Gun permit secrecy spreads to Arkansas…

Arkansas’ state senate has passed a bill banning the release of gun owners’ names and ZIP codes, the only information currently available to seekers of public records under the state’s Freedom of Information law.

“Republican state Senator Bruce Holland, the bill’s sponsor, said he introduced the legislation after a constituent contacted him with concerns about the Journal News’ actions,” Suzi Parker reports. The suburban New York paper published a map of local gun-permit holders in late December, a move that caused New York state to tighten access to the records. The Journal News removed the map last month.

Nicholas Stehle of the gun-advocacy group Arkansas Carry said the names and ZIP codes of gun owners are “more information than I’d be comfortable sharing if I were a single woman with an abusive ex-husband.” Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe opposes the bill, which now goes before the state house of representatives, in which Republicans have a small majority.

On Monday, Arkansas approved a law allowing people to bring guns into churches.

Connecticut Going the Other Way on Gun Records?

Now THIS is interesting…

The names and addresses of about 170,000 handgun permit holders in Connecticut, now kept confidential by law, could be made public under a proposed bill that pits gun owners against would-be reformers in the aftermath of the Dec. 14 Newtown school massacre.

The bill, introduced by Rep. Stephen D. Dargan, D-West Haven, co-chairman of the legislature’s public safety committee, would make public the names and addresses of permit holders under Connecticut’s Freedom of Information Act — and would reverse lawmakers’ decision to protect that personal information from disclosure nearly two decades ago…

Gun permit issues pop up in North Carolina…

The battle over gun permit data in New York spreads to another state:

A Gaston County commissioner wants to put personal information contained in gun permits – now part of the public record – out of public view.

At Thursday night’s board of commissioners’ work session, vice chairman Tracy Philbeck introduced a measure asking the county’s legislators to change the current law.

Sheriffs’ offices in North Carolina are required to maintain records of handgun purchases issued by their offices, and those records include information such as names, addresses and ages. The public has access to this information, and Philbeck wants that stopped.

“In light of recent events, the media has taken advantage of the public records law and abused it,” he said, referring to news reports that followed incidents such as last month’s shooting at a Connecticut school. “This information should not be used to criminalize or defame gun owners.”

As an example of abuse he mentioned Raleigh-based WRAL-TV’s story last summer about concealed-carry permit holders. He said the story included an online database of public information that allowed people to search street names in the station’s 22-county viewing area for permit holders.

Philbeck believes that people who go through the application process and legally obtain a gun “should expect some form of privacy.”

He wants county commissioners to support legislation that would exempt handgun purchase permits and concealed-carry permits from sheriffs’ office lists accessible by the public at large.

Philbeck said Gaston County Sheriff Alan Cloninger “is in full support of this action.”

Enhanced by Zemanta

NY gun records draw lawsuit by NYT reporters…back in 2010

Gawker moved the story forward yet again, publishing a list of gun permit holders in New York City.

In the Gawker piece, the author writes that the list he got “contains only the names, and not the addresses, of the licensees,” and though he argued that both were supposed to be public information based on Article 400 of the Penal Code, that the “only way to get the associated addresses from the NYPD, as the law requires, would be to take them to court, which no one has apparently done.”

And as this post at capitalnewyork.com helpfully points out, actually someone has.

Though the New York Times hasn’t acknowledged as much in its coverage of the issue, in 2010, three New York Times reporters sued the New York Police Department over what it described as the department’s failure to comply with state law requiring public access to information, including the addresses of gun-permit holders in New York City.

“We’ve become increasingly concerned over the last two years about a growing lack of transparency at the N.Y.P.D.,” David McCraw, a lawyer for the newspaper, said at the time. “Information that was once released is now withheld. Disclosures that could be made quickly are put on hold for months.”

Among the reporters who filed suit was Jo Craven McGinty.

According to the lawsuit, in May of 2010, McGinty filed a Freedom of Information Law request for an electronic copy of the database containing names and addresses of all gun permit holders who live in New York City.

The NYPD gave her the names, too, but refused to give her the accompanying addresses, arguing that doing so might endanger the life or safety of permit-holders.

In court, the police department also argued that the law allowed it to withhold the addresses if it believed that they would be used for fund-raising or commercial purposes.

