Can we get a moderator in here?

Oh wait, I’m a Republican, so I can be made fun of without consequence. My bad. Continue on minions.

Real smart sir![/quote]

Uhhh… It has been the law for decades that it is a crime if a gun (or anything you own) is stolen. Do you want people stealing your gun?[/quote]
LOL you need to read up before opening your mouth big guy. Context clues are critical.[/quote]

Hey, I was just responding to what you posted. I did know what you meant. I was poking fun at the fact that you incorrectly stated something.[/quote]
I love when people say this – you’re like the guy who says “Oh, yea I was going to say that” when someone else says something first that you didn’t think of but want to take credit for anyways.[/quote]

LOL. No. I did know what you meant. I have followed the lost and stolen firearm bill extensively (By the way, the governor has signed it into law). I was just making fun of you. Evidently, you don’t get sarcasm.

The other interesting thing about this is, only law enforcement can use the permit list to track secondary weapons purchases, so what’s the public good being achieved through a public list? The online Sex Offender Registry is meant to be used by parents to help protect their children, so their is a public good served by a public list.

I think it demonstrates priorities that are 180 degrees out of phase.[/quote]
I would not be surprised if the true intent of publicizing the list would be to discourage people from obtaining permits to carry.

The local police already have a fine process in place to harass anyone who applies, at least in my hometown, including waiting the maximum length of time legally possible before they hand over your permit.

The funny part is that if a permit holder even, by accident, displays even a sliver of his weapon, they can be arrested for breach of peace. But now the government will just tell everyone who is carrying weapons instead. Maybe the Courant could even publish the list in the paper, like other papers have done. What the reasoning behind that is, I have absolutely no idea.

What a shame.

Real smart sir![/quote]

Uhhh… It has been the law for decades that it is a crime if a gun (or anything you own) is stolen. Do you want people stealing your gun?[/quote]
LOL you need to read up before opening your mouth big guy. Context clues are critical.[/quote]

Hey, I was just responding to what you posted. I did know what you meant. I was poking fun at the fact that you incorrectly stated something.[/quote]
I love when people say this – you’re like the guy who says “Oh, yea I was going to say that” when someone else says something first that you didn’t think of but want to take credit for anyways.

Real smart sir![/quote]

Uhhh… It has been the law for decades that it is a crime if a gun (or anything you own) is stolen. Do you want people stealing your gun?[/quote]
LOL you need to read up before opening your mouth big guy. Context clues are critical.[/quote]

Hey, I was just responding to what you posted. I did know what you meant. I was poking fun at the fact that you incorrectly stated something.

Real smart sir![/quote]

Uhhh… It has been the law for decades that it is a crime if a gun (or anything you own) is stolen. Do you want people stealing your gun?[/quote]
LOL you need to read up before opening your mouth big guy. Context clues are critical.

Look, I have no problem with respectable people owning guns. But no one should be granted a pseudo-legal amnesty if they give/sell said gun to a CRIMINAL. (because by your logic, the former gun-owner shouldn’t be required to report the sale/loss.)[/quote]
There you go again, baiting and trolling, trying to change the subject. I said absolutely nothing about anyone selling guns illegally in my post. I never said someone shouldn’t be required to report a gun lost or stolen either.

You need to improve your reading comprehension son.

Thanks for coming back and answering more. That’s pretty admirable, and I do appreciate it.

I think a better approach might be for your brothers and their wives to actually communicate with the parents of children their children might be spending the night over with. They can say “Do you own a firearm in your home? Is it secured?” If you can’t ask those questions, or you don’t trust those parents, perhaps they should rethink letting their kids stay over. They don’t need some government maintained public list to review who are the firearm owners and who aren’t.

Their children could just as easily drown in a swimming pool, or get injured with a lawnmower. Should we have state pool and lawnmower registries too?

A concern like that can be addressed through communication, not a big brother list.

As he explained, it’s not for the privacy of the sex offenders. It’s for the privacy of the victims, who as he explained were often abused by their parents.[/quote]

The list isn’t for the victims. It’s for parents who want to protect their children. I don’t believe in a division of two registries. Either you have an effective tool for parents, or you don’t. If it isn’t complete, you don’t have it.

I will so this, I do commend Rep. Lawlor for working to see that improvements are made to the registry to give greater detail to registry, which will certainly help those parents.

As he explained, it’s not for the privacy of the sex offenders. It’s for the privacy of the victims, who as he explained were often abused by their parents.

