Connecticut · individual fact

Connecticut crime

Reported violent and property crime, police reporting coverage, and Connecticut public-safety context.

Reported violent-crime rate139.2 per 100k2024 · #48 of 50 · highest first
Reported property-crime rate1,397.4 per 100k2024 · #40 of 50 · highest first
Police population reporting coverage100%2024 · #1 of 50 · highest first

Connecticut over time

Explore Connecticut readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. Connecticut officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a Connecticut effect.

Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a Connecticut change.

Enacted / issuedDid not proceedPending / in progressStatus unclear

Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.

Reported violent-crime rate Connecticut · source units
ConnecticutPublished U.S. benchmark

Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.

Reported violent-crime rate2024: 139.2 per 100k128.4 per 100k184.1 per 100k239.7 per 100kConnecticut, 2015: 221.1 per 100kConnecticut, 2016: 228.5 per 100kConnecticut, 2017: 228.9 per 100kConnecticut, 2018: 210.2 per 100kConnecticut, 2019: 185.3 per 100kConnecticut, 2020: 184.9 per 100kConnecticut, 2021: 174.4 per 100kConnecticut, 2022: 155.6 per 100kConnecticut, 2023: 154.2 per 100kConnecticut, 2024: 139.2 per 100k201520192024
✦ Major events & context · 33National context · Booker makes federal sentencing guidelines advisory · 2005-01-12Federal sentencingNational context · Adam Walsh Act establishes new registration standards · 2006-07-27Adam Walsh ActNational context · Survey changes disrupt the 2006 victimization comparison · 2006-12-312006 survey breakNational context · Congress strengthens firearm background-check records · 2008-01-08NICS records lawNational context · Second Chance Act expands reentry support · 2008-04-09Second Chance ActNational context · Heller recognizes an individual firearm right · 2008-06-26Heller decisionNational context · Financial crisis deepens during the Great Recession · 2008-09-15Financial crisisNational context · Shepard–Byrd Act expands federal hate-crime law · 2009-10-28Federal hate-crime lawNational context · McDonald applies the firearm right to the states · 2010-06-28McDonald decisionNational context · Fair Sentencing Act changes federal crack penalties · 2010-08-03Fair Sentencing ActNational context · FBI expands the rape definition · 2013-01-01Rape definition expandsNational context · Violence Against Women Act reauthorized · 2013-03-07VAWA reauthorizationNational context · DOJ publishes Ferguson policing findings · 2015-03-04Ferguson investigationNational context · Murder rates rise in 2015 and 2016 · 2016-12-312015–2016 murder riseNational context · First Step Act enacted · 2018-12-21First Step ActNational context · FBI launches national use-of-force data collection · 2019-01-01Use-of-force reportingNational context · COVID-19 characterized as a pandemic · 2020-03-11COVID-19 pandemicNational context · George Floyd is killed by a Minneapolis police officer · 2020-05-25George Floyd killedNational context · Murder rises sharply while property crime declines · 2020-12-312020 murder surgeNational context · FBI transitions to incident-based reporting · 2021-01-01NIBRS transitionNational context · COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act improves review and reporting · 2021-05-20Hate-crime reportingNational context · Executive order sets federal policing safeguards · 2022-05-25Federal policing orderNational context · Bruen changes the test for firearm restrictions · 2022-06-23Bruen decisionNational context · Bipartisan Safer Communities Act enacted · 2022-06-25Safer Communities ActNational context · FBI annual report again includes summary submissions · 2023-10-16Reporting coverage growsNational context · Vehicle theft rises while total property crime falls · 2023-12-31Vehicle-theft surgeNational context · Victimization survey tests a redesigned questionnaire · 2024-01-01NCVS redesign beginsNational context · Supreme Court rejects ATF’s bump-stock classification · 2024-06-14Bump-stock rulingNational context · Rahimi upholds disarmament for a credible domestic threat · 2024-06-21Domestic-threat rulingNational context · Federal policing executive order is revoked · 2025-01-20Policing order revokedNational context · Court sustains ATF’s rule covering some firearm kits · 2025-03-26Firearm-kit rulingNational context · Executive order redirects federal law-enforcement support · 2025-04-282025 policing policyNational context · FBI publishes 2025 annual crime estimates · 2026-08-142025 crime data release● Connecticut Legislature · 2● U.S. Congress · Connecticut delegation · 3◆ Governor · 2■ Connecticut agencies · 0No reviewed actions match these filters.2005-01-012026-08-31

7 of 7 reviewed Connecticut actions match · 7 date markers shown. 33 major events shown separately.

