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

[stickhauler]

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.

Again, an argument that fails to stand on it's own. Records of drivers licenses aren't open to the public, they are government issued. There is NO reason for the public to know who is licensed to carry a firearm. They don't have open records of licensed firearm qualified security guards.

 

[Jolly Rogers]

Don't feed the trolls:banghead:
Joe

 

[Doggy Daddy]

Thanks JR. I should've come to my senses sooner. :banghead:

DD

 

[kwikrnu]

Again, an argument that fails to stand on it's own. Records of drivers licenses aren't open to the public, they are government issued. There is NO reason for the public to know who is licensed to carry a firearm. They don't have open records of licensed firearm qualified security guards.

Records used to be open for drivers licenses in Tennessee along with vehicle registration. Unfortunately the records were closed.

In Tennessee licensed security guards are subject to open records, as they should be. See Here.

 

[Lanyard]

This statement is wrong.

"... because permit holders are dangerous."

There is no evidence to support this, indeed all facts point to the opposite.

Lanyard

 

[Officers'Wife]

It's simply 'creep', allow something on one level and it creeps into another level. After all, the public has a right to know when <fill in the blank> lives next door in order to better <fill in the blank.>

 

[kwikrnu]

This statement is wrong.

"... because permit holders are dangerous."

There is no evidence to support this, indeed all facts point to the opposite.

Lanyard

I wrote, "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." see post 83

 

[Deanimator]

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

It is no business of anyone else whether I carry a concealed firearm.

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.

If anyone believes that someone who carries a concealed firearm is a danger to society, they can report that person to local police.

The part that matters is the license or permit granted by the government.

The part that matters is the government involvement... like if you receive treatment for tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS or mental illness at a military or VA hospital, or if it's payed for in ANY way by the government.

The public should be allowed to look up the record of anyone who has been granted any license or permit.

Using your "logic", the public should be allowed to look up the medical records of anyone who has been treated for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis or mental illness in a government run hospital or by virtue of any government funding or involvement.

 

[kwikrnu]

It is my business to know if you are permitted to carry in Tennessee. Carrying a loaded handgun in Tennessee is a privilege granted by the government. There is no right to carry here except on private property.

As I stated previously medical records are and should be private. There are methods in place to deal with those who have dangerous illnesses.

Medical treatment does not require a license or permit, therefore needs no disclosure.

 

[Dr.Mall Ninja]

upside is that criminals can figure out which neighborhoods they would be advised to avoid. Of course, it can make those same neighborhoods better targets if the owners are away.

Funny that newspapers are perplexed as to why mainstream America has lost interest in them. Exhibit A./QUOTE]

same thing i was thinking

 

[Deanimator]

It is my business to know if you are permitted to carry in Tennessee.

It's none of your business, whether it's Tennessee, Tientsin, or Taranto.

 

[LibShooter]

I would prefer handgun carry permit info be private, but right now in Tennessee, it is not. Every one of us who who took the class and signed the papers knew (or should have known) that anyone could access the information. It sounds like Indiana laws are similar.

We should work on changing the law instead of shaking our fists in impotent fury at newspapers using the laws to their own advantage.

 

[Al Norris]

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.

I hate to rain on your parade, but you are blatantly wrong in your assumptions.

It is easier to list the States that have no provision for RKBA: Maryland; Minnesota; New Jersey; and New York. Source: http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

Contrary to what you stated, above, 46 States have a RKBA provision in their Constitutions (regardless of how it is exercised or abridged).

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.

Again, you are just plain wrong.

14 States allow for unlicensed open carry, with complete State preemption, while 14 other States allow for unlicensed open carry, without State preemption. That's 28 States where licenses, and of course payment, are not required.

Additionally, 2 States do not require any permit for any form of carry, and some few other States do not require a license for concealed carry, outside of city/township/village limits.

The problem is that the Federal Government doesn't recognize the second Amendment.

See Heller, then watch the dance after McDonald. You may think it (incorporation) silly, but that's been the way the law has worked for almost 100 years now.

One of the dances you will see is that of carry itself. If a State requires a license for concealed carry, then it will have to allow unlicensed open carry. You know, the "Bear" part of Keep and Bear.

With Heller, rational basis judicial review is off the table. Requiring a license to bear, in any manner (open or concealed) will not pass intermediate scrutiny, let alone strict judicial scrutiny.

We didn't lose our right overnight. We will not gain it back overnight, either. If anything, it will be harder to regain what was lost than to retain what we now have.

It is my business to know if you are permitted ...

No, it is not. Permits or licenses are (generally) between the licensor and the licensee. Not everything between a government and a private citizen should be open to public scrutiny.

The bare fact that you think it should be, shows how far down the road we've come as busybodies.

 

[kwikrnu]

1. I said nothing about RKBA. I stated RBA. If one must have a permit to bear arms it is not a right it is a privilege.

2. There are no States that I am aware of that issue permits to their residents w/o application and without fee.

3. The reason you can't carry in National parks is because the Federal Government has infringed on the God given right to bear arms. If the Feds recognized the Second Amendment carry in Federal Parks would be legal. God given rights should apply to the States. Even if they don't the Fourteenth Amendment "incorporates" all of the Bill of Rights.

4. The Government is by the people. The business of the Governemnt is the business of the people.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Interesting discussion about how one group offends another by doing something legal. Wait, that is both sides of the argument.

 

[danprkr]

I wonder if that Lucy Dalglish of the Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press would like it if her profession suddenly was suddenly a privileged to be licensed instead of right acknowledged by the constitution?

 

[Deanimator]

I wonder if that Lucy Dalglish of the Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press would like it if her profession suddenly was suddenly a privileged to be licensed instead of right acknowledged by the constitution?

That's DIFFERENT.

Her "right" to lie to large numbers of people is VASTLY more important than your right to defend your life.

 

[blue_ridge]

Just wait, someone in Indiana will have their house broken into and it will be determined that criminals used the database to case neigborhoods. A class action lawsuit will then be filed against the newspaper.

 

[danprkr]

Just wait, someone in Indiana will have their house broken into and it will be determined that criminals used the database to case neighborhoods. A class action lawsuit will then be filed against the newspaper.

I hope the break in doesn't happen, but if it does I hope the lawsuit happens!

 

[Officers'Wife]

Just wait, someone in Indiana will have their house broken into and it will be determined that criminals used the database to case neigborhoods. A class action lawsuit will then be filed against the newspaper.

And even a law student would argue that the person on the list made the choice to apply for the permits freely and should suffer any unforeseen consequence of that choice. Public safety is paramount blah blah blah 1st amendment protections blah blah blah.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I hope the break in doesn't happen, but if it does I hope the lawsuit happens!

Once again, I will ask. What would the lawsuit be for? The information is already available through the state as it is public information. The newspaper has simply redistributed public information. How has the newspaper acted wrongly compared to the state?

If the information was confidential/protected, it would be a whole other matter, but it is public domain.

 

[cjl8651]

Aren't there privacy laws that prevent this sort of travesty?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Aren't there privacy laws that prevent this sort of travesty?

Typically, by being public domain information, it isn't covered under any sort of privacy laws.

 

[Shytheed Dumas]

Covered on Fox News this morning and as always the anti spews emotional tripe on the issue (e.g. "Many people with criminal records are issued carry permits" - oh really? HOW many, exactly?). Of course he is left unchallenged in providing any meaningful data or source to support these claims, and the uneducated viewer is left to believe he has made a point. The idiot also pointed out a whopping six serious crimes committed by ccw holders with no facts given on how many lives were saved by the same population, or even what an insignificant percentage SIX is. Unbelievable.

 

[kwikrnu]

Emotional gun thugs claim the records must be private because criminals might use the database. In 15 years since the TN State Governemnt has been running things there have been no crimes linked to the database.