And it should be an example of how we should visit the topic on privacy now in America, and how this nation is being exposed to all sorts of evil due to the wild and crazy interpretation of what privacy should be and shouldn't be any longer in America..
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.
