Posted on 03/03/2011 7:42:17 AM PST by JohnRLott
Suppose you or your family are being stalked by a criminal who intends to harm you. Would you feel safer putting a sign in front of your home saying "This home is a gun-free zone"? Would it frighten criminals away?
Most people understand that guns deter criminals. But, despite strong opposition from the Illinois State Police, Democrat Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan seems determined to publicly identify gun and non-gun owners across the state. For some unknown reason, The Associated Press made a Freedom of Information Act request to the police.
One would think that people in Illinois of all places would understand this problem. . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Even without someone stalking you, would anti gunners display such a sign?
I carry a .45 'cause they don't make a .46
The only gun law that makes sense is the 2d Amendment.
But they do make a .50!
The biggest gun free zones in the country—schools & the post office.
That’s why nothing ever happens there.
Laws of unintended consequences here. Publishing the names of gun owners also demonstrates those who are NOT gun owners!
I was originally thinking the other way,
that these lists make the gunowners targets for burglary.
Guns are probably the easiest thing to turn over for cash
out of anything you could steal.
So, just look at the list, pick out a few names, watch their houses, determine when they’re gone, and go in and find the guns.
Come on, don't be coy John. We know exactly why the left wants to publicly parade this personal information - it is designed to intimidate.
They wish to paint a target, not the fanciful rhetoric targets that they accused Sarah Palin of using but real targets onto anyone who doesn't step to their beat. And they are willing to subvert the plain meaning and intent of the FOIA in order to exploit it to their advantage.
We saw the same malevolence at play with FOIA requests for initiative signers in order to intimidate voters. The requesters were the same kind of slimy leftists whose only interest in the law is how they can work it to their advantage.
Still, it would be fun to widely publicized the names of gun owning gun-grabber politicians...
--we Nevadans, by the way, are in the process of putting a stop to this with a sure-to-pass bill going through the legislature now---
Come on, don't be coy John. We know exactly why the left wants to publicly parade this personal information - it is designed to intimidate.
They wish to paint a target, not the fanciful rhetoric targets that they accused Sarah Palin of using but real targets onto anyone who doesn't step to their beat. And they are willing to subvert the plain meaning and intent of the FOIA in order to exploit it to their advantage.
We saw the same malevolence at play with FOIA requests for initiative signers in order to intimidate voters. The requesters were the same kind of slimy leftists whose only interest in the law is how they can work it to their advantage.
Repeating what you said above, but notice what this “research start” that having the whole list available to the AP gives the liberals in AP. By having everyone’s name and address, the AP (actually, whoever the originator gives the list to) then searches the list of gun-owners for secondary “crimes” and associations. Republicans obviously, but also politicians, right-wing web site writers, current political donor lists, tax roles, recent lawsuit victims (er, litigants) future political donors, corporate owners and witnesses, etc.
And - ANY "future" newsmaker's name gets scanned through the AP "filter of gun owners" so this background information is immediately available to the AP blackmailer (er, writer.)
It’s called leftist intimidation.
EXCELLENT SIGN!!!
In the case of voter registration roles (which are public), they likewise wanted to cross-reference to initiative signers which would inductively tell them (generally) how a person votes - which is supposed to be secret and sacrosanct.
The court (I believe our state supreme court) agreed that the public interest in access to public documents outweighed any theoretic acts to subvert it. Dunderheads!
I am working with a newly elected state senator to introduce similar legislation to what you are pursuing in Nevada.
Good luck to you!
Sorry, I meant to cc you on my #15 above.
One suggestion that I made to my representative is that, if we cannot ban the practice outright, we should restrict access to one request=one record. That way they would have to file tens of thousands of requests in order to take a comprehensive “peek” at the database.
Charge a nominal record fee. That fee becomes compounded over the thousands of requests.
And require full disclosure of who is requesting the information. Name, address, and daytime phone number.
Could you eleborate? was this something pertaining just to Illinois and some ballot initiative there?
That pretty much describes EVERYTHING the liberals advocate.
They used to. The first big bore cartridge handgun was the 1863 Remington New Model Army first converted at the factory in 1868 from cap and ball to fire .46 rim fire cartridges.
Actually, what the AP is requesting is the names of all people who hold FOID cards. Despite the name of the card - “Firearm Owners’ Identification Card” - it does not identify the holder as a gun owner. What it does is grant the holder the right to possess a gun and to purchase guns and ammunition. You can have an FOID card without purchasing or owning a gun. Often people who go hunting but borrow or rent a gun to do so will get an FOID card so that if they get stopped by the cops there’s no issues raised.
I’ll agree there’s probably a pretty strong correlation between FOID holders and gun ownership, but the way that the stories are being written it makes it sound as though Illinois has a gun registry, or a list of everyone in the State who owns a gun. That’s not so.
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.