Newspaper Provides a Map With Names and Addresses of Holders of Gun Permits (money, states)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This can't cause any problems, because:
-Guns ownership makes one's home an impenetrable fortress
-Criminals can all get guns anyway and don't need to break into someone's home
It makes anyone else next door a target....... Perhaps there should be a law that each non gun owner has to place a sign . Maybe better, we pass a law for these gun owners with the dots to place these signs up at tax payers expence so you grabbers get to PAY.
It makes anyone else next door a target....... Perhaps there should be a law that each non gun owner has to place a sign . Maybe better, we pass a law for these gun owners with the dots to place these signs up at tax payers expence so you grabbers get to PAY.
I don't think we are talking about the same thing.
Sure we are. Guys who carry don't want to be IDed. You don't want people at the mall to see your face (picture obtained from somewhere) "Hey...that guy's got a gun". Know what I mean?
It spoils the whole element of supprize. You also don't want your personal info published about your home and it's whereabouts....WITH it's contents.
If anything came up missing...I'd blame them in full.
for the people that own guns because you're afraid of crime, do you really live in that bad of a neighborhood? I see a lot of unfounded paranoia coming from that crowd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Cooper
And not a single red dot for the town of Newtown.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm...........I thought Mrs. Lanza owned and was licensed.
Could be they didn't get that far. I doubt that CT has that few permit holders
for the people that own guns because you're afraid of crime, do you really live in that bad of a neighborhood? I see a lot of unfounded paranoia coming from that crowd.
Could be they didn't get that far. I doubt that CT has that few permit holders
Criminals looking to steal can travel you know. A well to do neighborhood is just as good a target as a poor neighborhood.
There were several posters on CD who wanted to post the names of people who didn't have guns.
Do you remember the idiots that went on and on about the signs they wanted to put in their yards stating that the person next door doesn't own a gun.
Wonder how those idiots feel about this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea
I am appalled. Looking around the web I see that Illinois did such (until the state legislature passed a law stopping such disclosure) and Memphis, Tennessee.
I hope that some of those people listed charge the newspaper for invasion of privacy. After all, the newspaper is a corporation. The relevant portion of the statute:
Article 5, Sec. 50. Right of privacy. A person, firm or corporation that uses for advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade, the name, portrait or picture of any living person without having first obtained the written consent of such person, or if a minor of his or her parent or guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
I consider this 'purpose of trade'. The paper is hoping to sell papers, or have people join the website. Of course, a NY judge may disagree.
It may be that when one registers their gun with the state, you sign something that waives your right to privacy. If so, that needs to change.
But isn't this public record?
They print photos of alleged criminals without their consent, and that would also be an invasion of privacy by your definition.
As a note about the article and the map, that map only shows people who have a license to purchase handguns. It doesn't mean they actually have a handgun, nor does it list residences with owners of shotguns and rifles, which do not require a purchase permit.
Also, that's all public information. It'd be better off it that kind of information wasn't.
The 2nd amendment is actually the only amendment the ACLU doesn't aggressively pursue or fight. They don't pick and choose in general--with the exception of gun-rights. But they've defended aggressively for religious liberties and privacy rights. Don't write them off so easily.
Fox News respects privacy? The same company whose sister in the UK tapped hundreds of phones for illicit stories? That Murdoch et al knew nothing about?
By the way, those of you who don't think is right--they do the same thing to released sex-offenders--sometimes for life. You might see that as "necessary" for public safety. The same argument could be made of gun-owners.
Gun owners didnt break any laws, quite a big difference in sex offenders.
Boy, not only do the US have the most gunz, it appears they also have the smartest criminals in teh wurlde
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
