Developing: Bridge Collapses Near Seattle…Unknown Injuries…See the Photos

Watch Today’s BlazeCast With Your Questions, Comments & Live Chat!

Crime

Court: Granting New York Times Request for List of Gun Owners Would Be Illegal

Feb. 5, 2013 4:03pm Erica Ritz

Appellate Court: Granting New York Times Request for List of Gun Owners, Reported Hate Crimes Would Be Against the Law

(Photo:AP)

Soon after the “Journal News” published the names and addresses of pistol permit holders in several New York City neighborhoods, A New York appellate court has partially overturned a lower court’s ruling and determined that the New York Times’ request for a list of gun owners and reported hate crimes is in violation of state law.

This means, according to the Weekly Standard, that it was also in violation of the law to give the list to outlets like the Journal News.

The extremely legalistic text of the ruling begins (all subsequent emphasis added):

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.

The court correctly declined to declare that respondent’s responses to FOIL requests and rulings on administrative appeals are as a matter of practice untimely and to order respondent to cease this practice. The FOIL requester’s statutory remedy for an untimely response or ruling is to deem the response a denial and commence a CPLR article 78 proceeding “for review of such denial” (Public Officers Law § 89[4][a],[b]; Matter of Miller v New York State Dept. of Transp., 58 AD3d 981, 983 [3d Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]). Review of a FOIL determination does not provide for mandamus relief (see Matter of Harvey v Hynes, 174 Misc 2d 174, 177 [Sup Ct, Kings County 1997]).

The Weekly Standard adds:

The appellate court rules that a lower court erred by ordering the release of “the home addresses of handgun licensees in electronic form.”…The fact that Penal Law § 400.00(5) makes the name and address of a handgun license holder “a public record” is not dispositive of whether respondent can assert the privacy and safety exemptions to FOIL disclosure, especially when petitioners seek the names and addresses in electronic form… In addition, “[d]isclosing a person’s home address implicates a heightened privacy concern”…

The ruling adds, “However, the Floyd database was produced in an unrelated federal action, governed by very different standards from those that govern public access to records under FOIL…Further, the database was produced pursuant to strict confidentiality requirements, which indicates that disclosure to the [*4]general public would, at a minimum, raise serious confidentiality and privacy concerns. Accordingly, we remand to Supreme Court to determine whether the Floyd database should be released, and if so, under what conditions.”

If all that seemed so legalistic it was barely legible, you’re probably not alone in thinking that. The gist seems to be that the New York Times won’t be getting a list of gun owners anytime soon.

Click here to read the entire ruling.

(H/T: Weekly Standard)

–

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 (24)

pohknee
Posted on February 5, 2013 at 7:00pm
So what? Court says this, court says that. Maybe the court should consider their relevance. When they refuse to take up issues of “real” national security and enforcing the constitution, they wimp out and either avoid or refuse to hear the case. So I say, “so what”. Maybe the time has come where we need to make Judges elected officials where they can be held accountable for their malfeasance. Maybe instead of playing with ****** during trial, they could pay attention and render decent decisions.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Rock_Moninoff
Posted on February 5, 2013 at 6:43pm
Would you call that a FOILED FOIA?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
BlasberryStrat
Posted on February 5, 2013 at 6:29pm
Call out – Publicly humilliate – Demonize – Attack. “THIS is what LIBERAL democracy looks like”.

Liberal tree hugging morons feel they are so intelligent (not quite grasping that most ‘student’ shootings occur within the College tit that they suckle full time), yet they don’t have an ounce of street smarts to figure out that they’re being “played” by the true evil that wants to destroy THERE freedom and this Country.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- sacwoodpusher
  Posted on February 6, 2013 at 3:20am
  their…..please, be more careful of your spelling and word usage when critisizing other’s intelligence.
  
  Report this comment
Chuck7884
Posted on February 5, 2013 at 6:05pm
All records are public since those that keep our records the government is actually the people and record keeping is payed for the public. :p

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
TruthIsRacismVoice
Posted on February 5, 2013 at 6:00pm
Kind of reminds me of the Nazi listing of where Jews live. Hey…damn…what a good idea!!! How about making up a real deal list of New York Jews with their addresses who do not have guns and pass out fliers with that information to all the “gang bangin” neighborHOODS with the enticing caption…”Dis here is dem jews dats gots no guns…gots cash, jewels, and lots a ***** to take down”… Yep…that will work…what do you think Mayor Bloomberg? Sounds good to me… Semper Fi! USMC 65-69 Combat Viet Nam

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
garbagecanlogic
Posted on February 5, 2013 at 5:34pm
Ha, Ha, stik it up your arse new york times. You commie pukes.

Praise Be To Obama. Psalm 109:8

The U.N. Out Of The U.S.
The U.S. Out Of The U.N.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- AvengerK
  Posted on February 5, 2013 at 5:46pm
  Time for a class action law suit against the Times. Gray lady down.
  
  Report this comment
KevINtampa
Posted on February 5, 2013 at 5:34pm
Here’s the difference as I see it.

If you make a public request for the information your own information is logged. We know who has been researching which houses to rob.

If a publication gets a giant list and posts it in the paper or on the web, there’s no telling who is using it. So while it’s public, it’s quite moronic to not have people do a FOIA request to get access to it…and that’s exactly what these stupid fools are attempting to do.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
woodyee
Posted on February 5, 2013 at 5:23pm
Oooooooh! Can’t wait for the lawsuits to start – yeah! How do you spell Gannett? S-e-t-t-l-e-m-e-n-t.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Chuck Stein
Posted on February 5, 2013 at 4:47pm
I love how New York calls its trial courts of general jurisdiction “Supreme Courts”

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Inform
Posted on February 5, 2013 at 4:47pm
Why do communists run almost every major news organization?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- KevINtampa
  Posted on February 5, 2013 at 5:36pm
  Yuri Bezmenov, look him up and learn.
  
  Report this comment
00100111
Posted on February 5, 2013 at 4:45pm
Eat it, libs.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
skyguy51
Posted on February 5, 2013 at 4:41pm
South Carolina law prohibits the disclosure of such information. Hopefully other states will likewise pass similar laws and tell the Fourth Estate to go pound sand.

I would like to see the “Survival in Chicago”, maybe the Mayor could meet the contestants in the ER or the morgue and say a few words about needing more “gun control”!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Cavallo
  Posted on February 5, 2013 at 4:48pm
  Fourth Estate = Fifth Column
  
  Report this comment
Al J Zira
Posted on February 5, 2013 at 4:40pm
In the words of Achmed the Dead Tourist: What the hell!

determined that the New York Times’ request for a list of gun owners and reported hate crimes is in violation of state law.

Since when is owning a gun a hate crime? Oh yeah. It’s the NY Times. The US version of Pravda. Sorry. Well we know with what this information is being equated. Pravda will start running stories that draw a conclusion that gun owners are guilty of hate crimes.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Anonymous T. Irrelevant
  Posted on February 5, 2013 at 4:54pm
  Even the REAL Pravda is more conservative than the NY Times. I wonder if this means the people on the list that was given out can now take legal action against the Journal News?
  
  Report this comment
Cavallo
Posted on February 5, 2013 at 4:39pm
The left want to wage a very public PR war against lawful citizens, exercising a lawful and natural and orderly right. First and foremost they are fascist propagandists, looking to increase the power of the state under the moronic impression they will be spared its excesses and deprivations.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on February 5, 2013 at 4:21pm
Thankfully at least one justice still abides by the law and not the current whim and motives of the liberal media. If such a list was published in AZ, the number of idiot crooks would be reduced yet further as they tried to rob homes with guns…here we still have carried concealed on the books for all people.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
tonypro
Posted on February 5, 2013 at 4:17pm
No comment.

Maybe one observation.

Ever notice how all these survival programs are in the wilderness with animals as a threat????
If they really want to put themselves in a survival situation, then why don’t they try to pass through the N.Y. swamp, or chicago desert land on foot without a weapon or the means to protect themselves?

Now that would be a scarey survival episode. :-)

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
DefyTYRANNY
Posted on February 5, 2013 at 4:17pm
Very good. Then arrest those responsible at the other paper, or there is no effect of this decision. There have to be real repercussions if a ruling is to have any weight or substance.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Xylliab_of_the_Znarghh
  Posted on February 5, 2013 at 5:18pm
  Not only can’t they be arrested for publishing information given to them by the state, but the ruling that the information shouldn’t have been given in the first place makes them even more safe from being sued. Anyone looking for someone to sue is now has a much better case against the state, which has unlimited money to fight against a lawsuit, and a weaker case against the newspaper, who might otherwise have had to offer settlements in lawsuits that would have been more expensive to win.
  
  Report this comment
BlackCrow
Posted on February 5, 2013 at 4:09pm
Try going to Alaska and publish the list of those who do not own guns? The list would be considerably shorter.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply

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.