Wilton woman charged with stealing firearms

WILTON — A local woman was charged Thursday with stealing two firearms  from the home where she was staying.

Submitted Photo

Donna Chartier

Donna Chartier, 50, was staying at a Prospect Street home where a rifle and shotgun were stolen, Wilton police Chief Heidi Wilcox said. The guns were valued at about $700 and were sold for $200, she said.

The person who bought them heard a report of a theft on Prospect Street in Wilton on a police scanner and contacted police, she said. The firearms were recovered.

Wilton Officer Michael Boucher arrested Chartier about 1 p.m. Thursday and took her to Franklin County Detention Center in Farmington. She is also facing a charge of violating bail conditions, Wilcox said.

abryant@sunjournal.com

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.

Advertisement

Comments

Ann Power's picture

Sad

That's what happens sometimes when you try to help someone

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

Buying, selling or transferring property

Again, a perfect example why gun laws and transferring, selling or buying weapons needs a check and balance. Nobody's rights are infringed upon.

A TITLE of ownership to buy, sell or transfer a motor vehicle, is the law.

So should the sale of a firearm. The owner of a weapon should be required to have the paperwork to prove they have legally purchased, sold or transferred it and cannot do so unless they have the title of ownership.

It keeps it accountable and responsible and legal.

So the person who purchased the weapon is also held accountable by the law and assist to the protection and safety of other citizens and is helping to prevent crime.

Andrew Jones's picture

I'm not sure how this is a

I'm not sure how this is a perfect example of why additional gun laws are necessary. The woman in the story had no problem stealing firearms, what makes you think she would care about selling them to a third party without the proper paperwork?

Criminals are called criminals because they don't abide by the laws. Selling a gun or any other item that you do not own is already illegal- it's called dealing in stolen property. You want to saddle law-abiding citizens with additional restrictions because you think a criminal will draw the line at grand theft?

Either you cannot follow the logic here or your goal is to make the burden of owning firearms so cumbersome that people decide that it isn't worth the hassle. Nice try!

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

Assumptions

Your thinking is that this women sold to another crook. What if the person was a law abiding person that was approached to buy those weapons. In my lifetime I have been approached three times from people I have met to want to sell me a weapon. My first question was do you have a receipt or proof you own it. Same as at gun shows, what prevents a person to sell guns to those in the parking lots or met in at locations that they sell those guns to, coming from a law abiding person that can buy and sell to others that are not.

That is the whole idea about universal background checks and documentation of guns-- since one or several of those illegals that bought from legal buyers or sellers can be traced back to the so-called law abiding person, that they all claim they are. You see you have some real law abiding persons that are truly honest and those that lie through their teeth and look the other way.

Dan Beggs's picture

she already committed a crime

what makes you think she wouldnt commit another. Hitler made these same points to disarm germany.

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

http://rense.com/general17/hitlersgermany.htm

Comment

From David M. Deane
dmdeane@rcn.com
11-27-1

Just thought you'd like to know that the following Hitler quote is bogus:

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

There wasn't much "gun control" in Hitler's Germany (not to be confused with German actions in conquered countries). What "gun registration" which did exist was enacted by the Weimar Republic, almost a decade before Hitler came to power. Hitler did not confiscate guns from ordinary Germans: the Allied armies did that. Ironically, Hitler's Germany had freer gun laws than any country in Europe today.

This is not meant to cast any "positive" light on Hitler, but to draw your attention to the historical anachronism of the bogus quote: gun registration was not a political issue during the 1930's in Germany, and Hitler would never have made such a boast. It would never have occurred to Hitler to credit gun registration (which he did not do) for the streets being safe: Hitler would have credited his rise to power for peace and safety (ie, all the nasty communists were locked up, hence no more street fighting).

There simply was not that much crime in 1930's Germany to begin with: the above bogus quote in fact sounds like a product of 1960's America, when crime was in fact just starting to become a big political issue (hence the anachronism of projecting the issue of street crime back on to 1930's Germany, where it hardly existed and was not a political issue).

MainPage
http://www.rense.com

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

Hitler made nothing about this Point-- but the Right/NRA has...

History tells me that Hitler did, indeed, disarm people in countries that his military had conquered, but according to everything I have ever read or heard, there was no widespread confiscation of weapons from the German People themselves during the period of his ascendancy and tenure.

The articles I have been reading say that ordinary German citizens were fully free to hang onto their guns until the Allied Armies did the weapons confiscation following the invasion.

Gun Registration and gun ownership does not appear to have been an issue in the 1930s and early 40s in Hitler’s Germany.

Nice try Righty...but we gotcha...

Noel Foss's picture

Actually....

