Gun Owner Protection Or 1st Amendmant Violation

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed a bill last week penalizing those who publish the names of individuals who own or have applied for a concealed handgun permit with potential jail sentences of six months and fines of $10,000.

“We are building on the work we’ve done to protect the rights of Louisianians while also implementing common-sense gun safety measures,” he added.

www.foxnews.com...

I am a believer in 1st amendment rights. I've been defending it in the case with chalk and the case of the kid who wore the NRA shirt in these forums. How far is to much though?

I believe posting addresses and names of people who own firearms a little to far. It makes us a target for groups that don't believe in our right to have arms.
I wouldn't believe in the posting of names and addresses of people who don't have firearms either. For the same reason. There is always some nut out their who feels its their duty to fight for their side. Why put someone's family in harms way because you don't like the fact I use my 2nd amendment.

Louisiana 2nd amendment is a little different.

On May 29, the Louisiana State House approved Sen. Neil Riser's SB 303 in a 77-22 vote. The proposal calls for an amendment to the State Constitution that eliminates wording that gives local governments the right to restrict concealed carry of firearms.

www.outdoorlife.com...

Our state logo is Sportsman Paradise. Lots of us own hunting rifles. As well as owning hunting rifle lots of us conceal carry.

All in all. I support the 1st amendment. The 1st should stop when you endanger anyone and/or their family.

What say you ATS?

Is it right to protect our gun owners? Or is this just a violation of the 1st amendment? Maybe both?

Anyway. I believe this isn't a violation of our 1st amendment. We should protect private information of our gun owners and everyone else.


Sorry for the bad presentation. On first cup of coffee.

reply to post by Isittruee


"Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose."
-Anon.

First Amendment rights are great as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. Displaying names of people who own or don't own firearms is a violation of the individuals right to privacy.

reply to post by Isittruee


Well, funny issue there, because if people know where you live and they have a problem with you, then in this case someone used the first amendment to violate the fourth. Which is also odd because when someone comes to violate your fourth, you have to resort to the first and sometimes the second and all because someone couldnt respect your privacy and had a total disregard for your safety.

Its just good practice to respect everyone I would say. There's no reason to go tell the world everyone's personal business like that especially if you don't have consent.

Completely made up issue.

If the 2nd wasnt being infringed with the permitting then there would be no excuse for infringing the 1st.

The right question to ask is why are we infringing the 2nd. That will free the 1st.

Government likes to use more government to solve problems created by government. Thats the spiral of tyranny.

Stop the permitting crap. Problem solved with liberty rather than tyranny.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Legal gun owners aren't sex offenders. Till they snap and kill someone, they aren't a danger to anyone or themselves. Having a firearm legally isn't a crime. I am against this kind of disclosure as it may lead to undue discrimination towards gun owners.

Great law.

We already have a similar law in Texas - without the fines and penalties. The TX Dept of Public Safety will answer inquiries about specific CHL holders, after notifying said CHL holder of the inquiry. THere aren't too many folks willing to ask for information about specific CHL holders when they understand that the CHL holder gets the information on who (and from where) is inquiring into their licenses.

ganjoa

I was always told that your rights end where another person's begin.

Unless I am mistaken, the right to privacy is covered under "non-enumerated rights" (the 9th amendment). (which should actually include this whole PRISM business)

In which case a person publishing those names would violate the CCW holder's 9th amendment rights ipso facto nullifying their own 1st amendment rights.

This law just sets forth the rights of a CCW holder's status to remain somewhat confidential.

It's a complicated situation but I'm sure most of you can see where I'm coming from.