McGinty went on to submit an affidavit affirming that she did not intend to use the names or addresses for solicitation or fund-raising purposes, nor would she give the information to anyone with that intention.

The judge argued that others could use the published data for those purposes if it were published, which complicated the issue; ultimately, she ruled that the list should be released to the Times, but that some redactions could be allowed:

Inasmuch as the Times could not control the use to which others might put the addresses requested from the NYPD, were the Times to place them on the Internet, Ms. McGinty‘s affidavit, in effect, bars the Times from putting the addresses on line. Accordingly, the Times is entitled to have the residential addresses of gun licensees in searchable electronic form, as already redacted to delete the names and addresses of retired law enforcement officers and several current or former civilian government employees. Petitioners have not opposed such redaction.

The NYPD appealed the verdict, and the case was argued before the appellate division in May, and is awaiting a decision. If another decision comes down against the NYPD, it’s likely to go to the Court of Appeals.

Enhanced by Zemanta

NY Paper Publishes Database of Handgun Permits…Chaos Ensues

The saga of the Journal News database of gun permits continues to make headlines, so I thought I’d bring a few of the latest to the blog…

A newspaper based in White Plains that drew nationwide anger after publishing the names and addresses of handgun permit holders last month is being guarded by armed security personnel at two of its offices, the publisher said Wednesday.

The increased security comes as the newspaper, The Journal News, has promised to forge ahead with plans to expand its interactive map of permit holders to include a third county in the suburbs of New York City, and local officials there have vowed to block the records’ release.

The armed guards — hired from local private security companies — have been stationed in The Journal News’s headquarters and in a satellite office in West Nyack, N.Y., since last week, said Janet Hasson, the president and publisher of The Journal News Media Group.

“The safety of my staff is my top priority,” Ms. Hasson said in a telephone interview.

The newspaper prompted a national discussion and a torrent of rage online after it published an interactive mapof handgun permit holders in Westchester and Rockland Counties on its Web site last month. The Journal News had gathered the information from public records after the school shooting in nearby Newtown, Conn.

Predictably enough, the response has been histrionic. The county has denied further FOI requests for related records, despite the fact that they are not exempt under New York law.

State lawmakers are making noise about an exemption, though.

Slate weighs in, arguing for continued access. Ken Paulson at the Freedom Forum added a nice look as well.

And some disturbed individual sent the newspaper a package containing a white powdery substance.

Gun Secrecy Bill Dies in Virginia…

Miracles never cease

A state Senate committee has killed a bill to close concealed-weapons permit information to public view.
Del. Mark Cole, R–Spotsylvania, said he brought the bill because he doesn’t think concealed-carry permits should be public, the way marriage licenses and divorce decrees are.

“This would treat the concealed-carry permit info similar to how we currently treat things like driver’s licenses,” which are not open to the public, Cole said.

His bill, which had already passed the House, was supported by gun-rights groups, which say publicizing the information could endanger those who get concealed-carry permits for protection.

 

On Civil Discourse, Gun Permits and Hate Mail…

NEW YORK - NOVEMBER 13:  Journalist John Stoss...

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

As referenced in an earlier post, I appeared on Fox Business News’ Stossel program to argue against closing gun registries and concealed weapons permits. It was a lively, interesting exchange, far more entertaining than I had anticipated. Well, it’s been running all weekend, and I can time it by the hateful e-mails I get 🙂

How disappointing! And how reflective of today’s intellectual climate, in which an exchange of ideas instantly becomes transformed into a lowest-common-denominator hatefest.

Perhaps this is why: I said on the show, and will repeat again, that licensure is an extension of state power, and thus is a public act. What’s more, the arguments against public information here run on two equally misguided assumptions: (1) that guileful, cunning criminals, the likes of which have to date never been documented, will use FOI to plot sweeping burglaries against homes bristling with weaponry and (2) that some right of privacy emanates from the Second Amendment.

Neither is a discussion that Fox Business News’ weekend audience wants to have in a civil way. But hey, I’m a big boy, so I am more than open to a non-emotional (“Because they SHOULD be closed!”) argument that an entire category of public information should be closed, on policy grounds.

As I wade through the hate mail and personal attacks, I will await that argument.

cd

Enhanced by Zemanta