I'm sure you have by now all seen this story about a NY newspaper that filed a FOIA request and then published names, addresses, and an interactive map of all people in the NY metro area who have pistol permits.

I'm curious about opinions on this from this board. 

My opinion:  This is a violation of civil rights by the state government (not by the person filing the request, though I think he's vile, too).  Any way you cut it, the release of this information is providing information for bad people to do bad things. 

Regardless of the minority here that thinks that owning a gun is a mental disorder, these people are exercising a constitutionally protected right, and are complying with local law to permit the exercise of that right (funny, ain't it?).  By complying with that law, they have made themselves and possibly all people around them less safe.  Remember, the violation of rights isn't only against those who choose to own a gun, but against those who choose not to and who are now "outed" as vulnerable.

Thoughts?

IMO, the last paragraph is spot on.

"Publishing gun owners' names makes them targets for theft or public ridicule. It is journalistic arrogance to abuse public record privilege, just as it is to air 911 calls for no reason or to publish the home addresses of police or judges without cause," Al Tompkins, a Poynter senior faculty member, said in a statement Wednesday. "Unwarranted publishing of the names of permitted owners just encourages gun owners to skip the permitting."

Time to revisit the FOIA and block disclosure of personal information.

I saw this story late Christmas Eve and didn't want to spoil anyone's Holiday....

As a former member of the media, I can't begin to tell you how disturbing I find this story...

And the passage that Beeg Dawg pulled out pretty much sums it up....

Sets a ***horrible precedent***     It's incredibly badly thought through.

It's one thing to 'shame' someone after they've done something illegal, like drunk driving....   but now a newspaper is going to decide about shaming people for something completely illegal??    Really?     No thank you.

When the economy imploded back in '08-09,  there were media outlets printing addresses of employees of companies that received bailout money and they got big chunks of it.    Again, public records info.   I found that incredibly bad judgement as well.

Media has huge responsibility.   And when it's misused like this,  it's bad for everyone.


Michael Forrest

Pretty poor.

I'm not retreating from the position that this information belongs in databases available to the police and others. A household with a firearm does have a potential for violence that others do not.

But publishing a list of private persons? What self-righteous prigs.

Of course gathering FOIA gun owner information for its own sake an publishing it is stupid and makes no sense, however, I see zero, zilch, justification to change any law because of this (talk about not seeing the forest for the trees).

FOIA information is utilized for vast amount of useful purposes every day in America. A reaction to countershame the newspaper and its editors would be exactly right, and if you are a subscriber or advertiser, you can stop using them. But really odd to suggest changing FOIA laws on account of people being "outed" when we don't want to change gun laws on account of people being killed.

And you know what PL, when I first read this story this weekend, I thought immediately of you. You suggested something exactly analogous here not too long ago, asking people who don't have guns to display that information on their fences. Well, there you have it, your question answered.

that is, who has a license to drive, and where they reside?

would you have the same problem with hazardous waste permits?  where they live/exercise the permit, and who they are.

would you have the same problem with convicted felons?  (not just child molesters and sex offenders.)  where they live, who they are, what they did.  (I live next door to a convicted felon, for instance.)

would you have the same problem with fire/hazard insurance?  (do your neighbors carry it, for instance; and if they don't, how would you modify your behavior?)

would you have the same problem with home alarm system?  (not that's is public info, but most people with alarms 'advertise' they have them.)

would you have a problem with publication of the name and address of everyone who's been on a 5150 hold (that's a California designation, but it's a mental-health involuntary psychiatric hold)?

would you have the same problem with tax delinquents or dodgers?

how about any of the licenses issued by the state?  (Link to CA list.)

