When she does this behavior call the cops for a wellness check and they will determine if she owns guns . You just have to kindly approach them after they communicate with her .

But should the police be allowed to disclose to the public about it?

I mean if you have kids and are concerned for your family and her behavior is erratic you may be able to gain that info .

Which is why I said approach the cop kindly

No it shouldn't be. Many weapons, especially antique ones, are valuable. A list of weapons and who owns them would make them targets for thieves. On top of that, it's nobodies business. My Uncle, an avid gun supporter and user, has a wonderful, well kept home in a quiet neighborhood and you'd never know he has guns unless you went into his basement and saw the gun safe. 95 percent or more of gun owners are like this.

Oi. My reading comprehension failed. Yes I could try.

What if they make it extremely hard to get that info. I.e - don't publish online. Have an individual do something like a FOI request and provide a very good reason for wanting that info. Have the bar set high on reasons why it should be disclosed.

I think if it's escalated to the point where police or government entities need to be involved anyway, there's a deeper issue where the subject may have come up anyway. Personally, if I was being erratic and had a gun, I'd hope that the police would inform those around me that I was erratic and owned a gun. As far as I know, there's no privacy law that prevents that from happening. We live in an age where privacy is becoming an increasingly rare commodity whether we like it or not, trust is the same way. Obviously, if you have a neighbor acting dangerously, that's a problem and concern is wise, but holding everyone to the same strict rules is, in my humble opinion, a bad idea.

According to the police department, they aren't allowed to disclose that information. But the officer could be wrong.

The question was whether the person has a permit, not a list of what they have in their home.

You can file a civil bill of discovery and subpoena the state for the information, if a judge agrees you need it.

Absolutely not. Firearms are one of the most valuable items a thief can steal, and I'm not talking in terms of money. People intent on committing crime cannot (usually) legally buy a gun, and will pay top dollar for one on the black market.

I spoke to a man yesterday who explained his wife got her permit with no intentions of ever carrying on a regular basis—she got it so she could purchase ammo, possibly transporting a gun to him, etc. He gave me about 20 reasons.

But the biggest reason was…..gun laws are only going to get tougher so she figured she’d get it now while she could.

People are odd.

The fact whether she has a permit doesn’t answer whether she has firearms or not. I’m not sure how this information would help you. If she’s a danger to you or herself the police/her family/probate court need to be involved.

OK, but pardon my ignorance here. Why would someone get a permit without an intention of buying a firearm? If you get a permit, and you are later diagnosed with a mental illness, are you required by law to notify someone (law enforcement, atf, fbi)?

I dont have one, so genuinely curious with all of this.

It's a strong possibility that gun laws will toughen up, and I am very much in favor of that. The wife in your comment is thinking ahead. It's not what I would stock up on but if you are a gun type person, it's time to get them while you can. I pray they become impossible to purchase, sooner rather than later. And there she will be, all set set with a personal armory.

I learned something new today. Sometimes people get a permit without actually getting a gun....

This argument may not apply to ALL, but I Understand this view.

Interesting. So it is possible, just have to have a really good reason why, and patience.

Thanks.

You would be AMAZED by how much ammo some people purchase.

Makes sense...

Yes, I think it should be made known to those nearby who feel concerned about their safety. And a way must be found to confiscate weapons from an unstable person. If this person is acting erratically then the police most definitely need to be involved and get her mental illness type referrals.

How is that odd? If you have any intention to be a gun owner in this state it’s a hoop you unfortunately have to jump through, and CT is constantly changing our gun laws, and this right is almost constantly under legislative attack, this only makes the process more difficult.

I am amazed that people can do any of the gun stuff.

It shouldn’t be available to the public.. it really sucks OP is in this situation, I’d just try and avoid her, and do your best to call the authorities if she’s doing something legitimately dangerous that would garner their attention. I’m hesitant to say this.. but this is a situation as to why permits exist in the first place. (For more reasons than one.)

Not even that they get a permit.

John Doe is a multiple convicted felon, and really wants a gun so he can rob his drug dealer. He doesn't have a permit, and he can't buy one, but he really needs one. Under your plan, he could go online, look up "registered gun owners near me", and see everyone within walking distance that has a gun. If it were common knowledge that there is a publicly available registry of firearm ownership, criminals would absolutely use it to pick targets. Even criminals who don't necessarily want guns would still target gun owners, because they can sell that $400 pistol to John Doe for $1000.

Can do just about anything with a good reason and a court order.

I agree whether or not someone has guns a permit should be public info. It'd be nice to have a map just like the sexual offender registry.

My plan? Do you know what my plan is? I don't think I ever stated one....

I understand your reasoning on this.

Read through some of my responses to others. Make it extremely difficult for one to get that information. If I just mosey on in to the PD, just because I want to know, that wouldn't be good enough. But if I mosey on in after I called them about erratic behavior, more weight to that.

Imagine a burglar having the ability to see which homes/residents have the ability to defend themselves with a quick google search. Does that sound like a good idea? Or what about your psychotic neighbor looking up that stuff on you?

95 percent of gun owners are upper middle class?

I'm more concerned for her kid than us. But that's a different topic.

So what's your reasoning why it shouldn't be available to the public? Are you echoing others (bad guys will use it as a tool), or do you have other concerns?

Ok, so your against it, and you stated why.

Note that I have not indicated any process in my original post.

But judging from what others are saying, you can make it difficult to obtain that information. I.e - no map of this information, But provide a good reason to a judge and then let it be released.

If something were to happen to him and she was left with his guns, there's a chance she could be seen as illegally possessing.

IANAL and I don't know how rights of survivorship apply to guns and probate, etc.

I can see how my phrasing could come off like that. I more meant that most legal gun owners are also responsible ones.

No it’s just something that shouldn’t be available to the public because it’s information of a personal nature. In all due honesty in this situation how would that information really change anything, outside of maybe interjecting a bit more fear into it? Until she does something illegal, or dangerous wether or not she has a permit is irrelevant, she’s clearly an unstable person, she could already have access to a weapon with no permit.. and needs to be treated in those regards. The authorities who respond to the situation will know if she has one or not.

OK. So your reasoning is that it's personal.

I can divest into more of your points, but won't. All valid and good talking points imo.

Yeah that information should be between you and the issuing authority, that’s it.. it holds no relevance for anyone else outside of a gun store, and shooting range. The broader public having access to it only creates the potential for further abuse.

Fair enough I assumed internet search but you didn’t say that.

I think it does make sense for law enforcement or courts to be able to readily have that info, and concerned residents should probably be able to initiate a probe of that info for the right reasons. That to me sounds like a good middle ground.

Let's just remember that the SOR isn't really that great when we are lumping together people who have done wildly different crimes like:

1. someone who has done REALLY really bad things (ch-ld r-pe)
2. a dumb 18 year old drunk kid who peed in public and is now 23 and in grad school and an upstanding citizen

Both could be added to the list. Who would you rather live near?

Edit: formatting

I guess I was thinking she may have already had them.

This is why I suggested it would be necessary to get the police, etc involved. She can be conserved which would get the firearms out of her possession if she’s a danger. Permits are revoked in that situation.

Up until relatively recently one didn’t need a permit to purchase guns. There were some controls but you could have purchased a firearm at a tag sale.

Or approach with money...

Ew why the downvote?????

Not saying that it's bad or that we need to get rid of it...it is helpful but it never tells the full story. Nothing involving metrics or data entry combined with humans EVER does.

Police have been involved twice already. So I know they are aware of her, and probably if she is in possession of a permit/weapon.

But your input is appreciated.

They most likely do (at least I hope so lol).

So, putting your question aside for a second, the question I have for you is: What do you intend to do with that information if you find out that she does?

Also, just because somebody does not have a permit does not mean they do not have a gun illegally. You could be putting yourself at a false sense of security.

