An Act Establishing Uniform Application Requirements For A Temporary State Permit To Carry A Pistol Or Revolver.
SB 1173 would amend section 29-28a of the general statutes to create uniform statewide application requirements for a temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver. Under the bill, every applicant would have to submit a completed and notarized application on a form prescribed by the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection, and that form could not be altered or supplemented by local issuing authorities.
The bill also requires applicants to provide proof of lawful presence in the United States, a certificate showing completion of a pistol and revolver safety course, and two sets of fingerprints for the state and national criminal history records check required under existing law. Its stated purpose is to ensure that towns and cities use the same criteria, standards, and procedures when processing temporary permit applications.
If enacted, the bill would standardize the temporary pistol or revolver permit application process across Connecticut municipalities by limiting local discretion and imposing a uniform statewide checklist of required documents. It would affect applicants for temporary state permits, local issuing authorities, and the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, while tying the application process more closely to existing criminal history background check requirements in section 29-29 and to proof-of-status and safety-training documentation.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the available record suggests a neutral-to-supportive framing centered on administrative uniformity and consistency. The proposal is presented as a process standardization measure rather than a major policy change, and its stated goal is to make permit application procedures the same in every town and city.
The main likely point of contention is the bill’s firearm-permitting requirements, especially the added proof of lawful presence requirement and the mandatory safety-course and fingerprint submission rules. Supporters would likely view these provisions as promoting consistency and public safety, while opponents could see them as adding barriers to obtaining a temporary permit and reducing local flexibility. Because no transcripts or votes are provided, no specific legislator or stakeholder positions are documented in the record supplied.