As many of you may have read, The Tennessean has published a list of names of those with a concealed carry permit in the state. SayUncle has updates on the situation and now says the list has been taken down. Ahh, the power of the blogosphere.
posted by Helen at 2:29 PM
38 Comments:
So much for "anonymous, scrofulous nerd pumping meaningless drivel into cyberspace at all hours of the day", I suppose.
The question of whether publishing the private information of CCW holders will aid criminals is a distraction.
The intention of such publications is to threaten CCW holders with the loss of their livelihoods and social status. The newspapers want them to know that they can't retain their privacy if they choose to possess firearms. So if a CCW holder, their spouse, or other loved ones, works for an academic institution, state funded entity, or any other agency or enterprise that frowns on gun ownership, they will face retribution. That's the purpose of promoting these lists.
Anonymous said:
"The intention of such publications is to threaten CCW holders with the loss of their livelihoods and social status."
I understand that there may be some prejudices among the unelightened and unsophisticated, but really, in my opinion, the social status of those that hold a CCW just went up.
I'm sure it was all done in order to "stimulate debate." Isn't that the usual line when newsies print something asinine or outrageous? Thank God we have them to shock us out of our general apathy.
This practice will end the first time a person without a permit who is a crime victim sues them for identifying him as a safe target.
Triticale is an optimist of Biblical proportions.
in my opinion, the social status of those that hold a CCW just went up.
That would be nice ;)
The funny thing is that these stunts could actually increase the percentage of firearms owners w/ CCWs by framing the possession of a carrying permit as an assertion of 2nd amendment rights. Harassing CCW holders is a great way to promote CCW as an integral defense of 2nd Amendment rights.
Thomas H. Crozier
California CCW Permit # 09068443.
Publish it wherever you would like.
I also hold a Commercial Pilot's License, an FCC Radio operator's license associated with the Pilot's License, a California Class B Building Contractors License, a California Real Estate Broker's License, a lapsed SEC Series 7 Securities Sales License, a lapsed California Insurance Sales License, a California Driver’s License, a California Fishing License, a California Hunting License, a Divemaster Certification, a U.S Passport, a High School Diploma, a College Degree, a myriad of continuing education certificates, and licenses for a few other privileges that I can't remember. That’s just in the U.S. I have various privileges in other countries as well.
Why should the CCW be any different?
"Why should the CCW be any different?"
Oh, no different at all. Please post your California driver's license number (as you bravely did your CCW Permit). While you're at it, please also list your home address. While those might be public records, I find it too time consuming for me to aggregate.
"I also hold a... a California Fishing License,...
Why should the CCW be any different?"
Well, see, the thing is, nobody is likely to break into your house to steal your fishing equipment. This would be the reason I don't post our art collection on the interblogs, and why several people I know make sure their vintage motorcycle collections are not publicly listed.
Helen said: "I understand that there may be some prejudices among the unelightened and unsophisticated, but really, in my opinion, the social status of those that hold a CCW just went up." And yes, with folks like me, the SOCIAL status of the CCW holders just went up.
But Anonymous 6:27 raised this issue: "The intention of such publications is to threaten CCW holders with the loss of their livelihoods ... So if a CCW holder, their spouse, or other loved ones, works for an academic institution, state funded entity, or any other agency or enterprise that frowns on gun ownership, they will face retribution. That's the purpose of promoting these lists."
Military commander's use to be able to check the membership lists of Officer's Clubs and the contribution amounts to the annual Combined Federal Campaign. Both of these practices are now prohibited.
An individual does not have a RIGHT to social status. But a individual does have a RIGHT to association (assemble) and speech. Also, an individual does have a right to be 'secure in their papers and effects against unreasonable searches' (in this case disclosures by the government of public records they enable an unreasonable search by another person.
Because of unreasonable searches into a person's desire to assemble (or not assemble by NOT joining the O-Club), certain practices relating to protecting a person from employment discrimination have been put into law.
Because of unreasonable searches into a person's lifestyle outside of employment, certain laws are in place to ensure an employee can only be laid off or dismissed from employment based on their work actions. Public access to government controlled CCW records may allow employment discrimination; e.g. an employer/supervisor/co-workers/colleagues can potentially create a hostile work environment, yet not so hostile that the employee can file an official harassment protest.
Summary: Please comment on the effect on Livelihood, on WORK status.
(There is no right to social status, and I agree with the original Anon that the SOCIAL status issue is a distraction.)
NOTE: FYI, in case it matters to fellow readers, I am not the 6:27 Anon. I simply agree
Follow on to Anonymous 7:09's question: tomcal, in addition to posting your home address, how about your phone number as well?
Me, I respect your right not to have that information put out publicly solely to threaten you, which is what these newspapers are doing.
I'm not too concerned about anyone breaking into my house to steal my gun collection, or anything else for that matter.
As far as revealing my name and license number, I don't think I am any braver than Helen. We all know who she is.
Dear Editor,
Please reverse your decision to publish names of gun owners. Guns are the primary tool of my trade - I need to know where I can find more [after I've established the homeowners are away, of course]. Also, there are alot of fine Tennesee women I would love to hook up with, but I need to know which ones are helpless prey, as opposed to those who might shoot me.
Please - my income, sexual fullfillment, even my very life depend on restoring this database.
BTW, please have your reporters return the following questionaire:
1) where do you live?
2) do you have any wives/daughters?
3) are they hot?
4) do you own a firearm?
5) if you answered "yes" to #4, when are you planning to go on vacation?
Sincerely,
Your friendly neighborhood perp
"tomcal said...
I'm not too concerned about anyone breaking into my house to steal my gun collection, or anything else for that matter."
Which is fine. Not everybody is so nonchalant, so perhaps the choice of publicity should be left to the individual.
"triticale said...
This practice will end the first time a person without a permit who is a crime victim sues them for identifying him as a safe target."
I hope you are right.
In my opinion the attempt to embarrass or intimidate CCW holders will probably have the opposite effect, as well as cause the publisher future legal problems for the reasons you state.
Putting on my fake newsie hat again...
Some might say that publishing the names and addresses of CCW holders is no different than publishing the names and addresses of convicted child molesters. People have a right to know if a potentially dangerous person is living in their neighborhood.
And obviously, someone who carries a gun is potentially dangerous...
OK, fake newsie hat off. Any thoughts?
Oh, and BTW - In cast you hadn't heard, another court has struck down DC's appeal on the overturning of its gun control law.
Hey bugs, I think your point, though well said, has an imbeded mistake.
"Some might say that publishing the names and addresses of CCW holders is no different than publishing the names and addresses of convicted child molesters."
Those who say that would be making a mistake! Convicted child sexual offenders have been found guilty of raping children. Thet are confirmed rapists. Concealed carry folks have been cleared to practice a legal activity. They have passed a test, the perps have raped children. Surely you see the difference.
A more apt metaphor would be publishing the names of all the people in the community who have a penis, because they could use it to rape a child.
And do you think that the people who commit gun crimes have legal concealed carry priveledges? I am guessing no, but I will accept any data from a reputable source.
Trey
Sorry, I forgot to add: Using your logic, "Obviously, anyone with a penis is a potential rapist."
It just doesn't hold up does it?
Trey
Good arguments. I say that with my fake newsie hat OFF!
I just remember reading that line of reasoning, or something similar, in comments about the earlier case in Roanoke, VA. It struck me as not quite sane back then. Just wondered what others thought of it.
Somewhat off-topic: I went to look up more info on the DC circuit appeal, and came across the below article.
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3722.html
About halfway down is a discussion on the physical and psychological reactions to prevailing in a violent attack.
This might be a good starting point for a future post.
It is well known that prevailing in a violent attack can have serious psychological effects. During that portion of training for a CCW permit it's one of the things that makes a lot of applicants change their minds and walk out the door.
From my point of view, the physical effects of not prevailing outweigh the possible psychological effects of prevailing.
With respect to Ghandi, I have found that on the whole, CCW holders tend to be far more philosophical in their thinking than the average population, and eastern philosophy almost always seems to enter the discussion in training classes.
It's a huge responsibility to carry a tool designed solely for the purpose of taking a life around with you. I don't know any CCW holder who doesn't constanly question and re-question the moral aspects of exercising the privilege they have been granted.
I guess the Ghandi thing was in another thread, sorry.
Ah, Ghandi appears in the article referenced by Anon 1:20, so my comment makes sense after all.
A couple of things. Newspapers today seem to take the position that they have the right to publish any information they can get their hands on, no matter how they obtained the information. First, consider this exercise, which as far as I could tell would be completely legal: A newspaper builds a database of names and addresses from public records. (Combining drivers' license records and voting records would get nearly all of the adult population.) The newspaper cross-tabs this with its own subscription database, and from that produces a database, containing names and addresses, of everyone who does not subscribed to that newspaper. The newspaper publishes this database, with an insinuation that these people are dangerous, uninformed radicals.
Second thing, and this isn't just a theoretical, it's happening. Verizon is being sued for disclosing ISP subscriber info to the government. They are using a novel defense: they take the position that said disclosure constitutes speech, and that as a media organization, their First Amendment right is absolute, regardless of privacy laws or agreements with subscribers. It's exactly the same defense that the New York Times uses each time it leaks classified information about methods that we use to catch terrorists. I'm not a lawyer, but personally, with the way that First Amendment law is being de facto applied (the Times has yet to be even subpoenaed, much less prosecuted, for any of its leaks), it looks to me like Verizon's defense is a slam dunk. Now, as a private citizen who doesn't want my personal information disclosed to anyone and everyone without probable cause, I'm a lot less than thrilled about this. But, as a person who generally seeks to honor and abide by the law, I have to concede that to disallow Verizon's defense, in the current environment, would constitute unqueal protection.
Hey Bugs, where can we get one of those fake newsie hats? I want one too!
Turns out that CCW holders are considerably more law abiding than average citizens! (Thanks Glenn at Instapundit.)
Here is some data: http://blogs.knoxnews.com/knx/silence/archives/2007/05/concealed_carry.shtml
Again, nice to have such polite discourse. Keep posting, I bet you teach me some things.
Trey (wearing his fake blogger cap)
"I don't know any CCW holder who doesn't constanly question and re-question the moral aspects of exercising the privilege they have been granted."
And the right to bear arms becomes a "privilege", like a driver's license, instead of a right of the people.
Anon 5:30
Good point...
Correction: Anon 9:09
When concealed carry came to Ohio, The Cleveland Plain Dealer published a list of those who had obtained licenses. A week later, one of the people on the list was ambushed and killed at his place of business.
http://www.ohioccw.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=3211
Well at least he went down fighting, and took one dirtbag with him.
And the idea that the perps read the newspaper, found out that he was armed, and therefore chose him as their target, is rediculous.
I'd have to agree. Why would crooks pick somebody they knew might be armed? Unless they were after his gun - but there are easier ways for a crook to get a gun that trying to take it off someone who might use it on him.
Would some particularly bold or crazy crook just want to prove he wasn't afraid of a CCW holder? Or did some nut just pick a name out of the list because he happened to see it in the paper?
Who knows? But having your name and address in the phone book seems more dangerous than having it on this list.
I think there is a point here that you are all missing. If you purchase a home or property you and your address end up on the Internet for all to see. Take out a library book from the local library and that information can now be in the hands of the government. Fishing license? I would expect people could get their hands on that information as well. Our privacy and our idea of privacy has long melted away. The "freedom" to remain anonymous is long gone. If Concealed Carry permit holders are upset about a published list in 2007, expect there to be 1000 published lists with their name on it by 2008.
They can publish my name, address, and a quote: "I'll be waiting..."
徵信社, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社
視訊美女視訊美女正妹視訊gogo正妹視訊gogo正妹牆視訊交友高雄網正妹牆辣妺視訊辣妺視訊辣美眉173show影片辣美眉173show影片sex520免費影片sex520免費影片85cc免費影城85cc免費影城視訊交友90739視訊交友哈啦聊天室哈啦聊天室6k聊天室6k聊天室小莉影像館小莉影像館尋夢園聊天尋夢園聊天視訊女郎視訊女郎視訊美女彩虹視訊交友網彩虹視訊交友網
Post a Comment
<< Home