Bobby Jindal Signs Bill Banning Journalists From Identifying Gun Owners

[chrisrobin]

Anyone who would allow so-called creationism to be taught in public schools, other than as a representative of a religious view with no science behind it, is stupid.

​

 

[cm98059]

Like people with NRA stickers on their doors or windows aren't essentially doing the same thing? You live in the USA for goodness sake, if a criminal wants to get a gun, he don't blooming well need to look for clues in the tabloids, geez.

I see what you are saying, but many people who are applying for a concealed weapons permit do not advertise that there is a weapon around. some applicant are domestic violence survivors who need a weapon for their personal safety. I am sure that you can see where posting these people's names and addresses may not be a good idea.

 

[Vitamin]

Who says a list of registered gun owners has to be pulbic information? There's no reason the state can't seal the records and refuse to realese them.

It's by far more effective to prevent people from doing stupid things by denying them the opportunity then punishing them for it after the fact.

 

[Kulindahr]

Like people with NRA stickers on their doors or windows aren't essentially doing the same thing? You live in the USA for goodness sake, if a criminal wants to get a gun, he don't blooming well need to look for clues in the tabloids, geez.

Ah. So you think that if some people choose to do a thing subtly of their own free will, it's then legitimate to coerce everyone?

Nice philosophy.

 

[Kulindahr]

Who says a list of registered gun owners has to be pulbic information? There's no reason the state can't seal the records and refuse to realese them.

It's by far more effective to prevent people from doing stupid things by denying them the opportunity then punishing them for it after the fact.

The question here is why it should be public information at all.

All of us who are able-bodied are members of the militia. Who of the militia is going armed is a militia matter. Letting criminals know which members of the militia may be armed, or which have weapons that could potentially be stolen, is contrary to good functioning of the militia -- one may as well inform a nation's enemies the codes for access to the nation's arsenals, with maps to the locations.

If we would just get back to the militia concept -- i.e. if we would just take the Constitution seriously -- a lot of these issues would go away.

 

[cm98059]

I'm afraid that i don't see that.

I agree fully that any paper publishing names and addresses should have a reason for doing so, associated to a related news report, rather than just because they can, but there is no ethical reason why public information should not be publicly available to read in the press. What Mr Jindal is seeking to do, is restrict the freedom of the press in tackling what he perhaps feels is an infringement on the right to privacy. That is a worthy reason, but ill thought through. He needs to be addressing why the names and addresses of such individuals are public information in the first place.
Trying to mute the press on the off chance that the information may be abused by criminals is a flimsy reason for intruding on that freedom, particularly when the whole point of having weapons is a deterrent. Such a proliferation of guns certainly hasn't got Mr Jindal wound up about the possibility that someone may get hold of one of them from a relative or friend or neighbour before going out and causing mayhem, so why on Earth should that excuse be used to justify this bill he has in mind, infringing upon the press (who i'm sure the average criminal doesn't even read their papers).

Many states seal the records of who has applied for concealed weapons permits. They are not public record in many states. In Florida, the law that has been proposed DOES have exceptions in the event a crime has been committed, OR I there is public right to know. But for a paper to just decide that they want to publish this information just because, that is off limits. In 99.9% of concealed weapons permit applications, there is no public right to know.

 

[tigerfan482]

In this same post, you yourself said:



Wouldn't the opposite also be true, that the freedom of the press also does not have the right to infringe upon my right to privacy? Also, Why would anyone have a right to know whether or not I have a concealed weapons permit.



There is not a violation of the freedom of the press in this instance. Freedom of the press is a protection from the media becoming a propaganda tool of the government. And there is infringement upon the rights of others. Some concealed weapons permit holders are victims of abuse that need to protect their own and their families safety. Publishing their information in the local newspaper would give their abuser there addresses and allow the abuser to begin abusing his victims again.

The same thing could be said about your position. In the threads about the NSA, you are one of the parties saying that the government is protecting the rights of the people. Now, in this instance, you want the government to allow information to be collected and given without any oversight as to who is receiving the information.

Because of the possible safety issues for victims of abuse, and the possible violations of the rights to privacy that I see being a possibility, I feel that there is no reason for this to be allowed. The possible damages that may occur outweigh any possible benefit from this process.

All of your argument would be valid, were the information not public domain. When information is public domain, you have no right to privacy. In fact, the Constitution makes no specific mention of a right to privacy. So no, your "right" to privacy is not being violated when public domain information is printed in a newspaper under the auspices of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It doesn't get much easier to understand than that.

 

[opinterph]

When information is public domain, you have no right to privacy.

Driver’s License Search​

 

[frankfrank]

Like people with NRA stickers on their doors or windows aren't essentially doing the same thing? You live in the USA for goodness sake, if a criminal wants to get a gun, he don't blooming well need to look for clues in the tabloids, geez.

How can these two things possibly be equated...AT ALL?

If somebody puts an NRA sticker (or for that matter an ADT alarm system, etc.) sticker on their residence, it is purely their choice to do so. I am willing to bet there are a lot of NRA or Gun Owners... (or similar organizations, too) members who would not put such a sticker on display under any circumstances. A newspaper which publishes the locations of all registered weapons makes it entirely impossible for a gun owner to make his or her own determination whether to keep the knowledge private.

Other posters have brought up issues such as abuse-victims-in-hiding, etc. It can become life-threatening if the information becomes public. Even the Drivers License search (for which Opinterph gave the wonderful spoof site, which I have seen before, cool), to whatever extent is exists, is something which a person must PROACTIVELY interact with. It is simply wrong to force such information into a situation where everybody has complete access to it, without even trying.

It used to be that a criminal in Putnam County, New York had to SERIOUSLY dig deep and canvass public records, if they were trying to find a dwelling to rob which probably didn't have guns there or in the possession of neighbors; now they can just wait for that person to leave by casing the place, because they know there aren't guns there. (MORE SO RURAL THAN IN THE CITY: Rural dwellers are, I think, FAR less likely to have unregistered guns.) Conversely, they now know where exactly to go, if they want to try to steal a weapon.

The NRA member who puts the NRA sticker on his home...OK, if somebody wants to know that there's a gun in that home to steal, they have to ACTUALLY GO TO THAT PHYSICAL LOCATION and find the sticker. Publishing it in a newspaper means that somebody four thousand miles away can do nothing more than some keyboard and mouse work, leading to the newspaper article, and find out where ALL of the "known" guns reside.

How can anybody even think of equating these?

The question here is why it should be public information at all.

All of us who are able-bodied are members of the militia. Who of the militia is going armed is a militia matter. Letting criminals know which members of the militia may be armed, or which have weapons that could potentially be stolen, is contrary to good functioning of the militia -- one may as well inform a nation's enemies the codes for access to the nation's arsenals, with maps to the locations.

I agree so entirely with this. He knows what he speaks.

 

[Kulindahr]

The issue here is about the infringement upon the right to privacy. The argument being used thus far, to establish the negative consequence of that information being published in the papers, boils down to a security threat to those who posess a firearm. Such an argument becomes an hypocrisy when citizens freely advertise their own liklihood to be in possession of arms on their property, in the first instant, and contradictory to the traditional argument of gun supporters, that guns are in fact a deterrent. You can't start citing security risks to gun owners from criminals, when the whole purpose of having them to begin with, is to do the opposite function.

This is laughable unless you seriously think that gun owners carry ALL their firearms on their persons ALL the time. It's also laughable unless you maintain that criminals will purposely wait until they know a gun owner is home before they attempt to steal said weapon.

 

[Kulindahr]

My main point stands, that a debate needs to be had to understand why the information resides in the public domain, and whether it should be made private. It is no good simply trying to gag the press in response to a percieved threat to privacy, when you are trampling over another right (free speech) in the process.

True, this. It should be a militia matter -- include it in a new militia Act that sets storage rules and other requirements for the militia's handling of their firearms.

Letting everyone know where there are (and thus aren't) guns is not good for the security of a free state.

 

[Rolyo85]

This is going to sound like trolling, but I promise I am completely serious:

To me the logic of listing gun owners is EXACTLY the same as listing sex offenders. And not because the two are the same, but because to a third party the two could POTENTIALLY present the same degree of danger. If I have a kid, I would want them to stay away from a sex offender, whether he is actually dangerous or not (we all know how many sex "offenders" are just victims of the system), and it's the same with gun owners - I would want to stay away from potentially violent people with weapons, whether they are actually responsible with those or not.

It is my right to know this and to act accordingly in what I consider my best interest, no?

 

[JayHawk]

If vaginas shot bullets instead of babies; then what would republicans ban?

 

[Kulindahr]

What is laughable, is the suggestion that criminals are going to mis-use information published in the paper. That's not to say its impossible (as i've stated previously), but unlikely. You have just pointed out another one of the reasons why. I mentioned the ease of criminals driving around looking for NRA stickers, or following gun club members home etc. I also mentioned that criminal types don't generally sit down and read the tabloids, particularly petty criminals, so won't likely see the published information. You've just pointed out that criminals won't know with any certainty whether or not a gun owner with a concealed carry permit is going to be carrying their guns when they are not at home, which means criminals are left 'hoping' that such a gun owner has a) left his firearm at home, or b) if he hasn't, has more than one firearm.

Criminals here have picked homes to break into based on perusing Craig's List for people selling expensive things, so it's only sensible to think they'd look in newspapers once they hear there are lists of gun owners.

And a criminal isn't going to be "hoping" a concealed carry license holder owns more than one firearm; it's a high probability (if not a near certainty).

So actually, even publishing the names and addresses of persons with concealed carry permits, its more of a map, than a key to a chest. The criminal would still have to scout, still take a risk etc etc. What difference really is there for a crook to use the 'Tabloid Map' or the 'Gun Club Member Pursuit Map', or the 'NRA Window Sticker Map'.

It's a huge difference: the newspaper is telling him exactly which houses to look at. Looking for NRA stickers means looking at every house, and getting close to do so.

There is another thought that crosses my mind, in relation to whether the papers have a right to publish. Whilst the information is in the public domain, they clearly DO have that right. But the thought i had was this, previously, i had said that Jindal should be looking into why this information is public, as being the correct path to follow, rather than trying to gag the press. The more i think about it, the more i believe that its in the public interest for that information to be public.

We have heard a lot in this discussion, about the negative potential of having this information publicly knowable, and little of the positive. I think i would quite like to know, who in my local neighbourhood, had a permit to carry a gun around with them. I'd know to be wary around them. I would avoid getting into a confrontation with them, as my life could depend on me walking away from them, should THEY try to start a fight.

I can't think of a single public benefit from having this information public, other than knowing who could be counted on to aid you if you get attacked by a criminal. Your fantasy about people with concealed carry licenses being a danger to you is just that -- a fantasy, proven over and over again to be a fantasy as in state after state, year after year, the crime rate among people with those licenses is near zero, and the "crimes" they commit tend to be traffic violations, not actual crimes.

Jindal should ask for legislation based on the fact that all those gun owners are members of the militia and establishing for his state that revealing who is responsible enough to be willing to participate in providing for the security of a free state by carrying protection against criminals is a crime.

 

[Kulindahr]

This is going to sound like trolling, but I promise I am completely serious:

To me the logic of listing gun owners is EXACTLY the same as listing sex offenders. And not because the two are the same, but because to a third party the two could POTENTIALLY present the same degree of danger. If I have a kid, I would want them to stay away from a sex offender, whether he is actually dangerous or not (we all know how many sex "offenders" are just victims of the system), and it's the same with gun owners - I would want to stay away from potentially violent people with weapons, whether they are actually responsible with those or not.

It is my right to know this and to act accordingly in what I consider my best interest, no?

LOL

So because of some people's irrational, ignorant fears, other people's names should be listed?

Statistically, a fraternity member with three beers in him is a bigger danger sexually to others than a registered sex offender. And statistically, someone with a concealed carry license is about the safest person you could be around.

 

[Rolyo85]

Yeah, speaking of fantasies. Remember those Mother Jones statistics? You never quite managed to respond to them as I recall...

 

[Kulindahr]

Yeah, speaking of fantasies. Remember those Mother Jones statistics? You never quite managed to respond to them as I recall...

You mean the ones that started with lies in the first sentence? There's no point in responding to anything when it starts with false assertions (e.g. 'no one has proposed rounding up all the guns').

 

[Rolyo85]

You mean the ones that started with lies in the first sentence? There's no point in responding to anything when it starts with false assertions (e.g. 'no one has proposed rounding up all the guns').

Hahahaha that's as pathetic as Jack's "well you're rude so why should I respond?" crap. I'm sorry but that's way too weak - if you have no rebuttal for statistics, just say so. There's no shame in it, but there's a lot of shame in this indignant hedging you're doing now...

 

[Kulindahr]

Hahahaha that's as pathetic as Jack's "well you're rude so why should I respond?" crap. I'm sorry but that's way too weak - if you have no rebuttal for statistics, just say so. There's no shame in it, but there's a lot of shame in this indignant hedging you're doing now...

You call pointing out lies "hedging"?

Their first point rests on telling a lie. Their second rests on changing the question they asked. The third cherry-picks a single statistic favorable to the answer they want. The fourth rests on a lie. The fifth rests on another lie. In the sixth they both lie and redefine the question they asked. The seventh is phrased in a way they can use to make an answer they want. In the ninth, they lie with statistics, changing the definition between question and answer. And in the tenth, they do all of the above and manage to avoid actually addressing the question after all.

If I'd turned in work like that in my statistics courses at OSU, I would have flunked -- in other words, there's nothing to rebut, because the writer is either incompetent with statistics, or purposely misusing them, and is lying on top of it. I pay no more attention to such trash than I would to a paper on cold fusion that began by requiring the presence of a white rabbit in a top hat on the research team.

 

[Rolyo85]

Be a darling and quote the actual stats you call "lies" please. I don't have perfect memory and I bet we aren't the only ones reading this topic.