Does Privacy Rights trump the Press' right to report citizens who bear arms? (1 Viewer)

[Shadow Serious]

Louisiana has passed a law that would make it a misdemeanor for a person 6mts and $10,000 fine to publish a permit holder name for those who own a permit or have applied a concealed carry permit.

A new Louisiana press law related to gun owners has created outrage among journalists and First Amendment advocates around the country.
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed a bill last week penalizing those who publish the names of individuals who own or have applied for a concealed handgun permit with potential jail sentences of six months and fines of $10,000.
An identity may only be released if a concealed handgun carrier is charged with a felony offense involving the use of a firearm.


Read more: New Louisiana law related to gun owners outrages First Amendment advocates | Fox News

The Poll Question does the right to privacy with respect to the 2nd amendment supersede the 1st Amendment in this case?

 

[ttwtt78640]

If a citizen's second amendment rights can vary based upon state law then why not their first amendment rights as well? Once the state's receive permission, from the SCOTUS, to limit the individual constitutional rights of their citizens then why get picky about just which rights are chosen to be diminished? If a state can "rent" your right to bear arms back to you (after a class, test, fee and permit) then why not your right to speak or to have an attorney present during police questioning?

 

[Shadow Serious]

If a citizen's second amendment rights can vary based upon state law then why not their first amendment rights as well? Once the state's receive permission, from the SCOTUS, to limit the individual constitutional rights of their citizens then why get picky about just which rights are chosen to be diminished? If a state can "rent" your right to bear arms back to you (after a class, test, fee and permit) then why not your right to speak or to have an attorney present during police questioning?

You do have a good point. Per the Second Amendment there should be no need of a permit since it is an Enumerated Right so the States should not restrict Enumerated Rights.

However, I do have a point let say that a paper decided to publish the list of all Jews and their addresses. Now, there would not be anything strictly wrong by doing that but having published such puts those individuals in the spotlight for doing nothing but adhering to a religious belief that is protected by the 1st Amendment. It is at least implying that being such is an act of infamy what should be a private concern. The same can be said more so if a paper published a list of all Muslims and their addresses and since there is a general fear of Muslims do to current events doing such an act might put them in danger by doing so. Likewise if a paper does publish a name of a gun owner it could attract a person who wants to steal a gun or people who would seek to harass him.

The issue is it should be no ones business whether a person owns a gun or not or is a concealed carry permit holder this is a private concern and should not be open for public scrutiny.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You do have a good point. Per the Second Amendment there should be no need of a permit since it is an Enumerated Right so the States should not restrict Enumerated Rights.

However, I do have a point let say that a paper decided to publish the list of all Jews and their addresses. Now, there would not be anything strictly wrong by doing that but having published such puts those individuals in the spotlight for doing nothing but adhering to a religious belief that is protected by the 1st Amendment. It is at least implying that being such is an act of infamy what should be a private concern. The same can be said more so if a paper published a list of all Muslims and their addresses and since there is a general fear of Muslims do to current events doing such an act might put them in danger by doing so. Likewise if a paper does publish a name of a gun owner it could attract a person who wants to steal a gun or people who would seek to harass him.

The issue is it should be no ones business whether a person owns a gun or not or is a concealed carry permit holder this is a private concern and should not be open for public scrutiny.

That is an apples to cinder blocks comparison. One is the prohibition of publishing gov't records while the other is based on a list of members of a non-gov't database. Publishing the name/address of a gun owner is not illegal, unless that gun ownership information was obtained from gov't records, as opposed to personal observation or even an anonymous tip.

 

[captainawesome]

This is a silly law from a Backward State.

 

[Master PO]

i would think it would be determined if that information is meant for open public record, or meant only for the ability of governments to perform their duties.

rights of the press cannot be abridged.

however you do have a right to privacy.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Louisiana has passed a law that would make it a misdemeanor for a person 6mts and $10,000 fine to publish a permit holder name for those who own a permit or have applied a concealed carry permit.

The Poll Question does the right to privacy with respect to the 2nd amendment supersede the 1st Amendment in this case?

It's a good start, I suppose.

A person's private business is that person's private business. This includes whether a person chooses to own or carry a gun, unless he carries openly so that everyone can see.

There is certainly an element of hypocrisy here. It is no more the government's business whether someone chooses to own or carry a gun than it is the press' business, or the public's at large. By requiring a gun owner/carrier to obtain a permit, and this giving government unrestricted access to the knowledge that that person has and carries a gun, the state is committing the same crime for which it now seeks to punish the press.

 

[Shadow Serious]

That is an apples to cinder blocks comparison. One is the prohibition of publishing gov't records while the other is based on a list of members of a non-gov't database. Publishing the name/address of a gun owner is not illegal, unless that gun ownership information was obtained from gov't records, as opposed to personal observation or even an anonymous tip.

I was thinking in more of a philosophical point of view than the legal one. The law in Louisiana is about the prohibition of publication of government records, but I wanted to address the metaphysics involved in justifying it and having the people with an opposite view refuting it.

 

[Shadow Serious]

This is a silly law from a Backward State.

This is the 21st Century and Louisiana is not such a Backward State now. Care to expand on why it is such a silly law?

 

[captainawesome]

This is the 21st Century and Louisiana is not such a Backward State now. Care to expand on why it is such a silly law?

Louisiana is still backward.

