PDA

View Full Version : Illinois Gun Owner's Privacy Right


BamaGrits84
03-03-2011, 02:08 PM
Illinois Officials Spar Over Order to Make List of Gun Owners Public
In a showdown over the privacy rights of gun owners, the Illinois State Police are refusing to release a list identifying all firearm permit holders in the state after Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan determined that the information "must" be made public.

The dispute, which soon could come before a judge, has been building since last fall when a reporter for The Associated Press made a Freedom of Information Act request to the police for the names of cardholders as well as information about the weapons each permit holder is authorized to carry.

But the state police, who safeguard that information, resisted as lawmakers and others raised privacy concerns. Critics questioned what public interest it would serve to let neighbors look up each other's potential weapons cache -- further, they warned that publicizing the information could put both gun owners and those who don't own guns at risk.

If the state publishes a list of gun owners, Republican Rep. Ron Stephens said, "You are by design also publishing a list of everyone who doesn't" carry a firearm.

That could be comparable to publishing a list of everyone who has, or doesn't have, a car alarm or home-security system, at least in the eyes of those who want to keep the records private.

"My gun ownership is none of your business," Stephens, who is pushing a bill in the General Assembly to lock down that list, told FoxNews.com. "I don't know what Lisa Madigan doesn't understand about that, but obviously she's confused."

Madigan's office, though, issued a detailed legal opinion Tuesday explaining why the state police should release the registry to The Associated Press.

Assistant Public Access Counselor Matthew Rogina, citing federal court decisions as well as Illinois law, wrote in a letter to the state police attorney that disclosing the names "cannot be characterized as highly personal or objectionable." He wrote that there is a "public interest" in releasing the information, citing the example of an individual who may have become ineligible to carry.

"Therefore, even if disclosure of the names and expiration of the (Firearm Owner's Identification Card) card owners did constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, this fact is outweighed by the public interest that exists in ensuring the integrity of the (police) database," he wrote.

The police had argued that they should not have to release the records because of an exemption for "information that would endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel or any other person."

Madigan's office disagreed. It was the second time the office had rejected law enforcement's rationale for withholding the records.

In response, the police issued a brief statement saying the force "respectfully disagrees" with the opinion. It urged the public access counselor to issue a "binding opinion so that the issue may be resolved through the judicial process."

A spokeswoman in Madigan's office said the ball is still in the court of the state police, describing Rogina's opinion as a "detailed legal analysis" of the dispute.

But while the state police weigh their options, Stephens is trying to short-circuit the disagreement with legislation. Though he claims Illinois law already bars the police from making the gun permit registry public, he's pushing a bill that would clearly prohibit that information from being released except in connection with a criminal investigation.

Stephens' bill narrowly failed in committee on a 5-5 vote Wednesday, but under state law, the committee can reconsider it. Stephens said he'll bring it back for a do-over in the next couple weeks.

"This is an important issue about freedom. ... We will persist," Stephens said.

National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said his group would do "whatever we can" to stop the attorney general decision from being enforced.

"There's no reason for the names of law-abiding gun owners to be released to the general public," Arulanandam said.



What good could come of publishing thsi list? To me this is a map of which homes you can get away with robbing while it is occupied and which to steal a gun from when the owners are not there.

County Mike
03-03-2011, 02:25 PM
Sounds like the dumbest law ever.

Chuck
03-03-2011, 02:31 PM
I own weapons...........

but you will never find my name on a list..... :ninja:

BamaGrits84
03-03-2011, 02:48 PM
I own weapons...........

but you will never find my name on a list..... :ninja:

In our state you only have to get a permit to carry handguns outside of your home. I do have one, but if my name gets put out there on some public list it better serve as a warning notice to thugs. Mess with this b and you're lossing a knee cap.

Miss Foxy
03-03-2011, 03:41 PM
That's such an invasion of privacy!!

Twinsmama
03-03-2011, 05:24 PM
it would be so dumb to publish a list!!! i dont think it would make any thugs not mess with people. they mess with other thugs all the time that have guns too. it's an invasion of privacy!

so with a list published how will that affect people in everyday life. no guns are allowed on government property (schools, post office) if they know your name can they just check you in case. i think that will open up a bigger can.

rearnakedchoke
03-03-2011, 08:10 PM
That's such an invasion of privacy!!

so if crime involving knives all of a sudden went through the roof would they publish a list of everyone buying knives? having a registry is important, but making it private is an invasion of privacy ...

VCURamFan
03-03-2011, 08:16 PM
so if crime involving knives all of a sudden went through the roof would they publish a list of everyone buying knives? having a registry is important, but making it public is an invasion of privacy ...
Fixed? :huh:

rearnakedchoke
03-03-2011, 08:19 PM
Fixed? :huh:

thanks ...

VCURamFan
03-03-2011, 08:21 PM
thanks ...
OK, cool, I wasn't sure. I thought I was agreeing with your post & then it took a hard left-turn at the end! :blink: :laugh:

Play The Man
03-03-2011, 09:15 PM
Assistant Public Access Counselor Matthew Rogina, citing federal court decisions as well as Illinois law, wrote in a letter to the state police attorney that disclosing the names "cannot be characterized as highly personal or objectionable." He wrote that there is a "public interest" in releasing the information, citing the example of an individual who may have become ineligible to carry.

"Therefore, even if disclosure of the names and expiration of the (Firearm Owner's Identification Card) card owners did constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, this fact is outweighed by the public interest that exists in ensuring the integrity of the (police) database," he wrote.

By their logic, they need to release the records of all the people in Illinois with a positive HIV test. After all, these people may not be forthcoming to a sex partner about their status. Somehow, I doubt this will happen. Somehow, I suspect personal privacy trumps public interest in cases of a liberal interest group.

Rev
03-03-2011, 09:23 PM
By their logic, they need to release the records of all the people in Illinois with a positive HIV test. After all, these people may not be forthcoming to a sex partner about their status. Somehow, I doubt this will happen. Somehow, I suspect personal privacy trumps public interest in cases of a liberal interest group.



Dude, I would vote for you for anything you run for. Lets take the white house!!

NateR
03-03-2011, 09:29 PM
so if crime involving knives all of a sudden went through the roof would they publish a list of everyone buying knives? having a registry is important, but making it private is an invasion of privacy ...

What jump in firearm deaths are you talking about exactly? According to the CDC, there were 1032 gun deaths in Illinois in 2007, compared to 1036 in 2006. That's a 0.39% decrease in gun related deaths. So exactly where are instances of gun crimes going "through the roof" that justifies this new law?

You're speaking as if just the mere act of owning a gun makes a person a potential threat. People have been a danger to each other long before guns were invented. Legal gun ownership is not the problem.

In fact, there shouldn't even be a registry of gun owners, public or private. If I own a gun, it's my private property, the government and law enforcement have no business keeping track of my private property. Motor vehicles account more deaths and injuries in the US each year compared to guns (43,443 motor vehicle related deaths nationwide, compared to 30,694 gun related deaths, in 2005), so do we publish a public registry of automobile ownership in order to paint car and truck owners as potential threats? This kind of thing is nothing more than an anti-gun witchhunt.

J.B.
03-03-2011, 10:38 PM
Further evidence of how the corrupt Chicago/Crook County politicians control the entire state of Illinois.

flo
03-03-2011, 10:43 PM
Dude, I would vote for you for anything you run for. Lets take the white house!!

:happy0159:

Rev could be PTM's Hunting Czar.

flo
03-03-2011, 10:45 PM
Further evidence of how the corrupt Chicago/Crook County politicians control the entire state of Illinois.

:laugh:

KENTUCKYREDBONE
03-03-2011, 11:18 PM
I think they just want the list so they can go on a political; witch hunt! They will harass, nitpick and slander Folks on the list. They may even hunt for people that work for anti gun nut jobs and try to get them fired!

rearnakedchoke
03-03-2011, 11:20 PM
What jump in firearm deaths are you talking about exactly? According to the CDC, there were 1032 gun deaths in Illinois in 2007, compared to 1036 in 2006. That's a 0.39% decrease in gun related deaths. So exactly where are instances of gun crimes going "through the roof" that justifies this new law?

You're speaking as if just the mere act of owning a gun makes a person a potential threat. People have been a danger to each other long before guns were invented. Legal gun ownership is not the problem.

In fact, there shouldn't even be a registry of gun owners, public or private. If I own a gun, it's my private property, the government and law enforcement have no business keeping track of my private property. Motor vehicles account more deaths and injuries in the US each year compared to guns (43,443 motor vehicle related deaths nationwide, compared to 30,694 gun related deaths, in 2005), so do we publish a public registry of automobile ownership in order to paint car and truck owners as potential threats? This kind of thing is nothing more than an anti-gun witchhunt.

i wasn't saying it should be made public, but i guess i didn't fix the typo .... i meant to say that there should be a registry, but kept private ...

NateR
03-04-2011, 12:34 AM
i wasn't saying it should be made public, but i guess i didn't fix the typo .... i meant to say that there should be a registry, but kept private ...

No, there should not be a registry. Nothing about legal gun ownership makes a person more or less likely to commit a crime.

55% of all gun related deaths in this country are from suicides, so does that also mean that people who own guns suddenly become suicidal? Of course not, that would be idiotic to suggest that. So, there is no reason to keep track of gun owners through a registry regardless of whether it is public or private.

Basically what I'm saying is that Illinois politicians and law enforcement officers have absolutely no business knowing if I own a gun or not.

rearnakedchoke
03-04-2011, 12:44 AM
so can anyone get a gun? criminals etc? i am just wondering ...

Rev
03-04-2011, 01:16 AM
:happy0159:

Rev could be PTM's Hunting Czar.
I'm down

Play The Man
03-04-2011, 01:33 AM
so can anyone get a gun? criminals etc? i am just wondering ...
Felons, Mentally ill people and subjects of a restraining order are not allowed to own a gun. In reality, however, they buy them on the streets from thieves who stole them. So, for example, in Chicago, until recently, there was gun control on all the law-abiding citizens; yet, there were record numbers of gun deaths because teen gang members were all armed to the teeth with stolen guns. Criminals run rampant while the law-abiding stay home at night, avoid certain neighborhood, and pray that the police respond rapidly to a 911 call.

rearnakedchoke
03-04-2011, 01:38 AM
Felons, Mentally ill people and subjects of a restraining order are not allowed to own a gun. In reality, however, they buy them on the streets from thieves who stole them. So, for example, in Chicago, until recently, there was gun control on all the law-abiding citizens; yet, there were record numbers of gun deaths because teen gang members were all armed to the teeth with stolen guns. Criminals run rampant while the law-abiding stay home at night, avoid certain neighborhood, and pray that the police respond rapidly to a 911 call.

so you would have to show some sort of ID and screening process .. nate is suggesting there should be no registry, but if they are screening people, they are going to know who owns a gun or at least applied for a gun

Play The Man
03-04-2011, 01:56 AM
so you would have to show some sort of ID and screening process .. nate is suggesting there should be no registry, but if they are screening people, they are going to know who owns a gun or at least applied for a gun

It varies from state to state. For example, I am currently registering a new handgun. My registration involves: a 2-week waiting period, 3 trips to the police station, 3 trips to the gun store, an FBI background check, being fingerprinted like a criminal, a fee, signing a release to my physician to release all my medical records and signing a release to the state mental hospital (to perform a records check on my social security number to see if I was ever admitted there). Incidentally, my wife has received obscene phone calls and a letter. They will not streamline the process for me - it will take about 3 weeks time. If I were a thug, I could buy a gun on the street in about 5 minutes.

NateR
03-04-2011, 02:19 AM
It varies from state to state. For example, I am currently registering a new handgun. My registration involves: a 2-week waiting period, 3 trips to the police station, 3 trips to the gun store, an FBI background check, being fingerprinted like a criminal, a fee, signing a release to my physician to release all my medical records and signing a release to the state mental hospital (to perform a records check on my social security number to see if I was ever admitted there). Incidentally, my wife has received obscene phone calls and a letter. They will not streamline the process for me - it will take about 3 weeks time. If I were a thug, I could buy a gun on the street in about 5 minutes.

In New Mexico, you went to a gun store, they took down your Social Security number, made a phone call and, if you had no criminal record, you could pay for your gun and take it home with you that day. The entire process could take as little as 5 minutes. In Illinois, you have to have a FOID (Firearms Owners IDentification) Card (which takes a couple of weeks to arrive through the mail) and go through a 3-day waiting period. There are a few other hoops you have to jump through, but I don't remember them all. So, yeah, it can vary quite a bit from state to state.

NateR
03-04-2011, 02:22 AM
so can anyone get a gun? criminals etc? i am just wondering ...

You're kind of taking it from one extreme to the other. All I'm saying is that people who legally purchase firearms do not need to be monitored or placed on a registry like they were criminals.

Again, this is nothing more than an attempted witchhunt by the anti-gun nuts.

Chuck
03-04-2011, 03:37 AM
If I were a thug, I could buy a gun on the street in about 5 minutes.

Why don't you consider a private sale? I've purchased and sold multiple weapons via private parties with no issues. You avoid all of the red tape bull crap and keep your name off of ridiculous government lists... :ninja:

It's not just thugs who choose to purchase weapons via a non B&M route. :wink:

Play The Man
03-04-2011, 05:49 AM
Why don't you consider a private sale? I've purchased and sold multiple weapons via private parties with no issues. You avoid all of the red tape bull crap and keep your name off of ridiculous government lists... :ninja:

It's not just thugs who choose to purchase weapons via a non B&M route. :wink:
This current gun was free (except the taxes). I won it. No thug needed. I don't know the procedure for person-to-person sales. I suspect that most of the paperwork would still apply. You are fortunate to live where you live.

Spiritwalker
03-04-2011, 11:20 AM
In NC I can sell my guns to a private person.. not problem at all...

But the last pistol I bought at a store.. took me almost a month to do it "buy the book"..

I also bought a shotgun at a sporting goods store in two minutes.. just showed my license to show that I was over 21...

"kinda funny that"...

KENTUCKYREDBONE
03-04-2011, 08:05 PM
I'm hoping to pick up a used revolver or Shotgun for around a hundred dollars or so! I've been planning on checking out some pawn shop's but ain't had time! I gotta watch the spending so I can take the boys to a Judo tournament in Tennessee. Its gonna be in Spring Hill TN the 12th of this month. Wonder if guns are any cheaper their than KY? That and what are the laws in Tennessee? In Kentucky its proof of ID and pass a background check! Not completely sure but I don't think that applies to person to person sales. I think that you can get in trouble though if you know your selling it to a felon!

rockdawg21
03-05-2011, 05:41 AM
Can't everybody just be required to put a sign in their front yard just like registered sexual predators?

Tyburn
03-06-2011, 12:12 AM
This Law is an Equal Opportunities Law. Aimed at promoting Criminal Activity which is ballenced by Citizenship. It tells the Criminal whose house they can break into...and whose house they had better not break into
:laugh: