Star Ledger wants to print gun owner info.....

[mipafox 438]

My link is to the NJAC (New Jersey Administrative Code) - that is not statute - it does not carry the weight of law.

 

I've been to court over NJAC regulations several times and it sure seemed to carry weight of law to me.

[HKHockey 5]

If they put the list in print you can be sure that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM will be dox'ed in the following week.

[intercooler 41]

you can find anyone if they own real property by going to the tax record on the county clerk site...then spokeo and then google

[Dewhitewolf 8]

Generally speaking, courts will uphold the administrative code as long as it doesn't directly violate a statute. They are intended to define or limit/expand the meanings of statutes for the state agencies.

[hd2000fxdl 422]

you can find anyone if they own real property by going to the tax record on the county clerk site...then spokeo and then google

 

Yes you can do that, but you won't find shall we call it, a shopping list of addresses for guns..

[Jason1 0]

I say bring it on! Print my name, address, phone number, whatever else they think is pertinent. I've got nothing to hide and they might just shut up when they see how many of us there are.

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

Generally speaking, courts will uphold the administrative code as long as it doesn't directly violate a statute. They are intended to define or limit/expand the meanings of statutes for the state agencies.

 

I understand this - but what statute would somebody be charged under if they printed the names of FPID and/or P2P holders? What statute is that particular section of the NJAC expanding upon / explaining? You can't "charge" someone with violating the NJAC - only a specific statute.

 

Adios,

 

PIzza Bob

[Dewhitewolf 8]

I understand this - but what statute would somebody be charged under if they printed the names of FPID and/or P2P holders? What statute is that particular section of the NJAC expanding upon / explaining? You can't "charge" someone with violating the NJAC - only a specific statute.

 

Adios,

 

PIzza Bob

 

I'm not aware of any statute that penalizes publishing the information of gun owners, but the records themselves are confidential under the NJAC. That means that the state cannot simply hand out that information to the Star Ledger simply because they request it. If the Star Ledger challenges that, hypothetically the courts would deny the request and uphold the confidential provision in the NJAC. This is simply because the specific code does not violate an exisiting statute. That is assuming, of course, that the courts follow their tradition of government deference.

 

That's the point I was trying to make. Sorry for the confusion.

 

On another note, someone in the media (I don't know who) made another point. If the names of gun owners have to be published, then why not the personal information of people receiving food stamps, tax paid abortions, unemployment benefits, or other forms of welfare. Chances are their confidentiality is not protected by statute, but rather by a state or federal code (not sure though, I haven't verified that). Doing that would certainly make it easier to crack down on fraud and abuses of the system.

[specificdynamix 0]

Burglars Hit Home of Gun Owner ID’d by Newspaper

 

The home of a gun owner, whose address was published by a New York newspaper, has been burglarized and a state lawmaker said it appears the burglars may have used the newspaper’s map to target the residence.

“Luckily the gun was locked up and no one was hurt,” Sen. Greg Ball said.

The residence in White Plains, was identified in an interactive map that identified the names and addresses individuals who have gun permits. It was published by The Journal News — a Gannett Co. newspaper.

The elderly homeowner, who legally owns weapons, was not at home at the time of the burglary.

“The police are doing a full investigation,” the unidentified man told Newsday. Police said it appears the burglars targeted the homeowner’s gun safe.

The newspaper has come under intense national exposure after they published a list of residents who have gun permits.

Among the most vocal local opponents is Sen. Ball — who said the newspaper had put law-abiding citizens in danger.

“The Journal News has placed the lives of these folks at risk by creating a virtual shopping list for criminals and nut jobs,” said Ball. “If the connection is proven, this is further proof that these maps are not only an invasion of privacy but that they present a clear and present danger to law-abiding, private citizens.”

Ball is introducing legislation Monday to protect the names of New Yorkers who have legally obtained gun permits.

“Former convicts have already testified to the usefulness of the asinine Journal News ‘gun maps’ yet the reckless editors are evidently willing to roll the dice, gambling with the lives of innocent local homeowners,” Ball said.

The Affiliated Police Association of Westchester County said they plan to hold the newspaper accountable for any attacks on their residences of their 25,000 members.

Ball said the newspaper, whose parent company owns USA Today, is coddling terrorists.

“The same elitist eggheads who use their editorial page to coddle terrorists and criminals are now treating law abiding citizens like level three sexual predators,” he said. “This is not about the Second Amendment; these bills are simply about commonsense and personal privacy. Publishing this information on a website, as we have evidently just witnessed in the recent attempted gun burglary, provides criminals with a map of where they can steal firearms from lawful owners for later use in the commission of crimes.”

 

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/gun-owners-home-outed-by-newspaper-is-burglarized.html

[Luso 6]

I will be posting later tonight some reaction from some ledger employees. stay tuned

[KpdPipes 388]

I understand this - but what statute would somebody be charged under if they printed the names of FPID and/or P2P holders? What statute is that particular section of the NJAC expanding upon / explaining? You can't "charge" someone with violating the NJAC - only a specific statute.

 

Adios,

 

PIzza Bob

 

Probably fall under 2C"30-2 "Official Misconduct" IMO it would qualify as Malfeasance

[NicePants 58]

I will be posting later tonight some reaction from some ledger employees. stay tuned