In Indiana, it is now. In Kentucky, it is.
But, like he pointed out, we’ve already discussed why we think it’s a bad idea.
Do you think it’s a good idea? Or do you just want to do it because it’s legal?
The most important of which is, don’t have one. Having a gun makes you less safe.
It tells me who to avoid.
Perhaps I’m mistaken, the debate I thought we were having is the wisdom of a newspaper publishing the names of licensed gun owners.
I’m talking to both you and Human Action and sometimes you both retort on replays made to the other.
No. You said carrying a weapon is your right because it’s the law. The onus is not now on me to defend why it should be the law for newspapers to publish that the fact you have one.
Was it against the law in the state of the newspaper that published it or are you being intentionally obtuse?
Yes. Okay. Then let me be precise.
You (individual) can assume that I am a gun owner and gun carrier. I’m perfectly fine with that. So far, you’ve given thought-out discourse. And, were you (individual) a friend of mine, you would likely find out the truth of your suspicion.
I do not want the inclusive you to know what I have, because I don’t inclusively know all of you. You could be a burglar, or you could be a model citizen.
When I choose to disclose the information, that is my choice. On my head be it if you decide to use it against me.
To have the information disclosed without my consent, I think, is wrong. For the reasons outlined above.
So, to reiterate that previous post. I don’t really think you’re (individual) inclined to rob me, based upon the information presented in a newspaper (by the way, it was on website. They overlayed it in a Google Maps sort of style). However, I don’t want to give that information to any and everyone, including people who may be inclined to rob me.
I know you’re retorting to both of us. But let me clarify on the latter part.
My specific example, and feel free to use it to respond to Human Action. In Indiana, when the information was displayed, it was legal. People took action and the law was changed. Promptly it was removed.
In other states, or cities, the information is publicly available legally. I don’t know of any places where it is available, but illegal.
Your desire for privacy is noted and understood. Your desire for a sense of security and safety is also understood. On a deep fundamental level I agree with your objective and believe it should be protected and preserved.
But I don’t know you. And you are walking around with a gun.
Can you see how your desires conflict with my own?
Well, at least that’s an answer. I trust you check the names of people you meet against the CCW list?
Very convincing. I hold that there are benefits to issuing CCW permits. Are there benefits to making license holders’ names available to those who inquire?
The New York one? Seemingly not. Should the government release such information? No. Benefit? None. Detriment? Burglaries.
I don’t know if doing such a thing is possible here.
It wasn’t against the law in the 1980s to publish the names of AIDS patients. Did that make such actions OK?
Cool story, bro. Start a new thread to discuss that topic.
Did AIDS patients have to apply for a AIDS license? That must have been a hassle.
California, right? It’s a may-issue state, so permits are only issued to those the sheriff decides need one, rather than anyone who meets the requirements, so you can take comfort in that.
Breaking news on this front, actually:
California: Concealed Carry Permit Holder Confidentiality Legislation to be Heard Next Tuesday
The 4/23 hearing was cancelled, so the bill is still in committee, it seems.
So, as of now, yes, you can request CCW records.
And here I thought this thread was about publically identifying gun owners. Tell me, what is it about?
Apparently it changes to whatever ground you feel you can defend.
Hilarity! So, what ground have I ceased defending? All I’ve said is that governments should not make CCW permit holders’ names & addresses public, because it places them at risk for burglary. That risk is balanced against, seemingly, nothing that you can name, and Der Trihs’s desire to know whom to avoid (though he doesn’t do so at this time).
Honestly, I can’t.
If, on a deep fundamental level, you agree with me, then why would you wish to (potentially) deny my right? I, as a person who has gone through the necessary background checks, have the privilege (at this point) to carry in any manner I see fit in my state. I have never harmed anyone by doing so, and you would likely never know if you met me at the supermarket. What does your knowledge of my being armed have to do with your safety?
If your thesis is “people shouldn’t own guns”, or “guns should be illegal”, or “states should not have CCW laws”, that’s all well and good. But it has nothing to do with making license holders’ names public, unless you really are of the mind that any sort of petty harassment or increased risk of burglary is justified if the target is the wrong sort of person (evidently, a Nashville resident with masturbatory fantasies of robberies who is deeply insecure and lives in a trailer).
Why would you be worried about your children running around in that supermarket parking lot, all the drivers have had the necessary background checks, passed the tests and have gained the privilege of driving an automobile.
I don’t believe your right of a sense of safety supersedes my right of a sense of safety.
Nor yours mine. But you deign to take away a right of mine, while I do not wish to take away a right of yours.