Commissioner urges changes to firearm-transfer rules, evidence retention and training in HB 6859

Commissioner Ronnell Higgins of the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection told the Public Safety and Security Committee he strongly supports House Bill 6859, saying the bill "illustrates the goals and the steps being taken by DESPP to improve operational efficiency and exemplify excellence." He detailed sections that would change evidence-retention rules, juvenile-offense disclosure procedures and security-guard training for less-lethal weapons.

Higgins said section 1 would align the retention policy for sexual-assault kits with other forms of evidence and that section 3 would require law-enforcement agencies to opt in to ATF’s eTrace system. "The eTrace system had approximately 3,444 requests and 3,866 firearms recovered in the state of Connecticut year 2024," he said, arguing broader participation would help investigations.

Members of the committee pressed Higgins on two practical issues. Representative Howard asked whether the state lab currently refrigerates assault kits and whether returning processed kits to municipalities would create new storage burdens. Higgins said the chief state's attorney and the lab are best positioned to answer storage specifics but maintained that the requested change "aligns with existing practices" for homicide and serious assault evidence.

On transfers, witnesses and stakeholders told the committee that the three-handgun limit enacted in 2023 has caused delays when families try to move firearms after a death or during other intra-family transfers. Higgins said the bill’s language clarifies estate-transfer intent so probate distributions do not run afoul of the 3-in-30 restriction. Matthew Strasser of the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and several private citizens described real cases in which families and FFLs faced delays or losses because handguns could not be transferred more quickly.

Sergeant Brianna Morris of the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit described enforcement mechanics related to licensing and background checks and explained why the bill’s language on a "complete" application is intended to prevent people working without a completed criminal-history check.

Supporters who testified included trustees and family members who described administrative and financial burdens created by the current limits. Opponents did not appear in force during the hearing; lawmakers indicated they would work with the State Police licensing unit (SLFU) and other stakeholders to refine statutory language.

The committee recessed after further testimony and a request to review drafting details with agency counsel and industry representatives. The hearing record shows continued interest in balancing public-safety goals against unintended burdens on families, probate processes and municipal recordkeeping.