Millstone Asks Feds for Climate-Related License Change

According to the CT Mirror, the Millstone nuclear power plant recently asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to revise its license to allow the seawater used to cool the plant’s generating units to reach a temperature of 80 degrees. Under its current license, the water cannot exceed 75 degrees averaged over a 24-hour period or 77 degrees at any point.  Last August, Millstone’s Unit 2 had to shut down when the water’s temperature passed the 75 degree threshold.  According to the article, temperatures in Long Island Sound, the source of Millstone’s seawater, have risen almost three degrees since the plant began operating in 1975.  This year, however, Millstone says that water temperatures are two to three degrees cooler than they were last year, thanks to a cooler, wetter winter and cooler, drier spring.   The NRC is not expected to review Millstone’s request until 2014.

Hot Report: Body Piercing and Tattooing of Minors

OLR Report 2013-R-0231 explains which states (1) prohibit body piercing or tattooing of minors and (2) require parental consent or physical presence of parents during such procedures.

According to the National Conference of States Legislatures (NCSL), many states have laws that regulate body piercing or tattooing of minors. At least 45 states have laws restricting minors from getting tattoos, while at least 38 states have laws restricting both body piercing and tattooing of minors. Seventeen states prohibit tattooing of minors regardless of parental consent, while three states do so for body piercing.

These laws can be classified in the following ways:

1. outright prohibition regardless of consent
2. parental consent required
3. written parental consent required
4. written and notarized parental consent required
5. physical presence of parent required while giving consent or during procedure
6. combination of outright prohibition and parental consent requirement (e.g., outright prohibition for minors under age 14 regardless of consent, written parental consent required for ages 14-18)

For more information, read the full report.

ADHD Medication Now Tougher To Obtain On College Campuses

College and university students seeking a diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and the medication necessary to treat it have faced numerous obstacles at their campus health centers.  The New York Times reports that dozens of institutions, such as North Carolina State and Georgia Tech, are facing overwhelming volumes of these requests that they can no longer handle.  Therefore, many institutions have instituted stricter rules for obtaining amphetamine-based prescription medications that are used to treat ADHD. 

Several colleges and universities fear that many students requesting these stimulant prescriptions may be looking for a “study edge” and do not truly exhibit ADHD symptoms.   Studies have estimated that as many as 35% of college students take these stimulants to increase their focus during high-stakes testing periods such as final examinations.  It is against federal law to possess these pills without a prescription.  Their abuse has many harmful effects, including anxiety, depression, and psychosis. 

As a result, many student health centers have developed very rigorous policies that make it more difficult for students to get diagnosed or prescribed stimulants.  Some institutions are forbidding their clinicians from making ADHD diagnoses (George Mason and the University of Vermont) or to prescribe stimulants (William & Mary).  Instead, they are sending students to off-campus medical providers.  Others are requiring students to sign pledges or releases.  For example, many require students to sign contracts promising not to misuse pills or share them with classmates (University of Alabama, Marist College, and Fresno State) or to sign releases allowing clinicians to call parents to confirm the student’s full medical history (Marquette University). 

Students find these policies both frustrating and discriminatory, claiming that they deter students from seeking the help they need.  University officials acknowledge that while these policies have made it more difficult for students to obtain treatment, it’s a necessary step in combating widespread misuse of these prescriptions.  

New Database of Mental Health Adjudications Related to Gun Eligibility

In early May, the Office of the Probate Court Administrator issued a press release describing the expected completion by August of a new electronic database for state and federal authorities to check certain mental health information of people seeking to buy or possess firearms.

The Mental Health Adjudication Repository will include the names of people whose firearms eligibility rights were terminated due to mental health adjudications in the probate or Superior Court. According to the press release, the database will be updated daily and will be available to relevant state and federal agencies.

According to Anne C. McKinney, a former probate judge overseeing the project for the probate court, “the new electronic record system will provide more accurate and timely data to support enforcement efforts.”

The project began in 2011 and is funded by a federal grant, as part of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Act Record Improvement Program. In addition to the probate court and other judicial branch officials, various state agencies have played a role in the project, including the Office of Policy and Management, the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, and the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection.

Hot Report: Driving Under the Influence and Hit-and-Run Laws

OLR Report 2013-R-0235 compares Connecticut's hit and run and driving under the influence (DUI) laws with those of Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont. You also asked how many people were killed in Connecticut accidents involving (1) alcohol impairment and (2) hit and run drivers. We provide this information for 2011, the most recent year for which the data is readily available.

Connecticut, as do the other states in our sample, requires motorists involved in accidents in which an injury occurs to immediately stop at or close to the scene, and provide others involved in the accident, and police, with certain information, such as the driver's name and address and his or her license, registration, and insurance information. Some states, including Connecticut, require the driver to render reasonable necessary assistance to anyone injured in the crash.

Connecticut and Rhode Island have the stiffest maximum monetary penalty for a hit and run violation, a $10,000 fine, which may be imposed when a death or serious injury (Connecticut) or death (Vermont) occurs. Rhode Island and Vermont impose the longest prison term, 15 years, in the event of a hit and run crash causing a death.