Actually, I believe the whole idea for the bill was proposed by the police.[/quote]

The issue I objected to was that Lawlor, as I understand it, advocated creating a public data base available to anyone as to who has a pistol permit. That, in my opinion, is bad policy. I wanted to know why he didn’t care about the right to privacy of law abiding gun permit owners, but conversely seemed to be advocating privacy for certain sex offenders, having supported the ’shadow registry.’

The other interesting thing about this is, only law enforcement can use the permit list to track secondary weapons purchases, so what’s the public good being achieved through a public list? The online Sex Offender Registry is meant to be used by parents to help protect their children, so their is a public good served by a public list.

I think it demonstrates priorities that are 180 degrees out of phase.[/quote]

No, thats not quite it. The longstanding law, prior to 1994, was that the list of pistol permit holders was public information. During the 1994 gun debate, there was effort to exempt the permit info from the FOI law, and that effort was successful. I voted in favor of that. Recently I was asked why that happened, and I explained why. It happened in the give and take of the legislative process. I also said that I had no problem with the exemption being eliminated [though I have have not proposed such a change] because I think the reasons for it [the exemption] were not well founded. People can disagree about that.

As to your second point: “so what’s the public good being achieved through a public list? The online Sex Offender Registry is meant to be used by parents to help protect their children, so their is a public good served by a public list.” is interesting. But, I would point out, many parents, including my two brothers and their wives, have mentioned to me that they would like to know which of their childrens’ parents have guns in the house because that would affect their decision on whether to allow their children, my neices and nephews, to be inside that house or stay over night. That seems like a reasonable concern to me and I think they should have the ability to find out. Also, journalists have mentioned that they would like to be able to monitor the decision making process by state and local police as to who gets pistol permits and who doesnt, to insure fairness and to guard against guns being carried by irresponsible persons, who might happen to be friends with the local police chief, etc. That also sounds reasonable to me. Anyway, there is no current proposal to change the law, and we shall see what happens.

Actually, I believe the whole idea for the bill was proposed by the police.[/quote]

The issue I objected to was that Lawlor, as I understand it, advocated creating a public data base available to anyone as to who has a pistol permit. That, in my opinion, is bad policy. I wanted to know why he didn’t care about the right to privacy of law abiding gun permit owners, but conversely seemed to be advocating privacy for certain sex offenders, having supported the ’shadow registry.’

The other interesting thing about this is, only law enforcement can use the permit list to track secondary weapons purchases, so what’s the public good being achieved through a public list? The online Sex Offender Registry is meant to be used by parents to help protect their children, so their is a public good served by a public list.

I think it demonstrates priorities that are 180 degrees out of phase.

Real smart sir![/quote]

Uhhh… It has been the law for decades that it is a crime if a gun (or anything you own) is stolen. Do you want people stealing your gun?

Actually, I believe the whole idea for the bill was proposed by the police.

Real smart sir![/quote]

So Architect, you suggest that if someone wants to sell/give a licensed firearm to a criminial, — and then that gun is used in a murder, — all that former gun owner has to say is that “it was stolen”?!

Look, I have no problem with respectable people owning guns. But no one should be granted a pseudo-legal amnesty if they give/sell said gun to a CRIMINAL. (because by your logic, the former gun-owner shouldn’t be required to report the sale/loss.)

Tell me, why do I think the police unions would back Representative Lawlor and his position? Could it be they don’t want felons to easily obtain gun from friends and family members?

Which side are you on Architect? The NRA ideologues, or our front-line police? Anything to score a quick vote???

What’s the charge?

Lack of style? Offending CCG’s sensibilities?[/quote]

No charge, and no plans to delete the comment. I just wish you were half as interested in adding to the discussion as you are with pot shots and snark.

Off to bed now. Perhaps we can continue this via email or an open forum.[/quote]
I’m sorry I don’t live up to your expectations of me.

I’ll pass on the continuing of the discussion… since nothing will come of it.

What’s the charge?

Lack of style? Offending CCG’s sensibilities?[/quote]

No charge, and no plans to delete the comment. I just wish you were half as interested in adding to the discussion as you are with pot shots and snark.

Off to bed now. Perhaps we can continue this via email or an open forum.

It’s how you say it.[/quote]
Are you going to censor me or not?

What’s the charge?

Lack of style? Offending CCG’s sensibilities?