(interestingly, this list places firearms among other mundane or common matters subject to state license.  you've long argued that firearms are just a tool, nothing to be frightened or concerned about, and that some people respond to the presence of firearms hysterically and unreasonably.  yet here, when access to license information of all sorts of common matters and activities is readily made [putting 'firearms' on par with, say, cosmetology, which I think is the 'place' you'd like society to get to], you somehow now want special dispensation for firearms.  that seems inconsistent to me, in the fashion of I-want-to-eat-my-cake-and-have-it-aferwards-too.) 

the problem, PL, is that you own and maintain firearms in part (I assume) for your own protection.  that's your choice of approach to protection.  but, you wish to deny your neighbors their approach to protection:  to have the knowledge of which among their neighbors own and maintain firearms, and act accordingly on that knowledge.

this "outing", as you name it pejoratively, paints starkly the collision in fears and values between the two poles in this long-time and ongoing conflict.  your approach to resolving the conflict has seemed to be, 'I'm right and you're crazy/unreasonable/wrong/intruding on my rights'.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again:  unless and until folks like you, who are reasonable and responsible but have one particular point of view, sit down and talk seriously and substantively with the 'other' folks, who are also reasonable and responsible but have a very different point of view...  nothing will happen, and nothing will change.

either you'll have to convince them you're right -- and not just assert it without challenge -- or you'll have to find a middle ground -- or you'll have to agree with their point of view.  

the middle ground is, IMO, the best we can hope for.  the article you have linked depicts another vector in the ongoing battle between the two poles.  I'm sure the NRA and other groups and individuals will respond to this matter in court.  and I'm sure some states will prevent this sort of public dispensation of information regarding firearms from happening, and other states will facilitate it.  it may even end up in the USSC in a few years; the issues are complicated, and the sort of thing the SC chooses to clear up when presented with an appropriate case.

Thibodeaux2 wrote:

And you know what PL, when I first read this story this weekend, I thought immediately of you. You suggested something exactly analogous here not too long ago, asking people who don't have guns to display that information on their fences. Well, there you have it, your question answered.

Ah, but my suggestion was in the context of a free society, as in people who are anti gun CHOOSING to put their safety where their mouths are (I think that's what I typed).  I'd never suggest the state actively out people for anything they do by choice within the law.

If you notice the reaction, it's from all quarters negative, including those who think that the risk of people being targeted by criminals because they have no guns is equally real to the risk that people are targeted because they have guns.  Personally, I think the risk is higher for those with the permits, since they are now tagged as likely having valuable property in their homes; and they will be the focus of some bigots in their neighborhoods.

Thibodeaux2 wrote: Of course gathering FOIA gun owner information for its own sake an publishing it is stupid and makes no sense, however, I see zero, zilch, justification to change any law because of this (talk about not seeing the forest for the trees).

FOIA information is utilized for vast amount of useful purposes every day in America. A reaction to countershame the newspaper and its editors would be exactly right, and if you are a subscriber or advertiser, you can stop using them. But really odd to suggest changing FOIA laws on account of people being "outed" when we don't want to change gun laws on account of people being killed.

And you know what PL, when I first read this story this weekend, I thought immediately of you. You suggested something exactly analogous here not too long ago, asking people who don't have guns to display that information on their fences. Well, there you have it, your question answered.

FOIA is intended to allow citizens access to information to know what the government is doing.  Very appropriate for transparency.  Releasing private information is a distortion of FOIA intent.  

This is not about guns, but about privacy.  What information should the government be allowed to release about citizens?

Yes, I have the same problem with drivers licenses. 

Your standard is everyone has a "right" to know everything about their neighbor. I disagree.  My right to privacy trumps your right to know the details of my life.

Interesting, your list brings up some good questions.  I don't view it to be my "right" to self protection for the state to provide me knowledge of...anything.  The issue with the "approach" to protection that you advocate ("to have the knowledge of which among their neighbors own and maintain firearms") is that it's premised on a falsehood:  That the state can provide such knowledge. 

I absolutely use "outing" as a pejorative.  It is a pejorative. Nothing good can come of this.  It will create paranoia among the gun-phobes out there about a group of people (gun owners who went through the trouble of getting a permit) who are demonstrably not a menace.

