Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Extras | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

resolution: First Amendment also at risk

May 1, 2013

Second Amendment advocates should not be the only ones concerned about New York’s SAFE Act, a law passed in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(26)

DarkStar

May-03-13 7:32 AM

Obama's own chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel stated "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before" which seems to be how they are trying to force everything down our throats.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

kcw007

May-02-13 8:14 AM

It's no secret that out of crisis/turmoil comes the possibility for great opportunity if one can position himself as the primary deviner for relief. If there is no crisis, then create one; again assume exclusive control of its implementation as a means of affecting the desired outcomes.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Steiner

May-02-13 7:48 AM

when all else fails, always refer to the tin foil hat. we have seen that a few times here. Some posters mock confiscation as silly talk ,yet there was talk of it in NY. keep fanning the flames of gun violence and finally the libs will get their way. That is the libs intent for sure. The recent bomber fiasco and the large number of rounds by those glorious ppolice and at an unarmed person in the boat shoul give anyone pause about demonizing legal gun owners who have done nothing. pretend they are islamic posters, you will feel better.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Steiner

May-02-13 7:43 AM

i think you posters missed the bigger point. Libs govern by crisis. A crisis in anything is highly desirable. If a crisis is not available, make one. Publish names of permit holders and cry free speech.for comparison, MA clamped a lid on welfare given to bombing suspects. The libs must initiate furor in any way possible to pass another law. How is publishing names of permit holders telling us what the govt is doing ? It aint. How about telling us something more useful.Why should some guns be registered at all ?Family or friends, off the record for sure.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

May-02-13 6:37 AM

...........and after registration comes the "user fee"

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

May-02-13 1:22 AM

Yea you might be right Crissy. I think you should look into crystal light. Less of a sugar high. Are you lonely by any chance up there on that pedestal you put yourself on. Or do you have a few more airheads there with you?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Christopher

May-01-13 11:37 PM

"Murikin",try Alcoa next time. I know it costs a little more than that cheap store brand, but you get what you pay for, as they say.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

kcw007

May-01-13 10:30 PM

1st Judeye, I didn't say that registration results in confiscation. What I did imply was that every successful gun confiscation program is based upon the guns in question 1st being registered (can you show me otherwise?). I would draw your attention to the confiscations in Great Britain and Australia in recent decades. The governments knew exactly who had what because they were...registered. At the end of WWII allied forces in Germany were very successfully able to disarm the German public of their sporting arms because each town hall had a record of who owned what. Everyone was ordered to stack their rifles and shotguns outside their homes. Allied military details then went around with a check list supplied by the mayor and collected up the guns. After the GI's picked through and took what they wanted to send home (I have several of those "bringbacks" in my collection) they were run over with a tank track and burned.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RipleyResident

May-01-13 9:33 PM

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Does government not giving up permit holders violate the first amendment? I don't see it in there. Judeye - how about the car registrations? That info isn't available. Welfare recipients? Nope. I paid good money for my permit, what does that have to do with government transparency? Transparency is what they are doing, my permit is my business.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

May-01-13 9:04 PM

Because the Kool-Aid drinkers are the ones that want the bans and gun control.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Christopher

May-01-13 8:59 PM

Why oh why do all the tin foil hat wearers have to be the ones defending the 2nd Amendment issues?

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

May-01-13 7:51 PM

kcw007..could you show where registration results in confiscation in history? other than confiscation of those guns where a law banned them...

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

May-01-13 7:47 PM

I commend the Observer for this editorial. Whether I agree or not is not at issue. Our Constitution and its rights are.

As I understand it the FOIA was passed to promote more transparency in our government. There are exceptions of what cannot be disclosed, such as documents concerning our national security. All other documents MUST be made available, to which I think if wonderful. We should be able to request records and documents to see just what our government is doing. (much of it with our money)

From what I have read, hunting license information IS available under this act.

This is an issue that really could result in a very good discussion of our rights, and which ones we are willing to give up, for things like transparency. (security such as Patriot act also comes to mind)

Much more to this than just an opinion.

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

kcw007

May-01-13 3:32 PM

Christopher, Registration is the key element to confiscation, history has proven that out. There is no way to enforce "universal background checks" without registration. Without registration how can the NY SAFE "slow motion gun ban" be enforced? Of course if you support the confiscation/ban of the types of guns which you don't value, I suppose it doesn't matter; at least until they get around to.....yours.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Christopher

May-01-13 3:01 PM

kcw007, I'm guessing LOTS of Police agencies were up in arms over the publication of pistol owners. I think that had much to do with it, although you're probably partially correct on Democrats with guns wanting that to remain secret. To be honest, I'm a gun owner and support whole heartedly the efforts to register all guns, long or otherwise, and to require any gun sale to go through a dealer with the same protections as now. I don't know why anyone has any issue with that. Anyway, my point is, one CAN be in favor of tightening up loopholes and such without being totally anti-gun. Unfortunately, for far too many gun owners, it's all or nothing.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Christopher

May-01-13 3:01 PM

kcw007, I'm guessing LOTS of Police agencies were up in arms over the publication of pistol owners. I think that had much to do with it, although you're probably partially correct on Democrats with guns wanting that to remain secret. To be honest, I'm a gun owner and support whole heartedly the efforts to register all guns, long or otherwise, and to require any gun sale to go through a dealer with the same protections as now. I don't know why anyone has any issue with that. Anyway, my point is, one CAN be in favor of tightening up loopholes and such without being totally anti-gun. Unfortunately, for far too many gun owners, it's all or nothing.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DKexpat

May-01-13 2:50 PM

Just so I understand this . . . if I shoot myself in the foot - both literally and figuratively - am I simultaneously exercising my 1st and 2nd Amendment rights?

:-)

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

kcw007

May-01-13 1:12 PM

And neither are the names of those who hold hunting licenses made public, nor should they be for the same reasons that the info on handgun owners should be restricted. Curiously however, I really have to wonder if the primary reason that the "OPT OUT" was put into the NY SAFE Act is being overlooked. We well understand that no organized shooters groups had ANY input into the law. So who would have had such a concern about such info being made public? I believe the answer lies in the fact that there are MANY liberal "big shots"(politicians, celebrities) who have pistol permits of their own. These are the very same people who will openly stump for laws which restrict the 2nd Amendment rights of "Joe Sixpack", while they themselves remain personally well armed ; or are protected by licensed, private security. Obviously, they wouldn't want their names published would they?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Christopher

May-01-13 12:53 PM

DC, we are talking about JUST ONE ISSUE slightly relative to guns, and that is whether anyone has the right to know who owns one other than the official agencies issuing the permits. The answer to that is a resounding "NO" for many reasons, not the least is every citizens reasonable expectation of a right to some privacy. This is not a First Amendment issue at all. This is not a 2nd Amendment issue at all. This is a basic American right of privacy expected and implied by and for all citizens.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

commentor

May-01-13 12:35 PM

It's people with the intelligence of Marcia that give us the world that we have.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RipleyResident

May-01-13 12:27 PM

Many DMV records are not available to the public, including vehicle registration information. Wouldn't all the local car thieves like to know who has classic cars hidden in the garage? Or quads & snowmobiles for that matter. I don't like to make comparisons between cars & guns because only one of those is a constitutional right, but it seems like nobody is concerned about the DMV records being private, why should gun records be any different?

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

May-01-13 12:10 PM

Well Marcia, How about if the media can also compile a list and publish it of all who have an abortion. After all isn't it everyone's right to know? That has as much bearing on being " vitally important to our democracy to be able to find out what our government is doing" as does posting a list of pistol permit holders. Can you even tell us how you connected the dots on this?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Dcronlg

May-01-13 10:57 AM

Privacy of the individual is constitutionally paramount.

Openness and transparency into the transactions and operations of all levels of government, save serious valid national security concerns, is democratically paramount.

And the right to bear arms doesn't mean in any way, shape or form the right to create and own an arsenal.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DarkStar

May-01-13 10:36 AM

Marcia and what part of "knowing what the government is doing" involved publishing the names and addresses of pistol permit holders?

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Christopher

May-01-13 9:51 AM

I totally disagree with anyone who thinks what private citizens own or possess is anyone else's business. Marcia, do think Abortion is ok based on "a Woman's Right to Privacy"? If so, how do you do a 180 degree turnaround when it suits you? I ask the same question of any average Democrat. As for this particular issue, many states do NOT allow this information to be made public, so, it appears to be a state by state issue, not a Constitutional issue at all. In my opinion, publicizing this information actually makes it dangerous for gun owners and easier for thieves and more dangerous criminals to actually "go shopping", targeting homes with weapons. Please don't use the excuse that those homes are safer, smart criminals stake out and wait for the individuals to leave the premises. No way should this information be public.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 26 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web