The law is silly because It abridges freedom of the press. Births, deaths, marriages, arrests.... are all published in the paper.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I was thinking in more of a philosophical point of view than the legal one. The law in Louisiana is about the prohibition of publication of government records, but I wanted to address the metaphysics involved in justifying it and having the people with an opposite view refuting it.

The gov't simply figures that the citizens will object less to having to pay rights rental fees if they can do so anonymously.

I have seen many pro gun posters on this board express delight that they were able to comfortably comply with the state imposed restrictions on that 2A right. I suspect, that as long as they are easily able to comply, that feel special by having rights that many with less money cannot afford to rent. A (first time) Texas CHL costs about $270, while a Texas driver's license costs $24. Why are constitutional rights rental permits more costly than those for mere state issued privileges?

 

[Fisher]

There is no expressed or implicit right to privacy in the second amendment. So long as it is a matter of public record, newspapers have every right to publish the information regardless of whether one approves or disapproves.

 

[captainawesome]

The gov't simply figures that the citizens will object less to having to pay rights rental fees if they can do so anonymously.

I have seen many pro gun posters on this board express delight that they were able to comfortably comply with the state imposed restrictions on that 2A right. I suspect, that as long as they are easily able to comply, that feel special by having rights that many with less money cannot afford to rent. A (first time) Texas CHL costs about $270, while a Texas driver's license costs $24. Why are constitutional rights rental permits more costly than those for mere state issued privileges?

Have you read our ccw law? it is a joke riddled with loopholes.

 

[Shadow Serious]

Louisiana is still backward.

The law is silly because It abridges freedom of the press. Births, deaths, marriages, arrests.... are all published in the paper.

You do realize that people pay to have those published in the paper? So that was volunteered. The law is to prevent the paper from publishing just because there is a record of concealed carry or a record of ownership of a gun.

 

[Shadow Serious]

The gov't simply figures that the citizens will object less to having to pay rights rental fees if they can do so anonymously.

I have seen many pro gun posters on this board express delight that they were able to comfortably comply with the state imposed restrictions on that 2A right. I suspect, that as long as they are easily able to comply, that feel special by having rights that many with less money cannot afford to rent. A (first time) Texas CHL costs about $270, while a Texas driver's license costs $24. Why are constitutional rights rental permits more costly than those for mere state issued privileges?

I'm of course opposed to anything that can be considered a tax or fee for exercising a right.

 

[captainawesome]

You do realize that people pay to have those published in the paper? So that was volunteered. The law is to prevent the paper from publishing just because there is a record of concealed carry or a record of ownership of a gun.

Wedding announcements with pics are the ones that cost money not the rest.

There is nothing wrong with letting the community know who has dangerous weapons.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Have you read our ccw law? it is a joke riddled with loopholes.

If by our CCW law you mean that of Texas, Yes. Open carry of a (loaded/accessable) handgun is still all but illegal - note that the law allows you to carry to your home, car or boat but never explains how you legally ever got the loaded handgun away from there to begin with.

PC §46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS.

(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:

(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or

(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control.

(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:

(1) the handgun is in plain view...

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/internetforms/forms/chl-16.pdf

 

[ttwtt78640]

I'm of course opposed to anything that can be considered a tax or fee for exercising a right.

Interesting. What about earning a paycheck or buying/owning property (real estate or motor vehicle)?

 

[captainawesome]

If by our CCW law you mean that of Texas, Yes. Open carry of a (loaded/accessable) handgun is still all but illegal - note that the law allows you to carry to your home, car or boat but never explains how you legally ever got the loaded handgun away from there to begin with.



http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/internetforms/forms/chl-16.pdf

Don't forget the crimes that jump to major felonies if you get a ccw. Can't drink or go to a bar. Don't get caught on oil company property. Don't go to any schools or government property. Nothing owned by a chemical company. Better never get in a fist fight.

Our law is not promoting freedom.

 

[Master PO]

Wedding announcements with pics are the ones that cost money not the rest.

There is nothing wrong with letting the community know who has dangerous weapons.

you know the idea of publishing the records of people with firearms owners..... is a political tool?

it has nothing to do with letting people know whats dangerous.

 

[Shadow Serious]

There is no expressed or implicit right to privacy in the second amendment. So long as it is a matter of public record, newspapers have every right to publish the information regardless of whether one approves or disapproves.

I think that the issue is that the concealed carry permit is a regulatory requirement and not a public record and this law is a penalty for publishing such.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Don't forget the crimes that jump to major felonies if you get a ccw. Can't drink or go to a bar. Don't get caught on oil company property. Don't go to any schools or government property. Nothing owned by a chemical company. Better never get in a fist fight.

Our law is not promoting freedom.

Good point. You actually can get in less legal trouble without a CHL and save the money too.

 

[captainawesome]

you know the idea of publishing the records of people with firearms owners..... is a political tool?

it has nothing to do with letting people know whats dangerous.

How is it a political tool? The information won't influence how people vote.

 

[captainawesome]

Good point. You actually can get in less legal trouble without a CHL and save the money too.

That's why I don't want one. Having a ccw in Tx can get you into trouble if you aren't on good terms with your county sheriff.

 

[Master PO]

How is it a political tool? The information won't influence how people vote.

becuase nothing until now like this has never been done, it was after the shootings that these things came to light, and they are being used as a political tool, for promotion of gun legislation.