Excellent. Perhaps now this can be a message to the gestapos out there that harassing people exercising their constitution rights is unacceptable, morally and now legally. Jerks. This also applies to that Journal-News request, which created that interactive map.

Via Weekly Standard.

A New York appellate court has ruled that the New York Times’s request for a list of gun owners in New York City, under the Freedom of Information Law, violates the state’s statute. The ruling overturns in part a lower court’s ruling.

“Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered November 1, 2011, granting the petition to the extent it sought an order directing respondent, under the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law § 84 et seq.) (FOIL), to provide an electronic copy of a database, as redacted, of names and addresses of New York City residents who have been granted handgun licenses, and a database, to be redacted, of hate crimes reported to respondent from January 1, 2005 to the present, and denying the petition to the extent it sought an order directing respondent to provide an electronic copy of its crime incident database, a declaration that respondent’s practices in responding to FOIL requests violate the statute, and an order directing respondent to cease these practices, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the petition as to the databases of handgun licensees and hate crimes and to reinstate the petition with respect to the demand for the crime incident database, insofar as it seeks production of the electronic crime incident database produced in Floyd v City of New York (08 Civ 01034 [SAS] [US Dist Ct, SD NY]) (the Floyd database), and the matter remitted to Supreme Court for a determination of whether production of the Floyd database should be ordered, and, if so, to what extent and under what conditions, and otherwise affirmed, without costs,” reads the ruling.

This section is for comments from tammybruce.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
11 Comments | Leave a comment
  1. Cathode Rays says:

    The incidents with the newspapers demonstrates the danger in allowing the government to keep lists of gun owners.

  2. Maynard says:

    Off topic, but I saw the reports of some conservative objections to Obama’s drone strikes on American citizens. Is this a knee-jerk reaction on the assumption that everything Obama does is wrong? If an American citizen has gone over to an enemy power and is engaged in enemy action, then he’s fair game. Yes, a drone’s a fine way to get the job done. I’ll give points to whoever takes the bad guy down. Yes, even Obama gets points.

    • otlset says:

      I understand the sentiment, but it’s conceptually kind of a frightening thought that such decisions of life and death are decided ultimately by King Obama. And the potentially innocent lives nearby that get taken out too as collateral damage doesn’t set well.

  3. sourkraut says:

    Good point Maynard. However, please consider this. If we kill them all, we cannot interrogate them and gain information on future attacks, their strategies etc. makes the US and the rest of the world more vulnerable. Just a thought.

    • Maynard says:

      Except 1) These are likely circumstances where it’s practical to blow the guy up but not practical to arrest him, and 2) Can we effectively interrogate people these days, or do they immediately lawyer up and sue us?

  4. Cernunnos81 says:

    My take, and again, I am off topic as well, is a bit more simple. Obama wanted to grant full rights, comparable to citizens, to unlawful enemy combatants captured in combat against US troops or in the process of planning/executing plans against US personnel, citizens or interests. But then he wants to have the ability to ignore due process (not as defined by his AG as being different than judiciary process) and execute US citizens, without even a trial in absentia. If he is permitted to do this, what stops him from expanding on his already sweeping powers under the NDAA, that already allows him to capture and imprison any US citizen, without trial or hearing, indefinitely and with habeus corpus waived? What stops him from declaring the conservative leadership of this nation as enemies of the State and having them incarcerated and executed for their “crimes” with no trial? It is a supremely slippery slope and even more dangerous than most will consider. Notice he has kept us in a perpetual “state of war”, despite his insistance that he would immediately end Iraq and Afghanistan. We haven’t gotten anywhere on the latter and now that Libya is done with we are moving troops and equipment into Turkey “to protect the Turks and the Syrian refugees”. If we remain in a “state of war” he can continue to expand his powers and can, if pressed too hard, suspend rights through implementation of “martial law”. The rules are drawn up, the “civilian military force” is at hand (DHS has co-opted almost every national “police agency” except a few) and has bought enough ammunition to shoot Every American 6 times. With a pending vote on a bill to disarm the general population, all of these things combine to make me VERY twitchy, and you lot know I’m no conspiracy nut.

    more later

  5. Maynard says:

    Hmmm. Tammy linked this article, “Own a gun? Time to buy violence liability insurance, California Democrats say”.

    “I was moved, like many others, being the father of two young children, by the Sandy Hook incident and looking for constructive ways to manage gun violence here in California as well as the rest of the country,” said Assemblyman Philip Ting of San Francisco, who introduced AB231 along with Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez of Los Angeles. “There’s basically a cost that is born by the taxpayers when accidents occur. … I don’t think that taxpayers should be footing those bills.”

    In either case, they’re asking innocent people to pay for the crimes of the guilty; they’re just shifting the burden to a class of people they happen to dislike.

    Also, it’s worth noting this is a bit like the poll tax. You know, a tax to discourage people from exercising their rights under the Constitution.

    • Alain41 says:

      Adam Lanza stole his mother’s guns (and then also killed her). If someone steals my car and uses it to drive drunk from a bar and crash into pedestrians crossing an intersection, my liability insurance doesn’t pay. And I believe that the drunk driver’s liability insurance wouldn’t pay either, eg, insurance doesn’t cover stolen car exploits.

  6. Maynard says:

    Q: Why do you need a gun?
    A: Why did Rosa Parks need to sit at the front of a bus?

  7. Alain41 says:

    This might be good. http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/cooper_to_make_seal_film_uzTKEfmo2DeovGgi54e82K

    “Bradley Cooper will star in a movie about former Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, … Cooper, an advocate for mental-health issues … will also produce the movie … Cooper’s production company last year bought the rights to Kyle’s book, “American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in US Military History,” and will now re-work the script to include his death….”

  8. Alain41 says:

    Antonin Scalia could teach Republican establishment a thing or two. He’s not just a speaker, he’s a doer who engages culturally.

    “…The long-time duck hunter [Scalia] revealed that he’s taken Obama appointee Elena Kagan hunting several times, the last being for big game in Wyoming where she shot a whitetail doe. “She dropped that doe with one shot,”…”


You must be logged in to post a comment.