Newspaper Publishes Names

Journal News capitulates!!!!!!!

haha!

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ny-paper-removes-controversial-pistol-permit-data-18253316

 

Sure.

Now that the damage has been done.

3, or was it 4 homes on the list burglarized?

 

And how many criminals saved as much data as they could?

 

That's my first thought...who already saved and printed that list.

Here's what's going on in Hawaii. Along with banning certain guns and clips over 5 rounds, you may also have to provide your permit to buy bullets. http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2013/bills/SB219_.pdf

 

Capitulates or complies with the new or future law? Either way, IMO, it's not grounds for forgetting this rags unobjective "reporting".

 

12 pages , damn.

Move to Texas

 

Of course, stopping now doesn't prevent them from doing it again when they want to stir up yet another controversy to attract readers. It's a sleezy business tactic, which this newspaper has shown it's certainly not above doing. Personally, this would make me doubt nearly anything published in that newspaper. Is it the truth, or just another stunt or hype to attract readers?

 

According to the linked artical it would now be illegal for them to do so...any bets on how fast they & or the ACLU file 1st amendment or Freedom of Information violation against the city, county or states new law at a line item level?

 

How about a map with names of people in other areas of heated political topic supporters. Anti gun,gay marriage,welfare recipients,ect.

 

None of the three specific items you listed are pillars of the Constitution and Bill if Rights so I wouldn't expect a clearly bias, unobjective rag, such as subect rag, to be trashing them.

That being said and IMO as the items are not specifically called out in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or additional amendments they remain under state jurisdiction and I bet one could make a decent case for them though apperently none throught the SCOTUS...yet.

 

The article states, "The provision allows handgun permit applicants to ask that their personal information be kept secret for any of several reasons: if they are police officers, witnessed a crime, served on a jury in a criminal case or are victims of domestic violence. More vaguely, they can claim that they fear for their safety or they might be subjected to unwanted harassment."

In other words, confidentiality is not automatic. Applicants have to ask, after meeting at least one of several conditions. How many applicants are even going to know that (asking for confidentiality) is an option when seeking a handgun permit? Can't imagine state officials touting that tidbit. And, if the applicant fails to ask, it's not illegal to publish.

Further, who decides if the handgun permit applicant meets one of those conditions? The answer, of course, is officials employed by the state with perhaps the nation's toughest gun control laws. Oh, yeah. I can really see them rushing to protect handgun permit applicants.

Ultimately, this privacy provision is little more than eye candy designed to allow business as usual - for newspapers and for the state restricting guns.

 

I never got one because the prices were always ridiculous and I'm not one to put up with excessive BS after having seen my fair share of transactions in Alaska...but I feel for you guys. When a bill starts out by defining an "assault rifle" you know you're in for a rough ride.