In Connecticut, as in all other states, it is a crime to drive with a blood alcohol content level (BAC) at or above 0.08%. The penalties for violating this law in the eight states include fines, jail or prison terms, and license suspensions. Massachusetts's law has both the highest possible fine for first offenders ($5,000) and the longest possible prison term (2 ½ years).

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Traffic Safety Facts, Connecticut, 2007-2011, there were 220 traffic fatalities in Connecticut in 2011. Of these, NHTSA classified 92, (about 41%) as alcohol-impaired fatalities. NHTSA considers an alcohol-impaired fatality one occuring in a crash involving a driver with a BAC of at least 0.08%.

The NHTSA report does not specify which of the 220 deaths were caused by hit and run drivers. However, according to the state Department of Transportation, there were 10 hit and run deaths in Connecticut in 2011, six of whom were pedestrians. That means that just under one-quarter of the 26 pedestrian deaths in 2011 occurred in hit and run accidents.

For more information, read the full report.

Online Poker Launches in Nevada

According to time.com, a Las Vegas-based social gambling site is launching the first legal poker website in the United States.

Internet gambling has been illegal under federal law, but recently the federal government has softened its stance.  As a result, three states (Delaware, New Jersey, and Nevada) have legalized some form of intrastate online gambling.  Thus, Ultimate Gambling will only accept wagers from Nevada players. 

The American Gaming Association estimates that online gambling around the world generates $35 billion a year.  According to the London-based research firm H2 Gambling Capital, a fully realized U.S. market could generate $4.3 billion in the first year and $9.6 billion by year five.

Currently, sites in Nevada have to pay 6.75% state tax on their revenue.

Low Down Payment Home Loans on the Rise

On Wednesday March 13, 2013 Diana Olick reported for CNBC that lenders are approving more and more low down payment loans as we head into the critical spring market for home sales.  In recent years 20% down was the norm on a home purchase loan.  The article states that now Fannie Mae, the Federal National Mortgage Association, will buy loans with as little as 3% down, but these loans require private mortgage insurance(PMI).  PMI was difficult to get when the housing market crash was at its worse, but as the housing market continues to improve this is no longer the case.

According to the article, this dynamic is resulting in a shift whereby the private mortgage insurers are insuring more of the low down payment loans rather than the government because the Federal Housing Administration, the government’s insurer, is getting more expensive.

Olick’s report indicates that with interest rates rising to the highest level in six months, banks are seeing fewer borrowers refinancing which gives them the capacity to extend more home purchase loans as more first time buyers enter the market.  Given this and the fact that PMI is now easier to get on conventional low down payment loans, Olick reports that banks and lenders seem to be easing the rules or loosening up the purse strings.

However, the report indicates that federal regulators might set a minimum down payment for a loan to be considered a “qualified Mortgage”.  A qualified mortgage is a home loan that meets certain standards set by the federal government. The qualified mortgage rule is designed to create safer loans by prohibiting or limiting certain high-risk products and features.

Super Efficient Solar Power

The May/June edition of Technology Review lists super efficient solar power as one of its ten breakthrough technologies. Solar panels on the market today consist of cells made from a single semiconducting material, usually silicon. Since the material absorbs only a narrow band of the solar spectrum, much of sunlight’s energy is lost as heat: these panels typically convert less than 20% of that energy into electricity.

In contrast, a technology being developed by Harry Atwater and his colleagues at CalTech would have an efficiency of at least 50%. It would use a design that efficiently splits sunlight, as a prism does, into six to eight component wavelengths—each one of which produces a different color of light. Each color would then be dispersed to a cell made of a semiconductor that can absorb it. Another design would employ nanoscale optical filters that could filter light coming from all angles. And a third would use a hologram instead of filters to split the spectrum. While the designs are different, the basic idea is the same: combine conventionally designed cells with optical techniques to efficiently harness sunlight’s broad spectrum and waste much less of its energy.

Atwater argues that achieving ultrahigh efficient designs should be a primary goal of the solar industry, as it is “the best lever we have” for reducing the cost of solar power.

Open Records Laws Can Be Limited to State Residents

Open records laws provide public access to government documents and meetings, but must they provide equal access to every member of the public? In a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that they do not, affirming that it was permissible for Virginia to exclude non-state residents from its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Virginia’s FOIA provides access to public records for state citizens only, and state agencies had denied various FOIA requests by the plaintiffs on the grounds that they were not state citizens. The Court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that the denials violated the U.S. Constitution’s Privileges and Immunities and dormant Commerce clauses, holding that (1) the state did not abridge any constitutionally protected privilege or immunity and (2) Virginia’s FOIA does not regulate commerce in any meaningful way. Rather, it held, the law is a mechanism by which state citizens, who ultimately hold sovereign power, may obtain an accounting from the public officials to whom they delegate that power

A Room with A View

A recent Planetizen article cites a National Recreation and Parks Association report summarizing the impact of parks on physical and mental health, social functioning, youth development, the environment, and the economy.

 

The report found that:

• compared to patients with urban views, patients with a view of nature have faster recovery times, need less pain medication, and experience fewer post-surgical complications;
• housing project tenants with a view of vegetation show
• lower levels of violence and aggression than neighbors who can only see concrete and asphalt;
• cognitive functioning, impulse control, and stress resilience increase in individuals with access to greenery; and
• close proximity to parks increases the value of homes, thereby increasing municipal tax revenue.

Hot Report: Summary of Gun Provision in PA 13-3

OLR Report 2013-R-0216 summarizes the gun provisions in Public Act 13-3. The act has extensive school security and mental health services provisions not discussed in the report.

Public Act 13-3 makes extensive changes in the state's gun (firearm) laws. In doing so, it increases the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection's (DESPP) enforcement responsibilities. The major changes pertain to assault weapons, long guns (rifles and shotguns), large capacity magazines (LCMs), and gun crimes.

The act, among other things:

1. significantly expands the state's assault weapons ban, adding numerous weapons by name and feature, and requiring anyone who lawfully possessed any of the newly banned weapons before April 4, 2013 to apply to register them by January 1, 2014 to be allowed to keep them (§§ 25-31);
2. bans the sale, purchase, or transfer of LCMs that can hold more than 10 bullets but allows anyone in lawful possession of LCMs before January 1, 2014 to keep them if they apply to declare them to DESPP by January 1, 2014 (§ 24);
3. mandates the establishment of a DESPP state deadly weapon offender registry, by January 1, 2014, for people convicted of crimes involving deadly weapons or found not guilty of such crimes by reason of mental disease or defect (§§ 18-22);
4. requires anyone buying a long gun from an unlicensed person (nondealer) to undergo a national criminal background check, just like anyone buying from a gun dealer (§ 1);
5. starting October 1, 2013, requires anyone buying ammunition to have a state-issued gun credential (i.e., handgun permit, gun dealer permit, handgun or long gun eligibility certificate, or ammunition certificate) (§ 14);
6. prohibits sale of ammunition or ammunition magazines to anyone under age 18 (§ 14);
7. increases the penalty for gun-trafficking, illegal gun possession, and several other gun-related crimes, in some cases increasing, and in others establishing, mandatory minimum prison terms (§§ 42-50, & 52-53);
8. prohibits inmates convicted of violent crimes from using earned risk reduction credits to become eligible for parole sooner than they otherwise could (§ 59);
9. expands the law banning people from getting gun credentials or possessing firearms on mental health grounds, affecting both voluntary and involuntary commitments (§§ 57-58);
10. limits the number of gun permits a person can apply for to one in any 12-month period, and limits application to the town where the applicant has a permanent residence (§ 57);
11. expands the ban on the sale or other transfer of armor-piercing bullets (§ 32);
12. prohibits people from storing firearms on their premises if they know or should know that someone living there is ineligible to possess firearms under state or federal law, unless they secure it in such a way that the person cannot access them (§§ 54-56);
13. adds a retired Superior Court judge and a Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS) nominee to the seven-member Board of Firearms Permit Examiners (Firearms Board)( § 60); and
14. appropriates $1 million to DESPP for FY 14 to fund the statewide firearms trafficking task force (§ 63).

The act also prohibits gun dealers from selling or delivering long guns to anyone under age 18 (age 21 for semiautomatic centerfire rifles that can accept more than five rounds of ammunition) (§ 1). It does not set a minimum age for nondealer sales. But, starting April 1, 2014, it prohibits anyone from buying or receiving a long gun unless he or she has a state-issued gun permit or certificate. Under the act, the minimum age for getting the long gun eligibility certificate is 18; under existing law, the minimum age for the gun permit and gun eligibility certificate is 21.

Some provisions discussed in the summary of this report contain exemptions for certain federal firearm licensees and law enforcement entities and officials. These exemptions are included in the body of the report.

The act makes numerous technical and conforming changes.

 

For more information, read the full report.

CMS Releases Hospital Pricing Data For The First Time

In an effort to increase health care system transparency, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) recently released U.S. hospital pricing data (called the “chargemaster”) for the 100 most common inpatient services in 2011. This is the first time that CMS has released this information, which demonstrates major differences in what most hospitals charge Medicare for the same procedure, even within the same city.  

According to an Advisory Board Company article, the data cover 90% of Medicare inpatient claims filed in FY 2011, including 163,065 individual charges from 3,337 hospitals located in 306 metropolitan areas. Generally, it shows that hospitals submitted Medicare bills approximately three to five times higher than what the program reimburses for services. 

The article notes that hospitals in California, Florida, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Texas charged the highest average prices, while those in Idaho, Montana, and North Dakota charged the lowest. But, health care experts caution that these prices do not reflect what hospitals actually get paid by Medicare or most patients.

According to CMS Medicare Director, Jonathon Blum, the data do not explain why the variation in hospital pricing exists. Contributing factors may include patients’ health status and hospitals’ teaching status or capital costs, among others.  

What Does The Marketplace Fairness Act Mean For Connecticut?

On May 6th, the U.S. Senate voted 69 to 27 to pass legislation to improve state and local sales tax collection on remote sellers (i.e., retailers with no physical presence in a state), including internet retailers.  The bill, entitled the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 (S. 743), allows states to require remote sellers with more than $1 million in annual remote sales in the U.S. to collect sales and use taxes if they (1) adopt the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement  (SSUTA) or (2) take certain steps to simplify their sales tax base and structure. 

Connecticut is currently an “advisor member” of SSUTA, meaning that it does not comply with the agreement but is a non-voting member of its governing board.  Thus, Connecticut would need to follow the process the bill outlines for non-member states in order to tax remote sellers under the bill. 

This means that Connecticut could start requiring remote sellers to collect and remit sales taxes on the first day of the calendar quarter that begins at least six months after the bill’s passage.  But first, Connecticut would need to (1) enact legislation to exercise this taxing authority and (2) implement a number of simplification requirements.  These requirements include:

1. identifying a single (a) state-level agency to administer all sales and use tax laws and (b) audit and return for remote sellers within the state,
2. providing a uniform sales and use tax base within the state,
3. enacting specified sourcing rules for calculating taxes,
4. providing software and services to remote sellers to facilitate collection, and
5. giving remote sellers and software providers 90 days’ notice of any tax rate changes.

Connecticut already complies with some of these minimum simplification requirements, since it has a state-level agency that administers its sales and use tax laws (the Department of Revenue Services) and a uniform tax base across the state.  But, if the bill moves forward in the House, we can expect to hear more about how the state will implement the rest of its provisions.

Hot Report: Sale of Assault Weapons

OLR Report 2013-R-0232 explains if someone who legally possessed one of the assault weapons banned under PA 13-3 before April 4, 2013 can legally sell the weapon now and if so, how.

The Office of Legislative Research is not authorized to give legal opinions and the report should not be construed as such.

It appears that anyone who legally possessed one of the newly banned assault weapons before April 4, 2013 may sell it, but only to a gun dealer in Connecticut and only after obtaining a certificate of possession for the weapon from the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP). (This report sometimes uses the term register when describing an assault weapon for which a certificate was issued.)

Effective April 4, 2013, PA 13-3 expanded the assault weapons ban. But anyone who legally possessed any of the newly banned weapons and applies to register it with DESPP by January 1, 2014 may continue to possess it, under defined circumstances. Effective April 4, 2013, the act, with exceptions, also banned the sale of assault weapons. The sale ban, unlike the possession ban, contains no exemptions for people who legally possessed assault weapons before April 4 to sell or otherwise
dispose of them (e.g., sell to someone out of state.) But a separate provision allows such possessors to sell registered firearms to Connecticut gun dealers. It does not authorize them to sell unregistered weapons.
For more information, read the full report.

Health Insurance Coverage For Young Adults Improves But Declines for Other Adults

Kaiser Health News reports that the number of young adults, ages 19 to 25, with health insurance coverage has increased over the last two years, but the number of adults generally, ages 19 to 64, with health insurance coverage has decreased.

According to the Commonwealth Fund’s 2012 biennial health insurance survey, 11.7 million young adults (41%) were uninsured in 2012, an improvement of 1.9 million.  This improvement is attributed to the federal health care reform law that allows young adults to stay on their parents’ health insurance plan until age 26.  Meanwhile, approximately 84 million adults in total (46%) were uninsured or underinsured in 2012, up from 81 million in 2010.  This is related to increasing health care costs and the 2008 economic downturn.  The federal health care reform law, major provisions of which take effect January 1, 2014, requires Americans to have health insurance coverage or pay a penalty.

Is Manufacturing Coming Back to the U.S?

According to a recent article in the Washington Post, companies that once moved their manufacturing facilities overseas are now starting to consider moving them back to the U.S.  The article points out that American companies, such as Caterpillar, GE, and Ford, are shifting some of their manufacturing back to the U.S., and cites a 2012 survey that found 37% of U.S. manufacturers with sales above $1 billion are considering shifting some production from China to the U.S. 

The increasing productivity of American workers, rising shipping costs, cheaper domestic energy, stricter Chinese labor laws, and more frequent Chinese labor disputes are all factors in those considerations, but the primary reason is the shrinking gap in the cost of labor between China and the U.S.  According to the article, the difference in labor costs between the two countries was $17 per hour in 2006, but could shrink to as low as $7 per hour by 2015.   

The article cautions, however, the likelihood that American manufacturing would return to even 1990’s type levels.  With many plants setting up in the nonunion South, organized labor has largely been shut out of new manufacturing opportunities and manufacturing jobs no longer have higher average hourly earnings than the typical private-sector job.  In addition, technology continues to displace manufacturing workers, regardless of their location.

Hot Report: Acquiring and Possessing Explosives

OLR Report 2013-R-0222 summarizes the laws on acquiring and possessing explosives.

Explosives are generally used by businesses for purposes such as mining and demolition. The federal and state laws governing these explosives address licensing and permitting, storage, transport, and recordkeeping.

The federal laws are generally enforced by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulating certain transportation methods. Specifically, ATF regulations prohibit, among other things, certain activities without a license, including manufacturing, selling, distributing, receiving, or transporting explosives. DOT regulations prohibit transporting any unapproved explosives.

State explosives laws are enforced by the Department of Construction Services (DCS) (CGS § 29-349), but local fire marshals may issue certain permits. DCS requires both a license and permit before transporting, using, procuring, manufacturing, selling, and storing explosives.

Under both federal and state law, licensees and permittees must (1) store explosives in a safe manner, including specific container requirements and storing them a minimum distance from certain structures and (2) maintain records, including tracking transactions and allowing certain government officials to inspect them.

Fireworks may contain explosives depending on the type. Federal regulations define fireworks into two general categories: (1) “consumer fireworks,” which are intended for use by the general public and (2) “display fireworks,” which are intended for commercial use. Only those who manufacture consumer fireworks must obtain an ATF license, while anyone engaging in the business of importing, manufacturing, dealing in, or receiving display fireworks needs an ATF license or permit. Except for sparklers and fountains, it is illegal to possess or use all types of fireworks in Connecticut (for more information on fireworks, see OLR Report 2012-R-0387).

Federal and state laws establish penalties for violating these provisions. Under state law, it is illegal for anyone to possess an explosive without a bill of sale or some other proof of its legal transfer. Violators may be fined up to $10,000, imprisoned up to 10 years, or both (CGS § 29-348).

For more information, read the full report.

Taranto, Italy’s Economic Development Dilemma

Most of Connecticut’s 25 “distressed municipalities” would welcome a steel mill, given the taxes it generates and the jobs it creates. That’s why Bloomberg Businessweek’s story last December about Taranto, Italy’s Ilva Steelworks—Europe’s largest—was surprising. While Taranto and its region (Calabria) need the jobs and business the mill generates, some of the city’s residents are worried about the mill’s other outputs. (Taranto is located in southern Italy, which lags behind Italy’s more prosperous north.)

Ilva employs about 12,000 people, produces over 30% of Italy’s steel, and accounts for 75% of the province’s gross domestic product, all of this in a city where about a third of the workforce is jobless. But residents are worried about things like, “homes infiltrated by a black powder that blows from slag heaps and drifts from smokestacks.” If residents weren’t anxious enough, the Italian National Health Service reported that they are 30% more likely to develop tumors than those of the surrounding provinces.

Taranto’s experience is an example of the tensions that can arise when the consequences of economic development affect the environment, people’s health, and historic places and property, to name a few concerns. 

An example closer to home occurred in 2012 when Chicago’s preservation and economic development planners argued over the proposed demolition of the city’s historic Prentice Women’s Hospital. The preservation planners wanted to preserve the building’s historic character by reusing it after the hospital moved. Their economic development counterparts, though, wanted to demolish the building and prepare the site for a new biomedical research facility. The city’s landmark commission eventually approved the structure’s demolition (“Ethics in a Time of Twitter,” Planning, December 2012, available in the Legislative Library).

Connecticut is no stranger to such ethical dilemmas. In 1976 the legislature created a framework to anticipate dilemmas that could arise before and after the state expands a highway, extends a sewer line, funds an industrial park, or funds other major public improvements. The framework—the State Plan for Conservation and Development—seeks to conserve land and other natural resources by locating these improvements where the roads, sewers, and other supporting infrastructure already exist. (In the early 1990s, Maryland adopted a similar approach and called it “smart growth.”)

There are other approaches to address development dilemmas. To learn more about how other companies have reduced waste (and made money in the process), read Peter Senge’s The Necessary Revolution: How Individuals and Organizations are Working Together to Create a Sustainable World (2008) or watch this video:

Study: Michigan Charter Schools maybe a little better than traditional public schools

A new study that compares the differences in student performance at charter schools and traditional public schools in Michigan found charters have a slight edge. This is in contrast to the majority of studies on the subject that have found essentially no difference in performance between the two types of schools.

The study by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University examined data collected by the Michigan Department of Education between 2005 and 2011. It was recently posted on the National Education Policy Center’s website.

The report’s conclusions include:

• "On average, it was estimated that charter school students in Michigan experience more academic growth than traditional public school students. Overall, this difference was estimated to be 0.06 standard deviations for both reading and math. This is equivalent to about a 1/10 of 1% of the variation in academic growth is associated with school type.
• "Estimated differences were greatest for elementary schools, and were close to nonexistent for multi-level schools (i.e., those that combine middle school with elementary, high, or both).
• "On average, the gap in academic growth between white students and black and Hispanic students was smaller in charter schools than in traditional public schools. Conversely, the gap in growth between students in special education programs and other students was greater in charter schools."

Hot Report: Summary of Connecticut Gun Laws

OLR Report 2013-R-0001 summarizes Connecticut gun laws.

The Connecticut Constitution (Article First, § 15) gives every citizen the right to bear arms in defense of himself or herself and the state. For regulatory purposes, state law designates four types of firearms: handguns (pistols and revolvers), long guns (rifles and shotguns), assault weapons, and machine guns. The degree of regulation depends on the type of firearm and, for sales and transfers, whether they are being conducted by federally licensed gun dealers (FFLs) or by private sellers not required to be licensed.

With few exceptions, (1) anyone acquiring a handgun in Connecticut, whether from a federally licensed gun dealer or private seller, must have an eligibility certificate or a permit to sell or carry handguns and (2) anyone carrying a handgun must have a permit to carry handguns. No permit or certificate is required to possess lawfully acquired handguns in one's home or at one's place of business.

Anyone buying or otherwise acquiring a handgun in Connecticut, including at a gun show, or applying for a gun permit or eligibility certificate must follow prescribed procedures and meet certain statutory criteria. This includes (1) passing state and national criminal history record checks and (2) in the case of a carry permit, being deemed suitable to get a permit by the official issuing the permit. The Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP) must authorize all handgun transfers, whether by licensed dealers or private sellers. And applicants for a gun permit or eligibility certificate must pass a DESPP-approved course on handgun safety and use.

Certain categories of people may not legally possess handguns or get credentials to carry them. These include (1) convicted felons, (2) illegal aliens, (3) anyone under a court protective or restraining order for using or attempting or threatening to use force against someone, or (4) anyone discharged into the community in the preceding 20 years after being found not guilty of a crime by reason of mental disease or defect. They also include people who cannot legally possess firearms under federal law because they have been adjudicated as “mental defectives” or been committed to a mental institution, unless their firearm privileges are restored. Federal law contains a court procedure for restoring firearm privileges lost because of a federal commitment or adjudication; state law contains a similar procedure for restoring privileges lost because of a state adjudication or commitment. After the occurrence of any event that makes a person ineligible to continue to possess handguns or the related credentials, he or she must transfer any handguns in his or her possession to an eligible person or surrender them to DESPP.

No permit, certificate, or other credential is required to own, buy, possess, acquire, or carry long guns. But, people buying long guns from licensed gun dealers must follow procedures similar to the handgun procedures and DESPP must authorize the transactions. As is the case of handguns, certain categories of people are barred from possessing long guns, but some people barred from possessing handguns may legally possess long guns. These include people convicted of certain serious misdemeanors.

With limited exceptions, state law bans the sale, use, and possession of assault weapons. People who lawfully owned assault weapons before the ban and duly registered them before October 1, 1994 may continue to possess them subject to certain restrictions. And certain types of assault weapons legally manufactured before September 13, 1994 are exempt from the state transfer and registration requirements. The law also allows possession of certain specified assault weapon models under certain circumstances.

Machine guns are legal if duly registered with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and DESPP. It is illegal to use them for offensive or aggressive purposes, as defined in law, or to transfer them to anyone under age 16.
Gun dealers must be federally licensed and if they sell handguns, they must obtain a local permit to sell them. They must follow specified procedures when selling firearms and meet other criteria in law.

The law, with few exceptions, prohibits carrying firearms at certain locations, such as on school property or in any building where either chamber of the legislature is located or where the legislature is holding a public hearing or meeting.

The law requires people to store loaded firearms in a way that minors under age 16 do not have unauthorized access to them. It prohibits transferring handguns to minors under age 21, except as authorized for temporary use at firing or shooting ranges.

Under limited circumstances and specified procedures, law enforcement officials may get warrants and seize firearms from people posing an imminent risk of harming themselves, someone else, or animals and a court may order the firearms held for up to one year.

Except for banning certain types of .50 caliber ammunition, Connecticut does not regulate ammunition.

In a number of areas, there are related federal laws not discussed in this report.

For more information, read the full report.

Juvenile Court Judges Oppose Putting More Cops in Schools

The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges has released an excerpt of a letter sent to Vice President Biden expressing concerns about post-Newtown proposals to increase police presence in schools.  As an extreme example, the group cited the experience of Clayton County, Georgia where court referrals increased 1,248% when officers were assigned to school campuses.  The judges estimated that 90% of the referrals were for infractions that school administrators had previously handled on their own.

The judges also pointed to research showing that a first-time arrest doubles the odds that a student will drop out of high school, and that an initial court appearance quadruples them.  They endorsed the American Psychological Association’s, Council of State Governments’, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s positions that extreme discipline, including arrests, predict grade retention, school dropout, and future involvement in the juvenile and criminal justice systems.  And having an arrest record follows a student when he or she leaves school, making it harder to get into college or the military or get a job.

In their view, the influx of police in schools reflects schools’ adoption of policies and practices that push young people out of school and into the school-to-jail pipeline.  In their place, the judges support:

• Eliminating “zero tolerance policies,” thereby giving school administrators discretion in handling student misbehavior;
• Testing and implementing school-wide violence prevention programs, social skills curricula, family engagement, and positive behavior supports;
• Adopting “restorative justice” practices, (i.e., focusing on the needs of the offender and victim);
• Collaborations among juvenile justice agencies, schools, and the community to foster positive relationships with students to promote student attendance and academic success; and
• Judicially-led collaborations to reduce school exclusions with intensive training, technical assistance, and public education.

Number of Offenders Under Correctional Supervision Continues to Decline Nationwide

According to a new report by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), the total number of offenders under supervision by adult correctional systems in the nation declined by 1.4% during 2011.  This marked the third consecutive year of declines, and the population dropped below 2004 levels.  The report tracks inmates in state, local, and federal custody; probationers; and parolees.

At the end of 2011, 1 in 34 U.S. adults, or 2.9%, were under correctional supervision, down from 1 in 31 in 2007.  The total number of offenders under supervision in 2011 was 6.98 million.

Hot Report: Summary of State v. Lewis

OLR Report 2013-R-0219 summarizes the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision in State v. Lewis, 303 Conn. 760 (2012).

In this case, the defendant was stopped because he matched the description of a robbery suspect and arrested because of an outstanding warrant. He was charged with four drug offenses when a search following his arrest revealed numerous small bags of crack cocaine, empty bags, a razor blade, and cash. He was charged with narcotic possession with intent to sell, drug paraphernalia possession, and two offenses that enhance penalties for committing these acts near an elementary or secondary school.

At trial, a jury found him guilty of all four offenses. However, the Appellate Court remanded the case because the jury had not been properly instructed on the specific intent required for each of these four offenses. Additionally, regarding the enhanced penalties for acts near schools, it found that the prosecution presented insufficient evidence to establish that (1) the defendant intended to sell drugs where he was arrested and (2) the nearby school was an elementary or secondary school.

A majority of the Supreme Court agreed with the Appellate Court that the jury was improperly instructed and the evidence was insufficient to establish that the defendant intended to sell drugs where he was arrested near a school. The court stated that while the defendant may have been equipped to sell drugs “somewhere,” there was an “[in]adequate basis for concluding that the place the defendant intended to sell narcotics was the place of his arrest” (303 Conn. at 771). The court disagreed with the Appellate Court's conclusion that there was insufficient evidence showing the school in question was an elementary or secondary school. Relying on testimony interrupted by an objection but not stricken from the record, the court held the jury was capable of inferring that the school in question was an elementary or secondary school, an element of the two offenses that enhance penalties for drug crimes. As a result, the court ordered (1) the defendant to be retried on paraphernalia possession near a school and (2) a verdict of not guilty on intent to sell drugs near a school.

Justices Eveleigh and Vertefeuille concurred in part, but dissented on the issue of the school's status as an elementary or secondary school.
For more information, read the full report.

Know Your Consumer Rights and Protections at “Every Age, Every Stage”

Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection has launched a new website, SmartConsumer.ct.gov, to inform residents of their consumer rights and to keep them aware of scams and fraudulent offers.

“The Department’s new, user-focused website,” said Consumer Protection Commissioner William M. Rubenstein, ”makes helpful information easier to find and more accessible for consumers of all ages.”

The website is structured to provide useful information to consumers according to their age and stage in life.  It includes advice on spotting and avoiding travel fraud, rental scams, pyramid schemes and modeling scams, along with information on stopping unwanted mail, hiring home improvement contractors, and staying safe online.

Obstacle to Housing Recovery: Too Few Houses For Sale

ABC World News recently reported that a shortage of houses on the market is slowing down what is otherwise shaping up to be the strongest spring buying season since the housing bubble burst in 2006. 

The potential buyers, one-third of whom are looking to buy their first homes, are attracted by (1) mortgage rates that are at historic lows, (2) rising prices that ease fears of taking losses on their housing investments, and (3) renewed confidence in job security and the safety of their retirement accounts.

Many of the reluctant sellers are still smarting from the plunge in home values brought on by the collapse of the housing market.  And while the increase in housing prices is encouraging, it is not enough to restore what many lost; some still owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth.  On the other hand, some homeowners who can afford to sell are holding back, betting that their homes will be worth even more as the market bounces back.

Experts predicting that full recovery remains three to five years away say the shortage is a highly relevant consideration.

Hot Report: Questions on Armed School Security

OLR Report 2013-R-0224 answers a number of questions about armed school security.

Questions the report answers include:

• What does a corporation have to do to own a gun, and what does it have to do to legally allow its employees to possess guns?
• Are employees of such corporations allowed to take the guns home when they finish their shift for the day? If so, are there insurance requirements?
• If the guns are to be kept on the corporation's premises, must they be locked up in a certain way? 

For more information, including the answers to the questions, read the full report.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0224.htm

Veterans’ Court Reduces Recidivism, Saves $$

A pilot program that created a specialized court for veterans struggling with addiction and mental illness in Hennepin County, Minnesota has proven to be successful and should continue, recommended the authors of a study conducted by the county’s research division. Eighty-three percent of the 141 defendants accepted into its Veterans Court program during 2010 through 2012 committed fewer offenses after six months in the program than during the previous six months. In addition, 56% of defendants have not reoffended in the 24 months since entering the program.  County officials estimate that without the court’s intervention, their overall recidivism rate would have been 75%.

The specialized court has also proven to be extremely cost effective.  While the county pays $2,000 to $3,000 per day on treatment and mental health services for each veteran, the cost for Veterans Court probation services for the same veteran is about $25 per day.
The Veterans Court primarily accepts veterans charged with offenses like drunken driving and domestic assault, but has also taken cases involving terroristic threats, drug possession, and property crimes. Nearly all participants are white and approximately half have been deployed overseas at least once, most commonly to Iraq. 

The court, which is one of 75 in the nation, borrows best practices from mental health and drug court programs and requires (1) completion of chemical dependency treatment and domestic abuse programs, or both, and (2) work with the Veterans Affairs Medical Center.  Graduates spend an average of 14 months under court supervision and usually make nine court appearances. During the period covered by the study, 41 participants graduated, eight were terminated for noncompliance, and seven voluntarily withdrew and returned to criminal court.

“Megacommuting”

A recent U.S. Census Bureau study reported on the commuting habits of U.S. full-time workers. Among its findings:

• about 8% of workers had commutes of one hour or longer (one-way) in 2011;
• New York had the highest rates of “long commutes” by 16.2% of its workers, followed by Maryland (14.8%) and New Jersey (14.6%);
• about 7.7% of Connecticut workers (125,820) commute one hour or longer;
• nearly 600,000 U.S. workers are “megacommuters,” spending at least 90 minutes driving more than 50 miles to work; and    
• the average one-way daily commute for workers across the country takes about 25 minutes.

 

Hot Report: Connecticut Volunteer Immunity Laws

OLR Report 2013-R-0199 summarizes the liability protections for Connecticut volunteers. It covers Connecticut laws.

(OLR is not authorized to give legal opinions and this report should not be considered one.)

Connecticut statutes make volunteers engaged in certain activities immune from lawsuits arising from acts of ordinary negligence. The primary source of volunteer protection is the state's Good Samaritan Law, which covers volunteers who provide emergency medical assistance or first aid. Other laws protect civil preparedness personnel, unpaid members of municipal or nonprofit corporation boards, and similar organizations.

With some exceptions, these laws do not immunize (1) volunteers from claims for damages caused by gross or willful and wanton misconduct or (2) organizations for which the immunized person is working or volunteering from liability for a volunteer's negligence.

The report also describes other laws that immunize landowners from liability in certain circumstances.
For more information, read the full report.

Seniors and Financial Exploitation

The current issue of Consumer Reports paints a grim picture of seniors victimized not just by scam artists, but also by trusted family members, caregivers, and friends.  Financial exploitation of seniors – illegally or improperly using the funds, property, or assets of people age 60 and older—is a crime that often goes unreported.  In a randomized New York telephone survey released in 2011, for instance, seniors mentioned being victims of financial exploitation more frequently than any other type of abuse. Yet the study found that only 1 in 44 cases were officially documented. A national study issued by the MetLife Mature Market Institute estimates that this abuse costs at least $2.9 billion a year. 

Studies of investment abuses tell similar stories. In a survey last year of about 2,600 financial planners by the Certified Financial Planner (CFP) Board of Standards, 56% said they knew older clients who had been subject to unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices. Among reported cases, the average loss estimate was $140,500; the median was $50,000. Only a quarter of surveyed CFPs said the crimes’ perpetrators rarely or never knew the victim.

With little federal coordination or funding, some states have taken the initiative to identify and deal with suspected victims by improving information-sharing among adult protective service workers, emergency medical personnel, and police officers.  California has established courts dedicated to handling the growing number of elder abuse cases.  And in 25 states, financial institutions are required to report suspicious withdrawals from seniors’ accounts and other uncharacteristic activity.

Financial exploitation indirectly costs victims, families, financial institutions, and taxpayers.  A 2012 study by Utah’s elderly services unit found that in 2010 older financial-abuse victims who enrolled in Medicaid had lost an average of $480,000.  The study’s authors projected that such victims could cost the program almost $9 million.

Incorporating Community Gardens into Housing Projects

Many people living in low-income housing do not have easy access to fresh produce and green spaces.  However, some developers are tackling the problem by creating spaces for tenants to garden.  Via Verde, an affordable housing project in the Bronx, not only provides roof-top community gardens and edible landscaping, but also partnered with a non-profit to teach residents about gardening, healthy eating, and cooking.  A Seattle-area affordable housing development worked with its predominantly immigrant community to ensure its community garden incorporates culturally appropriate foods, such as bok choy and lemongrass.  But, community gardens offer more than food security, a study of a Sydney housing project’s community garden shows that community gardens:

1. promote physical health, by providing affordable produce and an opportunity to exercise;
2. deliver psychological benefits, through increased social interaction, routine building, and intellectual stimulation; and
3. build social capital, by bringing together populations that are diverse in age and culture.

photo: GrowNYC