fire from each submitted handgun is collected and labeled with the handgun manufacturer, type of weapon, serial number, date of the test fire and name of the person collecting the test fire. Similarly, all handguns that are issued by police departments are test fired and the test fire is labeled and placed in a package with the handgun manufacturer, handgun type, serial number and the name of the person collecting the test fire. The laboratory shares the information in the firearms evidence databank with other law enforcement agencies, both within and outside the state, and also participates in a national firearms evidence databank program.

Considerable state resources have been invested in this technology, which is commonly used with other states and the federal government. Mandating a new technology would have a significant fiscal impact to the Department of Public Safety as additional personnel, new databases, and additional test, office and computer equipment would be necessary for proper enforcement.

John A. Danaher III COMMISSIONER Department of Public Safety

Phone: (860)685-8000 FAX: (860) 685-8354 1111 Counfry Club Road Middletown, CT 06457-9294

An Equal Opportunity Employer 004150

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION 11250 WAPLES MILL RD. FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030

MEMORANDUM OF OPPOSITION

TO: Honorable Members of the Connecticut Joint Committee on Judiciary FR: Rebecca J. Williams, NRA-ILA Connecticut State Liaison RE: S353 DATE: March 16,2009

The National Rifle Association would like to communicate our position of opposition on SB 353, currently pending consideration in the Connecticut Joint Committee on Judiciary. This proposal would prohibit the sale or transfer of all semi-automatic pistols unless they are designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model and serial number of the pistol in two or more places on the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol. When deliberating this issue, we urge you to consider the following:

Micro-stampings have repeatedly failed in tests. In 2006, a study by forensic experts and researchers at the University of California (Davis) concluded, "At the current time it is not recommended that a mandate for implementation of this technology in all semiautomatic handguns in the state of California be made."2 Results of the study were consistent with earlier peer-reviewed tests published by the Association of Firearms and Toolmarks Examiners.3 Firearms examiner George Krivosta, of the Suffolk County, N.Y., crime lab, found that the "vast majority" of micro-stamped characters in the alphanumeric serial number couldn't be read on "any of the expended cartridge cases generated and examined.

Micro-stampings are easily removed. In the tests noted above, firing pins were removed in minutes, and serial numbers were obliterated in less than a minute, with household tools.

Most gun crimes cannot be solved by micro-stamping, or do not require micro-stamping to be solved. Most gun crimes do not involve shots being fired, thus there are no cartridge cases left at crime scenes for police to recover. Also, a large percentage of crimes involving guns, involve guns that don't eject fired cartridge cases. Notwithstanding TV shows that portray crime-solving as impossible without high-technology, most crimes can be solved by traditional means. For example, of murders in which the victim-offender relationship is known, 77% involve family members, friends and other acquaintances. Only 23% involve strangers.4

Most criminals who use guns get them through unregulated channels. According to the BATFE, 88% of crime guns are acquired through unregulated channels, and the median time between a crime gun's acquisition and its use in crime is 6.6 years.5 According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, most criminals get guns via theft or the black market.6 004151

Micro-stamping may increase gun thefts, home invasions and other burglaries, and expand the black market in guns. Criminals will be further encouraged to get guns illegally; if they believe that guns bought legally will be linked to them in a computerized database.

Most guns do not automatically eject fired cartridge cases. Revolvers can fire five or more rounds without any fired cases being ejected. Pump-action, bolt-action, lever-action and other types of guns eject fired cases only if the user manually operates the gun's unloading mechanism. If a fired case is not ejected at a crime scene, it cannot be recovered for examination.

Only a small percentage of guns will be micro-stamped. There are about 250 million guns in the U.S. already.7 New guns sold annually account for only 2% of that total, new semi-automatic pistols less than 0.5%,8 and guns to which this proposal would apply will account for a tiny fraction, at most.

Most violent crimes are committed without guns. According to the FBI, V* of violent crimes, including 1/3 of murders and 3/5 of robberies, are committed without guns.9

Micro-stamping causes problems for law enforcement. Departments will have to spend money destroying all cases fired in training, to prevent cases from being reused at crime scenes. Criminals can obtain fired cases from practice ranges, and use them to "seed" crime scenes, to confuse investigators.

Micro-stamping wastes money, including that which is better spent on traditional crime-fighting and crime-solving efforts. If there is any intention of enforcing this law, it will require a costly computerized database to track micro- stamped handguns, costs that will be passed along to all consumers, including law enforcement agencies. Questions should be raised as to why there is no method in the bill to facilitate the tracking of these micro-stamped handguns, no agency charged with tracking micro-stamped handguns and no fiscal notes attached to SB 353 to support any effort to track micro-stamped handguns.

Micro-stamping costs jobs. Because implementation of this law would require a redesign of the handgun manufacturing process businesses would be forced to stop production of many types of firearms or close altogether because affected guns are the bulk of their sales. There are four manufacturers in Connecticut and two in neighboring Massachusetts that employ thousands of Connecticut workers. At a time when record numbers of people are unemployed and companies are struggling to stay afloat, this measure has the potential to push them under.

This proposal outlaws the sale of used semi-automatic handguns and would make it illegal for estates to bequeath such firearms. Perhaps the most important factor garnering opposition from Connecticut's law-abiding gun owners is that the implementation of this law would ban the sale or transfer of any semi-automatic handgun they currently own and possess.

It is for the above stated reasons that we oppose SB 353. As always, I am available at (703) 517-8102 should you wish to discuss the National Rifle Association's position on this proposal.

1 Gun control supporters have also advocated empowering the Consumer Products Safety Commission or BATFE to dictate firearm manufacturing standards that no manufacturer could achieve, advocated prohibiting the manufacture of guns that do not possess gadgetry intended to identify whether the person holding the gun is its owner, and by to bankrupt gun manufacturers by suing them for damages caused by criminals who misuse guns. 2. David Howitt, et al.. What Laser Machining Technology Adds to Firearm Forensics How Viable are Micro-Marked Firing Pins as Evidence?, 2007 3 George G Knvosta, "NanoTagTM Markings From'Another Perspective," 38 AFTE Journal 41,2006 4 FBI, 5 BATFE, Crime Gun Trace Reports 2000, National Report, 6 Bureau of Jusnce Statistics, "Firearm Use by Offenders," 7 National Research Council, Firearms and Violence A Critical Review, National Academies Press, 2005 8 BATF, "Firearms Commerce in the United States 2001/2002," 9 FBI, 004152

16 MAR 2009

Memo to members of the CT General Assembly

Subject: Proposed legislation mandating micro printing on newly sold firearms

Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to make several points in stating my opposition to the idea of causing future firearms sales in this state to be predicated on the adoption of micro stamping capability.

First, let me give my credentials. I served a total of 36 years in the military. I served 8 years (1972-1980) as an auxiliary policeman in Meriden. I worked for 21 years as a Military Technician for the CT Army National Guard. About fifteen years of this full- time employment was in the capacity of Small Arms Repairer, Armament Inspector and Armament Maintenance Supervisor. I worked primarily on small arms - pistols, rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers as well as an occasional revolver. I also served in Baghdad, Iraq in 2004-2005.

Micro printing? What is it? It is the idea that by putting tiny markings on the tip of the firing pin, the,primer of the firedshel l can be traced to a particular firearm. Presumably, this would enable police to determine the weapon used in a crime. Let's look a little closer.

How difficult is it to change a firingpin ? Well, in the case ofaM1911Al caliber .45 pistol, it would take less than 10 seconds. Revolvers, would involve a little more time and work, but certainly would not be difficult. Anyone who is willing to use a firearm to commit a crime, be it murder or armed robbery, would not be deterred from replacing a firing pin.

Even easier, how much trouble would it be to dress the tip of the firing pin with fine sandpaper or a stone? Since this micro stamping would be microscopic, it would be very shallow. Even if it was not purposely removed, how long would it take to wear off? Anyone with any knowledge of firearms could see how unrealistic a scheme like this is.

If this is an impractical idea, it means one of two things. Either that the person proposing it has no idea of what he or she is talking about, or it is just one more attempt of attack one of our fundamental rights.

Over the last forty plus years, I have witnessed a continuous assault on our right to keep and bear arms, a right protected not only by our federal Constitution, but also by the Constitution of Connecticut. Why is it that many of our public servants, men and women pledged to protect our rights, continue to undermine them? I have seen the Second 004153

Amendment assaulted'by such terms as "assault weapons", "cop-killer bullets", "Saturday night specials" and other words to generate fear and revulsion toward firearms.

I have heard that the only purpose of a firearm is to kill people. Do policemen carry firearm so that they can kill people? Of course not. They carry firearms to protect themselves, and that's the reason we all do.

We hear about a weapon have no legitimate "sporting" purpose, as it the purpose of the Second Amendment was duck hunting. This is really insulting. They Founders were not concerned about our hobbies, they were concerned with our freedoms.

We hear that we don't need firearms for our protection today, we don't have to worry about hostile Indians or the Redcoats. Well, just recently we had a home invasion in Cheshire. Would it have helped if there were firearms in the house? I don't know, but I know that it certainly wouldn't have made the situation any worse.

Some of our politicians in Washington, DC are working to undeimine our Second Amendment while they have a private army protecting them - at our expense. Why don't they rely on the DC police, like the common people?

As I stated at the beginning of this paper, I served 11 months in Baghdad. I was on the street almost every day, but I worked out of the Republican Palace. There were soldiers from about two dozen countries. Everybody was armed. I had two weapons-an MI 6A2 rifle and an M9 pistol. Some people had three weapons. Some carried machineguns waking down the hall in the palace. There was NEVER any incidents between any of us. This goes to demonstrate that an armed society is a polite society.

The only time firearms are misused is when someone who is criminally disposed feels an advantage over his victim. In Iraq, we were all armed. Everyone was friendly and polite. Does putting a uniform on change people? No, human nature is consistent, and it is universal. We all had a healthy respect for each other.

Compare this with the situation when a criminal knows that everybody on the street besides himself, is helpless. This is why Washington, DC is the per-capita murder capital of the world. Other than the police (who are usually busy protecting "important" people like politicians) no one else is carrying.

The truth is, the more firearms in private hands, the safer we all are. This goes against the propaganda we continually hear. We are told that we are safer if we don't have a firearm. That it will probably be used against us. We are safer when we are helpless?

People often ask why the Jews didn't fight the Nazis. The reason is, they registered their firearms under the Weimar Republic. When the Nazis came to power, they confiscated them. Hitler is reported to have stated "Now we have gun control". 004154

We either disperse power, or we concentrate it. If power is dispersed, there is freedom. When it is concentrated, we have Nazi Germany, we have the Soviet Union. This is why the Founders put the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

As regards the Militia, that refers to able bodied men (and today, presumably women) who are NOT in federal service. I certainly do not believe in private militia, but I strongly believe in the concept of an armed citizenry. I think an armed citizenry is a deterrent.

The civil rightso f the American people have suffered under the abuse of our politicians in recent years. We have seen the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Bill of Rights under assault. I am referring to the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the Protect America Act, the Real ID and the Department of Homeland Terrorism.

Our politicians have invented "emergency powers", not authorized in the Constitution. The idea that a president can declare an emergency, and then assume dictatorial powers, and still not be perceived as a dictator is a concept that escapes me. The idea that we can trust one man (or one woman) is foreign to our concept of Constitutional government. The decision to use these "emergency powers" would in reality be a coup against Constitutional government.

In the Declaration of Independence, we read that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. That means rights that cannot be taken away by any legitimate government. We also read that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. This means that the reason we have government is to protect our rights.

Does it seem correct for us to have to continue to attend public hearing to fight for our rights to protect them from the very people who are sworn to protect those rights?

Thank you for your time.

Gregory H. Butko 3 Hope Hill Rd Wallingford, CT 06492 203-265-4314 004155

Edward S. De Cortin 35 Old Town Farm Road P.O. Box 946 Woodbury, CT 06798 (203) 263-6523

16 March 2009

Joint Committee on Judiciary. Room 2500, Legislative Office Building Hartford, CT 06106

Testimony Opposing S.B. No. 353 An Act Concerning The Microstamping Of Semiautomatic Pistols

Good morning Senate Chairman McDonald, House Chairman Lawlor, Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Edward De Cortin, a resident of Woodbury, and I

appear before you to express opposition to Senate Bill 353x An Act Concerning The Microstamping Of Semiautomatic Pistols. You will hear testimony regarding microstamping's effectiveness from others; I will discuss how this legislation negatively impacts manufacturers and consumers of semi-automatic pistols. Twenty-two years as a manufacturer of machined parts serving Connecticut industry and a lifetime in the shooting sports qualify me to speak on these subjects.

The technology used to produce the markings proposed in this legislation has been proven in the electronic and medical industries. As applied in those fields, the markings serve merely to identify a component or assembly and are applied to surfaces which are easy to access. As applied to firearms, the markings are a functional component of a tool which embosses a mark on a cartridge case; these tool surfaces may be inaccessible. Of those surfaces that come in contact with a cartridge case, three are relevant to our discussion: the head of the firing pin, the breech face, and the chamber. The proposed legislation requires that two of the three be marked.

The firing pin is the most easily marked. I estimate that an experienced, skilled worker using a well designed holding fixture that is meticulously maintained could mark one firing pin per minute using one of the technologies suggested in Mr. Lizotte's patent 004156

Joint Committee on Judiciary 16 March 2009 Re: S.B. 353 Page 2 of4 application1. Of the remaining surfaces, the breech face is easier to mark. Relative to the firing pin, a more sophisticated and therefore more costly fixture is required to precisely locate the markings. The operator's skill-set would be more developed, and more time would be required, I estimate two and one half minutes, to mark the breach face. Marking the chamber as proposed in Mr. Lizo'tte's patent under "Description Of The Preferred Embodiments" would add significant time to the chamber machining because the surface to be marked is inaccessible. Employing a "Marking Insert", a possible option, would add not more than two minutes to the machining time of a barrel and chamber unit, but it would increase the part count and add assembly time. The time to produce the additional components and assembly with the barrel and chamber unit would add as many as five minutes for a net increase of seven minutes for each barrel and chamber unit.

Minutes sound inconsequential. But in manufacturing, time is what you sell. What each minute costs varies by manufacturer, but when rninutes are translated into dollars and added as direct manufacturing cost, the costs to the consumer rise exponentially. The argument that incorporating microstamping technology in any firearm would only add seven or eight dollars to the cost is specious. There are no economies of scale involved; the manufacturer is selling time. Firearm production involves much hand work performed by highly skilled craftsman. If a manufacturer were able to contain direct manufacturing costs to eight additional dollars per firearm for all marked parts over time, not just for firing pins in the first year as estimated by Fred Tulleners, director of the forensic science graduate program at University of Cahfornia, Davis2, dealer wholesale cost would increase by $128.00.

Firearms manufacture in Connecticut is one of very few durable goods industries left to fuel our local economy. For our Legislators to saddle the industry with increased costs to implement technology of dubious value is irresponsible. In the past, some people in the State felt as though they were being threatened when industry executives said they would leave Connecticut. That was not a threat, it was acting responsibly. Connecticut is a high cost state for a variety of reasons: energy cost, personal property taxes on capital 004157

Joint Committee on Judiciary 16 March 2009 Re^S.B.353 , Page 3'of 4 equipment, real estate costs, and wages. Most manufacturers have links to industry partners or are owned by a conglomerate. It would be easy to transfer production to another facility in a lower-cost state. If these companies left Connecticut, it is estimated that in addition to 1,752 firearms industry employees identified by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, approximately 3,500 peripheral jobs would be lost. These are skilled workers who are paid significant wages. Should we boost a neighboring state's economy by exporting a highly skilled workforce and all the economic benefit available to the people of Connecticut?

The bottom line of my thesis is this: passing any legislation mandating firearm microstamping is harmful to Connecticut's manufacturers and consumers. Manufacturers would face declining sales due to the artificially inflated cost of their product. Consumers would no longer be able to afford to purchase these firearms.

I know there are those among you anxious to take me to task because I've ignored the public safety aspect of the argument. To those people who would impeach me because of my focus on the economics of this proposal, I ask this question: why do we pursue this "solution" when there are other, cost effective, solutions that raise no evidentiary questions? One such solution is positive linking of spent cartridge casings to a person, rather than a firearm, by reading fingerprints made visible by a simple but fundamental new technology3.

I ask you: what are our objectives?

My sincere thanks to the Committee for allowing me to present my arguments here today. If you have any questions, I will make myself available by mail or by telephone. 004158

Joint Committee on Judiciary 16 March 2009 Re; S.B. 353 Page 4 of4

Notes

1. United States Patent and Trademark Office. Utility Patent Number 7,204,419.

16 March 2009 .

2. University of California - Davis. "Firearms Microstamping Feasible But Variable,

Study Finds." ScienceDailv 16 May 2008. 16 March:2009

.

3. University of Leicester. "New Fingerprint Breakthrough By Forensic Scientists."

ScienceDailv 4 June 2008. 16 March 2009

/releases/2008/06/080602103331.htm>. Microstamping: A Law Enforcement Tool To Combat Illegal Firearm Trafficking

Mr. Todd Lizotte, Co-inventor of Firearm Microstamping Technology Written Statement to the Joint Committee on Judiciary, March 16th, 2009

To the members of the Joint Committee on Judiciary, thank you for allowing me to speak on the subject of firearm microstamping.

Crime scene investigation involving a firearm is aided by rapid firearm identification. Firearms are rarely recovered from crimes scenes; on the other hand fired cartridge casings are almost always recovered. With present technology, however, there is almost no way of identifying firearm trafficking sources, without a recovered firearm.

Again let me state; unless a firearm is recovered, there is no way of identifying the firearm trafficking source.

The faster the source is determined the easier it is for law enforcement to consider methods of identifying; rogue firearm dealers, straw purchasers or setting up sting operations to catch thepurchaser and possibly the network they use to traffic the firearms once purchased. The more data you have the greater the chance of finding the source.

This technology we all generically call Firearm Microstamping, when applied to newly manufactured semiautomatic handguns will provide near immediate opportunities for tracing illegal firearms for law enforcement in the United States. Microstamping is a physical evidence technology and trace solution where intentional tooling marks are formed onto interior mechanisms of the firearm that impact the surfaces of cartridge casings.

I should emphasize the word intentional. Currently law enforcement uses the unintentional tooling marks formed by burrs left on the interior surfaces of the firearm; the unintentional marks are neither optimized to the dynamics of the firearm nor purposefully made unique. However, law enforcement relies on these unintentional marks as the basis of the forensic technique known as firearm and tool mark identification to match cartridge evidence to cartridges fired from a recovered firearm. If the firearm is not recovered; the technique produces no helpful result.

Firearm Microstamping however is an intentional tool mark; optimized to the firearms mechanical dynamics, unique and extractable. Extractable is the key, you don't need to create an opinion or to interpret, you simply extract the code.

The intentional tooling marks take the form of alphanumeric and encoded geometric codes, simpler to a barcode. As the firearm is discharged the intentional tooling marks transfer a code to the cartridge casing before it is ejected out of the firearm.

Firearm Microstamping technology is a passive mechanical technology that leverages the existing forensic laboratory infrastructure requiring no new databases or investment in technology at the laboratory level. 004160

Microstamping: A Law Enforcement Tool To Combat Illegal Firearm Trafficking

Mr. Todd Lizotte, Co-inventor of Firearm Microstamping Technology Written Statement to the Joint Committee on Judiciary, March 16th, 2009 Again let me clearly state; there is absolutely no need for a national database, or even a local database. All of these codes will reside at the manufacturer's site, to ensure that tracking is just a simple accounting activity on the manufacturing floor, which is already a task the manufacturers certify to meet the BATFE requirements for tracing.

What is Firearm Microstamping? Simply stated, Firearm microstamping is an evolution of traditional firearm tool mark examination; it strengthens the existing method of firearm and tool mark examination, by providing an evolutionary step that can actually be quantitatively analyzed or in laymen terms capable of being measured.

Firearm Microstamping will result in a forensic method for firearm tracing akin to the robustness resulting from forensic methods for DNA analysis; Firearm Microstamping will provide consistent and with a high degree of certainty, the connection between firearm evidence, e.g. fired cartridge at the crime scene, and a specific firearm source.

In this post 911 age, there is a need for intelligence led policing efforts. Forensic Intelligence techniques such as Firearm Microstamping need to be implemented to provide an edge to law enforcement who will need to combat illegal firearmtrafficking .

You just need to look to our border with Mexico for examples of how the tide of crime is heading our way. What was once commonplace violence at a distance in Columbia has reached upwards towards the United States to Mexico and across to Texas.

We developed this technology to target firearm frafficking, to support law enforcement by providing real time forensic intelligence to target criminal frafficking, straw purchasers and criminal enterprises.

In closing I would just like to state the following:

We reiterate, as stated nearly two years ago, we will extend to the industry a royalty free license as outlined in our press release dated June 15th, 2007.

We will extend to the firearms industry at their invitation, but at our expense, the opportunity to have us travel to their facility to go over the technology and to show them how the technology can be implemented into their facilities.

We furthermore extend to the NRA and NSSF, at their invitation, but at our expense, the opportunity to have us, travel to their facilities to go oyer the technology and its benefit to law enforcement and to demonstrate why there is no need for any type of national database or even firearm registration to make this work.

Thank you for your time.

Todd Lizotte Co-inventor of Firearm Microstamping Microstamping: Developing Better Trace Data Through New Technology Importance of Current Trace Data

"The accurate identification and tracing of recovered firearms is one of the most important steps in a criminal gun investigation." International Association of Chiefs of Police Most Guns Used in Violent Crime are not Recovered

Criminals don't regularly abandon their guns at a crime scene Much more common to recover expended cartridges Microstamping provides the missing link between the cartridge case and the tracing system

Todd Lizotte - Pivotal Development Microstamping Technology Transfer Center 3 Copyright 2007,2008,2009 / Patented / Patent Pending How to find a serial number from a "Recovered Cartridge" Firearm ID Technology (Capability) Benchmark Recovered Evidence Traditional Comparison Imaging By Hand (NIBIN or RBID)

Recovered Firearm & Cartridge

0 < 1.5%* mmm Recovered Cartridge / No Firearm

Todd Lizotte - Pivotal Development * Estimate based on ATF published Data 1.2 Million images in NIBIN versus -20,000 Hits r Microstamping Technology Transfer Center 1# _. 1 .•/».• ml 1 1 1 Copyright2007.2008,2009/Patented/PatentPending OenCmTiarKUlg ^11631111 IdentlllCatlOrl eChnOlOgieS Optimized Ruger Mark III -22 LR Rim Fire Cartridge (#128) "Single Hit"

,v' • ••'•••'•"1^ •

Cross Polarized Ring Illumin| Flipped Image For Clarity O Todd Lizotte - Pivotal Development Microstamping Technology Transfer Center o Copyright 2007,2008.2009 / Patented / Patent Pending TEST DATA (Archive)

Todd Lizotte - Pivotal Development Microstamping Technology Transfer Center Copyright 2007,2008,2009 / Patented / Patent Pending Optical Imaging Only / Manual De-Code / No Automation Archive TEST DATA 1991 Al .45 ACP Colt (1911) 1500 Rounds

** (Lizotte-Ohar Technique) -99.2% Code Extraction (Pos #1 & Pos #2 / Magazine)

*** (Absolute Certainty Technique) -98% Code Extraction (Pos #1 & Pos #2 / Magazine)

Scenario #1, only one cartridge casing found at crime scene (Lizotte-Ohar Method) Simulating a single shot fired scenario

Scenario #2, two cartridge casings found at crime scene (Lizotte-Ohar Method) Simulating two shots fired scenario

Scenario #3, two cartridge casings found at crime scene (Absolute Certainty Method) which means each number of the code or encoded code element, has to be visually identifiable, beyond a reasonable doubt. Even a higher level of scrutiny only reduced the extraction by 1%. The more cartridges found at the crime scene the higher the code extraction!!! o o Todd Lizotte - Pivotal Development 1 Microstamping Technology Transfer Center H Copyright 2007,2008,2009 / Patented / Patent Pending 0"> Multiple Hit Cartridges Easily Readable with SEM Microscopy Also Easily Extractable When Using Heuristic Approach

Optical microscopy SEM microscopy SEM backscatter stereo with polarization microscopy

o o Todd Lizotte - Pivotal Development Microstamping Technology Transfer Center Copyright 2007.2008,2009 / Patented / Patent Pending 00 Microstamping: Heuristic Algorithm Code Extraction Method

A

AWhat is this ?

Todd Lizotte - Pivotal Development Microstamping Technology Transfer Center 9 Copyright 2007.2008,2009 / Patented / Patent Pending Microstamping: Heuristic Algorithm Code Extraction Method

What letter is this? iA

A B H J K4 V

Todd Lizotte - Pivotal Oevelopment Microstamping Technology Transfer Center 10 Copyright 2007,2008,2009 / Patented / Patent Pending Microstamping: Heuristic Algorithm Code Extraction Method

Optimized to Firearm. Fixed Font and Standardized Placement "Yields High Degree of Extraction Capability"

Todd Lizotte - Pivotal Development Microstamping Technology Transfer Center 11 Copyright 2007,2008,2009 / Patented / Patent Pending 004172

Good Morning Chairman Lawlor and Chairman McDonald,

My name is Frank Guerra. I am the owner of K5 Arms Exchange, located in Milford, CT. I would like to open my letter by stating that I understand the concern that exists today in stopping crime and violence and wanting to aid law enforcement agencies protect the. liberty and freedom of the citizens of. this state. As a free citizen of this state I also feel that it is my duty to address any and all legislation that infringes on those principles of freedom and liberty that we celebrate every day. Senate Bill #353, the "Microstamping Proposal" is one piece of legislation that is as . unconstitutional as it would be ineffective.

Owning a handgun for sporting and defense purposes has been recognized and accepted as a constitutional, right by the Supreme Court of the United States. Thousands of law-abiding Connecticut residents have owned and maintained their handguns with the utmost care and respect for the rule of law. This bill, proposed as a measure of "public safety" is yet another example of legislation aimed at punishing honest, law-abiding, legal gun owners, while not addressing that most fundamental of facts...Criminals do not obey laws.

The Microstamping proposal bill # S.353 offers nothing to aid law enforcement and everything to deny Connecticut citizens access to new pistols. It is a de-facto handgun ban, something that relies solely on emotion and bad science as opposed to fact and logic Some very basic questions about microstamping have never been answered scientifically and the legal ramifications of such a bill have also not been thoroughly examined. Begin with these questions. . how many violent crimes are committed with "new" handguns? What does a stamped casing at a crime scene do? Is it evidence that will even be permissible in a court? What prevents criminals from picking up spent casings from legally owned and operated shooting ranges? And the list could go on...

Advocates of such measures have offered the same arguments time and again. These arguments are based in anecdotes, rely on emotion, and jump to conjecture. We've heard this testimony before. In fact, similar proposals have failed in IL, MD, HI and even in VA, post-VA Tech tragedy. These are states gun control advocates would consider "strong" gun law states They DO NOT take into account the effect of such legislation on law-abiding gun-owners or the businesses that rely on them. Most importantly, we have not seen scientific or researched arguments that illustrate the effectiveness of such a measure on public safety. Indeed, even in CA where it has passed, it remains to be seen if the bill can even be complied with and new pistols are atrisk of being banned effective, Jan 1,2010 for sale in CA.

In addition, given that most recovered crime scene guns are at least 12 years old, and many are much older, any practical or theoretical benefit from microstamping is moot. Crime scene guns won't have this technology in place, anyway.

Another unfortunate fact that cannot be ignored is this...criminals will find ways around this law, honest gun-owners will not. A criminal will pick up spent casings at a crime Honest gun-owners do not commit crimes. A criminal will trade out firing pins (something that takes less than 10 minutes to do),.a law-abiding citizen will not. A criminal will break into more houses in search of older "untraceable" weapons, putting those legal, honest, law-abiding gun owners atrisk in their own homes.

How does this bill affect those of us who own and operate guns safely and legally? It will deny us access to newer pistols that will not meet this unnecessary restriction. It will dnve the firearms and ammunition industries even further away from our state, driving increases in handgun and ammunition prices. It will force many established businesses to close their doors, eliminating jobs and tax revenues at a time where every job and dollar is important. 004173

How does this bill affect cnminals? That is a question that has not been answered and will not be answered

In summary, I urge the Committee to reject this proposal because it offers no public safety value; it is counter productive, unconstitutional and economically undesirable as 1,600 CT jobs could be lost. It will also serve to put many'FFL dealers out of business in Connecticut, losing a valuable source of sales tax revenue in one of the few segments of the local economy that is flourishing in this unprecedented period of economic recession. I ask that the Committee engage the Sportsmen's Community to pursue measures that punish criminal acts with firearms, enforce those laws that are already on the books and protect the interests of law abiding citizens.

ijank youfor your consideration,^.

Frank GuemT K-5 Arms Exchange, Inc. 004174

March 15, 2009

Cynthia J. LaPointe 710 Middle Turnpike. W. Manchester, CT 06040 9860)647-1181

I am an avid participant in the firearm sports, and an NRA member. I participate in a ladies pistol league. I'm also the supervisor of Colts Manufacturing Company LLC. Custom Shop, and Product Service Departments. I am not testifying on behalf of Colts, but as a citizen.

*Bill 353 An Act Concerning the Microstamping of Semiautomatic Pistols

I appose this bill

I don't believe this bill is based on the good of the state and its people. In the hearing, on March 16, 2008,1 herd the question asked, would I need to.keep spare firing pins with the serial number as replacements. Representative Michael Lawlor stated that he did not care what happened to the firing pin after it leaves the factory. To me this is not a person that is concerned with finding the criminal, as I was led to belieye this bill was for, but to make it more costly and difficult for the manufacture, as well as drive up the price of the product so it would be less affordable to the average person.

If a fired casing is recovered at a crime scene, and if the serial number is readable*, there would be a cost to produce, and support a program to mike information usable. How much would it cost? Where would this money come from? This is a concern too, because there are so many ifs, how would it be worthwhile?

*There were several testimonies in March of 2008 stating that the serial number would wear off with a small amount of use making the serial number unreadable.

Thank you.

Cynthia J. LaPointe 004175

March 15. 2009

To members of the Joint Committee on Judiciary:

I am Sally F. Balukas and I live at 296 Mile Hill Road, Tolland, Connecticut.

As First Vice President of Rockville Fish and Game Club's eight hundred members, an active member of the four-hundred member Fin,Fur,Feather Club of Chaplin,and a founding member of Connecticut Trappers' Association, I respectfully ask that you oppose Senator Looney's Bill#353.

Micro-stamping is an unproven technology that, as demonstrated in testimony at last year's hearing, can be easily disabled with a common household file or a stone .Because of this and because criminals rarely use legally acquired firearms, h'has no public safety value.

As a retired Connecticut public school teacher I took up target shooting as an activity I could enjoy well into my later years. If SB #353 is passed it will mean my semi• automatic pistols are illegal to sell or transfer to my husband or children. Any new semi• automatic I might like to buy to improve my scores would be a. prohibitively expensive since companies would have to have new machinery in place to produce them, and b. unavailable because currently incorporate micro-stamping in their firearms.

Colt Manufacturing testified at last year's hearing that they would be forced to move their operation out of state if this legislation were to pass. That would mean the loss of some

450 jobs in an economy which can not afford to lose of any.

For all these reasons I urgently ask you to oppose SB#353. 004176

March 15, 2009

To the members of the Joint Judiciary Committee

Thank you for your time

My name is Dr. Leon W.Balukas and I live at 296 Mile Hill Rd, Tolland, CT

As a Trustee and Life Member of Rockville Fish and Game Club I respectfully ask you to

Oppose Senate Bill#353. If passed, my target guns would become illegal to sell or

transfer my semi-automatic target guns to my wife or my children . I am a law-abiding

citizen who uses his firearms only for legal and safe sport and would be unfairly penalized by this restriction.

Please vote against this bill #353. 004177

v^7 ,;:-J- - !-

March 16,2009

Chairman Andrew McDonald Chairman Michael Lawlor Joint Committee on Judiciary Room 2500, legislative Office Building Hartford, CT 06106

RE: Connecticut SB 353 - (firearms micro-stamping) - Oppose

Dear Chairman McDonald/Lawlor and honored committee members,

Thank you for this opportunity to explain why Smith & Wesson strongly opposes Connecticut SB 353..

Smith & Wesson Corp. has been providing duty weapons and partnering with law enforcement and the military since 1852. We provide pistols to be used as duty weapons to many notable customers including Connecticut law enforcement agencies such as Hartford PD, Norwich PD, Stamford, PD, Waterbury PD, West Haven PD, Southbury PD and Canton PD just to name a few. Smith & Wesson also sells pistols and revolvers to Connecticut citizens for personal protection and sporting purposes through local distributors and retailers.

We opposeSB 353. because it will dramatically increase the cost of manufacturing firearms. We do not believe thai SB353 will reduce crime oi improve public safety A study by U C. Davis recommended against legislatively mandating this unproven. patented, sole-sourced technology, concluding that the technology was "flawed" and unreliable and because il can be so easily defeated in a mattei of seconds using common household tools (see exhibit # 1-A thru l-C foi example). The operation of a semi• automatic pistol alone will cause the micro-stamping to wear over a period of time rendering the marking un-legible (see exhibit #2-A thru 2-F for explanation). We concur with the researchers at U.C Davis who call for further study of this technology.

The passing of this bill would require a control number or markings to be micro-laser engraved on multiple surfaces or working pails on semi-automatic pistols. These markings would be transferred to each cartridge case when the pistol is fired in ordei to link a make, model and serial numbei of the product. With our manufacturing, firearms production is not just an assembly process Most components aie "hand-fit" to insure reliability and quality The serial number is applied to the frame (per Federal Law) near the end of the assembly process, as the product is almost finished. If.SB 353 was enacted. Smith & Wesson would have to fully manufacture and assemble the product test them foi function, then completely disassemble to outsource the micro-laser technology. Once the components were procured with micro-laser technology, we would then have to reassemble, possibly lequmng additional hand fitting and then once again, test foi function and reliability

VM Hwsetfei) *SKWS • P0 B;~ 225* 5. rf J'-'i _. 31 W-?.i^ ) iid- ih £352 •v-.-j.srato-wesjffj.tc..- 004178

Not only will this dramatically increase the cost of the manufacturing process, it will create substantial incremental inventory and delays to our law enforcement partners. This increased cost would not only have a negative affect on Smith & Wesson, but also on all of our Connecticut based suppliers due to potential reductions in production, (see exhibit # 3-A for list of CT, suppliers)

One reason why micro-stamping technology is flawed is the basic difference between the operation of a revolver and a semi-auto pistol. A revolver does not automatically eject cartridge cases when fired. The cartridge case remains in the cylinder. As you are aware, this legislation, SB 353, does not include revolvers. Therefore, this technology is easily defeated by just the selection of a functional firearm that does not eject cartridges.

The increased cost that would be passed along to law enforcement and other customers is not the only reason this legislation is flawed. A recent study from U.C. Davis commissioned by California legislature advised that the sole sourced micro-laser technology "could be easily removed in seconds using house hold tools". It does not seem logical to implement a process that will dramatically increase cost but would be easily defeated using common household tools.

Please understand that Smith & Wesson has partnered with law enforcement since 1852 and we are supportive of effective legislation that would support law enforcement and help solve crimes. Unfortunately, micro-stamping can be easily defeated using household tools like a nail file, or defeated simply by the selection of a revolver. Therefore, it will be ineffective in deterrence or solving of crime. Additionally, empty brass casings can be gathered by a criminal and scattered at a crime scene in order to mislead law enforcement and implicate law-abiding citizens.

For the above reasons, and for many others that have been cited by our industry's leading trade organizations, such as the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufactures' Institute, Inc. (SAAMI), we urge you to vote against SB 353.

Regards,

Paul Pluff Director of Marketing Services Smith & Wesson 2100 Roosevelt Ave Springfield, MA 01104 Phone: (413) 747-3252 Fax: (413)747-3677 mailto:[email protected]

2100 SsosevelH Avenue > PC 3a;i 2208 » SprcgSeld, SU 01102-2208 » 1-300-331-0852 »www.smilh-vjsssaajjsm 004179

jBW^jCBr ® Sinilh&Wesson

Exhibit 1-A

Common files, emery sand paper and polishing stones

Many common household tools such as these items that are available at any local hardware or home improvement store can be used to easily defeat micro-stamping

Exhibit 1-B Exhibit 1-C Exhibit 1-D

The micro stamping process laser's a control number on to parts that is approximately 25 microns in depth. (Half the thickness of the human hair). By using the lease aggressive item, the polishing stone that was purchased at a home improvement store, more then twice that depth of material used for the micro laser process can be removed with just a couple of swipes. Note Exhibit 1-C and 1-D showing two identical firing pins, one that has not been stoned and one that has. As seen in the images, the material forming top radius has been quickly removed leaving a flat surface. v

2100 Roosevelt tece = IF© Son 2208 ° SjicrjIMd, f.TA 01102-2208 * 1-800-331-0852 = vwusdclh-vjssscMam 004180

llSSB&L ® Smiih&Wessorf

Exhibit 2-A The functionality of the common semi-automatic pistol would cause those components with the micro-stamping to wear down the marking over a period of time leaving the identifier un-legible for matching cartridge to a make, model and serial number.

When pistol is fired, the firing pin comes forward to strike the primer of the cartridge igniting the round.

Exhibit 2-B

As the bullet exits the pistol, the slides starts to move rearward with the firing pin still in the forward position contacting the cartridge case.

2100 EbosevdS itaue « FO 3ais 2268 » Springfield, ilA 0) 102-2208 » 1-800-331-0852 " •.T.jiWHfiri-'.vesjaajom 004181

H^miBT (f|) Smiih&Wesson

Exhibit 2-C

As slide moves rearward, that barrel and spent cartridge drops downward to allow round to be ejected (Note that the firing pin still has not fully retracted form the cartridge case)

Exhibit 2-D

As the slide of the pistol fully retract and the barrel and casing are reaching the end of theirdownward movement, the firing pin is still engaged and not fully retracted.

2100 aoosevefo Aver.se > ?0 3uu 2203 • Spriagtield, M 01102-2208 » 1-360-331-6352 »wivw-stairt-wessaiuom 004182

3^MlM!r (j) Smith&Wesson

Exhibit 2-E

As the pistol cycles through its action, the spent cartridge case rubs against both the firing pin and the cartridge face of the slide causing wear to both surfaces.

Exhibit 2-F

Note the areas called by the arrow where the firing pin drags through the primer during the cycling of the pistol (primer swipe) and the areas within the circles where the casing has dragged against the cartridge face of the slide. This action will allow wear to both the firing pin and slide thus causing micro-stamping engraving to become un-legible.

2100 Roosevelt Avenue »PO Boa 2203 • SpriagJieM, fUA 011102-2203 -=> 1-300-331-0852 » wvra.smitb-wessoiuoni 004183

Smith & Wesson Coimectlcin Siipplteis (as of Dec 2008) Sendee 01 Company Confidential

1 2 TRI-TOWN PRECISION PLASTICS. INC Plastic Molded Parts 12BndqeSt Deep River CT 06417 170 Scott Goodspeed • 6 MEC-GAR USA INC (US Distributor) Maqazines 11SHurtevRoad.*6G Cotiord CT 06478 4 Edoardo RocheA 6 CONNECTICUT SPRING 8 STAMPING Sprmos and Stamped Part 48SpnnqLane Farmmaton CT 06032 475 Warn Stevenson 9 MKROBEST Machined Parts 670 Captain Neville Dr Watereury CT 08705 120 Bob Samuelson 16 PRECISION RESOURCE Stampmas 25 Forest Parkway Shelton CT 06484 175 Peter Wotott 17 ROBERT E MORRIS CO CNC Equipment 17TalcottNotchRd Farmmaton CT 06032 75 Brad Moms 19 ELECTRO-TECH INC . Machined Parts 480 Sand Bank Rd Cheshire CT 06410 50 Peter Romano 24 SSI MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES Machined Parts 675 Emmett St Bnrtol CT 06010 35 DaveFlonan 26 AMERICAN PRECISION PRODUCTS LLC Machined Parts 61 W&wDnq Brook Fram Rd WWertown CT 06795 1 MoeBoufard 28 CONN PKG MATERIALS WC Pockaqinq 85 S Satellite Rd S Windsor CT 06074 60 Lawrence Greenfield 30 SUPERIOR PLATING COMPANY Plstina Lacev Place Southport CT 06890 75 VanLuo

Connecticut based Suppliers Heedcount 1,240

Listing in Smith & Wesson Suppliers with the state of Connecticut.

2100 Rooseveli Avenue • P0 Box 2208 • Springfield, m 01102-2208 • 1-800-331-0352 » www.soiiJli-wesson.com 004184

March 15, 2009

John W. Kyser 710 Middle Turnpike West Manchester CT. 06040 (860) 647-1181

I am a Veteran of the United States Navy. I served as an Aviation Electronics technician as well as a member of the Base Security augmentation force at Naval Air Station, Lemoore, CA.

My background and history as it pertains to my testimony is that, I was employed at Colt's Manufacturing Co. as a Research and Development Test Coordinator. In this position I was responsible for auditing currant firearm designs as well as testing and evaluating new designs and/or materials. Due to the required field testing involved in this position I was a Certified Range Officer at Fort Devans Ma, and coordinator of the Colt's indoor 30 yard test range. Currently I hold NRA certification as a Range Safety Officer as well as instructor for the following disciplines. (Home Firearm Safety, Basic Pistol Safety, Personal Protection In The Home, Basic Rifle Safety, and Basic Shotgun Safety.

Mv Purpose here is to state my objection to the Following bill: Bill No. 353 AN ACT CONCERNING THE MICROSTAMPING OF SEMIAUTOMATIC "PISTOLS. t Micro Stamping is a new and unproved technology which can be defeated using common household materials quite easily. Laser etching does not penetrate deeply into hard materials and can easily be scraped, sanded or filed off. Usually it cannot be raised again. The very nature of metals and the function of a firearm can make the MICRO STAMPED information extremely distorted or even totally obliterated after prolonged shooting

During a "Capitol News Briefing" on March 3,2008, Joshua Horwitz of the (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence), Rep. Michael Lawlor (D), Sen. Andrew McDonald (D) and Rep. Bob Godfrey (D) inferred that they are relying on criminals to be stupid. They feel that criminals will not learn to pick up their brass after shooting. There are several inexpensive ways to catch or recover your fired brass as they are ejected from the firearm, or criminals could just choose to use revolvers. Also, these gentlemen only emphasized catching the perpetrator after a crime, not stopping or even reducing crime. Mr. Horwitz alluded to 1 test conducted by a private party in with no established testing procedures or unbiased witnesses.' During the demonstration at the end of the briefing, a gentleman stated that the only way to extend a firingpi n through the breach face of a pistol is to pull the trigger. That is not so. With most semi automatic pistols, when the slide is locked rearward you can push the firing pin forward until it protrudes from the breach face. Also, know that most semi automatic pistols can easily be disassembled to the point where the firing pin is removed from the gun. After either procedure the pin can easily be modified. Testing completed by the University of California at Davis, concluded that 2 of the 3 micro stampings are totally unreadable after 2500 rounds and the 3rd is starting to distort. In related research the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives found that the average time between when a criminally used firearm is purchased and when it is used in a crime is 10.2 years nationally, and 12.7 years in California. That implies a lot of deformation of the firing pin before a forensic technician will get a chance to attempt to match a crime gun to a cartridge at a crime scene. Last year when a similar micro stamping bill was introduced Rep. Michael Lawlor was asked "if someone shoots a lot for competition and breaks many firing pins, do we need to have extra pins micro stamped for that firearm?" Mr. Lawlor's reply:" I don't care what happens to the micro stamped firing pin after it leaves the factory/retailer. I just want it to have it when it does." To me this sounds as if he just wants to raise the cost and/or make it harder to manufacture firearms so the average AMERICAN CITIZEN cant afford them. An backdoor to circumvent the 2nd amendment to the BILL OF RIGHTS in the U.S. Constitution which has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. 004185

*This bill will only increase the already increasing cost of manufacturing firearms and easily be circumvented by criminals (even stupid ones). MICROSTAMPING WELL NOT reduce or prevent crime, but only hurt Firearms Manufacturers, Retailers and law-abiding citizens.

As a law abiding gun owner, a proud citizen of this country and a Veteran, I ask that before considering future firearms legislation you educate yourselves. Technologies like these should be thoroughly researched, tested and proven beyond a reasonable doubt before the government takes any action. They should be proven to stop or reduce crime greatly WITHOUT reducing law-abiding citizens right to self- defense and ability to enjoy shooting sports. Bills like this can not be penned and introduced without UNBIASSED research of the subject from ALL sides. Lest they be born from ignorance and/or arrogance. I do not know the wording of the oaths taken by state representatives and senators, but I am sure there is something in the oaths about "Defending and obeying the constitution" and nothing about changing it to reflect your personal interpretation or that of just the people who can talk to you face to face at the $1500 a plate fund raisers. They are only a SMALL part of the citizenry of the state of Connecticut and the Country.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments.

Thank You

John W. Kyser 004186

SoMlflapoDTi, CfflDBimecilaciiBit (0689CD M.S.A. "^5 !Tv* ALL RUGER FIREARMS ARE DESIGNED AND MANUFACTURED IN OUR OWN FACTORIES IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

March 16.2009

Testimony before Senate Judiciary Committee Committee Bill No. 353

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

My name is Kevin Reid and I am the Vice President and General Counsel of Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc., which is headquartered in Southport, Connecticut.

2009 is the 60* anniversary of Sturm, Ruger, which was founded in Southport by William B. Ruger, Sr. way back in 1949. The Company manufactures a full line of quality firearms, including rifles, pistols, shotguns and revolvers:

We strongly oppose Proposed Bill 353, which would mandate the use of microstmping technology oh semiautomatic pistols. As I am sure you know, microstamping is a patented, sole- sourced technology that laser-engraves the firearm's make, model and serial number on the tip of the gun's firing pin so that, theoretically, this information will be imprinted on the cartridge case when the gun is fired. Notably. Bill 353 would require these microscopic markings in at least two places within the pistol.

Contrary to what proponents of the technology allege, the technology is - at best - unproven. Research from nationally renowned scientists and professionals within the field reveals that microstamping technology is unreliable and does not function as the patent holder claims. For example, experts at the University of California, Davis, recently completed a study and found the technology "flawed," ultimately recommending against implementation of the California mandate to incorporate the technology into semiautomatic handguns. The study noted that "[fjurther testing, analysis and evaluation is required."

Similarly, an independent, peer-reviewed study of this patented technology published in the Journal of (IK Association of Firearms and Toolmarks Examiners (AFTE) demonstrated that the technology does not produce reliable results. The author of that study, Professor George Krivosta, examined cartridge cases previously imprinted by micro-laser engraved firing pins and found the markings illegible and non-reproducible. Moreover, tests conducted by Professor Krivosta using two other firing pins confirmed that the technology is unreliable. With one pin, the vast majority of markings were never imprinted on the cartridge cases, and those that did were difficult to decipher. With the other pin Professor Krivosta studied, ten separate cartridge cases were required to piece together the information contained on the firing pin. These results stand in stark contrast to the claims of the patent holder.

What is proven and demonstrable, however, is that the technology is easily defeated. The microscopic markings are engraved to a depth of only about 25 microns, which is approximately one-fourth the diameter of the average human hair at 100 microns. Think about that... one fourth the diameter of the average human hair. As a result, the markings can be removed in a 004187

matter of seconds using common household tools - a file, an emery board, or sandpaper. Because the amount of material necessary to remove or obliterate the markings is so slight, it can be achieved without any detrimental effect on the function of the firing pin, and therefore the firearm.

As the representative of a firearms manufacturer, I am deeply troubled by the efforts of some proponents of this technology to downplay the impact that implementation will have on the manufacturing process and cost of firearms. In fact, implementing this technology will have a dramatic impact on the manufacture of pistols, including the major redesign of a process. The simple fact is that most firearms parts are interchangeable and typically produced or purchased b bulk; certainly, that is the case with firing pins. Implementation of this technology would require the assembler to mate a particular firing pin with a particular firearms assembly, all based upon markings that he or she cannot observe without the aid of a scanning electron microscope. The difficulty is exacerbated by this particular bill because it requires markings in at least two places. The notion that these difficulties can be cheaply and easily overcome ignores both the reality of the manufacturing process and the burdens implementation would impose.

In effect, this bill seeks to require manufacturers to implement a costly, unproven, sole-source technology, without any demonstrated benefit. Any legislation being considered must always look at both the costs and the benefits of passage. Here, the costs are high and the benefits have yet to be established.

Under the circumstances, we believe this bill should not be allowed to proceed out of this Committee. Rather, we believe that additional study must be performed before implementation of this expensive, unproven and unreliable technology should even be seriously considered.

It is highly significant that, in March 2008, the National Research Council (NRC), an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, released a report that expressed deep concerns about this technology. In particular, the study thoughtfully explained "that for such a technology to be implemented successfully, in-depth investigations on several topics are needed... [including].. . the cost implications and feasibility of adding these technologies to established manufacturing processes."

We at Sturm, Ruger wholeheartedly agree.

Thank you.

Kevin B. Reid, Sr. Vice President and General Counsel Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. 004188

David Hodgman Jr. P.O. Box 403 Botsford CT. 06404 203-525-0956 March 13, 2009 Dear Representative:

It is my understanding that you are a member of the State of Connecticut Joint Committee on Judiciary, and will be reviewing the following raised bill regarding the micro-stamping of firing pins on handguns.

I urge you to oppose Raised Bill No. 353 Microstamping is a failed technology which simply doesn't work. Microstamping will not and can not achieve the stated purpose of the Bill, i.e., "To facilitate the linking of used cartridge cases to the firearm that fired them." What is the Problem with Micro-stamping? Microstamping is a process where a laser engraves the firearm's make, model and serial number on the tip of the gun's firing pin so that, in theory, it imprints the information on discharged cartridge cases. Please note that cartridges are only discharged from semiautomatic handguns; they are not discharged from revolvers.

A recent independent, peer-reviewed, study published in the professional scholarly journal for forensic firearms examiners proved that the technology of micro-stamping is not reliable and does not function as claimed. It can be easily defeated in mere seconds using common household tools, even a common finger nail file, or criminals could simply switch the engraved firing pin for readily available unmarked spare parts, thereby circumventing the technology.

