Gun Owners' Names, Addresses Could Become Public

A West Haven lawmaker has introduced a bill to make public the names of some 170,000 gun owners in Connecticut.


If you own a gun in this state your name and address could become public under a bill introduced in the General Assembly by State Rep. Stephen D. Dargan, D-West Haven.

Dargan filed the proposal in response to the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown that killed 20 children and 6 women on Dec. 14. His proposal would overturn a law passed in Connecticut 20 years ago that keeps private the names and addresses of gun owners.

In an interview with the Hartford Courant, Dargan said he wants gun ownership information to fall under the state's Freedom of Information Act in part so that parents can know whether the parents of their child's friends have guns in their homes.

"Maybe their kids are going over to Johnny Smith's, and maybe they want to see whether they have guns in the house," he told the newspaper.

Dargan's proposal follows another bill that was filed recently that seeks to limit who can own gun ammunition in Connecticut and to keep such ammunition out of the hands of felons. Gun control issues are expected to dominate the General Assembly's winter session, which formally begins next week, in the wake of the Newtown massacre.

Bob Torcello January 06, 2013 at 12:10 PM
"Maybe their kids are going over to Johnny Smith's, and maybe they want to see whether they have guns in the house," he told the newspaper." Why not ask them??? DUH! This would not show anything but who has a "pistol" permit and not long guns. Pointless and seemingly jumping on the bandwagon for political points.
Art Kuever January 06, 2013 at 02:32 PM
I agree, not only does it not show long guns but exposes people that may or may not have hand guns. Just because you have a permit, it does not mean that you own a handgun. I have heard it said and I agree with: this is just going to show where the guns may be ... it helps the criminals if they are looking to get guns or move the person to the next house where there may be not be guns. Now, what if there are unregistered owners? I know it may be a stretch that there are people that have guns but are not licensed and have not registered their guns, but let us just say there are, releasing the names of the licenced owners impacts nothing. It just gets more information out there that clouds up the debate. Now, if you want to say there are 170,000 licenses in CT and crimes with guns were done by 50 of those people then you have useful information, release those names(which would have already been done on the blotter) but no need to release all the names because they have done nothing wrong. I just read the New Haven Register and in the opinion section, someone said that guns should only be in the hands of the policy, military and militia, basically saying the 2cnd admendment, okay, let us bring back the militia in each town, those who want to sign up can, those who don't won't and we can move on.
C Williams January 06, 2013 at 02:58 PM
Maybe if we had some common sense gun control laws we wouldn't have to resort to this.. We need to ban "modern hunting rifles" aka assault weapons... I do not know any hunters who want or need them. The Newtown tragedy will hopefully be the tipping point to finally get these killing machines out of the hands of civilians..
Had E Nough January 06, 2013 at 03:43 PM
Yes, What happened in Newtown was tragic. And we must look at what can be done to prevent it from happening again. But let's be smarter about it. As a permitted gun owner I have to say that the government already has it wrong. To make me responsible for my weapons is fine. That's my duty as a person that possesses something that can do deadly harm. But to "by law" separate me from my gun and my responsibility if I leave the state is entrapment. It should be a 50 state permit. If the FBI approved me for one state I should be approved for all states. And also, if the names of all permit holders are made public It would for the most part force handgun owners to carry all the time who may not be doing so now. Here's a thought, I would say to all permit holders to make pistol carry REALLY public knowledge. As the permit we have in Connecticut is not a concealed carry permit it is a permit to carry. We should exercise our rights and carry open! If they want to know who is armed then we should let them know. Is that what these people want? If you move to make public who has gone through the lawful steps to have a permit you must in turn be willing to see it in public too!
Vindaloo January 06, 2013 at 04:11 PM
I think exposing info about who owns guns and who doesn't will only create more fear and danger. My father supported our family building guns and spent his life being a sportsman. In all those years, he collected many guns but never had a need for an assault weapon. He'd be appalled, as I am, at today's interpretation of our 2nd amendment rights.
Vindaloo January 06, 2013 at 04:22 PM
Bob Torcello January 06, 2013 at 04:32 PM
One thing is to make clear and "accurate" the term assault rifle. A semi-autos are just that, semi-automatic, whether an auto look a like without auto function or a semi-hunting rifle or a semi-auto shotgun. they all shoot the same. Looks don't make an assault rifle, function does. In the late 1700s the muskets, people say the amendment was referring to, were that day's assault rifle. Personally I don't hunt with semi's but don't see why others can't if they choose so (legally). Clip size is another issue and arbitrarily dropping from a 30 to a 10 will create more problems. Some pistols hold more than 10 rounds. Point I'm trying to make is this needs to be discussed with a clear head and with all known facts. There is no, even if you want one, simple answer. The disaster in Newtown was by an outlaw, not a hunter or pistol permit holder, yet it happened. The bad guys don't care what we discuss, nor what laws are on the books. Currently NY and CT have some of the nation's stricktest laws but the bad guys don't care about the law. Making someone's name/address available is not, in my opinion, an option. I don't want the bad guy parked down the street waiting for people to leave their house so he can break in to steal their firearm. just some thoughts to ponder and discuss.
