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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Deanimator said:
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?
Click to expand...

It may be irrelevant to you. Open government allows residents an easy way to view the working of the government. One may find out if fellow employees are being paid more for the same job. One may see what contractors are being paid.

Law enforcement people usually have guns. Through the open wage records one may find out who is in law enforcement and target specific individuals. So, it is relevant.

I would be surprised to find out you local law enforcement will not release information related to officers who are being disciplined or who have been disciplined.
 
It may be irrelevant to you. Open government allows residents an easy way to view the working of the government. One may find out if fellow employees are being paid more for the same job. One may see what contractors are being paid.
Click to expand...
It's irrelevant as to whether they're a danger to the public.

Law enforcement people usually have guns. Through the open wage records one may find out who is in law enforcement and target specific individuals. So, it is relevant.
Click to expand...
Target them for WHAT?

I would be surprised to find out you local law enforcement will not release information related to officers who are being disciplined or who have been disciplined.
Click to expand...
I imagine you're surprised by a lot of things. In fact, police personnel records are almost ALWAYS confidential. A group of plaintiffs' attorneys have sued the Chicago PD for access to personnel records... so far unsuccessfully.

Again, you seem unable to explain why it's more important to identify those with CHLs than to identify LEOs with allegations, substantiated and otherwise, of serious misconduct leveled against them. You just can't say WHY.
 
two papers in VA did the same thing, but they actually listed names (addresses not included, but full names). FOIA requests are a double-edged sword. They were both sued over it, however.
 
Deanimator said:
It's irrelevant as to whether they're a danger to the public.



Target them for WHAT?




I imagine you're surprised by a lot of things. In fact, police personnel records are almost ALWAYS confidential. A group of plaintiffs' attorneys have sued the Chicago PD for access to personnel records... so far unsuccessfully.

Again, you seem unable to explain why it's more important to identify those with CHLs than to identify LEOs with allegations, substantiated and otherwise, of serious misconduct leveled against them. You just can't say WHY.
Click to expand...

You seem to think gun owners are being targeted. There is no evidence of that in Tennessee. I assumed you would think LEO's would be targeted as well. Their names are out there too.

I'm not for closing any public record. Police records should be open just as records involving any permit issued or licensed by any government.
 
You seem to think gun owners are being targeted. There is no evidence of that in Tennessee. I assumed you would think LEO's would be targeted as well. Their names are out there too.
Click to expand...
People with CCW credentials are being targeted by being identified in and of itself.

If you don't think LEOs are targeted, maybe you should arrange a seance and talk to the four of them who were just shot.
I'm not for closing any public record. Police records should be open just as records involving any permit issued or licensed by any government.
Click to expand...
So you think that VA medical records should be posted in the newspapers? Somebody with tuberculosis or HIV/AIDS is easily as dangerous as somebody with a CHL.
 
It a right stated in the 2nd admendent, granted by the federal government.
Click to expand...

WRONG!!! The second amendment, as all the amendments in the Bill Of Rights, are not given the citizens by the government, but are unalienable rights, given by God to free people, not by an edict of a government. The Bill Of Rights is simply a listing of rights the founders saw as God given, that no government should infringe. Adding a listing of those 10 God given rights reaffirms that in the case of a Federal government, that they would never attempt to remove those rights. Now the trick is to get the states to allow those same rights to it's citizens.

A listing of concealed carry permit holders by any state being held as a public record, available for review by anyone should be illegal. There is no public held right to peruse the vehicle registrations of motor vehicles in any state, nor is there a listing of people's social security numbers available for anyone to review. You can even opt to have your phone number hidden from public view, as well as your address listing in phone books. If privacy exists to the point that those items aren't available for public viewing, gun ownership or whether you hold a concealed carry permit should be afforded the same level of security.

What purpose is there to allow public access of concealed carry permit holder names? Does it increase or decrease your safety to know that Joe the baker down the street has a CCW? No! The only reason to compile a listing of permit holders and allow public access to it would be to discourage those who might consider obtaining a permit.
 
Deanimator said:
So you think that VA medical records should be posted in the newspapers? Somebody with tuberculosis or HIV/AIDS is easily as dangerous as somebody with a CHL.
Click to expand...

I've repeated stated medical records should not be public record.

The records for permit holders are not made public because permit holders are dangerous. The records are made public to inform the public about those who have been issued a government license or permit.
 
I've repeated stated medical records should not be public record.
Click to expand...
You just don't have a good reason why.

The records for permit holders are not made public because permit holders are dangerous. The records are made public to inform the public about those who have been issued a government license or permit.
Click to expand...
Similarly the public should be informed about who's been treated for tuberculosis or HIV/AIDS in government run facilities, RIGHT?

Of course when there's a "public option" or single payer health insurance, that'll be ALL medical treatment, RIGHT? The GOVERNMENT part is the thing that matters, RIGHT?
 
Deanimator said:
You just don't have a good reason why.


Similarly the public should be informed about who's been treated for tuberculosis or HIV/AIDS in government run facilities, RIGHT?

Of course when there's a "public option" or single payer health insurance, that'll be ALL medical treatment, RIGHT? The GOVERNMENT part is the thing that matters, RIGHT?
Click to expand...

It is no business of anyone else what my medical problems are unless they are related to obtaining a carry permit.

If a doctor, nurse or anyone else believe someone is a danger to society they can report that person to local health department to be dealt with.

The part that matters is the license or permit granted by the government. The public should be allowed to look up the record of anyone who has been granted any license or permit. In Tennessee I can request the info on a carry permit holder and they'll send me a copy of the actual application minus the SSN. I can look up anyone who has a license as a security guard. I can look up building permit information. I can see property ownership records and property tax info. It is all information which should be public.
 
There appears to be a consensus on the board that the only people who own firearms are the ones who have CCWs, or conversely only CCW holders purchase guns.

I despise newspapers that do as the Bloomington paper is doing; there's no question that the publisher and editor are anti-gun and are trying to intimidate owners. OTOH it won't truly do any harm or deter anyone who has confidence he's in the right.

Look at it this way. It's a college town in the North. They were getting tired of swallowing goldfish Screw 'em.
 
Substantial is the right of citizens to know to whom government is issuing licenses and permits. Some are willing to give up the freedom of information for perceived security. Don't count me in that group.
People should put their energy into making permits and licenses to carry obsolete.
 
Quote:
It may be irrelevant to you. Open government allows residents an easy way to view the working of the government. One may find out if fellow employees are being paid more for the same job. One may see what contractors are being paid.
Click to expand...

What business is it of yours what others are being paid? How else can good employees be rewarded for longevity or ongoing outstanding performance on the job. If you were able to see what others salaries are what benefit would it be to you. Sir, I spent many years as a senior manager and can tell by your comments what type of employee you are. I would guess you are the water cooler lawyer or shi$ house lawyer in your workplace.
 
People should put their energy into making permits and licenses to carry obsolete.
Click to expand...

True. If it's your assertion that for the government to require certain licenses and/or permits is wrong, then it's even more wrong for the government to allow any entity to then publish a list of those who were wronged by being required to get a license. They are then wronged twice!

DD
 
As a taxpayer it is my right to know how the government uses my money.
Click to expand...

You must be outraged and I guess you have requested this info from the present administration, because I honestly don't believe they know what they are doing with it. Wish you luck.
 
As a taxpayer it is my right to know how the government uses my money.
Click to expand...

I'll grant you that. But, you do NOT need or have the right to the kind of detail that would infringe on several of MY rights. You can have the info on how much was spent on this or that program, or how much the average Air Force toilet seat or hammer costs. You have no right or need to know about how this or that program interfaces with me in particular. You can know how much the gov spends on witness relocation. You cannot know how much it cost to relocate a particular person or even whether a particular person is part of that program. You may find out the cost of SDI. Good luck looking at the blueprints.

DD
 
In my community law enforcement employment records are open. You can get the name and rank of every officer. There's even a big board in the police station with a picture of every officer not assigned to undercover work. Even the dogs.

Disciplinary issues are handled by a board made up of residents. They have open, announced meetings every month. Every citizen can attend. Some information may be withheld pending trial, but it's all eventually released.

Officers know this when they sign up. If they don't want their work records out in the open, they go into another line of work.
 
Doggy Daddy said:
The right to keep and bear arms may not be infringed.
Click to expand...

Bearing arms is a God given right which is not recognized by the Federal Government or most State Governments. In my State the bearing of arms is a privilege for which I have applied and paid a fee. The privilege to carry a loaded handgun may be given and taken at the whim of the State of Tennessee.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

O
  • Locked
Newspaper conglomerate considers building massive database of gun owners
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
Dave Workman
D
S
  • Locked
Gun Owners=Sex Offenders
Replies
22
Views
947
Standing Wolf
S
C
  • Locked
Michelle Malkin goes to bat for gun-owners; Smack-down for Bloomberg & Roanoke Times
Replies
14
Views
1K
gunsmith
G
D
  • Locked
Roanoke Times: "Should Gun Data Lists Be Muzzled?"
Replies
14
Views
777
Flyboy
F
W
  • Locked
CNN changes air time to Friday 3/30 for VCDL
Replies
8
Views
856
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top