The citizens of Connecticut call for a repeal of SB 1160. The right to keep and bear arms of all types is one of our natural rights. It allows us to preserve our rights to life and liberty. It is a right that is guaranteed to us by both our national and state constitutions. The second amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Also, the Constitution of the State of Connecticut states, “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” Connecticut law must comply with both the national and state constitutions. Any law that lessens a Connecticut citizen's ability to keep and bear arms infringes on a right that is doubly guaranteed to him. Such a law contradicts the higher law of both constitutions and is null and void.

There are three ways that SB 1160 contradicts both the state and national constitutions. The first is that the details of the law infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms. The second is that it requires citizens to earn their right to bear arms. The third is that it limits who can possess firearms.

Let us start with how SB 1160 infringes upon our right to bear arms. An infringement is a lessening of our rights. Any law that limits the number or type of arms and ammunition one may possess is an infringement. SB 1160 bans certain types of firearms and ammunition and limits magazine capacity. Since neither the national nor state constitutions specify the number or type of arms that citizens may or may not possess, any law that limits a citizen's ability to possess any arms or ammunition is unconstitutional. Both the national and state constitutions allow citizens to possess all types of arms and ammunition.

In addition to infringing upon our natural right to bear arms, SB 1160 requires citizens to earn their right to bear arms. The nature of a right is that it is free because it is inherent in all men. It is not granted to men by the government. It is merely recognized and protected by the government. SB 1160 requires citizens to obtain an eligibility certificate to purchase a long gun and ammunition and to undergo a background check. In addition, forcing a citizen to undergo a background check and be fingerprinted without just cause to suspect that he is a criminal violates our fourth amendment right to privacy. There is no permit for freedom of speech or right to privacy. Both of those rights are entitled to us by birth. To suggest that one must obtain permission to exercise these rights would be laughable. The same goes for the right to bear arms. No law may require the citizens to earn the ability to exercise their rights.

SB 1160 also contradicts the state constitution by limiting who may own firearms. The state constitution states that “every citizen has a right to bear arms.” SB 1160 prevents certain former mental health patients from getting a gun permit. It is one thing to prevent insane people from purchasing a gun. It is another to make a person wait years after being discharged from a psychiatric hospital to get a gun permit. According to SB 1160, a person may not obtain a gun permit if he has been, by order of a probate court, in a psychiatric hospital within the past sixty months, which is the same as five years. He also may not obtain a permit if he admitted himself into a psychiatric hospital within the past six months. The phrase “every citizen” includes everyone and does not limit who may or may not possess firearms. Preventing former mental health patients from possessing firearms directly contradicts the provision in our state constitution. To say that a person will commit acts of violence because of his mental diagnosis dismisses all sense of human choice and personal responsibility. There is no reason to believe that former mental health patients will commit acts of violence simply because they have been admitted to a hospital in the past. Citizens should not be considered dangerous and be forced to endure long waiting periods simply because they spent time in an institution.

SB 1160 was written in the wake of Sandy Hook and is meant to keep the citizens, epecially children, safe from gun violence. However, I know from experience that a lack of firearms does not ensure safety or peace of mind. For the 2013‒14 school year, I worked in Connecticut as a substitute teacher for Kelly Services. I worked at several different schools throughout Connecticut. There was one incident in which our entire school was in danger, and we were defenseless. In the second week of the school year, I went to Verplanck Elementary School in Manchester. During gym class, one of the teachers came into the gymnasium and told us that we were in a lockdown. There was a man outside who was suspected of having a firearm. We turned off the lights, went behind the stage, and hid behind the curtain. All of us were huddled together in the dark, not making a sound. As I sat in that small space, I thought that we would be the next Sandy Hook, and I was very terrified. I thought, “How are we going to protect ourselves?” In that moment, I sincerely wished that I had a gun to protect myself with. We had effectively put ourselves into the worst tactical position possible. We were backed into a corner with nowhere to flee and nothing to protect ourselves with. If a criminal came in, he would have an easy time killing us because we were huddled in one spot with no way of retreat and no way to fight back.

If the goal is to keep the citizens of Connecticut safe, then allow the citizens to be able to protect themselves. The new gun bill does nothing to make us safer. It only prevents us from protecting ourselves. In trying to make us safer, the government has put us in greater danger and taken away much of our rights at the same time. We need to be stronger than the criminals so that we can protect both ourselves and the state.