Fran M. January 06, 2013 at 05:18 PM
I agree Art. Telling everyone where there may be handguns mostly helps potential criminals who either are looking for guns, or are looking for houses to rob where there aren't any. What really significant positive impact will it have? FWIW, I'm against people owning assault rifles, large ammo clips, etc. but I'm not clear why this legistlation is important. "Maybe Parent X wants to know if Family Y has guns" just doesn't seem worth the loss of privacy...
Penelope Chittenden January 06, 2013 at 06:45 PM
PBC: A gun owner should over 18 years of age, have at least a high school diploma, have no criminal record or outstanding charges against him. A major law infraction could be cause to revoke the license. He has a right to own his gun, but NO ONE, in our society other than the military,. needs or should ever possess an assault weapon. There is no good purpose in publishing an honest law abiding owner's name.
MrsSmithWatchingWashington January 06, 2013 at 07:40 PM
As a responsible parent, I want to know the parents in the house where my child is going. If they own a gun, I will feel safer knowing that should anyone try to break in for whatever reason to cause harm, my child is safer staying with an experienced gun owner.
Jay January 06, 2013 at 08:15 PM
A Georgia mother shot an ex-convict six times to protect her and her children after he apparently forced his way into the family’s home. The mom heard knocks on her front door Friday and assumed it was just a solicitor, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. She told her 9-year-old twins not to answer the door and, when the visitor began repeatedly ringing the doorbell, she called her husband at his job and he told her to gather the children and hide. According to the Journal-Constitution, the father then dialed 911 and his wife, who works from a home office, hid with the children in a crawlspace. By that time, according to the paper, the intruder had used a crowbar to forcibly enter the home, and made his way to the home office. “He opens the closet door and finds himself staring down the barrel of a .38 revolver,” Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.The woman fired six bullets, five of which hit Paul Ali Slater in the face and neck area, Chapman said. But Slater, who has arrests dating to 2008 and was released from jail in August, was still conscious.“The guy’s face down, crying,” the sheriff said. The woman told him to stay down or she’d shoot again. While down, the woman and her children ran to a neighbor’s house, and the injured intruder made it out of the home and into his car, the paper reported.
DisgruntledInClinton January 06, 2013 at 11:08 PM
If the Georgia woman had had a shotgun, she could have shot him through the door and would have killed or seriously injured him. (And she wouldn't have blood spatter all over her and her children.)
DisgruntledInClinton January 06, 2013 at 11:09 PM
Am I the only one who hates the erroneous term "assault" weapon. People assault people, guns don't assault people.
DisgruntledInClinton January 06, 2013 at 11:10 PM
I would like lists published of not just pedophiles, rapists, etc., but people who beat their partners. (Notice I didn't say "men who abuse or beat their wives, as many men are victims of spousal abuse.)
Jay January 07, 2013 at 12:35 AM
how about people who have abortions, have been treated or recommended for "mental health " problems, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
Hammer McPhee January 07, 2013 at 12:26 PM
The Home Invader will be the only person made safer by publishing the addresses of law abiding gun permit holders by providing the Invader an almost 100% guarantee that they will be able to overpower the occupants of the targeted home. Authoritarian governments compile lists of citizens it wishes to target, for good or bad. It's obvious that this move is to add gun owners to the list of groups that have been marginalized by the government and main stream media... If you are concerned about the cost of providing free welfare and healthcare to over 12 million illegal immigrants – your a extreme xenophobe, if you support the Defense of Marriage act, your now an extreme homophobe, if your against abortion your an extreme right wing anti-abortion nut, if you want to keep most of what you work hard for, your a soulless Mitt Romney Capitalist... And now, if you support the 2nd Amendment and your right to defend yourself again criminals or an overreaching government – your a potential killer of first graders. After all, no Authoritarian Government can achieve it's ultimate goal of total control of the citizenry if those ornery citizens can't be completely cowed by threats.
candace hinkley January 17, 2013 at 01:09 PM
this is great!!!!!! just like in new york where thieves used the list to steal guns.
Mark February 16, 2013 at 02:50 PM
Vote with your feet. Leave this state that has no respect for your god given rights. They pass law after law and each one takes liberty and freedom from us and gives government more power over us. They work for us! Let them know! Enough is enough! Leave honest, hard working taxpayers alone and fix the health care problem that the State abandoned long ago.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »