Posted on 11/09/2005 8:09:47 PM PST by aberaussie
Yes, it is public. So are births, but we were given the option to keep the birth of our last child off the list in the newspaper out of concern for what the nutjobs were doing with that information. Thankfully the paper had better sense than to say "It's public information! People have a right to know!!"
The tactics of the left seem to be working so why not give them something they understand? Show me something with some forte' that can counter the leftist assult decisively and we can adapt a "new" strategy.
And don't try to tell me that perhaps both sides should sit down and just talk it over..........bwahhhhhha!
I agree that it's crappy that the newspaper publicized already public information. But there is no comparision with outing partial and incomplete medical records for the purpose of announcing to the world who has terminated a pregnancy...not to mention the problems getting a permit would cause those women that actually do need life saving medical treatment.
The comparison sucked.
"It takes me 10 minutes to borrow my brother's gun to keep in my house for self protection until the waiting period is up for my new gun. LOL"
And that has anything to do with the situation because....?
"The comparison sucked."
no, it didn't. It's very valid. You don't like it because of your personal experience. That just makes it MORE valid.
The right to keep and bear arms is in the bill of rights, plain as day. Requiring a waiting period or permit to exercise it is a violation of that right. "Outing" permit holders and making that information public is a violation of the privacy of citizens.
Now, abortion on demand is NOT a constitutional right- it is an invented one. However, the left demands that anyone, anywhere can get an abortion at any time.
See the disconnect there?
The same people trying to 'out' permit holders are the same ones that would scream like children if the same thing was tried on their sacred 'right' of abortion. So the only way to get them to see how offensive their position on guns is to threaten to hold their sacred 'right' to the same standard.
It's called making a point. That's how you get people to realize something is wrong.
I got dozens of calls re. mortgages a few years ago.
Contacting the clerk, I was told they had a list of people who had made inquiries. When I went and looked at the list...they had never given anyone the incorrect info re. a VA mortgage. We did not have one, and the calls were determined to be just "cold" and trying to get info.
Things may have changed in the past 4-5 years.
I better do some more checking!
Brevard...BINGO.
We have had a recent rash of break-ins and even murders out here on the barrier islands. This is new to this area who has felt "immune" to problems like this due to the limited access to this area.
Our 19 homes are now up to 13 widows. Maybe this is the trend in this beach town.
All major hotels were destroyed last year and the number of construction workers and unfamiliar faces has sky-rocketed. If Nationwide ever settles my claim I will add to that problem for over 3 months they tell me.
Well I guess we all need to begin to protect ourselves...imagine trying to force the surrender of all the arms in this area....LOL
Here, check out the Orange County website:
http://www.ocpafl.org
Just poke in a name like Smith John. You'll be amazed, and a little shaken, by just how much info is there *AND* how well it's laid-out. Which is odd for a government organization ;-)
Not quite. Florida has a three day waiting period for handguns if you don't have a CCW license. In at least one county (Hillsborough) the waiting period extends to long arms as well.
On behalf of the Governor, I believe this is the information you need. Look at subsection (d) 1. Hope this helps.
119.071 General exemptions from inspection or copying of public records.--
s. 119.071(4) AGENCY PERSONNEL INFORMATION.-- (a)1. The social security numbers of all current and former agency employees which numbers are contained in agency employment records are exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution. 2. An agency that is the custodian of a social security number specified in subparagraph 1. and that is not the employing agency shall maintain the exempt status of the social security number only if the employee or the employing agency of the employee submits a written request for confidentiality to the custodial agency. However, upon a request by a commercial entity as provided in subparagraph (5)(a)5., the custodial agency shall release the last four digits of the exempt social security number, except that a social security number provided in a lien filed with the Department of State shall be released in its entirety. This subparagraph is subject to the Open Government Sunset Review Act in accordance with s. 119.15 and shall stand repealed on October 2, 2009, unless reviewed and saved from repeal through reenactment by the Legislature. (b) Medical information pertaining to a prospective, current, or former officer or employee of an agency which, if disclosed, would identify that officer or employee is exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution. However, such information may be disclosed if the person to whom the information pertains or the person's legal representative provides written permission or pursuant to court order. (c) Any information revealing undercover personnel of any criminal justice agency is exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution.
(d)1. The home addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, and photographs of active or former law enforcement personnel, including correctional and correctional probation officers, personnel of the Department of Children and Family Services whose duties include the investigation of abuse, neglect, exploitation, fraud, theft, or other criminal activities, personnel of the Department of Health whose duties are to support the investigation of child abuse or neglect, and personnel of the Department of Revenue or local governments whose responsibilities include revenue collection and enforcement or child support enforcement; the home addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, photographs, and places of employment of the spouses and children of such personnel; and the names and locations of schools and day care facilities attended by the children of such personnel are exempt from s. 119.07(1). The home addresses, telephone numbers, and photographs of firefighters certified in compliance with s. 633.35; the home addresses, telephone numbers, photographs, and places of employment of the spouses and children of such firefighters; and the names and locations of schools and day care facilities attended by the children of such firefighters are exempt from s. 119.07(1). The home addresses and telephone numbers of justices of the Supreme Court, district court of appeal judges, circuit court judges, and county court judges; the home addresses, telephone numbers, and places of employment of the spouses and children of justices and judges; and the names and locations of schools and day care facilities attended by the children of justices and judges are exempt from s. 119.07(1). The home addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, and photographs of current or former state attorneys, assistant state attorneys, statewide prosecutors, or assistant statewide prosecutors; the home addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, photographs, and places of employment of the spouses and children of current or former state attorneys, assistant state attorneys, statewide prosecutors, or assistant statewide prosecutors; and the names and locations of schools and day care facilities attended by the children of current or former state attorneys, assistant state attorneys, statewide prosecutors, or assistant statewide prosecutors are exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution.
Okay, this says that former and current LEO's are exempt from having their info revealed as part of the public record. I took the step of having my records sealed by the FDLE so as to bounce back commercial or private (except legal--by warrant) computer searches or request for records. What this does not seem to say is the penalty for violating this exemption.
One guy wrote a story for an Ohio outdoor magazine when that state first approved the CCW.
He wrote about that one business putting a sign up saying they wouldn't allow holders there.
Then, he called for a boycott of that business in his article.
Last I heard that business folded.
Don't mess with rural Buckeyes, they are meaner than striped snakes.
I know this for a fact.
One guy wrote a story for an Ohio outdoor magazine when that state first approved the CCW.
He wrote about that one business putting a sign up saying they wouldn't allow holders there.
Then, he called for a boycott of that business in his article.
Last I heard that business folded.
Don't mess with rural Buckeyes, they are meaner than striped snakes.
I know this for a fact.
I'm not sure which is the correct Bill, but you could call him and ask.
Bookmark for reference
Thanks for the help!
OK...I only bought one gun before I got my permit. Perhaps I just don't remember having to wait.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.