HARTFORD, CT – After a brief debate Thursday members of the legislature’s Public Safety and Security Committee sent to the House two bills expanding access to consumer fireworks in Connecticut, including some language providing flexibility for municipalities to opt out.
Republicans who supported the bill each spoke about the committee needing to balance residents’ liberty to enjoy fireworks against the potential risk associated with expanding access. They said they were supporting the bill despite knowing that many first responders oppose it because they don’t want to see more injuries from improperly used pyrotechnics.
The first bill approved by the committee – SB 140, An Act Concerning The Sale And Use Of Consumer Fireworks – would allow licensed retailers to sell “consumer fireworks” in Connecticut to people 21 or older. Sparklers and fountains were already legal to sell or purchase here.
The bill was was sent onward in the legislative process on a 15-9 vote with six Democrats voting in favor along with all nine Republicans on the committee.
Rep. Kurt Vail, R-Stafford, said that Stafford shares a border with Massachusetts and the reality is that people are driving to New Hampshire to purchase fireworks and returning them to the state and using them throughout the year. He said the goal was to model SB 140 after New Hampshire’s law.
“There are a lot of safeguards in New Hampshire. They’ve been doing it for years. They’ve done it successfully, and they haven’t repealed the law, so obviously it hasn’t been a problem for them up there,” Vail said. “And they have it so that each municipality, if they want they do not have to participate. So they have that written within the law, that the municipality can make their own rules regarding this. So put those safeguards in place, maybe it works in one community, but in another community that might have a more dense population where it’s hard to not affect your neighbors, they can put those safeguards in place. And I think it’s high time that we allow that in this state.”
Rep. Gary Turco, D-Newington, asked whether there were any calendar restrictions on the use of fireworks included in SB 140. Committee co-chair Rep. Patrick Boyd, D-Pomfret, said there were no such restrictions. Turco highlighted the added risk associated with making fireworks legal for sale locally.
“And being this is the Public Safety Committee, to me that’s the most important job of this committee, to make sure whatever legislation we’re casting will keep the public safe,” Turco said. “And I do believe that expanding the type of fireworks to the level that’s in this legislation will cause more potential risks for individuals who use the items, but also for others in the community. And they also will increase the risk of fire.”
Turco said Newington’s fire marshal also opposed the measure.
“I love watching fireworks, but I just believe they should be utilized by professionals who have a permit, who are working with local fire departments, who are doing so in a responsible manner to ensure the safety of everyone around watching the fireworks,” Turco said. “And also by not having a limitation of when they’re going to be used, we know it won’t just be July 4th because we know right now people are illegally using them at all times of the year when they please.”
Rep. Michael DiGiovancarlo, a Waterbury Democrat who serves as one of the committee’s vice-chairs, said fireworks are a big problem in his city and as such he could not support the bill.
“It’s a tremendous quality of life problem,” DiGiovancarlo said. “It does start somewhere in April, maybe even before April, til October. And it’s non-stop … We have gotten complaint after complaint to the Waterbury Police Department and it’s probably one of the top issues, as far as the quality of life issues all summer long, along with the music noise.”
He said he understands that in a small town, such as those in the northwest corner of the state, it’s probably possible for police to monitor noise complaints from fireworks.
“Maybe they’ll do it, maybe they can monitor it,” DiGiovancarlo said. “But we’re unable to monitor it with the shortage of law enforcement officers, and also I think it really, it gives that City of Waterbury resident a chance to just maybe drive 10 minutes away to get these fireworks and keep them going for months at a time. It’s just something for that reason, and for quality of life reason, that I just can’t support.”
‘Nonaerial and nonexplosive consumer fireworks’
The second fireworks bill – HB 5177 – would allow licensed retailers to sell “nonaerial and nonexplosive consumer fireworks,” also described as “novelty” fireworks. The bill defines these as “flitter 31 sparklers, ground spinners and novelty items, including party poppers, 32 toy smoke devices, throw snappers, snakes and glow worms.”
HB 5177 was approved on a 22-2 vote. Reps. Turco and Liz Linehan, D-Cheshire, voted no on both bills.
McGorty, a Shelton Republican, said he’s been a legislator for 10 years but before that he spent 44 years in the fire service. He said he has never been a fan of fireworks.
“But I’m not here for what I like, I’m here for what my constituents want,” McGorty said. “I do have firefighters in my district, I have police officers in my district, and I have citizens that do want fireworks. I’ve been holding this up for many years here in this chamber and keeping it at bay for many years. But at this time, I do believe that the people have the liberty and freedom to do the fireworks on the 4th of July, should they feel like doing it … And if they don’t do it correctly, they should be held accountable. And with that, I’m going to be voting yes today.”
Vail called it a good business bill.
“I support it. The only thing is that the stuff that people really want, they’re still going to be driving out of state to get. That’s the reality of it. So again, I support this,” Vail said, adding that he thinks the specific types of pyrotechnics being proposed are very safe. “But I still think that people are going to be driving to New Hampshire to get the bigger stuff.”
Turco suggested two amendments to HB 5177 that would earn his support for the whole bill. He said Newington’s fire marshal objected to “ground spinners” because the addition of motion is dangerous, and he also wanted to see language specifying whether towns would have jurisdiction over hypothetical large, private events that include fireworks.
But he also said he liked the added “JFS language allowing a town the the ability to pass an ordinance to prohibit.”
Connecticut’s Only Licensed Fireworks Dealer
The committee’s two votes gave Durham’s Mike Dapkus, of Dapkus Fireworks, reason for some cautious optimism. Dapkus, a former police officer and paramedic, said he’s been waiting 20 years for Connecticut to legalize the sale of consumer fireworks. Previous efforts to pass legislation were easily defeated.
Dapkus said the current law is not well enforced and he added that “law enforcement is overwhelmed.” He said everybody is using fireworks, regardless.
Aside from his location in Durham, Dapkus said he has a store in Winchester, N.H., which has helped him stay in business. He said that 65% of the customers who patronize that store are from outside of New Hampshire. In terms of where those customers are from, he said about 30% arrive from Massachusetts and 30% arrive from Connecticut.
Dapkus said it makes sense now to legalize the sale of fireworks in Connecticut so that they can be regulated, and to give towns the choice to opt-out. Allowing sales here, he said, means licensed retailers are going to be educating consumers on how to use fireworks safely.
As things stand now, he said, “they go to a store or they buy them bootleg. People are going to get them. I’d rather sell them safely and educate people on how to use them.”
