Which Neighbors Have Concealed Weapons Permits? (Redwood City, Ca. publishes list)

[shadowrider]

In light of an alleged self-defense killing of 17-year-old unarmed Trayvon Martin by neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman, Florida’s concealed weapons laws have been thrust into the spotlight. Most residents can obtain concealed weapons permits, according to state law.

In California, in contrast, residents must contact their local police department or county Sheriff’s Office, as rules differ by region. San Mateo County residents may obtain Concealed Weapons permits (CCP), which allows them to legally to carry a loaded "a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person.”

The state’s FAQ website offers more information, such as eligibility requirements to obtain a permit.

San Mateo County has developed a uniform application form for the various policing jurisdictions within the county. This application must be filled out and submitted, along with the fee for service. The application must include a written explanation regarding the need to carry a concealed weapon.
The application will be reviewed during a personal interview with Support Services' staff at the time of submittal to discuss the need for the license, criminal history and consequences of carrying a concealed weapon.

http://redwoodcity.patch.com/articles/which-neighbors-have-concealed-weapons-permits

Great, now "Criminals R Us" has a list of unarmed people, who are much easier targets.

[CAPHAVOC]

1. Also a list of where to steal a gun.

[baldguy]

3. +1000

[pipoman]

8. Good to see that you at least

don't support this publishing nonsense.

[baldguy]

11. One way or another, all illegal guns come from "responsible gun owners".

If criminals don't steal them, they'll buy them.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

18. One way or another

If "responsible gun owners" includes LA SWAT you'd be correct.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/17/local/la-me-lapd-guns-missing-20111017

[burf]

20. There was also a story

a while back on members of the New York city police selling assault weapons.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

25. Yes, I remember.

Patrick Henry: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."

[ileus]

26. some come from straw buyers...not to be confused with responsible gun owners.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

61. K&R n/t

[Callisto32]

70. You do know that your reasoning implies that it is impossible to responsibly own anything.

Were all vehicles stolen and used in the advancement of criminal enterprise stolen from "responsible car owners"?

Is it somehow the victim's fault, baldguy? Was she asking for it by wearing that skirt?

[Starboard Tack]

109. Who is the "she" you are referring to?

The one you're protecting with your concealed weapon?

[vr94rx7]

141. also which houses you wont get shot at if you want to break in and rob.

[geckosfeet]

2. Publishing a list like this is just a bad idea all around.

Are police and other agency law enforcement on the list? Or just regular schmucks? Are criminals with illegal guns on the list? Are non-permit holders with guns on the list?

This is a check list for criminals looking to break in and steal with impunity. Or looking to break in and steal firearm related supplies.

How stupid.

[Pholus]

5. I ain't seen a gun enthusiast yet

who didn't give me a breakdown of EXACTLY what I'd find in their basement and closets if I looked.

Even if I really wasn't that interested...

[krispos42]

7. Except they don't give you a name and address on the internet.

Hi, I'm John Smith. I live at 123 Elm Street in New Haven, CT. I live alone (marriage and property-tax records will show this), except for my cat (pet registration records will show this). The house is a one-story ranch of 1,200 square feet (property tax records will show this). I keep four rifles, three handguns, and a shotgun in my safe in the basement, and a 4th handgun next to my bed (again, property tax records will show a layout of where my bedrooms are). I have a day job and am gone from 8am to 6pm during the week.





But thanks to internet anonymity it looks like this:

Hi, I'm ██████████. I live at ██████████████ in █████████, CT. I live █████ (marriage and property-tax records will show this), except for my ██████ (pet registration records will show this). The house is a ██████████████████████████████████ (property tax records will show this). I keep four rifles, three handguns, and a shotgun in my safe in the basement, and a 4th handgun next to my bed (again, property tax records will show a layout of where my bedrooms are). I have a day job and am gone from 8am to 6pm during the week.

[Pholus]

14. Given the entirety of the information, adding one more bit does nothing... nt

[rrneck]

16. It does a lot

for prospective and current employers, stalkers, And angry former spouses.

Nobody should be required to publish the details of their personal security arrangements, much less what they carry on their persons.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

19. + 1,000,000

I believe that the publication of personal information by the government violates not only the 4th Amendment but also, in some cases, the eminent domain element of the 5th.

[Pholus]

38. So the rest is okay then?

That whoosh was the point going over your head. But you've been blind and mute on this issue until it hit YOUR particular hot button. Welcome to the privacy party -- you're only TWENTY years late.

[rrneck]

45. Pointless snark.

Got busted and can't admit it.



On edit: "One more bit does nothing", is the kind of thinking that got us into this mess for the last twenty years. That's two decades of WHOOSH.

[Pholus]

46. tl;dr

I'm less than overwhelmed with your judgement about the matter...

[rrneck]

47. Whatever.

What's tl;dr?

Never mind, just looked it up. If that was too long there's nothing I can do for you.

[AtheistCrusader]

49. tl;dr: too long didn't read.

Pubbies...

[rrneck]

51. For a 34 word post. LOL! nt

[Pholus]

53. Not my fault you can be tedious in so few words.

Look at it this way, it's a gift.

[rrneck]

54. Rrady to deal with the issue yet?

Or would you rather just continue to lurk and snipe?

[Pholus]

56. The moment you built your strawman I figured this conversation was not serious.

So please spare me your online snivelling about how horrible this new invasion of privacy is. It's merely a consequence of a much wider issue you chose to ignore when something could still be done about it.

So in the end, my advice to you is JUST SUCK IT UP! Do some research, learn how to lower your profile.

[rrneck]

65. I guess not.

"Tough shit" is always such an effective argument in response to the erosion of civil rights. Especially when spoken by those who favor them.

Cast in stone your ideals are.

[Starboard Tack]

111. Which civil right is being eroded?

The First Amendment perhaps, when the newspaper decided to cave in to threats.
Maybe I missed the civil right protecting gun carriers' anonymity. Please enlighten us.

[rrneck]

124. Two come to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The right of self defense with a firearm has been discussed at length here.

Concealed carry weapons are carried on one's person. When the state divulges who has a CCW, they divulge what that that individual has on their person.

What right do you have to know what somebody carries in their pockets?

[Starboard Tack]

129. Doesn't divulge what they have on their person

Divulges they have a permit, which may or may not be on their person.

[rrneck]

132. Distinction without a difference.

Especially considering people like you kvetching about "those people".

What right do you have to know what somebody carries in their pockets?

How many times have I had to ask you that question?

[Starboard Tack]

135. No right, and as I said, no interest.

But we do have a right to know what they might have in their pocket, based on their declared desire to carry a loaded gun around.
If you get in my car, I have a right to know what you have in your pocket. If you are in close enough proximity to kill me or mine with a firearm, I have a need to know. Period. You want to carry a gun around, quit whining about folks knowing about it.

[rrneck]

145. Until you can prove

any given individual is actually a danger to you, quit whining about stuff that's none of your business. Nobody really gives a shit about what you want. The penal code isn't a fucking take out menu.

[Pholus]

142. The drama is strong in this one.

"How many times have I had to ask you that question?"

MANY more times than you've made a valid case that a public record of CCW somehow gives us all x-ray eyes when it comes to your pockets.

Your "question" is about as purely hyperbolic as a question can get.

[rrneck]

143. Are you familiar with the phrase

"Government of the people by the people for the people."?

The government represents the people. You are, I assume, a member of that group. You don't have a right to know what's in people's pockets any more than you have a right to know what they read or with whom they have sex.

[Pholus]

144. Yet basically both of your other examples are already information our government takes.

So I fail to get excited when they trampled on your small patch of turf. You should have spoken up before.

[rrneck]

146. By what right do you clsim access to that information? nt

[Pholus]

149. Who said I even care?

After all, I already realized exactly how much people want to snoop and have taken some reasonable steps to minimize/confuse their queries. Just part of getting along in the 21st century. On the other hand, you're getting quite worked up about this, completely too late of course.

I merely point out that perhaps you should have thought ahead a few years back when these battles were being fought. Now you simply need to survive the system.

But by all means, continue with the hyperbole. I believe you had just haughtily proclaimed something like "BY WHOSE RIGHT DO YOU CLAIM...."

I've got the popcorn out -- kinda reminds me of reel two of braveheart...

[rrneck]

150. So

you got nothin'.

[Pholus]

151. Pretty much the same as you.

But seeing you spin up is rather amusing. It's a guilty pleasure I admit.

[rrneck]

152. It must be.

I'll PM you and let you know which thread I post in next so you can follow me over there.

[Pholus]

155. Meh. I think I'll wait to see what else is on....

G'night...and don't take this so seriously.

[rrneck]

156. it would be difficult

to take you seriously.

[Pholus]

169. Yet you continued to reply...repeatedly.

Why? Oh yeah, I didn't show sufficient deference to yet another "they're coming for you" bit of paranoia. If you were that worried about actual privacy, you should have been doing something years ago when it mattered. You apparently didn't get worked up about lost rights and privacy UNTIL a gun was involved. Myopia, pure and simple.

So let's do a sidebar here. WHY do you keep going on this thread? Oh yeah, this is an issue peripherally related to RKBA and I am not 100% fully sympathetic which viscerally requires a CHALLENGE and the LAST WORD at all costs!

Even after I lapse into a string of basic nonsense posts you STILL keep replying with your own nonsense one liners just to be the last word. I complement you on your kinda obsessive need to do so.

You may now have the actual last word -- we both know you need to....

[rrneck]

172. No less difficult now.

[Starboard Tack]

193. I think if you put the question to the people you'd be surprised

Question: Should you have the right to know who around you is carrying a loaded gun?

[X_Digger]

198. And I'm sure they'd also like to know..

.. who was treated for mental illness.
.. or who was treated for substance abuse.
.. or who had an abortion.

Fuck the busybodies- HIPPA, baby.

Or is that legislation something that you also oppose, due to some nebulous 'public good' that you're not quite sure about?

[rrneck]

201. I know what at least eighty million of them would say.

Or should we just ask the ones that wish they had one When they needed it?

[Starboard Tack]

204. I know one thing most gun owners would agree with.

Whenever I or anyone I know has a loaded gun on his/her person, everyone within range knows about it and that's standard gun safety where I come from. Whether hunting, or at a range, or shooting skeet, or loading a gun, all around should be fully aware. Ninety percent of gun owners never carry in public and most, I'm sure, observe those basic common sense rules. At least I would hope they do.
If I were to use a gun for home defense, I would not hesitate to announce the fact prior to shooting, unless there is an aggressor already using a gun.

[rrneck]

207. Wrong. More like more than half disagree woth you

or are at least agnostic.

[Starboard Tack]

209. We all know how that worked.

[rrneck]

213. How? nt

[Starboard Tack]

214. Not by any referendum, that's for sure.

I thought you were beyond putting up silly wingnut propaganda pics from http://gun-nuttery.com/
Maps change

[rrneck]

215. That post was pathetic. Even for you. nt

[Starboard Tack]

216. I know. I think we're suffering from the same syndrome.

[rrneck]

217. Yep

No content. There is nothing relating to the real world to discuss. All I have to work with are your feelings and your defense of them. Since we're only discussing your feelings I wind up insulting you. But I don't mind, I can do this standing in line at Wendy's.

[Starboard Tack]

218. You really shouldn't eat that crap, it'll kill you.

I think I'm getting too old for the "real world". Makes less sense every day. Don't worry about my feelings, they're good almost all the time. When they start to dip, I just sit and watch the pelicans. Amazing creatures.

[rrneck]

219. Whatever. nt

[gejohnston]

208. no need to announce

but you should see who it is first.

If I were to use a gun for home defense, I would not hesitate to announce the fact prior to shooting, unless there is an aggressor already using a gun.

You should never make sound shots, always visually verify your target. You see them, they can see you and your gun. From there they can choose to leave, sit down and wait for the cops, or do something we both would regret.

[Starboard Tack]

210. Of course.

[Starboard Tack]

113. "the details of their personal security arrangements"

Artful interpretation of "Publishing the names and addresses of those carrying loaded guns in public".
What other detail of their personal security arrangements is being published?

[rrneck]

120. Pointless question. nt

[Starboard Tack]

122. Pointless question to a pointless statement.

Boy, you are losing your touch.

[rrneck]

125. You're out of touch.

What right do you have to know what somebody carries in their pockets?

[Starboard Tack]

128. I don't and don't care what they carry in their pockets.

The public should have the right to know who has been issued with a carry permit. That's my opinion, because I think it serves public safety. Maybe you need help from a neighbor and know he has a permit. Or maybe you want to avoid him or have your kids avoid him. Doctors have their addresses published. Pharmacists and pawnbrokers also. What's the big deal? Histrionics, methinks.

[rrneck]

130. Are you a member of "the public"?

[Starboard Tack]

137. Yes, and your point is?

[rrneck]

147. LOL!

Reread your post.

[one-eyed fat man]

165. You are hiding out from your abusive ex spouse

You have moved, and gotten a concealed weapons permit.

Now you find your name and address plastered all over the paper, plus everyone who can read knows you have a license.

I guess you hope the ex is illiterate?

It is NOT far fetched, it has happened. The Indianapolis Star and the Toledo Blade as a consequence of their decision to make public information on concealed weapons permit holders both outed women who were subsequently attacked by vindictive exes who now not only had the new address but were also forewarned.

In the Indiana case, they guy waited until all were asleep and torched the place.

[Starboard Tack]

167. Well that truly sucks.

One has to wonder what would have happened had they not applied for permits. I think it only fair that the applicant be forewarned that their info is on the public record. Guns don't make very good fire extinguishers.
Got any links to your cases?

[gejohnston]

173. So the papers' libertarianism

is OK? What they did was for a greater ill, it got people killed.

I think it only fair that the applicant be forewarned that their info is on the public record.

They should not be, just like drivers licences. Making DLs public have gotten people killed.

Guns don't make very good fire extinguishers.

That is pretty lame assed snark, I thought you were more civilized than that. That is the worst example of hand waving to excuse irresponsible tabloid faux journalism. The arson would have happened if the stalker did not know where the target was. No public list=no arson.

[Starboard Tack]

175. Hold on. Which paper's libertarianism and who got killed?

Brewster said someone torched their ex's house. How would having a CC permit help? What's snarky about that?
I don't call it journalism. I don't like it either, but I 'm fascinated at how outraged those who stretch 2A get when others do the same with 1A. I see it as one form of outrageous behavior being matched by another. Both legal, both constitutional and both totally irresponsible. It hurts when the shoe is on the other foot.

Publishing is still the lesser evil and if it serves the purpose of waking people up, then it's worth it.

[gejohnston]

177. tabloid faux journalism

Brewster said someone torched their ex's house. How would having a CC permit help?

If the CC information were not public, the arson would not have happened.

What's snarky about that?

You excuse tabloid tactics if it serves your political purpose. It basically you are dancing in blood, or burnt a burnt body.

I don't call it journalism. I don't like it either, but I 'm fascinated at how outraged those who stretch 2A get when others do the same with 1A.

This stretch of the 1A caused actual harm to innocent people, that is not the same with faux moral harm from carrying.

I see it as one form of outrageous behavior being matched by another. Both legal, both constitutional and both totally irresponsible. It hurts when the shoe is on the other foot.

Not equal. The irresponsible printing caused actual harm, just like Spike Lee's tweeting an address. It was intended to cause some harm to people who has done no harm to them. That makes them no different than Zimmerman in this case. Carrying concealed there is no such intent.

Publishing is still the lesser evil and if it serves the purpose of waking people up, then it's worth it.

Bullshit, the publishing is the greater evil because of intent.

[Starboard Tack]

183. OK

This story is anecdotal. No mention of anyone dying, just a house being torched. No mention of how the address was known, just an assumption.
I don't excuse tabloid tactics. Newspapers print all kinds of stuff that isn't news. My point is that when the constitution doesn't fit your agenda, then it fails. The old 2A trumps 1A doesn't always work. There is no evidence here that 1A caused actual harm, only assumptions. There is no moral harm from carrying. Where did I say that? My stand is not a moral one, believe me. Integrity and common sense have nothing to do with morals.

Spike Lee was an asshole, even if the address had been right.

I do not believe the publisher wanted to cause harm to any individual, but he sure woke a lot of people up, at risk to himself and his employees. You might see publishing information which is already available to the public as "evil", but the subsequent threats from people with guns as OK. I don't.

Remember, all that information was already available to anyone who wanted it. And it is naive to think one can hide easily in these times of internet databases and Google.

[gejohnston]

184. what treats are those?

I do not believe the publisher wanted to cause harm to any individual, but he sure woke a lot of people up, at risk to himself and his employees.

woke them up to what? The people on the list are no threat. Maybe woke them up to privacy issues like the Rebecca Schaeffer murder did.

You might see publishing information which is already available to the public as "evil", but the subsequent threats from people with guns as OK. I don't.

Not evil, irresponsible. Even more irresponsible in a may issue state, because of the probability of the holders having an identified threat. (LA County on the other hand, you would just have the list of the sheriff's campaign contributors)

[Starboard Tack]

185. I think that was Orange County

Look, I'm opposed to all concealed carry permits. They encourage folk to carry guns around, which is not progressive. I really don't want to get into the may issue/shall issue debate. It's all BS IMO. The last thing I'd be worried about if I needed to carry a gun would be asking permission, because my need would be real. Can't imagine what would bring me to that point, short of a total breakdown, either personal or societal. So, until either of those things happen, live in peace.

[PavePusher]

278. The story is not "anecdotal" to the person who 's house burned down.

Isn't that what you restrictionists claim about people who get shot?

There is no way for any triple-digit-IQ person to claim they believed no harm would come to anyone who's personal information was plastered about in public venues.

For you to claim otherwise is nothing but lying bullshit.

[Starboard Tack]

282. LOL Did you ever see a phone book?

There is no way for any triple-digit-IQ person to claim they believed no harm would come to anyone who's personal information was plastered about in public venues.

I have to wonder sometimes, which planet you guys live on. Or maybe you don't meet your triple-digit criterion.

Now, I belong to a group called "restrictionists"?

[PavePusher]

284. Phone books do not post lists of personal valubles and weapons....

and you can request to be unlisted.

What planet do YOU live on?

But nice try at a dodge.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/artfuldodger.htm

[Starboard Tack]

286. "Personal valuables"? Like what? Your gun? LOL

The phone book gives your address and phone number. Doesn't take much to figure out if you have any valuables from that info. Publishing that you own a gun carry permit just let's folk know they might be living next door to a gun nut. What's wrong with that. Who would want to mess with a gun nut? Is there anything you are not scared of?

[one-eyed fat man]

182. Those cases are older.

Here is the most recent study:

Guns, Privacy, and Crime

[WinniSkipper]

191. "One has to wonder what would have happened had they not applied for permits."

Hi Starboard

Thanks for the courteous discussion on the other thread. It is not easy being new here in the current environment. With that in mind - I would like to point out that this phrase in the subject line from your post sounds a lot like "If she didn't dress that way....."

My guess is you did not mean it to come off this - but it does.

Are you really saying that they are responsible, by exercising their right, for their attacks? That they should have know that by trying to protect themselves from an abusive Ex, they are actually giving a roadmap to their door?

[friendly_iconoclast]

196. It is in no essential different from ""If she didn't dress that way...". Situational ethics, IOW.

[X_Digger]

199. Or as he asserted elsewhere, 'karma'. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

223. Not even close. Try some logic.

If I wanted to carry a gun for SD, I would want everyone to know.
If I wanted to carry to do someone harm I would want no-one to know.

If you are referring to the "attacks" mentioned by Brewster, I have no idea who was responsible.
Look at the list published in the paper. I doubt most of them were concerned about their names being published. Same as putting a "Beware Dog" sign up.

Too much whining.

[gejohnston]

224. beware of dog signs

have more to do with keeping from being sued by trespassers or visitors your dog does not like.

[Starboard Tack]

228. Exactly! Thanks for explaining.

I always wondered what they were for. LOL

[one-eyed fat man]

220. The Ohio case is a bit twisted.

The Ohio legislature made the records available only to law enforcement and the newspapers. The papers who campaigned most vigorously against the concealed weapons law, most notably the Cleveland Plain Dealer immediately undertook to publish the names and addresses of all license holders.

Those who defended the papers' position cited "public records" and the "public's right to know" but howled like gut shot chipmunks when those in opposition published the names and addresses of the paper's publisher and editorial staff. When instances of abused spouse being outed and such came to light, it was dismissed as inconsequential to the "public's right to know."

Now let us compare the public access to another set of "public records," the motor vehicle registry. You can't punch in a plate number and find out who owns the car that just cut you off. Curious about the guy who parks his car in your neighbor's driveway alternate Tuesday's after her husband has left for work, see if your buddy in the local PD will run the plate for you?

A cop running a plate for a "friend" or out of idle curiosity can find themselves fired or even jailed over it. But as a tool restricted to legitimate law enforcement, a cop getting ready to stop a car for a broken taillight in all but the tiniest of departments, can punch the plate into a console in the car and almost instantly have registered owner's name, address, registration, insurance and licensing status, wants, warrants, BOLO's or if they have a concealed carry permit. Those may still rely on the radio and having the dispatcher relay that info.

On July 18, 1989, Rebecca Schaeffer was prepared to meet director Francis Ford Coppola to audition for a role in Godfather III. Simultaneously, Robert John Bardo tracked down Schaeffer’s home address and decided to pay her a visit in West Hollywood.

With his obligatory copy of The Catcher in the Rye in hand (the same book found in the possession of John Lennon’s assassin Mark David Chapman), Bardo staked out Schaeffer’s apartment building. He rang her direct intercom, but since it was broken, she came down to see who was there.

As Schaeffer opened the front door, Bardo plugged a single bullet into her chest and casually strolled off.

How did he know where she lived? Public information freely available from the California Department of Motor Vehicles. Following Schaeffer's murder, California laws regarding the release of personal information through the DMV were drastically changed. The Driver's Privacy Protection Act was enacted in 1994, which prevents the DMV from releasing private addresses.

Am I to understand that making that kind of information available to anyone at whim of a newspaper editor or the click of a mouse is OK for gun owners, but not car owners? Does it make a difference if they are a celebrity?

[Starboard Tack]

225. This list wasn't of gun owners, but licensed carriers.

Big difference. If it is public information, then it is covered by 1A. Good point about the DMV. I remember the Schaeffer case well. Very tragic. Used a handgun, right?

[one-eyed fat man]

229. Distiction without a difference

It was NOT public information. The Ohio legislature restricted access to law enforcement and newspapers. The newspapers in question decided to make the licensees identities public and compounded that by publishing their address as well.

Perhaps the legislature did indeed desire to "out" licensees but lacked the backbone to take that position publicly. Pretty feckless, giving the information to the newspapers knowing they would make it public regardless of the personal havoc it might cause

[Starboard Tack]

230. I was referring to Redwood City

However, if the info wasn't public in Ohio, why would it be released to the press? Makes no sense. The fourth estate is hardly known for it's secrecy or discretion.
Maybe you are right and the legislature did it intentionally, or it was a bargaining chip. So havoc was wreaked all around. Crazy world we live in.

[petronius]

22. Are you sure? What method did you use to detect the 'enthusiasts' who never

said a peep about it (which, if you evince signs of disinterest, is probably most of those in your acquaintance)?

[Pholus]

39. I'm sure there are a few, but they're HARDLY some silent majority.

Besides, I'm nothing if not polite. In Arizona one time I met a guy at a party. We're just getting names changed when he pulls his jacket open to show me the fine weapon he's carrying.

I congratulated him and started a conversation with the next person over at the earliest possible opportunity. Sometimes it's just too soon, like admitting you keep a box of comic books (errr graphic novels) under your bed.

[petronius]

41. Sure, I'd find a pressing need to be somewhere else too, if I'd met that guy

But my point was, why do you think that guy is in any way the norm? You assume that the people who don't say a word aren't the majority, but why do you think that other than stereotypes of gun owners and encounters with a few people who definitely aren't the norm? I'll bet you've met far more gun owners and CCWers than you think, and the majority have gone completely unnoticed...

[Pholus]

43. I appreciate the gun owners and CCWers who keep it to themselves when it is appropriate.

They're normal, sane people. It's not like my social life is determined via some gun ownership litmus test afterall. But I do veer away from people who seem to like stroking their guns a bit to much.

But your point is well taken. Sorry!

[gejohnston]

200. I do veer away from people who seem to like stroking their guns a bit to much.

I make a kid free cordon while waiting for the cops, or are you talking about something else?

[NewMoonTherian]

94. But that's a voluntary action.

I certainly don't go around spouting off about what I've got, and I don't reveal it if someone asks, unless I trust them implicitly.

[shedevil69taz]

244. you haven't met me then

even if you were to ask strait up: "so what guns do you own" I MIGHT give you this answer: a couple of each type. More likely you'd get a question from me first: "why do you want to know?"

[CAPHAVOC]

6. Dunno much about it.

That just popped in to my head when I read it. Years ago I had 3 Shotguns and a .22 stolen from my home. That was all they took. I have had a Car stolen and been robbed at gunpoint by a Black Man with a mask but not a Hoodie. None were ever caught. The robbery was in Barbados not here. In Barbados NO guns are allowed. People are not allowed to wear Camo clothing for some reason. Guns are banned entirely. But that does not help. A few people have a legal gun there but they have to keep them in a shooting club. They are not allowed to take them home. I have been Burglarized a few times and one time they got a lot. I would not want my info published by the government.

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. Hey, they have nothing to hide, right?

..or do they?

Ain't that a *itch........

[pipoman]

12. So you believe that the ex of a known violent spouse,

or someone who has a stalker should have their info published to help the ex-spouse or stalker easily find them, huh? Nice, and so liberal..

[Starboard Tack]

114. Only if they want to carry a gun around.

Otherwise there's no need to publish anything. BTW, a determined stalker doesn't need that kind of source to find you.

[pipoman]

154. Brilliant

[Starboard Tack]

166. What is with the histrionics?

How does the old saying go? "He who lives by the gun...". Or did Forrest Gump phrase it better?
First you want to carry your guns around, then you want to do it without anyone else knowing, then you get pissed if people know about it. I've got an easy solution. Eliminate the first step and get on with your life. Or move to Wyoming or Maine or Florida or Texas or Arizona or the next county pr petition to change the First Amendment. But enough of the whining.
Libertarian ideals are fine until they interfere with the greater good.

[pipoman]

202. And what "greater good" would that be?

There is zero statistical basis for this exploitation of privacy. Just like there is none for publication of motor vehicle records, tax records, medical records, personal financial information, credit bureau reports, etc. Let's not pretend that publication of people's personal information is a first amendment privilege, shall we?

[Starboard Tack]

203. No, it's not first amendment privilege

It's a first amendment right. The constitution is not based on statistics. You should know that. If it were, do you think 2A would still be around? If you are in doubt, ask the families of the million or so who died from gunshots since Bill Clinton's inauguration and the millions who survived their encounters with handguns and the trillion or so dollars the taxpayers have coughed up to pay for it all. You don't care about statistics that don't suit your personal agenda. That's what the greater good is all about. Society as a whole, not individual preferences. Public safety, not personal paranoia. Think about it, seriously.

[gejohnston]

205. what does that have to do with us?

If you are in doubt, ask the families of the million or so who died from gunshots since Bill Clinton's inauguration and the millions who survived their encounters with handguns and the trillion or so dollars the taxpayers have coughed up to pay for it all. You don't care about statistics that don't suit your personal agenda.

we are not the ones shooting up the place or funding it. It is the drug culture.

[Starboard Tack]

211. Not the drug culture or the gun culture

But many social issues like education, poverty and the war on drugs.

[pipoman]

206. Wrong again

No first amendment right to publish someone's personal information. The point of my previous post. Do you need more examples of unlawful invasion of privacy not being protected by the first?

[Starboard Tack]

212. The publishing of public information is not an invasion of privacy

No more than the publishing of the phone book. Both covered by the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment would not apply if there were defamation of character, which there isn't.
Many of us wish you were correct, but it's that silly old constitution getting in the way again. It's some powerful shit, especially when you disagree with the results, right?

[pipoman]

221. I listed several examples of your theory being wrong

based on the overwhelming responses to the OP article I'll be surprised if legislation isn't forthcoming to ban such releases of private information in CA. People in these parts like to bitch about the 'Tiahart Amendment', it is in place to prevent this type of witch hunt against innocent, law abiding people by big corps, i.e. the news media.

[DonP]

13. The irony is thick

A poster using an anonymous screen name criticizes gun owners for not wanting their personal information published. So what do you have to hide here?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. The reporter is finding out just how much of one it can be

Google maps to her residence, her academic and professional resume, facebook, linkin, photographs etc are experiencing a wide jump in circulation. Sauce for the goose...it is a lesson "journalists" have to learn now and then.

[shadowrider]

23. I wonder how she likes it now.

[DonP]

28. Editor, publisher and the board will be next

Then we'll get the surprised and horrified editorials about how these irresponsible people are endangering the children of their staff.

I wonder if they thought they might be endangering the children of CCW permitees?

I guess the correct response is "Tough shit".

[Starboard Tack]

115. We don't live in a world easy to hide in

[Starboard Tack]

227. How interesting. When the shoe is on the other foot.

We all learn lessons now and then. That old contest between 1A and 2A.

[burf]

21. Does that analogy apply to the

Department of Justice and their gun running adventures?

[petronius]

24. No matter the context, 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' is a nonsensical

justification for a privacy intrusion...

[Union Scribe]

57. You sound like a cop hassling someone into a search.

Or a RWer standing nearby making excuses.

[Callisto32]

71. You can't be serious.

Do you really have so little vision that you cannot see what could go wrong with this?

DAMN, YOU MUST BE AN ELECTED OFFICAL@!!@11!O!N!E!

[NewMoonTherian]

96. I have a lot of stuff to hide.

I'm not doing anything illegal, but I don't want you or anyone else knowing my business until I'm ready to discuss it.

[shedevil69taz]

245. the very name of the permit

is CONCEALED weapons permit. As in hidden, as in not meant for everyone to know. Letting everyone who can read know exactly who has one makes them less effective.

[pipoman]

9. Nice

considering that there is a requirement of perceived need to have a ccw in the first place, there must be some threat. If there is a known threat to an individual which warrants issuance of a ccw permit, wouldn't it be logical to assume at least some of those issued a ccw are trying to hide from the threat which qualified them for a ccw in the first place? Now their threat has their address. Sometime the stupidity is just painful..and in this case may result in people being killed, or at least robbed...just idiotic.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. In non f'up states, no justification or perceived need is required for CCWs.

[slackmaster]

10. Publishing that information may be legal but it's fucked up like a football bat

[Starboard Tack]

116. "may be legal but it's fucked up"

Like carrying a gun around. What goes around comes around.
Nobody is forcing anyone to carry. Wanna drive a car around, same shit.

[slackmaster]

131. Let me explain something about people who have CCW permits in Redwood City and most of California

They've had to give their local chief law enforcement officer some kind of "good reason" why they should be permitted to carry a weapon. Examples of reasons accepted in most counties include:

- Carrying large amounts of cash or valuables regularly,
- Being a victim of domestic violence, stalking, or threats,
- Having a high public profile, such as elected officials, judges, etc.

Is it really right to publish the names of any of those people? I certainly wouldn't do it.

If you own your home, your address and a whole lot of information about your finances is available through public records. DU rules explicitly prohibit posting anything like that for any person, be they a DU participant or not. I think that's a good standard to live by. If you want to lower yourself to the level of people like Spike Lee, knock yourself out but be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions.

[Starboard Tack]

136. It isn't a question of right or wrong

It's an enumerated Constitutional right. You want censorship or common sense? If you want the latter, stop supporting irrational behavior. You can't have it both ways.

[slackmaster]

153. The exercise of rights always carries responsibilities

If any harm comes from the unnecessary release of that information, there will be blood on the hands of the people who exercised their freedom of the press in releasing it.

[Starboard Tack]

164. Why would someone with a gun be attacked?

Makes no sense, unless you're implying that gun carriers are professional victims. Too much hysteria.

[slackmaster]

170. Perhaps you are not familiar with the concept of carrying a _concealed_ weapon

Other people aren't supposed to be aware that you are carrying it.

[Starboard Tack]

176. I think that is the whole point.

So, now Mr Thug is going to attack you, because he knows you're armed and can shoot him? Must be a lot more stupid people out there than I thought.

[slackmaster]

178. Are you being intentionally obtuse here?

Mr. Thug DOES NOT KNOW that you are armed, because your weapon is CONCEALED.

[Starboard Tack]

181. Am I being obtuse? LOL

The whole point of the OP is that it is now public information. Why would MR Thug now attack someone he knows is carrying a concealed weapon? Oh, right, to steal it!

[slackmaster]

186. The fact that it has been published puts the CCW holders in much greater danger than a random thug

Think about it. This makes them potential targets of premeditated attacks of many kinds in their homes, places of business, and anywhere else.

A random street thug is probably still not going to know these people from Adam, or be aware that they MIGHT be carrying weapons legally.

[Starboard Tack]

189. OK, let's say only their enemies know they are armed.

Do you think that makes them more likely to be attacked? Really? If so, it's probably time to get out of Dodge.

[X_Digger]

190. Perhaps they already 'got out of dodge' and their location wasn't known to their stalker..

.. until some busybody with a stick up his ass posted his/her name and address in the paper.

[Starboard Tack]

192. In the local paper?

Getting out of Dodge means leaving town, not crossing the street.
I don't like busybodies or people carrying guns, but they're both exercising their constitutional rights.

[X_Digger]

195. You mean like the Memphis paper did, and published the whole state??

A person shouldn't have to leave the state to get away from whiny, moralizing editorial boards.

Name one actual 'good' such actions achieved (other than causing such an uproar that the records got pulled from public purview.)

[slackmaster]

194. It seems that your goal is to run people who have CCW permits out of town

Personally, I don't worry about who is carrying a weapon when I'm out in public.

[Starboard Tack]

197. Neither do I

I might if I had something to hide, like a gun, or my fear. There are places I wouldn't advertise my Democratic credentials. I wonder how many guys at the range wear their Obama hats and badges.

[Starboard Tack]

27. Love it. Nobody needs to be carrying a gun around in secret.

This list includes only those who want to carry concealed weapons. The public has a right to know. Those who want to stalk are forewarned.
Damn, I love California.

[gejohnston]

29. no they don't

There is no legitimate reason for anyone outside of law enforcement to have access to any of that information. Unfounded fears of "those people" do not count. Given that California is a "may issue" state, it is reasonable to assume that one is carrying because of a clear and demonstrated threat. That means the faux journalism is more likely put someone in greater danger than do any good.

Yeah the stalkers are forewarned. They are forewarned on how to take counter measures if their target is armed. The stalkers don't get carry permits. No, Zimmerman was not a stalker.

Did you feel the same when NYC's list was hacked? They published the names of the millionaires and celebrities and rich gun control advocates.
There is nothing special about California. They have more than their share of right wing hate groups, right wing assholes, shitty traffic, and cops who shoot brown kids in the back.

[Starboard Tack]

32. Anyone carrying a gun should be known to the public.

We have a right to avoid such people. That's basic public safety. All the rest is histrionics. Oh, no, now my stalker knows where I live. Well, duh, don't you think he already knows? And yes Zimmerman is a sick fuck stalker, and a murderer.
Yes I fell the same about NYC's list. California's not perfect, but it's about the best we've got. Yes we have more than our fair share of wingnuts and sickos, but we also have more progressives and a great climate. I have no love for the cops or anyone else who carries a gun.

[gejohnston]

58. and if this disclosure causes any harm

those harmed should sue the shit out of the paper and the reporter. There are a lot of cool things in the SFO area, Napa County, and northern California. Needles is interesting. I would not call California it the best we have. Hawaii, Guam, New Mexico, and Wyoming are better in my opinion. Granted Hawaii's gun laws kind of suck, but at least they have better SCUBA sites, culture, and they didn't produce Mike Savage or Congressman Issa.

[spin]

59. That's a great idea ...

So some street thug knows that I carry a firearm. He sneaks up behind me and hits me in the head with a bat and walks away with my concealed weapon. He then uses my weapon to to shoot another person or several people.

You say that you don't like cops because they carry a gun. Do you feel that the police should stop carrying firearms and try to apprehend armed criminals with just pepper spray or Tasers? Perhaps they should also stop wearing their bullet proof vests.

Maybe we should just confiscate all firearms from honest people and disarm all police. If we did that how long do you think it would take an unarmed police officer to respond to a 911 call from a homeowner who told the operator that an armed man had broke into her home or was trying to? He would probably arrive in time to cordon off the area with crime scene tape and gather evidence of a murder or murders in order to file a report. How many police officers would decide that the job was far too dangerous for the meager pay they receive and quit? How would a homeowner defend himself against an intruder armed with a firearm? How would he protect his family?

I'm sure that most violent criminals would think that you have some really good ideas. They would love to know who owns firearms as these are valuable items that they can steal and use or sell. Instead of being in the hands of a responsible gun owner, these weapons would be on the street and many would be used for criminal activity.

I will agree that with the current information that I have gleaned from the news, Zimmerman is a cop wannabe or a vigilante who should be arrested and prosecuted. He is not an example of the typical person who has a carry permit. Obviously when 10,000,000 citizens have permits to carry, a few will misuse their privilege. Statistics show that very few people who carry use their weapons to commit a crime. Florida has had "shall issue" concealed carry since 1987 and in that period of time only 168 people have had their permit revoked because of a crime committed after the license was issued. (source: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.pdf) Not all the crimes that caused their licenses to be revoked involved a shooting. In Florida you can lose your license if you brandish your weapon or if you carry it into a restricted area among many reasons.

I also add that I don't think that you truly dislike cops who carry firearms and wish to disarm them. It is entirely fair to debate if citizens should be allowed to carry. I have no problem with that and enjoy such discussion. But I know a lot of cops who are very professional and I appreciate the job they do to protect their community. I definitely wouldn't want their job. I feel that disliking a police officer because he carries a handgun is at the least, unfair. Just as with people who have carry licenses there are a few cops who are total assholes and misuse their weapons to kill innocent people. Such officers cast a bad light on their profession just as the few citizens like Zimmerman make all people who legally carry look like cold blooded vigilantes.

[Starboard Tack]

64. I don't dislike cops

I dislike their routine carrying of a weapon, just as I dislike the routine carrying of a gun by anyone. There are times when it is necessary to be armed. That's what risk assessment is about.

[spin]

69. Everytime a cop conducts a traffic stop ...

he faces risk. Every time he gets a call to respond to a burglar alarm, a domestic situation or a robbery in progress there is a possibility that he may find his life in danger. When you have a job that will cause you to face potential violent individuals who maybe angry or under the influence of alcohol or drugs, you face danger. Your object is to be able to go home to your family after work.

The handgun on the officer's side could be viewed largely as a deterrent. It's presence as well as the uniform and the badge may prevent some violent individuals from making the stupid decision to attack the officer.

I have no idea what you do for a living but would you be willing to swap jobs and become a cop? Through the years I have known a number of people who held that job and I appreciate the job they do to protect their community. I have never had any desire to join their ranks. I believe they are underpaid and under appreciated.

[Starboard Tack]

83. I was a cop, in a country where they don't routinely carry.

I am not so naive as to believe we can suddenly disarm all police in this country. Unfortunately, the horse is already out of the barn, but having an armed constabulary is a huge mistake. It creates an "us against them" mentality, which is not conducive to a healthy progressive society.
I remember many occasions, as a cop, when part of me said "Boy, I wish I had a gun right now." But I was always glad afterwards that I didn't. There are lots better ways of resolving crises.

[gejohnston]

93. You realize UK

and South Korea are in the minority. Most countries have armed cops. UK and the US are not the only examples of each.

[Starboard Tack]

97. Yes, unfortunately I do realize that.

You can only imagine my surprise when I first visited Paris as a schoolboy and saw gendarmes wearing guns. Part of me thought how cool that was. When I returned during the riots of 1968, I didn't think it was so cool seeing them wearing sub-machine guns. I had already worked serious crowd control and guns were unnecessary.
Point is, if you arm the police, then the public should have the same rights. Slippery slope time.

[NewMoonTherian]

100. Great point.

"Point is, if you arm the police, then the public should have the same rights."

I know this isn't your ideal, but I'm glad you feel this way. In spite of everything else we clash on, I'm glad we agree that the police are not somehow supernaturally more trustworthy than the public at large.

[gejohnston]

110. I can relate to a degree

I was surprised to see cops or anyone anyone armed in the Frankfort Airport. The US at the time, not so much.
Interesting, the US doesn't use automatic weapons even for riots. But then, I'd take a shotgun or a carbine over an SMG. Teargas, swinging batons on horseback, but no machine guns. So much for the civilized French.
But the national police use Ubuntu instead of Windows, so they can't be all that bad.

[spin]

101. Anyone who works for law enforcement deserves respect ...

just as teachers, firemen and members of the military also do.

So even though you served in another nation's police force, you still get my thanks for your service.

Perhaps if we could turn the clock back and change our gun control laws we would also live in a society where the police did not have to carry firearms. I agree that often the police find themselves in an arms race with the criminal element.

I will content that in the United States police usually do find ways of resolving crises without resorting to the firearms they wear on their side or to the weapons in their police vehicles. Many officers go through their careers without ever having to draw their weapon. Technology has also enabled a police officer to have available less than lethal means of subduing a violent individual.

One major driver of violence in our nation is the sale of illegal drugs and our failed War on Drugs. I feel we should reexamine our drug policies and legalize some drugs such as marijuana.

We are making headway in reducing violent crime.

FBI Data Reveals Steady Decline in Major Crime
| July 25, 2011

WASHINGTON — Crime levels fell across the nation last year, extending a multiyear downward trend with a 5.5 percent drop in the number of violent crimes in 2010. Property crimes fell 2.8 percent, after a 4.6 percent drop the year before.

The latest figures released by the FBI show the lowest level of violent crime since the 1960s. All categories for property crime — including burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft and arson — declined as well.emphasis added

Robbery also declined nationwide — by 9.5 percent in 2010 and 8 percent in 2009 — despite increased unemployment and a grim economic outlook. Experts differ on what could explain the declines, but say economic hardship is a poor indicator for violent crime and a weak one at best for property crime.

"The idea that unemployment breeds crime is a lot more myth than reality," says James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University in Boston. "People don't just lose their jobs and decide their only means of making a living is through crime."
http://www.securitysales.com/channel/vertical-markets/articles/2011/07/fbi-data-reveals-steady-decline-in-major-crime.aspx

[rl6214]

105. Don't like cops carrying guns, move to England, they don't carry there

oh wait, they are carrying there more and more often.

[Starboard Tack]

107. Classic right wing response

Why am I not surprised.

[rl6214]

157. classic about what, proving you are wrong?

classic losing arguement, call someone a name then run away. Does that work for you, to call someone "right wing" then run away?

[greyl]

158. No, they mean classic like this:

I don't care what the liberals say, I don't care what the naysayers say, this nation was founded as a Christian nation, the God of Abraham, the God of Issac, and the God of Jacob, there's only one God. There's only one God and his name is Jesus.

I'm tired of people telling me that I can't say those words. I'm tired of people telling us, as Christians, that we can't voice our beliefs or we can no longer pray in public. Listen to me, if you don't love America and you don't like the way we do things, I got one thing to say: Get Out!

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/people/rick-santorum

[Starboard Tack]

161. Who's running away?

You ran away from the discussion when you said "Don't like cops carrying guns, move to England, they don't carry there".
You don't like it here you can just fuck off to where you came from
Nice one.
Cops in the UK do not routinely carry guns. The handgun death rate in the UK compared to the US is, in your terms, "statistically insignificant".
Let me know when you want a conversation. I'll be happy to oblige.

[rl6214]

179. "You don't like it here you can just fuck off to where you came from "

Your words, not mine. Pretty juvenile if you ask me but of course you aren't asking because your opinion is the only one that counts.

"The handgun death rate in the UK compared to the US is, in your terms, "statistically insignificant"."

Again, your words, not mine. You sure do like making up words that people say for them.

[Starboard Tack]

180. I like clarifying and interpreting and reading between the lines

Not that your remarks needed much of any of that.

[rl6214]

187. You like making shit up

[rrneck]

68. No.

You don't have a right to "avoid such people". Please make an effort to conceal such a bigoted attitude. Judging people as a group against an ideology is barbaric and offensive.

[Starboard Tack]

76. I may not have that right, legally

But it is a right worth fighting for. I don't judge the people as a group, I judge one behavioral trait. That is not bigotry. I think many gun carriers are probably some of the finest people out there, as are many smokers. Pointing out destructive behavior is not bigotry, nor is it barbaric. It may well be offensive, but many find cigarette smoke offensive too.

[rrneck]

82. Bullshit.

You can't rationalize your way out of that.

[Remmah2]

73. There should be a three day written notification period prior to a burglarly.

An official permit to commit burglarly. Keep it legal and all.

That way I could move or buy a dog. After all we shouldn't endanger burglars.

The penalty for failing to wait a full three days would be a $50 fine of which the burglar would be entitled to write it off on their income tax.

[Starboard Tack]

77. Don't know what burglary has to do with concealed carry

Are you confused?

[Remmah2]

84. Depending upon the state you may be required to obtain a CCW just to posses a handgun in your home.

Why authorize the burglar a shopping list?

Simple enough?

[Starboard Tack]

85. What state would that be? And a shotgun would serve better in the home IMO

[Remmah2]

95. You can't get a CCW for a scatter gun!

A little heavy on the recoil, too much crap being fired down range hitting hitting unintended targets, shotgun weighs about 7.5 pounds vs under 2 pounds for a fair 9mm, limited magazine capacity for a shotty plus you can't seclude it in your house as easy as a handgun in one of them five finger biometric security safes.

[Starboard Tack]

98. Glad to hear that.

Always kept my double barrel 12 gauge in a closet, with shells hidden out of kids' reach. Easily accessible, no need for more than 2 barrels, no need to conceal, no need to buy more consumer junk.

[Remmah2]

102. There you go, easy access to firearms.

Just because it's in a closet it is not safe from kids or theft.

It'll be subject to rust and dust.

[friendly_iconoclast]

134. For someone who's *more* likely to misuse it than a CCW holder would...

[petronius]

30. There's absolutely no reason to believe that any of the people listed in

this article are "stalk(ing)" anyone - so what public safety improvement or any other public benefit derives from publishing this information?

How far are you willing to take this? How much private and personal information would you be happy to see broadcast willy-nilly, to be used by whomever for whatever purpose?

[Starboard Tack]

33. Only information which is in the interests of public safety.

Nobody is forcing anyone to apply for a CC permit. You can have a gun at home without having your name published.

[petronius]

34. But there is no public safety benefit from publishing this info - what reasonable

actions could anyone take based on it: refuse a job? Bar someone from a store? Print out their pictures and cross the street when you see them coming? You must realize that the safety benefits from any of those are so infinitesimal as to be nonexistent.

On the other hand, the increased risk of crime, harassment, or discrimination against these people based on the (albeit legal) broadcasting of their personal and private information is real and at least as substantial as any public safety benefit.

I can think of a lot of other private issues - medical marijuana use, recovering alcoholism, a decades old felony conviction, etc - that might be legal to publish and would give a similar public safety 'benefit'.

So I'd suggest to you - and anyone else who approves of what this paper did - to consider whether you're just motivated by your feelings about guns, or whether your applause is based on your general beliefs about appropriate levels of privacy protection in our society. Do you think it proper to disseminate any private and personal data you want, as long as a tenuous benefit can be ginned up and it isn't legally forbidden to do so?

[Starboard Tack]

35. Public safety benefits from publishing, not deception.

I believe the public has a right to know who is armed in their midst, be they private citizens or law enforcement. The presence of a loaded firearm is a real threat to public safety and members of the public should be able to exercise their option of avoiding such people. I see no threat to the public from medical marijuana, recovering alcoholics or former felons, unless they are also carrying loaded weapons.

My view is not motivated by any "feelings" I have about guns, because I don't have any. I have enough miles on my odometer to know that those who carry guns routinely are not the kind of people I want to associate with outside of a gun range. I may make exceptions, based on my relationship with the individual, but on the whole, I don't trust people with guns.
I think the individual should be informed when applying for a carry permit, that it will be public knowledge. No deceptions, either way.

[gejohnston]

36. if you know of any of these

I see no threat to the public from medical marijuana, recovering alcoholics or former felons, unless they are also carrying loaded weapons.

who are carrying, please call the ATF hotline.
I do think the GCA should be amended to allow medical marijuana (or maybe it would take just repealing federal pot prohibition, which I support, any lawyers?)

[Starboard Tack]

37. How would I know who they were?

If I see a gun or what looks like a gun, I usually distance myself.

[spin]

60. If a person has a concealed weapons permit ...

you should not be able to determine that he is carrying. In Florida, a recent law was passed that allows a person with a carry permit to inadvertently flash his weapon without being charged with a crime. For example the individual is walking through a parking lot and a gust of wind catches the jacket that is covering his holstered firearm and another person catches a glimpse of it. That does not mean that he is dangerous in the least.

I have carried on a regular basis for fifteen years and I don't believe a single person that I encountered in a store or while walking through a parking lot had any knowledge that I had a snub nosed revolver in my pants pocket. I have absolutely no desire to intimidate others or scare them. I rarely carry a firearm in an inside a belt holster with a garment covering it. When I do, I am extremely careful not to flash it.

If I was in a store with you, you would have no reason to worry. My handgun is in a pocket holster and I never touch it unless I have a damn good reason. A modern holstered handgun is safe. Even in the extremely unlikely event that the firearm dropped out of my pocket, it wouldn't discharge. I have never had this happen and I doubt if I ever will. I would have to have someone grab me, hold me upside down and shake me for my weapon to fall out of its quality holster. It probably would stay put even if this happened.

You have no realistic reason to fear a responsible person who is licensed to carry unless you decide to attack him with the intention of inflicting serious injury or to kill him. You have good reason to fear a criminal who is illegally carrying a firearm.

Obviously there are a very few individuals who carry firearms and view themselves as vigilantes or cop wannabes. Your chances of getting shot by one of these fools is far less than your chances of getting hit by lighting in a thunderstorm in Florida or winning the Florida lotto.

[Starboard Tack]

63. I don't see this in terms of likelihood of being shot.

It is irrelevant that people can't see your gun. It still exists and you are carrying it in case you feel the need to use it. I think others have the right to know when those around them are armed and willing to use a gun in public. It's really that simple. Others' fear of criminals, or lack thereof, has no bearing on anything.

[PavePusher]

67. And your fear of the lawful...

has no bearing on anything.

[Starboard Tack]

78. Show me where I ever said I was afraid of guns or anything else except hurricanes.

[PavePusher]

87. It's the only possible explaination.

If no fear, then what excuse could you have for your desire to know?

[Starboard Tack]

88. I don't have a desire to know.

My argument is that the public should have a right to know.
When you say it is the only possible explanation, that's no different to one assuming fear is the only possible explanation for carrying. Fear for one's personal safety.

This discussion is really about "Public safety vs. personal safety"
The first is a socialist value, the second is libertarian.

[PavePusher]

92. Then please explain what other excuse can be used for this vaporous "right to know".

"The first is a socialist value, the second is libertarian." Cite, please. (Arguably, there can't be the former (public safety) without the latter (personal safety) (and the converse as well).)

[Starboard Tack]

99. If you don't know the difference, I can't help you.

Pretty basic stuff. Public safety is for everyone, personal safety is for the individual. That's the difference between Socialism and Libertarianism.

[spin]

72. It is statistically reasonable to be apprehensive of criminals ...

Last edited Mon Apr 2, 2012, 03:13 PM - Edit history (1)

but statistics also show that those who are licensed to carry concealed pose extremely little danger to those around them.

edited for spelling mistake in title

[Starboard Tack]

79. I don't live my life by statistics

And I doubt anyone with a CC permit does either. That's why very few people fly private planes wearing parachutes, which I would probably insist on wearing.

Of course, there is very little "statistical" danger. Doesn't change the reality that nobody is going to leave home with a gun he's not prepared to use.

[spin]

103. True. However that doesn't mean that a person who is legally carrying a firearm ...

is a cold blooded killer or vigilante waiting for any excuse to draw his weapon and kill another individual.

You have less chance of getting shot by a person with a concealed carry license (unless you are attacking him with the intention of inflicting serious injury) than you do of getting hit by lightning.

[Starboard Tack]

108. I totally agree

And you have even less chance of being shot by those not carrying any gun.

[spin]

112. True. However injuring or killing another person does not require a firearm. (n/t)

[Starboard Tack]

139. Also true. See, we agree on lots of things.

Also, defending oneself does not require a firearm.

[spin]

140. We do indeed agree on many things...

the use of lethal force such as a firearm should be the last possible choice when all else has failed or has very little chance of success.

[Starboard Tack]

162. If all who carry were endowed with that reasoning

we would have far fewer problems. Unfortunately that is not so.

[oneshooter]

148. Would you prefer that I carry a Kukri? Concealed of course.

[Starboard Tack]

163. Do you really want to know?

I would prefer you carried some common sense and applied it. And get your head out of the weapons chest, smell the roses and start enjoying life. It's really a blast when you don't spend half your time figuring out the best ways to kill and maim your fellow travelers.

[PavePusher]

168. Your statement exposes your bias:

"It's really a blast when you don't spend half your time figuring out the best ways to kill and maim your fellow travelers."

He never implied that he wanted to or was planning to. Firstly, a criminal attacking him is not, by any definition, a "fellow traveler". (If you want to travel with such a person, that's your choice.) Secondly, the idea is to stop the attack as efficiently as possible, with as little risk to the defender as possible. Killing or maiming may be a side-product, but it is not the main intent, and can be avoided by good choices on the part of the attacker. (i.e., find a more peaceful line of endevour.)

[oneshooter]

171. Thats ok PP, his bias and inability to understand a different POV

is apparent for all to see.

Besides he doesn't know what a Kukri is, and how it can be used for self defense, so his ignorance is showing too.

[spin]

188. In Florida you can carry a concealed Kukri ...

if you have a concealed weapons permit. It's a weapons permit, not a firearms permit.

[ToolMaker]

252. LOL...Actually, that's a very poor analogy...

Judging by this comment, I can only assume that you have spent either very little or no time in small aircraft, as you seem to have a distinct lack of knowledge about them.

The lack of use of parachutes in general aviation aircraft, and the vast majority of aircraft in general, has nothing to do with statistics, or ones views on them. Ever tried to open your car door wide enough to crawl out of it while traveling at highway speed? Pretty tough job. Now imagine doing that at speeds that can easily double and triple highway speeds. With very few exceptions, aircraft doors hinge at the front, just like car doors and would be impossible to open while in flight. Exceptions include planes designed for aerobatic use, which are required to have quick release hinges that allow the door to be jettisoned, to allow occupants to bail out should the need arise. Even in this case though, it is not an easy task. Trust me, I know from experience.

As to the public benefit of publishing the private information of concealed carry permit holders, it's a pretty long stretch to show that it would achieve the desired "public safety" goal. Think about this. Even if you lived in a small town of only 5,000 people, what are the odds that you would recognize any great percentage of them by sight and be able to associate a name to the face and then recall whether or not their name was on the published list? Even if you could memorize the list for such a small community, you sill have to be concerned about those from other cities that travel to you little town for a variety of reasons, as well as those from another state whose permits are recognized by the state in which you live. You are really no better off than by simply knowing that concealed carry permits are issued within your state. The published list does not really aid you in avoiding contact with those with a permit to any significant degree.

Now consider that permit holders are the cause of only a minuscule number of problems within society, as a whole. You are at far greater risk from those carrying a gun illegally than you are from those carrying one legally, but there is no list to help you identify those who are doing so illegally. The only possible advantage that you gain by having the list published is the off chance that someone you are able to recognize is on that list, and you happen to see them in a public place, and associate their name to that list. The only way to realistically insure, or even dramatically increase the chance, that you are never exposed to anyone carrying a concealed firearm is to stay home. Even if you live in an area that has no concealed carry permits available, you still cannot know that there are not people carrying anyway.

So how exactly does this perceived public benefit manifest itself? And, how does it outweigh the probable increased risk that those with a permit are subjected to?

[Starboard Tack]

253. Thank you for recognizing my total lack of aeronautical knowledge.

'Twas a poor analogy indeed, but I couldn't resist. The first time I flew was on a charter flight from Milan to London. The plane was a Caledonian Airways Bristol 175 Britannia 300. The plane arrived 12 hours late in Milan, the passengers getting off looked like they had been to hell and back. It was May and the worst storm to hit the south of England in decades. We boarded, with a certain trepidation and the stewardesses (flight attendants), who all wore kilts (very appealing) gave us the drill about life vests, beneath every seat, and emergency exits. I listened attentively and then enquired where I might find my parachute. The plane erupted in guffaws. I assume most had flown before. She responded that there were no parachutes. I thought "Hmm, how come? We have to fly over northern Italy, France and less than 20 miles of water. I can swim. I cannot fly, but they supplied me with a life vest. This is a prop plane with emergency exits. We're flying through one of the biggest storms ever. I'd rather have parachute."
Short story, they wouldn't let me off the plane. I didn't make a fuss and we made it. But I never understood the life vest thing.
Now, regarding the OP, no of course there is no public benefit in publishing the info of gun carriers. How about that? Just as there is no public benefit in them having the permits. Just that old Constitution slapping itself in the face. Gotta love it.
Such a young country still, so much to learn. No fucking parachutes? What's that all about?

[ToolMaker]

256. I'm a bit confused...

in post #35 by you, you claim that a public benefit is created by publishing the list, then in response to my post you state that there is no public benefit. Did you change your mind based on further examination?

As for public benefit from having permits available, I have not ever indicated that I thought this was the case. The purpose of concealed carry permits, as far as I am concerned is not about public benefit, but rather private benefit. I suppose one could make the argument that the existence and availability of permits could cause some criminals to rethink the idea of assaulting someone based on the fact that they may be armed, and that the public then sees some benefit, but I think it would be quite difficult to prove.

As for the constitution slapping itself in the face, I could not disagree more. It seems to me that the constitution was engineered to protect the rights and freedoms of the individual, so long as this does not cause unjust harm to another. By protecting every individual equally (granted, this was not always the case), the whole of society is also protected. While publishing this list could be viewed as exercising one's right to free speech, it does indeed, pose the serious possibility of injury to others.

Other posters have focused on such maters as inviting attack or theft by those who disregard the law in their personal pursuits. While this is a risk, I think there are other risks that are just as damaging and much more likely. I was once fired for not abiding by a company policy with regard to firearms that was contrary to state law. I could easily see an employer that was not friendly to second amendment rights, using such a list to cull employees from the ranks. The only thing that protected me was that state law was on my side. I was able to sue, regaining my job, as well as a significant settlement and court ordered protection from retribution from my employer. This is less of a second amendment issue than it is a privacy issue. Making private information public that has the potential to cause harm is not beneficial to anyone, and certainly not to the public as a whole. In this instance, it is permit holder's info, what might it be next time?

[Starboard Tack]

257. Let me attempt to clarify

Is there a public benefit from publishing the list? Possibly, there is, if people read the list and know the people concerned. That would create some marginal public benefit, in that some would be informed and could take appropriate measures, as they see fit. However, there is probably very little public benefit, as it is not an efficient way of informing the public as to who is carrying a loaded gun. There lies the problem. How do we create a system which allows both for the freedom of the individual to exercise his constitutional rights and also allows the public to know who is walking around with guns. If, by publishing the names and exercising it's 1A rights, the newspaper deters one individual from carrying a gun in public, then there will have been a benefit.
As an employer, I would make it clear that I would not hire someone who carried a personal firearm.

As for the constitution slapping itself in the face, I could not disagree more. It seems to me that the constitution was engineered to protect the rights and freedoms of the individual, so long as this does not cause unjust harm to another. By protecting every individual equally (granted, this was not always the case), the whole of society is also protected. While publishing this list could be viewed as exercising one's right to free speech, it does indeed, pose the serious possibility of injury to others.

I love it. The free speech publishing poses the serious possibility of injury to others, but not the carrying of guns.
When you leave home wearing a gun, you already more than leveled the playing field. Now you're even more afraid by an individual exercising his right to free speech. Wear a clown outfit, expect to be laughed at. If your neighbor's little kid knows you carry a gun and follows you down the street pointing at you and chanting "This clown's armed and dangerous!" What are you gonna do? Shoot him, or leave the silly gun at home and grow up?
Point is, when you applied for the permit, like when you apply for anything, you forfeit certain rights to privacy. Check your spam box and you'll see proof of that.

[gejohnston]

258. with any freedom comes responsibility

that includes the paper. Any harm that comes from that knowledge, the paper and writer should be held accountable under civil law if not criminal. That is what gun control enthusiasts claim when they want insurance etc. It works both ways.

In an open society, the standard for regulation should be "compelling state/public safety interest". Your idea has no compelling interest. If there is no ill effect of repealing a law, the law should not have been there in the first place. If the law is passed and no good comes of it, then the law should not be there to begin with.
That is why libertarians are wrong about banking and environmental regulations. That is why you are wrong about gun "toting".

Now you're even more afraid by an individual exercising his right to free speech. Wear a clown outfit, expect to be laughed at. If your neighbor's little kid knows you carry a gun and follows you down the street pointing at you and chanting "This clown's armed and dangerous!"

which is what you want, which also takes us back to the purple, pink triangles. Although this case, red or black triangle would be more accurate.

[Starboard Tack]

259. I think it should be more visible than those little triangles.

Also, it would cost too much for the public service messages necessary. No, if 2A is to stand as SCOTUS currently defines it, then the only fair way is to have only OC..
I think the public has a compelling interest in knowing who, around them, is armed.

[gejohnston]

260. no they don't

unless they are paranoid. There are paranoid people who think hunters carrying pistols in the field are threats to them while camping.
That is hardly a rational or logical outlook. Just from reading the posts here, most antis are projecting when they accuse "toters" of being paranoid.
The SCOTUS have never defined the 2A any other way. The only real difference was McDonald, which finally struck down a dreadful decision that civil rights lawyers have been chipping away at since the 1930s.

[Starboard Tack]

261. C'mon GE. I'm not talking about hunters.

You think it's paranoia to not want to sit in a bar next to some freak with a gun? You introduced the word paranoia, btw.

[gejohnston]

262. check some of the other threads

and yes, paranoid and irrational is how I would define most of the antis. If they drinking sodas in bars, what difference does it make? Ever been in a cop bar? the place is full of people drinking booze while carrying.

[Starboard Tack]

263. No, most anti's are just opposed to the behavior

Not paranoid. Emotionally outraged perhaps, but not paranoid. Yes, I've been in cop bars. Not my favorite places. I've seen some crazy shit go down in them.

[gejohnston]

264. paranoid

and irrational. Emotionally outraged about an Arizona hunting regulation, seriously? I was not even a gun law. The ban only applied to hunters, not hikers, kayakers, fishing, campers or anyone else. Can you show a single rational "anti" point in this entire thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=29507

[Starboard Tack]

265. I don't see any paranoia there, except maybe from the governor.

She obviously wants to get re-elected in a gun happy state. Thanks for the link, though. I hadn't seen it. Will jump in and join the fray later.

[gejohnston]

266. you are joking

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117229507#post3
that is paranoia. That is also irrational.
Other than your dislike for Brewer, guns, people of Arizona, people who are too civilized to fuel the factory farm system, or whatever what was the point of the hunting regulation? Understand, all it said was hunters could not carry pistols while hunting. Everyone else could.

[Starboard Tack]

274. Well, why would they need to if they already have real guns?

Why anyone else would want to carry one is beyond me. I love Arizona btw, but I'm not too fond of it's politicians and concentration of extremists.

