Connecticut Senate Bill SB00607

Connecticut 2013 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/24/13
• Refer: 1/24/13

Caption

An Act Concerning Application For A Temporary Permit To Carry A Pistol Or Revolver.

Impact

The implementation of SB00607 would likely impact regulations surrounding gun ownership and carry permits at the state level. By requiring applications to go through local authorities, the bill might standardize the process and provide municipalities with more oversight. This could have implications for how different towns enforce gun laws, potentially leading to more uniformity across the state in terms of temporary permits. However, it may also create challenges in accessibility for residents in rural areas where local authorities may have fewer resources to process applications efficiently.

Summary

SB00607 aims to amend the existing statutes regarding the application process for a temporary permit to carry a pistol or revolver. Under this proposed legislation, individuals wishing to apply for such a permit must do so through the local authority in their town of permanent residence. This requirement centralizes the application process, giving local governments a significant role in the permitting of individuals carrying firearms. Additionally, the bill stipulates that applicants can only submit an application once every twelve months, which seeks to regulate the renewability of temporary permits for concealed carry further.

Contention

There are expected to be debates surrounding SB00607, particularly regarding local control over gun regulation and the implications for citizens' rights to carry firearms. Proponents of the bill may argue that it enhances safety by ensuring that permit applications are vetted by local authorities familiar with their communities. Conversely, opponents could contend that it places unnecessary burdens on individuals seeking their right to carry and may inhibit lawful access to firearms due to municipal discretion over application processing. As the bill moves through the legislative process, discussions around its potential effectiveness and impact on Second Amendment rights will likely be polarizing.