Last Updated:November 23 @ 03:07 pm

Conn. debates bill to legally disclose gun owner's personal info

By The Hartford Courant

Hartford Courant - The names and addresses of about 170,000 handgun permit holders in Connecticut, now kept confidential by law, could be made public under a proposed bill that pits gun owners against would-be reformers in the aftermath of the Dec. 14 Newtown school massacre.

The bill, introduced by Rep. Stephen D. Dargan, D-West Haven, co-chairman of the legislature's public safety committee, would make public the names and addresses of permit holders under Connecticut's Freedom of Information Act -- and would reverse lawmakers' decision to protect that personal information from disclosure nearly two decades ago.

Dargan's bill already has stirred debate, well before next Wednesday's opening of a five-month General Assembly session that is expected to be dominated by gun-control issues after 20 first-graders and six adult staff members were killed Dec. 14 by gunman Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Lanza, 20, shot himself as police arrived; he had killed his mother at their Newtown home earlier.

Dargan's bill also could draw Connecticut into a controversy now raging to the west in New York -- where a local newspaper recently used New York's freedom of information law to publish a "gun map" showing the names and home locations of gun owners in some parts of New York.

In both states, the central question is whether the public interest in knowing how many guns are spread through communities is outweighed by the privacy rights of people exercising their constitutional right to own guns.

"Most things are FOI-able now," Dargan said in an interview Thursday. "Go to the local city clerk's office and you can find out where Steve Dargan owns property," as well as what cars a person owns and perhaps some of his debts. "I don't know why a responsible gun owner is worried about whether a permit for a revolver is FOI-able or not."

Dargan said that in the "computer age," and in an open society, it is reasonable for people to want access to gun ownership information. "Maybe their kids are going over to Johnny Smith's, and maybe they want to see whether they have guns in the house."

But gun owners and their advocates see it differently, saying that criminals would prosper by knowing which homes they could burglarize to steal firearms and which homes might not be defended by gun owners.

"It's a tool for criminals," said Robert Crook, executive director and lobbyist for the 35,000-member Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen. "You don't see the pistol permit holders in the newspapers. They just don't break the law, normally." He said Lanza broke many laws leading up to the murders, starting with stealing the guns he used in the shootings. The guns had belonged to his mother, with whom he lived.

Crook added: "I don't have a solution" for criminal behavior, he said, "but I don't think releasing the names of handgun owners will have an effect ... except to give some people, and I mean criminals, an option."

The proposal also was criticized by Richard Burgess, an electrical engineer from North Branford who heads Connecticut Carry, a small nonprofit group he started a year ago to advocate for citizens' right to bear arms under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"It's crazy for someone to think this is a good idea. I can only see harm that could come from it. Do we want to give criminals access to a database that tells you where every handgun in Connecticut is?" Burgess asked.

Also, disclosing handgun permit holders' identities still would not tell the public the location of the many thousands of additional homes in which rifles are kept, Burgess said, because the state does not require permits to own rifles. "So, really, you're not getting a benefit out of it, and you're only putting the gun owner in danger," he said.

The state only requires a permit to own a pistol, and you have to be 21 to obtain one after undergoing a federal and state criminal background check that also incorporates findings of mental defects.

To buy a rifle, you need to be 18 and undergo a background check, but no permit is required.

The military-style, semi-automatic Bushmaster rifle that Lanza used at the school does not fall under the state's assault weapons ban. Neither did the 30-round magazines that he used. Other state lawmakers are proposing tightening the assault-weapons law, and banning high-capacity magazines containing more than 10 bullets, among a variety of other gun-control reforms.

On Dec. 22, eight days after the Newtown massacre, the Journal News published its "gun map," drawing protests from at least one gun association and Westchester County Executive Rob Astorino, who said the newspaper "did all the work for criminals" who would be deciding "which house they're going to hit."

In Connecticut, Dargan said he introduced the bill because "people want to have a discussion" about guns after perhaps "the worst school tragedy in history, with kids who are just learning how to tie their shoes gunned down by a madman."

"We should have that discussion," he said. Dargan said he respects gun ownership rights and "I've always been in the middle of the road. I haven't been crazy either way in the years that I've been here. I've always tried to do something that makes sense. I'm going to reach out to people on both sides" for a public hearing on the proposal.

Crook said that thousands of opponents might turn out for such a hearing.

An authority on constitutional law, Gary L. Rose, chairman of the Department of Government and Politics at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, said in a Thursday interview that opponents of the disclosure bill might have the upper hand.

Rose disagreed with Dargan's reasoning that disclosing handgun permit holders' information is like releasing public records related to home ownership and motor vehicles. Gun ownership is different; it is a right protected by the Second Amendment -- and thus, he said, is more in the category of other guarantees in the Bill of Rights such as freedom of religion and association.

The right to practice one's religion freely and with privacy is guaranteed, and such a Constitutional privacy guarantee should extend to the right to bear arms, Rose said.

"I think that what the lawmaker is attempting to do here can be viewed as an assault on the right to privacy," Rose said. "If we can start publicizing who owns guns, then what's next -- lists of who practices certain religious freedoms and what organizations they belong to?"

___

(c)2013 The Hartford Courant (Hartford, Conn.)

Visit The Hartford Courant (Hartford, Conn.) at www.courant.com

Distributed by MCT Information Services

A service of YellowBrix, Inc.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
Rate this post:
Rating: 7.0/10 (36 votes cast)
Conn. debates bill to legally disclose gun owner's personal info, 7.0 out of 10 based on 36 ratings





Don't leave yet! Add a comment below or check out these other great stories:

73 Comments

  1. ridgerunnerComment by ridgerunner
    January 5, 2013 @ 8:56 am

    We have gun laws in effect and they work. Adam Lanza was not old enough to buy the guns he had. He murdered his mother and stole her guns. He was a sociopath (a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience). The gun is not the problem. The issue is the mental state of so many people today. These deranged people are capable of killing without a gun. Forget guns and concentrate on the morality of our country.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (82 votes cast)
    • nancyjComment by nancyj
      January 5, 2013 @ 9:58 am

      Time for a class action suit by gun owners against Rep. Dargin. He is denying people their constitutional rights. Make it for a lot of money so that each gun owner receives a significant amount. Find a lawyer that will do it pro bono.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (60 votes cast)
    • inluminatuoComment by inluminatuo
      January 5, 2013 @ 12:33 pm

      And you believed them also when they told you your social Security number would remain confidential and only be used for your Social Security? Let them know how many guns I have. The criminals will just pass by my house and go directly to my Liberal Democrat Dentist across the street and remove some of the gold from his teeth and maybe HE will learn the lesson of putting teeth into real enforcement of the laws that are currently on the books.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (35 votes cast)
    • haplyssComment by haplyss
      January 5, 2013 @ 4:50 pm

      All a “gun list of names and addresses’ will do is to inform criminals of locations to burglarize without fear of gun-play. It sure wouldn’t help our children from insane acts like that of Sandy Hook. Gun control isn’t the answer, but rather psychiatric. Why control law-abiding gun owners, and not the criminals and the insane?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (18 votes cast)
  2. kskiddComment by kskidd
    January 5, 2013 @ 9:16 am

    “Go to the local city clerk’s office and you can find out where Steve Dargan owns property,” as well as what cars a person owns and perhaps some of his debts. “I don’t know why a responsible gun owner is worried about whether a permit for a revolver is FOI-able or not.”

    The answer to that is very simple: There is no concerted national effort to target property owners, car owners or people who owe debt in the effort to remove their property, their cars or punish people who owe debts by altering the United States Constitution (or just out-right violate it) and kill a piece of American freedom. There is no organized, concerted effort to threaten, intimidate, or target property owners, car owners or people in debt for public attack. I suppose, following liberal thinking processes, the next thing that will happen will be that gun owners will all be branded ‘racist’ for resisting the bullying tactics of the left.

    Frankly, that comment is absurdly stupid and non sequitur argument. But then, stupidity and the non sequitur is what sells in a Democrat/Liberal controlled environment. It’s step one in selling lies to a whole nation which is necessary to kill freedom in a free nation, which is necessary thing to do only for tyrants. It’s roughly equivalent to saying that wolves should have equal rights in the hen house with farm dogs because they both have four legs and chicken keepers should have no problem with that. But it’s not surprising. The left does things that way all the time.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.5/5 (67 votes cast)
    • CharlieComment by vietnamvet
      January 5, 2013 @ 10:06 am

      Steve Dargan: “”Maybe their kids are going over to Johnny Smith’s, and maybe they want to see whether they have guns in the house.”

      Yeah, Steve, and maybe they would like to know if Johnny’s parents keep alcohol in the house … have a porn library … use marijuana … practice safe sex … are fundamentalist Muslims … or have AIDS.

      You make all of that information available for a newspaper interested in an interactive map, then we can talk about the pistol permit deal.

      And, oh yeah, Steve … If your kid is friends with Johnny Smith and spends time at the Smith house – but you are not well enough acquainted with Johnny’s parents to know those details – you are one incompetent parent, Steve.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (77 votes cast)
    • oldgeezerComment by oldgeezer
      January 5, 2013 @ 10:19 am

      The government doesn’t even have any business knowing who owns a gun. You don’t need government permission to attend a Catholic, or Baptist church.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (46 votes cast)
    • bna42Comment by bna42
      January 5, 2013 @ 11:09 am

      All good ideas, but the most pertinent response is “maybe they would like to know if Johnny’s parents keep alcohol in the house … have a porn library … use marijuana … practice safe sex … are fundamentalist Muslims … or have AIDS.”