[gejohnston]

275. most of the extremeists

are transplants from California and Illinois. Like the Illinois Nazis that moved to northern Idaho.

[Starboard Tack]

280. Well, they had to come from somewhere.

[petronius]

40. There are no public safety benefits to publishing this - certainly none that outweigh

the potential harm to those who were listed, and none that don't rely on the same sort of nebulous reasoning that could be used on the examples I listed:

medical marijuana user? might drive too soon after smoking --> public hazard
past felony conviction? in desperate times, might relapse --> public hazard
alcoholic? might relapse, maybe even some long term cognitive damage --> public hazard

See? None of that is any different than the "threat" you claim from the average CCWer, and it certainly doesn't justify an invasion of privacy like this.

But, we all know that the paper didn't do this as a public safety service, they did it to make a political point, to try and embarrass or shame people who made a choice the paper didn't approve of. In other words, it wasn't to improve safety, it was to allow people to harass, avoid, pester, or discriminate against those who engage in an inoffensive, legal, private behavior. (Is there any area other than guns where you'd stand for that sort of journalistic behavior?) You're certainly free to avoid people you don't like, for whatever reason, but for a newspaper to invade others' privacy to help you do it is contemptible.

Your position may differ, but I believe that individual privacy deserves a great deal of respect - from government, media, business, other individuals - and unjustified and non-consensual invasions are reprehensible no matter the topic. Privacy is not deception, and personal information is just that: personal...

[Starboard Tack]

42. Your analogies don't work.

medical marijuana user? might drive too soon after smoking --> public hazard
past felony conviction? in desperate times, might relapse --> public hazard
alcoholic? might relapse, maybe even some long term cognitive damage --> public hazard

There are laws in place to deal with all that.

it wasn't to improve safety, it was to allow people to harass, avoid, pester, or discriminate against those who engage in an inoffensive, legal, private behavior.

Why would anyone want to harass an armed person? It is to allow people to avoid those who engage in offensive public behavior. If it's inoffensive, why hide it? If it's private, why do it in public?

Your position may differ, but I believe that individual privacy deserves a great deal of respect - from government, media, business, other individuals - and unjustified and non-consensual invasions are reprehensible no matter the topic. Privacy is not deception, and personal information is just that: personal...

I totally agree, except this has nothing to do with privacy or private behavior. Just the opposite. The moment you take your gun to the street it is in public, not private. The fact you may decide to hide it, does not make it private, just more insidious.

[petronius]

44. My analogies work perfectly: you claim there is a public benefit to knowing

something about a person that might indicate a risk; all of my analogies are private information that might indicate a risk. (But of course, none of them - including CCW - indicate a risk that justifies a journalistic invasion of privacy).

But then you agree that it's not about risk or safety, it's about "avoiding" behavior that you find "offensive"- so like I said: avoid (or discriminate, pester, harass, etc, within the bounds of legality) all you want, but it's reprehensible for a journalist to assist you. You can be offended by anything you choose, but you have no right to invade others' privacy, or have it done for you, to avoid an insult to your sensibilities.

Obviously, you don't totally agree: you agree right up to where you need to start twisting to justify this one exception. Privacy is privacy and it deserves respect, no matter where the individual is standing. The contents of your pockets, purse or body do not become a matter of general public interest when you step out onto the street...

[Starboard Tack]

48. What does journalism have to do with anything?

Newspapers have policies, views, opinions. This is not being passed off as journalism. You call walking down the street with a loaded gun "inoffensive". Most folk find that rather offensive. Most folk have a sense of social decorum, like not swigging from a whiskey bottle, taking a crap, spitting, fucking or strutting around with a gun in the street. Not to mention the potential threat to public safety, which is way more important than any individual's personal fears.
I see no reason for the street to be any less safe than an airport terminal.

[petronius]

52. What the paper did had no believable effect whatsoever on public safety,

but you applaud it because it exposed people who do something you find offensive, even though it will, if anything, cause risk and maybe harm for the people named. And as for decorum, you wouldn't even know they were carrying, so how would you find it offensive (without the help of the newspaper)?

Privacy is valuable and everyone is entitled to it (on any topic, including guns). It's not deceptive or sneaky to insist on personal privacy and expect respect for it from government, media, businesses and others. What this paper did - invade the privacy of ordinary citizens to make a political point - is no less reprehensible just because it lines up with your opinions...

[Starboard Tack]

62. I applaud it because it exposes those who wish to carry guns.

I see nothing wrong with that. Obviously they forfeited their right to privacy by applying for a permit. It has nothing to do with my opinions. It is solely about public safety, not personal privacy.

[petronius]

74. How exactly do disclosures like this one benefit public safety, and how do

those benefits outweigh the potential risks to those named? And, how do the safety arguments in favor of this disclosure not apply to the other situation (and similar examples) that i listed up thread? (Note that the paper changed its mind - they decided they didn't have a compelling reason to post the names after all.)

Without legitimate answers to those questions, it is all about privacy, and the reasonable expectation of ordinary citizens that their personal details won't be spewed by media to make a political point.

In general, the protection of personal privacy (or the lack thereof) is an increasingly serious issue in our society; you may not be concerned or be willing to make exceptions based on your biases, which is your right, but I'll choose to condemn unjustified privacy invasions no matter the topic...

[Starboard Tack]

75. How do the disclosures benefit public safety?

The public has a right to know who is carrying loaded guns around. You may disagree, but that's how I see it. I would not want children in my care to be around gun carriers, who are prepared to start shooting in public. Not complicated. The paper withdrew the names and addresses from it's website after receiving threats. Guess who made the threats.
I agree it is all about privacy and the intrusion of guns in public spaces is an intrusion on every individual's privacy and right to move around in peace, without someone feeling the need to start shooting someone. You put that gun on, you forfeit your right to privacy. Your rights to be able to walk around with a concealed weapon pale compared to the proliferation of guns in public. You guys need to grow up and start acting like responsible citizens. If this is what it takes, newspapers publishing your names, then so be it.
You condemn this exposure as unjustified. I condemn your carrying as unjustified. There are no winners when it comes to guns in public, just varying degrees of losers.

[petronius]

91. So are you saying that the public benefit derives from pestering, shaming,

or harassing CCWers into not doing it any more? Or is it just that you want to avoid certain types of people as undesirable, and you feel entitled to personal information about them that would enable you to act on those biases? Either way, you seem to have an unusual definition of privacy ("intrusion of guns in public spaces is an intrusion on every individual's privacy"? ) and a surprising disdain for the concept...

[rl6214]

106. Time to give up trying to deal with this one petronius,

you can't rationalize with a nut

[beevul]

267. Such contradictions.

" Most folk have a sense of social decorum, like not swigging from a whiskey bottle, taking a crap, spitting, fucking or strutting around with a gun in the street."

And yet it is you, who just a few posts up thread said "the only fair way is to have only OC..
I think the public has a compelling interest in knowing who, around them, is armed."

And of course you provide no evidence that the unsubstantiated claim about "most folk" has any relationship to reality. And have done nothing to set your view apart from that of any random jackass that disgustingly thinks that "the public has a compelling interest in knowing who, around them, is" gay, Democrat, liberal, infected with aids, and a whole host of other things they think the public should know. And the thinking that the public should know about them, is equally disgusting, in every single case.

And of course, the obligatory perjoratives..."strutting around with a gun in the street". Are you sure you can't work "festooned" in there somewhere? Perhaps you can get with one or more of the um..."one note" posters, hereabouts, for some assistance on working more of those perjoratives in. Add words like "yup" and "backlash" and "baser" and "toter" with the standard "gun nut" and "gun sucker" and "gun humper", and "gun stroker" and all the rest of them.


Ever heard of constitutional carry?

Ever wonder why some folks want to have it enacted?

Look in the mirror.

Whats telling, is the progression of it, in the case of people like you. It isn't "theres a problem, lets fix it".

Its "theres something going on I DONT LIKE, lets see if we cant associate enough negatives to it to change perception of the masses into "theres a problem", and thereby eliminate it.

Because you simply don't like it.

That clarifies your position, I think.

Now I'll clarify mine. I write letters to my elected representatives. lots of them. I make phone calls. I make donations to pro-gun groups.

Why?

For the same reasons I write letters and make phone calls and make donations on the behalf of other issues.

Because I detest the idea of adding stigma, making socially unacceptable, or making unlawful...generally harmless activity...for the simple and selfish reason that "someone doesn't like it".

I know, how libertarian of me.




"Not to mention the potential threat to public safety, which is way more important than any individual's personal fears."

The potential threat to public safety is less than that of the potential threat of armed law enforcement.

The evidence of that has been strewn about in this forum for all to see.


But then, you knew that.

[Starboard Tack]

272. You might have noticed that I don't support armed law enforcement.

BTW, what does perjorative mean, having a tendency to commit perjury?
So, you are one of those who call and write your congressman to enact these wingnut laws. Nice one Beevul

[beevul]

276. I think just about everyone noticed that.

"BTW, what does perjorative mean, having a tendency to commit perjury?"

Pejoratives[1] (or terms of abuse, derogatory terms), including name slurs,[2] are words or grammatical forms that connote negativity and express contempt or distaste.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pejorative

(o00 I made a spelling error, whatever shall I do.)

"So, you are one of those who call and write your congressman to enact these wingnut laws. Nice one Beevul."

Calling a law a "wingnut law" does not make it so.


Duty to retreat is about the most UNCIVILIZED thing that could possibly be asked of anyone.

So is the idea that ones home is not ones castle, contrary to what our canadian friend says.

[one-eyed fat man]

237. You could make them wear a sign

It's not a new idea, it has been used before to make sure undesirables were identified for "public safety."

[Starboard Tack]

239. Maybe that's what you want for those who have no choice

Those who did have a choice wore a swastika. You want to carry a gun around, feel free to choose your own badge of honor. I have recommended a large conical hat sporting a large "G" in the past. Should do the trick nicely.

You disappoint me Brewster. I thought you had more class.

[gejohnston]

240. not all

Jehovah Witnesses had a choice to change religions, they had purple triangles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_triangle

But your analogy does not fly because the gun owners and "toters" are not trying to identify or ostracize anyone. In this case they are the "other", just like the people wearing triangles and Star of Davids.

[Starboard Tack]

241. Gun owners have nothing to do with it

Gun "toters" may not be "trying to identify or ostracize anyone", but that does nothing to change their inherently hostile behavior. The fact that they hide the gun does not detract from the nature of the act itself.
For a "toter" to compare his "plight" to that of a Jew under Hitler is truly offensive.

[gejohnston]

242. who said anything about Jews?

Jehovah Witnesses and gays maybe. Not even like Roma in modern France. More like Scientologists and Baptists in modern Germany.

[Starboard Tack]

243. Maybe you were talking about gay Jews

In this case they are the "other", just like the people wearing triangles and Star of Davids.

