1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Witch Hunt: Newspaper publishes Google Map of NY Gun Permit Owners

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by John828, Dec 24, 2012.

  1. toivo

    toivo Well-Known Member

    Actually, it might. FOIL requires the person requesting the info to go on record by filling out paperwork. It is arguable that sharing the data so broadly is an illegal attempt to circumvent that requirement. Unless the entire readership of the paper and viewership of its website have signed the form, they may not in fact be legally entitled to the information. But then, I'm not a lawyer.
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2012
  2. Certaindeaf

    Certaindeaf member

    Maybe it should be public record who's on welfare or any sort of social service program.
  3. reggie_love

    reggie_love Active Member

    Imagine if they had posted a similar map for everyone with a prescription for strong painkillers. You know, for the children.

    It's disgusting. An open invitation for robbery and harassment.
  4. opto_isolator

    opto_isolator Well-Known Member

    I posted this on the local huffpo rag:

    Completely irresponsible, reckless, and negligent. This saddens me that people have stooped to this level of childishness. Have we not forgotten what history has shown with the publishing of "lists?" I guess McCarthyism is alive and well to those that wish harm on law abiding gun owners? Publishing this list is irresponsible on so many levels, and potentially puts these folks at risk, not only of potential burglary, but of retaliation. Seeing some of the childish and horrible comments that are being levied at people that "don't agree with your agenda" of banning guns would put me on edge as well - how about death threats? Have folks really stooped to this level? My god.
  5. gkainz

    gkainz Member

    Considering Sarbane-Oxly act requires publicly-traded companies to protect Personal Identity Information with large financial fines for failures, I'm shocked that this could be allowed. I know he source is not a public company, but I wonder if they could fall under the same protection of information requirements.
    Although they are seldom our friends, I wonder if the ACLU could be brought into the fray and coerced to work for our side on a lawsuit.
  6. bldsmith

    bldsmith Well-Known Member

    They tried having all the CHL holders listed in the paper here in Or. When someone posted all the addresses of the people pushing the legislation, home and work. Plus phone and email, the uproar slowed significantly. Then the legislature voted against the list. In the mean time we had to request our personal data remain confidential and state the reason we acquired a CHL was for personal protection. What a bunch of BS.
  7. sawdeanz

    sawdeanz Well-Known Member

    I am furious right now. This is certainly one of the most biased and unethical moves I have ever seen from a "newspaper." This in fact should give us ammo when the antis try to push for gun registration, as I can't imagine very many people find this ok, let alone legislators. Is this still up? After all the negative response I don't see how any business could stay a float. This just spurs my sence of activism even more. It seems to me so often that the media gets this impression that gun owners are this small minorty and so can assert their views.we can't let them forget this is a democracy where it is up to us, the population who decides what kind of gun laws we should have
  8. JohnBiltz

    JohnBiltz Well-Known Member

    My understanding is there are a couple of FBI agents on that list and they are not amused.

    I guess the newspaper is hoping to get more stolen guns on the street.
  9. Deanimator

    Deanimator Well-Known Member

    So then you wouldn't mind them publishing:
    • lists of women with restraining order/orders of protection
    • people with HIV/AIDS
    • people who have been admitted as psychiatric in-patients
    How about THOSE "particular flavors" of the 1st Amendment?
  10. Hacker15E

    Hacker15E Well-Known Member


    Yep. That's what's ensured by the Amendment, too.

    I don't have to like it, but it is most certainly protected speech and press.
  11. toivo

    toivo Well-Known Member

    It's not that simple, Hacker15E. The First Amendment doesn't trump any and every right to privacy. Some of those rights are legally protected too.
  12. Hacker15E

    Hacker15E Well-Known Member

    Well, I guess we shall see what the lawsuits to follow say about it, since that is where such legal comparisons are actually decided.

    This is not the first time that names and addresses of permit holders have been published in the press (although not in NYS so far as I know).
  13. wacki

    wacki Well-Known Member

    The 1st protects political speech. Which is why you can't "yell fire in a crowded theater".

    Attacking public figures like politicians is considered political speech. Publicly attacking private individuals is not generally considered political speech. Private individuals get much more protection.

    Unfortunately we live in a "5-4" world and judges are human and have all the flaws that come with being human.
  14. Certaindeaf

    Certaindeaf member

    So is this for a handgun permit or a carry permit? Here, as was said earlier, names in a certain couny were made public a ways back yada yada. These were concealed carry permits though.. is it still "concealed" and or are you breaking the law by carrying concealed but carrying a huge sign saying you are carrying a gun?.. kinda the same thing as making the information known through a list/map etc.
  15. joed

    joed Well-Known Member

  16. 19-3Ben

    19-3Ben Well-Known Member

    Those are just CCW permits registered in Westchester county. I live in the Hartford CT area and there is only one dot in Hartford and it sure isn't me. I am registered in CT, not in Westchester county NY. There are plenty of CCWs that are not listed on that map.
  17. k-frame

    k-frame Well-Known Member

    To my surprise someone at the Poynter Institute was critical of the act to publish the information (although I don't necessarily agree with his conclusion about skipping the permitting process):
  18. Certaindeaf

    Certaindeaf member

    I think you need a permit to grow weed. I wonder how many of those permits they have given out over there. That's against Federal law. I wonder if you get an "A" painted on your chest if you grow weed over yonder.
  19. bobbo

    bobbo Member.

    In New York, under statue, all licenses issued by the state are public information. Driving, hairdressing, funeral directing and pistols are all the same, and all can be released by the respective licensing authority. The paper did nothing illegal. ANYBODY can go in to a sheriff's office and ask for this information at ANY time. Any criminal could go in and ask for the same thing, and they could NOT be turned down. The possible civil actions to the paper are minimal, unless they knowingly left people out or lied about people on the list.

    A few points from previous posters:
    -- You do NOT have to own a pistol to get a permit. You don't have to have one sitting in a vault anywhere. You can get one and never put a handgun on it.

    -- All of your handguns must be on your permit. Even a blackpowder handgun IF YOU HAVE STUFF TO LOAD IT must be registered.

    Fun Fact of the Day: Robert Freeman, who runs the state's Committee on Open Government, feels the actual guns on your permit should be public information, not just who has a permit. The statute doesn't say that outright, but it also doesn't preclude that information from being released.

    -- You MUST get a permit in New York BEFORE you even TOUCH a gun at a store, let alone BUY one. Technically, if you and your mother go shooting and she TOUCHES your gun and it's not on her permit, she just committed a felony.

    --You can cross-register handguns. For example, your mother and you have a permit. You can list each other's guns on your own permits. Works really well, actually, for handling after someone dies, moves or goes to jail and loses their gun rights. I have a friend whose Kimber is on four different permits.
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2012
  20. Certaindeaf

    Certaindeaf member

    I gather that this is tremendously special and apparently the gnawed upon purple (contended) bone. that'll change. this is what is at issue

Share This Page