Right to privacy must be upheld for legal gun owners

[beagle9]

That sounds good but the problem is, of course, the issue has become political. Consequently, concerns dealing with privacy rights are addressed in an inconsistent manner, where the perceived right to privacy concerning gun ownership is not extended to the actual right to privacy with regard to abortion, predicated solely on a subjective political agenda.

This also goes to the debate as to the role privacy plays with regard to our 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures of our persons, houses, papers, and effects as the state attempts to ‘fight crime’ and ‘terrorism.’

It goes to our online privacy with regard to restrictions against the state, invasion of privacy by private entities not subject to 4th and 5th Amendment jurisprudence, and the responsibility of private entities who possess private information, particularly how private information entities are to interact with the state in the context of law enforcement.

What then would be the remedy for gun permit holders concerned about having their private information made public? In my state, for example, there are no gun permits, licenses, or registration requirements; the authorities have no idea as to what guns I own, how many I might own, or even if I own any at all. Would the remedy be through the legislative process, where the people of a given state that requires gun permits compel their lawmakers to repeal such laws? And since the law indeed authorizes permits, can it not be said permits exist per the will of a majority of the people?

Or have the people crossed the Constitutional line?

Would the remedy be in the courts, where it could be argued that requiring permits is un-Constitutionally burdensome, particularly if the permit holder knows that his information could be made public? Women are not required to obtain an license to have an abortion, for example, nor have that information potentially made public, regardless of what Ann Coulter might think. Such a requirement for women would clearly manifest an undue burden, and be struck down accordingly. Thus far, as we know, permit requirements have passed Constitutional muster when reviewed by the courts.

That the publishing of gun permit information by a local newspaper was poor and irresponsible journalism is beyond debate; one hopes, however, that the issue might foster more productive and vital debate concerning privacy issues.

The only ones who need to know about the information upon for whom has gun permits for concealed carry, and for whom has legally owned firearms on their person or in their homes is "law enforcement", and no one else period.

No not even law enforcement has a need to know if you have firearms in your home. The only time they may have a need to know is if you are conceal carrying in public.

Hmmm, how would they know if you are concealed carrying in public ?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The only ones who need to know about the information upon for whom has gun permits for concealed carry, and for whom has legally owned firearms on their person or in their homes is "law enforcement", and no one else period.

No not even law enforcement has a need to know if you have firearms in your home. The only time they may have a need to know is if you are conceal carrying in public.

Hmmm, how would they know if you are concealed carrying in public ?

Because if you are conceal carrying you are supposed to tell them first, and then produce your conceal carry card.

 

[beagle9]

No not even law enforcement has a need to know if you have firearms in your home. The only time they may have a need to know is if you are conceal carrying in public.

Hmmm, how would they know if you are concealed carrying in public ?

Because if you are conceal carrying you are supposed to tell them first, and then produce your conceal carry card.

So everytime you walk by a police officer, you have to go up to them and tell them that you are carrying concealed and/or are you required of this action by law under concealed carry regulations ?

School me, because I sure don't know any of this yet. Sounds weird to have to let the law know that you are carrying concealed, especially if you are not doing anything wrong in order to make them suspicious of you, where as they would somehow think that maybe your not being possibly a good citizen (profiling you), and this when you are going about your everyday business, and therefore being a good citizen.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Hmmm, how would they know if you are concealed carrying in public ?

Because if you are conceal carrying you are supposed to tell them first, and then produce your conceal carry card.

So everytime you walk by a police officer, you have to go up to them and tell them that you are carrying concealed and/or are you required of this action by law under concealed carry regulations ?

School me, because I sure don't know any of this yet. Sounds weird to have to let the law know that you are carrying concealed, especially if you are not doing anything wrong in order to make them suspicious of you, where as they would somehow think that maybe your not being possibly a good citizen (profiling you), and this when you are going about your everyday business, and therefore being a good citizen.

OK here's what happens when you conceal carry.
If you are approached by police for questioning or stopped in your vehicle and you are conceal carrying you advise them that you are conceal carrying a firearm. If they do not approach you for questioning or have not stopped you in your vehicle you do not have to say anything to them. Only when you come into direct contact with the police are you supposed to saying something .

 

[beagle9]

Because if you are conceal carrying you are supposed to tell them first, and then produce your conceal carry card.

So everytime you walk by a police officer, you have to go up to them and tell them that you are carrying concealed and/or are you required of this action by law under concealed carry regulations ?

School me, because I sure don't know any of this yet. Sounds weird to have to let the law know that you are carrying concealed, especially if you are not doing anything wrong in order to make them suspicious of you, where as they would somehow think that maybe your not being possibly a good citizen (profiling you), and this when you are going about your everyday business, and therefore being a good citizen.

OK here's what happens when you conceal carry.
If you are approached by police for questioning or stopped in your vehicle and you are conceal carrying you advise them that you are conceal carrying a firearm. If they do not approach you for questioning or have not stopped you in your vehicle you do not have to say anything to them. Only when you come into direct contact with the police are you supposed to saying something .

This is what I thought, but I guess I got confused in the context of the message or something.. Thanks

 

[chikenwing]

Jillian raises a good point. What's the difference between a public notice of where firearms are and a public notice of where sex offenders are? Either one can cause harm. And one of them can do it without even being seen.

Katz makes a good point too -- if public knowledge of your guns is something to keep hidden, then why do so many of the same owners hang a sign saying "This property protected by Smith & Wesson"? If they do so because such warning makes that house more secure, then by definition the newspaper just made all the gun owners in its readership area more secure, and saved them the expense of a sign too. If such info makes that house less secure, then why are gun owners hanging these signs voluntarily with the obvious intent of being seen? You can't have it both ways -- pick a gripe.

And we still have yet to hear articulated exactly how the publication actually harms anybody. Vague theories of "what the paper intended" are worthless... unless you want to revisit the motive of shame. And if that is the harm inflicted, then the original question stands: why, if guns are the godsend panacea the Gnuts say they are, are they ashamed of it?

Discuss.

Ashamed ????? Are you insane maybe ? I am a proud gun owner, and the actions of an idiot who should have been committed doesn't make me ashamed of being a gun owner at all. I mean not unless the gun itself has some kind of power over me, that would make me begin to become possessed by the evil spirit that dwell's within my guns. Is that what the left is scared of maybe, that the guns are evil and therefore will make anyone in possession of them evil as well ?

OK fine, I'm just groping for answers-- then eliminate "shame" as a motive for the newspaper -- what's left? If this vague never-defined "harm" of "whatever the newspaper intended" is not shame, and if "intimidation" of people who are by definition armed and less intimidated, then what's left for this "harmful" motive?

I'm not even taking a side here; I'm just looking for some logic in arriving at whatever point is arrived at. "Whatever the paper intended" is just not good enough. Either there's a logical complaint, or there isn't.

Your looking for logic in the wrong place,the editor of said paper is like a three year old stamping his feet,you think your going to be able to use a logical approach??? to try and figure the intent??

 

[Pogo]

Ashamed ????? Are you insane maybe ? I am a proud gun owner, and the actions of an idiot who should have been committed doesn't make me ashamed of being a gun owner at all. I mean not unless the gun itself has some kind of power over me, that would make me begin to become possessed by the evil spirit that dwell's within my guns. Is that what the left is scared of maybe, that the guns are evil and therefore will make anyone in possession of them evil as well ?

OK fine, I'm just groping for answers-- then eliminate "shame" as a motive for the newspaper -- what's left? If this vague never-defined "harm" of "whatever the newspaper intended" is not shame, and if "intimidation" of people who are by definition armed and less intimidated, then what's left for this "harmful" motive?

I'm not even taking a side here; I'm just looking for some logic in arriving at whatever point is arrived at. "Whatever the paper intended" is just not good enough. Either there's a logical complaint, or there isn't.

Your looking for logic in the wrong place,the editor of said paper is like a three year old stamping his feet,you think your going to be able to use a logical approach??? to try and figure the intent??

No no, not at all --- I'm looking for the logic here.

I'm looking for some reasonable basis for the idea that publishing gun owners puts somebody in harm's way; that it threatens the gun owners and simultaneously threatens the non-owners. I'm trying to pose the questions that the adherents of these positions should have posed for themselves before they arrived at that conclusion.

I'm not seeing much. Just a bunch of hair-on-fire mania about what "might" happen and "whatever the paper intended, it was evil" and "three year old stamping his feet". That's not logic. It's irrational emotionalism.

This is what I'm here for; state your position, but justify it. If you can't do that, it has no value.

 

[jillian]

A quick story - I own gun's of course, and I have had them for years and years, and when a young man began coming around who had a shady past, and a gang exposed upbringing, I had to become as cautious and as responsible as I could be. I had to use good ole common sense while dealing with him. He needed help and guidance, and I tried to give him some, but his upbringing was engrained within him, and it came out in many ways that made me correct him many times.

I never allowed him into my home, because he asked way to many questions that were uncomfortable to me, so I just allowed him only into the yard and garden when he wanted to help me. His brother was a real bad thug and criminal, and he was torn between being like his brother or being like a normal kid. He asked me one time did I have any guns that I owned, in which I said to him immediately "Nope". He then said well how do you protect yourself (?) and I said well I just take a butcher knife and cut peoples heads off if need be.

I always keep my guns locked up, hidden and secret, and he never knew that I owned any at all.

This is why I thought "wow" when I heard about the idea in which some idiot had upon listing the names and addresses of gun owners somewhere in which this incident happened, and it made me see this immediately as an atrocity that should be met with criminal punishment for violating the right to citizens privacy, and violating the safety of the public at large for such an idiotic dangerous act.

The only "privacy" "right" I am aware of is the Privacy Act of 1974, which restricts the government's release of certain PI information in their databases.

Otherwise, we really have no right to privacy and the legislation on privacy only limits what government can do with personally identifiable information.

That being said, this was an excellent example of irresponsible journalism.

That's incorrect. See Griswold v Connecticut, Loving v Virginia and Roe v Wade. Those cases have never bend overturned are fully enforced and are good law.

 

[beagle9]

OK fine, I'm just groping for answers-- then eliminate "shame" as a motive for the newspaper -- what's left? If this vague never-defined "harm" of "whatever the newspaper intended" is not shame, and if "intimidation" of people who are by definition armed and less intimidated, then what's left for this "harmful" motive?

I'm not even taking a side here; I'm just looking for some logic in arriving at whatever point is arrived at. "Whatever the paper intended" is just not good enough. Either there's a logical complaint, or there isn't.

Your looking for logic in the wrong place,the editor of said paper is like a three year old stamping his feet,you think your going to be able to use a logical approach??? to try and figure the intent??

No no, not at all --- I'm looking for the logic here.

I'm looking for some reasonable basis for the idea that publishing gun owners puts somebody in harm's way; that it threatens the gun owners and simultaneously threatens the non-owners. I'm trying to pose the questions that the adherents of these positions should have posed for themselves before they arrived at that conclusion.

I'm not seeing much. Just a bunch of hair-on-fire mania about what "might" happen and "whatever the paper intended, it was evil" and "three year old stamping his feet". That's not logic. It's irrational emotionalism.

This is what I'm here for; state your position, but justify it. If you can't do that, it has no value.

And who might you be again ? That's what I thought!!

 

[Pogo]

Your looking for logic in the wrong place,the editor of said paper is like a three year old stamping his feet,you think your going to be able to use a logical approach??? to try and figure the intent??

No no, not at all --- I'm looking for the logic here.

I'm looking for some reasonable basis for the idea that publishing gun owners puts somebody in harm's way; that it threatens the gun owners and simultaneously threatens the non-owners. I'm trying to pose the questions that the adherents of these positions should have posed for themselves before they arrived at that conclusion.

I'm not seeing much. Just a bunch of hair-on-fire mania about what "might" happen and "whatever the paper intended, it was evil" and "three year old stamping his feet". That's not logic. It's irrational emotionalism.

This is what I'm here for; state your position, but justify it. If you can't do that, it has no value.

And who might you be again ? That's what I thought!!

Who might I be??
I might be Nadia Comănici or Linus Pauling or Herb Alpert. You never know.

What kind of weird question is that?

 

[Si modo]

A quick story - I own gun's of course, and I have had them for years and years, and when a young man began coming around who had a shady past, and a gang exposed upbringing, I had to become as cautious and as responsible as I could be. I had to use good ole common sense while dealing with him. He needed help and guidance, and I tried to give him some, but his upbringing was engrained within him, and it came out in many ways that made me correct him many times.

I never allowed him into my home, because he asked way to many questions that were uncomfortable to me, so I just allowed him only into the yard and garden when he wanted to help me. His brother was a real bad thug and criminal, and he was torn between being like his brother or being like a normal kid. He asked me one time did I have any guns that I owned, in which I said to him immediately "Nope". He then said well how do you protect yourself (?) and I said well I just take a butcher knife and cut peoples heads off if need be.

I always keep my guns locked up, hidden and secret, and he never knew that I owned any at all.

This is why I thought "wow" when I heard about the idea in which some idiot had upon listing the names and addresses of gun owners somewhere in which this incident happened, and it made me see this immediately as an atrocity that should be met with criminal punishment for violating the right to citizens privacy, and violating the safety of the public at large for such an idiotic dangerous act.

The only "privacy" "right" I am aware of is the Privacy Act of 1974, which restricts the government's release of certain PI information in their databases.

Otherwise, we really have no right to privacy and the legislation on privacy only limits what government can do with personally identifiable information.

That being said, this was an excellent example of irresponsible journalism.

That's incorrect. See Griswold v Connecticut, Loving v Virginia and Roe v Wade. Those cases have never bend overturned are fully enforced and are good law.

Well, I was talking about legislation. Of course common law also gives us some precedent on privacy issues, as well.

I'm still not aware of a "right" to privacy, though.

And, this is still an excellent example of irresponsible journalism.

 

[beagle9]

The only "privacy" "right" I am aware of is the Privacy Act of 1974, which restricts the government's release of certain PI information in their databases.

Otherwise, we really have no right to privacy and the legislation on privacy only limits what government can do with personally identifiable information.

That being said, this was an excellent example of irresponsible journalism.

That's incorrect. See Griswold v Connecticut, Loving v Virginia and Roe v Wade. Those cases have never bend overturned are fully enforced and are good law.

Well, I was talking about legislation. Of course common law also gives us some precedent on privacy issues, as well.

I'm still not aware of a "right" to privacy, though.

And, this is still an excellent example of irresponsible journalism.

That's just it, where is our right to privacy in this nation anymore ? The corporations have stolen our rights away, and we can't understand that as of yet, but they know what they have done to us, and are doing to us...Think about it..

 

[Politico]

School me here a bit then, how is it that private gun owners and their ownership is somehow public information?

You can answer that yourself if you think about it.

What should also be out there are the list of residences that DONT own guns!!!

It alreadys is. All the addresses on that map that don't have a dot.

 

[beagle9]

School me here a bit then, how is it that private gun owners and their ownership is somehow public information?

You can answer that yourself if you think about it.

What should also be out there are the list of residences that DONT own guns!!!

It alreadys is. All the addresses on that map that don't have a dot.

Do you agree with this ?

 

[Politico]

I know I don't really care.