Galt's Gulch

Connecticut lawmaker wants names of gun owners to be made public

Posted by Eudaimonia 13 years, 8 months ago to Politics
57 comments | Share | Flag

If the CT Legislature does this, then they have removed any intentions anonymity behind the Concealed Carry enforcement of Connecticut's technically Open Carry Laws.
And since any anonymity would be gone, the case is *much* stronger for Open Carry.
So, go ahead, CT Legislature, figuratively shoot yourself in the foot.
SOURCE URL: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/04/connecticut-lawmaker-wants-names-gun-owners-to-be-made-public/

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by $ kathywiso 13 years, 8 months ago
    The article states, "this is the least invasive bill that's going to come up this year.".... doesn't that in itself reveal the motive... if we can get away with this, more is coming and I did spell that right .. This is a total outrage.. pluck away at our "granted to us" rights until the American people just let them have it their way... sticking their head in the sand like so much that has already happened in the way of "rights." I get infuriated at this bullshit.... Common sense no more... more people riding in the cart than pulling it... I'm ready to pull that cart to the top of the biggest mountain in the US and let go....
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by WWJGD 13 years, 8 months ago
    This just in: yet another stupid White House petition! This one was started by a friend of a friend on Google+:

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitio...

    I just LOVE the way conservatives are making a mockery of the whole White House petition site!

    Excerpt: "...introduces penalties to elected officials for proposing and enacting [gun control] legislation that is found unconstitutional... The penalty for PROPOSING LEGISLATION at the Federal, State, or Local level that violates [the Constitution] is 5 years imprisonment 1st offence, 2nd offence is life in prison. Should an unconstitutional bill or proposed legislation be enacted into law, ordinance, or code at the Federal, State, or Local level will be defined as high treason against the government of the USA."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by LetsShrug 13 years, 8 months ago
    What IS the point of revealing names and addresses. I can't figure out what they're goal is? Other than abusing their power (they have the info and they can use it). Private citizenry no more! What a head scratcher.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Comment deleted.
        -
      • Posted by khalling 13 years, 8 months ago
        I never noticed that before in shows...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Comment deleted.
            -
          • Posted by WWJGD 13 years, 8 months ago
            Uh, wait a minute.

            Ruby Ridge was over a sawed-off shotgun that was one-quarter of an inch too short. And IIRC it was an entrapment case.

            All of this because nobody showed up in court when the SCOTUS was deciding US v. Miller (1939) to explain to them that short-barreled shotguns DO have a military (militia) use.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by LetsShrug 13 years, 8 months ago
        Oh, I notice the movie talk (thanks to my husband who blurts out all the incorrect crap that is said...as well as all the makes and models of the guns in whatever we're watching...sometimes it turns into a story about his childhood "My Dad had one of those when I was kid...we used to go...." So I'm aware...of that. Maybe, even though I KNOW so many people are uninformed and unaware of whats happening and refuse to pay attention at all...it still hits me like a freight train once in a while that they are SOOOOOOOOO STUPID!!! Scary stupid...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by WWJGD 13 years, 8 months ago
      You can't figure that out?

      It's not much different from requiring Jews to place a special symbol in the window...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by LetsShrug 13 years, 8 months ago
        No... that's not what I meant... I can see that that's where they're going with this, but how are they selling this total invasion of privacy tactic to anyone? Names and addresses, of private citizens, who are doing NOTHING illegal... putting them on display. And everyone just says, "oh yeah...that's an okay thing to do...sure..yup..totally fine...as long as it's not me." Ah...the hangman!!...I'm going to find that and post it.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo