Newspaper Establishes Registered Gun Database, Equates Gun Owners to Sex Offenders

[kwikrnu]

The more I see crap like this, the more I want to buy more guns even if they will be safe queens. I can't stand people who want to trample anyone else's rights. Any rights; This country is unique for the rights we enjoy, and morons like these want to set us back into the 17th century.

In most States there is no right to bear arms. It is a privilege granted by some government agency within the State in which you live. In all States you must pay a fee and apply if you want this permit. It isn't a right if you have to apply for it, qualify for it, and pay for it.

 

[jcwit]

In most States there is no right to bear arms. It is a privilege granted by some government agency within the State in which you live. In all States you must pay a fee and apply if you want this permit. It isn't a right if you have to apply for it, qualify for it, and pay for it.

It a right stated in the 2nd admendent, granted by the federal government.

In all States you must pay a fee and apply if you want this permit.

Only in regards to handguns on most states. And then again not in all states.

 

[Deanimator]

The real liability is going to be with websites and the users who publish information on private citizens who may work for a newspaper or organization they don't agree with.

Nobody hired a private detective. It was all PUBLIC information. If there's no liability for the newspaper publishing "public" information, there's no liability for me doing it.

Nobody's drinking the AHSA koolaid.

 

[Deanimator]

It a right stated in the 2nd admendent, granted by the federal government.

The 2nd Amendment "grants" NOTHING, only recognizes a right.

 

[kwikrnu]

The 2nd Amendment "grants" NOTHING, only recognizes a right.

I agree rights are God given. The Second Amendment recognizes the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. The problem is that the Federal Government doesn't recognize the second Amendment. Further, incorporation is a silly notion, any rights stated by the Bill of Rights should be recognized by the States as well.

 

[longdayjake]

There's one amendment ahead of it in the Bill of Rights--the 1st Amendment. And one of the things the 1st Amendment guarantees is the right to a free press.

Why don't we have a little less outrage about it?

You make a good point but you only see one piece of the first amendment. The outrage expressed toward this newspaper is just what happens when someone uses the freedom of speech to protest irresponsible use of the first amendment. We all hold that right, not just the newspaper.

 

[kwikrnu]

Only in regards to handguns on most states. And then again not in all states.

Which States grant permits w/o application and does not charge a fee?

 

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

Heck I only buy 1 paper a year--generally a "sunday" paper---so I can use the chimney starter to get the coals good and hot for my Weber.

I'm surprised they're still in business--they are struggling--setting up sales booths in Walmart--giving away free copies--cut rate subscriptions just to keep the numbers up.

 

[kwikrnu]

You make a good point but you only see one piece of the first amendment. The outrage expressed toward this newspaper is just what happens when someone uses the freedom of speech to protest irresponsible use of the first amendment. We all hold that right, not just the newspaper.

It is not irresponsible to publish the list of those who have received a privilege from the government. This is no different than publishing a list of security guards, doctors, nurses, contractors, etc licensed by the State.

 

[Deanimator]

Which States grant permits w/o application and does not charge a fee?

Neither Alaska nor Vermont require a license or a fee for concealed carry.

 

[Deanimator]

It is not irresponsible to publish the list of those who have received a privilege from the government. This is no different than publishing a list of security guards, doctors, nurses, contractors, etc licensed by the State.

... or women with restraining orders, or people in witness protection, or people with HIV/AIDS.

Publishing of the names has NO purpose other than to intimidate people into not getting CCW credentials.

 

[kwikrnu]

Nobody hired a private detective. It was all PUBLIC information. If there's no liability for the newspaper publishing "public" information, there's no liability for me doing it.

Nobody's drinking the AHSA koolaid.

The information was easy found, but was posted in order to encourage harrassment. Someone at one of these papers is bound to get hurt eventually and when they do people posting the information will be sued.

 

[kwikrnu]

Neither Alaska nor Vermont require a license or a fee for concealed carry.

I said, "In all States you must pay a fee and apply if you want this permit. It isn't a right if you have to apply for it, qualify for it, and pay for it."

There are no States I know of where a permit or license is issued free of charge with no application.

 

[Deanimator]

The information was easy found, but was posted in order to encourage harrassment. Someone at one of these papers is bound to get hurt eventually and when they do people posting the information will be sued.

EXACTLY the reason the CCW credential holders were identified. If the retaliation is actionable, so is the original act.

 

[Deanimator]

I said, "In all States you must pay a fee and apply if you want this permit. It isn't a right if you have to apply for it, qualify for it, and pay for it."

There are no States I know of where a permit or license is issued free of charge with no application.

Sophistry of the clumsiest sort.

Neither Alaska nor Vermont even REQUIRE a "permit", much less charge for that nonexistent document.

 

[kwikrnu]

... or women with restraining orders, or people in witness protection, or people with HIV/AIDS.

Publishing of the names has NO purpose other than to intimidate people into not getting CCW credentials.

Sounds as if it is your opinion that governing should be conducted behind closed doors. It is a bad idea, but it is your opinion.

The Tennessee Commercial Appeal found 70 something criminals who had received carry permits. If the list was not public information we would never had known. The published database is useful to the public. When someone commits a crime one may look up permit information and determine if they have a permit.

 

[kwikrnu]

Sophistry of the clumsiest sort. Neither Alaska nor Vermont even REQUIRE a "permit", much less charge for that nonexistent document.

Read my post #51, "In most States there is no right to bear arms. It is a privilege granted by some government agency within the State in which you live. In all States you must pay a fee and apply if you want this permit. It isn't a right if you have to apply for it, qualify for it, and pay for it."

 

[Deanimator]

Sounds as if it is your opinion that governing should be conducted behind closed doors.

Sounds like you think the government should publish personal medical records from the Veterans Administration... otherwise you obviously think that "governing should be conducted behind closed doors".

 

[Deanimator]

In all States you must pay a fee and apply if you want this permit.

...except in the states that don't REQUIRE one to carry concealed.

 

[Deanimator]

The Tennessee Commercial Appeal found 70 something criminals who had received carry permits. If the list was not public information we would never had known. The published database is useful to the public. When someone commits a crime one may look up permit information and determine if they have a permit.

That sounds like the perfect justification for publishing the personnel records of all LEOs. I'll bet there are WAY more than 70 who have committed or been alleged to have committed serious infractions of departmental rules or law.

 

[kwikrnu]

Individual medical records are and should continue to be private. Special licenses and permits granted by any governing body should be public record.

I like Vermont and Alaska because you'll never have this debate in those States.

 

[kwikrnu]

That sounds like the perfect justification for publishing the personnel records of all LEOs. I'll bet there are WAY more than 70 who have committed or been alleged to have committed serious infractions of departmental rules or law.

Some States publish wage information for all employees. You can search by catagory and find the names of law enforcement officers and how much they make.

 

[kwikrnu]

In all States you must pay a fee and apply if you want this permit.

...except in the states that don't REQUIRE one to carry concealed.

In ALL States one must apply and pay a fee in order to get a permit. A permit may not be needed, but in every place a permit is offered it must be applied and paid for if it is wanted.

 

[Deanimator]

Individual medical records are and should continue to be private. Special licenses and permits granted by any governing body should be public record.

Why? Because you say so?

There are people running around with HIV/AIDS and drug resistant tuberculosis, to name only two communicable diseases. Why are you more worried about somebody who's PASSED a criminal background investigation than you are about somebody with a deadly disease?

Why should somebody be able to anonymously spread HIV/AIDS, but the same person's status as a CHL holder must be disclosed publicly?

 

[Deanimator]

Some States publish wage information for all employees.

Wage information is irrelevant. Why does the public need to know who has a CHL, but DOESN'T need to know which LEOs have serious discipline problems?

Apparently, you're only in favor of SOME harassment.