NSSF President Joe Bartozzi
Previous Post
Next Post

By Matt Manda

NSSF’s President and CEO Joe Bartozzi had a few words for Connecticut lawmakers considering Gov. Ned Lamont’s gun control proposals. Bartozzi testified and used every second of his allotted time to explain how wrong the governor’s proposals are and how they would only severely penalize law-abiding residents in the Constitution State.

Bartozzi was joined by NSSF’s Jake McGuigan, Managing Director for Government Relations – State Affairs. McGuigan focused on the folly of considering unworkable microstamping requirements for handguns sold in Connecticut.

The Connecticut Joint Judiciary Committee held a hearing to get feedback from the public on the governor’s antigun proposals. Gov. Lamont’s wish list for gun control is long. Some proposals have even given gun control allies pause. Residents who respect the Constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves showed up in big numbers. More than 160 people testified in person and the committee received more than 5,000 written comments.

‘Extremely Expansive’

Gov. Lamont’s gun control laundry-list includes numerous proposals, some of the worst of which are a 10-day waiting period on firearm purchases, rationing handgun sales and instituting crippling bureaucracy on retailers who are the very providers of the means of exercising the Second Amendment.

Ned Lamont
Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont (AP Photo/Jessica Hill, File)

“This is extremely expansive legislation that does little or nothing to deter criminals and will only impact law-abiding gun owners,” Bartozzi told the committee. The proposals amount to a throttling of Constitutional rights and would suffocate firearm retailers, straining their bottom line and possibly putting them out of business.

“The one-gun-per-month section… hinders lawful commerce in the state, particularly that of small ‘mom-and-pop’ businesses. And it further rations a federal and state Constitutional right, reducing it to a mere privilege,” Bartozzi added.

He stood up for firearm retailers facing new bureaucratic regulations that threaten their livelihoods.

“It’s important to note that retailers are the first line of defense against illegal straw purchases,” Bartozzi explained.

Bartozzi told legislators a 10-day waiting period, “… only adds another layer to exercising a Constitutional right that puts a burden on law-abiding citizens and [federal firearms licensees].”

Connecticut law already requires an extensive permit process that involves working with local police departments, submitting fingerprints and going through a background check verification. Criminals don’t do any of those things.

“We must all work together to help prevent those who exhibit reckless disregard to human life from having access to firearms… But we must also preserve the Constitutional right of tens of millions of law-abiding Americans to safely and responsibly own, store and use firearms for personal protection, hunting and recreation,” Bartozzi concluded.

Unworkable, Technically-Unfeasible

NSSF’s Jake McGuigan testified against Gov. Lamont’s proposal too, focusing on the microstamping requirement. That’s the unproven and unworkable technology using a laser to imprint a unique identifying code on a handgun’s firing pin, theoretically transferring the mark to a spent cartridge once it has fired.

ammunition microstamping
By Microstamper at en.wikipedia, CC BY 2.5, Link

Even the patentholder for the sole-source microstamping technology Todd Lizotte – who also testified at the hearing – recognizes his technology is flawed and unreliable.

“This technology is unproven and has been independently tested throughout the country to confirm that it does not work,” McGuigan explained. “Criminals aren’t purchasing at a retail level and again, we know 90 percent of the guns used in crimes are illegally obtained or stolen.”

Asked if other states have implemented or considered similar microstamping proposals, McGuigan had a long list for Connecticut lawmakers of tried-and-failed attempts.

“California has mandated that technology… but no manufacturers know how to comply. And no manufacturers have introduced any handguns with microstamping technology. I’ve been to Wisconsin. I’ve been to New Jersey. I’ve been to Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island on microstamping. None of those states have moved forward with microstamping.”

McGuigan listed several scenarios and examples demonstrating why even law enforcement hasn’t adopted the technology and that it’s law-abiding gun owners who will bear the increased cost of the mandate, not criminals.

“Let’s assume you’re implementing microstamping and it’s going to cost $200 on top of the firearm, I mean, where does it end?” McGuigan asked the committee.

“What’s the actual risk? What’s the downside?” state Rep. Steve Stafstrom asked. “So your objection to microstamping, the downside, is the cost. Is that your testimony?”

“No,” said McGuigan. “It does not work.”

More to Watch

On top of the 10-day waiting period, microstamping requirement, additional state licensing regulations and gun rationing, Gov. Lamont’s gun control proposals also include expanded mandatory storage requirements for firearms in the home, banning carrying loaded firearms in vehicles, mandatory trigger locks on all handguns sold at retail (despite them already including locking devices) and requiring that semiautomatic handguns be equipped with a mechanism to prevent firing when the magazine is removed. He also wants to ban previously registered modern sporting rifles (MSRs) and implement unconstitutional age-based gun bans.

NSSF strongly opposes these proposals and is monitoring their movement in the Connecticut legislature.


Matt Manda is Manager, Public Affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation

Previous Post
Next Post


    • RE: “NSSF strongly opposes these proposals and is monitoring their movement in the Connecticut legislature.”

      Based on the omnidireactional article Gun Control was in the driver seat and The Second Amendment was in the passenger seat.

      How about cutting the chase NSSF? Stand up in front of those Gun Control ratbassturds and open your pieholes and Define Gun Control in any, shape, matter or form as a History Confirmed Agenda Rooted in Racism and Genocide.

      Those CT ratbassturd bullies and their beloved Gun Control need to be cut down to size, the lame tit for tat article says the NSSF was no where close to doing that…pathetic.

      • Debbie
        You just might be right. There are many other groups all across the country that get what they want by pulling the race card. Maybe it’s time the progun side gives it a shot.

    • AS I have noted before, then California Attorney General Kamala Harris certified under penalty of perjury that this man’s microstamping technology existed, was free of patents, and that it left a mark on a spent casing that complied with the California statute. She lied. The technology was not proven but only experimental, and it only left a single mark on the case instead of two as the statute required. Sad to say, cases challenging the requirement failed, so unless the requirement is held to be unconstitutional, Californians are stuck with it basically forever–or at least until firearms that are currently on the Roster all fall off, leaving us only with revolvers.

  1. the cases for SCOTUS are stacking up so throw this one on the pile. Its only going to take one to strike down all these intentionally burdensome restrictions trying to turn the right into a state controlled high cost privilege as unconstitutional.

    go after the criminals you idiots. for cripes sakes, you spend millions every year to ensure the rights of criminals are in tact but want to spend millions to destroy the rights of the law abiding. On what bizarre planet do you people live, planet dacian?

    • “the cases for SCOTUS are stacking up so throw this one on the pile. Its only going to take one to strike down all these intentionally burdensome restrictions trying to turn the right into a state controlled high cost privilege as unconstitutional.”

      Only an SC decision/ruling that the Second Amendment is absolute will come close to putting an end to the madness.

  2. “the Constitution State”
    ‘they need to change that motto…’

    The state motto was declared via state legislature in 1959. Seems there are two claims to support the motto: first written constitution in the colonies (“The fundamental Order; 1638/39), and was designed to create an “ecclesiastical society” (yes, there was a strong religious influence in some of the colonies). The second claim is that much of the US Constitution was drawn from the text of the Connect-t-cut colonial constitution.

  3. Facts be damned. CT politicians don’t care. They want to ban your guns and they want to do it NOW!

    It’s happening all over this Country.

    • When guns are banned all accross this nation guess who will have them? Law enforcement and the still-armed common man. Think yer flyspecks on dead trees will make us surrender our guns? General Thomas W Gage thought so. Oh boy did HE ever find out how wrong he was. Instead of following his men’s orders to “lay down your arms” they carried those arms with them as they went to their homes. Then somewhere near fourteen THOUSAND armed colonial militiamen picked them up and went forth to destroy Gage’s army.They very nearly did, in one day. Gage, by the end of that day, had above one third of his officers taken out and roughly a wuarter of his Regulars also out of action. In fact it was only a small seemingly insignificant turn of events that prevented h his losing the entire two thousand soldiers that hed sent out the previous night to subdue the rebel Colonials. There never would have been a multi-year war, the British Army would have been utterly defeated that same day. But… not what happened.

  4. 1776 was possible only because citizens were armed. That the left is so rabidly trying to dis-arm us clearly indicates their long game.

    They have not forgotten the lessons of the American Revolution…..but neither have we.

    • “They have not forgotten the lessons of the American Revolution…..but neither have we.”

      All to many don’t know of the battle record during “the revolution”. Washington fought 17 battles, winning 6, losing 7, fighting to a draw in 4 battles. The final victory, after losing 6 straight, was possible only because the British were involved in a world war (with France the favorite enemy), and the arrival of the french fleet at Yorktown. As the Duke of Wellington said, regarding Waterloo, “It was a near run thing”.

      Being steeped in the history of “the South”, many comments here are reminiscent of claims that “one Southerner can defeat ten Yankees”; much bravado, and underestimation of what war would be like. (And, the Confederacy had almost total contiguity, as did the colonials, with entire state governments supporting the rebellion against the Union).

      The US military did have some loss of capability, due to soldiers and officers leaving to join their states, but not a crippling number for the US military.

      The best those proposing the national divorce can muster is armed mobs, operating completely independent of one another, with no central plan, no central strategy, no central coordination of militias.

      There ain’t gonna be no boogie, Lou.

      • Then let’s hope ANTIFA are not part of the move to separate. They have frquenty exhibited very sophisticated logistics and command, well communicated.

        Good job they are mostly all on about their own self-interests. Consider how many “retired” Antifa poohbahs are now living in multimillion dollar mansions where they could never have afforded even to rent a room in the garage prior to their term in ANTIFA.

        • “They have frquenty exhibited very sophisticated logistics and command, well communicated.”

          Yes, the command structure is talented. Antifa might actually be a “well regulated” militia.

      • One man defending his country and the ideals he holds true, Does relate to the 1 patriot is worth 10 aggressors. Just look to the Russian aggression in Afghanistan in the 80’s against the Mujahedin, Our involvement there against their remnants that became the Taliban and ISIS and now Russia’s attempts in Ukraine. The difference lies in the resolve of the people to stand and fight against an Aggressor nation, regardless of the size of it’s military.

        • “The difference lies in the resolve of the people to stand and fight against an Aggressor nation, regardless of the size of it’s military.”

          The difference is determination to do what is necessary. When Russia occupied Afghanistan, I was dumbfounded that they were no longer the Russian army of ww2, and army of annihilation. The Russians were not willing to utterly destroy everything, and everyone. When the US decided to later take a hand, I knew we had no stomach for doing the necessary; the Carthaginian Solution.

          Civil wars are the worst. While the US was concerned about image in Afghanistan,in a civil war between Left and Right,

          the US will be all to willing to destroy anything, and anyone who is identified as an insurgent. There will be no namby-pamby concern over world opinion.

          Another difference between here and Afghanistan is tribal heritage; the tribes are all organized to wipe out intruders and enemies. Here, we just have, at best, armed mobs, with no sense of unity reaching back centuries.

    • Who would we fight? Do you think our guys and gals in uniform will fire on their own family and friends? Do you think the our LEO’s will fire on family, friends, and neighbors? The government would have to bring in NATO peacekeepers, but I don’t know what country would want to send their personnel into a ‘civil war’ here except Russia, China, and Cuba.

      • “Do you think our guys and gals in uniform will fire on their own family and friends? Do you think the our LEO’s will fire on family, friends, and neighbors? ”

        In a full-blown revolution/civil war?

        Absolutely. Not all of them, but those deserting would be a notable minority.

    • that metal is quite hard. Most files would quickly be destroyed that way. Grinders would work, but use a very fine stone and take it very slowly. Easy enough to take off enough metal the pin may now not strike with enough force tto acheive ignition.

      Best way is a fine grit wet whetstone. Gently work the pin round on the stone taking care to maintain the round shape of the business end. Use a loupe to make sure the etched characters are completely removed.

      Or simply obtain a handful of replacement firing pins from the manufacturer or an aftermarket supplier. Oh, and don’t forget to take the “compliant” pin along with you on a three mile hike along a rugged beach some sunny afternoon. If you happen to :”lose” the gummit pin, oh well too bad so sad don’t get mad.

  5. “The microstamp on a firing pin can be removed with a file or a grinder quite easily.”

    Nope. That would be breaking the law.

      • “Sam note well he said CAN, not MAY. Can means it is doable may needs permission as well as capability.”

        Defacing the micro-stamping would be illegal (violation of law), therefore, defacing cannot be done, will not be done, because it would be illegal. “May” does not negate the law, thus the law would not give permission for “may”. Laws prohibiting something stop whatever that “something” is. We have laws for a purpose, and they work.

        Of course, certain exceptions will need to be included in the law for persons who are socially oppressed, but the numbers will be extremely small, I’m sure.

  6. It wont be long before the criminals turn to mobs,by then it’s going to be too late.
    They know this and they know why.
    I think I’ll take a vacation, deep sea diving a coral reef in the Philippines sounds like fun. Maybe even do a little fishing while I’m there too.
    Get up in the morning
    Working for bread Sir

  7. The one thing said in the article that remains ignored by most on both sides and by the disarmament crowd is the simple fact that the lawless ignore the law. Not 1 of the proposed laws will do, can do, or ever have done anything to prevent crimes from happening nor prevent those with criminal intent from arming themselves by whatever means available.
    The only possible and still never certain deterrent to criminal behavior, especially violent crime, is the swift and certain punishment of such crimes. Very negative and painful consequences for violent crime does perhaps, sometimes prevent some individuals from committing acts of violence. In todays world with little but a time in prison or a small fine or short stay in county lock up is nothing but old home week for many criminals and an education in how to commit even more and better crimes when released.
    Back in the days when public floggings and executions were in use, crimes still were committed. If being whipped to near death or hanging etc. didn’t stop those with criminal intent, what makes these legislators think a few lines on paper and a possible vacation at county or state expense will prevent criminals from acting on their desires and impulses?

    • if preventing crime was the real purpose there are many things they could do lessen the crime rate.
      We know that is not their end goal and people need to accept that and act accordingly

    • “The one thing said in the article that remains ignored by most on both sides and by the disarmament crowd is the simple fact that the lawless ignore the law. ”

      Dealing with criminals is not a concern. #1, The people who are the face of gun control are worried about being shot in places where all the nice people congregate. Disarming the law-abiding ensures mass shootings in public places and schools won’t happen. #2, Since criminals get 90 percent of their guns from theft and black market, if there is no available supply from legal gun owners, the current firearm inventory of guns among criminals will eventually become non-functional.

      Besides, when the law-abiding no longer have guns, criminal activity will reduce the source of future criminals, through natural selection among the people who live in crime-infested inner city neighborhoods; win-win.

  8. These “gun control laws” do NOTHING to deter a criminal from having, possessing or using a gun to commit a crime.
    These anti-gun zealots don’t seem to under stand what a criminal is.

  9. A truly great magician depends upon the skill level of diverting attention; making us look at the left hand, while the “trick” is being accomplished by the right hand.

    What if…..?

    Gun control laws are no longer targeting the Second Amendment, but the supply chain? If, while the law stands, the small and large retailers can no longer afford to stay in business, or large retailers no longer maintain a business line?

    True, such an attack will not reduce the ~400,000,000 million guns afloat in the populace, but the owners will eventually die out, and if the heirs are not POTG, what happens to all those guns? Old inventory surrendered, no new supply; it’s the long game.

    • Nope..those guns will continue in circulation, either passed on to distant relatives or friends, or stolen, or making their way into black market. Trying to restrict supply really worked with drugs, didn’t it?

      • “Trying to restrict supply really worked with drugs, didn’t it?”

        Legal transactions/illegal transaction; dynamics are not the same.

        Yes, the current inventory of guns will remain circulating, for at least long enough to hand them down; however, the heirs cannot be depended upon to foster/continue subsequent ownership. And no, the world of guns will not be the same if all legal retail could be eliminated. By “all”, I mean, ALL; parts, powder, primers, bullets, accessories (little need for accessories if retail outlets drop firearm sales).

        Note: we have an alleged 100,000,000 legal gun owners, but only a fraction are POTG, or even serious 2A defenders.

        There ain’t gonna be no door-kickers, no boogie, Lou. There is not even any need for authorities to try to confiscate 400,000,000 guns.

  10. “He also wants to ban previously registered modern sporting rifles (MSRs) …”

    How is it that no one has picked up on this? Once they have a list of REGISTERED firearms, it is easy to go get them. Sigh …. God help us all.

    Those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it.

  11. “Once they have a list of REGISTERED firearms, it is easy to go get them.”

    “They” ain’t actually “coming for your guns”; too much trouble (and dangerous). “They” are distracting you from their real campaign, which is to shut down the supply chain. The way vast number of gun owners are not preppers, so ammo, accessories, firearms are not stocked piled. Close the retailers, the supplies begin to “wither on the vine”.

  12. Gun control laws aren’t intended to deter crime. They are intended to prevent law-abiding citizens from owning guns. This is the Communist tactic of ‘one-step-at-a-time’ to gradually get firearms out of the hands of ‘We the People’. Commies study history to. They know that an armed citizenry is harder to control than ones with no guns. The Second Amendment is not about ‘crime control’. It is about government being controlled by ‘We the People’.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here