Feds Must Hand Over Gun Data, Court Rules in Freedom of Information Act Win for Journalists

Status
Not open for further replies.
Assuming it will be appealed.

But yes, many reporters would love for the states to turn over information on who has a registered weapon (handgun, rifle, etc.) in states that require registration (or those silly so-called safety checks), and would love the names and addresses of all people who have a concealed weapons permit. So, this might be the start...
 
Years ago I'd have cheered any success by journalists to open up information to the public... These days, though, with "journalists" in many cases little more than propagandists... my days of cheering are just about over. To put it mildly anyone researching firearms is very likely to have bad intentions. Wish it weren't so... Whatever information is generated will be very carefully reviewed then only made into "news" those portions that help the "cause".... Anything that supports the right to keep and bear arms will be systematically suppressed by the propagandists we deal with in these times....
 
There have been several instances where when newspapers were granted access to firearms permit records, they then published the entire list, with names and addresses.

Great idea telling burglars where the guns are, that way they can then publish articles about how guns are stolen so often.
 
Assuming it will be appealed.

But yes, many reporters would love for the states to turn over information on who has a registered weapon (handgun, rifle, etc.) in states that require registration (or those silly so-called safety checks), and would love the names and addresses of all people who have a concealed weapons permit. So, this might be the start...
When Ohio’s CCW law was first passed in 2004 the law allowed for media to not only view but publish list as well,

Because of that and a few other issues I waited 5 years for things to get cleaned up before I got my CCW.
 
There have been several instances where when newspapers were granted access to firearms permit records, they then published the entire list, with names and addresses.

Great idea telling burglars where the guns are, that way they can then publish articles about how guns are stolen so often.

I remember that happening in NY. On Long Island IIRC
 
There are some inaccurate presumptions here--the request is not for permit holders, nor of "registered weapons."

The request is middling clever--while being a bit nefarious, too.

The Firearms Trace System (FTS) consists solely of weapons recovered during crime investigations. Criminal firearms do not have the same protections as non-criminal ones. So, clever in that such records are not under Congressional protection.

Rather nefarious is specifically asking about crime scene recovered weapons that are traced back to Law Enforcement owners.
The implication seems clear, that either LEO are to be blamed for "throw downs" or that LEO are a source for crime scene guns (whether stolen or provided--neither seems in a good light for LEO).

This "victory for journalists" appears to be an opportunity to smear LEO as ACAB.
 
The lawsuit could also be looking for an opportunity to criticize LE trade-ins. Maybe they are going after the used market. Dry up a source and the prices go up all over. Armslist is certainly a target for the anti-gunners, so maybe this is another angle for them.

There are several possible motives here, and none of them are good for gun owners or 2A.
 
LE trade-ins.
This is a reasonable argument. But, the suit specifically wanted LEO-owned not department owned.

Now, how ATFE was to know Jean Q. Deaux was a LEO in their trace is a question in and of itself. Whether they expended any energy in the tracing to identify that data point is a different question.
(The profession of a gun owner is probably of little significance in a trace--and it does not appear on a 4473, either.)

Which is what the ATFE should have contested in the FOIA filing--that no such record exists, and cannot be assembled from the extant data. In that light ATFE has excellent 4th amendment grounds to refuse the FOIA request, as they'd have to have probable cause to review every name in the trace records to discover what profession the named party held.

The journos still win, as they can headline out "Feds Refuse to Disclose Cops' Involvement in Crime!" Which would be specious, but excellent clickbait.
 
I remember that happening in NY. On Long Island IIRC
It was a newspaper in Rockland County, but they released the entire state database. There were actually two databases, an older and a newer one, and the newer one had street addresses as well: a handy shopping guide for gun thieves.

In the wake of this fiasco, the state added an opt-out provision that allows permit holders to keep their info private. Obviously, every new permit holder takes that option, but for anybody on those older databases the cat is already out of the bag.

One thing that came out of the whole mess was embarrassment for the state because of the shoddiness of their record-keeping. Apparently, they never (or hardly ever) pruned the databases: one of the listed permit holders on the old database was "Roosevelt, Eleanor."
 
Last edited:
It was a newspaper in Rockland County, but they released the entire state database. There were a

One thing that came out of the whole mess was embarrassment for the state because of the shoddiness of their record-keeping. Apparently, they never (or hardly ever) pruned the databases: one of the listed permit holders on the old database was "Roosevelt, Eleanor."
It was a newspaper in Rockland County, but they released the entire state database. There were actually two databases, and older and a newer one, and the newer one had street addresses as well: a handy shopping guide for gun thieves.

In the wake of this fiasco, the state added an opt-out provision that allows permit holders to keep their info private. Obviously, every new permit holder takes that option, but for anybody on those older databases the cat is already out of the bag.

One thing that came out of the whole mess was embarrassment for the state because of the shoddiness of their record-keeping. Apparently, they never (or hardly ever) pruned the databases: one of the listed permit holders on the old database was "Roosevelt, Eleanor."

Thanks. I knew it was Long Island or just north of the city.

I wonder if the former FLOTUS is still on the voter rolls as well?
 
Irony here, in a very general sense. It's harmless to point this out.:)
This subject reminds me of a clever stunt (which looked sincere) carried out by people who dressed like, and acted like “One World” far-@@@@ gun grabbers. They looked just like the "professional" counter-culture types in
Midtown Memphis--- or in Putney VT.

They walked through a neighborhood in suburban DC/VA and asked homeowners whether it would be ok to stick a .... “No Guns Here!” ....Sign in peoples’ front yards.

This videotaped stunt was on YouTube several years ago. It was very clever.
—-—One home on the street was that of Eric Holder.——-:mad:. Lady opened the door and said “No”.

Nobody wanted the signs in their front yards..
Imagine that.
 
Last edited:
After reading the suit, it appears to me they are asking for guns owned by agency's and not privately held firearms. This would include all federal agency's including the BATF and FBI as well as state and local.
I read this more of a we want to no how many of those guns that agency's loose every year turn up in crimes.
 
^ or are they going after LEO guns that get sold after department is done with them?

I could see the gun grabbers saying those LEO turn ins should be destroyed instead of being dumped into the market.
 
This is a reasonable argument. But, the suit specifically wanted LEO-owned not department owned.

Now, how ATFE was to know Jean Q. Deaux was a LEO in their trace is a question in and of itself. Whether they expended any energy in the tracing to identify that data point is a different question.
(The profession of a gun owner is probably of little significance in a trace--and it does not appear on a 4473, either.)

Which is what the ATFE should have contested in the FOIA filing--that no such record exists, and cannot be assembled from the extant data. In that light ATFE has excellent 4th amendment grounds to refuse the FOIA request, as they'd have to have probable cause to review every name in the trace records to discover what profession the named party held.

The journos still win, as they can headline out "Feds Refuse to Disclose Cops' Involvement in Crime!" Which would be specious, but excellent clickbait.

Ok, I missed they were looking for individual LEO-owned guns. And you are right, that doesn't exist, because that information is not on the 4473.

So this is a mining expedition. Who wants to take a bet their next request is, "Ok, that didn't contain what we were looking for. We need all the 4473 information." And they use the prior success to "justify" the request. If granted, they get the full repository of historical 4473. If that works, and they figure out that the current 4473's aren't there, or more accurately, they act surprised because they know. FFL's store the current/recent 4473's, and these are the most valuable ones. The Eleanor Roosevelt registration mentioned above is the perfect example of this - they don't care about the historical 4473 information, they want what is scattered around at all the FFLs. So they will demand real-time 4473 reporting. This is a step-wise march to gun registration, and it's an end run around the laws against gun registration (nationally) because it's a law drafted by an activist judge.

Their stated intent can only be met by a full database of all guns and all owners. They know that.

None of this is actually what they say they want in the lawsuit. There's no way a crook that happens to be employed as a cop will buy a gun via a 4473 and then use it as a drop gun, or sell it to another criminal to be used in a crime. And those behind the lawsuit know this. But they act like it is what they want.

It's not paranoia if they are really out to get you. And there are some really smart people that sit around and come up with gun grabbing strategies. They work together and they are in it for the long term.
 
Their stated intent can only be met by a full database of all guns and all owners. They know that.
We can probably assert that as fact; but, by continued evidence from the journos themselves, it's thin assertion.

It's all to easy to ascribe to malice what is better ascribed to incompetence.

That journos are malicious, there is little doubt of that. The complication is in their presumption of their competence in achieving that maliciousness.

They wanted to grind an axe on how awful the PoPo are, and thought to end run using the records, just like on TV.
Oops.

Now, the groups who want us all disarmed are the ones pushing the agenda, not those blathering about it in the press. There is an argument that those behind the scenes people actually want their to be two opposed groups, utterly polarized and with no common ground at all. Sadly, that makes both groups easy to manipulate. Groups that can be manipulated can be profited from.

But, back to the point, ATFE is specifically enjoined from creating any list or database of firearms owners, so you cannot FOIA them into creating "a record" that does not, or cannot exist. They could ask for every trace containing the name "William" or on Baker Street, or back to Fargo, ND. And, as those are crime scene traces, so some of the data might have to be redacted for current cases.

That's thin gruel.

As thin as when CBS extrapolated firearm ownership per State from only the NFA Registry. Thin stuff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top