Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    7:52 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Newspaper sparks outrage for publishing names, addresses of gun permit holders Back to Topics
EZExit

Champion Author
Phoenix

Posts:15,516
Points:2,220,460
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 26, 2012 1:29:27 PM

(CNN) -- An interactive map showing the names and addresses of all handgun permit holders in New York's Westchester and Rockland counties has infuriated many readers since it was posted Saturday on a newspaper's website.

The map, published by The Journal News, allows readers to zoom in on red dots that indicate which residents are licensed to own pistols or revolvers. It had prompted more than 1,700 comments as of Wednesday morning.

Blue dots indicate permit holders who "have purchased a firearm or updated the information on a permit in the past five years."

"So should we start wearing yellow Stars of David so the general public can be aware of who we are??" one commenter wrote.

"This is crazy!" wrote another.Newspaper Publishes Names and Addresses of Gun Owners
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,147
Points:1,742,035
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 7, 2013 3:46:17 PM

The post you responded to did not say it harmed anyone...did it? It said "MAY" harm people. So maybe you should read what the other person wrote.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,428
Points:316,270
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jan 7, 2013 3:04:47 PM

"Does someone need to be harmed for it to be wrong?"

My post (Has anyone actually been harmed?) was in reply to the statement "The also have the responsibility to not print material that they know may harm people.", the context of which was possible civil lawsuits arising as a result of divulging information about gun permit holders. The dicsussion of right versus wrong has already taken place (my opinion, which I stated earlier, was that it was morally wrong.)

Maybe you should take time to read the intervening posts before you decide to take my post out of context and kvetch.

[Edited by: MiddletownMarty at 1/7/2013 3:05:21 PM EST]
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,147
Points:1,742,035
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 7, 2013 2:52:53 PM

"Has anyone actually been harmed?"

Does someone need to be harmed for it to be wrong?
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,073
Points:2,944,420
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jan 7, 2013 12:48:54 PM

Turnabout is fair play. Gathered from open sources, their own public pronouncements:
NRA releases massive list of companies, celebrities and journalists who support gun control
"These organizations lent their name in support of specific campaigns to pass anti-gun legislation"

Formulate your own response to doing any business with these organizations.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,428
Points:316,270
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 9:48:55 PM

Exemption 6 says "A personnel, medical, or similar file the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." A bit fuzzy, but there's leeway I suppose. I wonder if you would have been on less-than-secure ground had the environmentalist group contested your refusal.

Now as I understand it, FOIA covers Federal agencies (for one of which you worked). The companion law in New York State is the FOIL (Freedom of Information Law), which allows (compels?) the release of gun permit holders' information upon request. State law would be the controlling factor in the newspaper issue. (Connecticut, by comparison, specifically excludes information about gun permits from the public record.) Frankly, I haven't the patience to wade through the minutiae of the law, so perhaps someone can provide a knowledgeable and lucid comment on this.



[Edited by: MiddletownMarty at 1/6/2013 9:51:39 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,432
Points:1,431,605
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 7:17:46 PM

Marty - Me 'ats off to ye. I will try to not be so sarcastic in the future.

Now as to what rationale I used to deny the private information request of that FOIA - try exemption #6. The names and addresses of who owns what property or engages in what business etc is private and not subject to a FOIA request. You could also look at the 1976 ammendments to the act regarding privacy.

Now if those asking can prove in court that the information is required for some reason the court chooses to accept then its the courts decision.

When it is my decision I will always err on the side of protecting people and their property and persons. I feel that a persons right to privacy trumps a newspapers desires or the ideology of some tree hugger organization that is trying to stir the pot for political reasons. Just to let you know the paper files containing that information are kept in locked, secure file cabinets and the electronic files are kept in password protected locations.

[Edited by: flyboyUT at 1/6/2013 7:21:13 PM EST]
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:11,812
Points:1,081,790
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 6:52:14 PM

New York Newspaper's Gun Permit Map Already Having Negative Repercussions

Fox News...has unsurprisingly found that "Reformed crooks say the New York newspaper ... did a great service – to their old cronies in the burglary trade."

"Heckuva job, Journal News. (/sarcasm)"

[Edited by: ministorage at 1/6/2013 6:55:32 PM EST]
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,428
Points:316,270
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 5:08:03 PM

"My statement says in the first sentence "I had to deal with a FOIA request" Now just what about that dont you seem to understand?"

I understand it fine; I misread the sentence. My apologies.

There are nine exemptions under which FOIA requests can be denied. Under which of those exemptions did your denial fall?

[Edited by: MiddletownMarty at 1/6/2013 5:15:30 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,432
Points:1,431,605
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 4:53:48 PM

Marty - I said - "A long time ago I had to deal with a FOIA request in the same vein as this one. A treehugger group asked for the names adn addresses of everyone who had a Special Use Permit with the National Forest I worked on. I denied it on the basis that they had no need to know that personal information. I did provide them with the information of what Special Use Permits were currently in force but refused to divulge any information about the people involved."

and in response you said - "A group asking you for Special Use Permit holders doesn't have the same force as an FOI request."

Marty ol friend - your gonna have to either learn to actually read or get new glasses so your able to see the words as typed or something that works to increase your comprehension.

My statement says in the first sentence "I had to deal with a FOIA request" Now just what about that dont you seem to understand?
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,428
Points:316,270
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 4:50:50 PM

"As the years pass, and the morality and sense of responsibility degrade, it's amazing how things change, up is down, right is wrong, and winning or losing takes a front seat to common sense, decency, love of fellow man."

I don't see it that way at all. I see that we, as a society, are trying to locate the dynamic balance between the individual's right to privacy and the citizens' right to know matters that will influence their decisions.

I understand and support the right to privacy, but that right is not absolute; I need no lessons in history or in the Constitution.






[Edited by: MiddletownMarty at 1/6/2013 4:54:00 PM EST]
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:15,516
Points:2,220,460
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 4:49:59 PM

Marty: <<<"Ah yes... that Constitutional right to privacy.">>>

***********

Case Histories re: privacy rights vs. the constitution
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:15,516
Points:2,220,460
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 4:38:20 PM

Not that long ago, there was lots of debate, about publishing the names and addresses of pedophiles. Liberals stated that this is unfair prosecution, in essence labeling someone with a scarlet letter after their debt to society had been paid and they had been released. Conservatives argued that this information was crucial, because it is based on the safety of "the children" to know where these perps were living.

Fast forward to today, now liberals state that publishing identifying information is a freedom guaranteed by the 1st amendment, and conservatives state that this is an invasion of privacy, contradicting the first amendment.

As the years pass, and the morality and sense of responsibility degrade, it's amazing how things change, up is down, right is wrong, and winning or losing takes a front seat to common sense, decency, love of fellow man.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,428
Points:316,270
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 4:28:20 PM

Ah yes... that Constitutional right to privacy.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:15,516
Points:2,220,460
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 4:25:23 PM

Marty: <<<"Which liberties, in particular, were violated?">>>

***********

The right to privacy
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,428
Points:316,270
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 3:47:36 PM

"In advocating gun control, one transgresses the law of nature; in so doing, one declares themselves to live by rule other than reason and common equity. As such, one becomes dangerous to mankind."

Incorrectly channeling John Locke.




"Interestingly enough, all of the good guys with guns, whose liberties the Gannett organsation has violated, have not shown up at their newspaper offices as was apparently feared."

Which liberties, in particular, were violated?

[Edited by: MiddletownMarty at 1/6/2013 3:52:14 PM EST]
Profile Pic
RAB2010
All-Star Author Kalamazoo

Posts:636
Points:74,970
Joined:Mar 2010
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 3:26:30 PM

In advocating gun control, one transgresses the law of nature; in so doing, one declares themselves to live by rule other than reason and common equity. As such, one becomes dangerous to mankind.

Many news reporters on the anti-gun / pro-slavery band wagon happen to be gun owners themselves. The newspaper in question has reportedly hired armed guards to protect some of their offices. Perhaps the N.R.A. was right; the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is having a good guy with a gun.

Interestingly enough, all of the good guys with guns, whose liberties the Gannett organsation has violated, have not shown up at their newspaper offices as was apparently feared.

One might ask who, then, is being unreasonable; who is violating the laws of Nature?

.
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:11,812
Points:1,081,790
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 3:16:47 PM

gcg: >>""cops and judges" may be one of the fine points that could be won in court. I believe it has merit."<<

I'm glad you believe it does. But that is just one of the more obvious. I can think of a few more--battered husbands/wives and ex's avoiding their abusers, bosses who have had the unfortunate occasion to fire crazy employees who may be at the breaking point, former boyfriends/girlfriends trying to avoid from their jilted, stalker Ex's, etc.

Even non-permit holders may be affected by this--burglars now have a better gamble, now knowing which addresses don't have registered gun permits--and therefore *may* not have to face artillery fire upon entering. (I know which addresses I would avoid in those two counties.)

I just cannot think of anything good that can come out of the Journal News' decision to publicly release that information--except that a senseless murder could be the catalyst for a court decision that could bring the pendulum back into the realm of sanity. As far as I can tell, it appears the New York FOIL was never meant to be used like that; and I agree with others who believe the wording may need to be tightened-up.

IMHO

[Edited by: ministorage at 1/6/2013 3:24:24 PM EST]
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,428
Points:316,270
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 3:09:37 PM

FOIA has been amended at least 11 times since it went into effect in 1967.

FOIA and its amendments
Profile Pic
Passer
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:19,464
Points:2,335,070
Joined:Jan 2004
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 2:45:47 PM

Let's get to the real point:

Does the Freedom of Information Act, need to be revised or updated, taking into account, new technology that was not even thought of when the act was passed?
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:18,738
Points:3,040,985
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 1:50:05 PM

Afs, publishing public records is legal. Next if land sales becomes a problem because of bankruptcy do we stop publishing those records because someone is being embarrassed? On gun permits I'm holding my nose but it does not interfere with owning a weapon. As for welfare names, is this a matter of public records? If so go for it. Your invasion of privacy on gun owners was lost long ago with background checks. That is the price we pay for slowing down gun sales to criminals.

Fly, "amending the Constitution". Oops I stand corrected and thank you for pointing it out. The 3/4 majority is there to avoid changes in our laws on a whim. Getting a 3/4 majority is an overwhelming task, thank goodness.

mini, "cops and judges" may be one of the fine points that could be won in court. I believe it has merit.

Ac-, Dui laws should have it's own topic and it could be a good one. You are getting into apples and oranges on Dui.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,428
Points:316,270
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 11:38:38 AM

"But I know for a fact how people will respond -- they will start to not follow a bad law. People will obtain a handgun and will not leave any trace of it in any government database anywhere."

So we can number them among the "bad guys."




"A treehugger group asked for the names adn addresses of everyone who had a Special Use Permit with the National Forest I worked on."

A group asking you for Special Use Permit holders doesn't have the same force as an FOI request.



[Edited by: MiddletownMarty at 1/6/2013 11:39:38 AM EST]
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:11,812
Points:1,081,790
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 11:29:41 AM

It looks to me like the FOIL wording is for purposes of "inspection" by the person who made a request. It allows for copies of each page to be purchased. It is not a cover for zealous stupidity or actual intent to do harm by a blanket publication of the information by the person who filed the FOIL request.

When sued, 'deep-pockets' Gannett may have a hard time convincing a jury how publishing that information was beneficial to the public, and that no harm was done. We have plenty of examples whereby courts have ruled the First Amendment does not cover all speech. All speech is not free--it comes with consequences.

If just one crazy, released from prison, uses that map to locate homes where the families of arresting officers and/or judges live--who were directly responsible their sentencing--and then she bludgeons someone to death with a hammer, runs them over with a car, shoots them with a stolen gun, I think stock holders in deep-pockets Gannett can kiss that portfolio good bye.

IMHO

[Edited by: ministorage at 1/6/2013 11:34:21 AM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,432
Points:1,431,605
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 10:53:30 AM

AC - what I find interesting as all get out. What will be the unintended consequence of this action by the paper.

All those who feel vauge uneasyness in giving the govt this type of information will do what in the future now? I dont understand this law of NY to register with the state in order to get permission to legally buy a handgun. But I know for a fact how people will respond -- they will start to not follow a bad law. People will obtain a handgun and will not leave any trace of it in any government database anywhere.

If this is what the folks who think the paper was morally right in doing what they did want - they just got it.

I worked with Law enforcement folks much of my working life. There was a reason why their personal data such as home addresses were not in any phone book or property records etc.

A long time ago I had to deal with a FOIA request in the same vein as this one. A treehugger group asked for the names adn addresses of everyone who had a Special Use Permit with the National Forest I worked on. I denied it on the basis that they had no need to know that personal information. I did provide them with the information of what Special Use Permits were currently in force but refused to divulge any information about the people involved.
Profile Pic
Bell30012
Champion Author Atlanta

Posts:4,522
Points:692,510
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 10:49:23 AM

The example you are giving is a CRIMINAL matter. This situation is a CIVIL matter. In a criminal matter you do not have to have any damages to have violated the law. In a civil matter you have to have actual damages to get an award. They can add punitive damages on top of the actual damages but you have to have actual damages.

No one at this newspaper has been charged with any crime. Gannett has the deepest pockets in the newspaper industry. Putnam County on the other hand isn't a county with a large budget surplus every year.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:30,459
Points:3,371,420
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 10:41:28 AM

MiddletownMarty - If I drink 8 oz of Scotch, then get into my car and drive, and I don't have an accident, nobody's been harmed, right? So therefore, I ought not to be prosecuted for DUI. By your logic of "well, nobody was harmed", then I ought not to be stopped at a checkpoint because, well, I didn't get into an accident, so nobody was harmed. Or what about driving down the street at 100 mph? If I don't get into a wreck, it ought to be OK, right? That's the logic I'm seeing from you, my friend. To publish these names, while not causing immediate harm, does pose a risk to those people who have been "outed".

I also have another very deep problem with this list. The people on this list actually registered themselves and their weapons. They PURPOSELY and THOUGHTFULLY complied with the existing laws. Now they are being outed as if they were criminals, like sex offenders, or ex-cons or what have you. These are LAW ABIDING PEOPLE who have done absolutely NOTHING WRONG. This was simply wrong of the paper, and if anyone is harmed, I hope this paper and the editors AND the publisher get their backsides sued off, down to their personal assets.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,428
Points:316,270
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2013 8:52:48 AM

"If someone had published personal information about you, would you consider yourself harmed?"

You're trying to subtly change the topic of discussion. We aren't discussing personal information; we're discussing publicly-available information, since the names / addresses of those possessing gun permits is a matter of public record in NY State.

If there's a lawsuit arising from this event, the lawyer will have to demonstrate actual harm and not something fuzzy as an individual considering themselves harmed. Being upset doesn't equate to being harmed.



"The newspaper had the right to do what they did, but it wasn't morally correct"

I agree, but the fact remains that nobody has actually been harmed.




"I hope Gannet has deep pockets becuse they might get tapped."

Lawyers win regardless of who else wins.

[Edited by: MiddletownMarty at 1/6/2013 8:56:36 AM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,432
Points:1,431,605
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 11:15:25 PM

Bell30012 -- are you ignoring the rights vs responsibilities discusssion?

"So there aren't going to be any court cases on that issue." there arent any court scases yet because no one has filed any complaints or filed any cases yet. Wait its comming.

I hope Gannet has deep pockets becuse they might get tapped.
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:11,812
Points:1,081,790
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 10:51:24 PM

"There hasn't been anyone actually accuse the newspaper of violating any laws. So there aren't going to be any court cases on that issue."

If a criminal is dumb enough to stalk and kill just one these law abiding citizens or a member of their families, wanna bet it won't? It is a weak defense to put other people at risk and then claim you violated no law.

I wonder if newspapers carry liability insurance for when their editors go insane.

[Edited by: ministorage at 1/5/2013 10:53:50 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Bell30012
Champion Author Atlanta

Posts:4,522
Points:692,510
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 10:37:27 PM

There hasn't been anyone actually accuse the newspaper of violating any laws. So there aren't going to be any court cases on that issue. However, the Clerk of Court for Putnam County, New York is in violation of the law. He has refused to comply with the FOIA which by New York law he is required to honor.
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:11,812
Points:1,081,790
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 10:28:46 PM

"Has anyone actually been harmed?"

There are many people on that map who are at a real risk of being harmed. The addresses of police officers and judges who sent criminals to prison are on that map the Journal News published. If just one of those legal gun permit owners is harmed, the infernal Journal News will be bankrupt before you can say "your rights end where mine begin."

IMHO

[Edited by: ministorage at 1/5/2013 10:31:42 PM EST]
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:15,516
Points:2,220,460
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 10:17:57 PM

Marty: <<<"Has anyone actually been harmed?">>>

***********

If someone had published personal information about you, would you consider yourself harmed? Or would it be only if a crime was perpetrated against you from that published information? Additionally, the connection between the newspaper's irresponsibility and any crime that has or will occur will be quite nebulous.

The newspaper had the right to do what they did, but it wasn't morally correct. However, I am not surprised, as this country continues to be more and more morally bankrupt as well as more irresponsible.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,428
Points:316,270
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 10:05:42 PM

" The also have the responsibility to not print material that they know may harm people."

Has anyone actually been harmed?
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,432
Points:1,431,605
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 9:41:22 PM

Bell30012 if they did break no law remains to be seen after the court cases that will be filed are fnished.

But one thing that seems to have been lost. We have rights and we have responsibilities. They must balance.

The paper had the right to print anything they wish. The also have the responsibility to not print material that they know may harm people. Your right to speak stops when your speech harms others.

The press has large adn mostely unfettered rights - they also have large duties and responsibilities to tell the truth and to do so such that their telling what they consider the turth doesnt harm people.

What sayest thou Bell30012?
Profile Pic
Bell30012
Champion Author Atlanta

Posts:4,522
Points:692,510
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 9:16:51 PM

The newspaper broke no law. Re-read the first amendment.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,432
Points:1,431,605
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 7:33:56 PM

GoCatGo - you left a little something out of the way to amend the Constitution.
.
>>>The United States Constitution is unusually difficult to amend. As spelled out in Article V, the Constitution can be amended in one of two ways. First, amendment can take place by a vote of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate followed by a ratification of three-fourths of the various state legislatures (ratification by thirty-eight states would be required to ratify an amendment today). This first method of amendment is the only one used to date. Second, the Constitution might be amended by a Convention called for this purpose by two-thirds of the state legislatures, if the Convention's proposed amendments are later ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.<<<

Dont leave out that the proposed amendment must also be ratified by 75% of the state legislatures.

Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 7:08:45 PM

While the newspaper had the right to access the names and addresses of those people who registered guns, and while they have freedom of speech and publication under the First Amendment, it appear they broke the law in publishing that data.

I hope businesses and people will not advertize in that paper or buy copies of that paper, and that they bring lawsuits against the newspaper for their misdeeds.

The bottom line is to put the paper out of business and the owners and editors in debt.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,428
Points:316,270
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 4:57:14 PM

"Why are gun registrations public record and car registrations are not or even welfare rolls?"

Because the NY State legislature says they are. Other states say differently.



"Should we make tax records public record also?"

Who is "we"? New York State law isn't binding on those living in Alabama.

[Edited by: MiddletownMarty at 1/5/2013 5:01:54 PM EST]
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,147
Points:1,742,035
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 4:33:15 PM

"Are welfare rolls and car registrations a matter of public record in NY State? Your false equivalences are absurd."

That is my point. Why are gun registrations public record and car registrations are not or even welfare rolls? What makes them any different? An invasion into someone's privacy is an invasion into their privacy. Should we make tax records public record also? The list can go on and on...we need to protect personal information as much as possible and making it easy is just inviting trouble whether it has happened or not.
Profile Pic
Bell30012
Champion Author Atlanta

Posts:4,522
Points:692,510
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 4:20:57 PM

I keep seeing people mentioning the harm that COULD come from this printing of the list. It hasn't happened. You are saying that the houses COULD get burglarized or that domestic violence victims COULD get hurt. The list has been published for a couple weeks. These things have not happened.

It could be argued that gas stations COULD blow up. Should we ban them from everywhere? The Constitution specifically states that you cannot pass laws to regulate a free press. New York state law says this information is public information. What the newspaper did was publish information that any citizen could have went to the courthouse and got.

With the internet, license plates and all the other means of searching someone on the Internet prison and jail guards names/addresses can be located by anyone that really wants them.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,428
Points:316,270
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 2:26:02 PM

Are welfare rolls and car registrations a matter of public record in NY State? Your false equivalences are absurd.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,147
Points:1,742,035
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 1:50:03 PM

"Afs, "defending the newspapers actions" as opposed to chipping away at our First Amendment rights?"

Huh...? How is not allowing them to publish a list of gun owners chipping away at our First Amendment rights? Would posting everyone that received welfare in a newspaper be a First Amendment right also? How about what car everyone registered with their tag number? This is just an absurd argument to even have. But because you are for new gun control measures you see nothing wrong with the intrusion into a person's privacy!
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,428
Points:316,270
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 1:34:45 PM

"Cops are threatened often enough by criminals to need a gun carry permit."


The question preceding, namely "Why did they call only have the officers names removed from the list?" was the context in which I was responding. With respect to having officers' names removed from the list, they are no more special than anyone else. In that context, I'm sure you will agree.



[Edited by: MiddletownMarty at 1/5/2013 1:37:41 PM EST]
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:18,738
Points:3,040,985
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 1:19:03 PM

Afs, "defending the newspapers actions" as opposed to chipping away at our First Amendment rights?

Fly, "flat out say they want to confiscate the existing guns", talk is cheap. "Abolish the right to bear arms". All it takes is a 2/3 majority vote in Congress to do it. Good Luck with that one.

Bell, "pressure to bear upon the newspaper", Bingo.

Marty, "are police officers special? No" Wrong. Cops are threatened often enough by criminals to need a gun carry permit.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:30,459
Points:3,371,420
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 12:28:30 PM

Bell - we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I, like many others here, strongly believe that this interactive map/list is too dangerous to the public safety. It turns out 1 out of about 23 adults in Westchester and Putnam counties have ownership permits for their handguns. They had a reformed perp (now a security consultant) on Greta either last night or the night before. He said that burglars will specifically target these houses now in order to steal guns. I would tend to believe it.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,428
Points:316,270
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 10:26:08 AM

The problem is that New York law allows gun permits to be a matter of public record. Not all states take that approach... Connecticut, for example.

Are officers special? No.

Are officers in more danger by virtue of being named on the list? No. How could that possibly be? Isn't personal safety the major reason touted by the let's-arm-everyone crowd?

[Edited by: MiddletownMarty at 1/5/2013 10:27:55 AM EST]
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:7,923
Points:1,147,885
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2013 10:18:29 AM

For those of you that think the list is “OK” and followed the law, the police officer union of white Plains would place its self above the law. They want their officers names removed from the list. They seem to feel that the list has placed police officers in some kind of danger. Why did they call only have the officers names removed from the list? Are they special? If so their names should never have been on the list in the first place. If the list does place officers in danger then how can it be argued that it doesn't place the rest of the people on the list in danger?

White Plains PBA: Take Cops' Names Off Gun Permit List
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:7,923
Points:1,147,885
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 11:04:46 PM

And so it begins. Now we have law enforcement officers being threatened because of the list.
-
Inmates using newspaper's gun owner map to threaten guards, sheriff says.
-
This goes back to the exemtptions I have listed numours times.
Profile Pic
Bell30012
Champion Author Atlanta

Posts:4,522
Points:692,510
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 10:24:40 PM

I don't think what the newspaper did was the correct action... What they did was completely legal. Legal doesn't always make it right. The State of New York has a FOIA law that clearly states that anyone making this request will receive the information. The US Constitution clearly states that the Congress cannot make any laws abridging a free press.

The correct way to fight this is to bring pressure to bear upon this newspaper and the Gannett chain. This is done by boycotting its advertisers and canceling subscriptions.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,432
Points:1,431,605
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 9:55:54 PM

AFSNCO for a confirmed prog/lib anything at all that is against guns is goooooood. Reason and concepts like privacy mean nothing when it comes to the holy grail of more and more gun control.

There are some of them prog/libs who even come flat out and say they want to confiscate the existing guns that are owned in compliance with all the laws (regardless of how ineffectual and silly some of thtem are) and they want to abolish the right to bear arms.

[Edited by: flyboyUT at 1/4/2013 10:00:32 PM EST]
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,147
Points:1,742,035
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 4, 2013 9:34:23 PM

I am really having a hard time that some of you are defending this newspaper's actions.
Post a reply Back to Topics