+1 gearhead
Witch Hunt: Newspaper publishes Google Map of NY Gun Permit Owners
- Thread starter John828
- Start date
- Status
parsimonious_instead
Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2010
- Messages
- 791
The database they pulled from may be out of date or incomplete for Westchester. I've had my permit for two years, and I'm not on there. Interesting factual error: they begin with saying that "it doesn't mean they have a gun" which is pretty much impossible - one of the opening phases of acquiring the permit is to purchase a handgun - it sits in the dealer's vault until your permit is approved. It's now registered to you, and listed on that permit. I suppose someone could get a gun and the permit, and then "delete" the firearm from it, leaving themselves with no listed weapons, but that's pretty rare.
LoHud uses Facebook for their comments and the negative comments about the permit map were pretty staggering in their intensity and number.
LOTS of people attesting that they have either canceled their subscription, or are about to...
LoHud uses Facebook for their comments and the negative comments about the permit map were pretty staggering in their intensity and number.
LOTS of people attesting that they have either canceled their subscription, or are about to...
Last edited:
toivo
Member
No. This information should be confidential, just like your driving record, medical records, and financial records: accessible only with a court order or to authorized agencies, e.g. insurance company, doctor, credit agency, etc.
I agree -- it should be. But, that is something to take up with the legislators in NYS who have declared that information public.
It has nothing to do with the newspaper that had the lack of taste to obtain it legally and publish it.
toivo
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:
Certaindeaf
member
Maybe it should be public record who's on welfare or any sort of social service program.
reggie_love
Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2012
- Messages
- 38
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.
It's disgusting. An open invitation for robbery and harassment.
opto_isolator
Member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2006
- Messages
- 49
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
JohnBiltz
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.
I guess the newspaper is hoping to get more stolen guns on the street.
Deanimator
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
<shrug>
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.
toivo
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.
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).
wacki
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.
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.
Well, I'm as mad as the rest of you and did something about it. And I've called those involved and told them how I feel about their story and paper.
Go to the link below and call or write those involved.
http://christopherfountain.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/sauce-for-the-goose/
Go to the link below and call or write those involved.
http://christopherfountain.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/sauce-for-the-goose/
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.
k-frame
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):
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.
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.
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:
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
- Status
