Stafstrom’s Police Safety Bill To Produce Gun Permit

Bridgeport’s eight-member legislative delegation is sorting through a whole bunch of issues in the current session of the General Assembly, including state aid, new revenue sources, school funding and law enforcement matters. State Rep. Steve Stafstrom is sponsoring a bill on an issue that hit close to home in 2016, which would require anyone carrying a firearm to produce a permit when asked by a law enforcement officer.

“This is really a police safety bill. It’s really about protecting our law enforcement officers. Allowing them to do their jobs,” Stafstrom recently told WTNH 8 News. See video above.

About a year ago city police officers asked a man to produce his gun permit in a Subway franchise Downtown. He resisted, citing state law on his side.

Gun right activists see this as an intrusion on law-abiding citizens, but Stafstrom frames it as a police officer safety bill.

Stafstrom has introduced the bill for this session after it failed to pass in the last days of the legislative session last year. As pointed out in the News 8 story, top law enforcement officials support the law change because police are now in an awkward position when citizens call saying ‘there’s a man with a gun near a school.’



    1. I agree, Jennifer. It’s good State Rep Stafstrom has taken this sensible action in light of the shameful and dangerous episode last year in Bridgeport, which captured national media attention.

      It defies all reasonableness to argue against public safety and the safety of our uniformed officers, in favor of some FAR OUT INTERPRETATION OF THE “Second Amendment” in this context.

      Grizzly Bears for police safety!

  1. You get stopped by a cop driving a motor vehicle, they ask you for your license, registration and proof of insurance.

    If you are going to carry your gun you have to have your permit on you at the same time. You should have to produce the permit if you are asked by law enforcement. It’s not a debate, any reasonable person would hand it over without question.

    I do not know who put the language in the current law but it must be changed.

  2. Seems reasonable. We have lots of rights, privileges and opportunities in the United States. Some of them require we verify said right, privilege or opportunity when requested.

    For instance when we go to vote for an elected official we are asked to verify our residence with most of us showing our motor vehicle driver’s license. (And that is why I feel it is reasonable to request elected and appointed public servants to also register for public review their residence from the same document and keep it current.)

    The carrying of weapons, like voting a privilege and a right, is similarly governed with other rules. Why would verification not be reasonable? Time will tell.

  3. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    This Stafstrom Infringement Bill is just another way for the State to get its hands in your wallet and put more gun control on the rights of the legal gun carriers!

    So if you are stopped by a police officer and have your gun but not your permit with you, does the officer confiscate your gun and issue you a ticket or a summons or both?

    Get ‘er done!

    1. Was in a car with someone recently, pulled over for an illegal turn, the first thing he handed to the officer was his carry permit. The gun was in the console, out of sight. Didn’t bother the gun owner at all. And this state is a regulation-hating, gun-owning, gun-carrying state. And, no ticket, no warning–and no ask to see the weapon.

  4. Producing a permit for a firearm observed publicly or accidentally by a police officer is absolutely reasonable. This is a good piece of legislation that is eminently reasonable. How does it infringe on anyone’s rights? Would we make it illegal for police officers to use their discretion in asking a few basic questions of anyone in the context of assuring public safety over the variety of situations that might indicate a potential public-safety matter? A survey of licensed gun owners should be done to get an idea of the percentage who oppose this type of legislation. I would bet it would be well below 50%.

  5. It defies credulity to think all any crazy who wants to kill people with a hand gun, illegal or otherwise, has to do is carry their gun in a holster in plain sight and the police can’t demand to see their permit. This requires a special law from our legislators to protect its citizenry from gun violence?

    Rather than patting State Rep. Steve Stafstrom on the back, we need to ask why has this glaring omission in Connecticut law been allowed to continue for so long and what took so long for him and our other legislators to do something other than tax the hell out of us and send businesses out of state. Shame on you, Connecticut.

    1. It was the killing of those 20 school children in Newtown. If America and elected officials can’t pass gun laws after the shooting of 20 innocent young white children to death then nothing will ever happen for the young children in Chicago who are shot and killed.

  6. If our state and federal government didn’t have such a gross history of hidden long-term agendas in their law making I’d beokay with this law. If I trusted the politician in Hartford I’d also be okay with this law. But State Rep. Steve Stafstrom is a anti 2nd amendment, right to bear arms, representative. His actions today don’t remedy a damned thing. His long-term agenda is to regulate everything about the 2nd amendment, it’s a step-by-step procedure he is working on.

  7. Gary and Jimfox, beautiful. So all gangbangers have to do to carry weapons illegal or otherwise is to buy themselves a holster, openly carry their guns and when the police stop them all they say is I have a permit and NO you can’t see it.

    Beautiful and Right On and if the gangbangers read OIB they have the goose that laid the 2nd Amendment right to carry and not to be harassed by the police because I am openly carrying so leave me the hell alone Connecticut law for protection. C’mon fellas let’s spread the good news. I feel safer already, how about you?

    1. I think your gangbanger scenario is way off the mark. For some reason I don’t thing gangbangers hide their guns or conceal them because of the police. But that is irrelevant. What is relevant is what our politicians, especially in CT, have done and are doing to our 2nd Amendment. Do you think gangbangers only load 10 rounds of ammo in a 15-round magazine? Do you think they get a background check and fingerprinted by the state PD before they decide to carry a gun? There are so many more of these real scenarios pertaining to gangbangers. But based on your scenario of course they all do, they are law-abiding citizens doing what is in the best interest of their communities.
      Gun laws that restrict the legal citizens carrying guns do absolutely NOTHING to the criminals/gangbangers who carry a gun. You want to rid the criminals of their guns, make a law that if a gun is found in violation of the existing laws it is an automatic 10 years in jail. If the gun is used or found in the act of another crime, 20 years plus the crime time. You see the drug bust on the news and the pictures of all the drugs, money and guns found, right away 10 years for the gun(s), possession and intent to sell all additional to the 10 years for the gun(s).

  8. Realistically, this law will have minimal impact in the State of Connecticut (Texas might be another matter). I truly feel bad for the minimal rights and abuse gun owners have had to go through in Connecticut.

Leave a Reply