Welcome, Guest! - or
Easy to remember!  »  VinNews.com

Putnam County, NY - Clerk: Releasing Gun Names Endangers Public

Published on: January 3, 2013 07:01 PM
By: AP
Change text size Text Size  
Bookmark and Share
Putnam County Clerk Dennis SantPutnam County Clerk Dennis Sant

Putnam County, NY - A New York county clerk justified his refusal to release the names and addresses of handgun permit holders to a newspaper, saying it would give stalkers and thieves a convenient roadmap to target potential victims — and determine whether they have a gun.

“This certainly puts my public in danger,” Putnam County Clerk Dennis Sant said Thursday following a news conference in which he was backed by the county executive and other elected officials.

The Journal News, which serves New York City’s northern suburbs, sparked an outcry last month when it published clickable online maps with the names and addresses of pistol permit holders in Rockland and Westchester counties.

When the newspaper requested the same information from Putnam, Sant initially said the county needed more time to fulfill the request. Sant balked entirely this week, saying the law gives him the prerogative to refuse to release public information if it endangers the public. Judges and police officers could be targeted by the people they put behind bars, he said. People with orders of protection have expressed concern to him about would-be attackers finding them through the database.

Advertisement:

While anyone can come into his office and file the necessary paperwork to request information on individual permits, Sant said the difference is that the Journal News plans to publish the information in a way that makes it accessible to everyone, instantaneously.

“First of all, it tells criminals who doesn’t have a gun,” he said. “It gives a burglar or it gives a thief a map.”

The Journal News’ database and accompanying story, “The Gun Owner Next Door,” was published as part of the newspaper’s coverage following the Newtown, Conn., school shooting. Some readers say it unfairly stigmatized gun owners, branding them in the same way as online maps showing where child molesters live. The newspaper says it received threats and has posted armed guards at its offices.

Journal News Publisher Janet Hasson did not respond to several requests for comment Thursday but has issued statements previously standing behind the newspaper’s project and maintaining residents have a right to see such public information.

Diane Kennedy, president of the New York News Publishers Association, said she reached out to Hasson offering support. She said editors may debate whether the Journal News should have published the database, but they fully backed the newspaper’s right to access public records under New York’s Freedom of Information Law. If the issue went to court, she said, member newspapers would file a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the Journal News.

“It’s really clear cut,” Kennedy said. “The existing law doesn’t have exemptions in it. It says this information is subject to FOIL.”

Rex Smith, editor of the Times Union in Albany, N.Y., said : “There is a broad consensus that the kind of resistance to the FOIL application that we’re seeing in Putnam County is intolerable.”

The denial of similar information to The Wall Street Journal by New York City’s police commissioner led to a case that in 1981 was decided in favor of the newspaper.

But Sant says that times have changed.

“The technology today is so different,” he said. “I’m looking forward to the opportunity of bringing to the magistrates that this is not 30 years ago.”

Several attempts to pass a law that would shield gun permit holders’ personal information have failed to pass the legislature in recent years.

Experts say the county may have a difficult time defending the refusal, because New York state law classifies the data as public.

“The argument has been made and rejected,” said Robert Freeman of the State Committee on Open Government. “There’s never been any indication that disclosure resulted in any jeopardy.”

Edward S. Rudofsky, a New York attorney who specializes in the First Amendment, added, “I don’t see why technology makes this any more or less sensitive than it would otherwise be.”


More of today's headlines

London - A Pakistani man accused by British authorities of being an al-Qaida operative who took part in a plot to bomb US and English targets was extradited from Britain... Jerusalem - Shas spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef may no longer bless his adherents via smartphone, the Central Election Committee ruled on Thursday. On Sunday...

 

Total6

Read Comments (6)  —  Post Yours »

1

 Jan 03, 2013 at 09:30 PM greuve Says:

yes, the law may "permit it", however look at who our lawmakers are, and then apply common sense

2

 Jan 03, 2013 at 10:43 PM PaulinSaudi Says:

I do not see how such a release endangers the public. Further the law has a presumption if favor of free speech. Off to the courts we go!

3

 Jan 04, 2013 at 08:04 AM AlbertEinstein Says:

FOIA is not a carte blanc for access to all public information. It can be easily denied on many bases, such as public safety. Furthermore, the degree of concern doesn't have to be so great to get a FOIA waiver.

I did it all the time when I was in the government, and was never denied a waiver.

4

 Jan 04, 2013 at 09:06 AM Materetsky Says:

Reply to #2  
PaulinSaudi Says:

I do not see how such a release endangers the public. Further the law has a presumption if favor of free speech. Off to the courts we go!

Pretty simple how the release would endanger people. You know who has a gun and who doesn't. So you know who you can rob without being fear of being shot.

Free speech is generally limited when it can cause danger. For example, defamation is illegal. Threats of violence are illegal. Offers to bribe someone are illegal. Giving out patient health information is illegal. They are all unprotected speech. Most importantly words that incite violenece are illegal as well.

A newspaper can say whatever they want, but I don't have to say whatever THEY want. Meaning, if they want my high school records, I don't have to give it to them. But once they have them, they are free to publish (usually). So the question here isn't one of free speech, the question is only is whether the gun registry should be so accessible to the public.

5

 Jan 05, 2013 at 10:04 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #4  
Materetsky Says:

Pretty simple how the release would endanger people. You know who has a gun and who doesn't. So you know who you can rob without being fear of being shot.

Free speech is generally limited when it can cause danger. For example, defamation is illegal. Threats of violence are illegal. Offers to bribe someone are illegal. Giving out patient health information is illegal. They are all unprotected speech. Most importantly words that incite violenece are illegal as well.

A newspaper can say whatever they want, but I don't have to say whatever THEY want. Meaning, if they want my high school records, I don't have to give it to them. But once they have them, they are free to publish (usually). So the question here isn't one of free speech, the question is only is whether the gun registry should be so accessible to the public.

you are wrong on many counts.

firstly, you have no ides who has a gun and who doesn't. just because you don't have a license doesn't mean you don't have a gun. secondly, just because you have a license, doesn't mean you have the gun handy, practically all permits in NY are not carry permits.

6

 Jan 05, 2013 at 10:05 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #4  
Materetsky Says:

Pretty simple how the release would endanger people. You know who has a gun and who doesn't. So you know who you can rob without being fear of being shot.

Free speech is generally limited when it can cause danger. For example, defamation is illegal. Threats of violence are illegal. Offers to bribe someone are illegal. Giving out patient health information is illegal. They are all unprotected speech. Most importantly words that incite violenece are illegal as well.

A newspaper can say whatever they want, but I don't have to say whatever THEY want. Meaning, if they want my high school records, I don't have to give it to them. But once they have them, they are free to publish (usually). So the question here isn't one of free speech, the question is only is whether the gun registry should be so accessible to the public.

your comparison makes no sense. the examples you cite are illegal because there are laws that make those actions illegal. there are no laws that make listing gun owners illegal.

7

Sign-in to post a comment

Scroll Up
Advertisements:

Sell your scrap gold and broken jewelry and earn hard cash sell gold today!