-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Website with searchable database of NY pistol permit holders
- Thread starter LoginName
- Start date
They tried this in Indiana but it appears the state passed a law to preventing disclosure of said information. I should have never moved.
http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20100115/NEWS07/301159973/1002/LOCAL
http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20100115/NEWS07/301159973/1002/LOCAL
In a perverted justice sort of way, I suppose that's the only silver lining to publishing that list... in a "may issue" state, it demonstrates that who you are and/or who you know can make a difference between getting denied or approved. It could also be used to reveal the hypocrisy of anti-gunners that just happen to posses a firearms permit.
In the end, it might be those very same people with influence that get the law changed so this doesn't happen again.
Regardless... I still think having permit holders names made available to the public is inexcusable.
From my hazy recollection... the Globe had intended to publish a list of permit holders (might have been LTC A ALP only), in MA, but some quick action by GOAL prevented that and a law was passed prohibiting any future publishing of firearms owners names/address'.
Last edited:
My neighbor mentioned the same thing so your recollection is pretty good
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
...thankfully it got shot down (no pun intended).
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
You can bet both of theirs are not restricted...
Even in free states this has been a problem. A paper in FL published a complete list of names and addresses in of CCW holders. A law was written to prevent it, but that law has a sunset provision.
Yet another fine demonstration of how you cannot "trust" the state will do the right thing, you have to make it difficult to impossible for them to do the wrong thing or they will do it whether intentionally or through bureaucratic incompetence.
Yet another fine demonstration of how you cannot "trust" the state will do the right thing, you have to make it difficult to impossible for them to do the wrong thing or they will do it whether intentionally or through bureaucratic incompetence.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
That's likely two permits linked together by a dummy record, note the lack of an address on the first. Anyhow, he probably has two addresses listed because he is storing them in multiple locations. Guys who expect to be restricted in NYC will get permits for all of the locations instead. Why trump couldn't buy an unrestricted is beyond me. But that is what the lowly bastards do to work around the situation. They can't carry in between, but at least they have at both locations.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,547
- Likes
- 33,605
The guns are listed on the permit, and there is no limit unless the issuing authority decides to impose one.
The old database shows that I have two NY permits, however, I no longer live in NY. I returned one, and the non-resident permit I was issued expired back in 1999.
And no, you can't get non-resident permits any more. One judge used to issue NY permits by mail, however, the county law department issued an opinion that he lacked the jurisdictional authority to do so and all permits he issued to non-residents were allowed to expire and not eligible for renewal (fortunately, they were not revoked). Too bad .... the application even had a "check if Canadian" box on the form, and lots Toronto area folks had NY carry permits. And no, this judge did not restrict the permits (but they were upstate "Not valid in NYC" permits)
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
Why would he need one? He has a lifetime of SS protection.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,547
- Likes
- 33,605
He did. At least one of his sons, however, has a restricted NYC permit.
I received a letter from RI a number of years ago warning me that a RI newspaper was attempting to get the list; that the AG's office was resisting; and if they lost in court, the info would be provided to the paper. I believe the AGs office prevailed on that one.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2009
- Messages
- 7,080
- Likes
- 6,999
If the state is going to license something then that info should be public. Best thing would be to have no state permits them it isn't an issue. None of a state's business dealings should be hidden. Lots of things the state has no business in...
we're not happy over this list here, fortunately it isn't 100% accurate I did a search by zip and found out they missed me and one of my sons. it also had a bunch of dead people on it too.
I sent this along to a friend who lives in New York. His name and address is on the list.
My son's name is not on the list. He's a cop in New York City. Hopefully they will at least keep LEO names and addresses protected.
My son's name is not on the list. He's a cop in New York City. Hopefully they will at least keep LEO names and addresses protected.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 11,135
- Likes
- 1,600
why just cops? everyone should be treated equally on this.
- Joined
- May 4, 2008
- Messages
- 136
- Likes
- 20
It's a terrible thing. I would hate it if it were instituted here. What does GOAL think? Does NY have a GOAL-like organization?
I agree. This data should not be public information.
M
MACGYVR
This is very far from accurate. I checked a few people I know in upstate and they were not in there. I listed by town and it too was missing many people.
I checked the whois lookup on the domain and find it interesting that the site feels the need to out pistol permit holders yet the owner hides behind a private domain registration in the name of a webhosting company.
I checked the whois lookup on the domain and find it interesting that the site feels the need to out pistol permit holders yet the owner hides behind a private domain registration in the name of a webhosting company.
I just searched out a number of NYPD officer that I know and some came up with addresses and a couple were listed without any addresses.
Bad stuff!!
NO state should allow this info to be published anywhere. MA forbids this by MGL.
Bad stuff!!
NO state should allow this info to be published anywhere. MA forbids this by MGL.
MGLs PROHIBIT any publication of gun permit holders info, period!!
NONE of this info should be published in any state, period!
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,547
- Likes
- 33,605
This sword has two edges. There have been cases where attorneys fighting a license denial wished to argue that their client was not receiving equal treatment, but the court turned down their discovery request for redacted applications (just showing reason given by the applicant and licensing decision).
I read a news article when this was done in another state, and I'll never forget one of the comments that was posted on the newspapers website. It was something along the lines of "I'm a female who spent years trying to avoid a psycho abusive ex. Thanks to this, I now have to move, AGAIN."
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
Yup
![[frown]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/003.gif "Frown [frown]")
. This is just one more reason why there should be no permits required for the possession or ownership of guns. Even if the database isn't made public, a 13 year old hacker can access it from his mom's living room. There've been gun thefts in Canada that can only be explained by thieves accessing registration info.Public info as in any resident of the state can get the info in person at the county courthouse? Or public info as in anyone can put the info on the internet so that literally anyone in the world can access it?
This is why gunowners should be pushing for no licensing at all. As a stopgap we should be pushing for these databases to be kept private.
Everyone should be treated equally and shouldn't need a license at all. But by the nature of their job, LE are exposed to much greater risk than the average person, and off duty attacks on LE are on the rise, especially so in my state. As I said above, keeping these lists quiet should only be a stopgap.
Correct on both points.
Really? That seems out of line with the intent of the law.
MGL 66-10(d):
Not that I'm surprised that licensing abuses in MA twist the intent of the law.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,547
- Likes
- 33,605
The appellant was looking for redacted copies of other person's applications to the same chief, not info from their own application. Furthermore, the records sought where held by the issuing department, not the CHSB, its agents, servants or attorneys.
