Mercury One charity hits the $1m-raised mark for Oklahoma Tornado relief

Watch Live: Second House Hearing on IRS Scandal

Government

N.Y. County Reverses Course — Vows Not to Give Gun Owners’ Names & Addresses to Newspaper

Jan. 2, 2013 12:19pm Billy Hallowell

Putnam County Refuses to Release Pistol Permit Info to Journal News

Photo Credit: Getty Images

The Journal News made national headlines with its decision to publish the home addresses of pistol permit holders in New York State’s Westchester and Rockland counties. Since assembling its map, which includes the personal information of gun owners, the paper has promised to add a third county — Putnam — to its roster. But it seems the outlet, which recently hired armed guards to protect its own staff, has hit a snag, as Putnam executives are refusing to release the requested gun ownership data.

With county officials reversing course after claiming last month that they were assembling the information, some are warning that pistol permits are public record and that any refusal to release data violates state law. According to Robert Freeman, executive director of New York’s Committee on Open Government, the county’s decision not to comply with the Freedom of Information Law, which the Journal News used to obtain names and addresses, is not legally sound.

Freeman claims that the law speaks clearly on the issue, as he noted that, “The name and address of any gun licensee are public.” Putnam County, like Westchester and Rockland Counties, is part of the New York City metropolitan area; there are 100,000 residents living within its bounds.

Photo Credit: Getty Images

Despite the notion that Putnam may violate state law in its refusal, Republican State Sen. Greg Ball is defending the county’s decision, calling the newspaper’s exploits “asinine.” Ball joined Putnam County Executive MaryEllen Odell and County Clerk Dennis Sant in announcing the county’s stance on Tuesday. The decision came following calls that officials not release this personal data.

“I’m proud to stand with Putnam County and proud that Putnam won’t be releasing its pistol permit records,” Ball said in a statement about the contentious issue, claiming that The Journal News is placing a “virtual scarlet letter” on “law abiding firearm owners” in the New York region.

The Journal News has cause to appeal a denial. If the outlet again receives a refusal from Putnam County, the paper could ask for a judge to intervene and decide. In the wake of the government’s decision not to comply, the newspaper’s President and Publisher Janet Hasson defended the choices that her journalistic enterprise has made.

“We believe the law is clear that this is public information, and the residents of Putnam County are entitled to see it,” she said. “We’re troubled that county officials have apparently switched their position since we first requested the information.”

Putnam County Refuses to Release Pistol Permit Info to Journal News

On Tuesday, Ball also had some less-than-favorable words for the Journal News, dubbing the paper the “Urinal News.” He tweeted, “Proud to stand w Putnam Cnty Clerk, Dennis Sant. Putnam will not be releasing the permit records to the Urinal News. Standing up for right.”

(H/T: USA Today)

–

Related:

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (93)

perry1980
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 1:57pm
smart move. don’t pisss off the people with the guns

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Flag-Man
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 2:19pm
  You are so right
  Semper Fi
  
  Report this comment
- turkey13
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 3:12pm
  It was the local gangs that wanted the paper to run the names of gun owning citizens. If I was going to break into someones house I would pick about 5 or 6 houses with no guns and hit the one in the middle. I think the millionaires in Putman county stopped the names from being released because someone could track down their bodyguards and follow them to work.
  
  Report this comment
- donkeykong
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 4:13pm
  After a week of this, I STILL don’t understand how
  this law does not have someone in jail now:
  google S2488B and see what you get….In my
  mind the law was in effect in June, 2012.
  What am I missing here? The law was PASSED !
  
  Report this comment
- JRook
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 4:34pm
  Why I thought they were all law abiding citizens.
  
  Report this comment
- georgette
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 5:30pm
  The perpetrators will forever be thought of as lowbrows .
  
  Report this comment
- Bohump
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 5:34pm
  Semper – Fi Flag-man, … When you need a Gun, …. Nothing else will do !
  
  Report this comment
- karen162
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 6:53pm
  Donkeykong,
  
  You’re right. New York law states that people with lisences and their personal information are private info. I don’t understand how they are doing it. http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S2488B-2011
  
  FYI: II Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
  
  Pretty simple. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Sir William Blackstone, an authoritative source of the common law for colonists and, therefore, a dominant influence on the drafters of the original Constitution and its Bill of Rights, set forth in his Commentaries the absolute rights of individuals as: personal security, personal liberty, and possession of private property, I Blackstone Commentaries 129, these absolute rights being protected by the individual’s right to have and use arms for self-preservation and defense. As Blackstone observed, individual citizens were therefore entitled to exercise their “natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.” Clearly evident in this statement is Blackstone’s recognition that the exercise of an individual’s absolute rights could be imperiled by a standing army as well as by private individuals, a view supported by his observation that “Nothing … ought to be more guarded against in a free sta
  
  Report this comment
- karen162
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 6:56pm
  Con’t
  
  “Nothing … ought to be more guarded against in a free state than making the military power … a body too distinct from the people.” Id. at 414. To prevent such an occurrence, Blackstone not only believed in the individual’s right to have and use arms, but further believed that for its defense a nation should rely not on a standing army, but the citizen soldier. Plainly, for such a concept to be a reality, it was necessary that all able-bodied males possess and be capable of using arms.
  
  It cut me off earlier. How rude! :-)
  
  Report this comment
- zman173rd
  Posted on January 3, 2013 at 10:31am
  In our state you can request the salaries of individual state employees, but you can’t request a blanket salary statement for all employees. If you need to know who you neighbors are that have a gun then you do it personally or online. As for me I hope ALL of my neighbors are armed. If an emrgency comes and the “police” don’t, I want to be protected. Funny how ‘police’ sounds a lot like ‘please’. I for one don’t beg.
  
  Report this comment
CommonSenseTalk
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 1:47pm
The county only needs to have the newspaper fill out a request, hand written, one name and one permit at a time. They can put in one request a day until they get all the names. It is public records and they should be able to get them. I learned these tricks from the left, they are good a slowing down the system.

When has it become OK for a newspaper to take a average American and use them to make money. They are not newsworthy, they are just following the law. This is not a public service, but a for profit newspaper making money from people names and home addresses.

I think the list of employees at the newspaper should include SS, DOB, birthplace, families names, the car they drive with tag number. This is public records and should be publish for all people to know. I’m sure anyone with this information would never do bad things with it.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Lt_Scrounge
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 8:53pm
  Gannett newspapers are notoriously anti firearm.
  
  Report this comment
mcsledge
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 1:35pm
There is nothing like a progressive/liberal media. Too bad they don’t have the same desire to call out baby killers (those having abortions). I would rather not associate with such immoral and disrespectful individuals.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- WarMunger_Al
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 1:39pm
  Here is a prime example of what the government thinks about our individual rights, and proof you cannot hope for the police to side with the people.
  http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2012/jun/11/miller-cover-dcs-arrest-iraq-vet/#.UOMNtln-s_s.reddit
  
  Report this comment
- ExposeGannett
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 2:04pm
  Awwww…they hired armed guards to protect them? Guess they don’t like TURNABOUT…Gannett employees beware…from “journalist” to janitor…from editor to executive, we will post your information online, we will map out your home address. We will invite people to contact you, we will expose your bias and hold you accountable for your arrogance. THE PEOPLE will be silent no more…your reign of terror is over…you have brought this upon yourselves:
  http://www.exposegannett.wordpress.com
  
  Report this comment
ArmedAndReallyPissed
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 1:33pm
RIGHTS ? The only people in this Kountry that have rights anymore are those who are Anti-Gun, Anti-Christian, Pro Gay, Pro Marijana, Kill all the Whities, Crotch kissing on National TV Liberals who love the Fuhrer Obama, his Food Stamps and “Free” Phones.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Independent4233
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 1:26pm
“…….the county’s decision not to comply with the Freedom of Information Law, which the Journal News used to obtain names and addresses, is not legally sound.”

Not to worry.

This threat to publish more names is only bravado from some timid wimp at the newspaper. They’ve been so soundly hammered into submission from being deluged with outraged people they don’t dare publish any more names and addresses.

These Journal people are absolute idiots. It’s as if they’ve been living in a cave out-of-touch with the real world, demonstrated by not only their publishing names in the first place, but….as one leftist dreg put it….she said she couldn’t understand why people are outraged over exposing gun owners.

She’s an idiot who thinks her opinion on guns is in the majority rather than the wee minority.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
rpw4547
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 1:24pm
Americans never give up your guns
28.12.2012
By Stanislav Mishin
Americans never give up your guns. 48982.jpeg
These days, there are few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bare arms and use deadly force to defend one’s self and possessions.
This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional attires and those little tubes criss crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well those are bullet holders for rifles.
Various armies, such as the Poles, during the Смута (Times of Troubles), or Napoleon, or the Germans even as the Tsarist state collapsed under the weight of WW1 and Wall Street monies, found that holding Russian lands was much much harder than taking them and taking was no easy walk in the park but a blood bath all its own. In holding, one faced an extremely well-armed and aggressive population Hell bent on exterminating or driving out the aggressor.
This well-armed population was what allowed the various White factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Nevermind
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 1:22pm
schroeder123
This is state issue on information of it’s people..

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about gun permits or who owns guns.
Only the right to do so.
*****

Actually it does, the whole ” as part of a well regulated militia” must have slipped your mind. Part of ” well regulated” would be permits and perhaps a database of those permits. Seeing as you arent part of a well regulated militia” i dont see why you even need a weapon. I love how you right wingers always look over that part of the 2nd amendment.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- OhioRifleman
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 1:37pm
  @ Nevermind
  
  You are using modern English to interpret older English. In the parlance of the day (1780s), the term ‘well-regulated’ in the phrase ‘well-regulated Militia’ was no manner of registration of arms. It equivocated to what would be ‘well-trained, disciplined’ in modern American English.
  
  And on your overarching point about the Second Amendment, I give you only this thought:
  
  My right to bear arms is my protection from arrogant arseholes like you who assume they know how I should live my life better than I do.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 1:42pm
  You know you can only created a databases with computer & electrons. You could not possibly do so with paper.
  
  No way the Founding Father could have used a ledger book to keep track of gun owners. Heck they didn’t keep track of import duties, taxes or voter rolls in ledger books or paper. Are you crazy? That taxes a computer LULZ!
  
  Report this comment
- Republic_of_Texas
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 2:15pm
  Nevermind’s progressive interpretation of the 2nd amendment is not the original intent of the founding fathers. Here is a link that demonstrates the mindset of those who wrote and ratified the constitution. While this won’t have any impact on the closed mind of the progressive brain, it will give you information you can use to inform those who have not yet made up their mind.
  
  http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html
  
  A big issue I have with the Feinstein bill is registering all “assault” weapons. While appalling in its own right, how long would it be before a similar website with a list of firearms by owner and address will be on the internet using the Freedom of Information act. An online shopping guide for the criminal element. At least until the Mexican Drug Cartels gets the flow of weapons up and running as it becomes profitable.
  
  Report this comment
- 00100111
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 2:48pm
  Nevermind, your ignorance never ceases to amaze us. You said before you’ve “served” in uniform, I highly doubt that. Your disdain for our country and Constitution does not befit anyone who has ever served. IF you did, you are quite clearly a disgrace and will soon be publicly shamed. It’s all a matter of time at this point.
  
  As for your ignorance on the 2nd Amendment. “Well regulated” translates to “Well trained” or “Well equipped” in modern English. Even IF “regulated” meant then what it means now only the militia is regulated. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia is regulated; the right to own and carry shall not be infringed.
  
  Basically, “Because we know we need a well trained and equipped militia to protect our borders, and we know that militias can be used against our own people because that’s what we just finished fighting, the right of the people to own and carry firearms shall not be infringed.”
  
  It is not about militia inclusion. It is not about hunting, target shooting, or even self defense. It is about people like me being able to protect myself against people like you who seek to deprive me of life and liberty.
  
  The ignorance of you lefties always makes me smile.
  
  Report this comment
- donkeykong
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 4:21pm
  Nevermind (or, No-mind) -
  The Supreme court has interpreted, and ruled on,
  the question of gun ownership – decreed to be
  an “individual right”. Get over it.
  
  Report this comment
- zman173rd
  Posted on January 3, 2013 at 10:49am
  It won’t be much longer when more and more tiny laws are drawn up that will severely limit gun ownership. Remember, Obama said something about how, if you want to build a new coal power plant you could, but you would be bankrupt by regulations. They will compromise the second amendment by limiting ammunition and who can buy it, (PAY CASH NOW) They will determine who buys what, and how much. You won’t be able to own but up to a certain amount. The same will go for firearms. You can own one but the yearly taxes of gun ownership and compliance regulations will become prohibitive. Its simple folks. I keep saying “it’s too late”, but is it? If not now, WHEN will it be too late? They will never let a crisis go to waste and this last one is a dosie. Y’all know the government is building folders on each of us at this site? When the net goes down from some perceived emergency (another “crisis”?) we’ll all disappear and no one will be the wiser. DO you have your “local networks” set up yet? And know this; If they’re monitoring this, they’re monitoring your email as well. And there ain’t no “LAW” gonna stop em’.
  
  Report this comment
rpw4547
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 1:21pm
When the release of public information potentially puts people in harms way, then the person, business or law enforcement does not have the right to publish said information. By doing so, the potential to have to use deadly force to keep criminals away is imminent. Public information is not completely public. The owner of that information has the right to refuse its use.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The_Jerk
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 1:28pm
  Public information doesn’t mean public publication of information. Anyone can go down to the office and review public records. But, no one loses their right to privacy. Having a weapon’s permit does not make one a public person. The paper should be sued.
  
  Report this comment
HuskerDave
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 1:18pm
For the party that claims privacy rights exist anywhere they don’t want their stash of quasi-legal marijuana to be found – they sure have no problem with ignoring the privacy concerns of gun owners who may want to keep the details of their personal security to themselves.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
jackact
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 1:16pm
Is there a list available in NY state (and all of its bankrupt counties) that names all armed criminals?
… No?
You get my point, right?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
kaydeebeau
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 1:15pm
I will not comply….period. Am I fearful – yep I am – the govt machine is massive and powerful – Adonai li v lo ira….

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ArmedAndReallyPissed
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 1:14pm
Sex Offenders have more Privledges and Privacy than do Law abiding AmeriKans. I hope they one day publish my name and address so they’ll know exactly who will be putting that Gun up their ass.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
GuruMeditation
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 1:11pm
“Urinal News”. heheh.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
mindcrime
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 1:01pm
Here is something to give you a chuckle.

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r33/bigredape/loHud_zps486f7c13.jpg

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 1:36pm
  MINDCRIME, When this whole story broke the first thing that I thought of, was just how many burglars might get caught with a copy of this map on their person?
  
  Report this comment
TADTAD
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 12:57pm
This shoud serve as an example to us thoughout the United States that we have the power to effect. I don’t know how else to explain this…..

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
LeadNotFollow
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 12:55pm
This irresponsible newspaper has created a huge black market for obtaining guns without permits.
Citizens will now be afraid to go through the legal process of obtaining guns. They don’t want their names and addresses being published, for the world to see.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- civilwarcometh
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 12:59pm
  These people are the ones that should have their names and addresses in the paper. I would rather know who the murderers are…..http://weaselzippers.us/2013/01/02/just-another-day/
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 1:24pm
  Britain has always had a lower homicide rate than the U.S. it seems for a ling time. It does not have very much to do with their gun laws.
  
  http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1996/08/03/international-00028/
  
  Britain only had 20,000 minorities in 1950. The U.S. has always been much more diverse. They are 85% white vs U.S. 75%.
  
  It is not race or genetics that is the problem. The problem is Jim Crows brought about by the Democrat Party & their militant arm the KKK & the newer more insidious problem is mutli-culturalism of the new left & ghetto culture.
  
  Report this comment
schroeder123
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 12:52pm
Too late now anyway

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
schroeder123
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 12:51pm
This is state issue on information of it’s people..

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about gun permits or who owns guns.
Only the right to do so.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
COFemale
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 12:46pm
The Freedom of Information act does not give you permission to turn around and publish that information in a nefarious manner in which the intent could cause potential harm. The government has many times refused to release public information requested under the freedom of information act.

The county could release the information seriously redacted. Block out the last names and addresses. Only give them the first name of each individual.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DougHuffman
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 12:57pm
  That is not true. Cite the section of the FOIA 5 USC 552
  
  μολων λαβέ molṑn labé ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE “From my cold, dead hands” works for me.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 1:06pm
  The name and address of gun owners is New York is public inforamtion, publish it and shame them.
  
  Report this comment
- ArmedAndReallyPissed
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 1:16pm
  Your a broken record Doug…..Give it a rest this year.
  
  Report this comment
- COFemale
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 1:20pm
  There is no shame in owning a gun “Enema” and don’t tell me the government hasn’t refused to release information under the Freedom of Information Act, because I had it happen to me when I was working for a government contractor. We requested PUBLIC information. They cited “National Security” to us.
  
  All you know it all men, need to STFU, cause you don’t know jack $hit.
  
  Report this comment
- jhrusky
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 1:38pm
  @ encinom
  
  “The name and address of gun owners is New York is public inforamtion, publish it and shame them.”
  
  What do you mean, ‘shame them’? Who’s going to be shamed? Those of us whom are gun owners are proud to be and proud to exercise our rights. The ones who care are (1) criminals so they can keep way from those homes for fear of risk of harm/deaht and (2) people who want big daddy government to take care of them like little babies who cannot yet take care of themselves.
  
  I’m assuming you are #2 [pun intended].
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 2:23pm
  @COFemale
  
  Right, you fool, the Federal Government can judge under National Security, the State of New York or a County can’t. This is being filed under the Federal law, but under the state law.
  
  Report this comment
- 00100111
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 2:54pm
  ENCY, you’re kind of a “short bus” person, aren’t you? Isn’t it time for your nap? Is it difficult to play on the internet while wearing a leash and a helmet?
  
  Report this comment
M4-A1
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 12:38pm
It’s about time someone uses a little common sense.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
South Philly Boy
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 12:36pm
About TIME NY

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
BODYBAG
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 12:34pm
“Urinal News”
Thats a good one Senator. Good on you. Keep it up.

Are these the beginning glimmers of push-back from WE THE PEOPLE ?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Walkabout
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 2:10pm
  “English homicide rates 1857-1993″
  
  http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1996/08/03/international-00028/
  
  Notice that gun laws had little effect.
  
  Report this comment
NOTAMUSHROOM
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 12:31pm
The First Amendment does not give one the right to yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater. FOIA similarly does not give one the right to put so many people in danger by releasing their personal information in such a hostile manner.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Mil-Dot
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 1:07pm
  I guarantee you a couple of broken legs on one of these reporter punks will get the message across.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 1:07pm
  Public Records are Public Records, more and more gun nuts need to be exposed.
  
  Report this comment
- john vincent
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 1:19pm
  enci-
  so the armed folks protecting the boy-king are gun nuts? or is it simply that anybody who is armed is a gun nut? Your alleged logic is stentorian and clear: it does not exist
  
  Report this comment
- COFemale
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 1:25pm
  “Enema” the only NUT I see is you. Owning a gun is a right and nothing to be ashamed to have. You don’t seem to have a problem with criminals having guns, but are willing to out law abiding citizens for exercising their Constitutional right. If you hate guns so much, go after the criminals, then maybe just maybe law abiding citizens wouldn’t need to protect themselves from the likes of YOU.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 1:48pm
  encinom
  Public Records are Public Records, more and more gun nuts need to be exposed.
  ***
  So should people working for leftists groups, who may be paid & posting under numerous aliases.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 2:24pm
  Unless you are in a well regulated militia, owning a gun is not a right.
  
  Report this comment
- 00100111
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 2:57pm
  Ency: “Unless you are in a well regulated militia, owning a gun is not a right.”
  
  SCOTUS disagrees with you, twice. Try again, bucko.
  
  Report this comment
- Fubared
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 4:23pm
  Encidiot, you of all uberdouches should understand irregular. Look it up, plain English.
  
  Report this comment
- john vincent
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 4:50pm
  enci-
  now we understand, and I apologize.
  
  I did not know you were not an American.
  
  Report this comment
DougHuffman
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 12:28pm
Yes, if the original data release was legal then so are subsequent demands under the state’s implementation of the FOIA. The state legislature will need to intervene.

Wisconsin’s concealed weapon licensing Act-35 of 2011 specifically excepts release of information under its FOIA, even to nosy law enforcers.

μολων λαβέ molṑn labé ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE “From my cold, dead hands” works for me.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DougHuffman
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 12:39pm
  Wisconsin Statutes 175.60 (12) MAINTENANCE, USE, AND PUBLICATION OF RECORDS BY THE
  DEPARTMENT.
  
  (a) The department shall maintain a computerized record listing the names and the information specified in sub. (2m)(b) of all individuals who have been issued a license under this section and all individuals issued a certification card under s.175.49 (3).
  
  Subject to par. (b) 1. b., neither the department nor any employee of the department may store, maintain, format, sort, or access the information in any way other than by the names, dates of birth, or sex of licensees or individuals or by the identification numbers assigned to licensees under sub. (2m) (b) 6.
  
  (b) 1. A law enforcement officer may not request or be provided information under par. (a) concerning a specific individual except for one of the following purposes:
  
  Subsection (12g) continues in a similar vein.
  
  Report this comment
WarMunger_Al
Posted on January 2, 2013 at 12:25pm
I am pleasantly surprised that a NY government entity decided to do the right thing. Bravo.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- john vincent
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 12:41pm
  @warm al
  
  somebody prob. challenged them with the release of their own personal info on their computer: pornography, slandering emails, dubious purchases…ad in. that should do it!
  
  quid pro quo
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.