Newspaper Publishes Names

There's a big difference between "freedom of the press" or "freedom of speech" and "invasion of privacy." Do you really want a reporter sitting in your living room, reporting in the local newspaper everything you say or do? Some would certainly claim that's "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press." Others, however, might suggest there has to be some line or barrier even those latter two cannot cross. At the least, I think this newspaper's actions are right on the very edge of that.

 

My living room is not public record, unlike the permit list published.

The first amendment has notable exceptions, as most of us are aware. Whether or not this instance falls under one of those exceptions is likely up for lively debate.

True journalism had been dead for a long time in this country (take Fox "News," for example), and I wouldn't entirely disagree that publishing this list was sensationalistic and yellow, perhaps with the intent to gain notoriety for the journal or to provoke public debate.

But the gun owners have the means to defend themselves, right? It's a bit ironic.

 

Of course, your living room not being public record is only because you (along with the courts and majority) say. There's nothing within the first amendment itself making an exception for your living room - or any other exception for that matter. We are the ones who decide where the barriers exist, and we don't have to stop at just the existing barriers. There is a debate about privacy in this country. I believe this discussion falls within that debate.

As for Fox News, just like every other news channel (CNN, NBC, etc), they are a news and commentary medium. While some might disagree with their commentary, criticism of their actual news content (broadcast on the hour, etc) is fairly rare. My complaint, with all the networks, is there's not enough news (and followup) reported.

Finally, on your last comment, gun owners clearly do have a means to defend themselves, but I don't want to - nor do I want a newspaper forcing me into that situation. To protect me and my family (that's what it's all about), I try to avoid trouble, with a gun as the very last resort. I certainly don't want some maniac breaking in, blasting away with a firearm because he knows (thanks to some newspaper) I might have a gun.

 

Doesn't mean we want to have to defend ourselves. There is no irony in trying to avoid situations or inexcusably irresponsible "journalism" that could lead to a life or death situation.

 

And what is funny is that no matter how liberal the papers in Oregon are (and they are HORRIBLE), they would NEVER pull something so stupid as this.

 

Don't all Americans have guns ?

 

God, do I know how bad they get. Hopefully they wouldn't try this stunt. I know a few years ago the sheriff's office for the county we live in called up every CCW license holder and told them he would never release that information for any sort of public publication.

 

Not if you live in California, Chicago, and New York. Where crime is at it's highest in the US.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/gun-ownership-declining/index.html

Nope, just a stereotype. Part of the reason we have to be so...intense...about our defense of the 2nd Amendment is that gun owners are a minority.

 

Many, not all.

 

The fundamental problem with society is that people have been retrained by the public school system to believe that the Constitution is there to protect them from other people and corporations, and that the rights granted by the Constitution are a GIFT of the government.

1A covers freedom of speech. By extension it covers freedom of the press, which prevents the government from taking action against a person or media source that publishes something derogatory about the government.
1A does not permit media sources to publish personal information about citizens.

The framers knew that the government had the power of persuasion to enforce "don't say that", so they wrote the 1A.
Of course, 1A is dead because the modern government simply claims that the item in question is protected by reason of national security.

 

Huh?

Had they not been lost in a tragic boating accident, I would have four rifles and 7 or 8 handguns.

 

K and?...

California has to be one of the worst states in the US to be a firearm owner. (Next to Illinois of course)

 

Hit enter a couple times

 

I was told today there were more gun sales last month than all of 2012. Where are these statistics found?

 

Check Mass

 

I love it when people who don't live in California lecture those who do on how bad California's gun laws are. The Brady's constantly rank California #1, and I have no clue what standard they are using because there are at least 5 other states that I would rank under California.

Hawaii is probably the worst after Illinois. You not only need to have a permit to buy a handgun, the specific purchase must be approved. You can't just get a permit and go buy any handgun you want.
New York, New Jersey, and even Ohio have aspects that are more strict than California.

Yes, California has a 10 day waiting period (so do other states), but California does not require a permit to buy a handgun. You need a "handgun safety certificate" which is $25, is 50 questions that could be answered by any 5 year old, and is valid for 5 years.
It is not required for ownership, only to buy or borrow.

It is not illegal in California to possess and use large-capacity magazines except in one specific configuration that falls under assault weapon laws.
It is illegal to import or manufacture large capacity magazines, and it is illegal to give or sell one.

MOST counties in California are effectively shall-issue for CCW permits. The state is officially "may issue", but it is at the discretion of the 53 County Sheriffs. Most of those 53 will issue for "personal protection" without a problem. Might be 10 or 15 counties where it is difficult or impossible.

California has no restriction on the number of long guns that you may purchase.
California restricts handgun purchases to 1 every 30 days, unless you hold an 03FFL and COE. I have both, and can buy as many handguns as I can afford. I also am exempt from the 10 day waiting period for C&R purchases.
California still allows for "cash and carry" transfer of C&R long guns. It does require an FFL for all handgun transfers and modern long gun transfers.

California has mandatory handgun registration for new transfers. Guns owned prior to 1991 do not have to be registered unless or until they are transferred.
California does not YET have long gun registration. That goes into effect next January, and again, existing guns will not have to be registered.

California has a handgun roster. There are also multiple exemption paths that may be used to get around the roster including intrafamilial transfer from out of state, private party transfer in-state, and dimensionally compliant single shot or single-action.


Where California guns laws stand out as being unreasonable is in the "assault weapon" laws, but even then, there are ways around it.
I own three rifles built on an AR15 pattern receiver. All 3 are 100% legal in California. One looks identical to any other AR15, and even has a 14.5" barrel (pinned and welded Smith Vortex to avoid NFA issues).
One is "featureless" in that it has a standard A1 buttstock and no pistol grip. The 3rd is .22lr. Rimfire long guns are exempt from California's AW laws.

We also have a ban on .50 cal rifles, but not .50 cal handguns, and .50 cal long guns that are not considered "rifles" by the BATFE (such as spade grips) are not illegal.

Our only ammunition restrictions are that tracers and incendiary rounds are illegal, and we can not have armor-piercing ammo in a handgun caliber.

 

looks like this sham of a newspaper, "journal news", isn't too well liked in the community right now... hehe....

http://www.rocklandtimes.com/2013/0...ghter-restrictions-on-gun-permit-information/

 

To be even more specific, the Constitution's Bill of Rights (first ten amendments) does not actually "grant" any rights.

Instead, the Bill of Rights was designed to protect a few of the "inalienable rights" we already had/have by restraining government from infringing on those rights ("..the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," etc).

One can see similar preventive or protective wording in the 1st Amendment ("Congress shall make no law.."), the 4th Amendment ("shall not be violated"), and so on.

 

Rich & Stewart please stop confusing people with facts. I much I prefer those who shoot from the hip just because it "feels good" to them.