      The government insists on keeping the identity of HIV-AIDS patients secret, and that should be public information so people can take steps to protect themselves when around these diseases.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (37 votes cast)
    • Chief CockeyeComment by Chief Cockeye
      January 5, 2013 @ 11:19 am

      You are absolutely SPOT ON, oldgeezer. They should be talking about repealing those unconstitutional laws that require law abiding citizens to have prior permission to ‘keep and bear’ firearms, not entertaining motions to further restrict people’s rights.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (30 votes cast)
    • thedoveComment by thedove
      January 5, 2013 @ 3:33 pm

      Right on, vietnamvet, I couldn’t agree more. Your points are my thoughts exactly, but I’ll add one more: “Maybe their kids are going over to Johnny Smith’s, and maybe they want to see whether they have guns in the house.” Umm, how about simply asking Johnny Smith’s parents whether there are guns in the house, duh. It’s a simple enough and fair enough question that the Smiths should have no reluctance to answer it, and if the reason is that you don’t know whether or not they’d be truthful, why is your kid going over there?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.0/5 (9 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      January 6, 2013 @ 12:13 pm

      Excellent post, vietnam vet! The things you said should be no-brainers to the liberal mushheads, but they keep pounding this same drum about how they want to know if their neighbors have guns if their kids are going to be playing at their houses, as if that’s the ultimate deal-breaker. Maybe you might just want your kids to be playing at a house that’s protected from criminals. It’s a totally lame argument, and you nailed it right on the head.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
  3. Jota_Comment by Jota_
    January 5, 2013 @ 9:45 am

    “In both states, the central question is whether the public interest in knowing how many guns are spread through communities is outweighed by the privacy rights of people exercising their constitutional right to own guns”

    And is a grave error

    Just because it is the ONLY question they are asking, does not mean it is the only question which can be answered from the information

    It also tells who does not have a gun

    It also says, because a person chooses to exercise one Constitutional right they need to surrender another

    AMENDMENT IV
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches ….

    The whole bill is to subvert the Constitution and is a threat to everyone’s freedom

    And then there are those who say why does anyone need a 30 round magazine? Because there are so many enemies of the Constitution. 100 round drums would be better

    A few slogans from the American Revolution

    “Mind your own business”

    “Don’t tread on me”

    “Live free or die”

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (54 votes cast)
    • brierebearComment by brierebear
      January 5, 2013 @ 11:11 am

      “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches ….”

      You’re quoting the Constitution yet omit this is a restriction against the government. This would not be a search by the government; it is information that already should have been public, as should be most information. That search would be conducted by the public.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.5/5 (24 votes cast)
    • Jota_Comment by Jota_
      January 5, 2013 @ 1:53 pm

      “You’re quoting the Constitution yet omit this is a restriction against the government. This would not be a search by the government” – brierebear

      Great, since we cannot trust the government to keep the information secure, they need not be collecting it in the first place.

      Problem solved

      Now, tell me how you are searching for the information?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.3/5 (12 votes cast)
  4. poorgrandchildren.comComment by poorgrandchildren.com
    January 5, 2013 @ 9:48 am

    It’s time for a law publishing the names and addresses of those who want to be victims–those who do not have a gun.

    There were almost 30 disarmed persons murdered by a crazy man in Newtown. There were about six million disarmed Jews murdered by a crazy government in Nazi Europe. The list is endless, and it is time to hold the fools accountable who still insist on disarming victims.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (51 votes cast)
  5. rzraickComment by rzraick
    January 5, 2013 @ 9:48 am

    This information will be of great help to criminals so that they will know which are safe houses to invade. In Australia, following gun confiscation, home invasions jumped way up.

    This is not only a violation of privacy, but is pure insanity. These politicains are idiots.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (41 votes cast)
  6. poorgrandchildren.comComment by poorgrandchildren.com
    January 5, 2013 @ 9:51 am

    Where is the anger? Where is the outrage? The best defense (of the Second Amendment) is a good offense–or at least it is a tactic to use right now. It is time to attack the fools who keep disarming victims.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (42 votes cast)
  7. pwpmmpComment by pwpmmp
    January 5, 2013 @ 10:24 am

    So Dargan’s solution to the mass murder of school children is to let the criminals know which houses contain law-abiding citizen’s legally registered guns, so they can go steal them and murder more children. Or, if the law-abiding gun owners look to be home, then the criminals can move on to the unarmed homes and do whatever they like to the children who live there. Sounds like a win/win for the criminals to me. Why don’t all of us who are law-abiding just give up our weapons and lay naked in the street, begging for mercy. Maybe that would satisfy the libs.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.5/5 (35 votes cast)
    • buckeeComment by buckee
      January 5, 2013 @ 11:03 am

      Nothing satisfies the libs. “I live, therefore I meddle.” That’s their credo. The hypocrisy is stomach churning too. Remember the Sam Alito hearings in Congress? Ted Kennedy hammered him endlessly about the issue of “privacy” as noted in the constitution – to the point where Alito’s wife cried? Now they want to meddle in the privacy of citizens so they can feel better for having meddled, and once again will turn a blind eye to the proof of previous failures of gun control. But not only will it fail, as mentioned here it will only make matters worse. Whackjobs!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.5/5 (31 votes cast)
    • oleteabagComment by oleteabag
      January 5, 2013 @ 11:26 pm

      To Buckee: The liberals NEVER own the bad results of their meddling, much less admit they were wrong or say they were sorry. Remember how they agitated for US troops to leave Viet Nam? Remember all the teeth gnashing about all the death and destruction caused by our troops? Where was the outrage and the anguish for all the death and destruction that occurred in Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos after we left? Where was the sorrow for our allies and their families, who were subject to brutal reprisals? I didn’t see any liberals demonstrating in the streets or weeping for the multitudes of men, women and children slaughtered by PolPot after our exit from Southeast Asia, did you?

      As I’ve said many times before, liberals are insane. NOTHING they do is reasonable or rational–and the damage done by their insane compulsion to manage the world according to their own delusions is incalculable and will probably be even MORE so, now that the sheeple were stupid enough to put them in charge. If somebody does not stop them, they can parlay their collective insanity into death and destruction WORLDWIDE!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.5/5 (8 votes cast)
  8. methuselahComment by methuselah
    January 5, 2013 @ 10:25 am

    Challenge for any one who thinks it OK to post names in the paper or on the Internet: I dare you to put a lawn sign in your front yard saying “This is a gun free home”.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (40 votes cast)
    • rzraickComment by rzraick
      January 5, 2013 @ 10:49 am

      Perhaps homes with guns should put up the same signs. We might get rid of lots of criminals that way.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.5/5 (22 votes cast)
    • powertothepeopleComment by powertothepeople
      January 5, 2013 @ 10:54 am

      Yep…would someone please go by Dargan’s dumb a**es house and put a sign in the liberal pukes yard!

      Liberals make me sick…they want to tell all of us what to do, think, read, eat, buy, study, own, vote, wear, watch, say, not say….should I continue?

      I proudly own and will always own guns as my right and intend ti fight to keep it!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (30 votes cast)
  9. wildfireComment by wildfire
    January 5, 2013 @ 10:52 am

    How about we publish the list of all the women who have had abortions, and how many, and where they live?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.5/5 (32 votes cast)
    • powertothepeopleComment by powertothepeople
      January 5, 2013 @ 10:56 am

      Oh now…you have opened the “don’t go there door”!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.2/5 (19 votes cast)
    • kskiddComment by kskidd
      January 5, 2013 @ 1:12 pm

      good grief, wildfire. What are you trying to do? Start a wildfire? LOL

      Hey, how about publishing lists of every one who lives on free subsidies and does not have a job, how long it’s been since they had a job, how many of their relatives are living on welfare, how many times they have been fired and whether or not they voted for Barack Obama? I mean, since the rest of us are paying for their lifestyles, it should be public information, shouldn’t it?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.4/5 (28 votes cast)
  10. Pingback: » Conn. debates bill to legally disclose gun owner’s personal info » News | C h a r l e s O l i v e r

  11. nam1Comment by nam1
    January 5, 2013 @ 11:08 am

    The only way to slow down and put the brakes on these types that are just realy looking for political points such as Mr Dargan is by serving him papers with a class action suit with as many legal gun permit owners as possible. I am sure that will send him a clear message that the people of this state that value their privacy will not tolerate such careless actions from a elected official.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.2/5 (25 votes cast)
    • brierebearComment by brierebear
      January 5, 2013 @ 11:16 am

      What would be your basis for a lawsuit? The right to privacy is against searches and seizures by the government; this would not be such a case. The government would not be conducting a search, certainly not a seizure.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.7/5 (12 votes cast)
    • nam1Comment by nam1
      January 5, 2013 @ 11:54 am

      In response to brierbear,the basis would simply be to keep that information out of the paper. True,if someone wants to gather such info,they canget it from records in each municipality under FOI,but i am talking about principal and i think there is a smart lawer out there that would gladly take the case.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.2/5 (19 votes cast)
    • Jota_Comment by Jota_
      January 5, 2013 @ 2:29 pm

      “What would be your basis for a lawsuit? The right to privacy is against searches and seizures by the government; this would not be such a case. The government would not be conducting a search, certainly not a seizure.” – brierebear

      With Obamacare there are going to be a lot of new information collected by the government

      So are you claiming as long as the government does not publish all abortions and contraceptive purchases it is ok, for someone else?

      Shouldn’t it be a matter of public record since the taxpayer paid for it? After all, it is a tax? Unlike a gun where I and 80 million others bought it with our own money

      Oh no, bet the argument will work different then

      And if the government cannot be trusted to prevent the mass publication of records which serve no public interest at all, other than to threaten and intimidate law bidding, taxpaying citizens

      I think those who do such a thing have violated a public trust and should be tried in a criminal court, not sued in a civil, and if found guilty receive the penalty equal to the crime, hung by the neck until dead, because it destabilizes the peace which rest upon the trust the people have in their government to be secure in their person from the government intrusion of collecting information.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.5/5 (11 votes cast)
    • Jota_Comment by Jota_
      January 5, 2013 @ 4:25 pm

      “the basis would simply be to keep that information out of the paper.” – nam1

      Which is exactly the issue, mass publication

      If a person was concerned about who has a gun in their area they could go to the hall of records

      So how does mass publishing give more information or serve some vital interest?

      It doesn’t

      The mass publishing was done for no other reason than to hold individuals up for public scrutiny for the crime of lawfully recording the ownership of their gun

      However, the greatest harm will come from having no end to the abuse of public disclosures for political purposes, until it ultimately destroys the peace and security of everyone.

      After all, using the same logic, a list could be produced of all non-gun owners who don’t take their civic responsibility seriously for the protection of a free state

      And am betting once the shoe is then on the other foot they can see how they feel being brought into the public light for having done nothing wrong other than not fitting with someone else’s political view.

      Suspect it will give the same sleepless nights the other list has brought quite a few others.

      So I do not think this is a civil matter for a suit, but a criminal matter, it is a threat to public safety by destroying the security one needs to keep peace

      It does no good and only harm

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.7/5 (6 votes cast)
    • oleteabagComment by oleteabag
      January 5, 2013 @ 11:31 pm

      I don’t see why this idiot should not be prosecuted for a “hate crime”, as the liberals are so PROUD of all the laws they’ve put on the books to persecute anybody they perceive as a “hater”, why shouldn’t everybody use them?

      I DO think a lawsuit on the grounds that this fool is violating the Constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens is in order, and it should be for a LARGE sum of money–and anybody who JOINS him in this idiocy should be a co-defendant in the suit. It should be for a LARGE sum of money, which will be used to establish a Second Amendment legal defense fund to be used against FOOLS like this one.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.0/5 (4 votes cast)
  12. bizzybuzzerComment by bizzybuzzer
    January 5, 2013 @ 11:09 am

    They told me when I was a child that Americans rebelled against England because of taxation without representation. Does that thought do anything for you ? Isn’t that why all the news is about taxation without representation ? Seems as if it ended in war and a lot of killing. Is that where we are headed ? Does taking my guns from me make it easier on the poor person who had to steal his ?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.4/5 (20 votes cast)
    • FlyboyComment by Flyboy
      January 6, 2013 @ 11:49 pm

      Remember a few years ago we heard from Obama that he wanted to raise a national police force as well armed and trained as our own military? What the hell for? Can anyone say “Die Geheime Staatspolitzei?” or Gestapo for short? Where’s Heinrich Himmler when you need him? Maybe Obama can round up another “Czar”, oops. Sorry. The Russians were Germany’s enemies. Is there anyone else from Kenya lurking around in Obama’s administration that he could grace with the top job? Maybe Idi Amin had a son that left Uganda after his fathers death and moved to Kenya. Yeah, that’s the ticket. Whichever way it goes it will end in tyranny, oppression and bloodshed. A couple more quotes from Thomas Jefferson…….”The beauty of the 2nd amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” “When people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people there is liberty.” “God forbid that we should ever be 20 years withour such a rebellion. the people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong shall be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty….and what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural fertilizer (manure).”

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  13. way2coolComment by way2cool
    January 5, 2013 @ 11:25 am

    Perhaps we need to let the state of Connecticut be our ‘test pilot’. Let’s see how it works for them! Daresay, it won’t deter crimes and murders committed with guns. After the horrific tragedy that state just witnessed, I can’t believe they are that ignorant of proven facts.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.4/5 (15 votes cast)
    • oleteabagComment by oleteabag
      January 5, 2013 @ 11:33 pm

      Well, way2cool,obviously they are!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.0/5 (4 votes cast)
  14. burningmanComment by burningman
    January 5, 2013 @ 11:27 am

    Once again, another article full of half truths. Lanza did not use an AR-15. An AR-15 is not a military style weapon (unless style means appearance rather than function).

    In any case, providing a list to criminals for homes that may be a high risk is irresponsible. I seriously doubt a criminal would waste their time trying rob a house to steal a handgun unless they think the increased risk of being shot is worth the extra $200 they might get for the weapon.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.1/5 (14 votes cast)
    • michiganrebComment by michiganreb
      January 5, 2013 @ 11:19 pm

      I None of which would have had any effect in the Sandy Hook case as this nut case killed his mom and stole her legal guns.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.2/5 (5 votes cast)
  15. fiddlerbobComment by fiddlerbob
    January 5, 2013 @ 12:38 pm

    What if we publish the names and home and business addresses of all elected, appointed, and/or commissioned government officials and their families. We need to know all about their home security systems, access codes, and whether or not they are armed. We also need to know what cars they drive and who their drivers are. We need to know where their kids go to school, where they go to church, what clubs they have joined and when they meet. We need to know who their guards are and whether or not they’re armed.

    Of course, we also need the names, addresses, etc. of those guards and of every other staff member and associate.

    And don’t stop there. We need the names, addresses, etc. of all of their contributors and supporters. Hey, the public has a right to know, don’t we? These people are using our “representatives” to control OUR lives while they continue living large on our money and work to divide us and pit us against each other.

    They need to be subject to weekly drug tests, psychological evaluations, Constitutional competency tests and random audits of their personal financial dealings. We also need full disclosure of everyone they meet with and a recorded and written transcript of all discussions.

    After all, what could they possibly have to hide? And, the public is taxed to pay their salaries, right?

    The only reason our government gathers information is so that it can use it against us. It’s time to reign them in. These personal records, and a lot more, need to be destroyed.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.3/5 (16 votes cast)
    • oleteabagComment by oleteabag
      January 5, 2013 @ 11:35 pm

      I think you have an excellent point. And your idea of what information should be “public” is no more unreasonable than theirs.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.3/5 (6 votes cast)
  16. grumpy3625Comment by grumpy3625
    January 5, 2013 @ 12:46 pm

    Here is why we have guns: to protect ourselves from these people, Dargan et al. It’s coming down and fast everyone. Be ready!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.7/5 (9 votes cast)
  17. juicyfruit56Comment by juicyfruit56
    January 5, 2013 @ 12:52 pm

    As I have stated time after time, the only thing that is going to save our country and our Constitution is millions of angry citizens, storming Washington D.C. This is the first step of many the Obama administration will begin to take to leave the American citizens defenseless against the government. The democrats and repubocrats (those who are not conservative but call themselves republicans) know they must remove all guns from citizens so that they can never go against the government. If citizens of this country both democrat and republican do not understand this, they are brainless idiots!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.6/5 (9 votes cast)
  18. guidoComment by guido
    January 5, 2013 @ 1:06 pm

    This is an invasion of privacy. Law abiding citizens, who legally own and register their firearms, are being demonized for exercising their constitutional rights (just like wealthy citizens were demonized during the election cycle). Why should the law abiding citizen be harassed? It is ridiculous that criminals have more privacy rights. You can’t claim FOI to look at someone’s criminal history. In fact, it is a crime to release someone’s criminal history. Usually it is the criminal that possesses an unregistered firearm that would never be identified under the proposed bill. I would rather know someone’s criminal history than knowing if a law abiding citizen owns a firearm.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.0/5 (12 votes cast)
    • buckeeComment by buckee
      January 5, 2013 @ 2:30 pm

      They want to know everything about you, except for when you vote. Then you can be dead, an illegal immigrant or an x-con. No I.D. required. Just as long as you voted Democrat.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.4/5 (10 votes cast)
    • michiganrebComment by michiganreb
      January 5, 2013 @ 11:31 pm

      this is the problem with firearm registration it leaves a list of legal gun owners to be exploited. And, later a list for confiscation.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.3/5 (6 votes cast)
  19. grumpy3625Comment by grumpy3625
    January 5, 2013 @ 1:09 pm

    I’m waiting for the next shooting incident to happen any day now. They always mysteriously seem to happen in clumps when the politicians what to make a move on gun owners. Just sayin’.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.1/5 (13 votes cast)
    • oleteabagComment by oleteabag
      January 5, 2013 @ 11:38 pm

      I’ve noticed that, too. Ever since Obama’s re-election and his stated desire to control guns, we’ve had one incident after another. Why IS that, do you think? Or is it just that his Pravda media machine is scouring the wires for any and EVERY incident involving a gun so they can whip up anti-gun hysteria among the sheeple? Whatever the reason, it CANNOT be a coincidence that so MANY of these incidents just ‘happen’ to occur when the govt. is ready to ratchet up the anti-gun rhetoric and start grabbing guns and canceling the Second Amendment.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.2/5 (5 votes cast)
    • FlyboyComment by Flyboy
      January 7, 2013 @ 12:03 am

      Did you hear any national news coverage of another shooting that took place in San Antonio Texas just 2 days after the Sandy Hook incident? Bet you didn’t. A guy goes into a restaurant to kill his ex girlfriend. He shoots her and shoots at others. The people in the restaurant ran out and went to the movie theater next door. The gunman follows. Guess what happens next? Upon entering the theater he encounters an off duty cop who happens to be packing. She shoots the guy 4 times and ends the incident with a greatly limited loss of life. It doesn’t make the national news because it bolsters the point of view that the best defense against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. The lap dog liberal media ought to be shut down for journalistic malpractice. There is no semblance of impartiality with the traditional news outlets anymore. They are the propaganda arm of the commie democratic party.

      Guess what else? I just heard today that there is a petition circulating on the White house web site trying to get the Catholic Church branded like the Boy Scouts of America as a hate group for their positions on contraception and same sex marriage. Ready for another one? The Obama administration is trying to get the two 4 year terms for the office of President rescinded. Just what the hell do you think is going on here? It’s happening right before our eyes and under our noses. Let’s wake up people. Like Jefferson said we need to ready ourselves for one hell of a fight with this regime. It’s time for revolution again. Don’t fool yourselves.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  20. mrpilkingtonComment by mrpilkington
    January 5, 2013 @ 1:12 pm

    All these liberals seem to always want everything to be fair.

    Well in all fairness shouldn’t the names of all people who do not have a CCP also be published?

    It’s not the criminals I’m worried about. We need to protect ourselves from a government run a muck.

    I really don’t see the purpose in doing this. Do they think this will shame gun owners into giving up weapons? If they can push this through, the next step is to force us to give up our weapons. If they come for my guns they better bring their guns with them.

    Once they get control of our guns, then they will come for our knives and after that bow and arrows and after that slingshots.

    Mostly democrats, and all liberals, collectivists, statists, socialist, progressives (and whatever else they want to call themselves have been pushing this kind of agenda for over a century. A little bit at a time, they keep coming like zombies. They have got to be stopped.

    I had hoped there were enough sane people left in the country to stop them with our vote. It became apparent last November that we are now out numbered by the morons.

    I believe it was Lewis Carrol who once said something like, ” One day the sane will have to move to asylums to protect themselves from the insane,” These people must be stopped or that day will come sooner than we think.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.9/5 (11 votes cast)
    • kskiddComment by kskidd
      January 5, 2013 @ 1:25 pm

      “All these liberals seem to always want everything to be fair.” Yeah, well, they’re not very good at it, are they? These days, they seem to care less and less about what’s fair. Witness the Liberal in Chief.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.5/5 (8 votes cast)
    • cdrcodyComment by cdrcody
      January 5, 2013 @ 2:08 pm

      Maybe the people who do not have guns in their houses should take a tip from Japan. The Japanese people are wild about swords. A large percentage of households in Japan have them. If you don’t like guns get a long bladed weapon and learn how to use it. To someone breaking in to your house, it can be just as deadly. Am I being facetious, maybe or maybe not. Only you can decide.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.3/5 (11 votes cast)
  21. snoopster516Comment by snoopster516
    January 5, 2013 @ 1:30 pm

    What should happen is that under the freedom of information act the public should acquire the names & address of all public officials have them published & hold peaceful but loud demonstartions at their homes & well as public buildings. Next acquire the names & addresses of the publisher, especially if it is a publicly owned business & do the same thing.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.9/5 (12 votes cast)
    • oleteabagComment by oleteabag
      January 5, 2013 @ 11:42 pm

      I think any public official or public figure who would violate the privacy of a law-abiding citizen by making public information of this type should IMMEDIATELY have his home address and pictures of his entire family made public, schedules of his/their comings and goings, where his children go to school,what kind of cars they drive, what type of security they have, etc. If this “outing” of people is going to make society so safe, why should they worry about that information being public?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.0/5 (5 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      January 6, 2013 @ 12:23 pm

      snoopster, vietnamvet has already done us this service and posted a link to an interactive map with the names and addresses of the d-bags at the newspaper in New York who published the names and addresses of all the gun permit owners in their area. I’ll repost the link: https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=201650905593228814533.0004d1c39ceef0f9f292a&gl=us&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=40.96953,-73.855591&spn=0.379541,0.222049&t=m&source=embed

      Notice how they’ve all gone into hiding now. I say what’s good for the goose is good for the gander (or something to that effect).

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (5 votes cast)
  22. unclealfieComment by unclealfie
    January 5, 2013 @ 1:56 pm

    Gun permit holders have now become yet another victim of PC mania in state government. Next they’ll start targeting those who eat too much bacon or order soft drinks deemed too large. etc., etc.
    What happened to the Holy Scripture of personal privacy? Every time you phone a credit card, bank or insurance company, etc. you undergo an complete interrogation of name, address, zip, phone, etc. etc., in the name of “protecting your privacy”.
    Personally, as a former CT resident now living in CA, I want to say that this is exactly what you liberals voted for, from the presidential right down to your local democrat state rep.
    Just a wild guess, but I’d say that the majority, if not all, of those pushing for more government control are democrats.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.1/5 (13 votes cast)
    • cdrcodyComment by cdrcody
      January 5, 2013 @ 2:15 pm

      It’s not a guess it’s a fact.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.3/5 (6 votes cast)
  23. bobvComment by bobv
    January 5, 2013 @ 3:20 pm

    I am not sure of the debate here! I, myself, a law abiding citizen that can read and write where I am sure many criminals would not take the time, or even have a clue as to how to find out if a certain homeowner has a gun permit. When I recently got stopped for a routine traffic stop, the officer knew before approaching my car that I COULD BE armed. He was the only one that needs to know this. My friends know it, my neighbors, and a few close associates.
    Happlity I just saw on FOX that the courts just turned down the request to publish names of gun owners in New York. Here in our little town in Pa, any burgler knows the odds of getting shot during an intrusion are very likely, especially recently since our county has been turning out cc permits in record numbers-Live by the castle law and hope it never has to be exercised.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.3/5 (6 votes cast)
  24. wepsyComment by wepsy
    January 5, 2013 @ 3:47 pm

    I feel the new York paper’s website publication was an absolute endangerment of those listed and I am sure that Dargan will feel the weight of massive public rejection of his proposal when he holds that hearing.
    As for Lanza’s guns I have a question for Hartford Courant. Where did I see that news clip of the police finding the Bushmaster in the trunk of Lanza’s car AFTER the shootings?

    May those unfortunate souls rest in peace after they have confronted Lanza on the other side.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.3/5 (7 votes cast)
    • bobvComment by bobv
      January 5, 2013 @ 5:56 pm

      Sad but soooo true

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.3/5 (3 votes cast)
    • unclealfieComment by unclealfie
      January 5, 2013 @ 7:00 pm

      As an attorney, I think that’s a good angle to consider. There’s no criminal or tort law that I can think of that directly affects endangerment of an individual by a party (unless some special relationship exists between the two creates such a duty).
      However, it could be argued that government had a duty to protect the personal info disclosed on gun permit/ownership documents, just because its personal information and not supplied by the individual for the purpose of publishing it to the public sector. Two things that will affect this cause of action would be;
      1. Whether the state allows such a lawsuit to be brought against it. A state cannot be sued unless that state allows the specific type of lawsuit. Sad but true.
      2. The plaintiff would have to show damages that were caused by publication of the personal info. Like getting your throat cut during a home invasion.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.0/5 (4 votes cast)
  25. namkiwnallaComment by namkiwnalla
    January 5, 2013 @ 5:24 pm

    An Open Letter to
    Fairfield County, CT, residents

    IF LANZA KNEW, WHY DIDN’T YOU?

    Now, wait a minute: imagine yourself in Miami this
    coming Monday evening. For the BCS National
    College Football Championship. On the 50-yard
    line, as I was in 1969 when the Jets and
    Joe Namath won the Super Bowl
    for then-New York City.

    What do you think would happen as a result
    throughout the sports world were an Alabama…
    or Notre Dame…player on a jaunt along a
    Florida beach free that “Genii in the bottle?”

    She promises him one wish. “Sure, I’ll clear a
    path…(now, listen)…one-third of the field wide
    and 100 yards long, goal line to goal line,
    right down the middle of the field.

    “Just stow the bottle cork somewhere on you;
    when you need me, massage it.”

    “That’s fantastic, Genii,” the guy responds. “But we
    wouldn’t need all 50 plus feet down mid-field;
    just a couple. What would viewers think if none of our opponents could get into that entire one-third of the field? Somethin’ fishy,no?”

    “Look, son,” cautions Genii, “Take it or leave it.”

    Back to reality.

    Why didn’t YOU know that in targeting any of your
    Connecticut schools, Lanza would have had that
    genuine, one-third of households route…to any Connecticut
    school clear ahead for his inhuman rampage?

    In the heated aftermath to tragedy it’s hard enough
    for officials to sort fact from fiction. But, for those
    immediately impacted, close to impossible. Yet,
    few if any bother to do so beforehand. Perhaps
    that’s why you can’t find the word, “prescience,”
    in the Readers’ Digest.

    We wonder: did Lanza know that, if he selected
    a (ANY) Connecticut school, chances were that
    ANY school’s neighborhood would be thirty-three
    percent less likely to “get in his way” than would
    an attacker in either of three, nearby, Hudson Valley,
    NY, counties?

    Many gun owners have condemned a White Plains
    newspaper since it published names and addresses
    of pistol permit holders throughout Westchester,
    Putnam and Rockland counties.

    I suggest that that paper may have done you…
    all of us…a favor. Here’s why: go figure —

    FACTS: Population in those 3 NY counties –
    1,348,000. Pistol permits registered: 44,000.
    Per capita ownership, 30.6.

    State of Connecticut population – 3,500,000.
    Pistol permits registered: 170,000.
    Per capita ownership, 20.6.

    Allan Wikman
    Kingston, NY
    845 + 802-0403

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 2.2/5 (5 votes cast)
    • bobvComment by bobv
      January 5, 2013 @ 5:55 pm

      well put

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.0/5 (2 votes cast)

Leave a Comment





Reference Pages

  • About
  • Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer