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

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 02:51 PM

Primary reason registration is a bad idea

No, I'm not afraid of blue helmeted troops jumping out of black helicopters and duce and a halfs. It is irresponsible members of the infotainment industry who will put my name and address on a Google Map. There is no legitimate "right to know for public safety", when said people have not demonstrated any violation of the law or anything else. But then. The attempt is to make them crime victims either by theft of the guns or hate crimes against them simply for owning legally licensed and registered handguns. Why else would they print it?

http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-?gcheck=1

If any of these people become victims of a crime because of this list, or can be connected to this list, should the publisher etc. should there be criminal or civil action taken? I say yes.

88 replies, 6898 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 88 replies Author Time Post
Reply Primary reason registration is a bad idea (Original post)
gejohnston Dec 2012 OP
bettyellen Dec 2012 #1
gejohnston Dec 2012 #10
bettyellen Dec 2012 #21
gejohnston Dec 2012 #23
bettyellen Dec 2012 #24
gejohnston Dec 2012 #25
bettyellen Dec 2012 #32
gejohnston Dec 2012 #36
bettyellen Dec 2012 #38
gejohnston Dec 2012 #40
Recursion Dec 2012 #34
guardian Dec 2012 #59
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #74
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #2
TheMoreYouKnow Dec 2012 #4
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #6
TheMoreYouKnow Dec 2012 #7
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #31
Travis_0004 Dec 2012 #76
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #79
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #78
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #82
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #84
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #85
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #86
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #68
alp227 Dec 2012 #72
gejohnston Dec 2012 #73
gejohnston Dec 2012 #13
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #29
gejohnston Dec 2012 #33
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #41
gejohnston Dec 2012 #43
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #56
gejohnston Dec 2012 #58
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #60
gejohnston Dec 2012 #61
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #62
gejohnston Dec 2012 #63
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #64
gejohnston Dec 2012 #65
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #66
Politicalboi Dec 2012 #3
TheMoreYouKnow Dec 2012 #5
safeinOhio Dec 2012 #9
gejohnston Dec 2012 #17
gejohnston Dec 2012 #14
Glassunion Dec 2012 #19
gejohnston Dec 2012 #20
spin Dec 2012 #22
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #80
rl6214 Dec 2012 #50
Deep13 Dec 2012 #54
cosmicone Dec 2012 #8
gejohnston Dec 2012 #16
spin Dec 2012 #26
rl6214 Dec 2012 #51
xxxsdesdexxx Dec 2012 #55
matt819 Dec 2012 #11
gejohnston Dec 2012 #15
clffrdjk Dec 2012 #12
clffrdjk Dec 2012 #49
Glassunion Dec 2012 #18
ibegurpard Dec 2012 #27
gejohnston Dec 2012 #28
Toronto Dec 2012 #30
gejohnston Dec 2012 #39
Toronto Dec 2012 #42
gejohnston Dec 2012 #44
Toronto Dec 2012 #45
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #83
MotherPetrie Dec 2012 #35
rl6214 Dec 2012 #52
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #69
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #75
Toronto Dec 2012 #37
Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2012 #46
MightyMopar Dec 2012 #47
gejohnston Dec 2012 #48
Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2012 #67
Deep13 Dec 2012 #53
gejohnston Dec 2012 #57
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #70
gejohnston Dec 2012 #71
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #81
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #77
Toronto Dec 2012 #87
guardian Dec 2012 #88

Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 02:57 PM

1. are lists of car registrations made public? why would anyone assume registration would work

that way?

thefts and hate crimes? seriously, was there not enough paranoia going around?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:30 PM

10. read twitter feeds of some celebraties

lately. If the same language were applied to any other group, it would be a hate speech. If I were looking for high value items to steal, that would be a list to start with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:50 PM

21. celeb tweets scaring you? and that why you need a gun?


i hope you're kidding. you're certainly not convincing anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #21)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:53 PM

23. not scaring me at all

I'm saying there are weak minds that could be motivated by such things. Since there is no dept of needs, I don't need to justify my "need" to you or anyone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #23)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:54 PM

24. so the terror you expressed was fake, got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:00 PM

25. I don't live in New York

and I don't live around weak minded people. At least weak minded people who pay attention to tweets from anti gun celebrities anyway. If you can't tell the difference between terrorized and appalled, then you shouldn't own a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #25)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:20 PM

32. everyone lives around weak minded people, LOL. you'd be crazy to think otherwise.

I don't have a gun because I have no desire or need to shoot at people or things. I don't have a weak and paranoid state of mind where I fearfully imagine I'll need to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #32)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:37 PM

36. you didn't see my list of qualifiers did you?

I live in the sticks, or at least as country as Florida gets. Most of the weak minded people around here are likely to be Glen Beck fans that are more likely to take a dislike to my Obama sticker my daughter's coven.
I grew up with guns, they were always there. Fear and paranoia has nothing to do with it. There is a word for making negative value judgments of people and cultures you don't know anything about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #36)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:45 PM

38. you bring attention to celeb tweets, but say that "weak minded people who pay attention to tweets..

from anti gun celebrities"

You paid, and tried to bring attention to them. LOL.
Weak minded, indeed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #38)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:51 PM

40. OK, are influenced by

semantics indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:26 PM

34. Some journalist in VA printed the names and addresses of concealed-carry licensees in his column

Roanoke, I think.

It included a woman who had a gun because she had a violent ex-husband, who now found out where she lived. She sued; I think the paper settled in the end.

Anyways, registration seems like the best of a bunch of bad ideas. I'm sure the information will be abused like all other quasi-public private information is, but so be it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:51 AM

59. Paranoia huh?

 

Newspaper Publishes Gun Owners’ Names and Addresses
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/newspaper-publishes-gun-owners-names-and-addresses/

A newspaper in New York has received a wave of criticism from its readers after publishing the names and addresses of all of the individuals with handgun or pistol permits in its coverage area. Hundreds of residents in New York’s Westchester and Rockland counties were surprised to find their names and addresses listed on a map posted by The Journal News on Sunday. Users can click any dot on the map to see which of their neighbors has a permit for a gun.


Actually it is more a case of people understanding the frothing hate the anti-gunners have for anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 09:35 PM

74. In Texas you could phone the state, give out a license #

and get back the car owner and address. After a woman's address was obtained thusly, and subsequently murdered, the info was no longer publicly available.

Read the history of other attempts by "news media" doing the same with guns: the aim is social ostracizing, pitting neighbor against neighbor, and smear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 02:57 PM

2. So gun owners have rights non-gun owners haven"t?

Is that what you're saying? The manufacturers are protected from liability, but publishers should be punished for warning people?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:03 PM

4. warning people about

 

their neighbors using their rights? Should we publish 1st amendment maps too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMoreYouKnow (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:09 PM

6. Isn't this map protected by the 1st amendment?

Where is it written that the 2nd is more important than the 1st?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:12 PM

7. when you endanger

 

people by posting a map you give up your 1st amendment rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMoreYouKnow (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:17 PM

31. Really?

So you're saying that if your gun is stolen and used to commit a crime, you're responsible?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:05 PM

76. If a list of all people on food stamps was published, would you support it on 1st admendment grounds

I would assume you would not. I know I wouldn't support it, as its nobody business.

How is firearm permits any different. Just because the government has info doesn't mean its automatically public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #76)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:25 PM

79. You would assume incorrectly.

Every state decides what things are matter of public record and what aren't. In NY gun licenses are a matter of public record, to which everyone has access. If NY had the same policy for food stamps the paper would indeed be protected by the first amendment. I am ambivalent concerning this matter. I can see both points of view. I can certainly understand why gun owners wouldn't like it, but I can also understand why some people would want to know which of their neighbors keep guns in their homes.

There is nothing left of privacy in the US...between the internet, cell phone providers and the Patriot Act we kid only ourselves if we think the government doesn't have access to every aspect of our lives. I recently Googled my name for the first time ever, and was appalled to find a donation I made to a candidate for governor in Texas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:24 PM

78. No, not if you are familiar with the invasion of privacy laws.

 

No court has ever ruled that the rights guaranteed in the First Amendment against governmental restrictions is absolute. Not one.

To paraphrase Justice Holmes, freedom of speech under the First Amendment does not give anyone the right to falsely yell "fire!" in a crowded theater.

Newspaper publishers do not have absolute power in this country. They can be sued for libel, fraud, and even invasion of privacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #78)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:28 PM

82. Public records are public records....

That means anyone can access them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #82)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:34 PM

84. The issue is not whether public records are public records. The issue is whether a New York

 

newspaper can violate the privacy laws of New York (please see # 77) with no legal recourse available to those whose privacy has been invaded.

This event apparently happened in New York. If you are a New York resident and disagree with the law, you can always seek to change it. If you reside in another State, you can also seek to change the law in that State.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #84)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:50 PM

85. I can find nothing that says

Public Records are subject to privacy laws. If something is a matter of public record by definition it is readily available to public access.
The newspaper did not use the names for purposes of advertising and you would be hard put to get a ruling that the information provided was inherently different from any other information the paper provides. The business of newspapers is to provide information. I think the only legal recourse here is for the gun owners to attempt to get the licenses removed from the public record.

Here in FL you can go online, plug in an address find out who owns the property, when they bought it, what they paid for it, what are the property taxes and whether they have been paid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #85)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:12 PM

86. You are seeking to add elements which are not required by N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 51.

 

The language of the statute (which can be found at #77) controls. You can disregard the statute, but you do not have the authority to change it and add your own elements and exceptions.

For the statute to be applicable, the statute does not require that a newspaper "use the names for purposes of advertising." The word "or" was inserted by the New York legislature right after the phrase
"is used within this state for advertising purposes ..."

The word "or" is used in the disjunctive. It is used to connect alternatives. The phrase following the "or" is
"for the purposes of trade"

Liability can attach when names are used by a newspaper publisher for the purpose of engaging in the trade of newspaper publishing without also using such names for advertising purposes.

The fact that you can find public records in Florida related to land ownership is irrelevant to the issue of whether a New York privacy statute provides a legal remedy under the terms set forth in the statute.

Since you mentioned the State of Florida, there is an excellent review of the privacy laws in Florida which was published in the Florida State University Law Review and which can be found here:
http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/251/overton.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMoreYouKnow (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:18 PM

68. I'd LOVE to lknow who to stear clear of in my neighborhood

 

Owning a gun is DANGEROUS.

I'd like t know who in my neighborhood is DANGEROUS. Number one so I can call the cops when they act strange and inform the cops they are armed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #68)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:39 AM

72. But how much crime is done with illegally obtained guns?

Adam Lanza stole his mother's guns to kill mother and the schoolkids.

The Columbine shooters illegally obtained their weapons.

Gang members, robbers, and other criminals won't go thru the trouble of getting the proper gun licenses either out of laziness or ineligibility due to previous criminal records.

That's why the list scares me.

On the other hand, the Virginia Tech shooter was able to obtain guns due to loopholes concerning mental health background check. The man who killed Trayvon Martin had an active gun permit. Same with the man who killed Jordan Davis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Reply #72)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:32 AM

73. correct, however

until the trial, Trayvon Martin is irrelevant. Especially since the media's conventional wisdom is questionable. That said, since most murderers and murder victims in the US have long criminal records in the US, the vast majority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:32 PM

13. actually they are not

they are protected from meritless law suits modeled after SLAPP suits. Warning people of what? Legal gun owners that the state of New York decided were safe enough to have a gun? I'm saying your right to unreasonable fear and paranoia does not trump another's right to privacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:16 PM

29. I'm neither unreasonable nor paranoid....

I don't want to ban all guns. Nor do I live in fear. I would posit that the true paranoids are those who want these semi-automatic weapons and have never hunted anything larger than a cockroach. I'm saying that perhaps I have a right to know that if I have difficult neighbor, the one with the gun is the one I go the extra mile to either appease or avoid. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

So, while you don't trust the government to either protect you, or to refrain from confiscating your guns, you want me to trust the government's determination that you are fit gun owner?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #29)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:25 PM

33. couple of things wrong

I would posit that the true paranoids are those who want these semi-automatic weapons and have never hunted anything larger than a cockroach.
A lot of hunters use semi autos and have for over 100 years. I know by personal experience of people I know. There are also target competitions, or are you saying every Olympic shooting team are a bunch of paranoids since they use semi auto pistols?

I'm saying that perhaps I have a right to know that if I have difficult neighbor, the one with the gun is the one I go the extra mile to either appease or avoid. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
Right to privacy is in the fourth amendment right, just like a woman's choice. The other guy is not always the difficult neighbor.

So, while you don't trust the government to either protect you, or to refrain from confiscating your guns, you want me to trust the government's determination that you are fit gun owner?
Several SCOTUS cases, dating back to LBJ ruled that it is not the government's job to protect me or you. In the movies and TV you see the cops show up in the nick of time when you dial 911, doesn't work like that. The other is a false choice. I trust the government when it uses objective criteria stated in the statute, not something New York is known for. Even then I would trust the State of New York over some neighbor who doesn't like them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #33)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:56 PM

41. Just more of the same....

My uncles and cousins still use bolt action rifles for hunting, their children, much to their amusement, use semi-automatics. I said never hunted...and probably don't shoot competitively either.

I never claimed the "other" was always the difficult neighbor. I have always made it a point to get along well with my neighbors...but I had one who was just a miserable sob. He bullied his wife, the other neighbors and the neighborhood children. Perhaps, I would have let him continue to do so if I knew he had a gun.

Look, let's get something straight...I don't want to take guns any from any sane, law abiding citizen. The NRA thinks we need a data base of those judged to be mentally ill. That's just misdirection. Aren't they entitled to privacy as well? Perhaps if every gun owner in the nation comes out to support a woman's right to privacy, I would reconsider their right to privacy. As it now stands, it seems we have a class of citizens who claim all of the constitutionally endowed rights for themselves and accord very few, including the most basic right to life, to others. We have road rage killers, and vigilante killers and a host of other killers who are enabled by the refusal of supposedly 'reasonable' people to acquiesce to registering their guns or submitting to background checks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #41)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:07 PM

43. I didn't say anything good about the Wayne's

mentally ill registry or the cop in school idea that he stole from Bill Clinton, or channeling Tipper Gore about video games.
I fail to see how registration would have anything to do with it, since I think it is costly theater and nothing more. Every gun I have bought since the Brady Bill 20 years ago has been with background check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #43)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:43 AM

56. Isn't that the point?

I think it's safe to say you haven't killed anyone with any of those guns. Another DU gun owner said she could support a registry that was not controlled by the government and could only be accessed with a warrant. That sounds very reasonable to me...I don't know whether the idea was her own, but I think that would go a long way toward alleviating some of the fears people have about registering their guns. I think background checks are very important and I would close the loopholes that allow guns to be sold without them.

Clinton, as the recent election demonstrated, is the greatest campaigner in history...he was, at best, a mediocre president whose greatest legacy is Ruth Bader-Ginsburg. Tipper is irrelevant. I don't think we need to infringe upon the first amendment, I think we need to educate parents as to the value of exercise and other interests for their children. I think we need to assist parents with troubled children find the help they need for those children. I don't care what games they are playing, anyone who spends most waking hours of every day, isolated from flesh and blood people, is a bomb waiting for a trigger. Hollywood has always had subtle influence on our culture, whether you consider the sexual revolution, or anti-war sentiment, violence or greater acceptance of the LGBT community.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #56)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:04 AM

58. point is privacy laws

According to Canadian poster, the paper would be prosecuted for violating privacy laws. Every right has limits. Their first amendment right does not trump my right to privacy.

Another problem I have with registration is I simply don't see the practical value in it. It is expensive, doesn't solve crimes, deter crimes, or much else other than keep a list and provide theater. At best it provides jobs for people operating it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #58)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:14 PM

60. But your right to privacy,

which is an assumed right not specifically granted in the constitution, trumps first amendment rights?

Privacy law in the United States does not forbid the publication of public records.

So if guns should not be registered is the only solution to simply supply everyone in the nation with a semi-automatic weapon and armor piercing ammunition?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #60)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:14 PM

61. umm

which is an assumed right not specifically granted in the constitution, trumps first amendment rights?
Roe is based on right to privacy. BTW, the constitution is a set of negative rights, it doesn't grant anything. It specifies what the State can not do. I find your conservative view of the BoR interesting.

Privacy law in the United States does not forbid the publication of public records.
If they are public, which I don't know New York law, they should not be. They should be treated the same as DMV records, available only to LE for legitimate investigation purposes.

So if guns should not be registered is the only solution to simply supply everyone in the nation with a semi-automatic weapon and armor piercing ammunition?
False choice. I'm guessing you think a semi auto is the same as a machine gun. Not. Armor piercing ammunition? Why? I'm not going to bore you with the technical reasons why, but if someone is shooting at me, that's what I want him to have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #61)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:34 PM

62. Right, the assumption....there is no specific reference to privacy....

Gun registrations in NY are a matter of public record which assumes the "public's right to know"

I don't have a conservative point of view regarding the bill of rights...I simply think all rights carry corresponding responsibilities.

So what is the reasonable expectation regarding guns in the US?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #62)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:40 PM

63. actually you do

that is why the ninth amendment was created. That is the same view held by Robert Bork, along with his moral harm theory.

Gun registrations should be the same as car registrations.

Reasonable expectations is that sales, registrations, licensing should be only available to legitimate law enforcement for official use, esp as part of investigations. In short, just like DMV records.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/29/645565/-Negative-vs-Positive-Liberties-in-the-Constitution

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #63)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 02:13 PM

64. Sure, compare me to Robert Bork if that makes you feel better....

Because computers, the internet, hackers and the Patriot Act have made all of those records so secure. Here in FL all anyone needs is a name, license number and just a bit of personal information to obtain the driving record of any licensed driver. You can go to a web site and find out what your neighbors paid in property taxes, or whether they have even paid them and all you need for that is an address. Your internet purchases and usage are tracked and stored in vast data banks by providers who readily give up their information to any government agency that asks. Cell phone service providers perform regular dumps for police departments. For all practical purposes, there is no privacy in modern life. My son laughed at me when I was outraged by the targeted advertising sent my way based on my most recent purchases. imagine my surprise when I recently, and for the first time, Googled my own name and found a record of a political donation I had made. The privacy rights of gun owners, however, are supposed to be sacrosanct? Before I buy into that, I'd like to see the simple things I used to be able to count on as being private returned to that status.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #64)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 02:31 PM

65. not saying the privacy of gun owners are sacrosanct

it just happens to be the topic of the day. Florida is as wrong as California was. I am being consistent. As for the rest, we should repeal or amend PATRIOT and look at stronger privacy laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #65)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 02:57 PM

66. I am being the Devil's Advocate.



My 28-year-old daughter died 3 years ago and her moronic boyfriend had no better sense than to post it on Facebook that very night. He went to her townhouse to retrieve her cats and forgot to lock the sliding door in the bedroom. That night, someone entered her home and stole both of her computers, her 2 HD televisions and all of her expensive jewelry. Some friend of a friend whom she had no doubt 'friended' We live in very strange times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:03 PM

3. I have no sympathy for gun owners

They allow abortion doctors and their patience names online. These second amendment people only care about the first amendment when it's about them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:07 PM

5. so now all gun owners

 

are pro life but want to kill people with their guns too?

You guys cant be this crazy, its impossible. Many gun owners here are as liberal as you are, wake up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMoreYouKnow (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:27 PM

9. That would be me.

a liberal gun owner and CCW holder and favor registration of all hand guns. Go ahead and publish my name, just like they do when I register vote, or when they publish my LTE. Hell that is more likely to get me killed. I also don't need more than four rounds in my rifle mag., or more than 10 for my 22 simi-auto handgun that I sometimes carry at work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:48 PM

17. some of that applies to me

I'm liberal, don't have a CCW, and don't favor registration. Mostly because I see it as costly theater. My semi auto .22 ten, my .380 only holds seven, my rifle is a lever action with a tube magazine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:33 PM

14. abortion doctors advertize their services

making it public information. Many abortion doctors are also gun owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:16 PM

19. But do they advertize their home address?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:25 PM

20. I doubt it,

but I'm guessing that would be gained from following the docs to their homes or the phone book, assuming they have a listed number. I doubt they were gained from any government database, which is what I'm talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:51 PM

22. Wow! I'm absolutely amazed with the broad brush many posters have painted gun owners with ...

recently here on DU.

The worst was a poster who stated that all gun owners were terrorists.

Now because I am a gun owner you are accusing me of being against a woman's rights to have an abortion and in favor of posting the names of abortion doctors and their patients online.

Out of the 80 million gun owners in our nation I am sure that a percentage are opposed to abortion and out of that group some might post names on the internet.

At the range I used to shoot at was a long table in the lobby and often the regular shooters would sit and discuss items of interest. Surprisingly we rarely discussed our firearms unless one of us had bought a new one or someone was looking for advise on how to more accurately shoot his weapon.

The most popular subjects were current events, politics and computers. That is where I learned that many gun owners actually support most of the ideas that our party has but simply refused to vote for ANY Democrat because of our party's views on gun control.

Abortion was one subject that never came up. I suspect that since only a few of the regular shooters were extremely religious that most would have supported a woman's right to choose as I do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #22)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:27 PM

80. Agreed. It is amazing.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 02:58 AM

50. I have no desire to allow abortion drs or there patients names online

 

So you have no idea what you are talking about

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:29 AM

54. "gun owners" =/= "second amendment people"

I own guns and enjoy shooting at a range. I have no respect for the NRA and can tell by reading it that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to individuals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:19 PM

8. I think a list of gun owners in an area

would actually deter crime. One would have to be crazier than the gun owner to attempt to rob his/her house don't you think?

If I'm a robber and I have a map of armed houses, am I more likely to target them than the unarmed houses?

Secondly, if all guns are registered, it would be a victory for the anti-gun people and it is less likely that the owners would be hated by them.

Your argument fails the test of simple logic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:43 PM

16. no

there is a reason why "hot burglaries" or home invasions are less common in the US than other countries like the UK.
If you are smart, you case the place and wait for people to be gone. But if your goal is more about terror than stuff, then you have a point.

Actually, most anti gun people are motivated by believing negative stereotypes of gun owners than public safety. Yes, there is a peer reviewed study for that.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235209000932

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:03 PM

26. I don't think that you have thought this out thoroughly ...

Suppose a robber was looking for a good target in your neighborhood and had a map of armed homes. He finds that the neighbors of both sides of you are armed but you are not. What home do you think he will pick for a home invasion?

If the robber is merely looking to steal firearms he simply waits for an indication that the home is unoccupied and makes entry. I once asked a lock smith about gun safes and he told me that a experienced thief with knowledge and the proper tools could make entry in any of them given time.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:01 AM

51. Wouldn't it be best to posta list of addresses that aren't armed?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #51)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 04:42 AM

55. They have essentially done thay by listing the addresses that do have guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:30 PM

11. What a load of crap

You have to register your vehicle. Vehicle registration records are not a source of information for car thieves. Same with boats.

You have to "register" your home so that you can pay taxes, etc. I seriously doubt that property records are the go-to source for burglars.

You have to buy a license to hunt and fish. Are hunters and fishermen being targeted for theft for doing so?

Google Maps and Google Earth provide a tremendous volume of information. Now here's a case where information may very well be used for nefarious purposes. But is Google held liable for the misuse of this information? Should maps and aerial photography be made illegal? What about the use of webcams?

Look, gun registration is no more a prelude to gun confiscation than auto registration is a prelude to car confiscation.

As for the reference to legally licensed and registered, I think you're a little off base here. Sure, you need to undergo a criminal check when buying a gun legally. That's about the extent of legally licensed and registered. When I bought a gun a few months ago at a gun show, they did the name check, but that was the extent of it. I have no piece of paper identifying me as a gun owner or that I am licensed or registered, just that a particular gun was sold to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to matt819 (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:37 PM

15. about car registration

Not talking about Google.

You have to register your vehicle. Vehicle registration records are not a source of information for car thieves. Same with boats.

tell that to Rebecca Schaeffer's family. I can't get your home address off of your car plate, nor should I.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:30 PM

12. To all those who think this is no big deal

Please post your first name, last name full address and at least one small object in your home worth $1000.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clffrdjk (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:08 AM

49. What no takers you cowards N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:13 PM

18. Cool! This makes stalking celebrities so much easier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:05 PM

27. my address can be found my searching a public record of property tax rolls.

what's to stop them from doing that if they want to make an example of me for some reason?
and voter registration rolls are also public records.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ibegurpard (Reply #27)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:09 PM

28. example of you for what?

It doesn't connect you with anything anyone cares about. They can get it out of the phone book too. The two are not even remotely alike.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:16 PM

30. What fool decided to create a roadmap

 

for gun thieves to find weapons! This sort of thing should be against public policy. Why not also publish all the addresses of people taking narcotic drugs. Disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:50 PM

39. that might be the only gun related issue we may agree on,

Happy or Merry, which ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #39)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:58 PM

42. Same to you...

 

I don't think registration is the issue, but publishing addresses is just moronic, and I'm sure against your right to privacy, not to mention public policy. I don't know how highly developed privacy legislation is in the US, but if someone tried that here, they would face prosecution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Reply #42)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:15 PM

44. depends on the state

but in my home state of Wyoming, there wouldn't be one to publish, if there was everyone would be on it. (The Wyoming Democratic Party platform says owning a gun is a civil right equal.) My current state (and just messed up IMHO) Florida doesn't register either.
http://www.wyomingdemocrats.com/2012-platform2010-bylaws

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #44)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:28 PM

45. Canada and all of Europe have very strict privacy legislation

 

You cannot publish or share personal information about people without consent, unless you have a governmental or business interest and even that has very tight parameters. No one in Canada could share the list of registered gun owners with google or anyone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Toronto (Reply #45)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:29 PM

83. New York also has privacy legislation. Please see #77.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:32 PM

35. So get rid of your fucking death ray. Presto! Problem solved!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #35)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:03 AM

52. Stupid post of the day

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #35)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:22 PM

69. HEar hear

 

Gun ownership has consequences. On definite consequence should be everybody knowing you are a gun owner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #69)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 09:58 PM

75. Please specify the "consequences," and state if they are acceptable to you. Thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:38 PM

37. What is wrong with you guys posting to this thread ...

 

I am not in favor of guns period, but honestly, do you really want more guns in the hands of criminals. Are you crazy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 09:20 PM

46. I guess if hands have to be registered as lethal weapons.

I can't believe I just wrote that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #46)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:43 PM

47. Maybe we can have national registry of gun owners and approximately what guns they have

 

Maybe we can have a public national registry of gun owners and approximately what guns they have and put it on an app. It's time to out these hazards. It would be great for law enforcement and the public. Who wants to live beside a gun"enthusiast" or have their kids around these dangers to society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #47)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:46 PM

48. since they were licenced by the State of New York

to have these guns, and were registered by the State of New York, law enforcement deemed them not a threat. It's the ones not legally owned by drug dealers and gang members that are a danger.
Who wants to live beside a gun enthusiast? I do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MightyMopar (Reply #47)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 04:19 PM

67. I doubt it but, you keep dreaming now ya hear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:26 AM

53. So 4th Amendment? I don't know.

Is registration a search or seizure? What about professional registration for doctors, lawyers etc? What about car registration? Are they out too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #53)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 10:58 AM

57. right to privacy

I can't get your home address from DMV or put it on Google Maps. Besides, there isn't a car prohibition lobby. the car/gun analogy is asinine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #57)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:23 PM

70. I can search the property deed records to know what house you own

 

Same should apply to guns, IMO.

I want to know the name and address of anybody STUPID enough to own a gun so I can steer clear of their stupid asses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #70)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:37 PM

71. since you just called 30-40 percent of registered Democrats

STUPID, and you can't develop an argument beyond a childish value judgment...........
So, were you against Ted Strickland being re elected? By your definition, he is stupid. So is Elana Kagen, her and Scalia are hunting buddies. So, is she stupid too? Better steer clear of Jerry Brown too. He is a stupid ass by your definition. BTW, you can't listen to Ed Schultz or Shannon Moore either.
It's like these dim wit talking heads yelling at someone calling them "stupid" only shows the intellectually bankrupt of their nonsense. How many of their kids go to private schools with armed security guards?
DMV and gun records should only available to only law enforcement and used for legitimate investigative purposes.

So how do you feel about Barbara Boxer's idea of putting national guard troops in schools? I'm guessing they will be armed with M-16A2s and M-4s, capable of fully automatic fire.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-sen-boxer-national-guard-schools-20121219,0,7530900.story

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #71)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:27 PM

81. I doubt the editor will admit the real reason he published this...

He wanna get his culture war on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:17 PM

77. One legal theory for a lawsuit would be invasion of privacy.

 

Under it, it is unnecessary for a person to wait until the publication of the information makes them either a theft victim or a hate-crime victim.

N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 51 – Action for injunction and for damages:

Any person whose name, portrait, picture or voice is used within this state for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade without the written consent first obtained as above provided may maintain an equitable action in the supreme court of this state against the person, firm or corporation so using his name, portrait, picture or voice, to prevent and restrain the use thereof; and may also sue and recover damages for any injuries sustained by reason of such use and if the defendant shall have knowingly used such person’s name, portrait, picture or voice in such manner as is forbidden or declared to be unlawful by section fifty of this article, the jury, in its discretion, may award exemplary damages. But nothing contained in this article shall be so construed as to prevent any person, firm or corporation from selling or otherwise transferring any material containing such name, portrait, picture or voice in whatever medium to any user of such name, portrait, picture or voice, or to any third party for sale or transfer directly or indirectly to such a user, for use in a manner lawful under this article; nothing contained in this article shall be so construed as to prevent any person, firm or corporation, practicing the profession of photography, from exhibiting in or about his or its establishment specimens of the work of such establishment, unless the same is continued by such person, firm or corporation after written notice objecting thereto has been given by the person portrayed; and nothing contained in this article shall be so construed as to prevent any person, firm or corporation from using the name, portrait, picture or voice of any manufacturer or dealer in connection with the goods, wares and merchandise manufactured, produced or dealt in by him which he has sold or disposed of with such name, portrait, picture or voice used in connection therewith; or from using the name, portrait, picture or voice of any author, composer or artist in connection with his literary, musical or artistic productions which he has sold or disposed of with such name, portrait, picture or voice used in connection therewith. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to prohibit the copyright owner of a sound recording from disposing of, dealing in, licensing or selling that sound recording to any party, if the right to dispose of, deal in, license or sell such sound recording has been conferred by contract or other written document by such living person or the holder of such right. Nothing contained in the foregoing sentence shall be deemed to abrogate or otherwise limit any rights or remedies otherwise conferred by federal law or state law.

"section fifty" mentioned in § 51, above = 1) N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 50 – Right of privacy

A person, firm or corporation that uses for advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade, the name, portrait or picture of any living person without having first obtained the written consent of such person, or if a minor of his or her parent or guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #77)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 12:30 PM

87. So the publisher in this

 

case is minimally, guilty of a misdemeanor and can possible be sued for damages if anyone is hurt by the publication of the map?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 03:13 PM

88. What could go wrong?

 

We have nothing to fear from the Patriot Act, warrant-less wiretaps, TSA's hands down our pants, or a FBI Coordinated Crackdown on Occupy protesters: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/12/30

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread