NYC bill would put NYPD gun offender database online

[HolyMoley]

Now, here's a brilliant idea.
What could possibly go wrong?

Why the focus on firearms related convictions?
If 'public safety' and a need to know is the intent, why not a searchable database on all criminal convictions, or at the very least, any felony conviction (violent or non-violent)?


A City Council bill would give New Yorkers the power to see whether their next-door neighbor ever had a criminal past with a gun.

City Councilman Peter Vallone is set to introduce legislation Thursday that would put the NYPD's gun offender registry online. The database keeps track of those convicted of certain gun crimes.

Vallone, who chairs the city's public safety committee and is running for Queens borough president, also is introducing another bill that would call on the state to create its own version of the registry.

"We cannot allow these violent offenders to slip through the cracks upon their release from prison, and these bills will keep residents and law enforcement officers across the state well aware of their locations," he said in a statement.

More: http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/nyc-bill-would-put-nypd-gun-offender-database-online-1.5933676

[petronius]

1. Right, because ex-offenders don't have nearly enough barriers

to reintegration into society as it is. What could be more helpful than an easy tool for public shaming?

[krispos42]

2. Trial outcomes are public information

As are the arrest records of people.


It is inevitable that somebody will turn this into an easy-to-use computer map of some kind. Of course, it would become less accurate as time marched on.

[petronius]

10. I don't dispute that the records are public, my objection is with the idea

of creating an easy-access public interface for them. I'd consider it reprehensible for a private company to do it, and worse for a government entity to do so.

I don't really see it as a gun issue, I object to the publication of ex-offender lists regardless of the crime. One of the goals of the justice system ought to be the reintegration of ex-offenders after the sentence has been served, and the discouragement of recidivism. I don't see that public lists like these serve any real societal need, but they do provide a handy tool for harassment, shaming, and discrimination - exactly the sort of thing that drives people back into crime. I would characterize lists as an open-ended additional punishment rather than a public safety enhancement...

[branford]

3. I'm a resident of NYC and I have no objection to the law.

Trials and there outcomes are a matter of public record. Once convicted of a firearm offense, I see no legal impediment to compiling the information, so long as it is removed in the event of a successful appeal.

My only concern is the slippery slope; that it will lead to a firearm owner database. That, however, does not appear to currently be a concern in New York. Even Cuomo, with his broad and draconian (and often absurd) new regulations, readily agreed to protect gun owner identities after the fiasco of the Journal News releasing the names and addresses of gun owners in Rockland County, NY.

My first reflex is to generally oppose any gun law coming out of Albany or the City. However, subject to a review of the actual text, I do not find this proposal particularly offensive.

[Eleanors38]

4. I tend to think along your lines. The problem is abuse...

MSM has a particularly lurid interest in tossing gasoline around in this culture war of shame and stigmatization, and the Journal News is not the only outlet which has sought to publish names & addresses of gun owners, then self righteously stand back & mumble some crap about the right to know. By now they should know the response:

Double-down.

[Starboard Tack]

5. What does shame and stigma have to do with gun ownership?

[Eleanors38]

8. Shame and stigma do not bear on my gun ownership...

But the tactic used by some newspapers over the last few years of publishing names and addresses of gun owners (either for home or Concealed-carry) is not only dangerous, but a blatant attempt to shame and denigrate those owners.

"The Rockland editor said she felt threatened by the complaints, but local police didn’t believe there was a credible threat. McBride and other executives then decided to hire armed guards to protect their property, the Times reported, 'causing an uproar due to the perceived hypocrisy of the avowed anti-gun editors hiring gun-toting men.'"

http://www.care2.com/news/member/907581929/3623699

And there is this blast from the past...

"The Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence agrees with the governor. The public has the right to know who has a permit so we can make appropriate choices for our families. We have the right to not hire, socialize, or share public space with those who carry hidden guns." (November 21, 2003)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x479815

As posted from the noted-for-something Iverglas, Post 119.

[Starboard Tack]

19. I still don't see where you get the "shame and stigma" thing from.

Looks to me like people choosing who or who not to hang out with. We all have different interests and different ideas about public safety and appropriate behavior in public.
You seem to be conflating gun ownership with the practice of carrying guns in public. I fail to see how shame or stigma can be attached to either ownership or carrying, though the latter may be cause for ridicule and embarrassment.

[branford]

7. That's not the full story.

I have family in Rockland. While the Journal News was publicly doubling-down to save fave, the backlash was palpable. Most of the staff was either not coming to work or had armed guards at their homes. The Gannett executives outside the state were also relatively silent as they, too, felt the heat. There was also very little support within the community. My VERY liberal, gun-control supporting, and Democratically active parents and their friends, were actually horrified by the violation of privacy, no less the multitude of mistakes in the report that identified people that were subject to protective orders, retired police or simply did not own a gun.

I very much doubt that either Gannett or other smaller papers want to go through that hell again, no less in another state with a much stronger gun culture.

There is a reason why Cuomo supported the privacy protections for gun owners even in deep blue New York and NYC.

[Eleanors38]

9. The history of MSM in this regard goes back some years, esp. in Ohio...

...as I posted just above. The gun-control activist cited pretty much revealed the reason for publishing the names: To bring moral opprobrium and punishment upon gun-owners from their fellow citizens. We hear much of culture war, and I believe that a war of sorts has developed around guns. Well, MSM's complicity in this war is well-established.

There is room for work on issues of violence in this country, esp. with regards to expanded background checks and more assurance that those violating gun laws are held accountable and jailed for significant terms. In the long run, attempts to better conditions within our cities will involve long-term programs to better conditions; education, jobs, pre-sentencing diversion for non-violent crimes among them.

For now, the battle will continue to center on rather standard prohibitionist politics.

[branford]

11. You've read my posts here and in GD, and know that I'm a very strong supporter of the RKBA.

I also thought that the Journal News were fools who actually hurt their own gun control cause. With more enemies like them, we'll have concealed carry reciprocity by next year.

Nevertheless, I'm not an absolutist on the issue of firearms or anything else. If a law is proposed that I believe passes constitutional muster, does not infringe upon the privacy of those who did not break any laws or who are not a danger to themselves or others, and provides some people with a reasonable peace of mind, I will not oppose such legislation. Note, however, that the devil is always in the details, and I would need to carefully examine any proposed law. It's like universal background checks - I do not oppose it in principle, but anything with even a whiff of a government registration list is DOA.

Also, notice that I said that I would not "oppose" the legislation, that is a very far cry from "supporting" such a law. I do not believe that an offender registry will demonstrably keep our streets safer or save lives. However, as I'm in NYC, my political energies have to be directed at the more absurd and infringing gun laws in my City and State.

Lastly, we are most certainly in agreement that addressing underlying social and economic conditions in our country is the best way to address our problems with violence, whether committed with or without a firearm,

[Eleanors38]

12. Your outlook resonates with mine...

"Also, notice that I said that I would not "oppose" the legislation, that is a very far cry from "supporting" such a law."

A couple of days ago, the question of "waiting period" came up with regards BG checks, and whether or not such measures were constitutional. I could not immediately see a reason for unconstitutionality, only the possibility of abuse as there would probably be moves to extend the time further and further and further. I'm not even sure if "universal" B.G. checks will work, though I support such measures if constitutional. I also do not object to keeping guns locked in safes when children are present, or when the residence is left vacant, though such can better be handled by a concerted public relations/education campaign, much in the manner of anti-cigarette campaigns a half-century ago which did more to reduce smoking than the prohibitionist laws cigarette banners are tinkering with now.

Ha! Currently in another thread my views are likened to "NRAtalkingPoints, Inc.," and I am accused of all manner of RW views. I have not come across a group of extremists (some gun-controller/banners on DU) as I have here. You give them a list of your views and record on all manner of topics, and they say "I don't believe you." It seems the ONLY proof of some mystical "liberality" (or more accurately "progressiveness&quot is adhering to a strict gun-control/ban position; otherwise, you are the enemy and subject to any DU-sanctioned derision and smear which can be called down upon you.

[branford]

13. We both have come to the attention of the Ideological Purity Police!

We are basically in agreement on the gun issue and other liberal priorities, with just some differences on the fringe.

What I find the most troubling is the venom directed at anyone who dares support a broad interpretation of the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, when it is this precise LIBERAL interpretation of the constitution that has provided for and guaranteed a woman's right to choose, privacy protections and other progressive values. When I bring-up the hypocrisy of singling out the Second Amendment (no less the writings of Lawrence Tribe) and the slippery slope that could decimate other liberal priorities, I'm denounced as an "NRA shill" or with even more "colorful" language.

I also point-out that if gun-rights opponents cannot seek compromise and accommodation with fellow liberals on DU, how in heaven's name do they expect to convince moderates and conservative from states with a pronounced history with firearms. I'm about the lowest hanging fruit they could find - I live in Manhattan, I do not own a gun or feel the need to, and I'm an attorney who's politically active with issues concerning minority rights in the criminal justice system. Nevertheless, posting in GD about my views on the Second Amendment has managed to actually harden my opinion concerning firearm ownership and use. Unfortunately, many of my fellow liberals are living-up to the worst stereotypes that conservatives have of purported liberal authoritarianism. It's a pity.

I like to tell those who complain about me that if my very classically liberal values and interpretation of the Constitution made an exception for the Second Amendment (or Fox News, or any other liberal shibboleth), then I really never truly held liberal values and beliefs.

[Eleanors38]

17. Posting to note how some other pro-2A DUers also have hardened their positions...

Not the most rational of reasons to support a cause, but "gunnies" here are pretty old school lefties, and not easily cowed or shamed by playground insults.

[branford]

14. If you want to be amused, or maybe saddened, . . .

I posted my opinion why I did not oppose the gun offender registry in the "other" gun forum, and tried to engage in a reasonable and amicable debate and seek compromise. I was completely honest and consistent in my opinions, and wanted to see if there was any room for compromise. I was cautiously optimistic.

It started-off fine, but as of today, I've been angrily denounced as apparently spewing NRA talking points and being a right-wing shill.

It's really a pity that because of their quest for ideological purity and perfection, it appears very unlikely that we will ever agree on effective, constitutional laws to deter the obviously dangerous among us or deal with the underlying causes of violence in our society, whether with or without the use of a firearm.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12624303

[oneshooter]

15. Welcome to our world.

[Eleanors38]

16. Not sure what to make of the controller extremists you encountered...

...sometimes extremists become captive of their own ideologies lest they be accused of betraying some shared cause. There may be something larger at work, the tendency of DUers to suspect ANYONE not of their cookie-cutter ilk on ANY number of issues for fear they are collaborators with some enemy. It's mediocre if not paranoid, but points to an even larger concern: The Left has been so fractured & rendered irrelevant that many assorted definers of the "true faith" have crowded into a largely empty room of activism and sought custody of the Scarlet Letter.

One thing's for sure. if the Democratic Party is to overhaul itself -- or be overtaken by another party -- controllers & banners will have to fight it out for a say on an issue most Demos would, quite frankly, prefer to see go away. They have had a warm place to shit for some time, and they see a big threat to their "status" in the near-term.

[branford]

18. Very true. I just don't want to see a repeat of what happened to Clinton and then Gore.

We could ultimately lose on so many other important issues due to the alienating effects of unyielding gun control advocacy.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. NYC has already proven NYC is too stupid to be trusted with judicial powers

i.e. Stop and Molest