Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Robbers steal two more guns from newspapers map

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558

    Robbers steal two more guns from newspapers map

    Thieves ransacked a house that features on the gun map published by the Journal News, just days after another home on the list was also targeted.
    Burglars broke into the house in New City, New York, on Wednesday and pried open two safes, before leaving with another one. The criminals escaped with two handguns, two pistol permits, cash, savings bonds and jewelry. The firearms were in the stolen safe.
    Burglars also broke into a house in White Plains, New York, on Saturday and headed straight for the gun safe.
    The thieves struck at this house just three weeks after the names and addresses of legal firearms permit holders were published on the controversial gun map published by the journal news.

    http://www.drudge.com/news/164774/bu...guns-newpapers

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2IHZYyD6p
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 01-23-2013 at 08:21 PM. Reason: Fixed title
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  2. #2
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    I think I read somewhere that the cops would prosecute the paper if this sort of incident(s) were to occur and it could be found that the map is what facilitated the crime. We will only know if the thieves are brought to justice and asked the question. Only time will tell whether or not the cops will abide by their "pledge."
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  3. #3
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    I think I read somewhere that the cops would prosecute the paper if this sort of incident(s) were to occur and it could be found that the map is what facilitated the crime. We will only know if the thieves are brought to justice and asked the question. Only time will tell whether or not the cops will abide by their "pledge."
    A civil lawsuit, perhaps even class action, is more likely to have teeth than holding our breath until the cops prosecute the paper.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    The newspaper exhibited bad form. REALLY bad form.

    But the state bears the liability for requiring the registration and making it a public record.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Who would register their legally owned firearms? Its none of anyone's business what guns you have, most especially, the government.

  6. #6
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Who would register their legally owned firearms? Its none of anyone's business what guns you have, most especially, the government.
    But the law said you have to.....so I lined up with the rest of the sheeple and obeyed the law. hack, cough, sputter.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    It's public information, no lawsuit will prevail.

    I suspect some individuals are demanding that the State do something about this supposid breach of privacy?--as I stated, this information is a public matter. Don't get so worked-up over it.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  8. #8
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    It's public information, no lawsuit will prevail.

    I suspect some individuals are demanding that the State do something about this supposid breach of privacy?--as I stated, this information is a public matter. Don't get so worked-up over it.
    So says you and the people who allowed it to be so considered. It is not a public matter, it is very private information.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    So says you and the people who allowed it to be so considered. It is not a public matter, it is very private information.
    Nope, the information is public information, and can be displayed publicly. In this particular realm, you have no reasonable Right to Privacy.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  10. #10
    Regular Member skeith5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    357
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Nope, the information is public information, and can be displayed publicly. In this particular realm, you have no reasonable Right to Privacy.
    You are incorrect. New York's Freedom of Information Law States:

    87. 2. Each agency shall, in accordance with its published rules, make available for public inspection and copying all records, except that such agency may deny access to records or portions thereof that:

    (b) if disclosed would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under the provisions of subdivision two of section eighty-nine of this article:

    (f) if disclosed could endanger the life or safety of any person.

    Subdivision 2 of section 89 basically talks about withholding records to prevent unwarranted invasions of personal privacy, 3 robberies so far would definitely be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The agency CLEARLY violated NY FOIL. I hope they sue the agency that disclosed the information.
    Too lazy to do a blog! Follow me on Twitter instead! @6ShotScott

  11. #11
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by skeith5 View Post
    You are incorrect. New York's Freedom of Information Law States:

    87. 2. Each agency shall, in accordance with its published rules, make available for public inspection and copying all records, except that such agency may deny access to records or portions thereof that:

    (b) if disclosed would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under the provisions of subdivision two of section eighty-nine of this article:

    (f) if disclosed could endanger the life or safety of any person.

    Subdivision 2 of section 89 basically talks about withholding records to prevent unwarranted invasions of personal privacy, 3 robberies so far would definitely be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The agency CLEARLY violated NY FOIL. I hope they sue the agency that disclosed the information.
    That's an Ex Post Facto issue, for the individual to prove.

    3 robberies, out of tens of thousands of permit holders does not meet that standard, IMO. Is there solid proof that the homes were robbed, based on the information provided by the website that displayed where permit holders live?
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 01-21-2013 at 06:01 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  12. #12
    Regular Member skeith5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    357

    Re: Robbera steal two more guns from newspapers map

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    That's an Ex Post Facto issue, for the individual to prove.

    3 robberies, out of tens of thousands of permit holders does not meet that standard, IMO. Is there solid proof that the homes were robbed, based on the information provided by the website that displayed where permit holders live?
    My understanding is that the ones committing the robberies did mention the list as the reason for targeting the specific houses.

    Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
    Too lazy to do a blog! Follow me on Twitter instead! @6ShotScott

  13. #13
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    That's an Ex Post Facto issue, for the individual to prove.

    3 robberies, out of tens of thousands of permit holders does not meet that standard, IMO. Is there solid proof that the homes were robbed, based on the information provided by the website that displayed where permit holders live?
    Ex Post Facto? Really? How exactly would ex post facto apply since the law was written prior to the commission of the offending action?
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    Ex Post Facto? Really? How exactly would ex post facto apply since the law was written prior to the commission of the offending action?
    I'm using the term loosely. I was making no reference to jurisprudence.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 01-22-2013 at 02:06 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  15. #15
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234

    vidual

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    I'm using the term loosely. I was making no reference to jurisprudence.
    It's a constitutional issue as well. Article I, Section 9, subsection 3 "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

    You'd have to use it quite loosely to even utter the term without crossing lines of jurisprudence and constitutionality. Individuals don't have "ex post facto issues" unless government has broken the constitutional restriction.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    It's a constitutional issue as well. Article I, Section 9, subsection 3 "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

    You'd have to use it quite loosely to even utter the term without crossing lines of jurisprudence and constitutionality. Individuals don't have "ex post facto issues" unless government has broken the constitutional restriction.
    Please, read the definition, slowly if you have to. Really think about the definition, and whether or not it relates exclusively to Law.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  17. #17
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Please, read the definition, slowly if you have to. Really think about the definition, and whether or not it relates exclusively to Law.
    As stated in the Constitution, it seems rather blariningly obvious.......yes, it only applies to the LAW...... ". . . ex post facto Law . . .".
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  18. #18
    Regular Member PFC HALE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    492

    Robbers steal two more guns from newspapers map

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Nope, the information is public information, and can be displayed publicly. In this particular realm, you have no reasonable Right to Privacy.
    so if it is public information why not post your addy up and see how secure you feel...

    or i could do it for ya like the newspaper did for these law abiding citizens expecting privacy. see how ya feel then little miss.
    HOPE FOR THE BEST, EXPECT THE WORST, PREPARE FOR WAR

  19. #19
    Regular Member mtbinva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Mount Nebo, WV
    Posts
    82

    Robbers steal two more guns from newspapers map

    "If disclosed, could endanger the life or safety of the individual."

    I think the reasonableness of this can be proved. Based on the climate of anti-gun individuals and death threats to the pro gun advocates and organizations, one could have a reasonable expectation of injury or bodily harm if the information is made public.
    Chance favors only the prepared mind.

    Louis Pasteur


  20. #20
    Regular Member PFC HALE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    492

    Robbers steal two more guns from newspapers map

    another thing you could prove the newspapers actions is the cause, what was the crime rate before and after the release of the individual names and addresses? if i were to find out someone has guns, then they can afford many other expensive things too.

    why do you think people stay anonymous on the internet? so they can run their mouths off and go to bed safe and sound. in real life bad things happen when you spout off at the gums in person...
    HOPE FOR THE BEST, EXPECT THE WORST, PREPARE FOR WAR

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •