Published Gun Permit Info Couldn't Happen Here

In the wake of the Newtown shootings, when the Journal News newspaper printed the names and addresses of legal gun permit holders in three New York counties, the reaction was swift and harsh. But it couldn't happen here.

In response to the Sandy Hook School shootings, one New York state newspaper featured the names and addresses of all pistol permit holders in three counties.

That won't be happening here in Connecticut because state law prohibits it, CT News Junkie reports.

For almost 20 years the information has been exempt from public disclosure, the website reports, after it was included as a trade-off in a bill that made it more difficult for convicted felons to buy guns. 

In New York State, that information falls under that state's Freedom of Information laws, so the Journal News was able to obtain lists of individuals who legally hold gun permits. It published the names and addresses of those people, which resulted in an outcry from pro-gun supporters and residents alike.

In response, some circulated on blogs and on Facebook the names, home addresses and phone numbers of the Journal News editors and reporters involved in the story, including Editor Cyndee Royle, Publisher Janet Hasson and Reporter Dwight R. Worley.

They also posted pictures from the newspaper employee's Facebook pages showing their family members and the cars they drive.

Since the Dec. 14 shootings in Newtown, there has been an increase in the number of people looking to obtain a gun permit in Connecticut, the Register-Citizen reports. There's also been an unusually large increase in gun sales reported both in Connecticut and throughout the country, which many attribute to fears that President Obama and Congress will now enact tougher gun laws that could include a return of the assault rifle ban and a ban on high capacity magazines.