Connecticut · 2024: 139.2 per 100k · Rank #48 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: Not available

FactVote sums the 12 monthly state offense rates returned by the FBI Crime Data Explorer for each calendar year. The accompanying coverage value is the mean of the 12 monthly population-coverage percentages returned with the same query. These are crimes reported to law enforcement, not all crimes that occurred. Connecticut's average monthly population coverage remained at or above 99.7% throughout this series, but coverage still varies and does not equal complete statewide reporting. Reporting systems, agency participation, and later revisions can change the published series. Annual observations use December 31; monthly observations use the first of the month. Lines connect consecutive readings and do not supply values between them. Missing observations break the lines.

View observations and export data
Connecticut Reported violent-crime rate · source units
PeriodConnecticutRankU.S. benchmark
2024139.2 per 100k#48 of 50Not available
2023154.2 per 100k#48 of 50Not available
2022155.6 per 100k#48 of 50Not available
2021174.4 per 100k#47 of 50Not available
2020184.9 per 100k#47 of 50Not available
2019185.3 per 100k#48 of 50Not available
2018210.2 per 100k#44 of 50Not available
2017228.9 per 100k#45 of 50Not available
2016228.5 per 100k#46 of 50Not available
2015221.1 per 100k#44 of 50Not available
How major events are selected

The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.

Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.

Connecticut · state comparison

Reported crime over time

Compare the same calendar year across states. A lower reported rate can reflect fewer crimes, incomplete reporting, or both.

Connecticut · 2024139.2 per 100k
Connecticut rank#48among all 50 states
U.S. benchmarkNot availableSame measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

Reported violent-crime rate

FactVote sums the 12 monthly state offense rates returned by the FBI Crime Data Explorer for each calendar year. The accompanying coverage value is the mean of the 12 monthly population-coverage percentages returned with the same query.

These are crimes reported to law enforcement, not all crimes that occurred. Connecticut's average monthly population coverage remained at or above 99.7% throughout this series, but coverage still varies and does not equal complete statewide reporting. Reporting systems, agency participation, and later revisions can change the published series.

Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.

Connecticut
Reported violent-crime rate history in Connecticut125.7 per 100k184.1 per 100k242.4 per 100k20152024
2024 · Connecticut: 139.2 per 100k · Rank #48 of 50, highest first · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
Connecticut Reported violent-crime rate history
PeriodConnecticutCompare
2015221.1 per 100k
2016228.5 per 100k
2017228.9 per 100k
2018210.2 per 100k
2019185.3 per 100k
2020184.9 per 100k
2021174.4 per 100k
2022155.6 per 100k
2023154.2 per 100k
2024139.2 per 100k

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Connecticut stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Connecticut has a dark outline.

Lower value · 102.6 per 100kHigher value · 744.7 per 100kStriped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

Connecticut · 139.2 per 100k2024 · Rank #48 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare Connecticut with every state · 50 ranked
Reported violent-crime rate · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1New Mexico744.7 per 100k—
#2Alaska731.9 per 100k—
#3Tennessee604.3 per 100k—
#4Arkansas589.6 per 100k—
#5*Louisiana504.5 per 100k82.0% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.
#6Colorado486.8 per 100k—
#7California478.4 per 100k—
#8Kansas474.7 per 100k—
#9Missouri472.7 per 100k—
#10Michigan442.6 per 100k—
#11South Carolina440.8 per 100k—
#12Arizona433 per 100k—
#13Oklahoma429.3 per 100k—
#14Montana428 per 100k—
#15Maryland425.9 per 100k—
#16Nevada408.6 per 100k—
#17Texas397.8 per 100k—
#18New York392.2 per 100k—
#19North Carolina382.9 per 100k—
#20Alabama380.8 per 100k—
#21Delaware368.4 per 100k—
#22*South Dakota356.9 per 100k89.6% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.
#23*Indiana349.2 per 100k87.2% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.
#24Oregon341.1 per 100k—
#25Washington331.8 per 100k—
#26Georgia328 per 100k—
#27Massachusetts317.9 per 100k—
#28Ohio311.9 per 100k—
#29Illinois294.5 per 100k—
#30Wisconsin287.6 per 100k—
#31West Virginia263.8 per 100k—
#32*Florida262 per 100k81.0% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.
#33Minnesota259.4 per 100k—
#34North Dakota258 per 100k—
#35Pennsylvania251.3 per 100k—
#36Iowa247.2 per 100k—
#37Utah237.8 per 100k—
#38Idaho236.6 per 100k—
#39Hawaii230.3 per 100k—
#40Vermont227.1 per 100k—
#41Kentucky226.7 per 100k—
#42Nebraska224.6 per 100k—
#43Virginia223.7 per 100k—
#44New Jersey221.9 per 100k—
#45*Mississippi219.6 per 100k65.1% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.
#46*Wyoming212.5 per 100k89.9% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.
#47Rhode Island154.9 per 100k—
#48Connecticut · your comparison139.2 per 100k—
#49New Hampshire112.3 per 100k—
#50Maine102.6 per 100k—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

Reported violent-crime rate

139.2 per 100,0002024

Violent offenses reported to law enforcement per 100,000 residents in participating jurisdictions.

This source snapshot keeps its own definition and period. A rank shown elsewhere applies only to that comparison’s measure and period.

Method and limitations

FactVote sums the 12 monthly state offense rates returned by the FBI Crime Data Explorer for each calendar year. The accompanying coverage value is the mean of the 12 monthly population-coverage percentages returned with the same query.

  • These are crimes reported to law enforcement, not all crimes that occurred.
  • Connecticut's average monthly population coverage remained at or above 99.7% throughout this series, but coverage still varies and does not equal complete statewide reporting.
  • Reporting systems, agency participation, and later revisions can change the published series.
  • Average monthly population coverage in 2024 was 100%; this is not complete statewide reporting.

Reported property-crime rate

1,397.4 per 100,0002024

Property offenses reported to law enforcement per 100,000 residents in participating jurisdictions.

This source snapshot keeps its own definition and period. A rank shown elsewhere applies only to that comparison’s measure and period.

Method and limitations

FactVote sums the 12 monthly state offense rates returned by the FBI Crime Data Explorer for each calendar year. The accompanying coverage value is the mean of the 12 monthly population-coverage percentages returned with the same query.

  • These are crimes reported to law enforcement, not all crimes that occurred.
  • Connecticut's average monthly population coverage remained at or above 99.7% throughout this series, but coverage still varies and does not equal complete statewide reporting.
  • Reporting systems, agency participation, and later revisions can change the published series.
  • Average monthly population coverage in 2024 was 100%; this is not complete statewide reporting.
Connecticut · state comparison

Firearm mortality

Firearm deaths include suicide, homicide, and other intents. Mortality is separate from reported crime.

Connecticut · 2024224
Connecticut rank#39among all 50 states
U.S. benchmarkNot availableSame measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

Firearm deaths

Deaths with firearm injury recorded as the cause, all intents.

Counts reflect population size. They do not measure shootings, crimes, or the effect of a policy.

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Connecticut stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Connecticut has a dark outline.

Lower value · 55Higher value · 4,389Striped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

Connecticut · 2242024 · Rank #39 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare Connecticut with every state · 50 ranked
Firearm deaths · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Texas4,389—
#2Florida3,191—
#3California2,853—
#4Georgia1,985—
#5North Carolina1,835—
#6Ohio1,745—
#7Pennsylvania1,624—
#8Illinois1,563—
#9Tennessee1,448—
#10Arizona1,331—
#11Missouri1,234—
#12Michigan1,228—
#13Alabama1,212—
#14Indiana1,196—
#15Virginia1,153—
#16South Carolina1,064—
#17Louisiana1,031—
#18Colorado961—
#19Washington915—
#20New York896—
#21Kentucky870—
#22Mississippi810—
#23Oklahoma794—
#24Wisconsin735—
#25Maryland716—
#26Oregon663—
#27Arkansas638—
#28Minnesota582—
#28Nevada582—
#30New Mexico563—
#31Utah454—
#32Kansas446—
#33New Jersey393—
#34Iowa389—
#35Idaho331—
#36Massachusetts287—
#37West Virginia281—
#38Montana247—
#39Connecticut · your comparison224—
#40Nebraska218—
#41Alaska182—
#42Maine181—
#43South Dakota159—
#44New Hampshire152—
#45Wyoming143—
#46Delaware123—
#47North Dakota95—
#48Vermont76—
#49Hawaii56—
#50Rhode Island55—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

Firearm deaths

2242024 final data

Deaths in which firearm injury was the underlying cause, with the rate age-adjusted per 100,000 residents.

This source snapshot keeps its own definition and period. A rank shown elsewhere applies only to that comparison’s measure and period.

Population-adjusted measure

Age-adjusted firearm death rate
5.8 per 100,000
Method and limitations

CDC National Vital Statistics System death-certificate data.

  • The total combines firearm deaths across intents, including suicide, homicide, legal intervention, and unintentional or undetermined injury.
  • It does not measure nonfatal injuries, firearm ownership, defensive uses, or policy effects.

What candidates are saying

Explore statements about crime, victimization, policing and criminal justice from FactVote’s Connecticut candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.

19 statements from 9 candidates

2026 Connecticut Attorney General — General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 4 statements

John Bolton

4 statements

Republican · Attorney General · CT

Policing & criminal justice context

Support local law enforcement through civil enforcement tools.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Public safety and justice

Candidate campaign source

Support local law enforcement through civil enforcement tools.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

John Bolton — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗
View 3 more statements from John Bolton
Policing & criminal justice context

I believe the Attorney General should be visible, accessible, and accountable to the people—not just the political establishment. I’ll work alongside local communities, law enforcement, consumer advocates, and businesses to solve problems before they become crises, enforce our laws fairly and consis…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Attorney General authority, consumer protection, and government accountability

Candidate campaign source

I believe the Attorney General should be visible, accessible, and accountable to the people—not just the political establishment. I’ll work alongside local communities, law enforcement, consumer advocates, and businesses to solve problems before they become crises, enforce our laws fairly and consistently, and restore public confidence that the Attorney General’s office is working for every resident of Connecticut.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

John Bolton — candidate-owned primary source 1 ↗
Policing & criminal justice context

Connecticut families deserve safe communities. As Attorney General, I will use the office’s civil authority to support law enforcement, protect victims, and hold criminal organizations accountable.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Attorney General authority, consumer protection, and government accountability

Candidate campaign source

Connecticut families deserve safe communities. As Attorney General, I will use the office’s civil authority to support law enforcement, protect victims, and hold criminal organizations accountable.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

John Bolton — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗
Policing & criminal justice context

Protect crime victims from secondary victimization.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Public safety and justice

Candidate campaign source

Protect crime victims from secondary victimization.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

John Bolton — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗

2026 Connecticut Governor — General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 1 statement

Ryan Fazio

1 statement

Republican · Governor · CT

Crime & victimization

Homicides, car thefts, and other serious crimes rose to unacceptable levels under the Lamont administration. Ryan’s plan reforms the 2020 anti-police legislation, closes parole loopholes for violent offenders, and reinstates proactive policing to keep our communities safe.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Public safety and justice

Candidate campaign source

Homicides, car thefts, and other serious crimes rose to unacceptable levels under the Lamont administration. Ryan’s plan reforms the 2020 anti-police legislation, closes parole loopholes for violent offenders, and reinstates proactive policing to keep our communities safe.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Ryan Fazio — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗

2026 Connecticut Lieutenant Governor — General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 1 statement

Race groups · Page 1 of 3
How statements are selected

This section matches specific crime, victimization, policing and criminal justice terms in retained, attributed source text from published Connecticut candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.

Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.

Connecticut incumbents

What incumbents are proposing

Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current Connecticut legislators and Connecticut’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from Connecticut’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.

3 matching sponsorships or proposals · 3 Connecticut incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.

Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro

U.S. House of Representatives, Connecticut District 3 · D–CT

1 proposal
View proposals from Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro
U.S. Congress · Connecticut delegation · HR 1564

Ethan's Law

Feb 25, 2025 · In Congress

Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

HR 1564 would prohibit keeping a covered firearm at a controlled residence when the person keeping it knows or reasonably should know that a minor is likely to gain unauthorized access or that a resident is legally ineligible to possess firearms. Secure-device, reasonably secure-location and readily retrievable carry exceptions apply. The proposed Title 18 penalty is a $500 fine per violation, with forfeiture and enhanced penalties of up to five years in prison, a fine, or both if prohibited access causes injury or death.

Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.

Why this record is included

Firearm mortality includes suicide, homicide, and other intents. The provision concerns firearm access, safety, or prevention of firearm injury and may address only part of the death count. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.

Retained Connecticut evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

(4)Secure gun storage by owners(A)Offense(i)In generalExcept as provided in clause (ii), it shall be unlawful for a person to store or keep any firearm that has moved in, or that has otherwise affected, interstate or foreign commerce on the premises of a residence under the control of the person if the person knows, or reasonably should know, that—(I)a minor is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the parent or guardian of the minor; or(II)a resident of the residence is ineligible to possess a firearm under Federal, State, or local law.(ii)ExceptionClause (i) shall not apply to a person if the person—(I)keeps the firearm—(aa)secure using a secure gun storage or safety device; or(bb)in a location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure; or(II)carries the firearm on his or her person or within such close proximity thereto that the person can readily retrieve and use the firearm as if the person carried the firearm on his or her person.(B)Penalty(i)In generalAny person who violates subparagraph (A) shall be fined $500 per violation.(ii)Enhanced penaltyIf a person violates subparagraph (A) and a minor or a resident who is ineligible to possess a firearm under Federal, State, or local law obtains the firearm and causes injury or death to such minor or resident, or to any other individual, the person shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.(iii)Forfeiture of improperly stored firearmAny firearm stored in violation of subparagraph (A) shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture in accordance with the procedures described in section 924(d).(C)Minor definedIn this paragraph, the term minor means an individual who is less than 18 years of age..
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Sen. Christopher Murphy

U.S. Senate, Connecticut · D–CT

1 proposal
View proposals from Sen. Christopher Murphy
U.S. Congress · Connecticut delegation · S 595

Office of Gun Violence Prevention Act of 2025

Feb 13, 2025 · In Congress

Sen. Christopher Murphy · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

S 595 would establish an Office of Gun Violence Prevention in the Justice Department to coordinate prevention work. Its definition expressly includes firearm homicide, violent crime, domestic violence, suicide, and unintentional injury. Each relationship concerns the relevant firearm component, not all homicide or all FBI violent offenses.

Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.

Why this record is included

The proposed office coordinates programs, data, evaluation and policy. This administrative connection concerns the firearm-related component of the linked mortality or FBI violent-crime measure; its broader gun-violence definition is not a substitute for the statistical definition. This connection does not establish causation or a change in the earlier measured value.

Retained Connecticut evidence context: Firearm deaths · Homicide deaths · Reported violent-crime rate. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

(3)Gun violenceThe term gun violence includes homicide, violent crime, domestic violence, attempted suicide, suicide, and unintentional death or injury involving a firearm.(4)OfficeThe term Office means the Office of Gun Violence Prevention established under section 3(a).3.Office of Gun Violence Prevention(a)Establishment(1)In generalThe Attorney General shall establish within the Office of Legal Policy of the Department of Justice the Office of Gun Violence Prevention.(2)DirectorThe Attorney General shall appoint a Director to be the head of the Office.(b)Duties(1)In generalThe Director, in consultation with the Advisory Council, shall coordinate, integrate, and maximize the efficacy of each responsibility, program, and service relating to gun violence prevention administered by the Attorney General to maximize an integrated approach to reducing gun violence and serving victims of gun violence, including—(A)the responsibilities of the heads of the Criminal and Civil Divisions of the Department of Justice, the Director of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, each United States Attorney, the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Director of the Office on Violence Against Women, the Director of the Office of Victims of Crime, and the Director of the Office of Justice Programs; and(B)the administration of the national instant criminal background check system established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (34 U.S.C. 40901). (2)EvaluationThe Director, in consultation with the Advisory Council, shall evaluate laws, regulations, Federal programs, offices, data sources, and grant programs relating to gun violence prevention administered by the Attorney General to assess how each such law, regulation, Federal program, office, data source, and grant program can be maximized, modernized, and coordinated to reduce gun violence.(3)Policy recommendationsThe Director shall recommend to Congress and the President legislative and executive policy options to promote evidence-based gun violence prevention strategies, including the implementation of existing laws, regulations, and grant programs.(4)DataThe Director, in consultation with the Advisory Council, shall—(A)identify gaps in available data needed for gun violence prevention research, policy development, and the implementation of evidence-based gun violence prevention strategies; and(B)develop a plan to collect and analyze the data described in subparagraph (A).(5)AssessmentThe Director, in consultation with the Advisory Council, shall assess ongoing research efforts of the Department of Justice relating to gun violence to establish a comprehensive research agenda on the causes and solutions of gun violence.(6)EducationThe Director, in consultation with the Advisory Council, shall educate the general public about Federal laws, regulations, and grant programs relating to gun violence prevention, including by conducting education and awareness campaigns—(A)directed at—(i)owners of firearms;(ii)parents and legal guardians of minors; and(iii)professionals who provide services to individuals and communities disproportionately impacted by gun violence; and(B)that include education relating to the secure storage or firearms and suicide prevention.(7)Crisis responseThe Director, in consultation with the Advisory Council, shall assist communities that have experienced gun violence (such as a mass shooting, a school shooting, a gang-related shooting, or a domestic violence shooting) with crisis response activities, including providing information about and increasing access to—(A)mental health services for members of the community;(B)anti-gun trafficking activities;(C)crisis response training for first responders and offices of gun violence prevention serving the community; and(D)suicide prevention services for members of the community.(8)CoordinationIn carrying out the duties under this subsection, the Director shall coordinate with Federal agencies and commissions that have jurisdiction over gun violence prevention, including— (A)the Department of Health and Human Services;(B)the Department of Veterans Affairs;(C)the Department of Education;(D)the Department of Housing and Urban Development;(E)the Department of Commerce;(F)the Department of Homeland Security;(G)the Department of Defense;(H)the Department of the Interior;(I)the Department of Labor;(J)the Department of Agriculture;(K)the Small Business Administration; (L)the Consumer Product Safety Commission;(M)the Federal Trade Commission; and(N)the United States Sentencing Commission.(9)Annual reportNot later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Director shall submit to Congress a report that includes—(A)information on the state of gun violence in the United States;(B)recommendations for policy initiatives and legislation to reduce gun violence in the United States; and(C)a description of the efforts of the Director to carry out the duties under this subsection.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Sen. Richard Blumenthal

U.S. Senate, Connecticut · D–CT

1 proposal
View proposals from Sen. Richard Blumenthal
U.S. Congress · Connecticut delegation · S 889

Extreme Risk Protection Order Expansion Act of 2025

Mar 6, 2025 · In Congress

Sen. Richard Blumenthal · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

S 889 would authorize grants supporting qualifying state and tribal extreme-risk protection-order laws. Eligibility requires substantially similar procedures, including notice and a hearing within 30 days, a finding of danger supported by a preponderance of evidence or a higher standard, and limits on temporary ex parte orders. Return of firearms remains subject to legal eligibility. Funding authorization does not issue an order against anyone or establish a reduction in deaths.

Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.

Why this record is included

Firearm mortality includes suicide, homicide, and other intents. The provision concerns firearm access, safety, or prevention of firearm injury and may address only part of the death count. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.