[gejohnston]

277. different triangles meant different things.

A lesbian would have a black triangle. Both of us would be wearing red triangles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camp_badges#Single_triangles

[Starboard Tack]

281. At least we wouldn't have to wear pointy hats for being silly.

[beevul]

247. Only to an extremist...

Only to an extremist, is peacable carry of a concealed weapon, catagorized as hostile behavior.

[Starboard Tack]

248. Very profound beevul. Do you ever think before you post?

"peacable carry of a concealed weapon" is an oxymoron.
Maybe where you come from, carrying a loaded weapon is friendly behavior.

[beevul]

249. Only when its necessary...

Only when its necessary. Fortunately...when dealing with antis...is usually isn't. Only rarely is it actually necessary to use much brain power to refute anything they say.

Besides, its (slightly) more of a challenge with a level playing field.

""peacable carry of a concealed weapon" is an oxymoron."

Only in the mind of extremists, as I have said.

"Maybe where you come from, carrying a loaded weapon is friendly behavior."


I don't think anyone was speaking to "friendly/unfriendly" except you. Oh, and it was "peacable carry of a concealed weapon" that was actually the behavior in question.

I get it. It offends you. That does not mean it is "hostile" behavior. It means only that it "offends you", nothing more.

My take on that? The same as your take on those that disagree with the draconian gun laws "where you come from":

Too fucking bad. Get over it.



As to where I come from...

Well, lets just say that I come from one of the places colored blue in the following map as it is in the 2011 frame:



Are you from one of those same blue colored states too?

Oh, wait, "where you come from" - as opposed to where you currently reside - isn't even on that map.


I guess "where I come from" its looked at in a different light than it is "where you come from".

[Starboard Tack]

250. Still posting your wingnut propaganda I see.

[beevul]

251. Wingnut propaganda?

"Still posting your wingnut propaganda I see."

I wouldn't know.

I do, however, know that the map factually accurate. And thats what really counts. So long the map is accurate, I don't actually care who made it. Or whether they might have eaten spaghetti in the same hour as a republican. or the same eatery.

It must be humbling to be reduced to anti-gun oneliners, by those you consider inferior.

"Khan, I'm laughing at the superior intellect".

(in the spirit of the spock thread and all)

[PavePusher]

279. "inherently hostile behavior"

You should call the police if they seem hostile.

Otherwise, your hyperbole is bullshit.

[Starboard Tack]

283. "You should call the police if they seem hostile."

Right. See some freak with a gun, what do you do? Call some other freak with a gun. What the hell for? To watch them shoot each other.
Oh, and btw, all hyperbole is bullshit, not just mine. Keep your powder dry.

[PavePusher]

285. "freak"? Really?

Plonk.

[beevul]

246. So much fail.

"Those who did have a choice wore a swastika."

Yes indeed.

Redwood City, Ca, chose to publish the list. Nobody had a gun to their head.

And at that point in time... those who were on the list when it was published, had no choice in the matter.


Uhh..."brewster"?

[one-eyed fat man]

254. I'm shocked!

You find no dichotomy in your positions. You freely admit that you would publicly brand people engaging in a lawful activity simply because you disapprove.

"I have recommended a large conical hat sporting a large "G"...."

It is not one bit different from a gaggle of schoolchildren taunting a fat kid. No different than making "fun" of the "retard," or any manner of hateful speech directed at a group or individuals simply because another group has given themselves permission to hate them.

Few are more judgmental than reformed smokers. The biggest difference between the current crop of nicotine Nazis and the originals is the originals had snappier uniforms. Gym rats are another bunch who freely voice their contempt for anyone who is overweight. Prejudice is prejudice whether or not it is directed against a "protected class."

Is there a difference in saying:

"All gun owners are inbred rednecks who live in trailer parks and fuck their sisters."

"All fat people are lazy, indolent, unmotivated and undisciplined or they wouldn't be such obese slobs."

"All smokers are contemptible polluters with no regard for their health, the health of others and if they weren't so weak-willed and worthless they would quit?"

It would seem that if you disapprove of a lawful behavior you are not satisfied to merely abstain, you insist that everyone else should conform to your view or be publicly branded.

[Starboard Tack]

255. Asking them to wear a silly hat is hardly branding them

I think it would be nice, as a courtesy to those around them. I see no dichotomy, as this is a behavioral choice. It isn't about being gay or Jewish or Polish. I smoke and don't mind being ushered to an appropriate area if I wish to indulge my habit. Why should others have to suffer my smoke any more than they should have to be around idiots carrying guns?

[gejohnston]

269. how about smokers wear a conical hat

with a big M or C?

[Starboard Tack]

270. Not really necessary

because they already are visible and smellable.

[gejohnston]

271. there are still chewers

[Starboard Tack]

273. And they stink too. LOL

[PavePusher]

66. Then voting records should be public too, amIright?

Who you voted for, when, your current address, employee and phone numbers....

[Starboard Tack]

81. Wrong!

Voting is not life threatening

[PavePusher]

86. The fuck it isn't.

Unless you think my little sojourns to Iraq and Afghanistan were pleasure cruises....

[Starboard Tack]

89. I would love to have that conversation

Maybe another time in a different forum

[oneshooter]

231. If the state required a permit to purchase, like a FOID

in Indiana, would you be ok with that information being published?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Starboard Tack]

232. I don't have any thoughts either way. I think you mean Illinois btw.

I'm not a supporter of releasing personal information in general, but I'm not in favor of folk indiscriminately carrying firearms. I find it ironic when those who constantly yell 2A rights to justify their behavior, start whining when others flaunt their 1A rights.

[oneshooter]

233. Yea It was Illinois, damn night shift has me all screwed up.

But do you believe that with the right to publish these permits comes the liability if someone gets injured because of the list being made public. And that this liability can not be removed simply because of the 1st A.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Starboard Tack]

234. Maybe.

Let a court decide. Same as if you lose a gun and someone commits a murder. Do you accept liability? Rights come with an enormous amount of responsibility. They are not free passes to pursue a selfish agenda.

[gejohnston]

235. works both ways

Rights come with an enormous amount of responsibility. They are not free passes to pursue a selfish agenda.

Publishing names and addresses of CCW holders is not pursuing a selfish agenda? It certainly seems like it to me. Your Robert Borkesque "harm to society and public danger (when there is no evidence of any) not withstanding."

[Starboard Tack]

236. I'm not denying that.

As you say, it works both ways.

[jeepnstein]

238. They're public alright.

I can and do have access to the voter registration databases all the time. It's one of the tools of my black art, politics. Voter rolls, campaign finance reports, all that kind of stuff has good info that we use all the time.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

31. Two birds; one stone: Where to steal a gun and then who to use it on...

Bad idea all around. This lets criminals know which houses might have guns (to steal) and then which persons are unable to defend themselves against the now stolen firearms. Great work Redwood City... alienating EVERY armed and unarmed citizen alike (aside from the criminals who use the info, of course)!

[Union Scribe]

55. No shit, why not just publish their house floorplans too

and maybe work schedules so they know when to drop in.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. I don't mind if they publish my info.

However, I can understand why others prefer not to.

[Starboard Tack]

117. Good for you. I wouldn't mind either.

[jpak]

80. But...but...you will be able to defend against the Criminals R US zombie horde with your Big Gun

and people in your neighborhood - and their kids - will be able to avoid you.

and school officials will be able to keep your gun out the their schools more effectively.

yup

[AtheistCrusader]

119. Shit, my neighbors see me hauling half my 'arsenal' out to my truck to go to the range about once a

month.

I think they know.

[friendly_iconoclast]

90. Those that like this, can we have access to *your* names and addresses?

Or is that only for "those people"?

[Starboard Tack]

118. Sure you can, the moment we decide to carry loaded guns around.

Don't hold your breath.

[friendly_iconoclast]

127. Ahh, but YOU own a gun, you've said so in this thread.

And by your own standards, that makes you a potential threat. There's nothing really preventing you from strolling down the street
one fine morning, shooting passers-by.

Better your neighbors know that you're a gun owner, so they can avoid you...

[friendly_iconoclast]

133. Further, you are more likely to commit a violent crime than a CCW permit holder is.

Nothing personal, mind you- I am, too. But then, you "...don't live (your) life by statistics", so if a belief that those sneaky CCW permitees are
dangerous is sufficient reason for you to want to out them- well, the same should apply to you, shouldn't it?

[Starboard Tack]

138. I don't own one at present, but that is irrelevant.

Difference is that these folk have declared an intention of walking around with a loaded gun. Most gun owners don't do that.
If I really felt I needed to carry one, the last person I would be telling would be the chief of police and the last thing I would be applying for would be a permit.

[Union Scribe]

159. If they're walking around, why does knowing their address help you?

Seems like the scenario you're dismissing is more appropriate for such listings. Who's the bigger threat, after all, someone you live next to who's there all the time or the stranger you pass along with a thousand others every day.

As to your second paragraph, not all of us like breaking the law.

[Starboard Tack]

160. None of us like breaking the law

but if your wife is in labor, I'm sure you'll break the speed limit and if my life is in danger, I won't be thinking about legalities.
Knowing their address doesn't help me, because I don't care, but it makes them a little more accountable for their actions.

[one-eyed fat man]

222. Accountable to who?

Those charged with investigated crimes, the police, and those charged with prosecuting the offenses, the district attorney, already have that information. Who else has a right to it?

The busybody down the road? Your employer? Your librarian? The lynch mob looking for revenge?

"...if my life is in danger, I won't be thinking about legalities. "

If I didn't know better I'd say that almost sounds like you are saying. "It is better to be tried by twelve than carried by six."

[Starboard Tack]

226. Then you would be correct.

[ileus]

104. So this is how the antis want to remove their enemies from society.

[Starboard Tack]

121. Yup, all those "antis" are creeping up your garden path.

Don't you ever get tired of that silly word? It has no meaning.

[AtheistCrusader]

126. I encourage it's use until and unless, use of "gun nut extremists" and the like are dropped as well.

[AtheistCrusader]

123. SCARLET LETTER. Sounds like how frothy wants to constrain porn on the web.

[Xela]

174. Public lists are a bad idea....

These CCW/CHL lists are absurd.

It endangers the permit holder, his/her families, and their neighbors.

If you want to place an NRA sticker on your truck, go ahead. That's your right of free speech. But these public lists take away our right to privacy.

If they are legal in California, it's just one more way to keep people disarmed. Which apparently is how that state likes it's citizens/residents.

Xela

[beevul]

268. Did you think it was unforseen?

"Great, now "Criminals R Us" has a list of unarmed people, who are much easier targets."


Mhmm. And then they can blame lawful gun owners for not keeping their guns in fort knox when they get stolen.

Its ALWAYS the fault of gun owners. Law abiding or not.


They may not come right out and say it, but then, do they really have to?