Gun registration and Ownership weren't issues in 1930's and 40's Germany, as long as you were, as you say, an ordinary German citizen. Which is to say, not Jewish.
The 1938 German Weapons act stated that ONLY Citizens were required to have a permit to carry or acquire a firearm, and only people who could be "trusted" were allowed to apply for a permit in the first place. Since Jews were no longer considered German citizens at that point, they were exempt from obtaining a permit, hence exempt from legally owning a firearm at all. The act also banned Jews from either manufacturing or selling either firearms or ammunition. Additionally, in 1938 Wilhelm Frick (who was at the time serving as Hitler's Minister of the Interior) advocated for "Regulation Against Jews' Possession of Weapons" which explicitly prohibited Jews from owning firearms, and mandated "Forfeiture without Compensation" (Confiscation)

Should you care to check my sources, Google is your friend.
"1938 German Weapons Act"
"Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons"

Tony Morin's picture

???

Hitler talked about a title of ownership for guns??

Ann Power's picture

Scary Wanna Be Transplant

Evidently he can't stop living in the past, scary thought,

Noel Foss's picture

So you support the government keeping a database?

Because that's the only way the system you're suggesting would work. There would have to be a permanent record of every gun owned by every person in the entire country. That'd be incredibly expensive, not to mention largely unworkable.

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

There is records already,

There are records already of weapons sold, the NRA has records of owners...
The sellers have those records, unless you bought or stole the weapon illegally.

Records of your vehicle is in a database and creates state/citys revenues, so what is the difference of it being a lethal weapon?

What are trying to hide, since you all want to walk proud with a gun strapped on your side and then stay unknown?

Everything is workable. Records have been being taken for Centuries and is feasible now and then.

The expense is already done once the weapon is filed for ownership, plus the registration and titles documenting create jobs and creates revenue for the states.

Noel Foss's picture

There's no national database of who owns what guns

And if there is, then it's illegal. I'm an NRA member, but they don't have a list of the guns that I own. Sellers of firearms are only required to keep the records of their sales for a period of time, not permanently. Private sales aren't (currently) subject to registration. So there's three problems with your idea. The fourth is that the millions of guns that are currently possessed illegally surely aren't going to be catalogued in this theoretical list we're talking about.
As for trying to hide something, clearly you don't place much value on other people's privacy. Why don't you have a database for everybody who has a prescription for Schedule 1 Narcotics? Simply put, it's because it's none of your business, or the government's. This isn't about walking around proud and anonymous with a gun; you're talking about all guns. That's every hunting rifle and shotgun, not just pistols. How many people do you know that carry their shotgun or deer rifle around with them?
And as far as expense goes, maybe you should do a little research into the kind of $$ it takes to keep a database of vehicles and titles current. You're talking millions and millions of dollars just to get started.
Lastly, what the hell business is it of yours who owns what? Legal gun owners aren't criminals; there's no reason to treat them as such.

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

Past and Present

Your whole premise is on past procedures whereas going forward is the business at hand.
Actually gun owners should have to have insurance, since you can cause bodily or property damage, just like a vehicle to drive on public property. So those records are in place so the gun records going forward is doable.

They know what vehicles you own and drive, so what.
Those guns that are sold or transferred can and many are going to the crooked and why not know where that gun is and was sold to or transferred to? I see you want criminals to have guns, OK I get it.

As far as databases, I have walked that walk in my past profession as an IT Systems Administrator .

As far as those that carry rifles and shotguns, again that is happening already, read up on what Rand Paul said about him and staff and citizens. Many are carrying AR's in this country.

Why is your owning or carrying a gun private? Where is that written that it is a right? You care about womens' and doctors and family's private rights or LBGT's privacy as much as your gun? Does your political vies go both ways or one way?

Why are the NRA and the right terrorizing Americans about having to use and own a gun?

Noel Foss's picture

Wow. Just, wow.

You're having a really hard time staying on topic here, but I'll try to keep up.
1) If you want to make an accurate database you have to have all the information, right? You wouldn't just be able to ignore the millions of guns that are already in circulation. Otherwise, what's the point in having the database in the first place, other than politics and posturing? You can't make effective legislation without looking to the past.

2) Many gun owners do have insurance; it's called "Homeowners insurance." And what if you only hunt on your own private property? Would you still be required to buy insurance? You're not using them on public property, so why would you need insurance?

3) There's already laws on the books that make "straw purchases" illegal. If you've been watching the news you may have seen that it recently became a federal crime. I don't want criminals to have firearms any more than you do, but I think that maybe they should start enforcing the laws already on the books regarding that to see how well they work before you start proposing new ones. The common assumption made by people who are against firearms ownership that anybody who opposes new legislation are supporting criminal activity is a falsehood. Why don't you do a search on how many firearms laws are already on the books before you start pushing for more.

3) You used to be an IT administrator; you should know roughly how much that business spent on setting up and maintaining that database. Now scale it up to a national level. Now add the cost of supplying people with permits for what they own.

4) Rand Paul and his staff are the minority, not the majority, when it comes to firearms owners. That's like saying that gun owners walk around with submachine guns because the secret service agents assigned to the president do.

5) Carrying a gun is, in most of this country, a right. A constitutional one, in fact. Most states have Concealed Carry Laws, which make carrying it privately a privilege that you have to qualify for. You need only read laws concerning the carrying of firearms to find out where it's written that it's a right.

6) I care about everybody's right to privacy, yes. Only a narrow-minded fool limits their views to one or two things. I disagree just as vehemently with "right to live" organizations that broadcast the home addresses of abortion doctors as I do with the Journal News for publishing the names and home addresses of CCW permit holders without regard for the potential consequences. You don't seem to care about the right to privacy of legal gun owners, do you care about the privacy of those other people you listed? You don't want to talk about the past, but throughout history whenever a group has been singled out and a database about them has been created, there have been consequences for that group.

7) The NRA and the right aren't "terrorizing Americans" any more than the Brady Campaign and the left are. The difference is that the media is characterizing one group as an unreasonable bunch of nuts, and the other side as reasonable people. Ask yourself this: Who sensationalizes and capitalizes on mass shootings more? Pro gun groups, or Anti gun groups?

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

My follower

So I see my follower of disagree on my comments, has come out from under the barrel and slithered into no comment, or no response, but leaves a mark.

Dan Beggs's picture

why comment on Maine business

The problem with liberals they always try to tell everyone how to live there lives. conservatives just want to be left alone and for everyone to mind their own business. You havent lived here for a long time maine is just fine without opinions like yours

Ann Power's picture

Because

he is a drifter

RONALD RIML's picture

Gimme a break!!!!

"conservatives just want to be left alone and for everyone to mind their own business."

And that's why conservatives pass laws concerning what you can put into your body, what you can do with your body, and spend so much time praying over one's body......

Noel Foss's picture

HA! With you on that one, Ron.

The only people who want to be left alone and for everyone to mind their own business either aren't involved in politics, or are Libertarians! TRUE Libertarians, not the mangled versions that have popped up in American politics the last few years.
*COUGH*Tea Party*COUGH*

RONALD RIML's picture

10-4!!

.

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

Why I comment, it is my American right...

I have roots, property, pay taxes and family in Androscoggin, Southern Maine. 150 years plus of family roots. So I have as much right to express my thoughts, concerns or opinions.

As far as your political slam on liberals trying to tell others what to do and how to live is malarkey.. Conservative legislatures in 27 states have been bills on women rights for contraceptives use, abortion, gays, marriages and oppressing voting rights. So you are really off base and highly misinformed, to say the least.

Ann Power's picture

don't need it crammed down

don't need it crammed down out throats, you must really think we value your opinion not, but boy are we laughing, unbelievable, look at your kudo's the bads out number the good like what 1 good to 5 bad, you just don't get it sad

RONALD RIML's picture

Those 'numbers' are nothing but a popularity contest.....

"In the land of the Blind - The One-Eyed Man is King"

And we got a lot of 'squinters' here........

What would you ever do, Ann - if someone presented a warrant article in your town that all adults were required to to obtain education equivalent to a Bachelor's degree in Liberal Arts???

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

Most importantly

Left out the main reason I came here to comment....GOP -T baggers forcing citizens to buy and own guns...now who is interfering in peoples lives again?

Ann Power's picture

Well your just wasting your

Well your just wasting your hot air, on to more important things like the OBITUARIES

Ann Power's picture

?

guess you don't have much of a life, if you can comment on Maine newspapers 24/7

RONALD RIML's picture

How 'bout we pass an Ordinance that all Adult Town Residents

Must earn/work towards a Bachelor's Degree in Liberal Arts.....

That oughta fix 'em!!!!

Ann Power's picture

Maybe

it's because you live out of state and not even near here, we have trouble with outside opinions, who can tell us how things should be miles away, I say keep to you local area. Good Day

RONALD RIML's picture

Ann - We notice how some creatures don't like it when one

lifts up a rock and lets a bit of sunlight shine down illuminating how they live. Damn, how they scurry around!!!

A good buddy of mine is from New Sharon - the stories he can tell!!!

RONALD RIML's picture

Ann Power

Ever serve in the U.S. Military, and sign that paper that you would give your life for our Country?? If not - STFU...

(There - how does that feel) - and it makes about as much sense.

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

Ah Yes--'''Kudo's

Thank you Ron, I did leave that part of my life out where I was and doing during the Vietnam Era and served honorably...

So that too gives me and others that have served that unalienable right to have a voice in what folks do that upsets the stability of the country.

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

Sorry Ann

I have as much right to comment and have concern, I lived there and was raised and STILL pay taxes there, have property and family with roots over 150 years. You have problems with outsiders since you are still there and probably never left?

Besides Ann this is America the last time I looked and I have those rights to make comments and statements...Bill of Rights, ever read them?

Ann Power's picture

Just really sad this is what

Just really sad this is what your life has become, and no matter what you say we are gonna disagree because your opinion does not matter to use natives. Just makes us happy you don't live here, and I honestly feel sorry for what your life has become

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

Attacks Ann, Really, so sad...

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful

Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening.......

Shallow thoughts....

Advertisement

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...