LEO has easy access to info on REGISTERED weapons. Typically sane, sober and moral people are the ones taking their time to register weapons. The neighbor you described would likely be baffled by the process.

There already is a way to confiscate firearms from unstable people. Connecticut has red flag laws.

Any information given to you donkeys will be used against anyone who does not toe the donkey manifesto on gun control to the absolute letter: NO GUNS FOR ANYONE.It's not that you want to check one neighbor.You mules would check everyone and publish the list here on Reddit or anywhere else you could.Down vote DEEZ while your at it.

Neighbor I speak of is a lawyer apparently. I doubt she would be baffled by it.

A map of sexual offenders is completely different than a map of firearms owners. One is from an illegal activity and the other is from a perfectly legal thing. It's also a map that can be used by criminals to target certain residents to steal firearms. Nobody needs to know if I own a gun or not it's not their business.

If they are and attorney, it sounds like she is breaking the attorney’s code of ethics and should have her license evoked .

All firearms bought/transferred in ct are auto-registered via the DPS-3 form

If you are doing those things legally is what I meant. You still need to pass a background check and have a permit in most cases. Or you can just buy a gun out of state and drive it home.

What they privately own is none of your damn business. If you are concerned involve police and if you have a legitimate report it will get sorted out.

[deleted]

So your reasoning is it's no one business. Got it.

Wow impressive response..here I am being civil and you come along with this one....

Nearly have to be with the insanely expensive process to get your permit in this state. I have no problem with paperwork and background checks, safety class, and fingerprints, but between the cost of all of them it ends up being more than some guns themselves! Really hurts the not so well off and keeps them from being able to exercise their constitutional right.

[deleted]

Preface: I’m asking out of interest, not malice.

Why would you want guns impossible to purchase? (Legally of course). All of the other guns won’t magically disappear with the complete stoppage of all gun sales. Regardless of your personal opinions on guns, are there any other constitutional rights you think should be done away with?

Exactly. And not only a perfectly legal thing, but a constitutionally protected right.

If she even has one. The public wont know as it stands right now.

The CT bar association would have that info. You could call them and find out.

We divest. No idea what is required to be a lawyer in CT, nor do I have a desire to call and ask. Just curious what everyones side is on this, and their reasoning behind it.

I suspect this person also owns a motor vehicle and there is alcohol in the home. Should we alert EVERYONE! What about common tools or under the sink chemicals. All equally capable of taking a life, but I have a feeling you won't assign same level of worry.

So your opinion is No, gun permits should not be available to the public, because a permit to operate a vehicle is not open to the public? Just trying to make a connection on your stance here...

The Constitution doesn't say anything about privacy, as the Supreme Court recently confirmed in striking down the privacy penumbra in the abortion case.

The state issues the license. Why shouldn't it be public record who has one?

Freedom of information and open government are generally protected by the First Amendment. The Second Amendment by itself definitely doesn't say anything about privacy.

The commenter above me stated it perfectly. It incentivizes criminals to target houses that are listed as “gun owners”. The privacy itself is not in the 2nd amendment, but common sense should come into play. Imagine if everybody who bought a TV for over 2k had to be put on a map?

I personally dislike when gun owners put “CCW” or other gun stickers on their vehicles, and would certainly never put one on mine because a thief will see it and think there is a reasonable chance there is a gun in the car and break in. This happens. Adding a map like the SOR would be just government complicity in the crimes.

>The commenter above me stated it perfectly. It incentivizes criminals to target houses that are listed as “gun owners”

What kind of mental backflips are you doing over there?

Either there has been some miscommunication that I’m missing or you’re lashing out for unknown reasons. I don’t know how more succinctly I can state it.

If a criminal who is targeting home owners who have guns they can steal can go to a website like the SOR but instead it shows addresses and names of people who own guns, don’t you think that’s the people who will be using it? Isn’t that putting those home owners in danger? What if they break in when the owner isn’t home and steal the guns. Then that gun is used in a crime. Is that website complicit because it helped the criminal complete the criminal act?

The relevant authorities already have the info. There is not a single good reason as to why there should be a publicly accessible database that shows who owns guns.

Approach your neighbor. Say hi 👋 my name is X I live right there. Then say isn’t our neighborhood nice, you know I bet there has been dozens of children who have grown up right here on this street who have been very successful. Did you hear that little X down the street is a star on the soccer team. But you know what I’ve noticed a pattern of behavior that has concerned me. Is there anything I can do to help because we are a community that supports each other.

The police have that information readily available. Your best bet would be to contact your local PD, explain the behavior, let them investigate, and if they see an issue, they can confiscate the guns.

I am interested to know what the actual behavior was. Disrupted school one day could mean she went there to protest, if she has school aged children. It could also mean she went to the school and started quacking like a duck and throwing feces over the school fence...

Marched up and down the street, again, need more info. Was she protesting the DOT? Possibly a new HOA regulation?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you have legitimate concerns that go beyond a Trump or Gadsden flag hanging from her front porch. I go back to calling the police, who can then send someone out to investigate.

You don't have a right to her personal information on whether she's a permit holder. She hasn't, to my knowledge, had to register as a sex offender, or else you could just have looked it up. We DO have a right to know about those scumbags.

The only because ends with “because it is none of your business”. Just as you made a wild assumption against your neighbor (probably wrong) I am going to do the same and presume you are the type of person who likely has a vendetta against firearms yet you feel so clever posting this incognito. Stop watching the news, stop worrying about nothing and enjoy your life. It’s either a nothing burger or you have a legitimate report to make to the police. End of story

If someone steals your gun because you failed to keep it secure, you should be charged as complicit. The state, lol? Have you heard of sovereign immunity?

In your backwards fantasy land of unfounded fear, you think criminals are going to go to a map of who has a gun permit and who does not, and they're going to....target the houses of people who probably have a gun?

I think between First Amendment and FOIA, if the state is issuing permits, there is no valid FOIA exception or exemption that should preclude release of permit information publicly.

I don't want it public because the anti gun groups and their members will only use it to harass license holders by trying to red flag them with made up accusations.

What wild assumption am I making against my neighbor?

What am I doing incognito here?

I have yet to hear your justification for not making gun permit owners info public. Just what appears to be your pro 2a stance...

Imagine a burglar who wants to steal a gun.

Do you see it being a bad idea now?

If she moved from out of state she could legally own a pistol without registering it or having a permit.

She walked up and down our street at night screaming at the top of her lungs "you bastards and pedophiles! I hate you all. I name you!"

Fast forward, she showed up at school and allegedly did the same thing, this time with her kid, in the middle of the school day. I'm getting conflicting stories from school and PD though.

My curiosity just intrigued me. I sense a mental illness, and if I shared the clip of that night she walked up and down the street, you'd probably agree. My concern is really would a "voice" be heard by this person to hurt someone else? How could that be minimized.

As others have posted, LEO is probably well aware of this person. But curious how others view this "registry" for lack of a better term.

Why would you want a list of individuals who have a gun to be public? Easy way for someone to break into someone's house and potentially steal weapons.

We went over this already. Please read through.

Like I have mentioned. Alot of very valid points. We can go back and forth but instead I just read and listen.

A registry to me seems like a way too easy to abuse resource, even if you make it "difficult" (but you've never specified how that I read). The government knows what I've got, I've had to have NICS check for every purchase. I can assure you, there are background checks for law abiding gun owners.

You know she doesn’t need a permit to have a gun, right? I mean if she’s “mentally ill” what makes you think she can form a thought of “let me do this the correct way” in the first place

Anyone can develop mental illness and even the mentally ill can pass the bar.

If the kid is school age, chances are she's shown her true self in the school and admin/teachers/SW are very aware, if not already involved.

If they owned them legally in the first place, and there is a record...

Don't down vote, yall know some cops are on the take!

This is the craziest question ever.

Yessssss as much as I support responsible gun ownership I CANNOT stand people who advertise it on their vehicles. Especially the carry on ones...

You are a target! If not for car break ins, following people to their houses to look for guns there. Duhhhhh

Ohhhh then why are you concerned if LEO already involved? That's good, someone is monitoring her.

That's a very valid question.

For starters, I'd use it to determine if I'm ok with my kid being at their house.

If there is another episode, I'd be sure stay away from windows.

Your last statement is a topic for a different day.

Already answered.

Craziest answer ever.... oh wait.... it's not one...

🔥

No way should this be public information what I buy

Well making it difficult is up for discussion. You're point is understood.

Got it. Privacy is (part of) your concern.

I would want to know who uses mind altering medication. That should I be more your worry.

Or which homes criminals can steal guns from. I believe a NY paper was able to get a list of permit holders and posted it. Didn't go over well.

You can only keep your guns so secure. Short of anchoring a safe into concrete it wouldn’t be that difficult for a determined criminal to get into a safe. Or just take the safe with them. Ever seen the videos of thieves stealing atms?

Clearly your mind will never change but you’re advocating for a very dangerous idea and I urge you greatly to reconsider.

Why would the average citizen need to care what house has guns? Just to be nosy? Like I said, police and government already know which people have registered firearms. There is zero reason for a database for the public. If you can give me one solid argument as to why they should have access, please do.

Wow you’re right I found this from 2012

Would be interesting to know if this indeed led to more or less crime against those gun owners. I didn’t see anything

I like how this individual is responding to you with a constructive argument and you just keep lashing out when they won’t agree with you.

“In your backwards fantasy land of unfounded fear..” You’re talking about yourself with this quote correct? Like please tell me you can see the irony here. Considering you’re the one who wants there to be a list of law abiding citizens, over law abiding actions, it’s safe to say you’re the one living in a world of make believe fear.

“If someone steals your gun because you didn’t keep it secure, you should be charged as an accomplice”. Lucky for us, the vast majority of gun owners, at least the ones I know, have a gun safe. So just because I have a gun safe, I should suddenly be okay with my home being broken into? I’ve yet to find a gun safe big enough to fit a house in….

And one last point, if firearms being stolen from legal owners wasn’t an issue, we wouldn’t have laws that require us to report stolen guns within a certain amount of time. But we do have those laws, because believe it or not, it happens more often then you’d think.

Yup! You’ll never catch me with one on my car! I’ll never leave my firearm in my car anyway, but I don’t need a broken window. And good point about them targeting homes that have vehicles parked with stickers on them like that!

My opinion is that the whole “conceal carry” is literally that, concealed. I don’t need the whole world to know and put a target on my back or my home or my car.

A map like sex offenders? Owning a firearm is a crime?

Also keep in mind that no permit is required to keep a gun in your home. Just to carry it in public.

If they don't have it on record and they're owned illegally the police won't know if there are firearms anyways unless they search an entire house. It's unlikely a judge will sign a search warrant for a private residence just because someone has a mental health issue. If they do and they're found that's a method to remove them from unstable people, and also a felony if they were illegally obtained.

And even then, that’s just handguns. At 16, you’re allowed to hunt alone with long guns in CT for example.

So what would you do with this information if you got it? Ok, so your crazy neighbor (in your opinion) has a permit. Now what? It's useless information to you since you can't do anything, anyway.

Red flag laws only work against licensed and registered legal gun owners, not illegal guns the state does not know exist.

A searchable database of licensed drivers, their addresses, and a list of what vehicles they have registered to them would be a great assistance to car theives.

Obviously that's the case, so what's your proposal to fix that?

A sport shooter will pop off at least 100 rounds in a half hour session at the range. Having a thousand or two rounds on hand (locked up safely with the firearms, of course) is just smart shopping.

Read through. You may think it's boring garbage but I answered that.

I've read. There is nothing you would be able to do even if you had the information you desire.

Then you missed my response of using the information to determine if my kid should go there and/or how I would handle another outburst....

Read harder ;).

Well, best of luck with all that.

>And one last point, if firearms being stolen from legal owners wasn’t an issue, we wouldn’t have laws that require us to report stolen guns within a certain amount of time. But we do have those laws, because believe it or not, it happens more often then you’d think.

Happens all the time. If we had actual responsible gun owners, it wouldn't. That's why I support strict liability for casualties caused by guns, liability that runs with the gun. Bet nobody would let them get stolen then! You want guns? Cool. I want you to be financially responsible for damage caused by your guns.

The unfounded fear is that people would break into houses because they know the owner has a gun. In reality, the exact opposite would be true.

Complain to the cops, we have red flag laws , they know if she has a permit and should act accordingly.

>LEO has easy access to info on REGISTERED weapons. Typically sane, sober and moral people are the ones taking their time to register weapons.

If they are typical people, they are only temporarily sane, sober, and moral. True in the strictest sense for everyone that's ever lived.

As a lawyer I'm a little alarmed by what you're saying. You can easily look up who has a law license, here: https://www.jud.ct.gov/attorneyfirminquiry/attorneyfirminquiry.aspx

Can you elaborate on that last sentence?

You mean someone could physically do it, not legally do it; It would be contraband within this state, right?

>Also, just because somebody does not have a permit does not mean they do not have a gun illegally.

I'm having trouble figuring out who you're talking about here. Like, someone with a fancy federal license (FFL)?

It’s not just CT, there is a federal law protecting privacy. And there is a law preventing the federal government from compiling a national gun registry database. If only the gun lobby got into other civil rights, we might get somewhere. They’re pretty effective at getting what they want

Mind your damn business you freak

I know how to look up a law license lol. I may have misread that someone was saying you can find out if a lawyer has a gun permit by calling the CT Bar. If police can't do so, my bet is the CT BAR can't either

I've enjoyed your direct, logical rhetoric through this thread.

Just thinking of all those parents I hear about every year whose kid goes over to someone else's house and then has to face the catastrophe of learning their kid was let by some other dumbfuck parent to play with a gun and is now dead.

Just happened the other day in Florida, a three year old shot himself in the face.

Have you ever worked with LEO?

What's concerning is the guy who cried "you donkeys" doesn't have nearly as much downvotes as he should get....

Everyone else, though, has valid points. Some I have attempted to reinterpret, albeit successfully.

OK OK good point...

Ah I see. So even if CT does come up with something, federal law supercedes. Interesting.

Awww. Someone didn't get mommys milk....

Next!

I’m not sure of that. Ct could have a database but they can’t make it public and the federal gov can’t even have a national database

What right, this one?

Louisiana Supreme Court 1856:

>[The Second Amendment] was never intended to prevent the individual States from adopting such measures of police as might be necessary, in order to protect the orderly and well disposed citizens from the treacherous use of weapons not even designed for any purpose of public defence, and used most frequently by evil-disposed men who seek an advantage over their antagonists, in the disturbances and breaches of the peace which they are prone to provoke.

North Carolina Supreme Court 1843:

>there is scarcely a man in the community who does not own and occasionally use a gun of some sort[,] a gun is an ‘unusual weapon,’ wherewith to be armed and clad. No man amongst us carries it about with him, as one of his every day accoutrements--as a part of his dress--and never we trust will the day come when any deadly weapon will be worn or wielded in our peace loving and law-abiding State, as an appendage of manly equipment.

South Carolina Grand Jury 1879:

>It is apparent to every good citizen and man of sense, that any gentleman would blush and feel deeply ashamed to be caught parading the streets on a public occasion, or, for the matter of that, on a private occasion, with a revolver swinging around his neck like a powder horn, or sticking vulgarly and threateningly out of his hip pocket, making him the picture of a pirate.

Tennessee Supreme Court 1840:

>A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.

Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia.

That's why Chief Justice Warren Burger was spot on in his opinion of gun lobbyists and extremist conservatives (and corrupt justices like Scalia, etc.,), with their deliberate perversion of the legal and historical facts of the Second Amendment:

>“A fraud on the American public.”

I didn’t downvote you. I don’t play that way.

Nope this is America, you don't get to ask questions about how armed people are until they're shooting you

Oh that wasn't directed at you! Was to whoever DID downvote me LOL

OP is going to get the neighbor killed by police with your advice

Or break into houses that they know don’t have (legal) firearms

“You’re Honor, I am seeking to obtain firearm licensure information on this private citizen. You see, I sense a mental illness.”

“I am civilly trying to obtain information on my neighbor because I sense a mental illness.”

Oh stop I didn’t tell them to mention guns but if the person is outside acting the fool they can absolutely call for a wellness check .

...... A criminal

I was saying the person’s behavior you are describing is against the ethics they need to live by in order to maintain their license. I wasnt talking about guns at all. Your concern was their behavior right?

Correct, just physically able not legally able if you were someone legally or mentally bound from following the legal process, A couple hours in a car and you can have a gun in your house with none of the hassle.

“Hello, 911? My neighbor is acting the fool. Please hurry.”

Go play somewhere else dude .

You said not illegally.

I love this question, and wrote a long answer. Here is my short answer, and I've added more thoughts as a reply to my post.

Other than addresses, I do not know of a public database connecting people to items owned of any other type in any country, do you? The reason we don't demand a publicly accessible database of who has access to, say, large amounts of dangerous chemicals, is that we trust government regulations around those chemicals to be strong enough to prevent their coming into possession of a person who wishes to use them for ill. We do not have the same trust of gun regulations. So your proposal may be interpreted as enabling private means for gun control through letting people identify gun owners, decide if they think the owner is justified in owning the gun, and then act based on their private decision. Ie, it sounds to me like you want the ability to decide on your own private gun regulation scheme in your immediate vicinity. This sounds like a bad idea. For this reason, I think a public database of gun owners is a far inferior solution to significant restriction in gun ownership rights.

That said, your proposal sounds like a fascinating mix of communitarianism, policy anarchism, information totalitarianism, and who knows what else. Its like a mix of dystopias, I can make out some Orwell, but maybe even some Rand and Atwood if I squint just right.

Here are more thoughts:

Another way I would think about it would be, what type of information can I get from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request? For instance, I can get a police picture of a traffic accident, but to comply with FOIA policies as I understand them, the license plates in the picture should be blurred. I may or may not know the identities of the cars involved from other sources, but this type of personal information would be restricted. Similarly, I could as an agency how many people died of a heart attack at my local hospital. But I couldn't ask how many 55 year old Army veteran men with diabetes and born in Rhode Island died at my local hospital - because this would likely be personally identifying. I can also ask the IRS about the average income in my area, but not the average income of residents of a single house. Similarly, I could ask a the firearms agency how many guns are permitted to addresses in a certain area (note, there may be legal ownership that is not registered, depending on many factors I do not know or understand). So long as the area is big enough that the information does not result in personally identifying information, I think I would get the information.

In all four, some amount of information is not included in the FOIA or government records request for confidentiality. It seems to me that the idea is that the government has good reason to have the information, but it isn't clear whether or not it should be legal to distribute the info.

For example, in the health case, many people have access to health records. There may be good public interest reasons to release more information than we are legally allowed to (for instance, it may be a public benefit for some nurse to sneak out health information about politicians like Trump or Fetterman). However, doing so would be a crime, and the individuals would rightly be subject to penalty (for an example of this, consider what happened to Chelsea Manning, for better or worse she thought she was doing the right thing although she knew she was breaking the law). The reason I think they would rightly be subject to penalty is because the law cannot possibly be nuanced enough to determine when information should or should not be withheld. Even something less blunt than the law, such as journalistic ethics around exposing confidential sources, often is not nuanced enough and sources get to keep confidentiality even when the public benefit of exposure is high.

So, in your case, you don't really know if knowing this information would be useful; you don't actually know if your neighbor might commit a gun crime. But you could believe you are justified in breaking into your neighbors house and finding out if there is a gun. You could also bribe the firearms permitting agency into letting you see the information. Or you could get yourself hired by an agency that has access to the firearms agency's database. You could eventually feel vindicated in your search if you somehow used that information to prevent a crime in the future (I don't know exactly how this would work, maybe it wouldn't). But we currently think you would have committed a crime.

As with the Manning case, a future governor or president may later pardon you or commute your sentence in recognition of the failure of legal nuance in properly handling your case. Or they may not.

So, while it currently is illegal, circumventing the law is always possible (ie civil disobedience). If you did circumvent the law, you may be vindicated by the writers of history or even by society or a future politician. Or you may not be so vindicated and just be viewed as a creepy busybody.

Buying a firearm out of state without adhereing to the laws of your local state is illegal. Obviously people still do it.

.....Aight you got me there, the syntax is a bit ambiguous

I can dream, can't I? Lol. The constitution gives us rights. I don't have to agree with all of it, just respect it. I can't change things that are written there. But I sure wish we could do away with the huge number of available firearms. Use them for hunting, no problem. How do you sort out the deer hunters from the human hunters? I have no idea how to plan or undertake this, nor does much of our government. They are letting it be for now but maybe my great grand kids will not see as many guns, or better yet, maybe firearms will be effectively banned by then. It's a tough issue. And I am going to vote in the direction of anything that reduces guns in irresponsible hands, if the issue is presented.

It's kind of snarky of you to assume I expect constitutional rights to be done away with at this point. Amendments could happen, but it's not likely. In the meantime, each opinion is valued.

Thank you for a thought -provoking bit of snark.

This is just a Black Mirror episode and OP is actually the crazy one…

Cool story....

Roflmao. Someone so bored they wrote an essay and still didn't answer a question. Your lacking intellect is showing.

Moving on 🤦‍♂️

That's correct.

Who are you quoting?

You sure miss out on a lot of context. We got another one lacking intellect here.

That's #2

Law 101 says if the federal government rules against it, states have to. They call it something. And the 2a is a federal law. So it makes sense that CT may not have it.

I’d agree with most of the previously stated reasons why making this information public is a bad idea, so I won’t rehash them. But I’ll add a few points. Gun permit holders are statistically less likely to break the law then police. So if you’re concerned with safety in general, there shouldn’t be much of a concern there. Also, you’re proposing making lists of citizens for exercising a right. Which other rights should we make lists on out of our personal fears? Are people who don’t answer police questions probably guilty of something? Are they dangerous? Shouldn’t the public know that guy down the street wouldn’t answer questions without a lawyer, he’s probably guilty of something, we should blacklist him. And I’d also still say you have no valid reason to know this information. It doesn’t tell you if the person has a weapon. If you honestly think they’re dangerous your simple answer is you don’t let your kid play there. There will be knives, hammers, scissors, baseball bats, any number of other weapons. Why would you ever let your kid go alone to a deranged persons home? It’s ok, they just have knives and bats so I’ll let my kid hang out over there? No, you wouldn’t. There’s no reason for that information to be public, but many reasons for it to remain confidential. If you think they’re dangerous, report them, and continue to report them each time they do something indicative of a threat, then let the professionals do their work, they have the information, and in this state they have the red flag laws to do what they need to.

>For starters, I'd use it to determine if I'm ok with my kid being at their house.

If you're questioning this at all, why would you even consider allowing your child in their house? Firearms aren't the only damaging thing people have access to. Many people do serious damage with no weapon other than what they were born with.

If you think your child would be injured, either physically or emotionally, by exposure to this person, allowing them to go to that person's home is negligence on your part regardless of whether or not they legally own a firearm.

Doesn't just apply to this person. Could apply to anyone who possesses a firearm.

Well there's a list of voters. Isn't there? What's the difference here? 🤷

Again, what you're saying is that you're only worried about people who possess firearms? That's pretty narrow minded.