3 officials, 2 opinions: Winfield, Elicker, Jacobson.
A killer might have been behind bars the day he instead shot Donate Myers to death had a proposed new state law been in effect. But would the law also unfairly lock up non-killers?
That question has divided New Haven officials over a measure aimed to stem gun violence.
The divide, in part over how to define “the bad guys,” was on display Monday at a hearing before the legislature’s Judiciary Committee about proposed House Bill 6834.
The bill would make it easier to keep people repeatedly convicted of newly defined “serious” firearms crimes behind bars when arrested again on gun charges — by revoking their parole or probation or requiring they meet 30 percent rather than 7 – 10 percent of the bond set for their release. (Click here to read the full bill.)
New Haven Police Chief Karl Jacobson and Mayor Justin Elicker testified (remotely, from their offices) in favor of the bill, which other Connecticut big-city mayors have endorsed as well. (Click here to read a previous story about that.) Jacobson said that this bill would have covered 15 to 20 of the 39 people arrested in New Haven in 2022 for homicide or nonfatal shootings, keeping them in pretrial detention rather than out on the street. He said that in recent years the police have found more violent repeat offenders committing new gun crimes while out on bond or parole or probation.
New Haven State Sen. Gary Winfield, co-chair of the Judiciary Committee, grilled both officials at the hearing. He argued that the bill would unfairly sweep up more people than intended. “If we’re concerned about getting these people who are ‘bad,’ I don’t understand the logic of the bill,” Winfield said.
All three of them agreed on New Haven’s philosophical approach of concentrating police attention on the very small number of New Haveners responsible for most of the city’s gun violence. Jacobson and Elicker put that number at 0.06 percent of New Haven’s estimated 137,000 residents, or around 82 people.
CT News Junkie
LaQuiva Jones speaks out at Capitol for Hosue Bill 6834.
In his testimony at Monday’s hearing, Jacobson told the story of the man suspected of shooting 23-year-old Dontae Myers to death on Jan. 1. The 21-year-old suspect had previous felony convictions and gun arrests. Several time he emerged from jail by meeting bonds of between $150,00 and $500,000, the last time just 10 days before he allegedly shot Myers. Myers’ mom, Laquvia Jones — who lost another son to New Haven gun violence as well — traveled to the state Capitol with Jacobson and Elicker last month to testify on behalf of Bill 6834.
Over and over again city cops end up chasing felons similarly shooting people with illegal guns while on release for pending new charges, Jacobson said.
New Haven has reported five homicides and 16 nonfatal shootings so far this year.
Elicker reported that 32 percent of people arrested in New Haven on gun charges since Jan. 1, 2021, were on parole or probation; and 49 percent had previous firearms arrests. He told the story of a local man arrested last week for a 2021 murder: The man, who had previously served time for first-degree had been arrested twice in the past two years for firearms offenses dating back to 2004, twice made bond (one set at $750,000, the other at $850,000) when arrested in 2023 on gun charges.
“We stand together to confront gun violence. This step [would] keep the most dangerous individuals that commit the most serious offenses off the street so we have a cooling off period,” Elicker said.
“My concern is about who is actually covered under the bill,” Winfield countered.
The bill would cover people who have committed “serious” firearms offenses, defined as: possession of a stolen firearm or a firearm that is altered in a manner that renders the firearm unlawful, criminal possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony or the act of brandishing or shooting a firearm while threatening another person.”
Winfield — whose house on Winchester Avenue was shot up last April — argued that many young people who fear for their lives on city streets carry weapons. Many of them have prior records but are not in that category of the 0.06 percent of New Haveners most likely to commit violence. Rather, they feel the need for self-protection — in part, Winfield argued, because of societal factors for which government officials share responsibility.
“You’re the mayor of New Haven,” Winfield, who took the lead in the 2020 passage of a statewide police accountability bill, told Elicker. “We have a crime issue. We have a lot of folks on the streets doing things they’re not supposed to. There are young folks that are out there, whether ouf of a sense of protection or other reasons, have a gun. I don’t think any of those guns are legal. If they get in trouble two times with that gun, they fall under this. They don’t have to be the people described here. Do you disagree with that?”
City of New Haven
Elicker called the proposal a small part of a broader anti-violence strategy, summarized above.
Elicker responded that the group of mayors who crafted the bill agree with the goal of “narrows the impact to the most violent offenders in the community and not impact people that were not causing risk to the community.” He said the language of the bill would cover people previously convicted of violence who carrying illegal ghost guns, stolen firearms, high-capacity magazines. “I would be very, very concerned that that person would be potentially interested in harming others. Again it’s a repeat offense,” Elicker stated. “… I believe that is a person that can potentially engage in violence in the community. That’s a risk to our community.”
The bill covers people convicted of two serious weapons offenses over the past five years or at least one gun offense in the past year.
What about someone who was convicted of one offense two years ago? That person may arguably pose more of a threat than someone convicted five years ago of two related charges from the same incident, Winfield posited; the bill as written would keep the more dangerous person on the street.
“If you’re talking about somebody who never fired a gun, not a subject in any murders or shootings, I don’t think they get caught up in this,” Chief Jacobson responded.
Winfield noted that the “serious offenses” include possession of illegal guns, not necessarily discharging them.
“I think what you all are trying to do makes sense to me,” but the language includes some of the wrong people while leaving out some of the intended people, Winfield said.
He urged backers to refine the language: “Get it so that it works. … It’s important that we get this right.”
Elicker said he “stand[s] by the language” in the bill but suggested that Winfield recommend changes.
“I would have been glad to have done that last year when this bill was being talked about that. This bill is now before us. We do not have that kind of time,” Winfield responded.
The full hearing can be viewed in the above video.
There are young folks that are out there, whether ouf of a sense of protection or other reasons, have a gun. I don’t think any of those guns are legal. If they get in trouble two times with that gun, they fall under this. They don’t have to be the people described here.
Yes they do!!