Yes, there should be a gun registry. No, it shouldn't be public.

[DanTex]

All gun owners should be licensed, and all guns should be registered. But the names and addresses of gun owners should not be made public. The info should be available to law enforcement in order to trace guns. It might be released in bulk, non-personally-identifiable form so the public can determine, for example, how many guns there are in a certain county.

But publishing the entire list of names and addresses of anyone who owns a gun is a violation of privacy.

[slackmaster]

1. Rec because I agree with 50% of this post

Government has a poor track record of keeping confidential things that it is supposed to.

[unblock]

2. not that the private sector does any better

sure, coca-cola can sure keep a secret, but customer data seems to get stolen ever month or so, and that's only the stuff we hear about.

[DanTex]

4. Not necessarily. Tax data, for example, is pretty well confidential.

[yellowcanine]

47. And passport files.....oops

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/18/us/state-dept-official-who-searched-clinton-s-passport-files-resigns.html

[oddoneout]

3. I agree

n/t

[JaneyVee]

5. I agree as well.

[L0oniX]

6. I suggest a police type psych test for all before a gun purchase is allowed.

A psych test is given to all police candidates and some security guards. Why not have the same test for gun owners?

[GodlessBiker]

7. Is it a violation of privacy to release and publish ...

a list from the county clerk of the names and addresses of people who have mortgages on their homes?

[DanTex]

8. I don't know. Is that information publicly available?

I would prefer if that information were not available.

[tradecenter]

9. I couldn't agree with you more.

The general public has no business or right knowing what I types, or number of firearms I own or have in my home.

[treestar]

10. How come?

I don't see the problem. Shouldn't we know who has them?

Why do the gun owners want it private? I thought the idea was criminals let you alone when they know you have guns.

[slackmaster]

11. See WilliamPitt's post on that subject

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2084766

[treestar]

19. So let the potential attacker know you have the gun

The protection order usually will prohibit him from having one too.

I thought the whole idea was that people won't attack someone they know has a gun. So now why is keeping it a secret until the attack occurs a great idea?

[slackmaster]

21. The gun is not the issue

The problem with what the Journal News did is that it very likely published previously UNLISTED addresses of people who are trying to keep their locations secret.

[treestar]

22. One's address is not "unlisted" if one does something to create a public record.

There is only so much that can be done to hide from others. But the point is that having the gun should be protective and letting perspective attackers know you have it is something one would want anyway. Why wait for the person to show up? And then bring out the gun?

[slackmaster]

24. That's a nice rationalization

[AceWheeler]

43. Not a rationalization at all

It is a thoughtful consideration of all aspects of the issue. So you can disagree all you want, but labeling it some sort of psychological pathology doesn't do squate--it's simply an ad hominem attack.

I happen to agree that there may be good cause for gun registrants to be known to the public. I'd like to know if my neighbor has some sort of weapon.

Those who advocate unlimited, or unrestricted gun ownership appear to view the use of them to kill needlessly, or accidentally as some sort of collateral damage. Well, then let the publication of their names and addresses be another part of the collateral damages.

As for the women hiding from an abusive spouse, ex-boyfriend, whatever, she can do more than simply buy a gun and move to a new address. Not only could but probably should, if he's that dangerous.

[shadowrider]

38. The protection order usually will prohibit him from having one too.

Because we all know people always obey the law. There is no law, anywhere in the world, that will prohibit someone from obtaining an illegal item, unless there is a policeman with them 24/7.

A protection order can prohibit all it wants. It's a piece of paper that means nothing.

[MicaelS]

17. Because it's none of your business, that's why.

Just like a lot of things people do are no one else business. It's called "Privacy".

[treestar]

18. Why? You have possession of something you can use to kill me?

We register cars publicly. And real property. Some things are other peoples' business. If I hit you with my car, I can't deny owning it. What I do on my real property is restricted by zoning, etc.

Besides, my point was, most gun people argue that the reason schools get attacked is due to their being "gun free." So why not put off burglars by putting a sign outside telling them you have a gun? Makes no sense that you'd want it to be a secret. The idea was to scare off the baddies.

[PoliticAverse]

29. "We register cars publicly." - And Rebecca Schaeffer was killed because of available DMV records.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Schaeffer

[treestar]

46. She was killed because a psycho had a gun

Not everyone needs the DMV to find their victims.

[Jenoch]

34. In Munnesota, cops and other

public employees havw been fired for accessing DMV database information without a specific work related need for that information. A woman in Minnesota has recently received about a million dollars in settlements wity various law enforcement agencies for violating her privacy.

[SpartanDem]

41. So you'd be ok with blanket publishing this info

name, address, what kind they own

[treestar]

45. It's already public

None of us can hide our existence, as some people seem to think they must be able to do.

[Coyote_Tan]

26. It isn't the point...

Which is more of a deterrent to a criminal...

A) 10 potential victims and you know that the third one from the left is armed and the rest are not...

Or...

B) 10 potential victims, any one of which could be armed and might not be the easy prey he is hoping for

That's the point of conceal carry and why a national registry is a bad idea and an invasion of privacy

[Jenoch]

33. If a criminal knows you have

guns in your home they are much more likely to break in when the house is unoccupied in an attempt to steal them. My father used to have a decal on his front door that said something like "This Home is Protected by Smith & Wesson" until he was told why it is not a good idea..

[byronius]

12. Concur.

[lynne]

13. Agree 100% n/t

[bluerum]

14. Here is another self righteous anti gun position. You must keep your guns safely hidden and locked

away. Meanwhile we are going to publish a list of adresses that identifies the location of all the guns in town.

But i agree. If there is going to be a registry it should be for law enforcement purposes only.

[madinmaryland]

39. That's funny. I thought all responsible gun owners did that. You mean there are some

"responsible" gun owners that do not keep their guns safely hidden and locked away when they are gone or not using them???

Whoda thunk!

[Dems to Win]

15. Agree 100% California's DMV record are not public, guns should be the same. nationwide

Our DMV records are shielded after a stalker used them to find and kill an actress. Same principle should apply to these records.

That newspaper was highly irresponsible.

[Skittles]

16. the lovely Rebecca Shaeffer

[ecstatic]

20. Great idea! nt

[Hugabear]

23. We should have the right to know who is armed in our communities

Maybe some of us would prefer to know if our neighbor or co-worker owns guns. Gun registration should be like any other public record.

[Coyote_Tan]

27. There are lots of things I'd like to know about my neighbors...

... But it doesn't make it any of my business.

Mind your own beeswax...

[slackmaster]

28. I'd certainly like to know which ones are closet Furries, or Abba fans

[sarisataka]

31. What's wrong with ABBA?

...ok, furries are kind of creepy

[slackmaster]

32. Have you just outed yourself here, sarisataka? Or should I call you "Bjorn?"

[sarisataka]

36. I choose to exercise my 5th Amendment rights...

[RomneyLies]

25. I agree n/t

[bowens43]

30. It should be public

Gun owners are a clear and present danger to all of us. We have a right to know who they are, where they are and what they have.

[hack89]

35. So how do we get criminals to register their guns?

they are the people that concern me the most.

[Sadiedog]

42. Exactly!

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

37. Not only private, but it should require a warrant to access.

It should require a valid warrant to even access information in a centralized registry. If police have a legitimate reason to be searching whether or not someone has guns and what kind - then fine, their reason should be strong enough to obtain a real warrant. No exploratory searches or random browsing. Any access and information rendered should be logged so that police fraud is prevented, or at least kept to a minimum.

[99Forever]

40. Nonsense. I jumped thru MUCH tougher and many more hoops...

... when getting a private kennel license so we can keep 4 dogs on our 2.75 acres. As I said in another thread:

In order to get a private kennel license, we had our particulars published 3 times in the paper, had 4 public hearings with the planning dept. , had to have a home inspection by a member of the Planning Commission, had a large sign placed on the front of our property for 3 months, laid out over $1500 in fees, building permits and upgrades to our property, and had to pass a building inspectors 2 inspections.

And you think you should be able to hide that fact that you have deadly weapons in your home that are capable of killing people even beyond your property lines? That what you are saying? 'Cuz I'm fresh out of Give a Shit about your "privacy." Let me know when you actually have a REAL hassle keeping your *the precious* close at hand.

[NutmegYankee]

44. And I would support such a law. nt