On balance, I don't think the state has the right to know who owns what property without having probable cause to know that a crime has been committed.  I think the 4th amendment holds here. I don't think that is a polar perspective.  The state should just stay out of the business of people who are not committing a crime. 

However, that brings me to an interesting sociological/legal phenomenon:  It has been revealed in the past couple of weeks that gun ownership, in the eyes of some (perhaps you, Mendi, I don't know), is a sort of thought crime. However, it's a thought crime of convenience...one that enables the state to control what it wants to. 

Witness the instance of David Gregory of NBC showing off a 30 round AR-15 magazine during a broadcast that was staged in DC.  If what he was holding was a 30 round magazine, then he was in clear violation of DC law.  However, read the comments (which are fantastically amusing).  Some people are actually saying "don't the DC police have better things to do like going after real criminals." 

You see, under the "gun control" regimes of cities like DC, David Gregory is a "real criminal."  He is a criminal because he handled and displayed a piece of metal and plastic that is absolutely worthless without a rifle attached to it, and that evidences, even with a rifle attached to it, no crime whatsoever other than the crime of possession.  So, people say "big deal."  Such flexible application of the law is what tyranny is built on.

Gun control is about control, it really isn't about guns.  The regulatory regime around guns is one of the most byzantine ones...it creates the condition whereby a person who owns a shotgun with a short barrel and an overall length of 26 inches is a legal gun owner (good to go), and an owner of a shotgun with an overall length of 25.999999999 inches is demonstrably a felon (as Randy Weaver was). 

You tell me what purpose such laws play?  It certainly isn't crime prevention.  If anything, it is crime creation.

that's just it:  your opponents see quite a bit of good which can come of this.  and they don't think theirs is a polar perspective, either.

I don't understand your 'falsehood' statement.  the state already provides information about people and companies whom it licenses and regulates.  you are claiming the state does not have that right/obligation?  again, it seems you view firearms as simply a piece of property; the state (every state, virtually) sees firearms in a somewhat different light, insofar as firearms are regulated and licensed, whereas my ownership and possession of, say, a CD or DVD or side of roast beef is not.

and BD, it's not 'my' position.  OTOH, I interact with more people who disagree with you and PL, than people who agree with you.  that's simply the 'Venn diagram' of my life, as measured by, or described by, my spheres of interaction.  I truly hope a middle ground can be found, because I respect the discussions I've had here on CEB on this issue, esp. with PL.  but I also respect the discussions I've had with people elsewhere.  they're not paranoid.  they're every bit as reasonable and responsible as people here.  but their view of the world places them, on this issue, in diametric opposition.

I think I missed the 'thought crime' thread.  as for Gregory, sure, push for prosecution.  and fix the conflicts in the regulations.

(but you'll still think all/most govt is tyrannical and controlling, it seems to me.  is there any level of govt which you would trust/find acceptable?)

I believe in 1A and 2A, and all our constitutional amendments and rights, but I understand and acknowledge some (if not all) amendments and rights are in conflict.   

I happen to believe technology can help resolve some of the conflicts.  for instance, some combination of GR's data mining, forensic tracing tech applied to ammunition, increased enforcement of existing laws, elimination of private possession of military-grade firearms and ammunition clips, and making sure information of ownership is private (or at least difficult to access), would go a long way toward reducing, but not eliminating, gun violence.  (we could have a much longer discussion of what I mean by 'private possession', since I differentiate possession from ownership, but that's for another forum.)

Addendum:  Until you posted the OP, I never would have thought to explore who, among my neighbors, might have a firearm/permit.  The link I gave to the CA site which gives info on licenses and permits actually gives info only on permits for investigative and security firms, not on all firearms permits.  (Most of the listed permits are 'cancelled', as it turns out.)  It's not clear CA has a public database with that information, nor whether that info is accessible using FOIA.

There is something to be said for databases that identify sexual offenders, owners of guns, persons on the no-fly list, and so on. Those are bits of data from which agencies entrusted with the public safety can draw some useful inferences in appropriate situations.

However, there is very little to be said for publishing a copy of the full database by a mass media outlet. It's a difference in degree so immense that it results in a difference in kind - inviting a private responses on such a scale that it seems to me to endanger rather than enlarge public safety.

Disagree with me? Consider the publication of a list of sexual offenders, no-fly individuals, or persons who have been convicted of assaultive or stalking behavior. Like that idea? I don't at all.

It's exactly the same as the publication of permit holders. What might be useful on an individual access basis has a different effect entirely when publicized to a mass audience.

I understand fully the juxtaposition you and BD and PL are making.  I understand the perspective that legal activities should be private. 

Please don't misunderstand me, however.    

I also understand that licensed and regulated activities create a problem with respect to 'right of privacy'.  PL wants/believes firearms permits should be subject to less public scrutiny that, say, permit to be a cosmetologist.  Or, since it's something I know about and engage in each day, permit to handle and dispose of hazardous waste.  An industrial neighbor, or residential neighbor, or the water quality board, or the fire department, IMO has a right to know (if they wish to know) what types of materials we're handling here.  We're handling them, safely and responsibly.  The state/county regulates, licenses, and monitors our use and handling.  We must update/keep current our license.  

I fail to see how firearms can or should be considered any differently.

There is a difference between maintaining a public database, and publishing the database in an agency of mass circulation.

mendicant98 wrote:
I fail to see how firearms can or should be considered any differently.

They are considered differently because they are protected differently. 

Handling hazardous chemicals, to use one of your examples, is an act that necessarily comes with an economic prisoner's dilemma (that is that it is to the individual's advantage to perpetrate the act in a way that is deleterious to the well being of all).  It's a LOT cheaper to bury a bunch of barrels of toxic waste than it is to have it hauled, processed, etc.  So, the state has a compelling argument that because of this incentive problem, regulation, inspection and transparency are part of the game.

Now, tell me how this relates to ownership of firearms. The only analogy I can think of that you are justifying "outing" ownership is that the ownership of a firearm necessarily gives a person an incentive to commit a crime.  If that is what you mean, then I may have to resort to shouting. 

One clarification:  You say you don't get the "thought crime" thread, so let me try to state it again in a more simple way.  Gun crimes that have no connection to actual harmful acts (like ownership of a 25 inch shotgun) are crimes that exist only because someone decided that the ownership of a hunk of wood and metal in such a shape implies intent to commit crime.  Whether that intent exists or not (maybe the shotgun just fits in the toolbox better); we have created a new class of criminals. 

Finally, I most certainly don't see most government as tyrannical.  I view good government, particularly at the local level, as critical to the survival of the species.  I view the misuse of power, particularly in ways that in no way get at the root issue in a practical way, as a waste at best and as tyrannical at worst.

No, I got that part, too.

The OP was, first, about a news organization which used FOIA to access the information.  Do you have a problem with that, on behalf of an individual, even on behalf of a news corporation?  I don't.

OTOH, the organization then/second went and published the information/made it very readily accessible.  Ostensibly as a public service.  As I said earlier, perhaps not clearly enough:  I suspect some states will limit the ability to publish such information broadly, and some will allow it.  It will depend upon what the 'community standards' are.  I also suspect USSC will weigh in, eventually, because of the obfuscation/collision/conflict of/among/between what can be regulated vs. what information is public vs. what 2A and (as PL says) 4A say.

I'm not speaking of the legality. I'm speaking of the morality and wisdom. As I wrote above - the point you missed - there is a difference in degree, between permitting access one user at a time, and publishing the entire list to a mass audience.

Consider the sex offender database. The database permits a family with young children to assure the safety of their sons and daughters. Mass publication invites an informal, group response - vigilanteism, in other words.

Not good, and obviously not good.

(when I first read this reply, it sounded like your assumption going in, is that I'm going to use hazmats irresponsibly/illegally.  I decided you couldn't mean this.  because it would be the same as if my presumption of your firearm use, going in, was that you're going to do so irresponsibly/illegally.  which is not my presumption.)

if you are simply positing the dumping/econ pris dilemma as a means of distinguishing firearms from hazardous materials, then I think the juxtaposition reinforces the analogy, and doesn't diminish it.  because it's actually not cheaper to just bury hazmats.  (unless perhaps you're talking about Bubba in the boonies.)  most people who use hazmats get that.  just as most people who own and use firearms get that legal use makes a lot more sense (including economic sense) than illegal use.

I would argue hazardous materials come under the commerce clause, speaking very generally.  and regulation of hazardous materials has certainly evolved over 200 years (most of the regulation is at the state and local level, if interstate commerce is not involved); one would expect 2A regulations to have evolved as well; although I would argue DC v Heller certainly re-sets the historical perspective on the 2nd Amendment.  

regardless, I don't see how protection/regulation of the two activities is different in any substantial sense.  I *think* you're trying to say, firearms are *protected*, while hazmats/commerce are *regulated*, but speaking practically both activities are at once protected and regulated.  or so it seems to me.

re:  the 'thought crime' thread -- I literally did not read it.  I understand your capsule characterization, and have to agree; laws/regs of that nature are not getting at the heart of the problem(s). 

finally, as GR's post, and I hope my reply, made clear, the issue is not that the information (about firearm possession/use, or hazmat possession/use) can be found out by anyone using FOIA -- but rather, whether that information ought to be made *easily* and publicly available, in say a database accessible over the web (with a map, no less).  frankly, I want my neighbors, and the govt (including FD and PD) to know I'm processing/manufacturing products using hazmats, and that I handle them legally and responsibly, and that I pose no threat to them or their business/enterprise.  similar, if I'm a firearm owner, I'd want my neighbors, and the FD and PD, to know I have them, I use them legally and responsibly, and that I pose no threat to them.

hiding behind 'right to privacy' may be legal (not clear it is), but I submit does not make good sense, if one is a member of a community.

yes, vigilantism is the precisely right word to characterize the problem/dilemma:  public interest carried too far.

mendicant98 wrote:
if you are simply positing the dumping/econ pris dilemma as a means of distinguishing firearms from hazardous materials, then I think the juxtaposition reinforces the analogy, and doesn't diminish it.  because it's actually not cheaper to just bury hazmats.  (unless perhaps you're talking about Bubba in the boonies.)  most people who use hazmats get that.  just as most people who own and use firearms get that legal use makes a lot more sense (including economic sense) than illegal use.


re:  the 'thought crime' thread -- I literally did not read it.  I understand your capsule characterization, and have to agree; laws/regs of that nature are not getting at the heart of the problem(s).

I appreciate your response.

I did intend the prisoner's dilemma literally and as a contrast.  Absent a regulatory framework, it is to the individual's benefit to do environmental harm with hazardous waste (not specifically hazardous chemicals--a distinction I may have omitted). 

You might be familiar with a different set of industries than I am, but I'd suspect that the economic costs of hauling and processing of hazardous wastes to the user are far higher than dumping or burying them.  The "total cost" including externalities is most certainly higher in the dumping scenario.  Is that what you intended?  I am not implying that all handlers of hazmat would be poor stewards, but that the incentive exists.

I can't see where that stands up in the firearms case (unless you believe that owning a firearm provides a talisman like influence over the owner to "do bad things").  Again, I do not mean that all hazmat handlers did bad before regulation, only that all had at least some incentive to. The chemicals are not a means to doing bad, they are the ends. 

I understand what you are referring to now on the "thread." I misunderstood your reference to mean my line of thinking in this particular exchange, not a previous thread.   I actually don't think that thread was about this sort of thought crime (at least I don't think it was--struggling to remember [EDIT: It was about the idiot racist football player]).  I was just referring to this particular instance of thought crime (or "pre-crime" if you like).