Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wouldn't care if my child had a playdate in the home of someone who had filed for bankruptcy or was a Medicaid recipient.... but I most certainly would care if he had a playdate with someone who had a gun in the home. It is, and should be, public record, so whats the big deal? Lots of things get put in the paper, including delinquent child support parents and court petitions.... no one makes a stink about those.
most people where i live have multiple guns and it is really no big deal. now, what about houses that have dangerous dog breeds?
I'm not a fan of publicly posting anyone's information, whether it's public information or not. To me it's a "grab your pitchforks" intonation. Regardless of whether I support the reasons they are doing it or not, I don't support making people targets of possible harassment. Especially today.
This is the first time I’ve ever agreed with you on anything.
I know guns are stolen from cars left unlocked in Florida all the time.
Ah that's the smarter way to steal a gun. When searching the house they have no clue if the owner or someone isn't home to shoot them or call for help and they get caught. Most homes today have camera's the owner can look in on or get alerted someone is in the home.
I see it all the time on the community camera on my phone people check cars all hours of the night to steal what is inside but now they don't stop there they actually take the car.
Ok, then let's start publishing the names and addresses of the following:
Personal Bankruptcy filers
Food stamp recipients
Welfare recipients
SSDI recipients
Medicaid recipients
People losing their homes to Sheriff's sale
Unemployment benefit recipients
People committed to mental institutions by order of a judge (temporarily or otherwise)
People who have filed for divorce
Death certificates (with cause of death, suicide, etc...)
People receiving early intervention services from the state for autism, aspergers, and other childhood developmental disorders
I'm not talking about in the back of the paper in 1/2 point font where some of this stuff is listed already. I'm talking about in an article on the front page. Just because something is a public record doesn't mean it's a good idea to widely publish it
Yes I have to say that is going over the top to put that information in the newspapers, on the front page. Why not just have it in a website where they type in the name of whom they want information on. That is what is done to public employees salaries.
Yes I have to say that is going over the top to put that information in the newspapers, on the front page. Why not just have it in a website where they type in the name of whom they want information on. That is what is done to public employees salaries.
But why would you? What makes people think this should be available to the public?
But why would you? What makes people think this should be available to the public?
I'm a bit annoyed I'm responding in a thread brought way back from the dead, but this information is public information. It should be available to the public, just like all those other items (bankruptcy, foreclosure, etc.) listed on the front page.
The real question is, "is this newsworthy?" And in this case, it clearly isn't. Posting names of people with gun permits, when you are a journalist, is very much a form of doxxing. It might be newsworthy if someone holding a gun permit committed murder, but it is not newsworthy to hold a permit.
So the information should be available to the public, but it is wrong for a journalist to just publish names of permit holders who otherwise have no reason to be in the news. That is doxxing.
I'm a bit annoyed I'm responding in a thread brought way back from the dead, but this information is public information. It should be available to the public, just like all those other items (bankruptcy, foreclosure, etc.) listed on the front page.
The real question is, "is this newsworthy?" And in this case, it clearly isn't. Posting names of people with gun permits, when you are a journalist, is very much a form of doxxing. It might be newsworthy if someone holding a gun permit committed murder, but it is not newsworthy to hold a permit.
So the information should be available to the public, but it is wrong for a journalist to just publish names of permit holders who otherwise have no reason to be in the news. That is doxxing.
I guess you'll be even more annoyed that you have to clarify your position.
Why should this (either permit holders or purchases) be public information?
I guess you'll be even more annoyed that you have to clarify your position.
Why should this (either permit holders or purchases) be public information?
A bit of a moot point in NJ since N.J.A.C. 13:54-1.15 says permits are not public information.
But I would not be against permits (or some portion of a permit) being available to the public for inspection. I can think of scenarios where I would want to know whether someone possesses guns. I don't feel too strongly on this but generally I don't think it's a terrible idea for a neighbor to verify whether their unhinged neighbor wielding a gun actually has a permit, or if a family member might be abusing someone, etc.
At the end of the day I'm not looking for a searchable database or anything like that, just to be able to make an OPRA request asking "does my unhinged neighbor hold a valid gun permit?"
EDIT: I'll just add that if dog grooming companies can OPRA request pet permits, gun permits being subject to OPRA doesn't seem too crazy.
Last edited by midnight_thunder; 05-09-2022 at 01:05 PM..
Reason: added a point I thought about after the fact that wasn't terrible
Thats a hell of a non sequitur. You're comparing requirements as part of a conviction to legal gun purchase?
I forgot to come back to this. Another reason I asked the question is because if people aren’t protesting outside convicted sex offenders’ homes even though that is public information, what makes people think that making gun owner info public will cause some sort of uproar (even in liberal communities)? It’s a big fuss about nothing
I would not deny a playdate at a friend's house, but would ask how the guns are secured.
Yes, they are secured. Don't you feel safe now?
Later the evening news, will have a story about how a tearful parent will say, "But the parents told me, yes they have guns, but the guns were secured."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
