Disclose names and addresses of gun permit holders in Connecticut? Hell No (Update)
I’m not putting up with this. Already wrote a post on the subject in September 1, 2010 so I’m just going to copy and paste. I texted Jim that I did not want to do any more gun posts … but here I go again.
Update: I’ve shortened this to include a couple of points here at the top, but please read the full post. Why do they want to publish the names and addresses of permit holders? Please share this information with everyone!
The media wants this information so they can create Google Maps with the pinned location of all permit holders. They will not admit this, but they simply want to increase their Internet site page views and justify advertising rates. This not new, sensational news sells papers, keeps people watching and increases visits to websites.
The Gun Control Crowd
It’s not for the “public good.” They want to simply stigmatize gun ownership in the United States. By strongly believing in – and practicing – 2nd Amendment rights, the gun control crowd thinks you need to be monitored. For these people, just the desire to own a firearm or get a carry permit is an “indicator” something is wrong with you. They honestly believe this.
What about the single female who wants to take steps to protect herself? She’s installed motion activated lights outside her home, she locks her doors and windows, and she has an alarm system. That done, she wants to take the additional step to protect herself at home and when traveling by taking a class, getting a Connecticut permit, and maybe purchasing a firearm. Her friends may be part of the gun control crowd and being on that list would stigmatize her to the point where she may not even apply for a permit simply because she would be embarrased. That’s what the gun control crowd wants.
Even Connecticut’s former governor, John Rowland thinks there is something wrong with people who want to own high-capacity magazines. I could practically see Rowland rolling his eyes during his radio show yesterday afternoon after callers explained logical reasons – just like I have done – there should not be a magazine capacity limit.
Here is the full post from Sept. 2010. Excuse the time references and remember this was posted after the Hartford Distributors shooting.
Connecticut state law does not allow pistol permit records to be available to the public. Many states do allow this information to be released, and some media outlets – in a drive to increase page views – have published the full databases including private information simply because it’s “public record.”
Susan Campbell in the Hartford Courant today asks the question if gun permit information should be private. Although written as a news item, I think her post borders on commentary but that’s par for the course. The argument for the mass public release of the information is oddly vague and incoherent.
She references the fact-finding mission of Allan Minter, who has been tracking gun crimes that involved multiple victims for some unknown reason. Supposedly, one of Minter’s quests is to try to figure out why Omar Thorton killed eight after being asked to resign from Hartford Distributors for stealing.
Minter is looking for answers, but news coverage has waned, and now Minter is filling in the blanks from afar. Namely: Did Thornton go to pistol ranges? If so, did he go more frequently right before the mayhem?
Oddly, here’s something Minter can’t confirm: Did Thornton have a permit for his guns? Connecticut law keeps confidential the names and addresses of people issued an eligilibility [sic] certificate for a pistol or revolver. Under some circumstances, the information can be released only to law enforcement officials (as it appears to have been in Thornton’s case), or the public safety commissioner, or mental health and addiction services commissioner.
Campbell may not know the difference between a Connecticut eligibility certificate and a Connecticut State Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers, but she should know that within three or four hours, the news media seemed to have not only released the fact Thorton had a pistol permit, but detailed what pistols he owned and where he purchased them from.
Of course, they also posted information suggesting Thorton used a .223 caliber rifle which seems to have come from a reporter’s imagination, but that is beside the point.
Having access to the Connecticut pistol permit records certainly would not provide any additional information as to why Thorton killed eight, nor would information concerning the man’s range habits provide any insight. This information gathering after the fact, is good for just that … gathering information after the fact.
Is Campbell or Minter suggesting all range time be logged in some state database and made public record? Maybe if you go shooting three days in a row an e-mail blast should be sent to your neighbors, family and co-workers with a heads-up.
Campbell then mentions soon-to-be ex-wives have called the State Police asking if their soon-to-be ex-husband has a pistol permit. If the wife – or anyone – is concerned enough to call the State Police with that type of request, maybe she should be discussing a protection order or make a formal complaint to the cops. Either of those requests should automatically trigger an investigation by law enforcement.
Many states have recently banned the release of this information, referencing privacy and security concerns. Campbell continues, with my emphasis in bold.
While making the permit process more stringent, the [1994 Connecticut] law removed from the public record information about people who made it through the process. Talk at the time centered on safety and privacy, with this odd logic: If the particulars of permit-holders were made public, their homes would be targets for robbers, although one would think knowledge that a neighbor has a gun or guns would make that neighbor’s house a less attractive option for a break-in.
Odd logic? If that is odd logic, how about the fact criminals could use the same information to confirm homes they targetare not protected by owners who have firearms permits? The perceived danger for homeowners works both ways, and I prefer to keep the criminals guessing.
How about abused spouses who are hiding from abusers and have chosen to protect their own lives by installing security lights, locking doors and windows, installing a security system and owning a firearm as a last defense at home and when traveling about? I’m certain those pushing for the mass-release of these state databases would come up with some sort of waiver to protect their identities and locations … their privacy and safety is – of course – very important. The rest of us … not so much.
Campbell mentions the “people who made it through the process.” Is she even familiar with the process? In her post, she seems to imply these good citizens must be watched more carefully and have their information available online at a newspaper’s website – probably tied to a user-friendly Google map – because they could be dangerous!
Those who apply choose to go through a process involving finger prints, local police interviews, applications, FBI background checks, high fees and even neighbor interviews. I’ll take the odds every time betting those residents are the good guys I don’t have to be all that concerned with.
Articles like these are about two goals of – what I refer to as – the anti-gun media crowd. First, continue and extend the stereotype that guns are bad and gun people are a strange lot who must be monitored. Second is the simple capitalist goal to increase page views with a paranoia-induced gossip-creating web application.
I commented in the chat room about this.? Instead of publishing legal gun owners who did nothing wrong, should they not publish those who are convicted of a gun crime?
“gun crime”? You been listening to that stupid ad on the radio too much.
The Courant, hard at work.? If they?list Permit holders,?they might as well also note the specifics too.? Could be a?.40 S&W in the nightstand, the ‘hot’ pump 12ga in the closet and other possible assets on premises.?? Consider it fair warning to anyone that interested I guess.
How about publishing the names and addresses of legislators who are acting to stigmatize law abiding citizens?? How about doing the same to those who practice legislative malpractice by support this and other less than patriotic business- and add unrelated pork to bills?? They are afforded the protection of privacy… too bad they don’t feel that law abiding citizens are entitled to the same.
I don’t think this is necessary to prove our case.
Seriously, should papers?consider publishing legislator’s info as a resource for?folks seeking local state and federal aid, as well a safe haven for those who chose to depend on government to protect them??
Legislator’s contact information is available now, as it should be. Just go to the state’s website, the elected officials website or even in the phone book.
If you’re suggesting they publish the home addresses of these officials, what good does that do for the cause? There are plenty of valid reasons not to publish the names and addresses of those with permits, there is no reason to say “we’ll show you” and do the same to some other group. Tit-for-tat is unproductive in my opinion. As we’ve seen, that paper in New York simply hired guards. Of course, hiring guards was not necessary, but it’s all perception. The message is the groups that do it (publish names an addresses of reporters and editors) are vengeful and they needed to hire protection.
I’m reacting to a legislative effort to stigmatize people for exercising a constitutional right… and doing so in such a way as to make them targets.? Should this get through and someone is targeted by thieves or some self styled activist then the publishing entity as well as those advocating the disclosure should be held criminally liable for the results of their demagoguery.
I like the idea of publishing the names of all high&mighty ny’ers who have private security??
I don’t think this is necessary to prove our case.
This is just the latest brand of yellow journalism being practiced by an increasingly unscrupulous liberal media. Fear-mongering on the part of the Left, and that includes their jackal, lapdog media accomplices, is standard. Creating straw-men arguments and inviting injury to innocent people are daily operating procedures for dollar hungry liberals engaging in sensationalizing every aspect of a tragedy — never waste a crisis. Journalistic malpractice is permissible and promoted when competing for ad revenue and/or promoting a cherished Liberal Democrat goal.
Perhaps the various governing groups in New York –local and state — should make it mandatory for gun-free households to post “Gun Free Zone” signs on their houses and apartments? Maybe offer a tax credit for voluntarily declaring a premises as “gun free”?
Would publishing the names and addresses of every mentally ill person be any less reprehensible than what the flash-mob-loving, liberal media has done?
I think “journalism” is too strong a word.? How about propaganda?
Journalism is too strong of a word.? It connotes responsibility, ethics and at least a bit of investigative integrity.
One caller to Jim tried to equate gun owners with child molesters, in terms of mapping locations on computer maps.
It just exemplifies how the libs think of gun owners: criminals, or criminals in waiting.?? Someone who went through the rigorous screening for a permit is likely to be far more trustworthy, stable and reliable than the average liberal…
The caller in question underscores how irresponsible “news reporting” is effectively empowering activist liberal regimes by brainwashing so many into supporting- supplanting facts with emotion and using it to divide people.? the best attitude to have for such tragically misled people is simple compassion.
Substitute homosexual in place of gun permit holder and everyone would cry “hate crime.”
Governor Rowland’s dismissive attitude to the legitimate concerns of gun owners in this debate is really infuriating. Same guy who knows that when you give the liberals an inch they immediately press for a mile? (when it came to death penalty for the already sentenced, to cite one recent example), for some reason thinks that holding the line on high capacity mags is not a sensible position?
How is banning them sensible? I submit to you that is the crazy and unreasonable position, because it is completely unworkable, and irrelevant to stopping crime.
Banning high capacity mags has never proven to deter or stop gun crime, and is? as practical as criminalizing the ownership of any easily fabricated metal box with a spring in it (which is all that they are!).
Such a ban will be as worthwhile and enforceable as Prohibition of alcohol was. First of all, there are already many in existence and they aren’t going anywhere. But even if every magazine disappeared into thin air the moment a ‘ban’ was signed,? the very next moment people will be making new ones in their garages.
Thinking that a ban will magically eliminate these things or stop crimes, is the insane position.
Finally, we do not…
Rowland is showing why he went to jail. He is one arrogant know-it-all. I had to turn him off today.
So the newspapers are the only ones that can make maps? There is no way to find where these reporters live as well as any and all news employees? Place them on a map, each and every one? We can’t place signs on our lawns” NRA member” and an arrow to neighbors homes that point out they have no guns?
This tit-for-tat has little?value and does not help the cause. There are plenty of valid reasons to not publish the names and addresses of permit holders. I’ve written about them on a couple of occasions and they can be used as examples when discussing the concept.
It should be pointed out that Lanza could have done the same damage with a 10 round clip-I’m a Vietnam vet & that’s what we called them-it doesn’t take 2 seconds to reload one. They still litter battlegrounds,I bet.
You can only fight liberal ways with liberal means and methods.
Oops? …. state Rep. Stephen Dargan, is the latest effort to clamp down on guns in Connecticut.
State Sen. Martin Looney introduced a measure that would make it illegal for anyone convicted of a felony, a misdemeanor or are under a court-ordered restraining or protective order from buying bullets. The idea is already being criticized by gun groups in the state.
Looney is well named.
I personally don’t care,my back storm door is plastered with my last target from the range. The Gasman noticed & said he thought it was a great idea. He has a carry permit but said CNG doesn’t let him pack it.
an article I have found
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government?s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection, yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma?am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.
I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.? I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.
I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.
We, the people, deserve better than you…
that was from
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
Our Governor ( including ex-Governor Rowland who I USED to admire but now am disgusted with over gun issues- he’s playing RIGHT into the hands of those who have obviously fooled even him! ) are ALL liberally ‘insane’….. THIS is why ( at least for those of you who are Christians and believe in the Bible- the REAL Bibles, NOT those ‘reprints’ that ‘re-write truth’ ) they vote for those like Obama, and our illustrious Gov. Malloy….. as these will one day accept the ‘anti-christ’ who WILL rise up soon…. If you don’t believe it… well, time will certainly tell….
I had to turn off the gov as he is on the wrong side of this issue. The “reasonable” argument is a non-starter as the gun-grabber crowd is only interested in eliminating ALL guns. Whatever they say is NOT what their true intention is.
That is: to disarm all Americans leaving everyone to be at the mercy(?) of demented criminals and the insane.
You’ll notice that the ones who claim the power to take legally owned property, in the form of guns, away from law abiding citizens are protected by paid people who are armed with guns.
Their power, positions and money make them special? Even is Utopia they will make sure they are protected from “the people” by armed guards.
They are using the actions of a madman to advance a personal agenda.
Meanwhile, today in Aurora, Colorado 3 hostages and a gunmen are dead……
And, you are using the actions of another madman to advance some unstated personal agenda. You have no cogent argument; all you want to do is drop intellectually vacant comments.
I’ll bet that at least one of the now dead hostages wished that he or she had a firearm? so that they could have stopped the murderer BEFORE he killed them or another person.
HMMMMM . . .
This man was charged with 6 counts of DUI manslaughter – as he should be.?
Rightfully, there is no talk of disclosing?the names and addresses?of the following:?
Other members of?his tribe.?
All SUV owners.
All alcohol makers?.
6 precious lives – 5 are 18 months?to 9 years old and?1 adult.? Where is the outrage that cars cause more deaths than guns!? Where is the call to take cars away from responsible licensed driver’s?? There is none.? Because someone had the common sense to know where the problem lay and dealt with it.? They didn’t use it as an excuse to promote their own agenda or position of power.?
They need to take away your guns because that will make it easier to take your 401K and IRA funds- so they can invest them in treasury bonds! ?And the pols will tell you they’re going to give you a pension just like they’re going to get- out of fairness to you… Sounds crazy, but google it! ?Now I know where Obama gets his effing stash!
tit for tat is all that is understood, steve.? sad, but true.? logic and high-minded arguments have no place in obama’s ???????–and we can no longer ‘afford’ to be ‘better than that’.? they don’t want or need adults in the room.? so, if they want to play these games, the least we can do is to get concessions that are ‘fair’ and ‘level the playing field’.? publishing home addresses of pols and media should give them pause.? publishing contact lists of illegal aliens and welfare recipients (exclusive of social security and medicare–the vast majority of those beneficiaries are readily identifiable)? is only sporting–after all, everyone should know who benefits from the ‘equality’ and ‘charity’ gov’t extorts on their behalf while individual rights are flushed.? the high ground is ceded.? the low ground is occupied.? guerrilla tactics are all that remain.? if superiority isn’t established there, it’s over–guns or not.
I believe you and Steve are on the right path.? tit for tat solves nothing.? However ….. we may be able to play their game and win.? We can use Alinksy’s rules for radicals against them.? Resurrect the “Question Authority” and “Keep your laws off of my body/ rights”?bumper stickers.? Add new ones like ” More elected Dems are KKK members.”? Keep them scrambling to explain their positions and slow their progress while we bring the focus back to?individual rights and not government issued privileges.? That is the fight the politicians are trying to win.? They are just using code pink and other outfits to block and tackle for them.
I think, JSB, that we are beyond 2nd Amendment rights. I think we are in the realm of public safety. At least I can say that I agree with Joe Scarborough.??
” . . . beyond 2nd Amendment rights.” How could that possibly relate to the proposed disclosure of pistol permit holder’s names?
“I think we are in the realm of public safety.” You have to explain just what you mean.
Did you even listen to or read Scarborough’s entire monologue? In his soliloquy were impassioned references to mental illness, criminal behavior, violent video games and desensitizing Hollywood movies. Or, don’t they fit into your narrative?
How can abrogating the Second Amendment Rights of millions of law-abiding Americans possibly help when the root cause of these horrific crimes is aberrant mental illness?
Funny you mention public safety, because these “madmen” never take their mischief somewhere where people are armed. ?It’s always “gun-free zones”
? The question that needs to be asked here is excatly what publishing the names of owners of a legal product who are trying to comply with the law will do to adress the issue of violence.? I say violence and not “gun violence” because I don’t think that the object that you use to harm another person has any bearing on the act iteslf.
Publishing the names does not address the violence issue.? That is?a separate battle for the right of privacy.? It does, however, distract from the fight of the individual’s right to protect themselves.? If one considers the media the lapdog of the left, then the media has done its job.? It has distracted us from fighting the real fight while the left moves ahead to disarm the American people.?
Thank you Kate very much.
Oh –Ricbee as for me……I will never listen to Rowland again. I do not care to hear a word someone I no longer respect has to say. TIC has lost one listener for 3 hours a day.?
print this article and send it to your legislators and friend let them read the common sense?
That is an excellent article!
I tell everyone look at how well Prohibition works?
We spend $50 billion a year to stop illegal ?drugs and we can’t even get that right?
And unless the whole world stops manufacturing any kind of weapons the bad guy will always find a way to get one.?