Jimmy Pursey January 14, 2013 at 04:46 PM
So...owning guns made these people safer, while putting them at risk? Makes sense to me.
sebastian dangerfield January 14, 2013 at 07:35 PM
jimmy pursey is the alter ego of cosmo. offers nothing but ridicule and attempts to question other people's manliness. It may be appropriate now and then---but it's his only game. How about making a statement that people can ponder , Jimmy? I dont think you have ever said a thing on these forums. All you do is stab. As an amatuer psychologist-it's pretty clear your level of insecurity. Afraid to put your own ideas out there--- How about enough of the crap that looks to get one up and have a discussion? Possible? Or beyond your pay scale?
socrates January 14, 2013 at 08:09 PM
Sean A psychopathy test HAS to be part of screening for gun permits. Those who issue gun permits need to know if someone is taking any kind of psychotropic medication. It's critical.
Erik Musick January 14, 2013 at 08:41 PM
Sean, I understand your reticence and caution about releasing medical info for the sake of gaining a legal gun permit. It is a slippery slope and can easily be abused and manipulated for ill purposes. However, given the nature of the most recent shootings of record in America, would it be too much to ponder if had there been a proper 'mental screening', that James Holmes would have been somehow barred from attaining guns and ammo? I am pure Second Amendment, make no mistake. But even I must wonder if we shouldn't put a record of mental health/pyschotropic drug prescriptions up alongside prior convictions as a disqualifier for said permits. I loathe even typing that out loud, but I see this as a valid preventative for future legal gun sales.
Jimmy Pursey January 14, 2013 at 09:11 PM
This information has been available online for over two years now on two different websites. Why is a big deal being made about it only now? https://sites.google.com/site/nymasterpistoldb/
Jimmy Pursey January 14, 2013 at 09:12 PM
Please stop talking about me and get back on topic, Luca. I apologize for fascinating you.
socrates January 14, 2013 at 10:19 PM
The choice to divulge one's medical records is one's choice. It can be the price to own a weapon. It is absolutely critical that mental health be determined before anyone can take possession of a weapon. Virtually all mass shootings are committed by the mentally ill.
Sean M January 14, 2013 at 10:39 PM
The requirement needs to come from the professional community where they must report someone who is a danger to others. The government has no right to our private medical records. Had the sheriff done his job in AZ, the Giffords shooting would not have happened. The one thing that would have stopped Newtown was trained and armed resistance. We need to be honest with ourselves on this one. Evil exists and evil will attempt to do evil things. I wish it were not so, but we are not in Kansas anymore Dorothy.
Voice of Reason January 14, 2013 at 11:02 PM
@ Sean. Re: my previous post above, well, Patch doesn't have a sarcasm font. Lol. I purposely went overboard on my "demands" just as I feel those that wish the Permittee lists to be published is going overboard. Joking aside I feel we must find a way that respects Civil Liberties while also identifying mentally ill and/or drug dependent folks that should not be in possession of weapons, driving etc.The 3:41 comment by Erik Musick fairly well sums up how I feel about the subject.
Sean M January 15, 2013 at 12:36 AM
socrates The way to handle it is anyone on drugs that can alter states have to be reported to a database that is a potential disqualifier for purchasing guns or obtaining a permit. Doctors can report a class of disorders and medications that may disqualify. I do not support the government knowing a person is taking X. What the government can do is make a list of disorders and medications that require to report to a list. Then if you are going to do that, the government must provide an attorney at no charge to allow you to challenge. The problem is getting into all this creates more problems. Given the abuses I have seen with permits, I oppose the exams. There is too much chance for abuse in CT, especially given who would have to vote for it to pass.
Sean M January 15, 2013 at 12:38 AM
Owning firearms makes people safer. Releasing their names puts the owners at risk for theft of firearms. Releasing a list of firearm owners means those not on the list are also targets. What anti-gun people can do is buy a yard sign that says NO GUNS HERE. Call me in 6 months to let me know how many times your house was robbed.
Sean M January 15, 2013 at 12:40 AM
The big deal? It is one thing to make it available. It is another to actively assemble it and print it.
Sean M January 15, 2013 at 12:45 AM
This response is not okay. Go ask around CT and see the abuse that cities and towns have done with permits. The right to bear arms is a right, not a privilege to be bartered with.
Erik Musick January 15, 2013 at 01:08 AM
Sean, absolutely the only thing that can stop bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. But if we can at least disqualify applicants for gun permits in CT by putting mental health record up with the other disqualifiers, do you think it would help? I feel you on the information aspect, as in being used against us. I understand. But like it is illegal to drink and drive for the possible (note: possible) damage/deaths it can possibly cause, so should it be with people using prescribed psychotropic drugs. The track record for violence in America done by people on psychotropic drugs is staggering. I'm not saying to lock up or condemn those with diagnosed mental illnesses. No, I am simply saying we need to be more responsible and not so reckless in trying to be politically correct. If they are on P-drugs, then....sorry, Charlie. No gun permit or legal gun ownership for you. Not at this time.
Erik Musick January 15, 2013 at 01:10 AM
But Sean, is owning private guns a right for the diagnosed mentally ill?
socrates January 15, 2013 at 12:13 PM
Sean, do you think Adam Lanza should have had his own guns? Seung Hui-Cho? Jared Loughner?
socrates January 15, 2013 at 12:16 PM
Sean Seung Hui-Cho (Virginia Tech) was declared mentally ill by a court but because he was not committed he did not make the database. My plan would have stopped him, Loughner, Shick and Holmes.
Sean M January 15, 2013 at 12:33 PM
socrates The Newtwon shooter was not allowed to own his own guns by CT law due to his age. The AZ shooter was reported to the Democrat hack sheriff and he did not do his job to deal with him. Law worked but not enforced. The VA Tech shooter from what I understand was also reported. There need to be proper civil commitment laws. There are not. We are splitting hairs at this point in my opinion.
Sean M January 15, 2013 at 12:35 PM
I do not use the names of people who mass murder people. They do not deserve the notoriety they so craved. I have heard so many stories of abuse on carry permits. I do not have confidence in government to handle this correctly. VT has no permits and they have one of the lowest crime rates.
Sean M January 15, 2013 at 12:37 PM
A civil commitment from a court after a hearing with an attorney must be a red flag on a background check.
Erik Musick January 15, 2013 at 01:10 PM
Sean, you are not answering the question. Do you think it is okay for the mentally ill to retain the right to bear and keep arms? Citing VT is well and good, but we don't live in VT. If you agree that the diagnosed mentally ill should be stripped of the right to keep arms, then how will we get that done? If you disagree that the diagnosed mentally ill should not have the ability to keep legal firearms, then I must wonder about your thought process here, and where you are going with it.
socrates January 15, 2013 at 01:12 PM
You're right about Vermont.
socrates January 15, 2013 at 01:19 PM
Sean, it is critical that weapons be kept from the hands of the mentally ill. In February liberals in this state defeated a law that would have allowed the involuntary treatment of Adam Lanza.
Sean M January 15, 2013 at 10:39 PM
We can create laws until the end of time to prevent people who should not have guns from getting them. The best solution is to make sure that the good guys are armed and prepared to deal with threats, wherever they arise from.
Erik Musick January 16, 2013 at 01:35 AM
Sean, is that your stance? Is it best then to simply allow everyone to legally purchase a firearm and then hope that if the bad ones decide to use them to kill people, the good ones will shoot them dead? I'm genuinely curious as to what you would like to see happen to resolve this issue. I have no problem at all with having an armed society, and I believe it would be a good thing for us all. I just want to be sure I know your stance so I do not mistakenly presume upon it. That would be rude of me.
Sean M January 16, 2013 at 02:06 AM
I do not have a solution to all this. I would not read into any comment other than what I say. I have answered this on this thread. I think some of my responses were not posted. I do not trust government and for good reason. We do not need government with the right to access our private medical records. The one thing that I am sure of is in gun free zones, crazy people will hurt unarmed people.
Erik Musick January 16, 2013 at 02:27 AM
Thank you for your answers. I wanted to be sure I did not misunderstand you.
Erik Musick January 16, 2013 at 04:16 AM
Oh no. Is this our future? http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/Cities-and-towns-to-seek-sweeping-gun-reforms-4196881.php
socrates January 16, 2013 at 09:42 AM
CT seems to be oblivious to that Constitution thing. It'd be struck down.
socrates January 16, 2013 at 09:48 AM
Sean, you have to screen people for mental illness when they apply for a permit. This is the piece still missing. They can only be barred from a gun if they have a history of mental illness AND someone actually puts them on the NICS list.


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