Retained Connecticut evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

(b)Grant program established(1)In generalThe Attorney General shall establish a program under which, from amounts made available to carry out this section, the Attorney General may make grants to eligible entities to assist in carrying out the provisions of the legislation described in subsection (c).(2)Use of fundsFunds awarded under this subsection may be used by an applicant to—(A)enhance the capacity of law enforcement agencies and the courts of a State, unit of local government, or Indian Tribe by providing personnel, training, technical assistance, data collection, and other resources to carry out enacted legislation described in subsection (c);(B)train judges, court personnel, health care and legal professionals, and law enforcement officers to more accurately identify individuals whose access to firearms poses a danger of causing harm to themselves or others by increasing the risk of firearms suicide or interpersonal violence;(C)develop and implement law enforcement and court protocols, forms, and orders so that law enforcement agencies and the courts may carry out the provisions of the enacted legislation described in subsection (c) in a safe, equitable, and effective manner, including through the removal and storage of firearms pursuant to extreme risk protection orders under the enacted legislation; and(D)raise public awareness and understanding of the enacted legislation described in subsection (c), including through subgrants to community-based organizations for the training of community members, so that extreme risk protection orders may be issued in appropriate situations to reduce the risk of firearms-related death and injury.(3)ApplicationAn eligible entity desiring a grant under this subsection shall submit to the Attorney General an application at such time, in such manner, and containing or accompanied by such information as the Attorney General may reasonably require.(4)Training(A)In generalA recipient of a grant under this subsection shall provide training to law enforcement officers, including officers of relevant Federal, State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies, in the safe, impartial, effective, and equitable use and administration of extreme risk protection orders, including training to address—(i)bias based on race and racism, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, language proficiency, mental health condition, disability, and classism in the use and administration of extreme risk protection orders;(ii)the appropriate use of extreme risk protection orders in cases of domestic violence, including the applicability of other policies and protocols to address domestic violence in situations that may also involve extreme risk protection orders and the necessity of safety planning with the victim before a law enforcement officer petitions for and executes an extreme risk protection order, if applicable;(iii)interacting with persons with a mental illness or emotional distress, including de-escalation and crisis intervention; and(iv)best practices for referring persons subject to extreme risk protection orders and associated victims of violence to social service providers that may be available in the jurisdiction and appropriate for those individuals, including health care, mental health, substance abuse, and legal services, employment and vocational services, housing assistance, case management, and veterans and disability benefits.(B)Consultation with expertsA recipient of a grant under this subsection, in developing law enforcement training required under subparagraph (A), shall seek advice from domestic violence service providers (including culturally specific (as defined in section 40002 of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C. 12291)) organizations), social service providers, suicide prevention advocates, violence intervention specialists, law enforcement agencies, mental health disability experts, and other community groups working to reduce suicides and violence, including domestic violence, within the State or the territory under the jurisdiction of the Indian Tribe, as applicable, that enacted the legislation described in subsection (c) that enabled the grant recipient to be an eligible entity.(5)Authorization of appropriationsThere are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this subsection.(c)Eligibility for extreme risk protection order grant program(1)RequirementsLegislation described in this subsection is legislation that establishes requirements that are substantially similar to the following:(A)Petition for extreme risk protection orderA petitioner, including a law enforcement officer, may submit a petition to a State or Tribal court, on a form designed by the court or a State or Tribal agency, that—(i)describes the facts and circumstances justifying that an extreme risk protection order be issued against the named individual; and(ii)is signed by the applicant, under oath.(B)Notice and due processThe individual named in a petition for an extreme risk protection order as described in subparagraph (A) shall be given written notice of the petition and an opportunity to be heard on the matter in accordance with this paragraph.(C)Issuance of extreme risk protection orders(i)Hearing(I)In generalUpon receipt of a petition described in subparagraph (A) or request of an individual named in such a petition, the court shall order a hearing to be held within a reasonable time, and not later than 30 days after the date of the petition or request.(II)DeterminationIf the court finds at the hearing ordered under subclause (I), by a preponderance of the evidence or according to a higher evidentiary standard established by the State or Indian Tribe, that the respondent poses a danger of causing harm to self or others by having access to a firearm, the court may issue an extreme risk protection order.(ii)Duration of extreme risk protection orderAn extreme risk protection order shall be in effect—(I)until an order terminating or superseding the extreme risk protection order is issued; or(II)for a set period of time.(D)Ex parte extreme risk protection orders(i)In generalUpon receipt of a petition described in subparagraph (A), the court may issue an ex parte extreme risk protection order, if—(I)the petition for an extreme risk protection order alleges that the respondent poses a danger of causing harm to self or others by having access to a firearm; and(II)the court finds there is probable cause to believe, or makes a finding according to a higher evidentiary standard established by the State or Indian Tribe, that the respondent poses a danger of causing harm to self or others by having access to a firearm.(ii)Duration of ex parte extreme risk protection orderAn ex parte extreme risk protection order shall remain in effect only until the hearing required under subparagraph (C)(i).(E)Storage of removed firearms(i)Availability for returnAll firearms removed or surrendered pursuant to an extreme risk protection order shall only be available for return to the named individual when the individual has regained eligibility under Federal and State law and, where applicable, Tribal law to possess firearms.(ii)Consent required for disposal or destructionFirearms owned by a named individual may not be disposed of or destroyed during the period of the extreme risk protection order without the consent of the named individual.(F)Notification(i)In general(I)RequirementA State or Tribal court that issues an extreme risk protection order shall notify the Attorney General or the comparable State or Tribal agency, as applicable, of the order as soon as practicable or within a designated period of time.(II)Form and mannerA State or Tribal court shall submit a notification under subclause (I) in an electronic format, in a manner prescribed by the Attorney General or the comparable State or Tribal agency.(ii)Update of databases by State or Tribal agencyAs soon as practicable or within the time period designated by State or Tribal law after receiving a notification under clause (i), the comparable State or Tribal agency shall ensure that the extreme risk protection order is reflected in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.(2)Additional provisionsLegislation described in this subsection may—(A)provide procedures for the termination of an extreme risk protection order;(B)provide procedures for the renewal of an extreme risk protection order;(C)establish burdens and standards of proof for issuance of orders described in paragraph (1) that are substantially similar to or higher than the burdens and standards of proof set forth in that paragraph;(D)limit the individuals who may submit a petition described in paragraph (1), provided that, at a minimum, 1 or more law enforcement officers are authorized to do so; and(E)include any other authorizations or requirements that the State or Tribal authorities determine appropriate.(3)Attorney General responsibilities(A)Manner of submitting notification to Attorney GeneralThe Attorney General shall prescribe the manner in which a State or Tribal court shall submit a notification to the Attorney General under a provision of State or Tribal law that is substantially similar to paragraph (1)(F)(i).(B)Update of databasesAs soon as practicable, and in any event not later than 30 days, after receiving a notification under a provision of State or Tribal law that is substantially similar to paragraph (1)(F)(i), the Attorney General shall ensure that the extreme risk protection order is reflected in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.(4)Annual reportNot later than 1 year after the date on which an eligible entity receives a grant under subsection (b), and annually thereafter for the duration of the grant period, the entity shall submit to the Attorney General a report that includes, with respect to the preceding year—(A)the number of petitions for ex parte extreme risk protection orders filed, as well as the number of such orders issued and the number denied, disaggregated by—(i)the jurisdiction;(ii)the individual authorized under State or Tribal law to petition for an extreme risk protection order, including the relationship of the individual to the respondent; and(iii)the alleged danger posed by the respondent, including whether the danger involved a risk of suicide, unintentional injury, domestic violence, or other interpersonal violence;(B)the number of petitions for extreme risk protection orders filed, as well as the number of such orders issued and the number denied, disaggregated by—(i)the jurisdiction;(ii)the individual authorized under State or Tribal law to petition for an extreme risk protection order, including the relationship of the individual to the respondent; and(iii)the alleged danger posed by the respondent, including whether the danger involved a risk of suicide, unintentional injury, domestic violence, or other interpersonal violence;(C)the number of petitions for renewals of extreme risk protection orders filed, as well as the number of such orders issued and the number denied;(D)the number of cases in which a court imposed a penalty for false reporting or frivolous petitions;(E)demographic data of petitioners, including race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, gender, age, disability, and English language proficiency, if available;(F)demographic data of respondents, including race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, gender, age, disability, and English language proficiency, if available; and(G)the number of firearms removed, if available.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
What sponsorship and proposal counts tell us

Only current Connecticut officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.

Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a Connecticut statistic. Collection reviewed Oct 5, 2026.