Rible wants to protect gun owners’ privacy

Assembly Republican Conference Leader Dave Rible (30th District, Monmouth) announced yesterday that he will propose legislation that would prohibit the public release of the names and addresses of gun permit holders.

The Journal News, the suburban New York affiliate of the Asbury Park Press, published a map of and the names and addresses of gun permit holders from Westchester and Rockland Counties on Sunday, December 23.  The Gannett owned publication obtained the information from the county clerks of Westchester and Rockland via New York’s Freedom of Information Law.  Since the December 23 publication, the Putnam County Clerk has declined the Journal News’ Freedom of Information request for that county’s gun permit holders’ information.

A Westchester based blog, Talk of the Sound, responded by publishing the names and addresses of Jounral News employees, including those of the reporter who wrote the original story and Gannett’s CEO.  A group of hackers broke into the company’s subscriber database.  They are distributing the names, addresses, email addresses, phone numbers and passwords of the 10,000 subscribers of the paper’s website to anyone who asks.

The Journal News hired arm guards to secure its Rockland County headquarters.  JN didn’t report that they hired arm guards. That stroy was broken by their competitor, The Rockland  County Times.

Rible’s proposed bill would prevent that kind of nonsense from happening in New Jersey.

Posted: January 3rd, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Asbury Park Press, Connecticut Murders, Gun Control, Guns, Media | Tags: , , , , , , , | 11 Comments »

11 Comments on “Rible wants to protect gun owners’ privacy”

  1. Charles M said at 9:14 am on January 3rd, 2013:

    Thank you Assembly Rible for standing up for the over 1 million gun owners here in NJ!

  2. Justified Right said at 9:31 am on January 3rd, 2013:

    The real victim of the Journal News was not the gun owners whose names were printed.

    It was the guy next door whose name was not on the list of gun owners.

    That’s the bad guys’ next target.

  3. James Hogan said at 10:45 am on January 3rd, 2013:

    Thank you Assemblyman Rible.

    Is now the wrong time to ask for a Castle Doctrine to be established in NJ so that if an intruder were to enter my home, possibly intent on causing my family and I personal harm, or possibly intent on stealing firearms that could be used to harm others, I’d have the legal right and legal ability to protect myself and others without fear of being charged with a felony?

  4. Sarah Lawrence Mama said at 1:09 pm on January 3rd, 2013:

    If you look at the Westchester map, the names of gun owners are by far, male names.

    It seems women’s perception of their safety in the tony suburbs of Bronxville and Scarsdale are vastly different than the county’s menfolk.

  5. What's The Problem? said at 4:56 pm on January 3rd, 2013:

    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    So isn’t publishing names of gun owners a good thing? Makes it simpler to call up a militia when and if the time comes.

  6. Tom Kowalsky said at 11:41 pm on January 3rd, 2013:

    Thanks Dave- we will remember this ce election time

  7. Sara Lawrence Mama said at 12:36 pm on January 4th, 2013:

    Sure, let’s also publish the names and addresses of every homosexual in the county, too. I’m sure they wouldn’t mind being outed to the rest of the public in case we need to call upon them for fashion advice.

    The above is a pretty offensive and ridiculous statement isn’t it? To take it seriously would violate the privacy and likely endanger the lives of the people singled out. This was the case when gun owners identities were revealed. Not only were would be criminals told where to break in and steal a gun when the owners were not home -thus adding immensely to illegal guns on the street- but also revealed to criminals were the identities of every single person WITHOUT guns. To a thug, that means a target of opportunity and a potential victim with a severely reduced means of self defense compared to a household with a gun. This was a lose lose situation. It endangered everyone’s lives and livelihoods.

    On the subject of your suggestion: there is plenty of documentation about the discussions surrounding the drafting of the Bill of Rights. In these discussions it is made abundantly clear that the phrase “well regulated militia” means “a well trained, armed citizenry”. This is in contrast to a standing army under control of a centralized government -which was considered to be less than an ideal condition to the preservation of a free state. After all, the new American nation had just fought for and won it’s independence from just such an oppressor. The idea that a well regulated militia is anything other than independently armed and trained citizens is a fallacious interpretation by anti-gun interests bent upon framing the conversation to their liking.

  8. Erik Wood said at 2:00 pm on January 4th, 2013:

    The above message was by me, not Sarah Lawrence Mama. It was intended to be a response TO her. Sorry if I entered the wrong details in the wrong field. Me Culpa.

  9. Sarah Lawrence Mama said at 2:07 pm on January 4th, 2013:

    Comparing gun permits to homosexuality? Talk about offensive and ridiculous.

    The granting of a gun permit is public information, just as anyone has the right to see when and where we buy a home. One can certainly make the case that home sales should be completely private, but they are not. I don’t like that my home purchase is printed in the papers and is available online, but I’m also not running to my elected officials asking for MORE laws on the books.

    The Journal News would not have succeeded in their FOIA request if the the law was not on their side. They were a newspaper accessing public records. There have been several attempts in the past to shield gun permit holders personal information that have failed. It is telling that so many who wrap themselves in the Second Amendment have no problem trampling on the First Amendment. It is telling that so many who hate big gubmint don’t mind asking for more of it when it comes to shielding themselves.

  10. Erik Wood said at 7:31 pm on January 4th, 2013:

    Sarah Lawrence Mama:
    I’m not sure how a desire to exercise a right to privacy in any way tramples the 1st Amendment. If anything, 2A supporters are among the most staunch supporters of the whole of the Bill of Rights. Far more than those who capriciously pick and choose which ones they support and which ones they denigrate.

    Furthermore, it is enumerated by the Bill of Rights that people have the right to privacy. Never is it more important than when it concerns sensitive information which -if made public- might endanger their lives or livelihoods.
    Here we go:
    -The privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment)
    -The privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment)
    -The privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment)
    -The privilege against self incrimination (the 5th Amendment) which provides protection for the privacy of personal information.
    -To top it off, the Ninth Amendment states that the “enumeration of certain rights” in the Bill of Rights “shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.” which has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

    To my comparison:
    In many places in the world, being gay is a capital offense. In this country, it’s certainly looked upon as sinful or unnatural by many who wouldn’t think twice about bashing a couple of homos. This is why coming out of the closet is such an important and personal decision. It is a potentially life threatening revelation. I support whichever choice any LGBT individual makes about it. But it’s their business. Nobody else’s.
    Gun owners have a similar problem today. Considering the hysterical demonization of guns and their owners by a mob of ignoramuses and the complicit media who don’t know a machine gun from a semi-auto, and think that firearms somehow have an irresistable hypnotic effect on their owners which prompts them to commit murder, it’s understandable that gun owners might wish for their identities and home addresses NOT to be displayed on a giant map of the county. Aside from the aforementioned advertisement to would-be burglars that there are guns to be had at these locations when the owners aren’t home, there have been death threats made against prominent leaders of gun rights organizations and celebrities who are pro 2nd Amendment. Discussion board trolls have publicly stated they wished the children of gun owners had been killed at Sandy Hook Elementary. It’s incredible the vitriol and hate being dished out by self professed pacifists. Pretty shocking stuff which cannot be ignored. Some nut might take it upon themselves to carry out a threat.

    So, yes. I do compare the two circumstances inasmuch as they benefit from privacy in the same manner. That was as far as my comparison goes. You will, of course make of it what you will.

  11. Erik Wood said at 12:02 am on January 5th, 2013:

    What’s particularly interesting to me is your misunderstanding of Constitutional rights. They are not granted by the government or even by the Constitution. They are assumed to be natural rights, preexisting and enumerated by that document to ensure that they will not be forgotten. This government is allowed to exist by permission of the people. Not the other way around. It’s probably been a while since high school civics class, but you need to straighten out your understanding of it. The Constitution states clearly and without ambiguity that the government serves to protect the rights of the people, and when it fails to carry out that mandate, it ceases to be legitimate.
    When this happens, “the people have the natural right to rise up against the Government and to put the Government back in it’s place. In this capacity, the People act as the fourth branch of government to take control and to override their decisions that violate the Fundamental Rights of the People to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
    By what means do the People exercise their authority over the Government? That depends on how resistant the Government is to complying with the Will of the People. In the case of the Declaration of Independence, it meant declaring war on the Government and overthrowing them. This is obviously a last resort after taking other steps less harsh. But clearly the Right and the Duty to overthrow the Government in order to restore the United States as a government to serve the People is clearly established in historical precedent.”