Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Duty To Retreat topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Child testimony, pastors and security experts back measure removing duty to retreat in houses of worship
Summary
Youth testimony and public safety witnesses urged lawmakers to remove the duty to retreat for people defending others in places of worship; supporters described family‑centered services and argued parents will not flee when a child is in danger. Opponents raised concerns about law enforcement roles and training.
The Judiciary Committee also heard testimony on HB 7070, a bill that would eliminate the duty to retreat for a person defending themselves or others while in a house of religious worship.
Several witnesses framed the bill as a narrowly tailored change that reflects the family context of many houses of worship. Peter Estrada, a young witness from Newtown, told the committee he fears his mother would be criminalized if a law required her to run from a shooter instead of defending children in the building. "I would want my mom to get in trouble with the law for fighting the bad guy," he said, urging passage so his parents would not be prosecuted for protecting children.
Supporters stressed examples from past attacks in which intervention by armed parishioners limited casualties. Walt Kupson, outreach coordinator for the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, described cases he said showed early intervention saved lives and argued the bill would protect people who defend others in a sudden attack. Tom Maloney, a CCDL research coordinator, and others who oppose additional criminal penalties for defenders also spoke in favor.
Lawmakers asked how the proposal would interact with the "castle doctrine" and with existing criminal law; witnesses said the bill was intended to allow a lawful defensive response in a unique setting but declined to endorse a broader expansion of force laws beyond houses of worship.
No formal action was taken during the hearing. The committee is expected to weigh competing public safety perspectives: supporters who say parents and congregants should not be forced to flee while relatives or children remain in danger, and others who caution about unintended consequences and the need for clear statutory language.
