NY Paper Publishes Legal Gun Permit Holders Names

[jagr]

[Jst2fst]

:bow::bow: Whoops someone forgot to tell him it works both ways son. Enjoy !

[Disclaimer]

"Editor’s note: Journal News reporter Dwight R. Worley owns a Smith & Wesson 686 .357 Magnum and has had a residence permit in New York City for that weapon since February 2011."

http://www.lohud.com/article/20121224/NEWS04/312240045/The-gun-owner-next-door-What-you-don-t-know-about-weapons-your-neighborhood

And the people that applied for permits should've known the law... it's written into the law that names and addresses are public record. But, go ahead and yell at the journalist and newspaper, not the NY legislature for adding it to the law. You don't want it to be public record, then change the law by voting the people in to do it... or just don't apply for permits. It's not rocket surgery.

Edited December 26, 2012 by JRMMiii

[Scruit]

I hope that's his real address and not someone with the same name. Right after the Martin/Zimmerman incident Spike Lee retweeted "George Zimmerman's address" but it turned out to be the address of a person unrelated to the incident - the family was terrorized out of their home.

[jagr]

Didn't your mama tell you just because you "can" do some things doesn't mean you should!

Edit: Hmm. Not sure if JRMMiii had a mother.

[Disclaimer]

Didn't your mama tell you just because you "can" do some things doesn't mean you should!

You mean like possessing multiple rifles that aren't used to hunt?

Mama said don't sign an agreement that isn't agreeable. It's only the gun owners' fault for being ignorant or compliant. "Gov't Tyranny!" They should've risen up and had an NY revolution -- but the Second Amendment doesn't include a right to privacy when owning such munitions, does it?

[ReconRat]

Actually, New Yorkers chose between crap and nearly crap, when the correct answer was to move out of New York.

[jbot]

let us publish everything anyone owns that someone else thinks isn't needed.

don't you have an $8000 orange busa, jrmmiii? i think you also have an orange SV liter squid bike that you got a ticket with (public info fo sho) your name and address belongs on a list somewhere. no complaints from you, right?

[jagr]

Oh Lawd!!!

I wish the ugly police would outlaw Busaz and their owners.

[jagr]

You mean like possessing multiple rifles that aren't used to hunt?

Mama said don't sign an agreement that isn't agreeable. It's only the gun owners' fault for being ignorant or compliant. "Gov't Tyranny!" They should've risen up and had an NY revolution -- but the Second Amendment doesn't include a right to privacy when owning such munitions, does it?

All my boomsticks are used for hunting and militia activities.

Sometimes we draw with crayons too.

[Disclaimer]

let us publish everything anyone owns that someone else thinks isn't needed.

don't you have an $8000 orange busa, jrmmiii? i think you also have an orange SV liter squid bike that you got a ticket with (public info fo sho) your name and address belongs on a list somewhere. no complaints from you, right?

Again, apples and oranges. My bikes don't fire lethal projectiles -- at least they shouldn't or weren't designed to.

And, as with anyone who has had legal action (traffic cites, etc.) that's all public record. So my name IS on a list somewhere -- I knew that when I complied with getting my license and submitted to the rules of the road. I suppose if someone wanted to dox me that bad, they could -- they'd have old information, but if someone REALLY wanted to get my information, I'm sure I've left enough crumbs to follow and enough people know me that we'd have mutual connections that may've crossed paths before that they could find me.

But what does singling me out have anything to do with a list of gun owners? If someone thought a list of old traffic cites would make for interesting news, I suppose I'd end up on that list whether I liked to or not.

Edited December 26, 2012 by JRMMiii

[Tpoppa]

And the people that applied for permits should've known the law... it's written into the law that names and addresses are public record. But, go ahead and yell at the journalist and newspaper, not the NY legislature for adding it to the law. You don't want it to be public record, then change the law by voting the people in to do it... or just don't apply for permits. It's not rocket surgery.

That' sooo cute. You think the politicians listen the people. They do if the people happen to be lobbyists and are carrying a sack of money.

[Disclaimer]

So I guess the gun owners that want privacy need to bring a bigger stack of cash than those that don't care, or want a list made... That's how it works, I guess.

[Tpoppa]

So I guess the gun owners that want privacy need to bring a bigger stack of cash than those that don't care, or want a list made... That's how it works, I guess.

New York lol...supercute

Edited December 26, 2012 by Tpoppa

[jbot]

Again, apples and oranges. My bikes don't fire lethal projectiles -- at least they shouldn't or weren't designed to.

And, as with anyone who has had legal action (traffic cites, etc.) that's all public record. So my name IS on a list somewhere -- I knew that when I complied with getting my license and submitted to the rules of the road. I suppose if someone wanted to dox me that bad, they could -- they'd have old information, but if someone REALLY wanted to get my information, I'm sure I've left enough crumbs to follow and enough people know me that we'd have mutual connections that may've crossed paths before that they could find me.

But what does singling me out have anything to do with a list of gun owners? If someone thought a list of old traffic cites would make for interesting news, I suppose I'd end up on that list whether I liked to or not.

that's arguable, both of your socially irresponsible liter+ bikes go from 0 to retarded in less than the time it takes for you to say "you don't commute to work or hunt with that!". you don't need that kinda power, maaaaan.

also you dont think there is a slight difference between court docs/registration records that arent exactly readily available, and certainly not en masse, versus a news paper article with a map that shows which people at what address has guns that are?

it's morally reprehensible to single out gun owners and expose them in that way, or anyone else doing nothing wrong for that matter.

Edited December 26, 2012 by jbot

[Disclaimer]

The gun owners records are more complicated to get that court docs. The newspaper had to submit a FOIA request... when I can just go to the local muni court website and look up traffic violations, right now.

Someone took the time to submit the request, get the information, and then make a map to display it in aggregate. I guess if it weren't gun owners, they probably wouldn't have exerted the effort... but that's provocative, and makes for provocative news, which means more web traffic and revenue. So, blame the profit motive?

That's also how TMZ works...

Edited December 26, 2012 by JRMMiii

[jbot]

The gun owners records are more complicated to get that court docs. The newspaper had to submit a FOIA request... when I can just go to the local muni court website and look up traffic violations, right now.

Someone took the time to submit the request, get the information, and then make a map to display it in aggregate. I guess if it weren't gun owners, they probably wouldn't have exerted the effort... but that's provocative, and makes for provocative news, which means more web traffic and revenue. So, blame the profit motive?

That's also how TMZ works...

i'm not saying they're not more or less accessible... i'm saying why would you post that as a news paper article? it's fucked up, end of story. at least if you did that with traffic violations, you're publicly persecuting and ostracizing and exposing people who HAVE done something illegal and endangering others. but doing so for the mere act of owning a gun? it's wrong, and anyone who values privacy should be outraged.

and yeah, i think everyone knows that it's done for publicity, news, whatever... but you (and some others, whether they're trolling or not) are basically saying there is nothing wrong with what they did, and that people who own guns deserve it. i think that's wrong, and more gross than having an orange fetish.

[Disclaimer]

That's what happens when you have a society obsessed with guns... obsessed with having them vs. obsessed with curtailing them. If people took a more moderate stance it wouldn't be a big deal and we wouldn't have laws that put gun owners on lists... has anyone researched why that provision was added to NY law? And what about States Rights? If NY wants to put people on lists...NY should be able to. They're not infringing on the right to own or possess, just making requirements to do so. Tom posted earlier that the correct move would've been... leaving NY.

I'm not advocating for lists or even taking a stance on whether or not they should've been published. Legally its OK, and if the editor asked a reporter to do the research and run a story, do you tell your boss no? It'll bring revenue to the paper and may earn a promotion? Tough call. There are a lot of issues in play here.

Your opinion that its morally reprehensible is fine, but there are a lot of things that are 'morally reprehensible' that the govt sticks its nose into... like gay marriage. The GOP tends to do the legislating of moral issues, so I'm curious to see who added this 'list' provision into the original NY law.

[RVTPilot]

The gun owners records are more complicated to get that court docs. The newspaper had to submit a FOIA request... when I can just go to the local muni court website and look up traffic violations, right now.

Someone took the time to submit the request, get the information, and then make a map to display it in aggregate. I guess if it weren't gun owners, they probably wouldn't have exerted the effort... but that's provocative, and makes for provocative news, which means more web traffic and revenue. So, blame the profit motive?

That's also how TMZ works...

J, you had a modicum of merit for arguing your side quasi-admirably until you referenced TMZ, as if they are a respectable news source.

Not that I could expound any further or better on this than jbot, but just because something is a matter of public record does not justify it being used in an inflammatory or derogatory fashion. This was a purposeful act of abuse of the FIOA to publicly defame folks who have done nothing more relative to the act of owning a gun than act responsibly. Now they are having to wear a scarlet letter unjustly thanks to the light cast upon them in this article. There was no value in the way the information was used.

[swingset]

Again, apples and oranges. My bikes don't fire lethal projectiles -- at least they shouldn't or weren't designed to.

And your bikes aren't listed as a constitutionally protected right, either....but I see you fall back on Magz retard argument about design.

My guns are designed to fire projectiles, but I determine whether they're lethal or punching holes in paper. Just as you decide whether your bike goes 55mph legally and safely, or 175mph as it was designed to do....and then veers into traffic when you lose control and cause death or injury.

Design doesn't restrict a thing developed from good from being misused, and it doesn't guarantee a thing designed as a weapon will be used as such.

That's why you don't stab people with your steak knives, I don't shoot people with my guns, and your bike is exactly like an AR15 in the context of ownership.

[Disclaimer]

TMZ wasn't referenced to be a 'news source'... it was referenced because it makes money on being provocative and exposing our society's penchant for voyeurism into others' lives. Which is what the NY article did.. made money for page views.

So you can say it has no informational value or now castigates gun owners, but that's really in the eyes of the reader. Its like asking 'What does the painting/poem/music/article mean to you?'. It means different things to different people. I know I don't look at those gun owners as evil, so I'm not judging them and putting a scarlet shell casing on their lapelles... if others' are, that's their issue. I don't fear guns, nor do I immediately ostrasize someone that chooses to not own any or owns 400 of them. I personally wouldn't have published that, but I'm also some guy living in Ohio that has nothing to gain from such a list.

[imaposer]

The gun owners records are more complicated to get that court docs. The newspaper had to submit a FOIA request... when I can just go to the local muni court website and look up traffic violations, right now.

Someone took the time to submit the request, get the information, and then make a map to display it in aggregate. I guess if it weren't gun owners, they probably wouldn't have exerted the effort... but that's provocative, and makes for provocative news, which means more web traffic and revenue. So, blame the profit motive?

That's also how TMZ works...

And this is why the NRA should start working towards eliminating any kind of record keeping requirements for gun ownership.

Again, apples and oranges. My bikes don't fire lethal projectiles -- at least they shouldn't or weren't designed to.

Apples and oranges? Really? I can't think of one reason whatsoever to justify a bike like the hayabusa being for sale and legal to use on public roads. That bike does absolutely nothing well except break laws. I can guarantee you, more laws are broken by hayabusa riders every time they use their hayabusa than laws are broken by gun owners every time they use their gun. And, I'll go out on a limb and say there are more accidental deaths caused by hayabusas than guns on a per capita basis.

[Disclaimer]

I'd love to see sources for that guarantee.

I still can't get over why some folks don't understand the flawed logic in the bike/car/knife/any other object is the same as a gun and should be treated the same.

If someone had ill intentions... I don't believe they thought, "I need to get a motorcycle/car/knife so I can quickly kill multiple people... those are definitely the appropriate tools for that."

[Pokey]

I can assure you that many do in fact use the AR platform to hunt with, the 5.56/223 is a fabulous groundhog and coyote caliber, some states allow that caliber for deer hunting too. Add a different upper with the multiple calibers available and you have an extremely light and powerful hunting rifle. Just because a few crazy whackos decide to hunt people, doesn't make the AR or AK dangerous to the public. A hunting shotgun can be used to create massive carnage, they can also be loaded quite quickly with practice. Then you have the shotguns which have magazines and rotary cartridges, should all of these be banned or regulated as well? There is no regulation or law that can be passed that will stop this shit from happening again, why is this so hard to understand? Like it has already been said, why not ban or regulate racing bikes or high performance cars that are high horsepower and capable of very high speeds? Are these really needed for the public, how many owners of these are actually responsible and qualified? Where does the regulating and banning end and where is the line drawn, I don't need the government telling me what is best for me, or what they feel will make me safe. Some of you are asking for this, and it will happen if you don't wake up and pull your head out of your ass.

[speedytriple]

What I plan to use the .308 oracle I picked up for (hunting) and target practice. A friend of mine wants me to go up to NY with him next year hunting. The dpms will be fitted with a 10 round mag and be the one I take.