New Bill Dismantles the Second Amendment (Without Banning Guns)

Connecticut lawmakers are pushing a new strategy to restrict firearms, not by banning guns outright, but by opening the floodgates for lawsuits. House Bill 7042 passed in the Connecticut House on April 30, 2025, by a vote of 100 to 46, according to Mark Pazniokas at CTMirror. The bill doesn’t ban any firearm, but it gives victims of gun violence, the state attorney general, and even city officials the power to sue gun manufacturers, sellers, and marketers.

Critics are calling it a backdoor attack on the Second Amendment.

What the Bill Actually Does

According to Ken Dixon of CTPost, the bill gives new legal power to people who claim they’ve been harmed by the gun industry, even if that harm comes from criminal misuse of guns by third parties. It would allow lawsuits based on claims that companies failed to enact “reasonable controls” in their sales and marketing. That includes cracking down on straw purchases and allegedly irresponsible ads. This expands on the legal path used by the Sandy Hook families when they successfully sued Remington for $73 million.

Colion Noir Sounds the Alarm

Gun rights activist and attorney Colion Noir slammed the bill in a recent video, calling it “legal terrorism through litigation.” Noir argues this isn’t about promoting safety – it’s about suffocating the industry with lawsuits. “They’re not attacking the Second Amendment head-on,” he said. “They’re strangling it from behind with red tape and lawsuits.” In his view, lawmakers know they can’t ban guns outright, so they’re going after the people who make and sell them.

Aiming for the Industry’s Weak Spot

The most controversial part of the bill is its focus on manufacturers and dealers who have followed all laws but are still being made vulnerable to lawsuits. As Dixon reports, even actions like marketing a firearm could be used as grounds for a lawsuit if a court finds the messaging “unsafe.” Gun store owners say this kind of liability is vague and unfair. One dealer, Edward Rando, warned it could make insurance unaffordable and push small shops out of business.

“Reasonable Controls” – But Who Decides?

The term “reasonable controls” comes up a lot in this legislation. Stafstrom and other supporters, including gun control advocates, argue that these controls are a necessary step to ensure public safety. But opponents like Colion Noir ask, “Reasonable according to who?” He points out that many of the bill’s strongest supporters have little technical knowledge about firearms, making it unclear what these “reasonable steps” actually mean in practice.

Republicans Push Back

Several Republicans in the Connecticut House voted against the bill, warning that it opens the door to endless litigation without actually improving public safety. Rep. Craig Fishbein, a ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, expressed concern that the bill holds gun sellers and manufacturers to a separate legal standard. “We are saying to the firearm industry, ‘You’re going to be held to a different standard,’” he told CTMirror.

A Victory for Trial Lawyers?

House Minority Leader Vincent Candelora didn’t mince words. “This is probably a trial lawyer’s dream,” he said, arguing the bill won’t do much to reduce crime but will certainly increase lawsuits. As noted by both Dixon and Pazniokas, this aligns with Republican fears that the bill is more about enriching lawyers than protecting communities.

A Law That Punishes the Lawful

Colion Noir emphasized that this bill targets legal gun owners and sellers, not criminals. “Criminals don’t walk into gun stores and fill out 4473s,” he said. Instead, this legislation could hold responsible parties liable for someone else’s illegal actions. It’s like suing a liquor store when someone lies about their age to buy alcohol.

More Than Just Lawsuits

The bill also includes changes to Connecticut’s gun permit rules. It bars out-of-state residents from getting a permit if they were convicted of certain misdemeanors in the last 20 years. Fishbein criticized this part of the bill, arguing that Connecticut’s own “clean slate” laws only look back seven or eight years. He said the bill unfairly punishes people who’ve been law-abiding residents for over a decade.

The Sandy Hook Precedent

Supporters of the bill cite the Sandy Hook lawsuit as evidence that legal pressure on gun companies can work. In 2022, families of victims won a $73 million settlement from Remington, not for selling the gun itself, but for marketing it in a way that allegedly appealed to young, violent individuals. As reported by CTMirror, this new bill would expand that legal reasoning and make similar lawsuits more likely.

Not Just a Connecticut Problem

This kind of legislation isn’t unique to Connecticut. As Dixon noted, nine other states, including California, New York, and New Jersey, have passed similar laws. These efforts are part of a broader trend by gun control advocates to work around federal protections and attack the industry state by state. Colion Noir describes this as “a blueprint, a tactical, premeditated assault on the gun industry.”

Death by a Thousand Cuts

Here’s where I weigh in. This bill might not ban guns, but it’s like turning the heat up so slowly that people don’t notice they’re boiling until it’s too late. It’s clever, I’ll give them that. Instead of saying “we’re taking your guns,” lawmakers are saying, “we’re just holding manufacturers accountable.” But if you make it impossible for those manufacturers to operate, then you’ve effectively disarmed the public without ever touching the Second Amendment directly.

Rights Undone by Red Tape

House Bill 7042 doesn’t criminalize gun ownership or sales. Instead, it drowns the firearms industry in legal quicksand. If passed by the Connecticut Senate and signed by the governor, it could become the new model for anti-gun legislation across the country. As Colion Noir said, “This isn’t gun safety. This is war by paperwork. And the target is you.”