Hi everyone, just got this from John (N1IWT):
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One week and counting until CT Public Act 12-67 (SB61) takes effect on October 1, 2012.

Quick note - as you read SB61/PA 12-67 does NOT allow anything to be used while driving except a HAND-HELD radio to the letter of the law the rest (data, mobiles etc will be left to interpretation) Here is the final text:
www.cga.ct.gov/2012/ACT/PA/2012PA-00067-R00SB-00061-PA.htm

Personally, I'd recommend not only carrying your Ham License but also a copy of Public Act 12-67 with you in case you are stopped at least for the first few months. As you have heard most law enforcement are not bothering any hams BUT, remember this was never meant to actually change anything just put what has always been into writing.

I was only one of many responsible for getting this done - Sen.
Gugglielmo, Sen. Markley and many others worked together to get the job done proving that diligence can change laws. Glad I could help in a small part getting the word out.

Enjoy your privilege, but don't drive distracted.
Law enforcement can still, and always has been able to stop you for that.

Good luck everyone.

73,

John N1IWT

UPDATE:
It appears that CT has bowed to the pressure of Washington to reverse this legislation as a condition of getting federal funds.

Blue Tooth, anyone?

Please read the attached article that appeared in I think Nov or Dec 2013 QST.
73,
Betsey K1EIC

Betsy's caution is spot-on; the Feds messed up CT's exemption.
The article in Nov 2013 " "Distracted Driving Legislation: Proceed With Caution", says:

"When the State of Connecticut applied for a grant to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) it was advised that its distracted driving statute was not in compliance with the conditions of the program because its Amateur Radio exception was not one of the three exceptions permitted under the law. And sure enough, the Notice of Funding Availability issued by NHTSA lists the three permitted exceptions and goes on to say, “No other exceptions are permitted under MAP-21.”

The state was not about to turn away federal money, so in its 2013 session the Connecticut General Assembly amended the statute to limit the use of a hand-held radio by a licensed amateur to emergencies only — exactly what we were hoping to avoid."

73 de Tom K1TA

Actually, it appears the State of CT is the one that messed up. (Gasp!)
The requirements for the state to get the money is:

B. Distracted Driving Grant.
In order to qualify for a Distracted Driving Grant, a State must have enacted and be enforcing a statute that meets all the requirements set out in Section 405(e), as outlined below:
(1) Prohibition on texting while driving. The State statute must-
(a) Prohibit drivers from texting through a personal wireless communications device while driving;
(b) Make violation of the statute a primary offense; and
(c) Establish-
(i) a minimum fine for a first violation of the statute; and
(ii) increased fines for repeat violations.
(2) Prohibition on youth cell phone use while driving. The State statute must -
(a) Prohibit a driver who is younger than 18 years of age from using a personal wireless communications device while driving;
(b) Make violation of the statute a primary offense;
(c) Require distracted driving issues to be tested as part of the State's driver's license examination; and
(d) Establish -
(i) a minimum fine for a first violation of the statute; and
(ii) increased fines for repeat violations.

Ok, fine. But here's where CT messed up - the definition of a Personal wireless communications device is listed as this:

"Personal wireless communications device" means a device through which personal wireless services (as defined in section 332(c)(7)(C)(i) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(C)(i))) are transmitted, but does not include a global navigation satellite system receiver used for positioning, emergency notification, or navigation purposes.

Ok, great. Now let's look at the FCC's definition of personal wireless services...

(C) Definitions
For purposes of this paragraph—
(i) the term “personal wireless services” means commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services;
(ii) the term “personal wireless service facilities” means facilities for the provision of personal wireless services; and
(iii) the term “unlicensed wireless service” means the offering of telecommunications services using duly authorized devices which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of direct-to-home satellite services (as defined in section 303 (v) of this title).

Well, lookee at that. We, as amateur radio licensed operators, don't qualify as a personal wireless service... Therefore, CT should be able to exclude us from their ban in entirety without losing any funding!

Now, I am no lawyer, nor did I stay a night in a Holiday Inn Express, but from a quick bit of reading and research it seems to me that any ban on amateur radio operators mobile usage is not needed for the state to stay qualified for their grant money.
Now if we could only convince the state and the feds of that....