Proposal Would Take Guns From Residents With DUI Convictions

The change is one of many outlined by Connecticut Gov. Dannel P. Malloy.

If you've been convicted of a DWI or DUI in the past five years, then Gov. Dannel P. Malloy doesn't think you should own a firearm.

Under Malloy's recently released gun law proposals, one provision would prohibit anyone convicted of either offense from purchasing a firearm. The law would also be applied retroactively, meaning residents convicted of DWI or DUI in the past five years would no longer be permitted to own a firearm, according to an article by CT News Junkie.

The governor's proposal is keeping in line with the state's current gun law, which makes it illegal for convicted felons to possess a firearm, Michael Lawlor, Malloy's criminal justice advisor, tells CT News Junkie. It would not impact law-abiding gun owners, Lawlor said.

Lawmakers are already finding themselves on both sides of this one. The CT News Junkie article quotes two legislators — a Democrat and a Republican — who, respectively, are for and against it.

Malloy's proposal comes as the gun violence subcommittee of the state's Bi-Partisan Task Force on Gun Violence Prevention and School Security prepares to release its recommendations for legislative and policy change. The Task Force was formed in the wake of that claimed the life of 20 first graders and six educators.

Meanwhile, gun law proposals are being debated at the federal level, too. President Barack Obama, who visited Newtown just days after the school shooting, has called on Congress to re-enact and strengthen an assault rifle ban, among other measures — sparking a national debate on the Second Amendment.

Do you agree with Malloy's proposal?

Herb February 28, 2013 at 06:52 PM
I'm in full agreement with the Governor on this idea. Take away their guns. My experience is that people get weird when they are carrying a gun. They talk louder, they are more in my face. It's as if the gun empowers them. Add alcohol to that mix and I think you are looking at a potential disaster. So yes, take away their guns. Every little bit helps.
Eileen February 28, 2013 at 09:08 PM
So, a person gets a DUI once in their lifetime and in the last five years, perhaps after that Holiday party, and they "deserve" to have right taken from them? Let's take this a step further. Same scenario, one DUI and they take your kids from you. Hey, you could be a potential danger to those kids. After all, you did drive drunk..ONCE.
Eileen February 28, 2013 at 09:09 PM
I agree. He;s really reaching now.
Herb February 28, 2013 at 09:43 PM
I know you are being facetious, but actually, I agree, take their kids away. Driving while drunk could kill the kids and everyone else. Take away the kids and take away the person's car too. Drunk drivers have to realize their are serious consequences to their boneheaded selfish actions. Did you see the story coming out of Darien? You think that mother deserves to have her kids after what she did? I don't.
COSMO P March 01, 2013 at 01:15 AM
Got it retroactive criminal punishment. Now if only you could do that with PAROLE BOARDS. Then maybe people would not have to DIE. Lets see how about taking the car from them. This is why governors especially anti gun GUN GRABBING GOVERNORS should not have the power to control gun rights. Once again they are looking for every and any way to trample your second amendment rights. This it the dangers when a one party system is in power.
Elizabeth March 01, 2013 at 02:28 AM
There's a new sheriff in town boy !
COSMO P March 01, 2013 at 02:29 AM
Dont call me BOY. OK TOOTS
rebel patriot March 01, 2013 at 03:33 AM
This guy is unbelievable. Two beers and you're legally drunk. Lose a God-given and Constitutional right to defense for a couple of beers. It's bad enough two beers is a limit on DWI in the first place. This implies he will put a "suitability" clause in the legislation in the manner handgun permits are issued. Let's see how many people will register assault weapons this time. The 1993 ban only had 8,825 weapons registered. I won't obey any bans or registrations, and obviously many others won't either.
Not_Insecure March 01, 2013 at 04:55 AM
So rebel, how does this work? We should let you have your guns because the law says it's okay. The law reigns supreme. But if the law requires you to register your guns, you suddenly don't have to obey. Don't you think that's a double standard? We have to follow the laws you like, but you don't have to follow the laws we like. You lose credibility.
COSMO P March 01, 2013 at 10:50 AM
NOPE when a socialist Governor enacts an unconstitutional LAW this is a big problem. Not only that but has anyone told the Governor he does not write the laws. Congress does. Once again this socialist governor wants to make GUN owners criminals by the stroke of a pen. Do you not see a pattern here. This is what the liberals designed in to our government from the Clinton and Obama administration. Good lets do this and don't cry in your beer when they come after things like you CAR. Or your HOUSE. Dems what a bunch of Socialists. Wonder if the governor is going to include his Family members. Ever wonder why he legalized POT??
COSMO P March 01, 2013 at 10:52 AM
So rebel, how does this work? We should let you have your guns because the law says it's okay. NO BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION SAYS IT'S OK. Ever hear of that silly little document????
COSMO P March 01, 2013 at 11:02 AM
But if the law requires you to register your guns, you suddenly don't have to obey. Don't you think that's a double standard? We have to follow the laws you like, but you don't have to follow the laws we like. You lose credibility. NOPE because the LAW SAYS IT IS ILLEGAL TO REGISTER THEM. The Firearms protection act of 1986 prevents government from requiring gun registration. Just a silly point for the know nothing gun grabbers like you. Better brush up on your laws PAL!!
R. Reagan March 01, 2013 at 01:35 PM
If our citizens vote to elect someone who is a "socialist" or even a "communist" is your little mind, so be it. That elected official is just a s legitimate as anyone else, thats the way it works boy! ps: maybe YOU should try some pot, might activate some brain cells.
Intellectual Conservative March 01, 2013 at 02:28 PM
cosmos, how about these facts? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_politicians_who_admit_to_cannabis_use
bart March 01, 2013 at 03:17 PM
HEY HERB HELLO, This is big issue brought on by the tradgedy of NEWTOWN (I DID SAY TRADGEDY). It is now being used as a tool for some to have their way right or wrong extrem or not. You have your Strong opionion which you are entitled to but I think you scare me a law abiding nondrinking never even a parking ticket non pot smokeing Red cross voluntteer and first responder on my company's location. Try and look at the picture as a hole which in turns requiers a lot of deep thought. By the way I am against assult weapons.BUT have the right to defend myself and my family against home invasion with a six shooter or shotgun should suffice.DON'T tread on me thinking AMERICAN. I hope you or anyone you know never ever experiance a home invasion because a polititco took away your right to defend your home (I DIDN'T say walk the streets with) with a weapon. People should also have a mental background check and follow up every Five or Ten years people do go nuts in time. What was the wack job mother doing training a person with issues how to fire a automatic weapon as her twisted mind thought would have a positive outcome
rebel patriot March 01, 2013 at 03:51 PM
I don't recall Malloy ever mentioning during his election campaign his utter disdain for the U.S. Constitutional right and Connecticut Constitutional right to possess firearms. He's gone beyond just "firearms safety" to using any methed possible to infringe on our rights. And, he's only pushing his propasals at lightning speed because Emporer Obama is his idol. Malloy wouldn't have the testicles to personally confiscate my M-14. And by the way, I have another M-14 ordered with extra high-cap mags. And no, I don't keep my eggs all in one basket. (Just in case). Thanks for the backup Cosmo!
sebastian dangerfield March 01, 2013 at 04:32 PM
The way it works boy is that we also get to criticize him for the idiot that he is. How about your brainiac Maxine waters. REP. MAXINE WATERS (D-CA): "We don’t need to be having something like sequestration that’s going to cause these jobs losses, over 170 million jobs that could be lost – and so he made it very clear he’s not opposed to cuts but cuts must be done over a long period of time and in a very planned way rather than this blunt cutting that will be done by sequestration." 170 million jobs!! Wow in a country of 320 mio people and only 150 million people working--we are going to lose 20 million more jobs than exist--just by 50 bio dollar cut (less than Sandy appropriation). You are laughing at Sarah Palin? These democrat fear mongerers---say the stupidest craziest stuff.
Sandra March 01, 2013 at 04:40 PM
Sebastian-the sad part is the citizens that vote for Maxine Waters are "legitimate"
sebastian dangerfield March 01, 2013 at 04:54 PM
Actually it points out the problem with democracy.
Sven March 01, 2013 at 05:16 PM
Sebastian, good one! Silly Dem from CA got the numbers wrong. Only an idiot would do that. Oh wait, what did you post yesterday? "the next time you go out, bring a breathalyzer (you can get them at drug stores or even costco)-- after you've been out an hour, blow into it. Having a couple of drinks may bring it to .6. This woman is 3- 4 times that--and there is a time laspse between police arriving and actually adminsitering test. The math would suggest that a person with .23 has had 5-8 drinks in a hour." So a couple of drinks makes your blood alcohol level 0.6 and then if you drink more, your level goes down to 0.23?
Rojnald Reagan March 01, 2013 at 05:35 PM
"Actually it points out the problem with democracy." But you'd like it if only the rich, white, male, land owners got the vote. Talk about someone with his head up his anus!
Steves Better Half March 01, 2013 at 05:53 PM
I'm not wanting to sound rude, but to me your post sounds paranoid. Malloy wouldn't have the testicles... as if you are ready to fist fight him. You don't keep all your eggs in one basket... as if you don't want to be caught short when the zombies attack.... I think this is exactly why smart people want to do away with guns, because some gun hoarders say scary things.... and they are the ones with the guns.
Siwanoy March 01, 2013 at 06:33 PM
You aren't losing your right to defend yourself.. you can defend yourself without a gun.
Siwanoy March 01, 2013 at 06:33 PM
the constitution doesn't say kids and felons can't have guns, so why can't they cosmo?
rebel patriot March 01, 2013 at 08:55 PM
Steves Better Half, Not paranoid, just real. Connecticut has a good chance of a redefinition of assault weapons that would be much broader than the current definition. These weapons will be required to be registered. Myself and many others will not comply, thereby making us criminals. To prove my point, as I mentioned above only 8,825 assault weapons were registered under the 1993 ban. I would guess that's less than 10% compliance. If the government wants, it could find the owners of many recently bought assault weapons, issue warrents and arrest, or attempt an arrest as the case may be. That's a likely scenario under this socialist governor. As intense as it sounds, I will not relinquish my rights, my guns, or high-capacity magazines without a fight. If a search warrent is issued to seize my guns, I've got others hidden. I'm not a subject, I'm a free American. And, there's no need for concern by law-enforcement or the public, I'm not some nutjob going out looking for trouble. BUT I WILL DEFEND MY RIGHTS AT HOME!
sebastian dangerfield March 01, 2013 at 09:32 PM
Yeah sven Typo--you can see in another post on same thread I said 0.06. Nice catch. I applaud your effort. But -yeah I was wrong. Im thinking you understand the difference between obama saying there are 57 states and my .6 vs .06 than to a woman who is trying to employ scare tactics. But maybe you cant? maybe everything is literal to you? Is that the case, sven?
sebastian dangerfield March 01, 2013 at 10:36 PM
actually--i now watched the maxine waters tape with the 170 million jobs. I think she misspoke. She is used to using the word millions, when it applies to spending, and she jut misspoke. That being said, do yourself a favor-watch the video and see if it doesnt remind you of Miss South Carolina talking about why people cant find United States on a map. Maxine waters most likely misspoke-but oh my god--this woman is not very smart. Jeez
COSMO P March 02, 2013 at 02:31 AM
If our citizens vote to elect someone who is a "socialist" or even a "communist" is your little mind, so be it. That elected official is just a s legitimate as anyone else, thats the way it works boy! Ok SKIPPY what else do you do when you come out of the little clown car.??
Eileen March 02, 2013 at 01:47 PM
@ Siwanoy Really, how? Call 911? A baseball bat? Kitchen knife? What?
Eileen March 02, 2013 at 01:51 PM
@ R Regan "rich, white, male, land owners" This isn't the deep south in the 1800's. And really, the race card????


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