• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Robbers steal two more guns from newspapers map

zack991

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
1,535
Location
Ohio, USA
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/burglars-steal-two-more-guns-newpapers

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...just-days-similar-break-in.html#ixzz2IHZYyD6p
 
Last edited by a moderator:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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."
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
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.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
The newspaper exhibited bad form. REALLY bad form.

But the state bears the liability for requiring the registration and making it a public record.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Who would register their legally owned firearms? Its none of anyone's business what guns you have, most especially, the government.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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.
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
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.
 

skeith5

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2012
Messages
356
Location
United States
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.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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:

skeith5

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2012
Messages
356
Location
United States
Re: Robbera steal two more guns from newspapers map

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
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
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?
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
vidual

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.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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.
 

PFC HALE

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
481
Location
earth
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.
 

mtbinva

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
82
Location
Mount Nebo, WV
"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.
 

PFC HALE

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
481
Location
earth
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...
 
Top