Police records with the names and addresses of citizens licensed to carry concealed guns should not be public documents and therefore vulnerable to publication so "criminals will know where to go and steal guns," said state Rep. Tim Copeland.
Under the state's right-to-know law, licenses to carry concealed pistols and revolvers are now public records and subject to public disclosure to anyone who asks. Copeland, a Stratham Republican, seeks to reverse that as sponsor of a bill to exclude "firearms records from public records subject to disclosure under the right-to-know law."
He has the support of local law enforcers and the National Rifle Association and said that, so far, no one has raised an objection. The impetus, Copeland said, was a New York news organization's 2012 online publication of the names and addresses for all residents in two counties who had concealed-carry licenses.
After the story went national, and was met with widespread criticism, the report was removed from the Internet.
"That gave me the idea to do this," Copeland said. "Otherwise, you're telling the criminals where to go."
Gun thieves could use the information to "case" the residences of concealed-carry license holders, wait until no one is home, and "go in there and steal guns," he said.
Gun thefts are "very common," said Copeland, a retired New York police officer and New Hampshire Liquor Enforcement officer. "Criminals don't follow laws. They go out and steal guns from legitimate people."
Portsmouth Deputy Police Chief Corey MacDonald said his department "supports the legislation to exempt gun permit information from being public." Gun thefts are not uncommon in Portsmouth where, just last month, a pistol was reported stolen from a parked car.
The double-talking gun-rights phonies can't get their story straight. First they place signs indicating that the neighbor is for gun control, assuming the burglars would be most interested in going there. Now, they claim that thieves would target the homes WITH guns. And supposedly the entire push of this privacy bill is to prevent theft. What a bunch of hogwash.
If they wanted to prevent theft, they'd keep their guns locked up in safes when not in use. It's that simple.
No, the reason for this initiative is another one, an obvious one. When one of the secret concealed carry permit holders does something wrong, no one will know. In many cases even the authorities and statistics keepers won't know. All the better to continue the bizarre claim that permit holders are super-law-abiding. They're not. They're no more law-abiding than gun owners at large for the simple reason that the bar is set so low, practically anyone can earn a concealed carry permit. There's absolutely no attempt at ensuring that they're better trained, more responsible or smarter, yet, the gun-rights movement has a lot invested in the false claim that they are.
"All the better to continue the bizarre claim that permit holders are super-law-abiding."
ReplyDeleteWe've discussed this before in where we have shown that several states do keep track of the behavior of permit holder. I think during my last go around with whatever Anon was sniping at people, I had done a quick check and came up with five that do check and at least three that don't.
"Now, they claim that thieves would target the homes WITH guns."
Mike, you have often posted burglaries of gun stores lamenting on their lack of security even though they have alarms, video, etc. Of course, since they want to be found, they cant make a claim of privacy.
So what exactly is the argument justifying the public access of carry permit records? Should the public have the right to know the names of everyone who has a carry permit? And if that is your belief, why do you think there should be public access to this information?
I don't think that. I was just pointing out the double talking nonsense from your side and the nonsensical justification that it's about preventing theft.
DeletePublic gun owner lists have been used as burglars' treasure maps, as even this idiot Kos-Hole (but I repeat myself) admits.
DeleteAnd there is no "double talking nonsense" in asserting both that armed homeowners are far better equipped to defend themselves against home invaders than unarmed ones, and that providing burglars with a list of homes with guns helps the criminals steal guns.
It is generally not too difficult with observation to determine whether or not a home is occupied. Unoccupied home with guns, "Let's party!" says the burglar; occupied home with guns, "I'm outta here."
The "let's party" would be short lived if you lawful and responsible gun owners kept your extra guns locked up. But you don't want that, especially, you don't want anybody telling you you have to do that.
DeleteIt would be even shorter lived if the burglar had not been given a directory of where the guns are.
DeleteYeah, let's keep your gun ownership a big secret so you can continue to keep your extra guns under the mattress.
DeleteAh yes. A safe will stop them in their tracks.
DeleteBecause people with a specific intention to steal guns would NEVER think someone might keep guns in a safe and thus would NEVER bring tools to crack a safe.
And those of us who are lock our guns in safes don't worry about such break ins--obviously we KNOW our safes can never be breached by criminals using such a list.
Mike, how could you possibly justify this practice given how you always talk about multiple factors contributing to crimes, and gun laws are supposed to dampen this, not eliminate? Wouldn't you think that guns should be stored in safes AND there shouldn't be a public registry of where the guns are? I'm beginning to think theft prevention isn't your primary goal. Even if you believe your storage law idea will stop any and all gun thefts (so you might as well taunt the thieves with this information), the fact is those laws ARE NOT in place anywhere in the country right now. So why is it ok to make this information public?
DeleteMike,
DeleteIn states like New York which require registration of firearms, the government already know. The debate here is whether the general public has either the need or the right to know.
TS, I didn't say it's ok to make this information public. I'm just questioning your motives.
DeleteAnonymous said, "Because people with a specific intention to steal guns would NEVER think someone might keep guns in a safe and thus would NEVER bring tools to crack a safe."
DeleteSo, your point is what, that because SOME burglars will be able to break into a safe, no one should bother using one?
So you agree this information shouldn't be public and you're just arguing for the sake of arguing?
DeleteIt seems you're trying to point out hypocrisy but you haven't identified one person taking both these positions. Some people want privacy, while others like NRA bumper stickers and signs on their door saying, "this property is protected by Smith and Wesson". So what? Because some people like to advertise their gun ownership, everybody else doesn't deserve a right to privacy? Is it hypocrisy that some homosexuals are in the closet while others choose to be out?
Yeah, let's keep your gun ownership a big secret so you can continue to keep your extra guns under the mattress.
DeleteHmm . . . that wouldn't be my choice of places, but it is, obviously, none of my business where someone else keeps her guns.
As is of course obvious to anyone smarter than a hive insect, the solution is to dispense entirely with the notion of "permitting" the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right to keep and bear arms, removing the government, and government records, from the process, and thus ensuring the vital anonymity of gun ownership and gun bearing.
ReplyDeleteProblem solved. Don't thank me--it was my pleasure.
An extremely simplistic solution, and one I suspect motivated by self-centered concerns. Under your plan, criminals and unfit people would have even greater access to guns than they do now. But you don't give a fuck as long as you're as little inconvenienced as possible.
DeleteThe fundamental human right you're thinking of is the right to life. It does not necessarily include the the possession of any particular inanimate object. That's the bastardization of the amendment that you and your predecessors have perpetuated on the American people.
Initially, the amendment was about the militia. Or do you think the first four words were used for no reason at all?
The fundamental human right you're thinking of is the right to life
DeleteWhich, obviously, carries with it the right to the means of preserving that life. And I haven't "perpetuated" (snicker) any "bastardization[s]" on the American people.
Initially, the amendment was about the militia.
Yes, for the people to be able to form an effective militia, their right to keep and bear effective arms must be aggressively protected.
An extremely simplistic solution . . .
DeleteAre simple solutions of lesser merit than complex, elaborate, Rube Goldbergesque ones?
Simplicity is one of the cool things about fundamental human rights--you have to be as dense as a "gun control" advocate to have any trouble understanding them.
. . . and one I suspect motivated by self-centered concerns.
Well done, Captain Obvious! Indeed I do fight for my own self-interest in my fundamental human rights. If I did not, who would? More to the point, perhaps, why should I expect anyone to defend my rights, if I don't defend them myself?
As I stated, three States do not reflect the whole country, which is what you were claiming.
ReplyDeleteWhy should gun related business be kept secret from the public? Any business the government does with citizens should be public to all.
I know these loons thought Cheney making secret deals with energy companies on behalf of the American people, was something they cheer for.
The abuse of such secrecy, is obvious, except to the gun loons.
Why should gun related business be kept secret from the public? Any business the government does with citizens should be public to all.
DeleteWhich, again, is why the government should be kept out of it entirely.
So your position is that business done by the government with citizens should all be kept secret?
DeleteNo--my position, as I thought I'd made clear (there I go again, overestimating the quality of my audience), is that there should be no business with the government on this issue, because the question of who carries a defensive firearm is none of the government's business.
DeleteThat's a little hard to do since the only reason you have a right is because the government documents we live by say you do. Why should a gun right, or transactions be secret, no other Constitutional right works on secrecy?
DeleteLike the other gun loons on this site insults are all you have and all I will respond with in the future.
"Why should gun related business be kept secret from the public? Any business the government does with citizens should be public to all."
DeleteAnon, the government often demands all kinds of personal information from its citizens and some of it can be considered information that could contribute to identity theft and other misuse.
In these cases, it becomes whatever agencies' responsibility to safeguard this data from unauthorized release. Carry permit records are only available to law enforcement for official purposes in Minnesota.
Especially with the individual states and federal governments becoming involved in medical care, I would hope that you understand that personal data should be safeguarded.
"No-there should be no business with the government on this issue"
DeleteThat's what I said, thanks for confirming it.
Voting information is public. I see no difference. Greg always says all rights are equal. The same information given for a drivers license seems reasonable for a gun purchase
DeleteHow about we keep all information about citizens private?
DeleteRight, a clandestine government. A secret government. Try North Korea, if that's the kind of government you want. We have open government for a reason. Can you tell me professor what that reason is?
DeleteGovernment should be open--in other words, the deliberations and decisions. But private records should be kept private.
DeleteWhy is it you accept that privacy provision for taxes, licenses, and other government business, but not guns?
DeleteMikeb, you've been shown repeatedly that states do check. But you keep trotting out the falsehood that they don't. You have to believe that carry license holders are bad people to sustain your narrative, but the facts don't support your position.
ReplyDeleteAnd by the way, that sign about the neighbor being a gun control advocate is an Internet meme. It's not something a lot of people actually do. But even if it were, it would be the person's choice, not the government forcing the exposure of private information.
The double-talking gun-rights phonies can't get their story straight. First they place signs indicating that the neighbor is for gun control, assuming the burglars would be most interested in going there.
ReplyDeleteIn that particular incident, it was backlash against the idiots who advocated for publishing lists of permit holders. What's good for the goose is good for the gander in that case.
Personally, it's no one's business if I own a gun(s) or not until they decide to break into my home or harm me or others in my presence. Then and only then, will they know if I'm carrying.
And I also don't think it's anyone's business if you don't want to own a firearm...that's your choice. Just remember that police are under no legal obligation to protect you and they are often many minutes away...they just come after the incident to file a report.