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?


Donald Borsch Jr. February 28, 2013 at 06:31 PM
Hold on. So if a person has received a DUI charge, 5 years ago, and who happens to be a registered gun owner in CT, will have to release their firearm to the State? What if this person can verify membership/attendance in a local AA group? How in the world would this be enforced? What, go through gun records, do a cross-match, and then send out police to take legal firearms from DUI folks? 5 year old DUI charges. Come on.
Thomas Paine February 28, 2013 at 07:00 PM
Its worse Donald, it discriminates against the less wealthy who may be pulled over for DUI. Those with more means can hire really smart lawyers to plea down or get the charges removed completely. The working stiff has to take what he can get with either a low-cost attorney or his/her own defenses. I wonder if any who are otherwise champions of the poor will make this observation?
Thomas Paine February 28, 2013 at 07:03 PM
BTW, the Governor's son can never own a gun lest anyone forget this plea deal: http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_watch/2009/12/mayor-dan-malloys-son-no-priso.html
Cliff Cuming February 28, 2013 at 07:20 PM
This is the camel trying to get his nose under the tent. Let's start with DUI's and then later we'll go after the criminal with the banned 24 ounce soda...or pizza with extra cheese. Did Lanza have a DUI?
Donald Borsch Jr. February 28, 2013 at 08:00 PM
Fairfield Old Timer makes a great point here. http://fairfield.patch.com/articles/proposal-would-take-guns-from-residents-with-dui-convictions-4ba43ed6
Jlo February 28, 2013 at 11:12 PM
Is DUI even a felony? I don't think non violent misdemeanors should stop someone from being able to defend themselves. Besides how would this ever be enforced retroactively? Also is it only for the past 5 years? So when 5 years is up they can go buy back all their guns? Sounds like another of the shock and awe type proposals that will never get passed.
Cliff Cuming February 28, 2013 at 11:22 PM
Driving DUI with a gun in the car is currently classified as a misdemeanor. Malloy is now saying driving DUI with your gun locked up at home is a felony and you must surrender your gun. Go figure
Sanchez February 28, 2013 at 11:38 PM
Most of the proposed new laws will not be well thought out and based on pure emotions and hysteria. Someone with a DUI (is this driving under the influence?) that has paid his fines, done his sentence and has a clean record should not be denied his right to vote much less any other of his civil rights which are equal rights no? The same liberals who demand voting rights of murderers be restored after they have satisfied their penalties and sentences are now wanting to deny simple 1 or 2 time marginally impaired drivers their rights which I say are more important than the right to vote? I thought my state was bad. They just passed in the State Senate a ban on the sale of semi auto firearms and went form 20 round to 10 round magazines. Fingerprinting and licensing for regulated firearm purchases and possession.
Sanchez February 28, 2013 at 11:40 PM
Do you all have "sobriety check points" on holidays and any other day they deem fit to set up on a local roadway?
Sanchez February 28, 2013 at 11:41 PM
I have heard people say 'who wants people carrying guns after they have been out drinking?'. First, in every state with carry laws it is illegal to drink and carry. THAT is a "reasonable gun law" we all can agree on.
Sanchez February 28, 2013 at 11:45 PM
Here is a perfect example of the problem on another Patch that Donald Borsch Jr. and Thomas Paine talk of. http://catonsville.patch.com/articles/huff-voicemail-i-was-drinking "In the minutes after Baltimore County Council member Todd Huff was pulled over for driving without headlights, the first-term Republican apparently called Baltimore County Police Chief Jim Johnson multiple times and said in one of the calls he had been drinking before operating his county-owned Jeep. "Apparently I was pulled over, I didn't have my headlights on and yes, I was drinking," Huff said in the voice mail left on Johnson's county cell phone that lasted less than 30 seconds."
Sanchez February 28, 2013 at 11:45 PM
I would bet he has a very rare Martyland CCW permit.
Sanchez February 28, 2013 at 11:48 PM
And please read some of the commentary I had to deal with on the Patch locally. These people are rabid and vile. At least here most are somewhat civil.
Jlo March 01, 2013 at 05:07 AM
Well I agree that guns and drinking have no place together, make that a felony outside the home. But if you make simple DUI a felony (i.e. pulled over, no accident, no injuries) you will ruin the lives of so many people....a felony follows you for life....the college kid, the housewife, the business man, they will all be basically unemployable because of one stupid mistake. Very short sighted.
Jlo March 01, 2013 at 05:07 AM
Oh and its already illegal to be out drinking with a gun fyi.
Jlo March 01, 2013 at 05:12 AM
Lady please stop posting this nonsense. We are talking about using drunk driving arrests to seize guns not about trying to stop drunk driving, malloy could care less about anything but looking good politically. Read the article.
Sanchez March 01, 2013 at 12:49 PM
Can you post a more irrelevant comment AZ?


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
See more »