HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Philadelphia being sued o...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:13 AM

Philadelphia being sued over revealing CPL names on web site.

CCW in PA is called a Concealed Pistol License.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20121109_Class-action_lawsuit_looming_against_city_in_gun-owner_Web_snafu.html


PHILADELPHIA could be facing a class-action lawsuit on behalf of gun owners who say the city violated their privacy by publishing their personal information and launching an interactive Web map that included clickable icons of revolvers over their homes.

Attorney Joshua Prince filed a motion this week in Common Pleas Court, requesting that the suit be sealed to avoid revealing the names of his five clients - and potentially hundreds of others if the case is granted class-action status.

In August, the city's Department of Licenses and Inspections introduced a revamped website, featuring a map that allowed users to view the names and addresses of some gun owners in the city, and the specific reasons why they wanted a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

SNIP

Under the state's Uniform Firearms Act, information submitted as part of the gun-permit process is confidential. The application itself states that "all information supplied" is "not subject to public disclosure."

More at link


Looks like Philadelphia is about to get spanked. With cities losing these lawsuits maybe they will start respecting gun owners rights.

45 replies, 3428 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 45 replies Author Time Post
Reply Philadelphia being sued over revealing CPL names on web site. (Original post)
GreenStormCloud Nov 2012 OP
NYC_SKP Nov 2012 #1
Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #32
DonP Nov 2012 #37
Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #42
pipoman Nov 2012 #2
PavePusher Nov 2012 #10
Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #33
pipoman Nov 2012 #36
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #3
glacierbay Nov 2012 #4
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #13
glacierbay Nov 2012 #15
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #16
Atypical Liberal Nov 2012 #19
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #22
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2012 #26
Atypical Liberal Nov 2012 #29
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #30
petronius Nov 2012 #31
Atypical Liberal Nov 2012 #40
Atypical Liberal Nov 2012 #39
pipoman Nov 2012 #38
GreenStormCloud Nov 2012 #43
Atypical Liberal Nov 2012 #18
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #21
Atypical Liberal Nov 2012 #27
Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #35
Glassunion Nov 2012 #7
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #14
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #20
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #23
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #24
Starboard Tack Nov 2012 #28
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #44
Clames Nov 2012 #12
Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #34
Atypical Liberal Nov 2012 #41
Jenoch Nov 2012 #45
petronius Nov 2012 #5
ileus Nov 2012 #6
DonP Nov 2012 #8
Glassunion Nov 2012 #9
GreenStormCloud Nov 2012 #17
Glassunion Nov 2012 #25
ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #11

Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:15 AM

1. WTF were they thinking?

Seriously, why do that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:10 PM

32. This came up a couple years ago in Ohio...

In that case an Ohio newspaper sought to reveal the names of all concealed-carry licensees, argueing it was public right-to-know information. Anti-gun activists made it clear that they wanted the revelation so that they may somehow shame or ostracize those people with licenses. In a word the reason for such action is: Punishment.

Forgotten by these hard-line prohis was the reason why license plate information (owner, owner's address, etc.) is no longer given out: It provides thugs, spouse abusers, stalkers a ready means to find out where their victims live. Evidently, they didn't care about the Concealed-carry folks, or the increased chances they may be targeted by thugs, B&E types, etc. As long as they got their morals on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #32)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:43 PM

37. IIRC the CCW group published the names, home addresses etc. of the newspaper publisher, editor etc.

The Ohio CCW group ran all the personal information, including which school districts they lived in, online on their blog and put them up in other places as well.

The publisher, senior editor and editorial board went ape shit if I remember, claiming that they were putting their children in danger by publishing "personal information". I guess turnabout isn't fair play for hypocrites with an agenda.

I think that's what started the push for making the CCW records confidential, which most states do now. Mayor Nutter and the paper that published them are responsible for any and all mishaps that may befall the CCW permit holders, plus all the legal costs they may need to incur to get the law enforced.

"Paging Alan Gura, Mr. Gura please report to the Philadelphia court house to pick up another fat check from really stupid people."

But I'm sure Starboard Tack and all the others who feel this should all be public, in spite of laws to the contrary, will send checks to support the mayor right away.

Wont you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #37)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 05:40 PM

42. That's right, now that I recall. Very mean-spirited efforts by the prohibitionists. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:34 AM

2. Another one of the appropriately named Mayor Nutter's silly

MAIG schemes.

Also The Inquirer should be chastised and subscriptions cancelled for the stupid photo association game they like to play....what's wrong with this picture attached to the linked article?

http://media.philly.com/images/270*395/20121109_dn_0mc1ugyl.jpg

(of coarse they blocked embedding of their picture, you can look at the linked article..)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:16 PM

10. Oy vey....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:12 PM

33. The link cannot be accessed.nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #33)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:34 PM

36. Yeah, you just have to go to the article..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:28 AM

3. I see no reason why they would object.

Let them sue. The public has a right to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #3)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:48 AM

4. The public most certainly doesn't have a right to know

 

who owns firearms or who has a CPL. That's just ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #4)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:43 PM

13. Why is it ridiculous? What's the big deal?

Apparently, only those who had lost their CPLs and were re-applying were listed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #13)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:50 PM

15. Because it's an invasion of privacy that's why

 

What possible reason should the public know who has a CPL? What does that acomplish?
Here's what it may acomplish, Being targeted for theft, being targeted for harrassment by those opposed to guns.
Releasing that info would be like releasing your DL infor, your medical records.

There is no legitimate reason to release this info and the offending party should pay for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #15)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:56 PM

16. What thief would target someone he knows is armed?

The info published only concerned those whose permit had been denied. So, they didn't have CPLs.
I don't really have a position on this. The OP is obviously flame bait, so let's move on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #16)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 01:44 PM

19. You just wait until no one is home.

 

Similar to what this guy did:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Schaeffer

Except in this case the criminal was looking for Rebecca to be home. In our example, criminals could use this database as a list of houses likely to have firearms inside them, and then stake them out for break-ins when they are confident no one is home.

There is really nothing positive that arises from providing information about who has guns, and there are many negatives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #19)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:06 PM

22. You get funnier by the minute.

Waiting outside a house where you know the guy has a CPL so you can steal a gun he carries with him. So when he leaves do you break in and wait for him to come home and shoot you, or do you shake your fist angrily and demand he hand over that gun to you. I guess that's one way to commit suicide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #22)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:40 PM

26. You elide the point that releasing the information violated PA state law.

From the article:

Under the state's Uniform Firearms Act, information submitted as part of the gun-permit process is confidential. The application itself states that "all information supplied" is "not subject to public disclosure."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #22)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:53 PM

29. I guess you'd make a poor criminal.

 

Waiting outside a house where you know the guy has a CPL so you can steal a gun he carries with him. So when he leaves do you break in and wait for him to come home and shoot you, or do you shake your fist angrily and demand he hand over that gun to you. I guess that's one way to commit suicide.

I guess you'd make a poor criminal.

If you suspect a home has firearms in it, and you'd like to steal them, you simply do what is referred to as "casing". You watch for a couple of days to figure out what time the homeowner(s) leave the home, probably for work, and make sure no one is home. Once you have a reliable pattern for when the occupants are not likely to be home, you make your move.

It's the same reason many people recommend not putting NRA stickers on your vehicle. It's an easy-to-identify sign that a home probably has firearms in it. Just drive through the neighborhood and look for stickers.

In our neighborhood we've had a couple of break-ins where the criminals knocked on the front door, and when no one answered they assumed that no one was home and they went around back and broke in. I don't know how this was determined but it is what the neighborhood watch reported.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #29)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:05 PM

30. Thanks. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #30)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:07 PM

31. Is that "Thanks" for the compliment of not seeming like a criminal,

or "Thanks" for the advice on how to be a better one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #31)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:59 PM

40. I assumed he was thanking me for educating him. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #30)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:59 PM

39. I hope you found the education useful. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #22)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:48 PM

38. Funny is someone who thinks some people don't do just that every day

in one form or another all over the world. Burglars never "case the place", huh? LOL Targets of burglaries are almost always cased. Someone who owns one gun for a ccw probably is a rare, rare kettle of fish...many idiots even know this. Pretend these people don't exist..

Lynn Langton

November 8, 2012 NCJ 239436

Presents findings on the theft of firearms during household burglaries and other property crimes from 2005 through 2010. The report examines the number of property crime victimizations involving the theft of one or more firearms, the number of firearms stolen each year, and the characteristics of property crimes involving stolen firearms. It presents data by the amount of loss, the percentage reported to police, the percentage of items recovered, and the characteristics of households experiencing the theft. The report also presents trends from 1994 through 2010 on the number of victimizations involving firearm theft. Data are from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which collects information on nonfatal crimes, reported and not reported to the police, against persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households.

Highlights include the following:

About 1.4 million guns, or an annual average of 232,400, were stolen during burglaries and other property crimes in the six-year period from 2005 through 2010.
On average, firearms were stolen in an annual average of about 4% of the 2.4 million burglaries occurring each year, in 2% of the 529,200 robberies, and in less than 1% of the 13.6 million other crimes involving theft from 2005 through 2010.
From 2005 through 2010, 86% of burglaries and 75% of other property crimes involving a stolen firearm were reported to police.


http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4534

And aren't you the guy who believes in not giving criminals, who I believe have been determined to exist in the previous paragraph, access to guns? Wouldn't, oh, not giving criminals access to a database of legal gun owners addresses be a no-brainer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #16)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 08:06 PM

43. Not flame bait - news.

More and more cities and states are being sued over the rights of gun owners. The Philly city government is hostile to gun owners and is now being sued. It was a legitimate news post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #13)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 01:39 PM

18. The same reason this was a big deal:

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #18)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:01 PM

21. Your method for connecting dots certainly is entertaining.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #21)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:44 PM

27. Glad you find facts entertaining.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #21)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:18 PM

35. "...personal information through the DMV were drastically changed." 'Nough said. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #3)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:57 AM

7. So the public has the right to know

the name and address of people carrying large sums of money?

"Police quickly asked L&I to remove the information, saying it could jeopardize the safety of the gun owners, including a city pastor who said he routinely carries large sums of money and had been robbed before."

As it stands the public does not have the right to know, as the paperwork that we fill out states that the information will be kept confidential that it is NOT subject to public disclosure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #7)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:48 PM

14. That's a stretch.

But it should act as a deterrent if a would be robber knows the money carrier is armed. I doubt they publish a list of money carriers. This was a list of those who had been denied permits.
"The information pertained to people who'd been denied a gun permit or had their existing permit revoked, and had appealed to L&I's Review Board. People who obtained gun permits without appealing to L&I were not on the map, which also included information about building permits, polling places, parks and code violations."

Much ado about nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #14)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 02:20 PM

20. Maybe they should also post how your neighbors voted

 

you have a right to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #20)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:10 PM

23. Right. Voting is a public safety issue.

Your logic is now on a par with that of Atypical. Congrats!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #23)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:15 PM

24. Indeed it is

 

who determines what laws we have, what resources we dedicate to law enforcement, how we go about addressing social issues and the like?

A bad politician is a much greater threat to public safety than a CHL holder. Even the worst mass shooters have paled in comparison to the horrors unleashed by the worst politicians.

So yeah, if you're concerned about public safety who people are voting for trumps who is packing every single time.

And you have yet to give a valid reason as to why this info should be publicly available.

/also since you're on a "public safety trumps privacy" kick what about releasing everyone's test results for various communicable diseases? Shouldn't the community know, so it can be safe and in no way persecute anyone, who in their midst has HIV? Or who doesn't vaccinate? Or who frequently travels to malaria rich regions of Africa for business? What benefit could there be to keeping any of that secret?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #24)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:49 PM

28. I don't think it should be made public. I don't care about it.

The OP was flame bait. I was just helping him stir it a bit. I'm done now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #28)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 10:06 PM

44. So...you were trolling?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #3)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:38 PM

12. No the public does not.

 

They'll sue and because of people that think like you do the public will pick up the tab. Of course maybe you have no problem spending hundreds of thousands of dollars that could go to things like education and healthcare for those with little access to it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #3)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:13 PM

34. Note #32 above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #3)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 05:01 PM

41. What does the public gain from knowing?

 

The public has a right to know.

What positive outcome results from the public knowing this information?

Other than being reassured that those people are highly unlikely to be involved in crime, that is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:06 PM

45. Are you sure

you are not confusing American laws with those you are more familiar with, say, those in the United Kingdom?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:49 AM

5. Whether it's guns or anything else, I think protection of personal privacy should

carry a lot of weight. Unless there's a compelling to make personal details publicly available, governments should avoid doing so - and as information technology becomes increasingly efficient, more and more care needs to be taken in making these decisions.

In this case, I see no good reason to publicize the info, and in fact some really good reasons not to, as the police department pointed out ("Police quickly asked L&I to remove the information, saying it could jeopardize the safety of the gun owners, including a city pastor who said he routinely carries large sums of money and had been robbed before")...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #5)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:52 AM

6. Those responsible for this want gun owners attacked....it's their agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:01 PM

8. Mayors and some papers continue to do stupid and expensive things

I'm sure that mayor Nutter will wind up signing a big ass check for his violation of the law just like my buddy Rahm had to.

But just like Chicago, it's just your tax money they're pissing away.

So keep applauding their efforts and paying higher taxes to support stupidity.

I'm "shocked" to realize that the people that think this is a good idea never actually write any checks to support these mayors, or any other gun control organizations either.

Imagine that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:07 PM

9. I'm going to nitpick

But in PA it is called a "License to Carry Firearms"

Mainly because it encompasses more than just handguns in some of the laws.

It is illegal to carry any loaded firearm (handgun, rifle, etc...) in a vehicle, unless you have a license.

Also;
No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun upon the public streets or upon any public property during an emergency proclaimed by a State or municipal governmental executive unless that person is:

1.Actively engaged in a defense of that person's life or property from peril or threat.

2.Licensed to carry firearms under section 6109 (relating to licenses) or is exempt from licensing under section 6106(b) (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #9)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:58 PM

17. You're right. It is an LCF. Thanks for the correction. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #17)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:17 PM

25. The LE at the county courthouse corrected me when I asked for the paperwork to apply for the license

He also emphasised that it is a License not a Permit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:25 PM

11. Bad dog, pay up

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread