Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 SOFDC wrote:

Going back to the map, I am interested by the large number of permit holders in upstate NY compared to the small number in the Manhattan and Long Island areas.

That's what happens in a may-issue state. Some areas are more lenient than others. One county office may not issue to anyone that isn't politically connected, one may be almost shall-issue.

Same thing in California. If you can get in through all the backlog, you will be looking at an almost shall-issue situation in Sacramento county.....but good luck in any of the bay area counties unless you are:

A: A politician (They're better than us peasants)
B: A Badge-holder (They're also better than us peasants)
C: A contributor to someone`s re-election fund. (They're useful, and also better than us peasants.)

May it crack off into the ocean after I leave.

May-Issue permits are the bane of any free person's right to defend themselves. It's all well and good that NYC has the largest police force in the country, they cannot be in ever nook & cranny in that concrete jungle. Since getting a permit is de facto banned and knives over 3.5 inches are illegal to carry, better have your tape wrapped fists and other "non-lethal" methods against some determined criminals, I'm sure they'll give you a fair fight as well as first blood, especially with their illegally possessed weapons.

There's not enough police in this nation to cover every square inch of the major metropolitan areas to make crime go away. Crime exists/existed in every police state on this planet and will continue to forever. The tools might improve, but the motives haven't really changed over all of the years.

It's a damned travesty that children had to be the one's to suffer the pyschopath's delusional motives of "revenge" for taking away his Mother's attention, but she broke no laws in possessing those weapons, he certainly did by murdering her to commit more crime with illegally possessed firearms. He broke no less than 5 Connecticut state laws regarding firearms and at least 3-5 federal laws. No piece of paper could stop him though. No one should be using this tragedy for some misguided political gain. I don't care who they are, more laws won't make events like this go away.

All the more reason to better police ourselves as citizens and responsible firearms owners instead of arbitrary laws based off of some musings from California Senator who has a C&C license (but doesn't believe anyone else could possibly need one at all) and who also based her rulings in the last Assault Weapons ban off of what looked menacing in catalogs. That shows a categorical lack of any kind of knowledge of the subject beyond some cursory knowledge more than likely acquired from movies instead of some actual, tangible experience.

 Stormrider wrote:

No one should be using this tragedy for some misguided political gain. I don't care who they are, more laws won't make events like this go away.

As we speak, twitter is aflame with people trying to do that right now.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 dogma wrote:

FOIA requests cannot be denied on the basis of potential public harm.

Yes they can. They use the blanket 'national security' or 'executive privilege' and it ends up being a lengthy court battle, win or lose.

No, they really can't. The list of FOIA exemptions is quite specific, and none of them provide for a denial due to potential public harm. It is true that a FOIA requests could be denied using any of the existential exemptions for a reason other than specified, but that has nothing to do with the comment I made.

Also, there is no exemption that has anything to do with executive privilege. You may be thinking of the inter/intra-agency exemption.

 dogma wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 dogma wrote:

FOIA requests cannot be denied on the basis of potential public harm.

Yes they can. They use the blanket 'national security' or 'executive privilege' and it ends up being a lengthy court battle, win or lose.

No, they really can't. The list of FOIA exemptions is quite specific, and none of them provide for a denial due to potential public harm. It is true that a FOIA requests could be denied using any of the existential exemptions for a reason other than specified, but that has nothing to do with the comment I made.

Also, there is no exemption that has anything to do with executive privilege. You may be thinking of the inter/intra-agency exemption.

Guys... what are we arguing over?

The legality of publishing this information for mass consumption? Or, the morality of doing something like this?

 whembly wrote:

Guys... what are we arguing over?

The legality of publishing this information for mass consumption? Or, the morality of doing something like this?

Most likely the morality, though dispute quoted references the Federal FOIA law, which does not apply to state governments. In the relevant case we would need to reference New York's FOIL law which, to wit, has a personal privacy exemption, and an exemption that individuals may apply when submitting documents to the state.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Guys... what are we arguing over?

The legality of publishing this information for mass consumption? Or, the morality of doing something like this?

Most likely the morality, though dispute quoted references the Federal FOIA law, which does not apply to state governments. In the relevant case we would need to reference New York's FOIL law which, to wit, has a personal privacy exemption, and an exemption that individuals may apply when submitting documents to the state.

Ah... thanks.

Not familiar with NY's FOIL law... I find it odd that it isn't by default that one couldn't disseminate personal information like that.

 whembly wrote:

Not familiar with NY's FOIL law... I find it odd that it isn't by default that one couldn't disseminate personal information like that.

Its a question of what is, and is not, considered an unreasonable violation of personal privacy and New York has specific guidelines to determine that.

Interestingly, on reading the law, there is also an exemption for disclosures that may endanger any person. The list of exemptions is in section 87, subsection 2.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Is planned parenthood a government agency? So it has nothing to do with the situation.

And all physicians are already online in Oklahoma, including where they work. So I can already get that information.

Why does the pre-requisite need to be a government agency?

You're not answering my question.

A) It's legal to own firearms, but in NY you need to be licensed thus the state knows who and where you live.

B) In NY, it's legal to perform abortions and since they're licensed medical professionals, the state knows where they work and live.

Both A and B are legal.

If you're okay with some news agency (Gannett) publishing the whereabouts of the licensed gun owners, then you ought to be okay with Gannett (hypotetically) publishing the whereabout of those who works at Planned Parenthood.

Me... it's a slippery slope and wouldn't allow this sort of thing to happen, but I'm not sure if Gannett broke any laws.

What if Gannett published the names and addresses of everyone who had abortions in NY? Still just fine with it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Here's an interesting tidbit to come out: apparently police response time between the 911 call and cops arrival on the scene was... less than spectacular. 20 min from 911 to arrival bad.

As the mustache-twirling psychopaths who own guns for personal protection have been saying for years: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Calling the police in most serious self-defense scenarios basically amounts to giving the authorities a general idea of where to find your body.

So why not campaign for law enforcement to receive more funding, allowing for more officers on the street, more cars, helicopters etc.?

Remember, the police have no duty to protect you. Thats settled case law.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AustonT wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
It's also worth noting that Police Officers of any kind have no legal duty to protect you whatsoever.

That can't be wholly true.

Thats extremely true. Its derived from NY case law. The police have no duty whatsoever to protect individual citizens.

Case update: Adam Lanza was confirmed to have left his stolen rifle in the car but did have four pistols in the school. It's also been reported that Lanza showed up at the school a week or so before hand and was involved in a physical altercation with four of the staff members.

Citation?

Sheriff Joe is getting into the act...


http://ktar.com/22/1598173/Sheriff-Arpaio-plans-to-put-armed-posse-members-at-schools

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio plans to start putting armed members of his volunteer posse near schools in the wake of the mass shooting in an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut.

Arpaio doesn’t plan to put posse members inside schools but will have them posted around the perimeters.

“Why not utilize the posse into patrolling schools in our areas?” Arpaio asks.

With what he thinks is no reason not to, he’ll start this new idea within the next week.

The specific schools are not yet known but volunteers will be spread throughout Arpaio’s jurisdiction and he has identified certain areas.

The posse members are qualified for the job, according to Arpaio.

“Our posses are well trained with over 100 hours of how to use weapons [and] they have authority under the elected sheriff,” Arpaio said. “I feel they’ll be a great asset to schools around our area.”

They would be armed with a side-arm and not a semi-automatic weapon.

Because school shootings are THAT frequent.

Mattman154 wrote:
Because school shootings are THAT frequent.

*shrugs*
If it makes everyone feel safe.. have at it. You wouldn't have to cover every school at the same time. Just let it be known that there is "posse" the do rounds in the school district. That may give the "whackos" a pause thinking... "damn, don't know when those guys will show up... should I?"

 AustonT wrote:
Citation?

From MSNBC: http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Citation?

From MSNBC: http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495

The problem is so much bad reporting and misinformation has come out on this it's hard to say what's accurate anymore.

There's video footage of a press conference where the medical examiner says the Bushmaster was used to kill the victims, and I believe it is more recent than that MSNBC clip. I think there is a police press conference (it might be the same press conference) where they basically say the same thing.

 whembly wrote:
Sheriff Joe is getting into the act...

Of course he is. Why waste a good opportunity for publicity?

Frazzled wrote:What if Gannett published the names and addresses of everyone who had abortions in NY? Still just fine with it?

Medical consultations are privileged.

I would also oppose release of records of republican party members who had treatment for haemorrhoids, or gun owners who had treatment for eye or mental problems.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Citation?

From MSNBC: http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495

Here's the problem I have with that.
"we are hearing from federal blah blah"
vs. the statement of the Medical Examiner
One of them is wrong, and somehow I trust an ME before a journalist. Do you know of a 223 pistol that's not a stubby AR?
Unless there's been another look at the bodies how is the discrepancy between the ME identifying 223 holes and the assertion of cable journalists that contradict that?

 Frazzled wrote:

What if Gannett published the names and addresses of everyone who had abortions in NY? Still just fine with it?

The disclosure of medical records is specifically prohibited under FOIL. No such specific prohibition exists for gun registry, though an argument could be made under the clause regarding denial on the basis of compromising safety. Particularly if the argument was made regarding the safety of gun owners.

I guess you could claim that the press should exhibit discretion regarding privacy, but I think it would be a bit unfair to single this one case out; as the press rarely considers privacy absent legal restriction. Indeed, its arguable as to whether or not they should.

Surely the point of owning a gun is to defend one's self.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Surely the point of owning a gun is to defend one's self.

That's true. And, actually, after looking back at the specific text, there is no provision for denial of a FOIL request on the basis of a general threat to safety. That only applies regarding criminal investigations. So, basically, strike the argument I just made, I was mistaken.

In order to deny a FOIL request for firearms registration, there would need to exist a separate statutory exemption, or an amended definition of "an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Surely the point of owning a gun is to defend one's self.

I always assumed it was to pick up chicks... I read somewhere that chicks love cold hard steel They may have been talking about a good chef's knife set...

Alfndrate wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Surely the point of owning a gun is to defend one's self.

I always assumed it was to pick up chicks... I read somewhere that chicks love cold hard steel They may have been talking about a good chef's knife set...

Women love a man tha can cook.

 AustonT wrote:

Alfndrate wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Surely the point of owning a gun is to defend one's self.

I always assumed it was to pick up chicks... I read somewhere that chicks love cold hard steel They may have been talking about a good chef's knife set...

Women love a man tha can cook.

Are you sure? 1950's Gentleman Bi-Quarterly says that Women love a man that loves a woman that can cook....

On topic though I feel that gun ownership can be broken into more than just to defend one's self. It can be used for sport (whether for target or game shooting), self defense, or for pure collection value.

Perhaps people need a lot of guns for different purposes.

 Alfndrate wrote:

On topic though I feel that gun ownership can be broken into more than just to defend one's self. It can be used for sport (whether for target or game shooting), self defense, or for pure collection value.

You forgot "overthrowing government fascists", and "establishing a homeland for race X".

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps people need a lot of guns for different purposes.

Some collections are a little ridiculous. Realistically your "average" gun owner that doesn't hunt or do competitive shooting. Probably only wants/needs 3 to 4 guns. Probably 1 to 2 pistols, a Rifle, and a Shotgun. I've got 2 guns, a rifle and a pistol. I probably don't need the rifle with the size of bullets that it fires, but it's fun to go out and just have fun with distance shooting. (head to the outdoor range with my buddies and see which of us can hit farther targets, etc...). My pistol is for indoor target practices and shooting, as well as home defense. The first activity aids in the second one.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps people need a lot of guns for different purposes.

Much like a table setting for an 8-course dinner.

 AustonT wrote:
Here's the problem I have with that.
"we are hearing from federal blah blah"
vs. the statement of the Medical Examiner
One of them is wrong, and somehow I trust an ME before a journalist. Do you know of a 223 pistol that's not a stubby AR?
Unless there's been another look at the bodies how is the discrepancy between the ME identifying 223 holes and the assertion of cable journalists that contradict that?

I tend to believe the AR was used as well, but I also have to wonder how familiar an ME in Sleepyville, CT is with gunshot wounds.