Actually, I'm REALLY hoping that I read the bill wrong, but it is true according to what the actual words of the bill say, from what I read on this thread:
http://ball-pythons.net/forums/showthread.php?t=89528

It says:
No person shall possess a potentially dangerous animal. For the purposes of this section, the following wildlife, or any hybrid thereof, shall be considered [as] potentially dangerous animals:
(1) The felidae, including, but not limited to, the lion, leopard, cheetah, jaguar, ocelot, jaguarundi cat, puma, lynx, [and] bobcat, [the] tiger, serval, caracal, jungle cat and Savannah cat;
(2) The canidae, including, but not limited to, the wolf, [and] coyote and fox;
Last I checked, house cats are member of the family felidae, and dogs are members of the family canidae.

I read the bill carefully (as quoted in the above thread, I haven't seen where an original copy of it is), and there are no exceptions for cats & dogs.

And people still think HR 669 has no chance because it is poorly written? I don't think lawmakers actually read the bills they pass.

Now, do I think CT is going to start enforcing the bill as written and make everyone get rid of their cats & dogs? No. And maybe that could be used to fight the bill... aren't there some sort of laws about enforcing laws equally? Like you can't arrest me for breaking this law because I have a harmless poison arrow frog, when you aren't arresting my neighbor who is breaking the law by having a not-quite-so harmless cat?

Truly crazy.