>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.

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.

>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?

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.

Rabbit cookies?

Wow what a feast. Where was that at?

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.

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

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

I didn't want it before either but you can't pick your parents, your neighbors, or your superfund-site exoterritories.

It's ours by right anyway.

That sub should be called /r/fascismapology.

Sounds like you're ignorant, uninformed, and afraid. Pretty much the trifecta of a conservative voter.

They do not.

When did the ownership change?

The directors and officers of a corporation owe a fiduciary duty to shareholders, not to customers. If the directors or officers do something unreasonable and tank the corporation's value, the shareholders or ownership can sue the directors or officers for the breach of duty. That could include revealing information that would benefit customers to the company's detriment.

They might also screw their workers by closing the doors without notice and then not issuing final paychecks or honoring other compensation obligations.

For profit colleges. Of course they aren't going to tell the students they're about a tank. They will take every last check, and then stiff their workers too; their directors and officers are likely legally obligated to do so, lest the investors be the ones defrauded. Betsy DeVos probably owns the equity fund that probably owns this school. Fuck a refund, we need to start eating these people. Richest country ever to exist, college or trade school should be free for anyone that wants to attend and gets accepted to a program.

With regulatory compliance* there's usually a notice and an opportunity to cure. Only after refusing or failing to cure does the agency move to enforcement, and that's usually only fines.

“The Office of Higher Education has been notified by Stone Academy that it intends to close,” said Timothy D. Larson, Executive Director of the Office of Higher Education in a statement. “For many months, our office has been working with the school to address a number of serious compliance issues that included unqualified faculty, invalid student clinical experiences and recording attendance.”

The OHE is offering guidance to affected students as the school closes, including "accessing transcripts, tuition refunds, loan discharges and adjustments to veteran’s benefits, and providing support for those students who intend to continue their course of study at another school."

The office is also evaluating a series of complaints regarding the quality of education at Stone Academy and the below 80% pass rate across the three campuses.

Students who have paid out of pocket for tuition, due to the school’s closure,  may be eligible for a partial refund. To apply for a refund from the State of Connecticut Student Protection Account, please visit: redacted. Refunds will be proportional to the portion of the program not yet completed. For example, a student that has completed 50% of their program, will receive a refund of half of the tuition paid. Refunds will be of tuition only; no refunds will be issued for fees or supplies.

Surprised to learn New Haven and Hartford were co capitals in 1701. Never heard that one.

The pickle law is bogus though, basic attribution error. It's like saying that, because a drunk driver was once convicted on evidence that he fell down after getting out of the car, "Connecticut law requires drivers to be able to stand up." The actual law says a driver can't be impaired, falling down was the proof.

The actual pickle law was an agricultural standard for produce requiring fitness for human consumption, mushy pickles that splatted onto the floor was the proof.

Legend.

Lamont doesn't really have anything to do with this. This is a tiny office inside Department of Consumer Protection.

Not sure what the penalty is for failing to disclose a loan. Probably a small fine.

Just one more thing to derussify.

Can't file suit in CT without a report signed by a doctor of the speciality of the relevant standard of care, certifying the standard, the breach, and the causation. So that's been done.

There's obviously a disagreement, so they want to ask a jury.

Confidence in something you know you don't know enough about and that you're wrong about, pretty much right on brand for you.