The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: ericire12 on December 28, 2009, 09:12:55 AM
-
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/madoff_son_of_gun_LDcUvEw9PXY0rS1oNFfl1J
The following have NYPD pistol permits:
Howard Stern, satellite shock jock
Don Imus, syndicated shock jock
Harvey Keitel, actor
Sean Hannity, TV host
Donald Trump, developer
Donald Trump Jr.
Eric Trump
Ronald Lauder, Estee Lauder heir
Carlos Delgado, ex-Mets first baseman
David Wright, Mets third baseman
Lee Mazzilli, former Met and Yankee
Barry Levinson, director
Tommy Mottola, recording exec
John Mack, CEO of Morgan Stanley
John Catsimatidis, Gristedes CEO
Alexis Stewart, Martha’s daughter
Dr. Robert Jarvik, artificial heart inventor
Richard Brown, Queens DA
Janet DiFiore, Westchester DA
Barry Slotnick, lawyer
Raoul Felder, lawyer
Pat Cooper, comedian
Anthony Carbonetti,Giuliani Partners
If you live in a “may issue” state, there MUST be some way for those have been denied a permit to see who did get approved. Without at least that minimum level of accountability, the potential for abuse is just too great.
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2009/12/02/no-right-to-know/#comment-54036
-
Short list.
-
Short list.
Certainly the case. "The Post" received all 36,040 NYC permit holder names earlier this week from the NYPD. Now lets see what they do with it. Was it for purposes of celebrity identification, as per this article, or some other disturbing reason like a public list of names and addresses that puts us at risk?
-
Certainly the case. "The Post" received all 36,040 NYC permit holder names earlier this week from the NYPD. Now lets see what they do with it. Was it for purposes of celebrity identification, as per this article, or some other disturbing reason that puts us at risk?
I think Eric had it right in the OP. In "shall issue" states these records should be sealed as they are not my business. In "may issue" states/localities, it is my business as we do have the right to know why our neighbor got a permit and we didn't.
FQ13
-
I think Eric had it right in the OP. In "shall issue" states these records should be sealed as they are not my business. In "may issue" states/localities, it is my business as we do have the right to know why our neighbor got a permit and we didn't.
FQ13
No, either it endangers lives or it doesnt. If you are suing because your rights have been infringed then you should have the right to subpoena the list.... it still should not be public just because the local govt is loony.
-
No, Either it endangers lives or it doesnt. If you are suing because your rights have been infringed then you should have the right to subpoena the list.... its still should not be public just because the local govt is loony.
+1 Eric, I agree completely. Well stated.
As I am on that list the NYPD was forced to provide the "NY Post", I will be VERY upset if my name and address appears in the newspaper somewhere down the line.
-
I think Eric is right, but there is a draw back, as I understand it documents that are subpoenaed and used in a court case become public records and therefore the privacy disappears any way.
-
I think Eric is right, but there is a draw back, as I understand it documents that are subpoenaed and used in a court case become public records and therefore the privacy disappears any way.
I think Eric's premise is correct in that such documents should NOT be made public if it endangers lives. The publishing of any list of names and addresses regarding pistol permit holders, in any manner whatsoever, should never be made public....period. Subpoenaed or not.
-
I think Eric's premise is correct in that such documents should NOT be made public if it endangers lives. The publishing of any list of names and addresses regarding pistol permit holders, in any manner whatsoever, should never be made public....period. Subpoenaed or not.
I know there are ways of protecting sensitive info, they are used to protect infomant identities and National security info.
-
No, Either it endangers lives or it doesnt. If you are suing because your rights have been infringed then you should have the right to subpoena the list.... its still should not be public just because the local govt is loony.
Heres the the thing Eric, and this isn't an argument, just a question. If you live in a "may issue" area and are told no, how do you know whether you have a case? Lets set the 2A aside and just assume " fundamental fairness" as the guiding Con. law principle, eg., like cases should be treated alike.This is covered under the 14A and is relatively non-controversial and settled law. Without being able to see who DID get the permits and then be able to make a claim based on the holders receiving them based on political patronage, nepotism etc., you don't have a leg to stand on. This is one of the many reasons "shall issue' is prefferable, the 2A aside, as it states all people meeting x,y and z requirements are treated the same. There is no room for favoritism here. I agree that I don't like disclosure of CCW holders, but without FOIA access to the records of a "may issue" state/city it seems that you are without recourse.
FQ13
-
FQ asks a fair and difficult question, I think the simplest solution would be to go to "Shall issue" and keep the list private.
For the "May issue" States, Personal knowledge might be better grounds for a law suit than a fishing expedition in the records.
-
Didn't see John Gotti Jr. on the list,..... ::)
Howard Stern???
Airsoft doesn't count.
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm182/twyacht/poster.jpg)
-
Fortunately Texas law keeps the names of CHL holders private. In my opinion it should be that way in every state.
Why give the BGs the heads up on which homes to rob that will guarantee that they can steal firearms?
Anyone here know anyone who carries concealed and only owns one gun?
-
I live in a "may issue" state and to my knowledge, the issuing authority, ie....your local Chief of Police is required to either issue the permit or state in writing the reasons for not allowing the issuance within 45 days of application. It is THEIR responsibility to tell you why, not your job to find out why.
Even then, state law allows a right to a hearing and arbitration. I have never heard of anyone who fits the criteria being refused a License to Carry. As to records, they are kept by the state as are all, repeat, ALL registrations for firearms. Everything must be registered in Assachusetts.
-
I don't think that this is a list of CCW permits. It's a list of permits just to simply own a gun.
-
I don't think that this is a list of CCW permits. It's a list of permits just to simply own a gun.
I don't know about that but Don Imus has stated for years that he carries daily in New York, CT and New Mexico. The rest, who cares.
-
I think Eric's premise is correct in that such documents should NOT be made public if it endangers lives. The publishing of any list of names and addresses regarding pistol permit holders, in any manner whatsoever, should never be made public....period. Subpoenaed or not.
Since when did newspapers give a crap about endangering lives. I have never seen a newspaper appologize for publishing something they shouldn't, only a retraction when they have made an error, such as the wrong name in a picture or something similar. In my opinion, newspapers consider themselves elitist and publish what they want without regard to the damage it may do. They also withhold certain stories if the story does not fit their agenda.
Sorry about the rant and bit of thread drift, but news papers in general tend to tick me off.
-
blackwolfe, you got that part about newspapers right.
http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=10317.0
Wonder why they are going out of business?
Gun owner database on a newspapers website,....just like a sex offender.....
Freakin Great....