Dusty sent along a link to No Silence Here, a local blog at KnoxNews.com, about the Memphis Commercial Appeal's posting a searchable database of Tennessee concealed carry permit holders. This is what Dusty had to say:
Just sent this to my buddy in Tennessee who carries a weapon. I then sent a copy of the page from the Commercial Appeal with his info. Coming soon to a Kansas paper near you?
Dusty
P.S. Scroll down to the city of Memphis in the bar chart. There's a reason they call it "Mogadishu." These permits are needed, if you ask me.
Predictably, this raised a shitestorm of outrage, as the database contained addresses, not just names. Say Uncle, the Greyhawk of the gunbloggers, and others reacted and caught the paper's attention, and in a way designed to catch the attention of the newspaper, which they did - and they at least stripped out the addresses.
I actually liked the idea of taking the senior management personnel (leave the rest alone, they implement decisions, not make them) and do public records searches on them, and create a postable database. That might help them understand the concerns of people who find their information just hanging out there to be had.
The usual arguments are "You're publishing a map that says "Here are where there are guns to steal!"
True enough. I would note that in response to Dusty's Kansas question, the Armorer doesn't carry, and therefore doesn't have a permit. I do have an 03 FFL, however. But that data is protected because ATFE did figure out that posting 03 FFL data in their EZ Check system for dealers would be tantamount to publishing a menu for sophisticated gun thieves. Downside, I can't fax my license to a dealer, because they can't verify them, but hey, that's okay.
I have another argument for *not* doing it, however. It's the flip side of the first.
Because the thieves can just as likely use the database to look up targets and say to themselves... "Hmmmmm, concealed permit holder - trained, with stated willingness to use it - let's find a softer target. clickety-click-click "Okay, this guy has no permit, lives in a nice area, likely to have some good stuff, I'll go hit him."
Of course, that might lead him to the Castle, which he might find annoying. But there's your lawsuit from the other side... "The guy hit my house because he figured there was a good chance I was a gun-fearing wussy!"
Just a thought. Certainly does show that we've got some tinkering to do with our concepts and the realities of privacy in a digital age.
Public records that were public but you still had to go in to a central location and pore over them really is different from public records where anyone with a digital device from anywhere can quickly gather that data, and anonymously.
they want to violate our priivacy for thier little anti- 2nd amendment crusade, we can do the same. see how thier families like it.
I'm tired of being nice. I'm tired of being civil. these lists put people in danger. and they need to share in that danger. maybe after a few get attacked they'll figure out it wasn't such a high moral crusade anymore, and that they are in the same trenches we are.
http://www.commercialappeal.com/staff/
http://shotsacrossthebow.com/archives/003287.html#003287
I have a carry card, but no one knows what weapons I may have.
Speaking of privacy: Is there a on-line, searchable database of abortion records? I mean, those doctors are regulated by the government right..? (then again, what's NOT regulated by the government anymore?)
Grumpy
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.
It doesn't say that you have a right to privacy, but it is interpreted that the reason gov't can't just come in to your house and take a look around willy-nilly is because those things are considered "private". Thus, since "what a woman does with her own body" is argued to be a "private" matter, the gov't can't violate it. Appearently, though, "what a woman carries to protect her own body" isn't considered "private", and so the gov't can not only collect that information, they can publish it to the world.
And goodness, the previous post didn't get formatted anything like what it looked like in the editor. My bad.
Well there you go, and I thought it was a separate document.
Yep, the BoR is just a nickname for the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. It's perfectly understandable, however, to think they are seperate documents as the BoR is often referenced alone. In fact, most challenges brought to the courts do center around those 10 because unlike most of the rest of the Constitution which sets down what the .gov *may* do, the BoR says what the .gov *can't* do.
You are exactly right on the "reasonableness" issue. But I guess protecting a mother wanting to kill her unborn child is considered reasonable while it isn't for a mother wanting to protect her's.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that the concept of "an armed society is a polite society" is necessarily true, but knowing that everybody in the room is carrying sure is a nice extra incentive to be civil.