Microstamping has no public safety value because it will have no effect on criminal use of firearms. However, it would add substantially to the manufacturing costs of companies like our own Colt industries, Charter Arms and US Arms potentially leading to a decision to move manufacturing jobs out of the State. Microstamping will add substantially to the cost of the firearms used for legal purposes by law abiding citizens, while illegal firearms will still abound. 004189

Further more because or ether removing the numbers from the firing pin with a finger nail file or just changing the firing pin, it can also be defeated with a cartridge cases catcher. Something as simple as a fish tank fishnet attached to the firearm it self is just one way to do this as well as taping a bag to the firearm,etc.. . The criminal are smart and will get past this. You can not go into Wal-Mart and buy cocaine, heroin, crack but they do get it, right? They will also just add guns to the list of drugs that are coming in from other countries. In addition this is bad for our already troubled economy forcing gun manufacturing companies to close or move to another state, closing gun shops. This also hurts the alarm companies that provide the burglar alarms, fire alarms, camera systems and maybe even card reader access systems. It affects the insurance companies that insure these companies if they are to go out of business. People will loss jobs and that is something we already have enough of here. ! That only adds to unemployment and welfare being paid out buy the state, lost homes hurting the banks that are already have ahard enough time with the high foreclosure rate. And let's not forget the tax dollars that come from all the types of companies that I mentioned. Also lets face it this hurts the good law abiding people in many ways and the criminal that are already braking the law will reap the rewards and do what they do best.

"You won't get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There's only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up, and if you don't actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time... It's a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience." Ronald Reagan, 1983

Your consideration of my request and the careful and thoughtful review of the above bill are greatly appreciated.

Respectfully yours,

David Hodgman Jr. 004190

March 16, 2009

Judiciary Committee Steven Loban Legislative Office Bldg 100 Barn Finch Circle Hartford, CT Naugatuck, CT 06770

Re: S.353a(Micro stamping) and S.358 (Minors Prohibited from Machine Guns or Assault Weapons)

Good Morning Chairman Lawlor, Chairman McDonald and members of the Committee. My name is Steve Loban, residing in Naugatuck and I am speaking in opposition to the Micro stamping and Minors gun bills.

It seems like a "deja vu" experience that a year ago almost to the day we were here, with most of the same people and now with many new faces debating the same issue as last year.

My question to the Committee is why is micro stamping a priority? Why is it on the agenda? We've heard the arguments before; no public safety value, not feasible; counterproductive; de facto new gun ban; unconstitutional in denying access to new pistols; and economically disastrous for the state.

Why hear it again? It has been defeated in every other state where it was introduced, except CA and CA doesn't know if it can be implemented. Why bring it back when its lobbyists suggested it not be considered at the federal level because of the problems with it in California?

Senator Looney believes micro stamping will have no impact on law abiding citizens, when in fact it will. Representative Dillon last year said, "...the concern is about crime and gun violence". Law abiding gun owners of this state are citizens affected by crime, too. We're your neighbors. We pay taxes. And we've asked to be consulted to work with the Committee on real solutions to no avail.

Regarding S.358 the concern here is with the term "Assault Weapon" It may include firearms commonly used in traditional shooting programs preventing shooters under age 18 to participate in National Matches and possibly clay target sports with many commonly used firearms. Please consider removing the term "Assault Weapon" and adhere to the BATFE definition of "Machine Gun" alone.

In closing, I want to refer to Rep. Mary Fritz's comment from last year: "I'm not sure we're headed down the right road with these bills." I ask then, what road is the Committee seeking to travel?

I would welcome an opportunity to engage the Committee to answer questions and help explore other roads to reduce crime and preserve the rights of the People which we all have an obligation to uphold.

The Micro stamping bill offers nothing to aid law enforcement and everything to deny Connecticut citizens access to new pistols.

Thank you,

Steven Loban 004191

Fraternal Order of Poike Connecticut State Lodge One Grace Place, Suite #301 New Britain, Cowusdkul 06O51

Sent Sfotnqr • tepftd(od|t2$tsU«n Dwibmy Office: 2CJ-790-C3«7 Fw: 2«.7M-

Michael P. Lawlor Co-Chairman Joint Ccmaiittee on Judicial Room 2500. Legislative Office Building Hartford. CT 06106 March 13,2009

I aa writing oa behalf of the members of the Connecticut Stare Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police to share with you a letter from our National President Chuck Canterbury to the former U.S. Attorney General. Michael B. Mukasey, regarding the FOP's concern about "firearms microstamping;" The proponents of this new technology are pushing legislation, S.B. 353, •which would require all seaiautonwUc pistols sold in Connecticut to employ nuonstazaping-^pB^itsd, sde-sourced technology that uses a micrcUacr to engrave the make, model and serial number of (he firearm nr tie tip of the firing pia. As oar National President makes clear ia hi* letter, the utility of this new technology is suspect at best

While the legislation was billed as & tool to help "catca criciicals," the trutb is tbat in most cases the technology will not be .helpful to criminal mvestigarors. Aa c Uxor naforc«nect officer here is Connecticut, I welcome any sew technology that will assist in the capture and successful prosecution of crirainals-cspccially those that use firearms. 1 am simply not convinced that every firearms crime, or even a significant portion of them, will be solved by running a number through a database.

In light of the limited use of this technology for fighting crane, I would like to urge you, on behalf of the more than 1300 members of the Connecticut FOF, to delay ixnjdementatton of the law until such time as the Federal government has conducted an io-dfipth study of raicrostainping technology to evaluate its uwestigatory value.

Thank you, as always, for taking the views of the Fraternal Order of Police into consideration. If yon seed any additional information on this issue, please do not hesitate to contact roe directly. Sincerely,

John Flynn President Connecticut state Lodge, Fraternal Older of Police Good day ladies and gentleman. 3 -16-2009 My name is Noelle Feucht and I am hear to voice my opposition to the Micro-stamping bill before us today 1 was born and raised in the Midwest with two incredibly loving parents, my father a welder for John Deere who later became disabled with a broken back, and a working mother who worked 5 jobs to feed her family. I moved to this great state of CT in 1988 and have chosen to make this my home because of it's beauty and diverse outdoor activities. I was raised under the beliefs of any good American family being taught to think for myself and learning to choose right over wrong

This bill before us today is absolutely a 3 fold issue I am personally up against if it is allowed to pass 1.1 am a SINGLE WOMAN living in CT and a home owner and my second amendment rights to defend myself are in jeopardy. This bill directly effects my right to protect myself in my home, in my personal life whether it be while out on a date or in a parking lot. Being that I am a woman frequently traveling throughout the state, this bill will absolutely take away my right to carry a newly purchased handgun. Being that there are no manufacturers using this micro-stamping currently,.all new handguns would become illegal in this state. I am guaranteed,by the 2nd amendment my individual right to defend myself in all of the above circumstances.

2 I am a FIREARMS ENGRAVER. Engraving firearms, including hand guns, is my livelihood. If this ban is allowed to pass, my income will be directly affected as well as the sales of new Hand guns from everyone from the mom and pop gun supply store as well as such institutions as Cabela's. These gunsmiths, stores and new handgun owners are my customers. These guns can be used for protection, leisure activity at a gun range or for pure collection and decoration. Passing this bill will effect my business and the businesses throughout the state in an already struggling economy.

3. Lastly. I am the face of an OUTDOOR SPORTSMAN in CT. I am your neighbor I am your daughter, I am your sister. I am your wife and I am your friend. I belong to several clubs including Ansonia Rod and Gun, Pahquioque in Danbury, and CT Travelers Sporting Clays Assoc along with hundreds of other women and thousands of men throughout his state, not to mention the countless other clubs that I frequently visit in Connecticut. I want to keep my right to shoot at clubs throughout the entire state and want this to remain the status quo whether it be with a long firearm or a newly purchased handgun at a local indoor pistol range, sporting clays event, or on the skeet and trap field This is a choice I have made as a free citizen of the country to be able to spend my leisure time as I see fit,

This is the United States of America, and our 2nd Amendment rights are being violated It is my right guaranteed to me by the Constitution of this United States that I have the right to Bear Arms" Thank you for your time.

Noelle Feucht, 27 Weantinock Dr., New Milford, CT 06776 860-210-0160 004193

Good Day Chairman Lawlor, Chairman McDonald and members of the Judiciary Committee, my name is Cheryll Pittera and I live in Fairfield Connecticut. As a mother and citizen I share concerns about crime. However, I must express my opposition against S.353 the microstamping bill.

Bill S.353 will not work for the reasons stated by others here today in opposition. I believe it will deprive law abiding citizens and mothers like me of their Right to keep and bear arms by depriving them of new pistols as of January 1,2011.

My shooting sport of choice is clay target shooting. So why is an avid shot gun shooter here today? We do not believe this is just about the pistols you have targeted. Myself, and all those with a heritage like mine, believe that this is a movement to restrict firearms, period. It is about satisfying an anti-gun lobby that will be asking you to pass a flawed legislation on shotguns down the road.

Let me show you something. This is from a 1915 trap shooting competition in Danbury CT. This is one of the oldest gun clubs in New England and I have the privilege of serving on the Board of Directors. The heritage of these ladies' has been passed down through generations. Just our little club sees about 700 of their grandsons and great granddaughters shooting with us each year. There are many, many, families with a shotgun heritage in CT. They use shotguns for sports like mine or hunting or to protect themselves in their home.

My friends and fellow shot gun owners believe that we have every reason to expect that the anti-gun element pushing this flawed piece of legislation will target shotguns in the future. And it is only logical that if you support this legislation affecting law abiding citizen's access to pistols, we will see equally or more flawed legislation passed, affecting our shotguns. If the rights of law abiding citizens who choose to own pistols aren't upheld then there is no reason for us to believe that our rights as shotgun owners will be upheld either.

I ask you to please stop this now by not passing this S.353. Enforce the existing laws, please look at mandatory sentencing for criminal acts with guns, but please do not pass flawed legislation that will keep law abiding mothers like me from haying the choice of buying the pistols we need for protection. Don't open the door for another piece of legislation that will also affect our access to shotguns. Thank you.

Cheryll Pittera Fairfield Ct 203-257-4343 004194

March 18,2CC9: Hearing before the Committes on the Judiciary

Good day, distinguished members of the Committee on the Judiciary I am here to testify in OPPOSITION to SB353 AM ACT CONCERNING THE MICROSTAMPING OF SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOLS

My name is Tom Violante I'm a New Haven resident and a current member of the New Haven Raccoon Club with 235 members with families who hunt, fish and engage in the shooting and archenysports I'm one of 5 election volunteer coordinators with the NRA in CT who works with thousands of voters in Congressional District 4 to vote for federal and state candidates who support the Second Amendmeni and Connecticut's own Article 1, Section 15

I defer to the experts who have testified before me and who follow about the technical and scientific reasons this bill is a waste of taxpayer time at these hearings and taxpayer money to propose this in the first place I don't ever doubt Senator Loone/s sincerity in seeking ways to stop cnmes committed with guns, but he is misinformed byso-called experts in support of microstamping that this will prevent cnminals from usingiguns in crimes It won't

Dunng these dire times with budgetaryshortJalls, why do legislators see fit to spend our money researching and proposing frivolous bills like microstamping, which has only been passed in California, a state that has a $33 billion dollar deficit, can't figure out how to implement mrcrostampincj?

Your oath of office says "that you will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the Slate of Connecticut," both of which contain articles insunng that we, the people, shall keep and bear arms Microstamping seeks to modify these two constitutional rights in violation of your oath It's a de facto effort to infringe on gun ownership rights, an act in iteelf contrary to federal and state constitutions The U S Supreme Court's decision in the District of Columbia versus Heller case states that the Second Amendment is exactly what it says, that we have a nght to keep and bear arms and that nght shall not be infringed

Microstamping won't reduce the criminal misuse of firearms but will prevent law-abiding citizens from buying firearms that will be prohibitively expensive Criminals will continue to buy black market guns and, deface serial numbers and microstamped information Enforce the hundreds of laws already on the books to severely punish criminals who commit crimes with guns Impose a mandatory 10-year sentence for gun cnmes Punish or remove prosecutors and judges who make plea deals to eliminate gun charges and lower sentence terms Fully fund task forces that remove illegal guns from the streets and gun-using criminals from society If s the USER that kilts with a gun, with a knife or with a car, not the INSTRUMENT or its manufacturer

Shall we microstamp knives'? Baseball bats'' Automobiles? Crowbars'? All have been misused by criminals to commit cranes Act responsibly by OPPOSING SB353 Please don't punish We, the People, the law-abiding citizens of Connecticut who respect the law and act within the law We took valuable and costly time off from our |obs today to come before you and ask that you uphold the federal and state constitutions and allow the nght of the people to keep and bear arms, without infringement

Quick Facts About Microstamping 1 It can be easily defeated in seconds using common household tools. 2 Criminals could simply switch the engraved firingpi n for readily available unmarked spare parts, thereby circumventing the technology 3 Cnminals can and will easily defeat micro-s'tamping for the same reason they now deface the senal number on to avoid detection by law enforcement 4 Criminals won't buy microstamped pistols because they get 80% of them from the black market 5 Criminals will be able to confuse the police and send them on "wild goose" chases by simply throwing around at crime scenes expended cartridge casings (having a make, model and senal number impnnted on them) fromothe r firearms Expended shell casings would be widely available at shooting ranges all across the state 6 Cnminals can avoid the technology by simply using firearms that do not e|ect shell casings, i e revolvers, thus leaving no casing at the cnme scene 7 Cnminals modify their behaviors and will always find ways to obtain firearms If this technology were mandated, it would only affect purchases by law-abiding citizens 8 Micro-stamping firearms will not reduce crime Irs a faulty assumption that most criminals obtain the firearms they use to commit cnme from federally licensed firearm retailers A 1997 U S Dept of Justice survey of prison inmates shows they obtain firearmspnmanl y - about 80% - from the illegal black market and from friends and family 004195

March 16, 2009: Hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary

Although I couldn't be present at this hearing, I wish to submit my written testimony

Good day, distinguished members of the Committee on the Judiciary My name is Cheryl Violante I am a resident of New Haven and I hereby submit my written testimony in OPPOSITION to SB353, AN ACT CONCERNING THE MICROSTAMPING OF SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOLS

I oppose this bill about microstamping because:

1 It can be easily defeated in seconds using common household tools 2 Cnminals could simply switch the engraved firing pin for readily available unmarked spare parts, thereby circumventing the technology 3 Cnminals can and will easily defeat micro-stamping for the same reason they now deface the senal number on to avoid detection by law enforcement 4 Cnminals won't buy microstamped petols because they get 80% of them from the black market 5 Criminals will be able to confuse the police and send them on "wild goose" chases by simply throwing around at cnme scenes expended cartridge casings (having a make, model and senal number imprinted on them) from other firearms Expended shell casings would be widely available at shooting ranges all across the state 6 Cnminals can avoid the technology by simply using firearms that do not eject shell casings, i e revolvers,thu s leaving no casing at the cnme scene 7 Criminals modify their behaviois and will always find ways to obtain firearms If this technology were mandated, it would only affect purchases by law-abiding citizens 8 Mcro-stamping firearms will not reduce crime Irs a faulty assumption that most cnminals obtain the firearms they use to commit cnme from federally licensed firearm retailers A1997 U S Depl of Justice survey of prison inmates shows they obtain firearms pnmanly - about 80% - from the illegal black market and from friends and family 9 Systems that capture ballistics images of firearms have been shown to be ineffective in solving cnme After several years of operation at a cost of millions to taxpayers, none have resulted in a single aim inal conviction, nor have they yielded meaningful, investigative leads {m a recent report the Maryland State Police reviewed the failures of their system, as well as the equally dismal results of the New York system, and recommended to the Maryland legislature that their system

be de-funded and repealed See Maryland State Police ForensKSaences Division, MD-'BIS Progress Report #2, September 2004 10 As with ballistics imaging, there rs a serious "chain of custody" problem that renders any information derived from the technology essentially worthless from an evidentiary point of view 11 Peer-reviewed, study by forensic firearms examiners proved that the technology B unreliable and does not function as the patent holder claims 12 Experts at the University of California, Davis, recently concluded that this patented technology was "flawed'' and that it shouldn't be implemented, that it requires further testing 13 NSSf and major taw enforcement organrzations are opposed to this unproven and unreliable technology 14 The cost of this dubious technology would not only have forced consumers of firearms to pay exorbitant price increases - as much as $200 per firearm - to cover the increased cost of microstamping, but substantially higher taxes for the cost of microstamped law enforcement guns 15 Three comprehensive studies have been done on firearms microstamping and concluded that the patented, sole-sourced technology of firearms microstamping IS easily defeated by Cnminals, flawed, unreliable (ProfessorGeorgel

University of California at Daws, and most recently the National Academy of Sciences "Further studies are needed on the duraMity of microstamping marks under various Snng

conditions and their suscept&nSty to tampenng, as wen as on the their cost impact for manufacturers and consumers'-National Academy of Science Study Implementing this

technology wis be much more complicated than burning a serial number on a few parts and dropping thetti into firearms being manufactured" - Professor George Knvosta, The professional scholarly journal for forensic firearms examiners "At the current time it is not recommended that a mandate for implementation of this technology be made further testing,

analysis and evaluation is required" - University ofCatforma at Davis on Firearms Microstamping) 16 There is no peer-reviewed study by a criminalist or forensic science expert that has examined the question of whether micro-laser engraving firearms would be an effective means of reducing the criminal misuse of firearms

Please vote to OPPOSE SB353 and support our nghts to keep and bear arms according to our state and federal constitutions 004196

Testimony

To Judiciary Committee

Hearing on Proposed Bill No. 353 LCO No. 1672 AN ACT CONCERNING THE MICROSTAMPING OF SIM A UTOMATIC PISTOLS

By Drue Hontz Jr

Monday, March 16,2009 Judiciary Committee staff in Room 2500

Judiciary Committee members, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Drue Hontz Jr. I am resident of Old Saybrook, Connecticut. My interest is in any legislation that intends to protect Connecticut citizens and their families. This is the single most important issue facing our society and way of life. I am married with 3 children 9,11, and 13. My interest in the public's safety is purely selfish: I want my family_to be safe. I am the holder of a Connecticut State Permit to Carry Pisfols and Revolvers. I have not ever made a living or been paid by any company or individual of a gun manufacture or lobby group. I am here representing myself and my family.

Today more than ever there is a concern of Connecticut citizens for their personal safety. This can be heard in the coffee shop, work place, soccer games, and gun stores. The home invasion and heinous crime and murder committed in Cheshire in 2007 is one example of the stories that add to our lack of security. The Cheshire incident happened to be my neighborhood. My family moved to Old Saybrook 18 months before that horrific crime, yet my wife and I did not sleep for 6 months.

As you are aware, the surge in gun sales and pistol permits show that the citizens of Connecticut feel a need to protect themselves from the "bad guys". These levels are setting new records.

The focus of my testimony today is the Proposed Bill No. 353 LCO No. 1672 AN ACT CONCERNING THE MICROSTAMPING OFSIMIAUTOMA TIC PISTOLS

Although I feel it is necessary to pass new legislation trying to make our society safer, I must strongly disagree with the referenced Proposed Bill.

1 I P a g e 004197

In an effort to save paper (since 45 copies are required to be submitted to the committee for testimony), I have copied some highlights of the Executive Summary from a study on Microstamping that was mentioned on 60 Minutes and aired on CBS.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION: FEASIBILITY OF A BALLISTICS IMAGING DATABASE FOR ALL NEW HANDGUN SALES Frederic A. Tulleners, Laboratory Director Sacramento and Santa Rosa Criminalistics Laboratories Bureau of Forensic Services California Department of Justice 4949 Broadway Room F201 Sacramento, CA 95820 October 5, 2001

In an effort to save time I will only read the items highlighted in yellow.

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Summary Automated computer matching systems do not provide conclusive results. Rather, a list of potential candidates are presented that must be manually reviewed. When applying this technology to the concept of mass sampling of manufacturedfirearms, a huge inventory ofpotential candidates will be generated for manual review. This study indicates that this number of candidate cases will be so large as to be impractical and will likely create complications so great that they cannot be effectively addressed.

l.l Firearms Identification and Automation The concept of automated imaging was originally developed to aid the firearms examiner in keeping track of open case files Open case files refer to those cases in which an evidence cartridge^ case or bullet could not be linked to any firearms in the possession of law enforcement at the time of examination. In 1994 the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) validated the concept of ballistics imaging offirearms evidence in the forensic science community (consisting of bullets and cartridge cases in which they could be automatically compared to evidence specimens for preliminary correlation). There are several issues associated with an automated imaging concept that have to be considered. These relate to issues that impact the efficacy of the use of ballistics imaging when applied to large numbers of commercially producedfirearms These are- 1. Current imaging systems require trained personnel, ideally a firearms examiner, for entry, searching and verification. The use of technicians typically results m higher numbers of false positives that need to be microscopically compared. 2. Current systems may not be as efficient for rimfire firearms and are limited to auto loading weapons Proposed systems will not practically accommodate revolvers, rim fires, certain shotguns and rifles. A large proportion of firearms sold in CA may never make entry into the system. 3 It is unknown at this time whether or not the algorithm can successfully ID a

2 | P a g e cartridge case fired after typical break-in and wear have occurred back to the #1 casing fired at the time of manufacture. Performance Test #7 (See page 8-11) showed that even in a limited database, the ranking ofsubsequently fired casings could drop enough to fallfrom.a candidate list for'consideration. Typically quoted existing research/papers regarding persistence offired marks on fired cartridge cases were written based on manual comparison by qualified firearms examiners, not automated correlation techniques

1-2 4 All potential "hits " selected for further inspection by computer correlation must be confirmed by "hands on " microscopic examination by a qualified firearms examiner

5. Firearms that generate markings on cartridge casings can change with use and can also be readily altered by the user. They are not permanently defined identifiers like fingerprints or DNA. Hence, images captured when the firearm is produced may not have a fixed relationship to fired cartridge casings subsequently recovered. 6. Cartridge casings from different manufacturers of ammunition may be marked differently by a single firearm such that they may not correlate favorably. 7. As progressively larger numbers of similarly producedfirearms are entered into the database, images with similar signatures should be expected that would make it more difficult to find a link Therefore, this increase in database size does not necessarily translate to more hits. 8 Fired cartridge casings are much easier to enter, correlate, and review than fired bullets. 9 Not all firearms generate markings on cartridge casings that can be identified back to the firearm

1.5 Results of the Performance Tests The performance tests have provided some results that indicate both the potential and limitations of a statewide database. Most of these results have not been mixed in a current real-life database. The combination of this test database and a current real-life database would have improved the information about correlation performance Computer Capability and Speed The IBIS system appears to have the potential to be scalable and should be capable of operating with a large California database This would not be for real time analysis since each search of a hypothetical 100,000-cartridge case database would require 1 5 hours using current hardware Effect of Cartridge Case Ranking and Database Size As a database was increased in size by a factor of 7 (100 to 700), the position or ranking of test-evidence cartridge cases, initially in the 1st ten ranks, would change (with one exception) to undetectable ranks. This change in rank could be sufficient enough that an examiner might not link the test/evidence cartridge case to one in a larger database If the test/evidence cartridge case was in the first or second rank, it had a tendency to stay in these ranks when there was a four-fold increase in database size The interpretation of this is that one would like to see a cold hit in the 1st or 2nd position (rank) for large databases

3 I Page 004199

Comparison of Cartridge Cases from the Same Manufacture The system looked at 50 duplicate test fired cartridge cases selected at random from the 792 Federal cartridge cases in the database. The results for these same ammunition tests are as follows: • 38% were missed and not in the top 15 ranks. • 48% with either the breech face or firing pin were in the 1st rank. • 62% with either the breech face or firing pin or both were in the top 15 ranks.

Comparison of Cartridge Cases from the Different Manufactures The system looked at 72 test fired cartridge cases using different ammunition and fired from random CHP guns. The results for the different ammunition tests are as follows: 1-5 f 62.5% were missed and not in the top 15 ranks. • 22.2% with either the breech face or firing pin in the 1st rank ' 37.5% with either the breech face or firing pin or both in the top 15 ranks. The reason figures are quoted for 1st rank and the top 15 ranks is that one may want to use the percentages for the 1st rank with large databases in order to more accurately estimate cold hit rates. Database size can become a key issue for potential identifications This performance test illustrates the effect that the change of a cartridge can have on the perceived signature or image of a breech face or firing pin. Different cartridges can have this effect on the apparent signature because the impression may not mark in a similar manner with the same level of detail6. The algorithm is still doing its basic job of identifying similar images, thus the algorithm cannot be faultedfor its lack of identification if the apparent image is different. By increasing image quality or correlating images with different illumination methods there exists the potential for improving the algorithm hit rate.

This is one of several studies that show the process known as Microstamping being very expensive with little to gain and the potential to be slower and less accurate than the current IBIS system we use today.

I applaud your efforts to work on legislation to help protect the citizens of Connecticut, but I must beg you to not pass a bill that will use valuable budget dollars that could have a much bigger impact on crime such as more police officers on the streets or more prosecutors to help put criminals behind bars.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,

Drue Hontz Jr

4 | P a g e 004200

Marshall K. Robinson Firearm & Tool Mark Examiner 937 Prospect Road Cheshire, CT 06410 203-271-2378

SB 353

Any identifying micro etched or engraved markings that may be put on the tip of a firing pin will be subject to significant wear. The markings are delicate and microscopic in nature and will not last. They are also extremely easy to remove or change to the extent that it could be done with your wife's nailboard.

There are another phenomena that you are not aware of and two of them are called "firing pin drag" and "double strikes". Firing pin drag very often occurs in automatic and semi-automatic firearms when the breech begins to open and the barrel pivots down while the firing pin is still forward. When this happens the firing pin will drag and dig a furrow from the firing pin impression toward the outer diameter of the primer, thus obliterating any data that may have been present on the tip of the firing pin. Double strikes are common and are caused by the firing pin bouncing and striking the primer a second time. I am guessing that Mr. Lizzotte showed you only best case scenarios and you bought it.

I have not heard anyone mention the use of proof loads and their effect on the microscopic array of characters that are supposed to impress themselves in the cartridge case. Do you know that proof loads are about 50% more powerful than standard loads? They are used by every manufacturer to test and confirm the strength of their firearm before it is sold to the public. Add this to the other important different characteristics of ammunition that will have a huge effect on your proposed program. Some of the others are, primer and case metal hardness, different metals such as copper, brass, steel and nickel plated primers. These are very important considerations, which the state has no control over but will greatly, affect the success of this proposed system. Keep in mind that the characters that you wish to be transferred to the primer or cartridge case are microscopic in nature and are extremely delicate and not made to withstand chamber pressures in the neighborhood of 33,000 to 35,000 Pounds Per Square Inch such as will be found in many handgun cartridges.

The proposed law reads that the microscopic array of characters must be present in two or more locations on the firearm. Wherever the second area is, the same arguments that I am making apply as it did with firing pins, above. The second area that you may be thinking about could be the breechface area of the firearm. If so, there are other considerations that you must be made aware of.

www.robinsonforensics.com Email [email protected] r 004201

First is the delicate nature on the microscopic array of characters and their tendency to collapse under pressure. Second is the propensity of firearms to deposit soot, partially burned powder residue, lubricant, soil, and other materials throughout the firearm during use. That's why we.clean them. All of this residue will "clog" the microscopic array of characters and further help to defeat their legibility. Third is that the chamber pressure on some firearms is not sufficient to properly impress the microscopic array of characters into the cartridge case material, it being made of brass, aluminum., or steel. In fact, if steel cased cartridges are used in any of the targeted handguns, it will completely destroy the microscopic array of characters. Fourth is the fact that cartridge case heads are not smooth areas of metal. Each is impressed with nomenclature by the manufacturer such as the makers name, caliber, date of manufacture, logos, and other information deemed necessary. This information appears as depressed areas of letters, numbers, and characters into which your microscopic array of characters could not be impressed or stamped.

Based on my experience and training, it totally unfeasible in rimfire firarms; rimfire being mainly 22 caliber, and one of the most popular calibers in existence.

If you want to say that the removal of any of these markings will be illegal, I say to you that that will make no difference to the persons who are using firearms for illegal purposes. It is already illegal to obliterate markings on firearms and I see it all the time. Murder and assault are illegal but we see it every day.

The idea that a police officer at a crime scene could read the markings put on it by the firearmi s ludicrous. This is what I and a small handful of others in this state do for a living and I can tell you that it requires the use of a good microscope and two to three years of training. Further, if we could read the markings that you want that might be impressed on the cartridge case it still would not be conclusive proof that the cartridge case was fired in the. questioned handgun. We, as firearms examiners, would be required to make the usual comparisons of firing pin impressions; breechface marks, chamber marks, extractor marks, and ejector marks to sufficiently identify the gun to the cartridge case.

In closing, I would like to offer each and every one of you the opportunity to visit a real firearmslaborator y and see real cartridge case and bullet evidence so you may have a better idea of what it is you are trying to do. I am sure that the State

2 004202

Police Forensic Laboratory would make the same offer. At least we did before I retired from there. You may reach me at 203--5-H£'-5214.

If you and the court would focus your attentions on enforcing and PROSECUTING our existing laws a lot more would be achieved toward cutting down on firearm-related crimes. One of the first things to be subbed down or negotiated away for a plea to a more serious crime is the gun violatioa Pass a law that makes it mandatory to prosecute for gun related crimes instead of harassing honest gun owners and manuifacturers.

3 004203

COLT'S MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC P.O BOX 1868, HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06144-1868, 860/236-6311

CARLTON S CHEN VICE PRESIDENT, GENERAL COUNSEL & SECRETARY

(860) 244-1315 office (860) 244-1475 facsimile [email protected] e-mail

March 16, 2009

Joint Committee on Judiciary Room 2500, Legislative Office Building Hartford, CT 06106

Re: SB 353 - Microstamping Bill

Dear Honorable Members of the Committee:

This bill is sheer lunacy. The microstamping concept is unproven, ineffective, and has no support from the forensic firearms community. Even if microstamping of semi-automatic pistols were to become a commercially viable technology, and it is far away from being so, Colt would face a dilemma: either stop selling semi• automatic pistols in the State of Connecticut or spend millions of dollars to accomplish this and try to pass on the costs to our customers.

What would be involved to adopt this concept? Our entire manufacturing process would need to be changed to accommodate micro-serialization of multiple firearm parts, requiring us to scrap our existing equipment. A logistical nightmare would ensue matching frames, firing pins (usually purchased from vendors), extractors, ejectors and/or slides. A host of electron microscopes would be necessary to read serial numbers on various parts. Interchangeable parts that have been Samuel Colt's contribution to the American Industrial Revolution ironically would no longer be able to be practiced in the State where he built his Colt Armory.

To give you an idea of microstamping's catastrophic effect on Colt, attached is a 2009 Colt catalog. Model "O" pistols on pages 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 are all semi-automatic and would be subject to this microstamping mandate.

If we can no longer sell these products in Connecticut without a microstamping feature and there results a precipitous drop in demand for our Model "O" pistols, we would have no other option than to lay off our workers who have good paying jobs in Connecticut. At that point, we would need to give serious consideration about moving out of state.

Please therefore reject SB 353. This bill is an anti-gun bill whose only purpose is to wreak havoc on the firearms and ammunition industry. It has nothing whatsoever to do with public safety or solving crimes.

Sincerely,

attachment 004204 he story ol Colt, the firearms company, is written indelibly across the pages ol 173 years ot history There are millions ol arms bearing the Coll name, The attesting to the company's keen knowledge of shooters' needs coupled with the ability to deliver a quality product legend himsell Sam Coll as a young sailor at -.m More than (our hundred distinct models of handguns and longarms ol muzzle and breech loading designs, together with thousands ol variations 16. carves his idea Irom mod that would and subtypes, are included in this phenomenal accomplishment become the liisl Coll revoh/ei

Our legacy for the twenty first century will rest on how well we lay the groundwork today for creating a company that continues to be responsive to consumer needs, and depends as much on inventiveness and innovation as it does on technology We are striving to meet this challenge and to guarantee a secure place (or Colt in the pages of history in the decades to come

r'\ In keeping with our tradition of meeting wish lists for our customers, we proudly introduce for 2009 • THE COLT RAIL GUN® PISTOL - page 6 • THE DELTA ELITE® - page 12 • THE COMBAT ELITE® page 12 • THE SPECIAL COMBAT GOVERNMENT CARRY PISTOL - page 14 • THE MODERN MASTERS SINGLE ACTION ARMY REVOLVER® - page 19 • THE PRESENTATION GRADE PISTOL-page 19 • NEW AGENT® DAO PISTOL (available later in the year) • THE GOVERNMENT MODEL® DAO PISTOL (available later in the year) „

As we continue to work hard for your expectations, 2010 will be no different With new models and product lines constantly being updated and engineered, Coil's Manufacturing Company LLC will proudly unveil to the public in January of 2010 • THE COLT TACTICAL PISTOL o Q

Get a Legend, Get a Colt!™ www.Coltsmfg.com COLT SINGLE ACTION ARMY® REVOLVER

THE LEGEND LIVES ON!

Introduced in 1873, no Colt revolver has earned greater fame than the Single Action Army®, The Peacemaker®. In design ^ - and performance, in line and form, no more sculptural and practical Colt has ever been created Movies serve as constant reminders of the role this equalizer played in winning the West

Large numbers of knock-offs and look-alikes have never been able to replace the real Colt Records on the SAA Revolver are a Who's Who of action-oriented Amencans of the late 19th and early 20th centunes Among others, they include such names as Buffalo Bill Cody, Theodore Roosevelt, Judge Roy Bean, Pawnee Bill Lilly, Captain Jack Crawford, Wyatt Earp, Pat Garrett, General George Patton and many others

FEATURES: AVAILABLE OPTIONS:

Barrel Lengths: • Outstanding design and performance Calibers: 3 n • Blue finish with color case hardened frame • 357 • 4/4 barrel length, 10%" overall length barrel length, 11" overall length • Black composite Eagle grips • 32/20 • 5V2" • .38 Special • Vfi barrel length, 13" overall length • 2nd Generation style cylinder bushing • .45 Long Colt • Available with a variety of custom options • 44/40 Finishes: • 38/40 • Blue / Color Case Hardened • Nickel

4^ P1870 P1841 - BLUE - NICKEL - .45 LONG COLT - .45 LONG COLT - 7.5" BARREL - 4.75" BARREL 9 THE RETURN OF THE COLT FRONTIER® SIX SHOOTER

LIMITED RUN!

2008 brings the revival of a Colt Peacemaker® classic - The Colt Frontier Six Shooter" When manufacturing started in 1877, the Colt Frontier Six Shooter quickly became adopted as the firearm of choice by those carrying a .44/40 rifle." The fact that it became the frontiersman's workhorse is evidenced by the fact that very few are found in peak condition The reintroduction in 2008 offers a replica handgun to the enthusiasts who seek only the finest in craftsmanship. This reincarnation of the Frontier Six Shooter is manufactured with a black powder style frame, an etched panel style roll marking, and barrel lengths available not only in 4 %, and 5 Vz, but also the highly sought after and collectible 7 Vi This fine Peacemaker will be treasured for generations to come, and once again proving Colt's commitment to quality.

FEATURES: AVAILABLE MODELS:

• Outstanding design and performance P2940 FSS • Blue finish with Color Case hardened frame • 43/T barrel • Black Composite Eagle Grips • 2nd Generation style cylinder bushing P2950 FSS • Etched Panel Style Barrel • 5W barrel • Black-powder Frame • 44/40 P2970 FSS • 7%" barrel - ^

,1

PZ97D FSS P2950 FSS P2840 FSS ,y.A"\©

3 THE RETURN OF THE COLT SHERIFF'S & STOREKEEPER'S MODEL

LIMITED RUN!

Finally.. .a Sheriff's Model that has the originator's name, Cott, stamped on the side. From its original design commencement in 1882, the Sheriff's & Storekeeper's Model was destined to be a frontrunner For 2008, Colt carries on its tradition and hentage of fine craftsmanship by reintroducing one of the original concealed carry handguns with .45 caliber stopping power Built on a black powder frame, the Sheriff's Storekeeper copies its original concept in a 3 inch Sheriffs, or 4 inch barrel Storekeeper. Both calibers and barrel lengths include the two-line address on top of the barrel, and are manufactured with an ejector-less barrel.

Once again, Colt proves that if it doesn't say Colt, it's just a copy

FEATURES: AVAILABLE MODELS:

• Outstanding design and performance P2830S .45LC P2930S .44/40 • Blue finish with Color Case hardened frame • 3" barrel • 3° barrel • Black Composite Eagle Grips • 2nd Generation style cylinder bushing P2836S .45LC P2936S .44/40 • Barrel with no Ejector Rod • 4° barrel • 4° barrel • Black-powder Frame

{( ; /-V/. »hO] 00 ,6 COLT 1918 WWI REPLICA

LIMITED RUN ON THIS DECORATED WAR VETERAN!

A faithful reproduction of the WWI Model 1911 U.S. Military sidearm, this vintage limited run of only 4,000 units is an accurate reproduction of the design after the early 1918 "Black Army". In order to increase production for the US Military's needs during WWI, the standard Carbonia Blue finish was changed to a finish that was almost black; hence the "Black Army"

Throughout American History, Colt's weapons have given American Servicemen the ability and confidence to succeed in combat. ^ As the Colt Walker™ and Peacemaker® revolvers contributed immeasurably to American success in past conflicts, Colt's 1911 V> pistols and their descendents were in the hands of confident, WWI, WWII, Korean and Vietnam American Servicemen. In recognition ol the contribution of the Colt .45, Colt reproduces it in detail, including packaging. Each 01918 "Black Army" will be shipped with \1 an original WWI style screwdriver, a vintage ordnance manual, and Colt original craft-styled packaging.

FEATURES:

Reproduction based on the original 1911 blueprints Tapered blade front sight Series 70 firing system Black Oxide finish Original rollmarks and inspector marks Forged knurled slide stop 5" barrel with wide hood Knurled thumb safety and magazine catch Smooth, straight mainspring housing with lanyard loop WWI-style screwdnver and original manual included WWI-style manual thumb and grip safety Two 7-round magazines

O "* o COLT RAIL GUN™

History Meets Modern Era. The Colt Rail Gun has arrived!

Colt's Manufacturing Company LLC continues to take the battle and time proven M1911 pistol and adapt it to meet changing requirements by its customers with its newly introduced model 01070RG Where quality and workmanship are demanded, Colt once again meets and exceeds expectations of its customers. This new handgun is marketed with new and exciting features for the law enforcement community, the shooting\ enthusiast, and personal defense bearer. The mil standard rail offers the versatility to adapt tactical lights and laser sights to the frame of the Colt Rail Gun making it a tactical pistol adaptable to any military or law enforcement need. The ability to attach a tactical light makes the Colt Rail Gun an ideal candidate for a home/personal protection pistol. ~

New features for the Colt Rail Gun include a mil standard rail, Smith & Alexander Upswept Beavertail Grip Palm Swell Safety, Colt single side tactical safety, Novak® Rear Sight, and other standard features of the XSE Series.

Colt's quality is still denvedfrom its forged stainless steel frame and forged stainless steel slide. In today's world of polymers, investment castings, short cuts, time & cost savings, Colt asks, "Show Me Your Rail Forging". Once again, Quality Makes It A Coft.

FEATURES: V. - • Front & Rear Slide Serrations t • White Dot Cary Sights, Novak® rear sight • Skeletonized 3-Hole Tngger —v—\\ \ • Enhanced Hammer with Elongated Slot \ • Enhanced Tolerances J I. If •8 + 1 Capacity ^} J • Rosewood Double Diamond Grips • Smith & Alexander Upswept Beavertail Palm Swell -Ft Safety fyM x • 'New'Colt Single Side Tactical Thumb Safety ///;'' -—\ * >

• National Match Barrel \ • Chambered in .45 ACP f • Mil standard rail Compact at only 6 75° overall length 45 caliber stopping power Series 80 Finng System 7 + 1 round capacity Double diamond slim fit gnps Skeletonized aluminum trigger Enhanced black anodized aluminum frame with beveled magazine well Snag free trench style sight reference Front strap serrations Captive recoil spring system COLT DEFENDER™

SERIES 90 FIRING SYSTEM

The Colt Defender model offers the power and performance of a full-sized 45 ACP pistol in a compact, lightweight carry model. Small, lightweight, accurate, and reliable With excellent sights the Colt Defender is able to withstand everyday wear and frequentx practice sessions without the need for extensive maintenance X;

FEATURES:

• Wraparound rubber finger groove grips • Skeletonized aluminum trigger • Single action • White Dot Carry Sights • 45 Caliber • 3° barrel length • 6%" overall length • Beveled magazine well • Lightweight •7 + 1 round capacity

8 COLT 1991™ SERIES

SERIES 80 FIRING SYSTEM

Colt 1991 Series is a direct descendent of the original Colt 1911A1. After more than 90 years, it's still "The Standard" everyone else imitates, but no one duplicates.

FEATURES: AVAILABLE MODELS:

• Aluminum trigger 01991 Government Model® 04091U Commander® • Single action • Blue finish carbon steel frame & slide • Stainless finish, stainless frame & slide • Fixed sights • 5° barrel length, iVi" overall length • 4VA° barrel length, 7%° overall length • .45 ACP • Double diamond rosewood grips • Rubber composite grips •7+1 round capacity • Spur hammer • Enhanced hammer • Beveled magazine well • Standard thumb safety and service 01091 Government Model® 04961 Commander® style grip safety • Stainless finish, stainless frame & slide • Blue finish carbon steel frame & slide • 5° barrel length, 8%" overall length • 4W barrel length, 7%" overall length • Rubber composite grips • Double diamond rosewood grips • Spur hammer • Commander hammer

01091 04091U

9

GOMMANDCFt AUTOMA TIC 'IliJiijS \ ">w —MOOI:I. —- CAI.IBCR 4 5

COLT XSE™ SERIES

GOVERNMENT® & COMMANDER® MODEL PISTOLS

The XSE Series features front and rear serrations, an elongated hammer slot, and adjustable skeletonized aluminum trigger. It is available in Government Model®, Commander®, and Lightweight Commander® versions

FEATURES: AVAILABLE MODELS:

• Front and rear slide serrations O1980XSE Government® O4860XSE Lightweight Commander® • Checkered, double diamond, rosewood grips • Blue carbon steel finish • Stainless brushed finish • Extended ambidextrous thumb safeties • 5" barrel length • 4W barrel length • White Dot Carry Sights • Teflon coated aluminum receiver. • Aluminum trigger 01070XSE Government® • Enhanced hammer • Stainless brushed finish O4540XSE Lightweight Commander® • New rollmarking and enhanced tolerances • 5" barrel length • .38 Super •8 + 1 round capacity • Stainless brushed finish • Single action O4012XSE Commander® • 4%" barrel length • Guide Rod • Stainless brushed finish • Teflon coated aluminum receiver • 4V4" barrel length *No Guide Rod on this Model

l'

04012XSE 04860XSE 04S40XSE :.;:::t:::.":Tiii::::jf:ir::^;,:i:::r.i::i;fisj;:!j!:i;;;fr:;ji::3iij:j:::i! t::^:::iji;:i;;^[::jl:Uj::;:r:;t:;::j::jjrii:ii!i:{itij!yi":Jt::j:y:j::

THE RETURN OF THE COLT COMBAT ELITE®

SHOW ME YOUR FORGING!

Another upgraded Colt classic is brought back In 2009 with the return of the Model 08011XSE; the Colt Combat Elite.

Once again, Colt's Manufacturing Company LLC returns to its roots Where quality and workmanship are demanded Colt has met the highest level of expectations insisted by its customers. This classic pistol is built with new and exciting features for the combat-style match shooter and the quality and reliability they demand. A great addition to any collector or avid shooter, new features for 2009 bring Vfc checkered ', V4 smooth rosewood grips with an embossed Colt logo, a Smith & Alexander Upswept Beavertail Grip Palm Swell Safety, Colt single side tactical safety, and other standard features of the XSE Series and a National Match barrel and Novak® rear sights.

Where history meets Modern Era, the heart and soul of the Combat Elite® is still derived from its forged stainless steel frame and forged carbon steel slide. With the helping of a time honored tradition of American Craftsmanship, once again Quality Makes It A Colt. In today's world of polymers, investment castings, short cuts, time & cost savings, Colt continues to ask, "Show Me Your Forging''

FEATURES: THE RETURN OF THE COLT DELTA ELITE' • Front & Rear Slide Serrations • White Dot Cary Sights, Novak® rear —-<£.- • Skeletonized 3-Hole Trigger • Combat Hammer with Elongated Slot \ v > • Enhanced Hammer LIMITED RUN! •8 + 1 Capacity • V2 checkered V4 smooth rosewood 1 grips with an embossed Colt logo The time-tested Colt Government Model is once again available in 10mm Colt was one of the original pioneers to adapt a combat pistol to the potent 10mm 0 • Smith & Alexander Upswept 0 Beavertail Palm Swell Safety cartridge and the first to successfully manufacture a 10mm caliber pistol In the United States. The Colt Delta Elite® had been a favorite amongst combat pistol P' ^ • 'New' Colt Single Side Tactical Thumb ISJ Safety shooters and offe'rBd the power to hunt medium size game In the legendary • Two-Tone Finish M1911-style pistol. The Delta Elite® 10mm offers near 41 Magnum ballistics in • Chambered in .45 ACP a semi-automatic pistol. j> • National Match Barrel , 1 12 mmm

COLT GOLD CUP™ TROPHY

FINEST SHOOTING AUTOMATIC IN THE WORLD!

The first Colt Gold Cup Pistol was introduced in the late 1950's to give competitive shooters a \ gun to take directly from the dealer's shelf to the firing line. It featured an adjustable wide trigger, hand-honed action, adjustable target sights, flat grooved top nb on the slide, and many other refinements as standard. Today, the Colt Gold Cup is known as the finest shooting automatic in the world, and is the standard for competition guns.

FEATURES: AVAILABLE MODELS:

• 5" Match grade barrel 05070X • Black wraparound grips • Brushed stainless frame and slide • Adjustable aluminum tngger • Colt Champion Bomar style rear sight • Adjustable rear sight • Beveled magazine well O5870CS • Beavertail grip safety • Blue carbon steel frame and slide •8 + 1 round capacity • Colt Champion Elllason style rear sight • Full length recoil spring and target recoil spnng

I " v:':':::^*:l

CARRY MODEL

Another Colt trophy Is upgraded!

The M1911 -type pistol has been a favorite for nearly 100 years as a service pistol, a law enforcement pistol and as a personal defense weapon. Although the pistol is virtually unchanged since it's adoption in 1911 by the U.S military, Colt has continued to make the best even better. The industry leader with a legacy of flawless craftsmanship, the Colt Custom Shop reintroduces the O1970CY. The Colt Carry model offers users options not otherwise available in the Special Combat Government line of handguns with features such as Smith & Alexander Upswept Beavertail Safety with Palm Swell, Smith & Alexander Mag-Guide, Novak® Front & Rear Night Sights - extreme duty adjustable rear, and a Wilson Tactical Ambidextrous Safety.

The 01970CY offers superior feel and performance to any type of user. Whether carrying it on duty or as a personal defense weapon, the Colt Special Combat Government Carry pistol will offer the reliability, accuracy, and comfort Colt has been renowned for, for more than 170 years. FEATURES: AVAILABLE MODELS:

• 45ACP O2570CM 01980CM • Novak® Front & Rear Night Sights • .38 Super caliber • 45 ACP caliber • Skeletonized 3-Hole Tngger • Hard Chrome finish • Blue/Satin nickel finish • Enhanced Hammer with Elongated Slot • Enhanced Tolerances 02580CM O1970CY •8 + 1 Capacity • .38 Super caliber • .45 ACP caliber • Black / Silver Grips • Blue/Satin nickel finish • Blue • Smith & Alexander Upswept Beavertail Safety with Palm Swell • Smith & Alexander Extended Magazine Well 01970CM • Wilson Tactical Ambidextrous Safety • .45 ACP caliber • Hard Chrome finish

14 It! ** !Ti I i If-*!**" '«••*•*••». !*»«•••*» • «».. ill L»ii|. Ijl.tUM")"VMU lot Htil|Ut>4.il.lllt(lluU.liU(l

[•*«••**•• IlltlS'liiS** J'

COLT SERIES 70™ PISTOL

COMBAT PROVEN SERIES 70 FIRING SYSTEM

The legacy of the Government Model® is well known. It is a combat proven weapon that has tirelessly served our Armed Forces for almost a century. Colt's Series 70 pistol features the Series 70 firing system, making it a faithful reproduction and throwback to Colt Government Models manufactured dunng the 1970's. It Is a rugged and dependable Colt that features high maintainability and sustains repeatable accuracy

FEATURES: AVAILABLE MODELS:

• Series 70 custom replica 01070A1CS • 5" barrel • Brushed stainless frame and slide • Double diamond rosewood grips • Original rollmarks O1970A1CS • Fixed sights • Blue carbon steel frame and slide • Original Senes 70 finng system • Blue or stainless finish

i 01970A1CS 01070A1CS

75 COLT MATCH TARGET® M4 CARBINE

THE CIVILIAN VERSION OF THE GOVERNMENT M4

In 1963 the AR-15 and M16.223 (5.56mm) automaticrifles "mad e Colt's the small-arms sensation of modem warfare". The Match Target M4 Carbine"is the commercial version of M4 Carbine currently being supplied to the US Government and provides the same unmatched accuracy, performance and durability.

FEATURES:

MODEL MT6400C BARREL LENGTH 161" NAME Match Target M4 RIFLING TWIST RH. 1 Turn in 7" FINISH Matte black RIFLING GROOVES 6 ACTION Semi Auto FRONT SIGHT Adjustable post for elevation Gas operated REAR SIGHT Adjustable for windage and elevation

Multi-lug rotary locking bolt SIGHT RADIUS 14-3/4" CALIBER 223 Rem WEIGHT 7.32 lbs CAPACITY 9 Rounds OVERALL LENGTH 35° SPECIAL FEATURES Flat top receiver allows for scope mounting Compensator

16 ::s:!;:£::f.i^

FEATURES: MODEL MT6601 / MT6601C MT6700/MT6700C MT6731 CR6724

FINISH • Matte black NAME • Match Target • Match Target • Match Target Colt Accurized Rifle ACTION • Semi Auto • HBAR • Competition HBAR • Competition HBAR Competition HBAR 24" • Gas operated BARREL LENGTH • 20" • 20" • 16" RH. 1 Turn in 9" • Multi-lug rotary locking bolt RIFLING TWIST • RH 1 Turn in 7° • RH. 1 Turn in 9" • RH 1 Turn in 9° SIGHT RADIUS • 20VV • 20V4" • 20%" Custom CALIBER • .223 Rem WEIGHT • 8 0 lbs • 8.5 lbs • 71 lbs 9.25 lbs CAPACITY • 9 Rounds OVERALL LENGTH • 39" • 39" • 34%" 43" RIFLING GROOVES* 6 SPECIAL FEATURES • Compensator • Compensator • Flat top receiver Flat top receiver allows for scope FRONT SIGHT • Adjustable post for elevation (MT6601C) (MT6700C) * allows for scope Stainless Steel Heavy Barrel REAR SIGHT • Adjustable for windage and elevation • Flat top receiver Tubular handguard allows for scope Free Floating Barrel far Increased Accuracy

17 DESIGN YOUR OWN The Colt Custom Shop can assist you in designing and creating your one-of-a-kind heirloom, providing an array of options. Select the amount and style scroll engraving; your personal design, figure and inscription; the material you want to use for any inlay; and your choice of finishes. Select grips are also available. Design your own competition gun with many custom options: barrels, slides, sight systems, hammers, triggers and trigger guards, safeties, magazines, grips and finishes. The Colt Custom Shop will fine tune and accurize your competition gun for ultimate performance.

ENGRAVING COVERAGE Custom engraving can enhance the beauty of a historical revolver or the sleek lines of a new semi-automatic pistol. Level A provides one quarter coverage, producing the effect of delicate embellishment, while complete coverage at Level D creates a uniquely decorative showpiece for any collector. Level B and C offer engraving coverage that might highlight specifically chosen areas of the firearm such as the cylinder of a revolver or the barrel of a pistol.

LEVEL B STYLES OF ENGRAVING The Colt Custom Gun Shop offers several styles of engraving, each with its own unique features. Scrollwork is adapted to fit the size, shape and contour LEVEL C of every firearm. Three grades of engraving are offered: Standard-basic American style, engraver not recorded; Expert-master quality scroll work, engraver signed and recorded; and /Waster-intricate scrollwork with precious metal inlays, signed by the engraver and recorded.

AMERICAN: Developed in the mid-19th century, this is the most popular engraving style for American firearms.

ENGLISH: English engraving is more delicate than the American style, with tighter scrolls and finer shading.

NIMSCHKE: Nimschke is named for the firearms engraver who helped create the American style. This design features rich scrollwork, a heavily punched dot background, fine edge curls and delicate borders.

CUSTOM GRIPS AND ACCESSORIES AMERICAN ENGLISH NIMSCHKE Offered in the Colt Custom Shop are custom grips made of several materials including Buffalo horn, Walnut, Rosewood, Ivory, North American Elk and Ebony. Hand checkering in a plain or double diamond pattern are also offered. Special edition grip medallions may be requested and produced in accordance with your specifications, including choice of metal, finish and decorative motif or symbol. 18 P1841MM THE COLT "MODERN MASTERS" [1. P18S6MM COLT CUSTOM PACKAGES N i* J P1876MM An economical custom package will greatly enhance the value of your Colt. Take us The one firearm associated with the Colt name more than any other is up on this great offer to make an addition to your collection that will be treasured for the Colt Single Action Army® or, Peacemaker8 revolver. Colt has continued generations! producing this classic design for collectors, cowboy action shooters and sportsman alike. It is now proud to present in a limited run the Colt "MODERN MASTERS" single action army revolver. Two of Colt's Master Engravers bring their unique MODEL P® engraving styles to 50% of the surface of this original Colt masterpiece. These Master REVOLVER PACKAGE .m Engravers, who have engraved weapons for presidents, lawmen and celebrities, now devote their considerable talents to creating what is sure to become a cherished heirloom for any collector. FEATURES • Standard American scroll engraving After engraving, the firearm is ink baked to bring out and enhance the engraving details The fine crafts• • Level B engraving coverage manship of the revolver is augmented by the inclusion of 1-piece ivory gnps and qualified screws

The "MODERN MASTERS" single action army revolver is available with an optional nickel finish and with a 4 5 Vz" or 7 V4" inch barrel. The tradition of more than 170 years of master craftsmanship, P1840Z - CUSTOM exemplified by the timeless Colt Peacemaker, continues today at Colt. Quality Makes It a Colt™, anything else is just a copy. THE COLT "PRESENTATION GRADE"

The M1911 pistol has served the U.S military with distinction in every war of the last century. To celebrate the distinctive service, Colt has produced the Colt "Presentation Grade" pistol Staying with the traditional design, the "Presentation Grade" pistol is built on the original M1911 frame (01918) and finished with a lustrous royal blue finish. The pistol comes standard with smooth ivory grips and a Colt Master Engraver The Colt Custom Shop engraves 25% of the pistol. No detail is spared down to the starburst-pattern grip screws gold seal container loo i>*fc,®tf ) To display this finely crafted and engraved pistol Is a custom fitted walnut presentation case. A certificate will accompany this gun allowing the Individual to mail it back to Colt's redeemable for engraving of any 3 letters or characters of their choice. Quality makes it a Colt, the same as we have done for more than 170 years. MODEL 0® PISTOL PACKAGE

FEATURES 8 01918PG • Novak rear sight 01918PGN '* • Dovetail front sight • Upswept grip safely • Dehorned 19 s'«.«'!ii::::(:w::rts:::::R:s:H• lritl^«-'~>::h.-'SB::.i::!::J!;i •'• •rfl..:::i.nr.';K;jftai:iWft::! : 1 ::r.:3s:i.«ti::::ji»;!!i.'i!!i:

ARCHIVE LETTER Considered one of the most unique and prestigious services offered by Colt, the Archive Letter is universally recognized as an unparalleled investment in firearms collecting. The Archive Department will search through Colt's vast archives to provide you with accurate and documented details confirming the original specifications and delivery of your particular Colt firearm. You will then receive a personal letter outlining all the fine I points of your firearm, written on Archive Department's distinctive stationery, embossed with the official seal and signature of the Colt Historian 1- Whether your Colt is a treasured family heirloom or a more recent purchase, a Colt Archive Letter can provide fascinating and valuable information of historical or anecdotal importance The collectability of the piece referred to in a Colt Archive Letter is significantly enhanced. The collectability and value of your Colt firearm can be significantly enhanced when it is authenticated in this exceptional fashion Colt Archive Letters can provide descriptive details about custom engraving and other special features that will ensure the value of the firearm for future generations to treasure

HOW IT ALL STARTED ' More than 170 years ago, an obscure young seaman, Calcutta bound, carved a model of what was destined to become the world's most famous revolver from a block of wood His name was Samuel Colt, and from the spark of his inventive genius came the modern firearms of today. One would have to search diligently through the pages of history to find a more romantic and glamorous figure than Samuel Colt. His was the mind of a genius, a planner and a dreamer, all in one. His vision was not local, but worldwide. His ambition exceeded mere prosperity and power. Complete satisfaction could only be his when he had reached the pinnacle of his chosen field. His own deeds and the life he lived have immortalized him, and the products that still bear his name are a constant tribute to his ability and his resourcefulness Samuel Colt's effort to market his inventions is a record of amazing courage, ingenuity, and perseverance That one so young in years and so handicapped by poverty and lack of prestige could prevail against such odds is one of the marvels of individual American enterprise

Archive letters are embossed with the official seal and signature of the Colt Historian.

Please contact us or refer to our website for Information regarding researchable models as well as prices. Colt's has long been committed to policies and practices that promote the responsible design, distribution and sales of firearms to qualified, law-abiding purchasers who seek to purchase and use firearms for legitimate purposes in a safe and responsible manner. Those who purchase and handle firearms have a responsibility to themselves and others to use firearms safely. The Basic Firearm Safety Rules set forth below establisha foundation for gun safety. Please remember, however, that these Rules are ONLY a starting point for the safe handling of firearms within our community.

THOROUGHLY read the safety and instruction manual supplied with your firearm before handling. ONLY place your finger on the trigger when you are actually aiming at a safe target and have made the decision to fire. ALWAYS treat every firearm as if it were loaded. ALWAYS use the proper ammunition for your particular firearm. ALWAYS check to make sure that the firearm is not loaded before giving it to another person ALWAYS refer to the operation manual if your firearm fails to fire. IMMEDIATELY check to make sure that the firearm is not loaded when receiving it from another person NEVER alter or modify your firearm ALWAYS check to make sure a firearm is not loaded when picking it up. NEVER shoot a firearm at hard surfaces or water NEVER chamber a round until ready to shoot. NEVER transport a loaded firearm and ONLY load a firearm at the destination where you intend to NEVER leave a loaded firearm unattended. shoot.

ALWAYS store unloaded firearms and ammunition in separately secured locations, so that children ALWAYS property and untrained adults cannot gain access to them. maintain your firearm.

NEVER point a firearm at anything you do not intend to shoot regardless of whether the firearm is ONLY clean your firearm when you unloaded or on safety are absolutely sure the firearm is unloaded NEVER consume alcoholic beverages or mind altenng drugs before or dunng handling of firearms NEVER climb a tree, fence, or obstacle with a ALWAYS make sure that the target and the area surrounding the target are safe before shooting loaded firearm

NEVER rely on the firearm's safety mechanism and ALWAYS abide by safety rules regardless of whether ALWAYS wear appropnate ear and eye protection the firearm is unloaded or on safety when shooting or observing.

ALWAYS make sure the barrel of the firearm is clear of obstructions according to the safety and V. instruction manual

// you have any safety questions concerning our products, please contact us. Hi.

21 I an :ii':i;:'::;::;:t: l-iiiiiiiiiii'li'lliiJiP^^

CONTACTING COLT

CUSTOMER SERVICE Colt's Manufacturing Company LLC RO. Box 1868 Hartford CT 06144 USA

Tel: 1-800-962-COLT Fax: (860) 244-1449 www.coltsmfg.com

SHIPPING ADDRESS CMC 2 Talcott Road West Hartford CT 06110 USA

CORPORATE OFFICE Colt's Manufacturing Company LLC 545 New Park Avenue West Hartford CT 06110 USA

Tel: (860) 236-6311 Fax: (860) 244-1442 O WARNING Be a safe shooter - never chamber a round until you are ready to shoot. Be aware of state and local * firearms regulations. Always read and follow the instruction manuals which accompany each firearm.*- Free instruction manuals and catalogues are available from the factory upon request' 5

22

004228

Oil SPOfTONG ARMS AND AMMUNITION MANUFACTURERS' MblllUlh. INC LAWRENCE G. KEANE GENERAL COUNSEL

March 16,2009

Joint Committee on Judiciary Legislative Office Building Position: Oppose Room 2500 Hartford, CT 06106

Re: SB 353 An Act Concerning the Identification of Certain Firearms (Microstamping)

Dear Chairmen and Members of the Committee:

The Sporting Anns and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI) is the non-profit trade association for the nation's leading manufacturers of sporting firearms, ammunition and propellants.1 We welcome this opportunity to explain why SAAMI strongly opposes SB 353.

SB 353, effective January 1,2011, would mandate microstamping of semiautomatic pistols with the firearm's make, model and serial number micro-laser engraved on the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol so that the information is imprinted on a cartridge case discharged in the firearm.

There are numerous reasons why SAAMI opposes the mandatory firearm micro-laser engraving of newly manufactured firearms sold in Connecticut

Independent peer review research has established that this patented, sole-sourced technology does not function reliably and the microscopic markings can be easily obliterated in seconds using common household tools thus defeating the technology. In addition, micro-laser engraved parts can be replaced quickly and easily with readily available spare parts.

In the past, there have been significant concerns in various states about the veracity of claims made by the patent holder, Todd Lizotte of ID Dynamics (a/k/a NanoVia). He testified that the Rhode Island crime laboratory had tested the technology. However, in a subsequent letter the Director of the Rhode Island lab responding to an inquiry from Sen. Bill Murrow seeking the Rhode Island's test results the Director wrote that tests were not completed (because Lizotte had abandoned the project) and that Lizotte had "overstated" the laboratory's involvement.

Since its formation in 1926 at the request of the federal government, SAAMI has been actively engaged in the development and promulgation of voluntary product standards for firearms and ammunition SAAMI publishes more than 700 voluntary standards related to firearm and ammunition quality and safety. The U.S. military, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and other state and local law enforcement agencies commonly require that their firearms are manufacture to SAAMI specifications. SAAMI is an American National Standards Institute (ANSI)-accredited standards developer.

FLINTLOCK RIDGE OFFICE CENTER • 11 MILE HILL ROAD - NEWTOWN, CT 06470-2359 - (203) 426-4358 • FAX (203) 426-1087 004229

Judiciary Committee March 16, 2009 Page 2 of 5

At that same hearing, Josh Horwitz, the Executive Director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) Educational Fund testify in support of AB 352 suggested that after conducting some test firing of a few micro-laser engraved firing pins a past president of the Association of Firearms and Toolmarks Examiners (AFTE), Luke Haag, had in essence endorsed the technology. Upon learning of these assertions Mr. Haag wrote to Assembly member to make clear that his limited review was not, as Horwitz and others suggested, "the definitive test of this new technology" and only "provides some insight into one aspect of the technology" and that "numerous questions should be addressed before iristituting [mandatory firearms micro- stamping]."

An Unreliable and Easily Defeated Technology - An independent peer reviewed study of this patented sole sourced technology published in the Journal of the Association of Firearms and Toolmark Examiners (AFTE) - the relevant professional society of firearm examiners - demonstrated the technology does not function reliably (Krivosta, NanoTag Markings from Another Perspective, Winter 2006). The study investigated three questions:

• Would the NanoTag markings be reproducible and readily decipherable? • How resistant to wear would the NanoTag engraved firing pin be under normal use? • How susceptible would the NanoTag engraved firing pin be to intentional defacement?

In reviewing cartridge cases previously expended in firearms with NanoTag micro laser engraved firing pins the author the found that the NanoTag markings were illegible and non-reproducible due to the fact that the firing pin usually strikes the cartridge multiple times and that the additional impacts overlap. Further testing by the author confirmed this finding. He used two (2) NagoTag marked micro laser engraved firing pins in two Colt 45's (still one of the most popular model firearms ever made). With one of the firing pins the vast majority of the micro laser engraved serial number never showed up on any of the cartridge cases fired by that pin and those that did were very difficult to decipher. In the case of the other marked firing pin, ten separate cartridge casings fired from the firearm were needed to piece together the serial number micro laser engraved on that one firing pin. Results of another series of tests found that the technology failed almost 50% of the time.

The author determined that normal operation of the firearm and the resulting marks left on a cartridge case from coming in contact with parts of the firearm removed part of the serial number information on the cartridge case placed there by the firing pin to be lost (removed/destroyed). The author examined the pins after test firing only 1,000 rounds and found the micro laser engraved markings were softening in their sharpness as a result of the metal peening

Micro Laser Engraved Markings Are Easily & Quickly Removed and Defaced. The microscopic laser engraved marks are only to a depth of 25 microns - a fraction of the diameter of the average human hair. The study's author showed that the markings could be removed in seconds using common household tools. Subsequent test firing established that removing the markings did not render the firearm in operable. The test result directly contradicts Lizotte's hearing testimony that removing the markings would render a firearm inoperable (not fire).

Firing Pins Are Interchange Parts Easily and Quickly Replaced — The study further established that NanoTag marked firing pins could be easily removed from the firearmsi n seconds and replaced with interchangeable firing pins that had been micro-laser engraved. 004230

Judiciary Committee March 16,2009 Page 3 of5

The study concludes "implementing this technology will be much more complicated than burning a serial number on a few parts and dropping them into firearms being manufactured."

TJ.C. Davis Study - _The researchers at U.C. Davis found this patented technology "flawed" and concluded that "At the current time it is hot recommended that a mandate for implementation of this technology in all semiautomatic handguns in the state of Califronia be made. Further testing, analysis and evaluation is required."

National Academy of Sciences -The recent findings and publication (March 2008) of the National Research Council of the National Academies also calls for more research and evaluation of microstamping (nano- engraving) of firearms components before it is mandated or legislated.

Micro-stamping Firearms Will Not Reduce Crime. Mandating the use of this technology is based on the faulty assumption that most criminals obtain the firearms they use in crime from federally licensed firearm retailers. A 1997 survey of prison inmates shows criminals rarely - only about 8% of the time - obtain firearms fromretai l dealers. They obtain firearmsprimaril y - about 80% - fromth e illegal black market and from friends and family. See Firearm Use by Offenders, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Nov. 2001. . This same faulty assumption appears to be the basis for the states of Maryland and New York to have wasted millions of taxpayer dollars establishing and operating systems that capture ballistics images of firearms sold at retail in those states. These "retail purchase" systems appear to have been shown to be ineffective in solving crime. Neither system, after several years of operation at a cost of millions to taxpayers, has resultedi n a single criminal conviction, nor have they yielded meaningful, investigatory leads. In fact, in a recent report, the Maryland State Police reviewed the failures of their system, as well as the equally dismal results of the New York system, and recommended to the Maryland legislature that their system be de-funded and repealed. See Maryland State Police Forensic Sciences Division, MD-LBIS Progress Report #2, September 2004.

We are unaware of a single peer-reviewed study by a criminalist or forensic science expert that has examined the question of whether micro-laser engraving firearms would be an effective means of reducing the criminal misuse of firearms.

The bill fails to recognize the unfortunate reality that mandating the technology for the few firearms sold each year in the state of Connecticut will create an illegal black market for "non-laser engraved" firearms and further increase illegal, interstate firearm trafficking. This bill also fails to consider that there are tens of millions of firearms in circulation that have not been, and cannot now be, micro-laser engraved. There are also far more firearms stolen each year in the United States, approximately 500,000, than there are violent crimes committed each year with firearms. It is an unfortunate reality, but criminals modify their behaviors and will always find ways to obtain firearms.

Even if this technology were mandated, it would have limited value. As with ballistics imaging, there is a serious "chain of custody" problem that rendersan y information derived fromth e technology essentially worthless froma n evidentiary point of view.

Criminals Will Easily Defeat the Technology - As with "ballistics imaging," criminals can and will easily defeat the "micro-stamping" technology by simply filing away or scratching with a steel/wire brush the surface of the firearmwher e the laser engraving has been placed. (See Krivosta study, supra). Criminals will 004231

Judiciary Comrnittee March 16, 2009 Page 4 of 5

do this for the same reason they deface the serial number on firearms (which reportedly has significantly increased in recent years), to avoid detection by law enforcement. Criminals will also be able to simply remove parts that have been laser engraved and replace them with spare parts, which are widely available, or swap (micro-laser engraved) parts between firearms.

Criminals will be able confuse the police and send them on "wild goose" chases by simply throwing around at crime scenes expended cartridge casings (having a make model and serial number imprinted on them) from other firearms. "Expended shell casings are widely available at shooting ranges all across Connecticut. Criminals will also use reloaded ammunition made from previously expended cartridge cases already having a make, model and serial number imprinted on them. In both cases, there appears to be a real risk that innocent civilians will be arrested by law enforcement on suspicion of having been involved in criminal shootings. Criminals can avoid the technology by simply using firearms that do not eject shell casings, i.e. revolvers, thus leaving ho casing at the crime scene.

Normal Wear and Tear Will Defeat the Technology. Firearm parts wear and change shape with use, to the point of requiring replacement. So too, engravings on the surface of a firearm will wear - especially those on the chamber and on moving parts subjected to the most heat, friction and pressure when the cartridge is discharged. Parts of the firearm, for example the firing pin, can become damaged, i.e. chipped. It is not uncommon for consumers to have custom work done on their firearm to improve performance and enhance appearance performance. Minor operational ''tuning" routinely performed by gunsmiths and many consumers, such as polishing the chamber and surfaces like the breech face or extractor, would almost certainly alter or remove any mirco-laser engraving on the surface.

The bill also fails to consider the need for manufacturers to be able to do warranty repair work, as do firearm dealers and gunsmiths.

Improper or poor cleaning and maintenance of the firearm after shooting will accelerate wear and alteration or removal of engravings, as parts foul, abrade and foul, and fill the micro-engraving with debris rendering it incapable of imprinting on the cartridge. Those criminals who do not purposely alter their firearms will do so by failing to clean and maintain them.

Sole Source Technology - Government Endorsed Monopoly - The technology to micro-laser engraving a firearm as called for by the bill is patented and thus is a "sole source" technology. The patent is held by ID Dynamics (a/k/a NanoVia LLP), which acquired the patented ballistic tagging technology (NanoTag™ Ballistic ID Tag") in October of 2003 when it acquired New Hampshire-based NanoVia LLP. This bill would create a government-endorsed monopoly for the patent holder.

Dramatic Price Increases and Reduction in Supply - Compelling the use of this unreliable sole sourced technology will dramatically reduce the product selection available to law abiding consumers in Connecticut, because some manufacturers will choose to abandon the Connecticut market rather than incur substantial costs associated with complying, which would include purchasing (at monopolistic prices) very expensive equipment and patented technology and completely redesigning their manufacturing processes, plant and equipment.

The price of firearms for all consumers, including municipalities and the State purchasing firearms for law enforcement agencies, dramatically increase. SAAMI estimates a price increase of $200 per firearm. Firearms for the commercial, law enforcement and military markets are all manufactured at the same time on 004232

Judiciary Committee March 16,2009 Page 5 of 5 the same plant and equipment manufacturing processes. Companies do not have "law enforcement only" production Lines and certainly do not have "Connecticut only" production lines. The cost would have to be spread across all products in all markets necessarily resulting in significantly higher prices for all products.

Firing pins are typically purchased in bulk from suppliers and not manufactured by firearm makers. Under this bill, the cost of firing pins would go from pennies to several dollars adding significantly to the price of firearms. Under federal law, the frame or receiver of the firearm is the part that must be serialized. Under this bill, it would be necessary to serialize multiple parts (each manufactured at different times and locations) and coordinate the assembly to ensure that the parts all had the same serial number. How would an assembler know whether a component part had the correct serial number for the firearm they were then assembling since the number would be microscopic in size? The assembly of firearms is still a human process, and as such, it is subject to the occasional error. Despite the best efforts of humans and machines, it would be impossible for a manufacturer to guarantee that only correctly corresponding, serialized parts were assembled into a firearm. Once this inevitable consequence of manufacturing reality is admitted as fact in the courts, the whole serialization mandate becomes suspect. See discussion regarding "chain of custody" supra.

Furthermore, all serialized parts would become worthless if any single part were rejected for quality control reasons. Clearly, any attempt to comply with the requirements of this bill would force a radical and complete redesign of time-tested, finely tuned and efficient manufacturing processes. It would cost millions of dollars to do this.

This bill fails to consider how or whether the technology can realistically be integrated into modern manufacturing processes.

Impact on State and Municipal Budgets - Law Enforcement Firearms - A study of the impact the bill would have on the State and municipal budgets that would result from the necessarily dramatic increase in the cost of firearms for law enforcement agencies is an appropriate subject for the legislature. We are unaware of any study that attempts to compare the costs to taxpayers, consumers and industry, of requiring this technology relative to other proven and effective crime reduction strategies.

There is, of course, no bona fide reason to exempt law enforcement firearms from this requirement, as the theory behind this proposal would be equally of assistance in law enforcement-involved shootings. Exempting law enforcement firearms would not, for the reasons discussed above, stop a dramatic increase in the price of law enforcement firearms.

We welcome the opportunity to participate in this important, public policy discussion and to make known our views. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Lawrence G. Keane 004233

Hew England Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence

March 16, 2009

"Microstamping" is a technology that uses lasers to make microscopic engravings on the firing pin of a gun. When the gun is fired, a code with the gun's serial number is stamped on the cartridge. This allows a cartridge case recovered at a crime scene to be connected to the make, model and serial number of the gun that fired the bullet.

As we move forward with this technology and guns are manufactured employing microstamping, this will prove to be an extremely valuable police investigation tool.

The following quick survey of news stories, from a six-week period in January and February 2009, detail shootings that occurred around Connecticut where no immediate arrests were made. If microstamping was already included in the manufacturing process the police would have most likely been able to identify the gun used in these crimes:

Bridgeport, Two shootings that may be related, one seriously wounded a 20-year-old man. (1/13/2009)

Hartford, Shots fired during a home invasion. No one was hit by gunfire. (1/13/2009)

Fair Haven, Double shooting, woman grazed by bullet, man shot in foot. (1/20/2009)

New Haven, Gun shots heard, shell casing found by side of home. (1/20/2009)

New Haven, Man in his early 20s was shot multiple times. Shooter gunned down victim from a vehicle which fled the scene. Victim died at hosptial. (1/24/2009)

Fair Haven, Man shot through his front window, seriously wounded. Victim was not intended target of gunfire. There was a dispute outside his house where a man pulled out a gun and started shooting. (1/30/2009)

Hartford, Shot fired near Learning Corridor, no one was injured. (2/10/2009)

Hartford, Man shot numerous times in his leg. Injuries were not life-threatening., (2/12/2009)

Hartford, Man shot in arm and chest during holdup. He is expected to survive. (2/13/2009)

New Haven, New Haven's 4th homicide victim of year had history of gun violence, both as shooter and victim. (2/21/2009)

P.O. Box 221 • Westbrook, Maine 04098 • Phone: 207- 31R-0771 [email protected] » www.necpgv.org 004234

Micro-stamping Bill #S.353

My name is Meg Sautter and I reside in Newington, CT. I'm a retired Police Officer after 20 years with the Newington Police Department. I'm an avid shooter, target, and gun owner.

As a retired police officer I'm well aware of explosion of gun violence in this State and the importance of attempting to contain/eliminate it. The Microstamping proposal bill # S.353 offers nothing to this end. What it does offer is to deny Connecticut citizens access to new pistols. Therefore the obligation is to ensure any proposals are Constitutional and that they not deprive the rights of law abiding citizens access to handguns.

Similar bills to this have failed in a number of states, including VA, post-VA Tech tragedy. Reasons for failure include the fact that micro-stamping has repeatedly failed in tests. Additionally, firing pins, which produce the micro- stamping can be easily changed. 'Microstamped' cartridges can simply be removed from a crime scene. Worse, a different cartridge, stamped or not, could be left at a crime scene creating a diversion.

Most criminals who use guns for crimes did not acquire them legally. The guns used in crimes are usually older and often obtained from a burglary. This could cause a potential increase in burglaries where older, non-micro- stamping guns would be targeted.

As a member of the Law Enforcement community, I think the last thing we need is more laws created. We have numerous laws ALREDY on the books dealing with this issue. Enforcing some of the laws already in existence would be a much smarter course of action. For example, charging a defendant with 'possession of a hand gun' is almost always used as a tool in plea bargaining. Due to this type of plea bargaining, the 'possession' statutes are rendered ineffective because they are rarely enforced. Make 'gun possession' statutes have a mandatory minimum sentence. In summary I urge this Committee to reject the Micro-stamping bill #S.353 because it has no,public safety value. This proposal is unconstitutional and economically undesirable as it could cost CT jobs. It will put many Federal Firearms Licensing dealers out of business causing lost sales tax revenue in the one segment of our economy that seems to be flourishing.

I ask that the Committee engage the Law Enforcement community and the Sportsman's community to pursue avenues that punish criminal acts with firearms while protecting the interests of law abiding citizens.

Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to speak.

Meg Sautter

83 Flagler Street

Newington, CT 06111 Good morning, My name is Dan Novak and I am a citizen of the United States, a citizen of Connecticut and a resident of Manchester, Ct.

I am a homeowner, taxpayer and voting resident from my district. I have read the United States Constitution and the Bill of rights The Second Amendment clearly states that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

This proposed bill is just another infringement of my rights, infringement by cost and infringement by bureaucratic fiat. How many more hoops do the citizens need to jump through to exercise our rights? Do t need to now take all my guns down to the factory to have a micro stamp put on the firing pins. Do I now need to fill out paperwork to register these micro stamps? Who is keeping the records and to what use will they make of these records? Who is going to pay the costs for the factories to retrofit their equipment. How much more will it cost to purchase a gun. By the way, criminals don't go into the store to buy a gun, they steal them. Are we really addressing an issue here or is this "feel good" legislation the intent of which is to further restrict my "rights"?

I am against this legislation.

Dan Novak Manchester, Ct 004237

NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION. IMC.

FLINTLOCK V.ZCS OFFICE CENTER - II MILE HILL =?C*iD • NEWTOWN, C7a=-TO-235? TEL (203' -26-132C - FAX \233) i2t-"!C£7 - E<<.--1L mcj'--,9=ie-.£s; o.-r • .-.v.- cr;

JAKE McGUIGAN D'RECTCS GCV=R\li.S\T RELATION'S

March 16,2009

Joint Committee on Judiciary Position: Oppose Legislative Office Building Room 2500 Hartford, CT 06106

Re: SB 353 - An Act Concerning the Identification of Certain Firearms (Microstamping)

Dear Members of the Joint Committee on Judiciary:

The National Shooting Sports Foundation ("NSSF") is the non-profit trade association for America's firearms, ammunition, hunting and recreational shooting sports industry. Our manufacturer members make the firearmsuse d by law-abiding Connecticut sportsmen, the U.S. military and law enforcement agencies throughout Connecticut. This letter is to express our opposition to SB 353A. There is no rational basis upon which to justify the enactment of this proposed legislation.

The supporters of SB 353 greatly exaggerate the capabilities, if any, of this technology. SB 353 .would mandate the use of a patented, sole-sourced technology, called "firearms microstamping," to microlaser engrave the make, model and serial number of the firearm on the tip of the firing pin and a second location on the firearm so, in theory, that information would be imprinted onto the cartridge case when the gun is fired. This technology is unproven and has been independently tested to confirm this conclusion. We are writing to ask you to oppose SB 353. Independent testing of this nascent technology has shown that a) the technology does not function reliably and b) the very shallow markings can be removed in mere seconds using common household tools. In addition, the marked parts can be removed and replaced with unmarked parts. The NSSF does not oppose SB 353 because it is "gun control." Our opposition is based on the fact that this technology has so far been shown by independent testing to be unreliable and easily defeated. NSSF has consistently supported further independent testing of the technology a view that is shared by the National Fraternal Order of Police and the Connecticut Fraternal Order of Police.

Also of concern is whether Connecticut-based firearms manufacturers will move their factories out of the Constitution State - a serious threat given the increased lobbying of pro-gun states such as Idaho and South Dakota, two of many states where legislators are 004238

Joint Committee on Judiciary March 16, 2009 Page 2 of3 looking for increased tax revenue and jobs for their constituents. Colt Firearms stated last year in testimony that they would consider leaving the state if microstamping became law.

The firearms industry, which has contributed $743.8 million in total economic activity to Connecticut in 2008, employs more than 1,750 people in the state and generates an additional 3,100 jobs in supplier industries. Industry officials have made it clear that many of these jobs would be at risk should microstamping pass into law.

Scientists at the National Research Council (NRC), an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, released a report that among its findings expresses concerns about sole-sourced technologies and recommends "that for such a technology to be implemented successfully, in-depth investigations on several topics are needed." These investigations need to focus on "the cost implications and feasibility of adding these technologies to established manufacturing processes." The NRC expressed concerns with these alternative technologies and stressed the necessity for further study to determine the susceptibility to tampering and countermeasures. The Council does not want to see any implementation of technology that is maintained by a single vendor since the "potential for advancement and innovation is limited." The NRC believes that an extensive study needs to be conducted before mandating any of these technologies as an answer to solving crime.

An independent peer reviewed study of microstamping by Professor George G. Krivosta, published in the Journal of the Association of Firearms and Toolmarks Examiners (AFTE) (Winter 2006), concluded, "At the current time, the technology Junctions unreliably and can be easily defeated in mere seconds using commonly available household tools." This AFTE study recommended further study.

A more recent study of microstamping by experts at the University of California at Davis found this patented sole-source technology "flawed" and concluded, "At the current time it is not recommended that a mandate for implementation of this technology in all semiautomatic handguns in the state of California be made. Further testing, analysis and evaluation is required."

S.B. 353 also requires that a second location be microlaser engraved with the make, model and serial number of the firearm. Yet, to our knowledge, there have been no independent tests done to determine where those markings might be placed (there are only limited places where they could be placed and transfer the marks on the cartridge casing) and whether the technology will work reliably on those parts - all of which can be removed and replaced with unmarked parts widely available.

Mandating the use of this unreliable and easily defeated technology is predicated on the faulty assumption that most criminals obtain the firearms they use to commit crime from federally licensed firearm retailers. A 1997 survey of prison inmates shows criminals rarely obtain firearms from retail dealers. They obtain firearms primarily - about 80% - from the illegal black market and from friends and family. 004239

Joint Committee on Judiciary March 16, 2009 Page 3 of 3

The cost to implement this questionable technology will substantially increase the price for firearms for law-abiding consumers and taxpayers as the law enforcement agencies throughout the state will be forced to pay perhaps as much as $200 more per firearm. It will also dramatically reduce the product selection available to law-abiding consumers as some manufacturers will stop selling firearms in the state rather than make radical changes to their manufacturing and assembly processes. There is precedent for firearms manufacturers stopping the sale of firearms into a state. Several years ago Massachusetts adopted vague regulations that made it impossible for manufacturers to know whether their products complied. Rather than risk selling non-compliant products, they stopped selling into Massachusetts.

The cost of compliance is not a dollar a gun, as claimed by the patent holder and gun control groups supporting this legislation - all of whom are ignorant of the manufacturing complexities involved and the associated cost.

The implementation of microstamping in Connecticut and other states will not only adversely affect the market but also will award to one individual company exclusive rights to use its sole-sourced patented technology. Throughout the entire process, Todd Lizotte, from ID Dynamics, has continually made statements to the contrary. The patent still is not in the public domain, and Mr. Lizotte has an obvious financial stake in this technology and stands to profit handsomely with the passage of legislation even though he refutes this in much of his testimony.

Allowing one company to monopolize an unproven technology that will only burden Connecticut's law-abiding citizens is neither the best public safety policy nor economic decision for the State.

Even if the technology functioned well - and it does not - it is questionable whether'it would be a particularly useful law enforcement tool. ATF has determined that most firearms traced by law enforcement in Connecticut were not handguns and were originally sold at retail over 12 years earlier, which is greater than the national average by over two years. In addition, most were not pistols.

We would urge you to oppose SB 353 and instead support the recommendations of the researchers around the country who unanimously support further in-depth study of this nascent technology.

Sincerely,

Jake McGuigan Colt Unit UAW Local 376 West Hartford, CT. 06110

My name is Jeffery J. Bifolck. I am the first shift Chief Steward at Colt Defense LLC and Colt Manufacturing LLC and also a member of the Town of Vernon Volunteer Fire Department. I am here to represent approximately 625 employees of Colt Defense LLC and Colt Manufacturing LLC. I have been an employee of Colt and a member of the UAW Local 376 for eighteen years. On behalf of the employees of Colt and the UAW, we are opposing the Microstamping Bill SB 353. If this bill were to pass it would cost us our jobs. The cost of the pistols would increase driving away customers and our jobs. In the day and age of our economy there are enough jobs being lost. It is time to start saving jobs and that can start right here by opposing this bill. Colt is a good paying job with good benefits. We need to keep these jobs in Connecticut. We can't afford to give these companies the motivation to move out of Connecticut and lose these positions. We must stand up for the working people and say no to the Microstamping Bill SB 353.

Thank you,

Jeffery J. Bifolck 004241

Raised Bill Ns 353 LCO NO. 04646

FROM: George Wm Sipila 16 March 2009 125 Tripp Hollow Road Brooklyn CT 06234-2337 (860) 779-3295 SUBJ: (b) Raised Bill Ns 353: An Act Concerning the Micro-Stamping of Semi-Automatic Pistols 1. I am opposed to Bill Na 353. 2. I am a National Rifle Association (NRA) Training Counselor. In my capacity I can teach individuals the basics offirearms as an instructor and I can take qualified individuals and train and certify them as NRA instructors in any discipline for which I am certified. I am currently certified as an instructor for home firearm safety, muzzleloadingrifle, muzzle-loading shotgun, pistol, personal protection,rifle, shotgun, Refuse to be a Victim, metallic cartridge reloading, and shot shell reloading; I am also a chief range safety officer. I am certified as an instructor for the CT Dept of Environmental Protection to teach the CT Education/Firearm Safety course and the bow hunting course. I have been active in scouting for over 25 years and have served as the shooting sports director at June Norcross Webster Scout Reservation (JNWSR) in Ashford CT since 2000; this camp is operated by the Connecticut Rivers Council Boys Scouts of America (CRC-BSA) I am a retired naval officer, having started in the naval reserve as a seaman recruit I served approximately 35 months in the Vietnam combat zone. I am well versed in the use of firearms. Whenever I teach any course involving firearms, I place great emphasis on safety above all. In 20071 wrote the syllabus for the BB*gun course for CRC-BSA. This syllabus was reviewed by Mr John Lamb, Dept of Public Health, Youth Camp Licensing, and Ms Valerie L. Bryan, RN, Supervising Nurse Consultant Community Based Regulation Section, Dept of Public Health, State of Connecticut The Dept of Public Health has determined that my course meets the training requirements to run a BB-gun range safely. 3. At the scout reservation we use .22 caliber (cal) LR ammunition. The Venture Crew members are thus able to earn their venturing awards inrifle, air rifle, shotgun, archery, muzzle-loading rifle, air pistol, and pistol, provided they qualify in the practical portion of their award; the practical portion includes knowledge, skill, and attitude, any one of which may disqualify a Venture Crew member from earning his/her award. The .22 cal LR is the only type of cartridge ammunition we use on the range for the pistols because it is readily available and less expensive than larger (center-fire) caliber ammunition. During the summer of 2008 JNWSR expended approximately 6500 rounds of .22 cal LR ammunition using pistols and revolvers. This coming summer the Venture Crews will again be able to qualify for their venturing awards using pistols, .22 cal single action revolvers and the .22 cal semi-automatic pistols. Before any Venture Crew members even touch a firearm, they receive a 30-40 minute lecture on firearm and archery safety. The Venture Crew members concentrating on shooting sports receive a minimum offive hours of safety lectures before they touch a pistol/revolver. As you can tell, my camp director, Mr Patrick S. Boyd, and I believe in safety first! 4. My main concern is theramifications tha t this law will have on the scouting movement in the state. The semi-automatic pistols purchased by the Connecticut Rivers Council are listed under my name because I am the shooting sports director at JNWSR. During the off-season they are locked in my gun safe, anxiously awaiting the next camping season. I have been the shooting sports director for many seasons now. After January 2011, does this mean that I will have to continue to be the director because I will not be able to transfer the pistols to any other Scouter in the Council? I too may want to retire someday. Some of my confusion may be caused by the definition of "at retail". This can take on many meanings depending on the individual doing the interpreting. 5. Imprinting a semi-automatic pistol's "signature" on a cartridge in two or more places is interesting in theory, but not practical. At any rod and gun club, especially during competitions, a semi• automatic pistol will extract andfling th e empty casing upto several yards away. I usually collect my brass for reloading; it is cheaper to enjoy the sport that way. But what happens if some empty casings are picked up by my nearest competitor by mistake (it is hard to read a microscopic array of characters under competitive conditions) orfind their way into the grass or under some leaves to be picked up later by unknown individuals? There are many cartridges that can be fired by both a revolver and a semiautomatic pistol. This unknown individual could easily commit a crime with a revolver or semi-automatic pistol, collect his own brass, but leave behind the brass collected at the pistolrange, implicatin g an innocent person. Another problem arises with the reloading of empty brass. Good brass can be reloaded several times, with the pistol superimposing one imprinted micro-stamp over another, essentially making the microscopic array of characters illegible. Or reloaded brass that has already been imprinted can be fired in the semi-automatic from out-of-state that does not have the imprinting capability, again placing an innocent gun owner at risk. 004242

6. The engineering aspects of micro-stamping cartridges will definitely pose an engineering headache. The imprinting should occur while the cartridge is in the chamber just after it has been fired. I have listed the approximate maximum pressures that a cartridge must withstand at the moment of ignition for several calibers of automatic pistols: 9 mm Luger - 32,000 psi (approximate pounds per square inch) .38 cal Super Auto ~ 31,000 psi

;357 Sig ~ 38,000 psi .357 Magnum ~ 33,000 psi .45 cal Auto ~ 20,000 psi This data was obtained from the Lyman Reloading Handbook, © Dec 2008,49 ed. It must be noted that maximum pressures vary based on the manufacturer of the casing, the primer, powder, and manufacturer and weight of the projectile. Unfortunately, I was unable to find the approximate maximum pressures involved with the .22 cal LR cartridge on such short noticefor this public hearing; these pressures are more difficult to find since rimfire casings are not reloaded. The base of the cartridge is the strongest part of the cartridge, but the primer metal is weaker. A firing pin could imprint this information. But what happens when finng pins are changed out or replaced? A fine metal file could easily make the micro-stamped characters on the firing pin illegible. If a manufacturer could obtain the machine small enough to encode this information on the side of the chamber wall, the expansion of the case against the chamber wall upon firing could cause the imprinting of the information on the empty casing; but as the casing is ejected, friction from the rest of the chamber could cause the information to be obliterated. • If the encoded information is deep enough in the chamber wall, the imprinted information on the empty casing could create enough friction to prevent the casing from being ejected, thus making the firearm a single shot pistol. 7. The next problem arises when a semi-automatic pistol has a mechanical failure. The owner would take the firearm to a reputable gunsmithfor repair usually through a gun dealer. Upon completion of repairs, the dealer charges the ownerfor th e repairs, but would then be prohibited from returning/transferring the firearm to the owner because the firearm doesn't meet the cartridge imprinting requirements. This could very well upset the gun owner. 8. Please consider the impact that this will have on the semi-automatic pistols that are issued to active duty military, the National Guard, federal agents (FBI, IRS, etc.), state police, local police, and various security agencies. * How will this bill affect them? This bill will definitely increase the cost to the tax payers who would indirectly absorb the increased cost in purchasing new firearmsfor the state police, local law enforcement personnel, and private security agencies. Will the security guards on the Indian reservations be exempt? 9. Another problem that arises is the introduction of firearms from across the state lines into Connecticut Even if it is classified as illegal, this still doesn't prevent their introduction into the state, especially by the criminal element Most of them (the cnminal element) would not be stupid enough to employ a firearm that could be traced back to them anyway; they would use a stolen firearm. However, on the bright side, some criminals are stupid. Trie enforcement of this law will be very difficult; it will be impossible to stop the transfer from other states. It is already difficult enough trying to stop the introduction of illegal drugs into the state even though we have the advantage in that the illegal drugs are also illegal elsewhere. It is almost impossible to keep firearms out of the hands of felons and many individuals in street gangs; they don't bother with the prerequisite carry permits. Look how difficult it isto sto p the export of automatic weapons by the Customs and Border Patrol agents from the United States into the hands of the drug lords of Mexico. 10. We should enforce the existing laws that we have more ngidly. Remember, it is already a crime to possess a pistol/revolver outside your home or place of, business without a permit Lef s aggressively punish the individuals that do use gunsto commi t crimes, especially those who have been convicted at least twice of a serious crime. It is a crimefor felon sto possess firearms. Please remember that a murder by an individual using a firearm or driving a car ends in the same result; the victim is dead. 11. . The individuals that would be affected by this bill are the law-abiding individuals. A criminal will care very little about leaving empty casings behind when he is using a stolen semi-automatic pistol. It is sincerely hoped that this bill is not just another means of restricting our 2nd Amendment rights as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. 12. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Respectfully, 004243

^Connecticut t -~ if AssodatiorroN jc_ jFjrearms,. '

March 16,2009

Joint Committee on Judiciary Legislative Office Building Room 2500 Hartford, CT 06106

Re: Opposition to SB 353 An Act Concerning the Identification of Certain Firearms (Microstamping)

Dear Members of the Committee:

I am writing on behalf of the Connecticut Association of Firearms Retailers (CTAFR) which is a non-profit trade association representing Connecticut firearms retailers. Our membership includes Connecticut-based federally licensed firearms retailers, most of which are small "mom-n-pop" businesses that are the backbone of the state's economy. We would like to express our opposition with raised bill SB 353 that would mandate microstamping of firearms within Connecticut.

Studies have shown that the technology is not sufficiently reliable for use on firearms. Criminals can defeat it in a number of different ways, and it is well known that the overwhelming majority of handguns used in crimes are stolen, and that fired casings from them would hot lead law enforcement to the actual perpetrator of the crime. Placing - "microstamping" oh semiautomatic handguns would be ineffective.

Microstamping is a "sole source" technology contrary to the claims and testimony of Mr. Todd Lizotte, from ID Dynamics. What results is a single entity that owns the technology which will license it to companies and manufacturers at any price they see fit. If this unproven technology for firearms did work, a matter that the results of recent independent scientific research casts in doubt and highly questions, it would be the system utilized. This increases the likelihood that the sole source problem would in fact continue and that the costs of using it would not be contained by realistic competition. The result would be higher costs for retailers and their customers for a system that is not reliable.

SB 353 would place a costly, unjustifiable and unrealistic burden on not only firearms retailers, but also the manufacturers and purchasers of them with no public policy benefit. Compelling the use of this unreliable sole sourced technology will dramatically reduce the product selection available to law abiding consumers in Connecticut, because some manufacturers will choose to abandon the market rather than 004244

incur substantial costs associated with complying, which would include purchasing (at monopolistic prices) very expensive equipment and patented technology and completely redesigning their manufacturing processes, plant and equipment.

Connecticut's firearms laws are so voluminous and complex that the average resident of this state cannot understand them. At the same time most Connecticut firearms dealers are small business people who are already over-burdened with a myriad of state laws and regulations, many of which are unnecessary and costly to implement. SB 353 is iust another example of this problem and it would, without any proven benefit to the State of Connecticut, make it more difficult for firearms dealers to do business in this state. For these reasons, CTAFR is opposed to the enactment ofSB 353.

We welcome the opportunity to participate in this important, public policy discussion and to make known pur views. We would urge you to oppose SB 353 and instead support the recommendations of the researchers for further research of this technology

Sincerely,

Brian Owens President 004245

March 16, 2009

Thomas R. Walker from Ashford, CT, speaking on Committee Bill No. 353 concerning micro-stamping of semi-automatic pistols.

I oppose the Bill. Linking a used cartridge casing to the firearm that fired it will have little or no use for the following reasons:

1. ) Most if not all arrests I have heard of or read about involve an illegal possession charge as well. This indicates that the firearms used in crimes are either stolen or otherwise illegally acquired. The micro-stamping will in no way aid law enforcement or enhance public safety based on this observation. Micro-stamping would, in my opinion, aid criminals by giving them an avenue of escape. As an example; a person contemplating a crime steals a firearm that has been purchased and stored legally, (No security measures are fool-proof.) commits a crime soon after, before the legal owner knows the firearm is missing, discharges the weapon leaving micro-stamped shell casings at the scene, then disposes of the firearm. The only suspect law enforcement would have would be a lead to a law-abiding citizen who had been burglarized.

2. ) There is no way to stop a criminal contemplating a crime from going to a pistol range or other legal shooting area and picking up shell casings lost or left by a law-abiding citizen. Criminal's sawy to the law could easily send the law enforcement agency investigating a crime on a "wild goose chase" by planting these picked up casings at a crime scene. The result of such a deception would cause lost time and money to the investigating agency, the questioning of a law abiding citizen, and allow the real perpetrator(s) time to escape.

3. ) This Bill would be a financial burden to law-abiding, tax paying, voting citizens. Micro-stamping will cause the law-abiding citizen to incur additional charges in pursuit of their chosen sport through the increased cost of purchasing a firearm that has micro- stamping capabilities. Any new technology always comes at a high price because of the research and development involved. I believe this Bill would also limit the selection of ~ available firearms, possibly setting up a situation where those with the technology could "gouge" the consumer until competitors "caught up" with them. The language regarding the Attorney General certifying that there be more than one manufacturer is too vague. Two manufacturers are not enough for fair trade.

In conclusion, I believe Committee Bill No. 353 will not aid, and may hinder law enforcement. It will not enhance the safety of the public. I further recommend that the Committee issue "no report" on this Public Hearing so that this Bill will fail. 004246

Thank you all for letting me come out here this morning (or afternoon) to speak. My name is Krystopher Lawrence Dibella. I am 21 years old, and I reside in the town of South Windsor Connecticut. I've been around firearms my entire life as my father is a member of the NRA and a member of a local rifle range. Like my father I also own various firearms and have always treated them with the utmost care and due diligence that is required. I am recently a certified National Rifle Association Pistol Instructor, and will soon be teaching pistol safety courses in order educate people on how to care for their firearms, how they work, and proper range safety techniques. Upon discovering the existence .of SB 353,1 pondered the negative implications this would have on the community of legal firearm owners. In addition, I also realized the adverse impact this bill would have on not only Connecticut's economy, but it would effect U.S. Economy as a whole. Although State Senator Looney's idea of creating a tool to help solve and reduce crime as a whole is very salient to community, this legislation will only prove to be more burdensome to many. The social stability that this bill tries to create does not solve the core problems related to gun violence. In addition, passing this bill would be disastrous for the Connecticut Economy already facing a rise in foreclosures on homes, increasing layoffs specifically from manufacturing companies such as United Technologies, and those whom have lost money in their pensions, IRA's, and/or investments tied with the bank failures of last fall. Overall, this bill would be disastrous for the community already facing tough economic times. So why isMicro Stamping such a bad idea? The idea behind this bill is to assist law enforcement in being able to apprehend perpetrators committing serious crimes involving firearms. While this sounds all well in good, ultimately in the end it will be nothing more than a nuisance to law enforcement already overburdened with trying to murders. For example, lets say someone breaks into my house and steals my pistol which is in a locked container. I contact the local authorities to report the theft, however, a year later the firearm was used in a murder that was out of state. Since under this legislation my firearm and ammunition were micro-stamped, which allowed authority to identify the murder weapon using this technology. That's all well and good, except for the fact that the firearm is not registered to the murderer, so the crime is still unsolved, and the murderer is still on the loose. Micro stamping semi-automatic pistols will not reduce crime nor will it deter it from occurring. If someone intends on taking another life, they will do so by any means necessary even if they have to resort to using another weapon. We need to focus our resources on apprehending illegal firearm smugglers, traders, and consumers. In conjunction with that, we need to penalize those criminals more severely, and attack this root problem at its core. The economic implications of this bill could not come at a worse time. Already the manufacturing sector has suffered critical losses with Caterpillar laying off thousands of people as well as United Technologies, and other industrial firms. Most economists project continuous economic decline this quarters with fear of the collapse of General Motors, AIG, and Citigroup. Although the Dow Jones Industrial Average increased last week by over 600 points, that doesn't mean that the economy has improved. Local firearm manufacturers such as Smith and Wesson located in Massachusetts, and Colt as well as Stag Arms located in Connecticut would be drastically effected by this bill. The cost to retool and develop micro-stamping technology would burden these companies into complying with state regulations that would ultimately place additional burden on 004247

the economy. In order to pay for the additional cost to micro-stamp each firearm and bullet, firearm manufacturers will have to expand an additional line of credit from their lending institutions, or issue other debt instruments, which will further cut into company profits through higher Cost of Sales, and Financing expenses. Prices for firearms as a result will increase creating a squeeze on firearm dealerships competing for customers, and the consumers purchasing the firearms. Since the cost of firearms will increase, the likely hood that sales will decrease more exponentially since this market tends to have elastic demand. With all of these factors interacting, the likelihood that these companies will lay off workers in order to remain profitable and competitive is extremely high. This effects us directly since Colt Manufacturer's and Stag Arms is located in Hartford, and New Britain respectively. Although Connecticut is the only state to shoulder such a bold initiative, this will create tension among the states since many state governments would not chose to adopt this legislation. Firearm manufacturers will terminate some of their business with Connecticut firearm dealerships, because the cost to manufacture the products will outweigh the economic benefits from continuing this business relationship. In order to remain competitive in a declining economy, companies will do whatever it takes to cut costs, even if it means severing business relations as I mentioned. As a state and as a nation we need to remain united and competitive in the global economy, and we need to export our goods overseas to keep international trade strong. This bill is counter intuitive to our American spirit to be able to grow, live, and prosper in order to live the American dream, and places further burden onto our economy. You've all heard the phrase, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Well my belief is that "People have been at war with another since they came into being and will continue to do so until we are all extinct. You cant change human nature." I wish to thank everyone in this chamber to allow me to openly express my opinion on this sensitive topic.

*I also want to give a special thanks to Corey Matfess who could not be here. He contributed to the economic portion of this speech.

Thanks again. 004248

SB 353 - An Act Concerning The Microstamping of Certain Semiautomatic Pistols. March 16, 2009 Page 1 of 3

CT Against Gun Violence P.O. Box 523 Southport, CT 06890 tel: 203-268-3050 fax: 203-268-2940 www.cagv.org

Testimony to the Judiciary Committee March 16, 2009 Ron Pindarp, Executive Director In SUPPORT Of SB 353 - An Act Concerning The Microstamping Of Semiautomatic Pistols.

Good afternoon. I am Ron Pinciaro, Executive Director of CT Against Gun Violence.

I am speaking to you today in support of SB 353 requiring the microstamping of firearms because microstamping is an important tool that will help law enforcement solve gun crime. In fact, because of their recognition of microstamping as a useful law enforcement tool, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) has endorsed the microstamping technology. A copy of the IACP resolution is appended to this document.

Law enforcement agencies are in critical need of additional investigative tools. In 2007, 26 Hartford residents were murdered by guns. By December 31, only 6 arrests had been made in those cases, leaving 77 percent unsolved. The numbers are similar for our other large cities: In Bridgeport, 69 percent of the gun homicides had not resulted in an arrest by the end of the year. And in New Haven, no arrests had been made in 85 percent of homicides and non-fatal shootings. In the first six weeks of this year, ten shootings have gone unsolved where police might have been able to identify the gun if the microstamping technology had been applied. A list of those shootings is attached here.

Nationally, the clearance rate for homicide cases was approximately 60% in 2005 and over 3,000 gun homicide cases went unsolved. In approximately half of gun homicide investigations a spent cartridge casing, but not a firearm, is recovered at the crime scene

Microstamping technology uses a laser imprinted microscopic array of characters that identify the pistol, etched or otherwise imprinted in two or more places on the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and that are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the pistol and revolver is fired.

In many cases, the only evidence at the crime scene is a spent cartridge case, especially in drive-by type shootings. But today, that cartridge can only be tied to the specific gun that shot it if the gun itself is found. When microstamping is incorporated into semiautomatic pistols, it will allow police to positively link used cartridge cases recovered at crime scenes to the exact guns that fired them, without having the gun in their possession. Law enforcement would be able to identify the first known purchaser of a weapon used in a crime, a critical early lead. 004249 SB 353 - An Act Concerning The Microstamping of Certain Semiautomatic Pistols. March 16, 2009 Page 2 of 3

In addition to its value as an investigative tool for law enforcement, the technology could be a deterrent to the illegal gun trafficking that allows children and criminals such easy access to guns. All guns start with a legal sale from a licensed dealer. Yet in Connecticut, more than 85 percent of gun crimes are committed by people who cannot legally purchase guns. So where do they get the gun?

Tracing data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives indicates that, when a source state could be identified, 67 percent of the firearms traced and recovered in Connecticut were first purchased legallyright i n the state1. Often this is through a straw purchase, when a person who is legally qualified to buy guns purchases them from a dealer and then sells them to prohibited users. Microstamping will help deter this chain of trafficking, because straw purchasers will be less likely to act in this capacity if they believe a gun can quickly and easily be traced back to them after being used in a crime.

Microstamping technology is already required for new semiautomatic pistols sold in California starting after January 1, 2010. Manufacturers already have to incorporate the technology into their manufacturing process to sell guns into that important market. The District of Columbia has also passed a microstamping bill and one is also being considered by the State of New York. The bill has passed in the House and is now being considered by the Senate in New York. Details of the New York bill are attaqched.

We urge the Judiciary Committee to support SB 353. None of the provisions in this bill will interfere with therights of law-abiding citizens to own as many guns as they choose. But they will provide law enforcement with important and necessary tools to help identify and arrest those who use guns in ways that are so harmful to our communities.

'ATF Connecticut, Department of Justice Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Office of Strategic Intelligence and Information, Data Source: Firearms Tracing System, 2006 ^ttjp://gov.ca.gov/pdf/press/2007bills/AB«201471*20Signing*20Message.pdf. 1 ATF Connecticut, Department of Justice Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Office of Strategic Intelligence and Information, Data Source: Firearms Tracing System, 2006 004250

International Association Of Chiefs Of Police RESOLUTION

Adopted at the 115 Annual Conference San Diego, CA November 11,2008

SUPPORT OF THE USE OF MICROSTAMPING TECHNOLOGY Submitted by the Firearms Committee FC.026.a08

WHEREAS, reducing the prevalence of gun crime and gun related homicides in the United States and around the world is a priority of law enforcement; and

WHEREAS, each year many incidents of crime, including homicides, go unsolved due to a lack of evidence in the case; and

WHEREAS, law enforcement agencies are in critical need of additional investigative tools and technologies that would provide accurate and timely intelligence and further leads in investigations of gun crime and give substantial investigatory links; and

WHEREAS, in a large number of violent incidents involving firearms, shell casings are left at crime scenes and law enforcement agencies have no way of identifying these casings; and

WHEREAS, microstamping technology would give each firearm the ability to stamp that weapon's uniquely assigned and identifiable serial number and/or distinctive markings on cartridge casings by way of the firing pin; and

WHEREAS, this technology would be used to help law enforcement identify the first known purchaser of a weapon used in crime, therefore providing leads that would allow for substantial evidentiary information that will help identify, apprehend and arrest criminals; and

WHEREAS, microstamping technology, has proven to be an inexpensive, yet effective way to mark and identify firearm shell casings; therefore be it

RESOLVED that the International Association of Chiefs of Police, duly assembled at its 115* Annual Conference in San Diego, California recommends that all firearms produced or sold be fitted with microstamping technology so that law enforcement can further criminal investigations and enhance public safety; and be it further

RESOLVED that the IACP calls on all governments to enact legislation that will allow for the implementation of microstamping technology.

45 004251

The following are news stories from the past month and a half where shootings occurred but no immediate arrests were made. If microstamping was already included in the manufacturing process the police would have most likely been able to identify the gun used in the following crimes:

Bridgeport, Two shootings that may be related, one seriously wounded a 20-year-old man. (1/13/2009)

Hartford, Shots fired during a home invasion. No one was hit by gunfire. (1/13/2009)

Fair Haven, Double shooting, woman grazed by bullet, man shot in foot. (1/20/2009)

New Haven, Gun shots heard, shell casing found by side of home. (1/20/2009)

New Haven, Man in his early 20s was shot multiple times. Shooter gunned down victim from a vehicle which fled the scene. Victim died at hosptial. (1/24/2009)

Fair Haven, Man shot through his front window, seriously wounded. Victim was not intended target of gunfire. There was a dispute outside his house where a man pulled out a gun and started shooting. (1/30/2009)

Hartford, Shot fired near Learning Corridor, no one was injured. (2/10/2009)

Hartford, Man shot numerous times in his leg. Injuries were not hfe-threatening., (2/12/2009)

Hartford Man shot in arm and chest during holdup. He is expected to survive. (2/13/2009)

New Haven, New Haven's 4th homicide victim of year had history of gun violence, both as shooter and victim. (2/21/2009) 004252

STATE OF NEW YORK

6468

2009-2010 Regular Sessions

IN ASSEMBLY

March 4, 2009

Introduced by M. of A. SCHIMEL, ENGLEBRIGHT, EDDINGTON, PAULIN, BENEDET• TO, DINOWITZ, LANCMAN, HOYT, CLARK, BOYLAND, JAFFEE, KELLNER, CARROZ- ZA, BROOK-KRASNY, ROSENTHAL, O'DONNELL, ALESSI, ESPAILLAT, LAVINE, KAVANAGH, LIFTON, AUBRY, GREENE, ALFANO ~ Multi-Sponsored by — M... of A. BING, COLTON, COOK, DIAZ, GLICK, GOTTFRIED, HEASTIE, HOOPER, JACOBS, JEFFRIES, MAISEL, McENENY, McKEVITT, PEOPLES, PHEFFER, ROBIN• SON, SALADINO, SCARBOROUGH, WEISENBERG — read once and referred to the Committee on Codes

AN ACT to amend the penal law, in relation to requiring semiautomatic pistols manufactured or delivered to any licensed dealer in this state to be capable of microstamping ammunition

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM• BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

1 Section 1. Short title. This act shall be known and may be cited as 2 the "crime gun identification act of 2009". 3 S 2. Legislative findings and intent. The legislature finds that in 4 2005, the national clearance rate for homicide cases was approximately 5 60% and over 3,000 gun homicide cases went unsolved; that in approxi- 6 mately half of gun homicide investigations a spent cartridge casing, but 7 not a firearm, is recovered at the crime scene; that currently deployed 8 national ballistic identification systems cannot identify the 004253

serial 9 number of a gun unless the gun itself has been recovered; that firearm 10 microstamping is an evolutionary forensic technology that produces an 11 identifiable alpha-numeric and geometric code onto the rear of the 12 cartridge casing each time a semiautomatic pistol is fired; that the 13 alpha-numeric and geometric code on an expended cartridge casing will 14 provide an initial lead for law enforcement by enabling law enforcement 15 to match the cartridge casing found at a crime to the original owner of 16 the firearm; that information from completed crime gun tracing is an 17 important element utilized by COMPSTAT and other crime analysis systems 18 to target illegal firearms trafficking; that microstamping technology

EXPLANATION—Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old law to be omitted.

LBD02827-04-9 A. 6468 2

1 continues to produce identifiable markings onto expended cartridge 2 casings even after thousands of rounds of testing; that this additional 3 tool will help law enforcement investigate illegal gun trafficking, 4 close firearm-related criminal cases and protect the public; and that 5 legislative action is necessary to require all new semiautomatic pistols 6 manufactured or sold after January 1, 2011 to be microstamp-ready. 7 S3. Section 265.00 of the penal law is amended by adding four new 8 subdivisions 24, 25, 26 and 27 to read as follows: 9 24. "FIREARMS DEALER" SHALL MEAN A PERSON OR ORGANIZATION POSSESSING A 10 DEALER'S LICENSE TO SELL FIREARMS AT WHOLESALE OR AT RETAIL ISSUED 11 PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 400.00 OF THE PENAL LAW OR ISSUED 12 UNDER FEDERAL LAW. 13 25. "MANUFACTURER" SHALL MEAN ANY PERSON, CORPORATION, PARTNERSHIP, 14 FIRM, OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY IN BUSINESS TO MANUFACTURE OR ASSEMBLE A 15 FIREARM, FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. 16 26. "MICROSTAMP-READY" SHALL MEAN A SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOL THAT IS 004254

MANU- 17 FACTURED TO PRODUCE A UNIQUE ALPHA-NUMERIC OR GEOMETRIC CODE ON AT LEAST 18 TWO LOCATIONS ON EACH EXPENDED CARTRIDGE CASE THAT IDENTIFIES THE MAKE,' 19 MODEL, AND SERIAL NUMBER OF THE PISTOL. 20 27. "SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOL" SHALL MEAN A PISTOL CAPABLE OF UTILIZING A 21 PORTION OF THE ENERGY OF A FIRING CARTRIDGE TO EXTRACT THE FIRED 22 CARTRIDGE CASE AND AUTOMATICALLY CHAMBER THE NEXT ROUND, AND THAT 23 REQUIRES.A SEPARATE PULL OF THE TRIGGER TO FIRE EACH SUCCESSIVE ROUND. 24 S 4. Subdivision 6 of section 265.10 of the penal law, as amended by 25 chapter 189 of the laws of 2000, is amended to read as follows: 26 6. Any person who wilfully defaces any machine-gun, large capacity 27 ammunition feeding device or firearm is guilty of a- class D felony. 28 PROVIDED, HOWEVER, NO ACTION TAKEN IN AN EFFORT TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 29 265.38 OF THIS ARTICLE SHALL CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THIS SUBDIVISION. 30 S 5. Subdivision 5 of section 265.15 of the penal law, as amended by 31 chapter 695 of the laws of 1987, is amended to read as follows: 32 5. The possession by any person of a defaced machine-gun, firearm, 33 rifle or shotgun is presumptive evidence that such person defaced the 34 same. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, NO ACTION TAKEN IN AN EFFORT TO COMPLY WITH 35 SECTION 265.38 OF THIS ARTICLE SHALL CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THIS 36 SUBDIVISION. 37 S 6. The penal law is amended by adding a new section 265.38 to read 38 as follows: 39 S 265.38 MICROSTAMPING CAPABILITY OF SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOLS REQUIRED. 40 1. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBDIVISION TWO OF THIS SECTION, BEGINNING ON 41 JANUARY FIRST, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN, A SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOL SHALL BE 42 MICROSTAMP-READY IF IT IS: 43 (A) MANUFACTURED IN NEW YORK STATE; 44 (B) MANUFACTURED ON OR AFTER JANUARY FIRST, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN AND 45 DELIVERED OR CAUSED TO BE DELIVERED BY ANY MANUFACTURER OR FIREARMS 46 DEALER TO A FIREARMS DEALER IN NEW YORK STATE; OR 47 (C) MANUFACTURED ON OR AFTER JANUARY FIRST, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN AND 48 SOLD, OFFERED FOR SALE, LOANED, GIVEN, OR TRANSFERRED BY A 004255

FIREARMS 4 9 DEALER IN NEW YORK STATE. 50 2. (A) A SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOL MANUFACTURED AFTER JANUARY FIRST, TWO 51 THOUSAND ELEVEN THAT IS NOT MICROSTAMP-READY AND THAT WAS LAWFULLY 52 ACQUIRED OUTSIDE OF NEW YORK STATE BY A NON-DEALER WHO WAS NOT A RESI- 53 DENT OF NEW YORK STATE AT THE TIME OF ACQUISITION BUT WHO SUBSEQUENTLY 54 MOVED TO NEW YORK STATE MAY BE POSSESSED, SOLD, TRANSFERRED, OR GIVEN 55 AWAY. IN SUCH INSTANCE THE PISTOL SHALL BE SOLD, TRANSFERRED, OR GIVEN A. 6468 3

1 AWAY ONLY TO A FIREARMS DEALER WHO SUBSEQUENTLY CAN ONLY SELL, TRANSFER, 2 OR GIVE AWAY SUCH PISTOL TO A FIREARMS DEALER OUTSIDE OF NEW YORK STATE. 3 (B) IF A FIREARMS DEALER LAWFULLY ACQUIRES A MICROSTAMP-READY SEMIAU- 4 TOMATIC PISTOL THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PURCHASED BY A NON-DEALER RESIDENT OF 5 NEW YORK STATE THE FIREARMS DEALER SHALL NOT SELL, OFFER FOR SALE, LOAN, / 6 GIVE, OR TRANSFER THAT PISTOL IF HE OR SHE KNOWS THAT THE PISTOL HAS 7 BEEN DEFACED AS PRESCRIBED IN SUBDIVISION THREE OF THIS SECTION. 8 3. (A) EXCEP.T AS PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH (B) OF THIS SUBDIVISION NO 9 PERSON SHALL INTENTIONALLY DEFACE OR ALTER A MICROSTAMP-READY SEMIAUTO- 10 MATIC PISTOL OR A PORTION OF THE PISTOL FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING 11 LAW ENFORCEMENT FROM IDENTIFYING THE UNIQUE ALPHA-NUMERIC OR GEOMETRIC 12 CODE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT PISTOL. 13 (B) REPLACING A FIRING PIN THAT HAS BEEN DAMAGED OR OTHERWISE IN NEED 14 OF REPLACEMENT FOR THE SAFE USE OF THE SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOL OR FOR A 15 LEGITIMATE SPORTING PURPOSE SHALL NOT ALONE BE EVIDENCE THAT SOMEONE HAS 16 VIOLATED THIS SUBDIVISION. 17 4. BEGINNING JANUARY FIRST, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN, A MANUFACTURER OR 18 FIREARMS DEALER THAT DELIVERS A SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOL, OR CAUSES A SEMI- 19 AUTOMATIC PISTOL TO BE DELIVERED, TO A FIREARMS DEALER FOR SALE IN NEW 20 YORK STATE SHALL CERTIFY WHETHER THE PISTOL WAS MANUFACTURED ON OR AFTER 21 JANUARY FIRST, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN AND, IF IT WAS, THAT: 22 (A) THE SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOL WILL PRODUCE A UNIQUE ALPHA-NUMERIC CODE 004256

23 OR A GEOMETRIC CODE ON EACH CARTRIDGE CASE THAT IDENTIFIES THE MAKE, 24 MODEL, AND SERIAL NUMBER OF THE SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOL THAT EXPENDED THE 25 CARTRIDGE CASING; AND 26 (B) THE MANUFACTURER WILL SUPPLY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE STATE 27 POLICE WITH THE MAKE, MODEL, AND SERIAL NUMBER OF THE SEMIAUTOMATIC 28 PISTOL THAT EXPENDED THE CARTRIDGE CASE,;1 WHEN PRESENTED WITH AN 29 ALPHA-NUMERIC OR GEOMETRIC CODE FROM A CARTRIDGE CASE; PROVIDED, THAT 30 THE CARTRIDGE CASE WAS RECOVERED AS PART OF A LEGITIMATE LAW ENFORCEMENT 31 INVESTIGATION. 32 5. FOR PURPOSES OF SUBDIVISION ONE OF THIS SECTION, A SEMIAUTOMATIC 33 PISTOL IS CAPABLE OF MICROSTAMPING AMMUNITION IF: 34 (A) A MICROSCOPIC ARRAY OF CHARACTERS THAT IDENTIFY THE MAKE, MODEL 35 AND SERIAL NUMBER OF THE SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOL IS ETCHED INTO THE FIRING 36 PIN AND THE BREECH FACE OF THE SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOL; AND 37 (B) WHEN AMMUNITION IS FIRED FROM THE SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOL, THE CHAR- 38 ACTERS ARE COPIED FROM THE FIRING PIN AND THE BREECH FACE ONTO THE 39 CARTRIDGE CASE OF THE AMMUNITION. 4 0 6. (A) ANY MANUFACTURER OR FIREARMS DEALER WHO INTENTIONALLY FAILS TO 41 COMPLY WITH SUBDIVISION ONE OF THIS SECTION BY DELIVERING OR CAUSING TO 42 BE DELIVERED ANY SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOL MANUFACTURED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 43 FIRST, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN THAT IS NOT MICROSTAMP-READY; 44 (B) ANY FIREARMS DEALER WHO INTENTIONALLY FAILS TO COMPLY WITH SUBDI- 45 VISION ONE OF THIS SECTION BY SELLING ANY SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOL MANUFAC- 4 6 TURED ON OR AFTER JANUARY FIRST, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN THAT IS NOT MICROS- 47 TAMP-READY; OR 48 (C) ANY PERSON WHO INTENTIONALLY FAILS TO COMPLY WITH SUBDIVISION 49 THREE OF THIS SECTION BY DEFACING OR ALTERING ANY MICROSTAMP-READY SEMI- 50 AUTOMATIC PISTOL THAT WAS MANUFACTURED ON OR AFTER JANUARY FIRST, TWO 51 THOUSAND ELEVEN, 52 SHALL BE SUBJECT TO A FINE OF UP TO ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH 53 VIOLATION. IN ADDITION TO ANY FINE IMPOSED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION, A 54 TERM OF IMPRISONMENT OF UP TO ONE YEAR MAY BE IMPOSED FOR EACH 004257

55 VIOLATION. 56 S 7. This act shall take effect January 1, 2011; provided, that: A. 6468 4

1 (a) the superintendent of the state police has received a written 2 notice from a microstamp job shop that is willing to produce the micro- 3 stamp structures on two internal surfaces of a semiautomatic pistol such 4 that the pistol is microstamp-ready for a price of twelve dollars or 5 less at a production level of one thousand firearms per a batch; and 6 (b). effective immediately, the superintendent of the state police 7 shall issue rules and regulations necessary for the implementation of 8 this act on its effective date. 004258

SB 353 An Act Concerning Microstamping of Semiautomatic Pistols

This message is to express my opposition to bill SB 353. The bill is intended to allow identification guns by matching them with empty cartridges after the gun is fired.

I feel that this bill will do nothing to slow violent crime, but will hurt the law abiding sportspersons and hunters. We already have the ability to identify guns used in a crime via marks left on bullets and on fired bullet casings. This bill will do nothing to help stop crime as criminals don't use "legal" guns and they won't in the future. If there is an identifying mark on the guns firing pin criminals will simply grind it away.

Newspapers report that a gun can be purchased for a few hundred dollars on the street. Buying a gun legally is much more expensive than that and this bill would add to that cost and would provide no additional assistance to law enforcement. I have not read the entire proposed bill, however if modification of existing pistols were required this would add a significant expense for "legal" owners.

I am President of the Rockville Fish and Game Club which has 830 members and the club opposes SB 353.

Thank you for your consideration.

Steven Peterson 117 Brookview Dr. Vernon, CT :06066

860/512-0386 Colt Unit UAW Local 376, West Hartford, CT. 06110

" Good Morning, Chairman Lawlor, Chairman McDonald, and members of the Judiciary Committee.

Sincere thanks to the Committee for hearing my testimony. I am John H. Palmer, Vice Chairman Colt Unit Local 376 United Auto Workers. I have been employed for twenty eight (28) years. The proposed Bill SB 353 would have a devastating effect on one of the oldest most recognizable manufacturers in CONNECTICUT. The additional cost of manufacturing a semi-auto pistol with micro stamping would be passed along to the end user thus crippling sales and ending production. This effect would also impact our Vendors and Suppliers. Sum and substance would amount to the loss of thousands of livelihoods and will result in an inability to supply law abiding firearm owners, as well as, laws enforcement officers and our nations' military. The members of our unit own a portion of the Company, through our Employee Stock Ownership / Program. Ownership implies risk and our risk is defined as our jobs. On behalf of all of the workers of UAW Local 376, I strongly urge the Committee to reject this Bill.

Thank you! Colt Unit UAW Local 376 West Hartford, CT. 06110

Thank you for the opportunity to provide my testimony.

My name is Mike Holmes, Shop Chairman at Colt Defense, and Colt Manufacturing UAW Local 376 in West Hartford, CT.

I would like to express my absolute outrage at proposed bill # SB353 for several reasons.

This bill would not only have a profound negative impact on the law abiding gun owners in our state, but it would also hurt the people that manufacture and service these guns for a living, meaning loss of jobs.

The proposed micro-stamping technology would jeopardize the employment of all the hard working union members that I represent at Colt. The effects would in turn be far reaching by also hurting our vendors and suppliers around the state and placing their jobs at risk also.

This technology would serve absolutely no purpose as a crime deterrent. Guns are assembled and disassembled every day to replace parts and components. Criminals could very easily defeat this technology by simply replacing the firing pin mechanism.

I strongly oppose this bill and respectfully ask you to take into consideration the devastating impact it would have on the job market in this state and the effect it would have on our already troubled economic situation.

Thank you 004261

Judiciary Committee Hartford Connecticut March 16th 2009

Members of the Judiciary Committee:

My name Is Jennifer Churchill, and I would ask that you oppose SB 353 An Act Concerning Microstamping.

This bill will do little to stop or solve crimes. Most criminals who use guns, get them through unregulated channels. According to the BATFE, 88% of crime guns are acquired through unregulated channels, and the median time between a crime gun's acquisition and its use in crime is 6.6 years. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, most criminals get guns via theft or the black market.

Micro-stamping may increase gun thefts, home invasions and other burglaries, and expand the black market in guns. Criminals will be further encouraged to get guns illegally, if they believe that guns bought legally will be linked to them in a computerized database.

This legislation will have a direct negative impact on my family, as my husband works for a firearms manufacturer. The company potentially could be forced to expend large sums of money attempting to comply with the legislation, or they could be forced to close the plant entirely. In this current economy, this legislation will harm employees, and I feel this is irresponsible on the part of legislators.

Again, I hope you will OPPOSE SB 353.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Churchill Vernon Connecticut 004262

Judiciary Committee Hartford Connecticut March 16th 2009

Members of the Committee:

My name is Amy Stegall and I appreciate the opportunity to be heard on this legislation today.

I would ask that you OPPOSE SB353 An Act Concerning Microstamping Semiautomatic Pistols:

It should be noted that the inventor of this "technology" is a private individual who is not an experienced ballistics expert, and he holds a patent on the process. Despite his previous statement last year that he would offer the details to the manufacturers royalty free—the fact still remains that he alone owns the process due to his patent. I have concerns that this violates state and federal free trade laws, by creating a monopoly. The laws do not stipulate that a profit must be made, only that a monopoly exists.

On the opposite side of this issue is the fact that the bill prohibits retail sale of unmarked semiautomatic pistols after 2010. If I am following this correctly, it would appear that you are impeding the ability of gun owners to resell their pistols at some future date. Currently, retailers such as Cabelas will purchase firearms from private individuals and then offer those firearms for resale in their store. Since currently owned seminautomatic pistols are not microstamped, with passage of this bill it appears unlikely that gunowners would be able to resell unmarked pistols in the future, as the retailers who would ordinarily purchase them from private owners would be unable to resell them.

I also find it reprehensible that in today's economy, tax dollars are being wasted pursuing something that will clearly have a direct and negative impact on firearms manufactures in this state. I recognize that there are individuals who dislike firearms. However, gun manufacturers are conducting a lawful business, and they employ hundreds of people in our state. Our legislature has a reputation of not being business friendly, and I'believe that this is an overwhelming example.

In closing, I have to note the irony that certain legislators have been working to get the Colt building in Hartford designated as a National Historical landmark, and yet this legislation has the potential to drive Colt out of our state.

Again, I would urge you to oppose SB 353.

Amy Stegall 17 Old Monson Road Stafford Springs CT Member NRA Member Pomfret Rod & Gun Club Member Rockville Fish & Game Club 004263

SB353 Microstamping The Looney Bill

March 16,2009

We are gathered here this morning wasting time and valuable man hours during the State's biggest financial crisis in memory, because you are incapable of doing the job you were elected to do. You were not even considerate enough to hold this hearing at time when most of the people testifying on both sides of the issue are out of work, thereby causing employers across the State to loose countless man hours of productivity.

Senator Martin Loony and some members of this committee, do not like firearms. They dislike firearms so much that they are willing to use any excuse to deny the citizens of Connecticut their right to bear arms and to pass their firearms on to their descendents. Many of these firearms are of great historical value, valuable antiques or custom made firearms that are of substantial value. Is the State going to reimburse the heirs for their loss at fair market value? There is a constitutional requirement to compensate for seized property.

The Looney Bill would force manufactures of firearms to adopt an unproven technology that several studies show is unreliable and of limited or useless value to police and prosecutors. It should also be noted that the BATFE can already trace any firearm made since 1968 from its manufacturer to its lastlegal owner in 24 hours. In actuality, the Loony Bill is an attempt over a period of time, to seize as many legally owned firearms as possible from the citizens of Connecticut. I strongly point out legally owned firearms. This bill does nothing to prevent criminals from using or obtaining firearms.

I have attached the results of two studies into the reliability of Microstamping that show it does not live up to the hype being spouted by its proponents. These studies were done by the Suffolk County Crime Lab, Suffolk NY and the University Of California Davis. In addition to the failure to live up to the hype, there is the problem of criminals seeding a crime scene with shell casings taken from shooting ranges. This could lead to innocent persons being injured or killed by police who are raiding homes in search of a suspect. Ironically, Microstamping could lead to hours of wasted police effort as they track innocent persons down.

In conclusion, the Loony Bill does nothing to prevent crime, deprives citizens and their heirs of the right to bear arms and may actually impede the police and prosecutors from properly doing their jobs. The Looney Bill should have been killed in this committee.

Thank You, /

Joseph G. Knott Jr. 004264 1

fsdatl Manufacturer Testing Studies conducted by the developers of the technology, including a 2,500 round stress test resulted in a legible transfer rate of 100% (note that the service "life of a typical military or police handgun is an order of magnitude higherl'7] [81 f 91 [ 101). In addition, the technology includes stamps on the breech face and residual markings that extend the functional length of the firing pin. Even when the microstamp is removed, and this requires technical knowledge of the stamp and firearms and the use of power tools or diamond sandpaper, the breech face and the residual marks are still transferred and identifiable.nl

fedatl Suffolk County Crime Laboratory George G. Krivosta, of the Suffolk County Crime Laboratory in New York, investigated the firearm microstamping technology offered by NanoTag. His basic thesis for this experiment states: "The science of Forensic Firearm and Toolmark Examination relies on the use of highly trained and skilled individuals to identify & compare accidental markings left on expended ammunition components. To circumvent the need for these individuals, it has long been suggested to rely on manufacturer-generated unique characteristics that would be transferred onto the expended components."!"! 1"| The owner of microstamping technology claims "markings will be readily identifiable at the crime scene ... with 100% reliability, with little or no training of the analyst needed..."[Ill- In his research, using tagged firing pins in a .22 Long Rifle rifle and a .45 ACP pistol, he found that very few firing pin strikes actually resulted in legible marks, as it was very common for the firing pin to bounce on impact and strike the case more than once, with successive strikes landing slightly off of the original position and obscuring the original strike impression. Out of the first 100 rounds fired using an 8 character alphanumeric code, 54 provided satisfactory markings, while the remaining 46 had at least one illegible character. Smaller print, encoding the make, model, and serial number for a total of 45 characters, resulting in far less clear markings which were difficult to decipher even under ideal circumstances. Subsequent testing was done only with the 8 character coded pin.[lli The remaining testing was done using 10 different M1911 pistols of various make and age, with the test firing pin being moved from pistol to pistol as groups were fired with standard military type .45 ACP ball ammunition. After each 100 rounds was fired, the pin was removed from the pistol, examined, and placed in the next pistol. After 1000 rounds were fired, the markings on the pin were still readable, though the markings were beginning to soften under the repeated impacts of firing.fl 11 The last test involved an intentional defacement of the markings on the pin. The pin was removed (a simple operation taking a few seconds on the Ml911), chucked in a power drill, spun, and held against a knife sharpening stone for about 10 seconds. Examination of the pin showed some marking remaining at the very center of the firing pin, so the pin was wiped against the stone three times by hand, which removed all traces of the engraving. The tip was of the pin was then rounded to remove any sharp edges, placed back in the pistol, and fired with 10 rounds. No malfunctions were observed. [111 The study found that the ratio of unsatisfactory markings, where at least one of the 8 characters was not readable under a microscope, was 46%. It also questioned the validity of a number of alternative the marking techniques, designed to go on other areas of the 004265

firearm: • Headstamps could interfere with case head markings other than on the firing pin • Low pressure rimfirecartridge s are unlikely to pick up breechface markings • Recoil operated designs using the Browning tilting barrel (the majority of recoil operated handguns made) would cause shearing marks on the case head markings, as would gas operated designs (rare in handguns, but common in rifles)usin g a rotating bolt. • Some marking locations shown in the NanoTag marketing literature showed marks on the extractor and ejector in areas that never come into contact with the ammunition. • Chamber markings would need to be placed deep in the chamber, and would be subject to shearing under extractionjjjj A side by side comparison done by NanoMark in response to Krivosta's findings is available for review, fjj [12]

[editl University of California, Davis The UC Davis study was performed by graduate student Michael Beddow under the supervision of David Howitt, a professor of chemical engineering and materials science, and chair of the Graduate Group in Forensic Science at the university. The test involved engraving firing pins fromsi x brands of semiautomatic handguns, two semiautomatic rifles and a shotgun. The firing pins were engraved with an alphanumeric code on the face of the firing pin, a pattern of dots or gears around the pin, and a radial bar code on the side of the pin, a process recommended by ID Dynamics to make the markings more robust. [13] The wear testing was done with six Smith & Wesson .40 S&W pistols used by California Highway Patrol cadets in training, who fired approximately 2,500 rounds through each pistol. The alphanumeric codes on the firing pin faces were still legible, but showed signs of wear, while the dot and bar codes were "hammered flat", according to Beddow. [13] Other firearms tested inlucded .22 Long PJlle and .380 ACP handguns in addition to the rifles and shotgun, and a wide range of results were attained. In general, the alphanumeric and gear codes transferred well, but the barcodes showed significant visual degradation, though due to lack of information on reading the codes, mechanical reading was not attempted. [13] Beddow found that the codes on face of the pin could easily be removed with household tools. The estimated cost of engraving the pins was US$8 for each pin the first year, and US$2 per pin from that point on.[_13j A side by side comparison done by NanoMark in response to the UC Davis Study is available for review.[2] [14]

[editl Update on UC Davis study The study by UC Davis was peer reviewed by three independent researchers, updated, and was re-released in May, 2008. The revised report concluded "At the present time, therefore, because its forensic potential has yet been fully assessed, a mandate for the implementation of this technology in all semiautomatic handguns sold in the state of California is counter-indicated. Further testing, analysis, and evaluation are required." 004266

The study also called into study the pricing estimates given by the manufacturer and the usefulness of the serial number information in solving gang shootmgs.£19][20] In rebuttal to the claims that the study used outdated firearms, the firearms in the study were chosen to provide a broad range of calibers and action types. Some of the firearms, such as the Smith & Wesson 4006 and Sisj Sauer P-229 used by the Caiiibmia Highway Patrol, are current issue and were purchased new; others included the Colt Mi911 design, which is still in production after nearly a century, the Ruger MKL the Mossberg 500, and the Colt AR-15, all very common, established designs, still in production with minimal changes over the lifetime of the design. [19]

A - £ - "Cracking the Case: The Crime Solving Promise of Ballistics Identification." Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence Report on Microstamping, 2004. Report ACal. P.C. § 12125(b)(4) A - - - - - SAAMI. "A6 352 Defines As "Unsafe' Any Semi-Automatic Pistol Not Microstamped'. http://saami.orjj/LL/CA-AB352.clm. Retrieved on 2007-11-26. A See accurizing A Mike Feuer. "City of Oakland Bill Analysis1'. http://clerkwebsvr 1 .oaldandnet.com/attachments/16653.pdf. Retrieved on 2007- 11-27. A California State Senate Republican Caucus. "Briefing Report: Ammunition Identification", http://republican.sen.ca.gov/opeds/99/oped2875.asp. Retrieved on 2007-11-26.' A "CZ P-01 -acts NATO approval", http://wvvw.cz- usa.com/media releases.php?rn=4&msgid=3 7. Retrieved on 2007-11-09. A "BERETT-A AWARDED CONTRACT FOR 18.744 M9 PISTOLS TO US ARMY", http://www.berettausa.corn/media/download.cfm7d id=l 16. Retrieved on 2007-11-16. A 'Slock it and it will sell". http://findarticles.eom/p/articles/mi m3197/is 5 49/ai n6054267. Retrieved on 2007-11-16. A Ray Bonds, David Miller (2002). The Illustrated Directory of Modern American Weapons. Zenith Press. A - - - George G. Kirvosta, Suffolk County Crime Laboratory, Hauppage, New York. "NanoTak,TM Markings from Another Perspective". http://vvvvvv.nssl'.ora/share/leijal/docs/AFTEVoi38NolKrivoslaNanoTa!J.pdi'. Retrieved on 2007-11-09. Published in AFTE Journal, Volume 38 Number 1, Winter 2006 n "Krivosta Protocol". http://vvvvvv.csij;v.or5J/atl/ci:M'23E96A35-4C75-41EE-BDDD- 4BD3A3B59Qi 0 \/KRIVOSTA PROTOCOL 1 .PDF. A - - - - "Mixed results tor coded bullet casings". http://www.dateline.ucdavis.edu/dl detail.lasso?id=9514. Retrieved on 2007-11- 09. A "UC Davis Protocol". hrro://www.csgv.org/atf/cf/%7B23E96A35-4C75-41EE- BDDD- 4BD3A3B590i0%7D/UCDAVIS FArLURETOuSE%20SEMTECHNOLOGY2. 004267

PDF. 2 Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV): Microstamping Technology: Precise and Proven 2 Horwitz, Josh, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. "'Stamping' Qui Violence.' LA Daily Journal. 24 August 2007 A ''Corrected: Study on Microstamping ui'Guns". http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news detail.lasso?id=8163. Retrieved on 2007-11-09. * "AFTE Journal". http://www.afte.org/Journal/AFTEJournal.htm. Retrieved on 2007-11-09. A - - David Howitt, PhD, Frederic A. Tulleners, and Michael T. Beddow. "What Micro Serialized Firing Pins Can Add to Firearm Identification in Forensic Sciwiics* Jriow Vi2.'bit? jjFw ivficro~Iyl£irk.wCi h*inni^ Pin Impressions #s .fcivmencs?". Forensic Science Graduate Group, University of California, Davis. http://extension.ucdayis.edix/mat>ters/t"orenbic science/pdvUCD- Microseriai%20Number%20CPRC%20Report%20Mav%20April.pdl". 2 David Howitt, PhD, Frederic A. Tulleners, and Michael T. Beddow. 'Appendices • section. What Micro Serialized Firing Pins Can Add to Firearm Identification in Forensic Science: How Viable are Micro-Marked Firing Pin Impressions as Evidence?". Forensic Science Graduate Group, University of California, Davis. http://extension.ucdavis.edu/masters/lbrensic science/pdi7Appendices-Full.pdf. A California Assembly (AB 14711 2 Sections 12090 and 12094 of the California Penal Code CA Penal Code 2 US Title 18 Chapter 44 Section 921 and 922(k) US Penal Code 2 Cal. P.C. § 12125(b)(4) Retrieved from ''http://en.vvikipedia.orafwiki/Firearm microstamping" Good Morning Chairman McDonald, Chairman Lawlor, Members of the Judiciary Committee.

I'm Ray Hanley from Southbury and President of the High Rock Shooting Association and I'm here to voice opposition to Committee Bill 353 and comment on Committee Bill 358. If passed, 353 would mandate to the hard pressed taxpayers of Connecticut to gamble on an unproven theory of linking used cartridge cases to a firearm that fires them by requiring the micro stamping of semi-automatic pistols. This legislation was passed in California but hasn't been implemented yet so no data is available as to it's reliability. Maryland and New York states have passed and implemented legislation similar to this called Ballistic Finger Printing. In a report updated July 8,2008, Maryland State Police recommended suspending the ballistic ID system. The report states that the 2.5 million spent on the system so far, be used on proven crime fighter techniques. The report further states the system has failed to provide any meaningful hits. Colonial Thomas E. Hutching, Superintendent of the Maryland State Police further states, "The system really is not doing anything." In New York State, its 7-year handgun fingerprint database has yet to lead to a criminal prosecution. Since March of 2001 ID information from more then 200,000 new handguns sold in New York have been entered into the database maintained by state — police. Cost estimated in New York for this program is about a million dollars a year. In these hard economic times in our state, why should the taxpayers be mandated to finance a program that has no proven track record, has the potential of costing more workers the loss of their jobs and has an aura of "maybe someday" ring to it? We don't need it and we can't afford it. 004270

Testimony Submittal regarding SB 353 regarding Micro-stamping of all semi-automatic firearms sold or transferred after January 1,2011

Submitted to the Joint Committee on Judiciary, March 16,2009

Submitter Victor Benson . 25 Old Slate Road New Milford, CT 06776 ph. (860) 350-3502 email stenguns@hotmail com

Dear Esteemed Members of the Judiciary Committee

I am testifying in opposition to Senator Martin Looney's proposed SB 353 which would require every semi-automatic handgun sold or transferred in Connecticut after Jan. 1,2011 to be equipped with a micro-stamp on the firing pin and breech face for the supposed purpose of allowing police to more readily identify the owner of the handgun from spent shell casings retrieved at the scene of a crime and thus facilitate the tracing of the gun to the perpetrator.

My reasons for opposing this proposed bill are as follows.

1) This bill is poorly thought out and written with serious doomsday implications for lawful gun owners 2) The bill does not allow for any transfers of'^m-microslamped" pistols that are in lawful possession prior to l/l/l to any olher residents of Connecticut after l/l/l 1 3) The bdl does not allow for the bequeathment and transfer of valuable semi-auto pistols to heirs that reside in Connecticut because these pistols do not have the micro-stamping technology 4) This bill ignores collectors of rare, collectible, antique, and military heritage pistols that were manufactured without micro stamping technology 5) No manufacturers of firearms presently sell pistols with this micro stamping technology 6) Due to the small size of Connecticut relative to the global firearms market, it is unlikely that any firearms manufacturer would find it profitable to invest m microstamp technology solely for the purpose of gaining a market share in our small state 7) Since all or almost all of manufacturers of small arms would find it unprofitable to utilize microstamp technology for Connecticut sales, this would create a de-facto ban on all sales of new and used semi-automatic pistol sales in Connecticut after l/l/l I. 8) This technology is unproven and easily defeatable with a simple file to deface the markings on the gun's firing pin and breech face Additionally, wear and/or parts replacement would render any micro stamping information unreliable and inadmissible in a court of law 9) Most semi-automatic pistols utilize the Browning "tilting barrel" sty le of locked breech design which would create a sheer effect on the micro stamping when the shell is ejecting thus '"smearing" the micro stamping and rendering it unreadable. 10) Since most cnme guns are stolen, tracing then- lawful owners would not necessarily lead back the perpetrator of a crime. 11) A criminal could "seed" the cnme scene with other casings picked up at a gun range or readily available for sale on the internet or gun shows thus confusing investigator's chances of obtaining a conviction. 12) Revolvers, equally as deadly as semiautomatic pistols, would be exempt from the statute and would become the preferred weapon of malfeasance for cnminals simply because they do not eject their spent cartndge casings upon firing. 13) Many pistol rounds are reloaded by individuals and professional reloading companies These rounds would bear the micro stamping from two or more firings from mircostamped guns thus hampering any tracing efforts by investigators. 14) Microstamping cartridge casings would be negated if the microstamp was indented over the case headstamp which is generally indicative of the maker and caliber of the cartridge 15) This bill would have minimal effects on cnme scene investigator's efforts to identify the perpetrators of a crime and have monumentally negative effects on the lawful owners of semiautomatic handguns in our state 16) This law wdl hurt collectors, shooters, and others who lawfully own semi-automatic pistols in our state and the effects on cnme scene evidence collection will be ml

For these reasons and those that are guaranteed in our State and Federal Constitutions regarding that the ''right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", 1 implore you esteemed gentlemen to kill this bill as it affects only the lawful owners of firearms anddoes nothing to solve cnme or impact criminal investigations but merely serves to impact the peaceful and lawful ownership of firearms by the citizens of our state.

Respectfully,

Victor Benson 004271

Opposed to SB 353 & SB353

SB 358, Assault Weapon?

What is an Assault weapon? A golf club? A baseball bat? Tennis racquet?

Most juniors start in shooting competitions around the age of 10

Our Connecticut Juniors have competed in National & Olympic competitions, winning & taking home medals for Connecticut, some at the age of 12! They have broken many national records, now you want to take away their privilege, their right to compete.

Being a Boy Scout leader for 25 years, a father of 2 Eagle scouts & a shooting coach for 30 years I can tell you that the Connecticut Junior Shooting teams have the same morals, ethics, and laws as the Boy Scouts

Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, Reverent.

With the help of their parents & the teachings they have learned from their coaches & peers they have grown to be outstanding citizens.

Though the years our Juniors have grown to become excellent citizens, top of their classes at High Schools and Colleges, RIT, Annapolis, West Point, just to name a few They have become, lawyers, pharmacist, engineers, surveyors, air traffic controllers, electricians, paralegals, etc. All of these are jobs we could use in Connecticut, do we want them to move to another State just so they could stay active in "Shooting sports"?

I would not like to go to the National Championships this year & say they passed a law that says Connecticut Juniors can not compete!'1

If you have to pick a new age, pick 10, remove the term "at shooting ranges".

SB 353 Micro stamping?

This still has not been proven to be effective & will not help to solve any crime

No criminal is going to turn in there illegal pistol to get it "micro stamped", this only attacks honest law abiding Citizens & Connecticut firearms manufactures.

In Connecticut we have "Drive by shootings" & "Drive Through" jail times, we even drop early released inmates to downtown New Haven to start the "cycle" all over again, enforce & increase jail times'

Randy Bieler 1068 Peck Lane Cheshire, CT 004272

Testimony of Hans D Justus before the Judiciary Committee March 16, 2009

Re- SB 353 and SB 358

Good Morning Chairman Lawlor, Chairman McDonald and members of the committee

My name is Hans Justus, residing in Cheshire I am a retired engineer and currently President of WLOPA, a sports shooting club in Wolcott.

SB 353 I am opposed to micro stamping of firearms, as it does nothing to either keep guns out of the hands of cnminals or assure punishment of them. * This technology does not work with any degree of reliability ( Ref AFTE Journal Vol 40, No 3; NSSF Micro Stamping Factsheet) 123 * Implementation will add large costs to firearms and create a bureaucratic nightmare for manufacturers and state agencies attempting to keep track guns, replacement parts (coded bolts, finng pins) which must be matched to the original codes of affected firearms. * Due to the problems involved in providing special' Connecticut Versions' of their product lines, manufactu• rers would most likely opt not to sell in Connecticut * Very importantly, if enacted, this law would ban transfer of firearms not micro stamped from being trans• ferred. This would greatly affect family heirlooms, valuable collectors pieces and such.

Please consider that this proposed legislation will only benefit the group selling the concept and those who would further, restrict access to firearms for law abiding citizens - and do nothing to prevent cnminals from obtaining and (ab)using guns for illegal purposes.

SB358

My opposition to this bill is based on the term ' Assault Weapon '. The onginal and military term defines an Assault Rifle as a select fire rifle which fires reduced power rifle cartridges. As currently used, it has been applied to a large variety of semi automaticrifles and shotguns. There are many young people, who aspire to shoot in the National Rifle Matches or to compete in Trap, Skeet or similar shotgun sports. The use of' Assault Weapon ' could effectively ban them from participating.

Please consider changing the term. 004273

NEW HAVEN DEPARTMENT OF POLICE SERVICE One Union Avenue • W«w Haven » Connecticut • 06519

Francisco Ortiz, Jr. John DeStefano Jr Chief of Police Mayor

Testimony of the City of New Haven to the Judiciary Committee

Honorable Committee Members, thank you for allowing me to address you. My name

is Chief James M. Lewis of the New Haven Police Department. I respectfully testify on

behalf of the City of New Haven Police Department and Mayor John DeStefano, Jr. in

support of SB 353, An Act Concerning The Microstamping Of Semiautomatic Pistols. And

SB358. An Act Concerning Prohibiting The Transfer Of Assault Weapons Or Machine Guns

To Minors.

SB 353 requires microstamping of the firing pins in all firearms that are sold and

purchased within the State of Connecticut. Microstamping technology uses lasers to make

microscopic engravings on the firing pin of a gun, which leave an identifying mark on any

spent casings discharged from that gun. The ability to identify and link spent casings to a

specific firearm would assist law enforcement officials with the tracking of that weapon if it

is lost, stolen or used in the commission of a crime.

During the calendar year 2007 the City of New Haven Police Department investigated

162 assaults and 13 homicides committed by use of a firearm. During this same calendar

year our agency responded to 940 reports of gunfire within the city limits. These reports

resulted in 577 cases where ballistic evidence was seized by officers on the street. All of

these incidents in addition to the assault shootings and homicides, places a great burden on

the officers of the New Haven Police Department.

Policing through Partnerships

cityofnewhaven.com/police 004274

Presently, when evidence from the discharge of a firearm is collected, it sent to the

Connecticut State Police Forensic Laboratory in Meriden, CT for processing by an expert

firearm examiner. This Laboratory is the only facility in the state that processes evidence for police departments and does so for the entire state. The backlog of evidence from firearms cases is evident by the amount and nature of incidents in the City of New Haven alone, compiled with the evidence sent in by the remainder of the police agencies in the state.

The Microstamping of firearmswil l greatly reduce this backlog of cases at the laboratory and allow each police agency in the state to examine ballistic evidence collected at crime scenes. The ability to identify which crime scenes are linked together based on the identifiers from the microstamping process will greatly enhance the police agencies throughout the state's ability to reduce crimes that involve firearms.

Tracking of firearms through any means is a difficult job for any police agency in the nation. With the use of current technology the tracking process has become easier in the past decade. Now we are faced with an even newer form of technology that can greatly enhance the tracking of firearms. A simple database of information related to microstamped firearms can only be an asset to our police. i Although we understand that microstamping of firearms is not a cure-all for firearms related crimes; if it has the ability to reduce the number of firearms used in crimes by a modest percentage it would be of a great assistance to law enforcement officers and make our communities safe places to reside in.

„ SB358 addresses the issue of minors possessing assault weapons. It is difficult to imagine any legitimate use by a minor of an assault weapon within an urban environment.

Policing through Partnerships

cityofnewhaven com/police 004275

We believe this exposes the minor to unnecessary risk that they may not be able to recognize at a young age.

We urge the passage of both of these pieces of legislations as it is a step in the right direction to reduce gun crimes across the state of Connecticut and the nation.

Policing through Partnerships

cityofnewhaven com/police