Senate Judiciary committee reviews S 22 to bar firearm discharges within 500 feet of schools or licensed child care; sponsors and counsel discuss definitions, "

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb. 19 heard a walkthrough of S 22, a bill that would prohibit discharging a firearm within 500 feet of a school or a licensed child-care facility. Eric Fitzpatrick of the Office of Legislative Counsel explained how the proposed discharge prohibition differs from existing state law that addresses possession on school property, and senators raised questions about definitions and criminal intent.

Fitzpatrick told the committee the bill applies to discharge (not merely possession) and reaches a 500-foot buffer around school or child-care property. He contrasted that scope with a cited state statute identified in committee as “13 b s a 4,004,” which the transcript describes as prohibiting possession of a firearm in a school bus or school building and, on school property, possession with intent to harm. Fitzpatrick also noted the Federal Gun-Free School Zones Act, which creates a 1,000-foot federal buffer but contains multiple exceptions.

Sponsor remarks explained the bill’s origin. Senator Kurchling said the idea arose after a public safety meeting in Waterbury, where neighbors described two nearby problem houses and a licensed child-care center located roughly 15 feet from one of those houses. According to the sponsor’s account in committee, residents reported people at the problem property firing weapons toward the riverbank; the neighbors said troopers told them discharge on one’s own property was not automatically illegal. The sponsor said the child-care provider had offered to testify about the local incident.

Committee members pressed for drafting clarifications. Questions included whether school property should include motor vehicles (for example, school buses), whether legitimate school activities such as hunter-safety instruction or athletic shooting clubs should be expressly exempted, and whether the bill should limit “school property” to real property owned by a school rather than contracted or subcontracted premises. Senators also asked whether the statute’s “knowingly” mental-state language would apply only to the act of discharge or also to knowledge of being within 500 feet of school or child-care property — a point Fitzpatrick said would require case-law review.

Senator Bose cautioned that a 500-foot buffer can reach into private yards and described it as a potential infringement on lawful use of private property. Several senators suggested drafting options: explicitly exempting certain school-sanctioned activities, defining school to mean public or state-approved independent schools plus licensed child-care facilities, or specifying that school property means real property owned by a school.

No formal motion or vote on S 22 is recorded in the transcript. Committee members asked counsel and staff to research drafting options and statutory interpretation issues — especially how the “knowingly” element should be applied and how to define “school” and “school property.”