Bobby Jindal Signs Bill Banning Journalists From Identifying Gun Owners

[cm98059]

Local criminals would have just as much success i expect, finding homes with guns in them, by scouting around their local area looking for such signs as NRA stickers. Maybe they may hang out at the local gun club to see who is there, and who they might follow home etc etc.

Like i said, there is no tangible difference between a name in a paper, and a sticker on a window. The only thing that can be rightfully agreed, is that printing in a paper makes it easier, quicker, less effort for criminals. It is still only serving the same function of highlighting a potential target.

There is another point to address here too. That is, that you're taking the position of the negative consequences to this situation, despite the positive consequences also being a real possibility. Maybe criminals don't want to go where there are guns, and so use the names and addresses to rule out targets, in which case the deterrent of guns has upheld like it supposed to. And crucially, it doesn't publish the names and addresses of gun owners per se, only those who have concealed carry permits, which means crooks are still unable to specifically identify gun-less homes. So the threat being argued, is not as great as it can be percieved, if you only look at the worst possible scenarios, there is a counter-balance in positive consequences, since you don't know whether this information is going to attract or deter one criminal from the next.

The last comment i have, is about volunteering information. You mentioned people freely choosing to place stickers on their windows etc., and this being quite different to having names published in a paper without their consent. Now, i agree that its different in that sense, that in the latter situation it becomes somebody elses's choice, but its public information, and something that licence holders should be aware of from the moment they choose to apply, because essentially they ARE giving consent to the information being publicly available through their application at the off.

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.

In many states the information is not public record. It should not be public record in any states. I have contended in this thread, that the freedom of the press does not pertain to the press being able to publish whatever it wants without recourse. The freedom of the press is a guarantee that the press would not become a propaganda tool of the government. I have to discount your argument that someone can follow a person home from a gun club is that most people who shoot at a gun club will notice a vehicle that is following them. You can surely bet that if you are following me for more than a few blocks, and your car does not belong in my neighborhood, I have written down a description of your vehicle, make model color and approximate year, and If I have been able to see it, I have your license plate number written down too. And If I am in unfamiliar territory, I will have already called the police. Also in the event of someone cruising a neighborhood looking for NRA stickers, you can bet that there is at least one person in the neighborhood who has written down the vehicle information of any vehicle moving through the neighborhood. If you have any doubt about that, you have been lucky enough that your house has not been broken into, or you have really lousy neighbors.

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.
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'.

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.

Actually the scenario is not laughable. There have been reports on the news about people who use Craig's List ad other online classifieds to find people selling high dollar items, setting up an appointment to see the items, and when they arrive for the appointment they are armed, and during a take over robbery, have shot and killed the person listing the items for sale. It has happened in some well to do neighborhoods in my area. I have absolutely no reason to suspect that these types of criminals would have not have any qualms about doing the same with concealed weapons permit holder's names and addresses, they are utilizing the element of surprise. The instances of a person who has a concealed weapons permit committing a crime is extremely low. I am sure that you must understand that there is more than ten million concealed weapons permit holders in the United States, with one state that will not even tell you how many concealed weapon's permit holders in the state without just cause and a court order. Over one million of them in Florida alone. Also, there is reciprocity, states allow concealed weapon's permit holders from other states carry in that state as well, so even if you do know who in your neighborhood has a concealed weapons permit, you do not know about anyone visiting them from out of state. Again, the likelihood that a concealed weapons permit holder is going to assault you is miniscule, unless you are that dislikable.

The papers are not revealing where guns are (or thus aren't). They are revealing WHO, may or may not be carrying one, when they are out in public places. If people were fully aware of who these people were, then maybe the outcomes of confrontations would be less fatal (and to the victim, as in Trayvon Martin's case). This obviously relies on people knowing. So the press is probably doing more good than harm by making this information public. You have to remember that guns are only as safe as the people carrying them. I'd want to know if people i don't like (or don't like me) maybe walking towards me with a firearm on them, you know, so i can cross the street, or carry on walking if they try to start a fight (which then they may use as an excuse to kill me and say "bad man was going to hurt me, i had no choice".
Guns are abused, the laws given to the militia are given to everybody, the law is then abused, and has been, countless times. This is why i shall forever be happy to know, that sacrificing my right to 'choose a weapon' to defend myself, is worth sacrificing for my own protection. My right to defence is still 100%.

I applaud your willingness to give up your right to protect yourself, but how do you think the 1200 women who are killed each year by their abusers feel about you being willing to give away their right to protect themselves? The papers are in fact telling people where the weapon's are if they print names and addresses of concealed weapon's holders. 5% of the world's population own 50% of the world's firearms. Your average concealed weapon's permit holder owns more than one weapon. I would estimate that if the average concealed weapons permit holder carried all of his firearms with him at one time, it would add 25 lbs to his weight if not more.

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?

I would argue that as a parent you would take an active role in learning about the people you allow your child to associate with, and you are not going to allow your child to be around violent people regardless of whether or not they own weapons. Also, not every fire arms owner applies for a concealed weapons permit, you do not need a concealed carry permit in most states, I can walk down the street with a firearm in a holster on my belt in nearly every state. The only instance in which I would be required to have a concealed carry permit is if I was not carrying my firearms in full view, for example, If I am wearing a shoulder holster under my jacket, I would need a carry concealed permit. I would suspect that giving you a list of all tem million plus concealed carry permit holders in the nation would not alleviate your fears, when there are probably another 10 million people who own firearms who do not have a concealed carry permit. Statistically, you are actually safer with the person who has a concealed carry permit, because he is also going to be watching for signs of problems that would affect you when you are with him as well. Another point I would like to mention, the person standing in the alley waiting for you o enter the alley to hold you up does not care about a concealed carry permit. The person who takes the time to apply an get a concealed carry permit is usually not the person you need to worry about breaking the law.

 

[Kulindahr]

In many states the information is not public record. It should not be public record in any states. I have contended in this thread, that the freedom of the press does not pertain to the press being able to publish whatever it wants without recourse. The freedom of the press is a guarantee that the press would not become a propaganda tool of the government. I have to discount your argument that someone can follow a person home from a gun club is that most people who shoot at a gun club will notice a vehicle that is following them. You can surely bet that if you are following me for more than a few blocks, and your car does not belong in my neighborhood, I have written down a description of your vehicle, make model color and approximate year, and If I have been able to see it, I have your license plate number written down too. And If I am in unfamiliar territory, I will have already called the police. Also in the event of someone cruising a neighborhood looking for NRA stickers, you can bet that there is at least one person in the neighborhood who has written down the vehicle information of any vehicle moving through the neighborhood. If you have any doubt about that, you have been lucky enough that your house has not been broken into, or you have really lousy neighbors.



Actually the scenario is not laughable. There have been reports on the news about people who use Craig's List ad other online classifieds to find people selling high dollar items, setting up an appointment to see the items, and when they arrive for the appointment they are armed, and during a take over robbery, have shot and killed the person listing the items for sale. It has happened in some well to do neighborhoods in my area. I have absolutely no reason to suspect that these types of criminals would have not have any qualms about doing the same with concealed weapons permit holder's names and addresses, they are utilizing the element of surprise. The instances of a person who has a concealed weapons permit committing a crime is extremely low. I am sure that you must understand that there is more than ten million concealed weapons permit holders in the United States, with one state that will not even tell you how many concealed weapon's permit holders in the state without just cause and a court order. Over one million of them in Florida alone. Also, there is reciprocity, states allow concealed weapon's permit holders from other states carry in that state as well, so even if you do know who in your neighborhood has a concealed weapons permit, you do not know about anyone visiting them from out of state. Again, the likelihood that a concealed weapons permit holder is going to assault you is miniscule, unless you are that dislikable.



I applaud your willingness to give up your right to protect yourself, but how do you think the 1200 women who are killed each year by their abusers feel about you being willing to give away their right to protect themselves? The papers are in fact telling people where the weapon's are if they print names and addresses of concealed weapon's holders. 5% of the world's population own 50% of the world's firearms. Your average concealed weapon's permit holder owns more than one weapon. I would estimate that if the average concealed weapons permit holder carried all of his firearms with him at one time, it would add 25 lbs to his weight if not more.



I would argue that as a parent you would take an active role in learning about the people you allow your child to associate with, and you are not going to allow your child to be around violent people regardless of whether or not they own weapons. Also, not every fire arms owner applies for a concealed weapons permit, you do not need a concealed carry permit in most states, I can walk down the street with a firearm in a holster on my belt in nearly every state. The only instance in which I would be required to have a concealed carry permit is if I was not carrying my firearms in full view, for example, If I am wearing a shoulder holster under my jacket, I would need a carry concealed permit. I would suspect that giving you a list of all tem million plus concealed carry permit holders in the nation would not alleviate your fears, when there are probably another 10 million people who own firearms who do not have a concealed carry permit. Statistically, you are actually safer with the person who has a concealed carry permit, because he is also going to be watching for signs of problems that would affect you when you are with him as well. Another point I would like to mention, the person standing in the alley waiting for you o enter the alley to hold you up does not care about a concealed carry permit. The person who takes the time to apply an get a concealed carry permit is usually not the person you need to worry about breaking the law.

Thanks for expanding on how unrealistic those assertions were.

Just as a comment on the number of concealed carry holders, a public defender in Portland told me that from experience with clients, there are probably three times as many criminals illegally carrying at any given moment in the urban area than there are concealed carry license holders carrying or not.

 

[Kulindahr]

Read over and over what you have just said. I BOLD it to show just how ignorant the comment is in the face of facts.

http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm

The PDF's are particularly interesting, but the main article is a great read too.

You cite the VPC?

Their reports have been studied. Here are some results of one, concerning their statistics you reference:

Double counts victims to inflate their statistics;

Counts people who are still alive today, as though they had been murdered by concealed carry permit holders;

Includes deaths that were caused by rifles, beatings or strangulation -- in other words, tabulating deaths that were clearly NOT caused by concealed handguns; and

In some cases, even counts “murderers” who were later cleared in court as having acted in self-defense.

Bob Owens, “Violence Policy Center Makes It Up as They Go Along -- Again,” PajamasMedia.com (Dec. 21, 2009) at: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/violence-policy-center-makes-it-up-as-they-go-along-—-again


I'd sooner trust Wayne LaPierre than the VPC -- and you know how far I trust him.

 

[Kulindahr]

Furthermore, the law does not seperate good people and bad, it serves only to hide who is carrying, and since that can be pertaining to a criminal as well as a law-abider, i think it IS most definately in the public interest to know if that guy that can't be trusted due to threatening behaviour, has applied for permission to carry a (deadly) weapon around with him.

Huh?

Criminals don't have to get concealed carry permits.

Do you understand what "concealed" means? The whole point of a concealed carry law is so no one will know who is carrying. We already don't know what criminals are carrying; the law can't require them to tell anyone because that would violate their right against self-incrimination -- so all that concealed carry laws are doing is leveling the playing field to take away the criminal advantage. So publishing the names of the good guys merely helps the bad guys.

Which is of course of no concern to the anti-gun politicians, who have already made it plain they'd rather have people raped and killed for their feel-good laws than actually try to deal with crime.

 

[Rolyo85]

Ok, since you obviously aren't interested in being helpful, let me:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

Let's see now:

Myth #1: They're coming for your guns.
Fact-check: No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1.

Their first point rests on telling a lie.

Um, what is the lie here? That people are paranoid about government stealing their guns?They are. That nobody is actually trying to do it? That's true. Just because some want to (me included), doesn't mean anybody is actually doing anything relevant in that direction. Where is the lie?

Myth #2: Guns don't kill people—people kill people.
Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements.

Their second rests on changing the question they asked.

Huh? What does that even mean? The quote points out that "Guns don't kill people" is an utterly empty rhetoric since if places where gun control is the most lax have higher death rate, then CLEARLY guns ARE a factor. Otherwise their presence would not change the numbers, if it were just "people kill people".

Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society.
Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.
• Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.
• In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.

The third cherry-picks a single statistic favorable to the answer they want.

So you agree with those three? I consider even them enough of a reason to tighten gun regulations. Having been followed by an aggressive driver on a highway, it is definitely something I don't enjoy.

Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.
Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0
• Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5

The fourth rests on a lie.

Explain.

Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
• 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.

The fifth rests on another lie.

And what is that?

Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.
Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
• In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
• A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.

In the sixth they both lie and redefine the question they asked.

That makes NO sense to me. Where is the lie? Why do you keep repeating there's a lie when it's just stats? The only way to prove statistics are lie is to debunk them through offering other statistics or proving that the current ones are discredited. You are doing neither.

Myth #7: Guns make women safer.
Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
• A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun.
• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

The seventh is phrased in a way they can use to make an answer they want.

No, it is phrased in a direct and obvious way. The entire gun culture is dripping false machismo, and machismo is all about protecting the weak. Women are among those needing protection, especially considering how vastly smaller the number of gun-carrying women is. So the statement/question is perfectly legitimate to pose in that way. Do you have an alternative way to pose it so that it can be used to make the answer YOU want?

Myth #8: "Vicious, violent video games" deserve more blame than guns.
Fact-check: So said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre after Newtown. So what's up with Japan?

I see you have said nothing here, so I assume you agree that at least this claim is demented.

Myth #9: More and more Americans are becoming gun owners.
Fact-check: More guns are being sold, but they're owned by a shrinking portion of the population.
• About 50% of Americans said they had a gun in their homes in 1973. Today, about 45% say they do. Overall, 35% of Americans personally own a gun.
• Around 80% of gun owners are men. On average they own 7.9 guns each.

In the ninth, they lie with statistics, changing the definition between question and answer.

False. It is extremely straightforward. OBVIOUSLY more and more Americans AREN'T buying guns if fewer Americans own guns. And if you insist they are lying, prove it. Because there is no definition change, or at least it's not obvious enough that you can just state it's there and leave it at it.

Myth #10: We don't need more gun laws—we just need to enforce the ones we have.
Fact-check: Weak laws and loopholes backed by the gun lobby make it easier to get guns illegally.
• Around 40% of all legal gun sales involve private sellers and don't require background checks. 40% of prison inmates who used guns in their crimes got them this way.
• An investigation found 62% of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn't pass a background check.
• 20% of licensed California gun dealers agreed to sell handguns to researchers posing as illegal "straw" buyers.
• The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has not had a permanent director for 6 years, due to an NRA-backed requirement that the Senate approve nominees.

And in the tenth, they do all of the above and manage to avoid actually addressing the question after all.

Yeah, empty empty words that don't even convince you... THey do not avoid addressing the question. It is very firmly addressed - current laws are NOT enough.


Overall, you've responded with vague one-sentence non-responses that don't do anything for your argument. Again - hedging. You're acting like a guy dancing around a hot oven, trying to prove that it's not hot but only managing to touch it for a fraction of a second and pretending that it's ok to touch. It's a funny dance to watch but it's insulting to the intelligence of those you argue with. I absolutely don't think this article is the alpha and omega of argumentation. But I expect a SERIOUS debunking with sources and explanations, not this offensive half-sentence vagueness that is borderline trolling.

If you don't want to be in this argument, say so and bow out. If you're gonna keep having it, show enough respect for the subject not to waste people's time with empty posts like the above.

 

[frankfrank]

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.

I have a friend who knows somebody who has failed to register as a sex offender. The guy is basically illiterate, poor, and has never had hired representation from an attorney. Most recently he has ended up in prison because of failure to register. His offense? He was caught peeing late at night outside a pub.

We are both so very happy that the streets of Tucson are so safe from this horrible menace to the American way of life.

I am sure he's not the only one being ground-up and spat out by the system.

 

[tigerfan482]

I have a friend who knows somebody who has failed to register as a sex offender. The guy is basically illiterate, poor, and has never had hired representation from an attorney. Most recently he has ended up in prison because of failure to register. His offense? He was caught peeing late at night outside a pub.

We are both so very happy that the streets of Tucson are so safe from this horrible menace to the American way of life.

I am sure he's not the only one being ground-up and spat out by the system.

So I'm going to have to say your friend has had to have made a habit of exposing his junk to people in Arizona. According to Tucson City Code 11-54 (based on Arizona law), it is only a misdemeanor for urinating in public, punishable by a fine of no more than $1000 and no more than 6 months in jail. In Arizona, you aren't required to register as a sex offender unless you are convicted of:

- 15. Second or subsequent indecent exposure to person under age 15 pursuant to §13-1402(B);
- 16. Second or subsequent public sexual indecency to person under age 15 pursuant to §13-1403 (B);
- 17. Third or subsequent indecent exposure pursuant to § 13-1402;
- 18. Third or subsequent violation of public sexual indecency pursuant to § 13-1403;

(Source: http://www.azcourts.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=iqj4NW0luWY=&tabid=1930)

The statutes can be found here: http://www.azdps.gov/Services/Sex_Offender/Laws/#Offense

Now this may have happened in another state, but I am assuming Arizona since you are talking about the safe streets of Tucson. Most states have similar laws and sex offender requirements. So I believe there is more to this story than your friend just taking a happy piss on the wall of a pub.

 

[Kulindahr]

You have a habit of seeing people as black and white don't you? I'm not talking about criminals. I'm talking about people, just people. Everyday people going about their daily lives passing strangers every day. Some of those people are law-abiding on the surface, criminals don't walk around with tattoos on their foreheads which they are given at birth from some top secret technology that identifies 'bad people'. Everybody (that is the militia) are all law abiding people until they aren't. The fact that the majority will be good souls their entire lives does not compensate for those who you are giving liberties to, under the guise that somehow law abiding people are better off too (which is pure nonsense since gun restricted nations citizens will tell you they feel perfectly safe, safer than the perception of US citizens (which statistics back), that results in furthering the damage and destructive capabilities that they can achieve.
E.G. If you don't want school children to get shot in class, its a dumb idea to allow people to walk the streets with guns where they cannot be stopped before getting to the school. It would be even more stupid to introduce the guns into schools, where nobody will be able to stop that teacher from having a mental breakdown....my point is clear enough. The further gun rights advocates push for their gun rights, they are closing the boundaries of preventative potential to stop the inevitable nutcase from achieving his dieing wish to go out in a bloodbath....at innocent peoples expense

You said "criminals", so I presumed you were talking about criminals.

What you're saying is that in order to calm the fears of the irrational, we need to guarantee that some people will be victims. On a personal level, what you're saying is that the country would be better off if I'd been killed instead of being able to deter the attacker, that the kids I protected by having a firearm should have been molested for the good of the country, and so on.

The thing is neither you nor anyone else has the right to make any decision at all about how I or anyone else decides to do self-protection. You are not my owner, you are not anyone's owner. But because you fear such ridiculous things as a teacher's mental breakdown, you're willing to treat the majority of law-abiding citizens like property.

Fortunately, the American public disagrees with you. More Americans own firearms now than when Obama took office, and they own more guns total as well. Hand in hand with that, the violent crime rate continues to drop, demonstrating that allowing more guns does not increase violence.

The argument from fear has no end. Wanting to protect the children has a nice ring, but if you want school kids to be safe, you'd do better to take away all driving privileges than infringe basic rights -- for that matter, for the high school age you'd do better by bringing an end to all contact sports.

PMSL.

That is NOT the point of a concealed carry law. The point of the law is to allow people to carry weapons around with them. The fact that the word concealed is in the name of the law, is a desperately lame, token measure, to make it clear that people are being given the right to carry their guns around with them, but NOT to wield them (obviously exceptional circumstances aside). So they must keep them concealed, as in, not waving them about the place and shooting willy nilly.

No, the point of the law is to let people carry concealed, s no one will know who is armed. I can already wear my sidearm anywhere I wish, in the open -- that's the case almost everywhere, and every time a law against open carry is passed the courts overturn it. People already have the right to carry their guns around with them.

As for "waving them around willy nilly", you demonstrate your irrational fear: if that were a risk that came with firearms, then we'd have it happening all over the country daily. But it doesn't, even in states with no rules at all about who may carry a firearm, or where or when -- the way the country started and was meant to be.

The anti gun lobby would succeed in dealing with crime, if gun restrictions were allowed to exist. The anti gun lobby will say no different than you just have, only in respect of pro-gunners. People are already being murdered, and in greater numbers in a gun toting society, and as for rape, the statistics for rape don't appear to be that different in the US to outside it compared to other Western nations, suggesting that guns have little impact anyway (not to mention guns can be used to force submission).

Then anti-gun lobby doesn't care about crime, they care about appearances. That's been demonstrated by the fact that when we have Democrats in the White House, prosecutions for breaking existing firearms laws drop, even plunge. Bill CLinton made it perfectly clear when he bragged that his anti-gun restrictions had kept a hundred thousand felons from buying firearms -- but not a one was prosecuted for making the attempt (that itself being a federal felony, on top of the federal felony of lying on the purchase form in order to get the dealer to make the NICS check). Most Americans know this, which is why overwhelmingly the public wants the government to enforce existing laws and stop dreaming up new ones.

The evidence continues to accumulate year after year that it is not the presence of firearms in American society that makes for a higher rate of violent crime than elsewhere, yet the anti-gun lobby doesn't want to look at that reality -- again showing that their concern is not crime or violence, but some other agenda.

 

[Kulindahr]

So I'm going to have to say your friend has had to have made a habit of exposing his junk to people in Arizona. According to Tucson City Code 11-54 (based on Arizona law), it is only a misdemeanor for urinating in public, punishable by a fine of no more than $1000 and no more than 6 months in jail. In Arizona, you aren't required to register as a sex offender unless you are convicted of:

- 15. Second or subsequent indecent exposure to person under age 15 pursuant to §13-1402(B);
- 16. Second or subsequent public sexual indecency to person under age 15 pursuant to §13-1403 (B);
- 17. Third or subsequent indecent exposure pursuant to § 13-1402;
- 18. Third or subsequent violation of public sexual indecency pursuant to § 13-1403;

(Source: http://www.azcourts.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=iqj4NW0luWY=&tabid=1930)

The statutes can be found here: http://www.azdps.gov/Services/Sex_Offender/Laws/#Offense

Now this may have happened in another state, but I am assuming Arizona since you are talking about the safe streets of Tucson. Most states have similar laws and sex offender requirements. So I believe there is more to this story than your friend just taking a happy piss on the wall of a pub.

The "more to the story" is probably that a zealous prosecutor piled on any charge he thought he could get away with, so he could take congrats for having put another "sex offender" away.

 

[cm98059]

I think I can identify the major misunderstanding here. There is a difference between a firearms permit (FP), and a carry concealed permit (CCP) In the jurisdictions that use them, a firearms permit refers to any firearm (Rifle, Shotgun, or handgun). Since the logic is that it is nearly impossible to effectively conceal a rifle or shotgun, CCPs generally do not apply to these classes of firearms. In the states that require them, CCPs refer to firearms that are capable of being secreted on or near your person. for example, in your purse, in the glovebox of your car, In a jacket pocket or a holster, etcetera. A CCP does not apply to the open carry of a firearm. Meaning that most everyone can walk down the street openly carrying a firearm.

What I see about this article, is that it has been illegal for the media to publish information about concealed weapon's holders in the state of Louisiana, and that the law has been ignored, so this new law defines and implements sanctions as it were for breaking the law.

 

[bike10]

So much for the man who said the GOP was the party of stupid.

 

[Rolyo85]

You said "criminals", so I presumed you were talking about criminals.

He was. And he explained criminals aren't a different breed of human, but often everyday people who aren't criminals until they do a crime...

What you're saying is that in order to calm the fears of the irrational, we need to guarantee that some people will be victims. On a personal level, what you're saying is that the country would be better off if I'd been killed instead of being able to deter the attacker, that the kids I protected by having a firearm should have been molested for the good of the country, and so on.

This is such a tear-jerking rhetoric that it's difficult to think you actually mean it seriously. I can literally hear the tiny violins in the background. But as sad as it is, cold hard data shows that perhaps yes, the country and its people overall would be in a far better place. Not to mention that the situations in which you had to protect children and yourself might never have happened in a culture not totally permeated by the gun violence the Americans are steeped into.

The thing is neither you nor anyone else has the right to make any decision at all about how I or anyone else decides to do self-protection. You are not my owner, you are not anyone's owner. But because you fear such ridiculous things as a teacher's mental breakdown, you're willing to treat the majority of law-abiding citizens like property.

Hey, remember that time where you convinced anyone with your self-ownership theories? Yeah, me neither. So why are you using it now as if anybody agrees with you and will accept your argument based on it? The thing is, the government and the PEOPLE have the right to make ANY decision as to how you can protect yourself. It's a fact of life, whether it fits into your fantasy narrative of self-ownership. Deal with it. Please?

Fortunately, the American public disagrees with you. More Americans own firearms now than when Obama took office, and they own more guns total as well. Hand in hand with that, the violent crime rate continues to drop, demonstrating that allowing more guns does not increase violence.

According to the Mother Jones article you are lying. And you are yet to provide any proof to the contrary. Not to mention that what "the American public" agrees or disagrees with is a very slippery eel to hold, considering the VAST majority of Americans who are screaming for tighter gun laws. You should perhaps get some of your gun information NOT from the NRA?

The evidence continues to accumulate year after year that it is not the presence of firearms in American society that makes for a higher rate of violent crime than elsewhere, yet the anti-gun lobby doesn't want to look at that reality -- again showing that their concern is not crime or violence, but some other agenda.

And yet, when asked to provide that evidence, or offer any guess as to why the violent crime rates in America are so HUMONGOUSLY larger than in countries with tighter gun control, if the guns aren't the decisive factor, you become vague and unclear, and start offering your ideas and opinions as statistical data. Hmmm...

 

[tigerfan482]

The "more to the story" is probably that a zealous prosecutor piled on any charge he thought he could get away with, so he could take congrats for having put another "sex offender" away.

That's quite a feat to take a single arrest for public urination (or indecent exposure depending on how he was charged) and turn it into 2 or 3 counts of it. Besides, if he was convicted of whatever he was charged with to classify him as a sex offender, that's how the law works. You seem to wave the Constitution around when it suits your purposes and then fold it and put it in your pocket when it doesn't lead to the result you want.

I think I can identify the major misunderstanding here. There is a difference between a firearms permit (FP), and a carry concealed permit (CCP) In the jurisdictions that use them, a firearms permit refers to any firearm (Rifle, Shotgun, or handgun). Since the logic is that it is nearly impossible to effectively conceal a rifle or shotgun, CCPs generally do not apply to these classes of firearms. In the states that require them, CCPs refer to firearms that are capable of being secreted on or near your person. for example, in your purse, in the glovebox of your car, In a jacket pocket or a holster, etcetera. A CCP does not apply to the open carry of a firearm. Meaning that most everyone can walk down the street openly carrying a firearm.

What I see about this article, is that it has been illegal for the media to publish information about concealed weapon's holders in the state of Louisiana, and that the law has been ignored, so this new law defines and implements sanctions as it were for breaking the law.

What is illegal is that you can't outlaw a newspaper from publishing public information. If they don't want CCP information published, then they need to make it protected and not available publicly. However, it is unconstitutional to tell a newspaper what information from the public domain it can and can't print.

 

[Kulindahr]

That's quite a feat to take a single arrest for public urination (or indecent exposure depending on how he was charged) and turn it into 2 or 3 counts of it. Besides, if he was convicted of whatever he was charged with to classify him as a sex offender, that's how the law works.

It's common practice these days to charge a person with two, three, four, or far more crimes from a single act. That's not justice, and if that's the law, the law is wrong.

 

[chrisrobin]

.
This is a very spirited discussion, but I need to return to my original post. Piyush is a political hack that would do anything to become president. Please see picture below:



Obviously, he is taking credit for the cash. What he didn't tell you was that he received payment from the loathsome government. He is one of the governors who preaches the evils of big government but is first in line to accept subsidies for his horseshit red state.

^He inserts the pic of Bill Murray saying "I've been slimed".



Maybe you can fool your "subjects," but you can't fool me!

 

[frankfrank]

That's quite a feat to take a single arrest for public urination (or indecent exposure depending on how he was charged) and turn it into 2 or 3 counts of it.

As I understand it, the prison stuff started happening after he failed to register. He told my friend that it all arose from him peeing outside that one time at like 1 in the morning (when ALL children were in bed anyway). This has been a recurring problem with the guy for 2, 3, maybe 4 years now, and it's supposedly all from the one original charge.

Contempt of court or something. And certainly an aggressive prosecution.

Pretty sure it happened in Tucson but it might have been in metro Phoenix.

 

[cm98059]

What is illegal is that you can't outlaw a newspaper from publishing public information. If they don't want CCP information published, then they need to make it protected and not available publicly. However, it is unconstitutional to tell a newspaper what information from the public domain it can and can't print.

The article does not say whether or not the CCP applications are public record. But a little research tells me that concealed weapons permit applications have been considered sealed and not subject to any public disclosure since August 15, 2008. Since newspapers are still violating this, almost five years later, it appears that the fines and jail sentences are appropriate. So this is in fact the press stepping over the line and publishing information that is not public record.