NBC CT
Connecticut lawmaker proposes publicizing gun owners’ names
State Rep. Stephen Dargen, a Democratic legislator from West Haven, wants the names and addresses of about 170,000 handgun permit holders in the state to be made public.
Names of gun owners are now confidential, but Dargen believes if people know how many guns are spread across communities, they’ll be safer.
State Senator Martin Looney, of New Haven, is proposing ammunition control legislation, which would prohibit anyone barred from owning a gun from owning bullets or any other kind of ammunition.
“A gun without ammunition is only a club. We really need to restrict access to ammunition,” Looney said.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Copycat.
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on January 4, 2013 at 11:27 PM
First, “Looney”? Second, if you publish who has guns legally, it basically tells criminals which people don’t have guns. Not sure how “knowing how many guns are spread across the community” furthers a public safety objective for the unarmed.
Patrick Ishmael on January 4, 2013 at 11:30 PM
Dumb and dumber is not a movie, evidently it’s legislators in Connecticut.
ButterflyDragon on January 4, 2013 at 11:33 PM
Southern by choice22 on January 4, 2013 at 11:33 PM
Remember these peoples’ names and where they live…there will be a time when socialism is defeated and we will need to keep up with them.
d1carter on January 4, 2013 at 11:36 PM
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha…
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on January 4, 2013 at 11:36 PM
I’d demand being put on this list, especially if I wasn’t a gun owner.
Buddahpundit on January 4, 2013 at 11:38 PM
What is it with Connecticut? They have something in the water that makes them blooming morons?
john1schn on January 4, 2013 at 11:43 PM
I wonder if the people planning a home invasion might find this information useful?
sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 11:47 PM
Good.
Let the people of Connecticut suffer the consequences of what they voted for.
Blue state values.
Rebar on January 4, 2013 at 11:50 PM
Meanwhile, at the next massacre:
“Wait, who are you? You’re not on our list!”
“No. I got these guns illegally.”
*BANG!*
Dongemaharu on January 4, 2013 at 11:50 PM
Anyone not on this list = easy pickings crooks. Crooks = politicians and gangs. What could go wrong.
astonerii on January 4, 2013 at 11:54 PM
God I am grateful you let me be born to a family in Texas, rather than a family in Connecticut.
john1schn on January 4, 2013 at 11:55 PM
This is an interesting ‘name and shame’ effort.
Locals should demand more:
Do the firearms owners have:
- Dogs or other pets
- Jobs
- Home security systems
- Military experience
- Children
- Disabled family members
- Criminal convictions
- Security clearances.
Come on – in the interests of full disclosure let’s lay it all out. Starting with every single public ‘servant’ in the state.
If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.
Correct?
CorporatePiggy on January 5, 2013 at 12:09 AM
How about we keep abortion legal but just outlaw doctors from performing them? Forceps without an abortionist are just salad tongs.
The Count on January 5, 2013 at 12:17 AM
Publish the names of those who hire armed security guards personally, or who send their kids to schools or go to a workplace with armed guards.
Fenris on January 5, 2013 at 12:20 AM
OK first off:
Good idea. If you’re not legal to have a gun (felon, minor, non-citizen) then you shouldn’t be able to buy ammunition for your illegal firearm. That’s just common sense.
But…
If Dargen wants people to know how many guns there are in their communities why can’t they release figures without naming names? Isn’t it enough to know that 412 people in a town of 962 souls own firearms. Do you really need to know if the widow Smith has a shotgun or not?
Browncoatone on January 5, 2013 at 12:25 AM
His life wasn’t so swell today.
Schadenfreude on January 5, 2013 at 12:30 AM
Yet another legislator proposing legislation in response to a tragedy that would not have done anything to prevent the tragedy from happening.
Rip Ford on January 5, 2013 at 12:35 AM
Man, these people are playing with fire. Criminals now have a list of who’s protected and who’s not.
How long until the outed gun owners come home to find their homes ransacked and looted, and guns stolen?
How long till the same stolen firearms are used by the criminals who stole them to commmit a crime?
How long till the outed non-gun owners try to fend off a home invasion with futile pleas for mercy?
It’s not a matter of ‘if’ anymore, but a matter of ‘when’. What despicable scum these people are. They are lighting the fuse and they know it.
Harbingeing on January 5, 2013 at 1:09 AM
That’s exactly what I’ve been thinking everyday.
Why can’t these public servants just leave people alone?
Harbinging is right. They are deliberately provoking us.
juliesa on January 5, 2013 at 1:40 AM
America – the land of the best, and the worst!
Your left-wing lunatics are in a league of their own!
OldEnglish on January 5, 2013 at 1:41 AM
I had the same reaction.
Sometimes the family name really does represent the person.
William Eaton on January 5, 2013 at 1:58 AM
Shudder to think what became of the ‘Kook’, the ‘Butts’, and the Horeson families I’ve crossed paths with.
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on January 5, 2013 at 2:19 AM
Next up, publishing an interactive map of people who received expensive Christmas presents from big box electronics stores, or diamond outlets.
Maybe they could add the hours they are away from home working.
kurtzz3 on January 5, 2013 at 2:23 AM
Be sure to publish all the names and home addresses of judges who have gun permits, too. Then see what happens.
Blake on January 5, 2013 at 2:29 AM
Government funded abortions should be publicized.
Ronnie on January 5, 2013 at 3:49 AM
Yes they do and the plan to make sure guns are banned is having carnage. If there are more and more deaths then people will start to demand guns be banned. All the people on the list that get robbed or have a loved one killed will start to turn on those on the list and say it was their fault. In my opinion with the very first robbery where the criminal says they used the list every single politician that voted for it should be charged as an accessory.
Dr. Frank Enstine on January 5, 2013 at 7:01 AM
Should have been.
All the people not on the list that get robbed or have a loved one killed will start to turn on those on the list and say it was their fault.
Dr. Frank Enstine on January 5, 2013 at 7:03 AM
Seems like a lot of people are going to have cause to sue that newspaper.
trigon on January 5, 2013 at 7:27 AM
Spoke with my Dad about the states proposing legislation measures along these lines. He was telling me that in the 80s you couldn’t be identified as having the HIV infection. I guess that actually would have saved some lives.
This will do nothing to reduce gun violence.
smoothsailing on January 5, 2013 at 7:39 AM
That’s fine. It’ll only drive not gun owners to own guns.
elfman on January 5, 2013 at 7:44 AM
Lets publicize who are members of the communist party!
JellyToast on January 5, 2013 at 9:16 AM
The reason people in the rest of the state need guns is because this idiots constituents are fighting a small war in New Haven. It’s the most dangerous city in CT because of the number of illegal guns in the hands of criminals.
He should be encouraging every law abiding adult in the state to own guns, maybe that could save some lives next time there’s a turf war shoot out in new haven and innocent bystanders get hit by sprays of bullets.
Or, yeah, lets just tell the criminals who owns guns so they can come steal some more guns to continue fighting their drug wars.
Timin203 on January 5, 2013 at 10:10 AM