Intro
Gun Owner Privacy Rights:An Analysis of the Gun Owner Privacy
Debate
Blake JohnsonApril 16, 2014
Introduction- The Day that Started it AllDecember 14, 2012, was
a tragic day that resulted in the deaths of 27 innocent men, women,
and children[footnoteRef:1] at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The
tragedy sparked new debate on issues such as gun control, video
games, mental health, and many other issues related to the
massacre. [1: Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting]
Just over a week after the shooting The Journal News, a
newspaper servicing the Westchester, Rockland, and Putnam counties
in lower New York, published an article and an on-line interactive
map displaying a Google map of the area and then signified with
little blue dots, the name, address, and permit information for all
handgun permit holders in those counties[footnoteRef:2]. [2:
Newspaper sparks outrage for publishing names, addresses of gun
permit holders. KC Maas, and Josh Levs, CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/]
The map sparked outrage among many conservative media outlets as
well as commentators across the board. The Journal News doubled
down on its publication saying that many of its readers had
expressed appreciation for the information, while even those most
staunchly opposed to guns, such as New York Mayor Michael
Bloomberg, conceded that the publication was probably not a great
idea[footnoteRef:3]. Amidst the debate surrounding all the issues
connected with the Newtown massacre, one more had entered the
arena: Gun-owners privacy rights vs. the right to disseminate
information and know who might own firearms in your neighborhood.
The debate boils down to privacy rights vs. safety concerns. [3:
Bloomberg uncertain about papers gun map. Dylan Byers,
Politico.com,
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/01/bloomberg-uncertain-about-papers-gun-map-153370.html]
The Newtown shooting and the aftermath have spurred a lot of
debate and a myriad of responses. Many states have enacted new gun
laws aimed at restricting magazine capacity, and other gun
measures[footnoteRef:4]. Other states have responded to the permit
disclosure by the Journal News by enacting laws designed to
specifically protect gun owner information[footnoteRef:5]. Many
changes have already occurred regarding these issues, and many will
still come. The purpose of this paper is to inform about the debate
between gun owners privacy and the interest to disclose gun owner
information. [4: Gun Owners Privacy. Eva Gutierrez, Epic.org.
http://epic.org/privacy/firearms/] [5: NY State Senator: Gun Bill
Passed In Middle Of Night Turns Law-abiding Citizens Into
Criminals. Steve Watson, Infowars.com.
http://www.infowars.com/ny-state-senator-gun-bill-passed-in-middle-of-night-turns-law-abiding-citizens-into-criminals/]
Background- The Journal News Strikes FirstJust nine days after
the Newtown massacre, the Journal News published the name and
addresses of gun-owners[footnoteRef:6]. The newspaper itself has
already taken incredible criticism for the move. Online bloggers
figured that what was good for the goose was good for the gander
and published the names and addresses of the editor and other
employees[footnoteRef:7] at the Journal News. In what some
characterized as a hypocritical move, the Journal News hired armed
security officers to protect its employees at work[footnoteRef:8].
The outrage has probably resulted in both cancellations, and also
subscriptions to the paper. And, although unconfirmed that its
related to the gun map, 17 journalists and 26 total staffers have
been fired from the Journal News[footnoteRef:9]. This is just the
aftermath relating to the Journal News. The publication prompted
many other moves across the nation. [6: Newspaper sparks outrage
for publishing names, addresses of gun permit holders. KC Maas, and
Josh Levs, CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/] [7:
Blogger Creates Interactive Map of Employees of Paper Which
Published Names and Addresses of Pistol Permit Holders. Tom Blumer,
Newsbusters.org.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2012/12/26/blogger-creates-interactive-map-employees-paper-which-published-names-an]
[8: Newspaper That Put Gun Permit Map Online Hires Armed Guards. J.
David Goodman, The New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/nyregion/putnam-officials-keep-gun-permit-records-from-journal-news.html]
[9: Bang! Editor Fired After Publishing Gun-Owner Map. WND.com.
http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/bang-editor-fired-after-publishing-gun-owner-map/]
Amidst the ethical debate of whether the paper should have
exposed such information, one thing is clear, it was perfectly
within its legal right to obtain such information and publish the
information[footnoteRef:10]. Another thing is also clear, the move
has prompted privacy advocates and gun-supporters to get involved
and defend their perceived rights as well. [10: Publishing
Gun-Owner Names: Can Public Information Be Too Public? Cormac
Foster, Readwrite.com.
http://readwrite.com/2013/01/05/publishing-gun-owner-names-can-public-information-be-too-public#awesm=~oAYci4Te5Qpkd8]
Legislative Measures- The Battle on the HillMany states have
responded to the publication by pushing for more protection of what
they consider to be sensitive information. On March 4, 2013,
Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant signed into law House Bill 485,
which protects personal information collected from applicants for
concealed carry permits[footnoteRef:11]. The bill removes the
personal information of concealed carry applicants from the public
record requirements. The justification behind the bill was that
gun-owners information is entitled to privacy protections, just
like medical records, tax documents, and personnel files. [11:
Governor Bryant Signs Gun Owner Protection Bills.
GovernorBryant.com.
http://www.governorbryant.com/governor-bryant-signs-gun-owner-protection-bills/]
From the same state during the same month, Senator Thad Cochran
introduced[footnoteRef:12] federal legislation known as the
Gun-owner Registration Information Protection Act (GRIP Act) which
doesnt address any current federal programs or laws regarding
registration (because none currently exist) but states that no
federal funding could be used to contribute to nonfederal gun
registries. Senator Cochran stated, The federal government should
not play any role in misguided gun control initiatives that involve
the storage or public distribution of personal information of
law-abiding people who own or purchase firearms legally. His
rationale is that gun registries lead to confiscation. The
legislation did not include any restrictions or limitations on
states rights to keep records, permitting laws, or lost or stolen
firearms. [12: Cochran Introduced Gun-Owner Registration
Information Protection Act. Cochran.Senate.Gov.
http://www.cochran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ID=9362a084-a49b-42f6-b3a2-0dcf4a9b0d45]
Closer to home, in February of 2013, Representative Jacob
Anderegg of Lehi, Utah introduced House Bill 317[footnoteRef:13],
Protection of Concealed Firearm Permit, to the legislature. The
bill made it a felony to disclose any information about concealed
carry permit holders to any office, department, division, or agency
of the federal government, unless the information was required for
a background check. The bill passed and was signed into law during
May of 2013[footnoteRef:14]. [13: Utah house passes bill to protect
concealed firearm permit information. Mary Mellor, Deseret News,
March 8, 2013.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865575234/Utah-House-passes-bill-to-protect-concealed-firearm-permit-information.html?pg=all]
[14: Utah State Legislature Bill Tracker.
http://le.utah.gov/~2013/bills/static/HB0317.html]
This very month Representative Dana Layton of Orem, Utah,
proposed House Bill 397[footnoteRef:15] after learning of a
smartphone application that maps out gun owners in a neighborhood
based on the user-provided information. The bill bans school
officials from asking students if their parents own firearms. Her
rationale was that while they couldnt control the information
people turn in on their neighbors, they would prevent the schools
from doing it. The bill was not passed during this years
legislative session[footnoteRef:16]. [15: House passes bill
blocking schools from asking about gun ownership. Benjamin Wood,
Deseret News. March 10, 2014.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865598352/House-passes-bill-blocking-schools-from-asking-about-gun-ownership.html?pg=all]
[16: Utah State Legislature Bill Tracker.
http://le.utah.gov/~2014/bills/static/HB0397.html]
These bills and laws illustrate the bigger picture battle going
on resulting from the Journal News publication. At least nine other
states are currently debating bills that would change the access to
firearm owner information[footnoteRef:17]. In the world of
politics, the response has been lightning fast to protect privacy.
[17: Gun permit data accessibility. Reporters Committee for Freedom
of the Press.
http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-law/news-media-and-law-winter-2013/chart-gun-permit-data-acces]
The Current Legal Lay of the land[footnoteRef:18]. [18: Chart
data from: Gun permit data accessibility. Reporters Committee for
Freedom of the Press.
http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-law/news-media-and-law-winter-2013/chart-gun-permit-data-acces]
The political and legal landscape changes almost daily on these
proposed laws, and the future is far from certain. Below is the
current lay of the legal landscape regarding the availability of
gun permit data. Varying degrees of access are represented by the
following categories: Public, Presumed Open, Access Threatened,
Limited Access, and No public access. PublicNevada issued concealed
gun permits and their status are public records, but the
applications for permits are not.Presumed OpenNew Hampshire
requires local officials to administer a handgun licensing program
and to collect personal information from individuals. There is no
prohibition on disclosing the data, nor are there statutes or court
decisions affirming the records are public.Access ThreatenedIn
California, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North
Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia, different information has
been available about gun permits, and gun owners. All of these
states currently have bills in the legislature that would restrict
or limit the availability of the information. All of these bills
have been introduced as a response to the Journal News map.Limited
AccessAlabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, New York, Ohio, Oregon,
Rhode Island, Texas, and Virginia all keep and maintain differing
levels of information on concealed carry permits and gun owners,
but restrict the access to it, allowing only unidentifiable
information to the public. Interestingly enough, the state that
started this whole battle, New York, passed a sweeping law in
January 2013[footnoteRef:19] that restricted the access to the
information and allowed permit applicants to request their
information not be made available for public record. The move by NY
Senator Greg Ball was swift and was enacted rapidly. [19: NY SAFE
Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NY_SAFE_Act]
No Public AccessThe following states prohibit public access to
gun permit records, including application data: Alaska, Arizona,
Connecticut, Delaware, District of Colombia, Florida, Georgia,
Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. Vermont and Wyoming do not
require individuals to be licensed to either own a handgun or to
carry one concealed and consequently do not maintain gun permit
records. The landscape varies greatly, but the immediate
consequences of the Journal News publication has been a sharp
backlash against the dissemination of gun owner information.
Battles are still being fought, but if the immediate reaction of
the nation is any indicator, support for disclosing the information
is low. Despite the legislative moves, the question remains the
same, should gun permit and concealed carry permit information be
public record? Now equipped with background information, a more
informed debate can ensue.
Policy Arguments for Disclosing Information.Immediately after
the publication, as the backlash continued against the paper, the
Journal News defended its actions citing that many of its readers
were grateful for the information[footnoteRef:20]. Below is the
policy argument for why they were grateful and why such information
should be public. [20: The gun owner next door: What you dont know
about the weapons in your neighborhood. Dwight R Worley, Journal
News. http://www.lohud.com/article/20121223/NEWS04/312230056]
It is certainly established that nothing illegal occurred. The
Journal News had every right to access the data and publish it
under New Yorks then-existing laws. The argument in favor of
publishing the information starts with information should be
available and for public safety.Information should be
free.Journalists make an argument that information should be free
and that all the Journal News did was free the information,
allowing the information to be accessed and then placing the
responsibility of what is done with the information in the publics
hands[footnoteRef:21]. Many critiques of the Journal News
publication are rooted in the question of journalistic ethics and
responsibility. Many have criticized that the publication was
nothing more than disclosing the information and did not have a
purpose except to out gun permit holders with no actual news to
report on[footnoteRef:22]. The outing created a myriad of potential
problems that will be discussed further. Whether the right choice
or not, the Journal News certainly liberated this data. [21: The
gun owner next door: What you dont know about the weapons in your
neighborhood. Dwight R Worley, Journal News.
http://www.lohud.com/article/20121223/NEWS04/312230056] [22: Where
the Journal News Went Wrong in Mapping Gun Owners. Kathleen Bartzen
Culver, PBS.org.
http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2013/02/where-the-journal-news-went-wrong-in-mapping-gun-owners053/]
The information should be free argument is a valid argument.
However, ethical implications should also be considered. While
information can be free, releasing information has implications and
consequences that raise the ethical dilemma of should the
information be free. The myriad of potential negatives (as
discussed below) that stem from the publication probably do not
outweigh the good it has done.Public SafetyMany newspapers,
organizations, and other agencies map out and disclose criminal
records, drunk driving records, arrest records, professional
licensing information, and of course, the famous sex-offender
registry. Advocates for publishing gun owner information argue that
just as it is important for the public safety to know where these
convicted criminals are located, it is equally important that a
parent know which households might have firearms. There are many
reasons why this information might be relevant to the average
citizen. Parents can know which homes might have firearms in them
and either discuss the issue with the parents or simply forbid
their kids from playing at that particular house[footnoteRef:23].
Parents might also look at how many potential gun owners live in a
particular area before purchasing a home in the neighborhood. The
possibilities are vast, but ultimately it all boils down to a
public safety argument. By allowing access to the information,
citizens can become informed citizens and decide how or whether
they will live their lives in that neighborhood. [23: Newspaper
publishes names, addresses of gun owners. Julie Moos, Poynter.org.
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/199148/newspaper-publishes-names-addresses-of-gun-owners/]
Although the numbers of accidental deaths are relatively
miniscule (a swimming pool owner registry[footnoteRef:24] would
probably save more children every year than a gun owner registry)
the fact remains that accidental deaths related to firearms are a
very real and tragic thing. There is certainly a public interest in
knowing who and where guns are licensed to be. The question then
becomes who is in the best position to accomplish the goal of
informing the citizens? A public database or an inquisitive parent?
The current database would be plagued with inaccuracies (see
below). For that reason a database is not likely to accomplish a
concerned parents goals. However, a parent can ask about their kids
friends and talk with the parents, which would be far more
informative as to other concerns other than just guns. A concerned
parent could discover drug use, or other issues simply by getting
to know the parents of their kids friends. [24: Op-ed piece on
swimming pools vs. guns as the most dangerous weapon. Steven D.
Levitt, University of Chicago.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2001/07/27/levittpoolsvsguns/]
Policy Arguments Against Disclosing the Information.Given that
the widespread dissemination of gun owner information had not
happened on such an accessible platform before (interactive map),
the effects of the disclosure are not yet known or established. The
vast majority of concerns are just that, concerns or theories about
what the Journal News map will precede. While there is anecdotal
evidence to support some of the proposed theories, it is far too
early to establish any actual connections with the map. Below are
outlined the concerns and arguments against disclosing the
information.Public SafetyJust as there is a strong interest in
knowing who and where guns might be, there is the flip-side of that
argument. Privacy advocates offer public safety arguments as well.
The safety discussion is divided into two main concerns: 1)
Publishing the gun owners information and address creates a map for
criminals to target/burglarize when looking for guns, and 2) the
map shows which homes are not gun owners and consequently they are
identifiable as defenseless homes[footnoteRef:25]. [25: Publishing
Gun-Owner Names: Can Public Information Be Too Public? Cormac
Foster, Readwrite.com.
http://readwrite.com/2013/01/05/publishing-gun-owner-names-can-public-information-be-too-public#awesm=~oAYci4Te5Qpkd8]
The idea is that now that a criminal can look up who has/had a
gun permit and can then target those homes and scout them out,
waiting for them to leave and then to break into the house and
steal the guns that they expect to be inside. While this is
certainly a potential problem with publishing the information, it
is still too early to see if this will actually happen.There have
been several anecdotal instances of this theory. Several homes have
been broken into with apparently nothing else stolen or disturbed
except the gun owners gun safes[footnoteRef:26]. Police have not
been able to verify an infallible connection of these crimes with
the map the Journal News published, but the home owners say they
are confident both instances occurred because the criminals knew
their homes contained guns. [26: Burglars hit home of gun owner IDd
by Newspaper. Todd Starnes, Fox News Radio.
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/gun-owners-home-outed-by-newspaper-is-burglarized.htmlBurglars
target home of gun owner outed by NY newspaper. Anthony Martin,
Examiner.comhttp://www.examiner.com/article/burglars-target-home-of-gun-owner-outed-by-n-y-newspaper]
The other argument that publishing the information is a public
safety issue is the exact opposite. Criminals can look on the map
and decipher homes that are likely to have firearms and of course,
homes that probably dont contain firearms. Criminals then are able
to target the homes where they are unlikely to encounter any deadly
resistance with a firearm. This essentially leaves the unarmed
homes as sitting ducks and criminals can target these defenseless
homes with more confidence. Of course establishing such a
connection would be very difficult because you would need to
identify the subjective intents and motives of each criminal.
Again, no connection has been verified with regard to this theory.
The final public safety concern is that the information was
indiscriminate. It published the information of all citizens that
had gun permits. This included judges, prison guards, former law
enforcement and FBI agents[footnoteRef:27]. In one instance
prisoners were telling the prison guards their addresses in an
attempt to intimidate them[footnoteRef:28]. This also created a
potential problem of disclosing the location of individuals who
have escaped abusive or dangerous relationships and purchased
firearms for protection. Disclosing the information created the
potential for many public safety problems for both gun owners and
non-owners. [27: The gun owner next door: What you dont know about
the weapons in your neighborhood. Dwight R Worley, Journal News.
http://www.lohud.com/article/20121223/NEWS04/312230056] [28:
Inmates using newspapers gun owner map to threaten guards, sheriff
says. FoxNews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/04/law-enforcement-latest-critics-on-public-display-gun-owner-data-officers/]
These are the public safety arguments against the disclosure of
gun owner information. They are certainly valid concern, however,
at such an early stage after the publication, no reliable data or
connections have been verified, but it is an area that is likely to
receive substantial attention and investigation after the Journal
News move. Accuracy and IncompletenessAside from public safety,
advocates for gun owner privacy cite the fact that such information
is highly inaccurate and not reliable. Many factors draw attention
to the gaping issues of accuracy. The Journal News requested the
public records from the County Clerks office and only received
information for handgun permit information[footnoteRef:29]. The
information did not include permits or information for shotguns,
rifles, or assault weapons[footnoteRef:30]. Providing information
for just handguns gives a small part of the picture, but does not
provide an accurate complete picture of the actual firearm
situation in any neighborhood. The primary weapon Adam Lanza used
in his massacre would not have been known about anyway, because it
was not a handgun. Providing a part of the picture can be helpful
regarding handguns, but does not accomplish much for other weapons
that could be in the area. [29: The gun owner next door: What you
dont know about the weapons in your neighborhood. Dwight R Worley,
Journal News.
http://www.lohud.com/article/20121223/NEWS04/312230056] [30: Where
the Journal News Went Wrong in Mapping Gun Owners. Kathleen Bartzen
Culver, PBS.org.
http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2013/02/where-the-journal-news-went-wrong-in-mapping-gun-owners053/]
The Journal News took down the interactive map within a month of
the initial publication[footnoteRef:31]. It cited the fact that the
information was not being constantly updated and changes are likely
to occur frequently as the primary reason for taking it
down[footnoteRef:32]. This is also another issue with accuracy. The
gun owner information obtained is not particularly reliable because
people move, die, or change their gun ownership status constantly.
The method that the Journal News used does not address these
issues. The permit information they requested could be completely
outdated and not reliable. If a person has moved then publishing
the information accomplishes nothing but target the new owner as a
gun owner, even if that is not true at all. [31: Journal News
Removes gun map.
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/201195/journal-news-removes-gun-map/]
[32: Journal News Removes Gun Map. Dylan Byers, Politico.com.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/01/journal-news-removes-gun-map-citing-new-yorks-new-154606.html]
The last gaping problem with accuracy is that disseminating
permit information only discloses information about legal firearms,
it does nothing to address illegal firearms. Advocates of privacy
are quick to cite statistics showing that the vast majority of
crime is done with illegal firearms and not with legal
firearms[footnoteRef:33]. [33: Publishing Gun-Owner Names: Can
Public Information Be Too Public? Cormac Foster, Readwrite.com.
http://readwrite.com/2013/01/05/publishing-gun-owner-names-can-public-information-be-too-public#awesm=~oAYci4Te5Qpkd8]
These issues with accuracy and what it included in the
information create significant barriers to the reliability and
usefulness of said information. Steps would certainly need to be
taken to ensure higher reliability and usefulness of information to
overcome privacy advocates concerns. It is likely that over time a
more reliable database could be created and eventually become a
useful tool for disclosure, however to create such a database, even
more information about gun owners would have to be
exposed.Stigmatizing Gun OwnersMuch has been made of the fact that
when information is a public record, it is open to being disclosed.
Privacy advocates argue that while legal, publishing such
information causes a problem and puts a target or stigmatizes gun
owners in a negative light. Privacy advocates are quick to point
out that other groups that are publicly outed include sex
offenders, and other criminals. By publishing gun owner
information, it serves to either subconsciously or consciously put
gun owners in the same category as other criminals[footnoteRef:34].
[34: Where the Journal News Went Wrong in Mapping Gun Owners.
Kathleen Bartzen Culver, PBS.org.
http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2013/02/where-the-journal-news-went-wrong-in-mapping-gun-owners053/]
Publishing gun owner information is different from these other
groups because gun permit holders have done nothing wrong. They
have actually taken considerable steps to remain law-abiding
citizens and to ensure they can own/keep a firearm legally. Many
privacy advocates see the publishing of their information as
punitive toward law-abiding citizens. This strikes many as unjust
because they have done nothing wrong but are still being outed.
Being placed on a list of any kind creates a stigma that many
people would shy away from. Privacy advocates argue that creating
such a stigma is unfair and should not be done. Anyone being thrown
into the same company as sex offenders would agree, it is not good
company to be associated with.It is arguable that the Journal News
was at least in part attempting to shame gun owners. To publish gun
owner information so quickly after the tragedy at Newtown served to
enrage people and was done partly as a way to point the fingers at
gun owners while saying, Those people are also responsible for
tragedies such as Newtown. Had the paper publish the information
before the massacre, it would not have had the same
appeal.Potential Future RegistryA final argument that privacy
advocates present is that having gun owner information public
encourages and moves toward the creation of a national gun
registry. While there is an argument to be made, there are already
many blocks in the way of a registry being created. The GRIP Act
only weakened the possible creation of a national database. It must
also be noted, however, that the federal government confiscated all
privately-owned, legal firearms from law-abiding citizens during
the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina[footnoteRef:35]. There is no
guarantee that this information would not aid a future confiscation
effort. [35: Gun Owners Have a Right to Privacy. John Stossel,
Creators.com.
https://www.creators.com/opinion/john-stossel/gun-owners-have-a-right-to-privacy.html]
Weighing the good and bad.A great analogy explains the conundrum
of the current issue. The situation is analogous to a doctor who
must decide whether to perform surgery. The doctor knows that they
would have to cut through good healthy tissue to get to a tumor.
The damage to the skin is greatly outweighed by the good that comes
from removing the tumor, but the surgeon has gone through years of
training to cause only damage that is justifiable. Herein lays the
conundrum of the present issue.Does a journalist/entity have the
required training to disclose only the information that is
justifiable and still creates a positive net result? Or does the
journalist actual cause more problems like a surgeon cutting off an
entire foot to take care of an ingrown toenail? These are the
questions that cant currently be answered. Gun owner information
has not before been disseminated in the same way the Journal News
has done. It was easy to access and use, and consequently, easy to
misuse as well. There is certainly some utility to disclosing gun
owner information. It does provide a tool that parents can use to
become informed and take certain precautions with their families.
The question is whether the utility outweighs the damage is does.
Without solid data it is impossible to determine what effects the
disclosure of gun owner information will have on society. However,
privacy advocates have outlined several potential problems that may
be happening or we may discover in the future that has already
happened. Ten years from now, we may have more data to determine
whether we have expertly removed a tumor with minimal damage to the
rest of the body, or if we have amputated a foot to alleviate an
ingrown toenail. Given the reliability (or lack thereof) of the gun
owner information, along with the fact that most states dont keep
such information as public records anyway, in its current state, an
effective and working database of gun owner information is not
likely to emerge and be a particularly useful tool. Of course there
are always ways to improve and make the product better, but
currently it appears that the potential negatives outweigh the
potential positives. The country and legislators would appear to
agree and for that reason have taken steps to protect gun owner
information. One solution is that if a parent is truly concerned
about having his/her kids playing in house that is also a home to
firearms, the parent can ask their neighbors whether they are gun
owners as well as inquire as to how they are locked up, what kinds,
etc. The concerned parent has the ability to discover the
information and protect their kids. The gun owner whose information
is published without his/her consent has no control over the
situation. It becomes a no-win situation if the gun owner would
like to own guns, but must subject themselves to public disclosure
if they choose to buy one. The very thought of being outed might
deter a significant portion of the population from purchasing a
firearm. Not only does the dissemination of gun owner information
infringe on the privacy of already-gun owners, but it acts a
deterrent mechanism against those who might be on the bubble about
owning a gun. If gun owner information is freely disclosed then it
becomes a situation where a citizen must give up certain privacy
rights to own a firearm. That is not a fair request on an issue for
which the Supreme Court has stated an individual has a
constitutional right (see Heller v. D.C.)[footnoteRef:36]. [36:
District of Columbia v.Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller]
Overall, no one can be certain of anything until we actually
witness the effects of disclosing gun owner information. And
truthfully, the sample size is probably too small anyway to
extrapolate any solid causal relationships, but on their faces, the
potential negatives outweigh any positives. If none of the
side-effects occur, then yes a database could be helpful and
further public safety interests. On the other hand, if privacy
advocates are correct and some of their concerns occur, we may have
a much larger mess on our hands than we currently do. The Journal
News has provided a test case. Although the map is already down, it
was available for about a month, and from it we may come across
trends/effects that would indicate whether there is any validity to
either sides position. Time will tell, but if the inaccuracy of the
information and anecdotal evidence already occurring is any sign,
this may be an issue where privacy should be paramount.Does a Gun
Owner Have a Right to Privacy?The 2nd Amendment does not include an
express right to privacy, and currently a battle is waging in West
Virginia to determine whether the 2nd Amendment trumps the 1st
Amendment[footnoteRef:37]. The Sheriff has refused to disclose the
gun-permit records and the newspaper that made the request is now
suing. [37: Does the Second Amendment trump the First? Eugene
Volokh,
WashingtonPost.comhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/25/does-the-second-amendment-trump-the-first/]
This issue is currently centered around the Freedom of
Information Act and then the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment does
not guarantee an individuals right to access government records,
what it protects is the right to disclose and publish the
information they receive through requests. Whether the news
agencies can obtain the records in the first place depends on
whether the particular state statute provides that the information
is a public record and whether the information is private. Many
states privatize certain citizen records, and so lays the current
situation of a gun owners right to privacy, it is dependent on
whether the individual state has protected the information. It is
clear that the 1st Amendment grants the right to publish whatever
information the press is entitled to obtain. The better question
is, should gun owners have a right to privacy?There is no clear-cut
answer to this question. Advocates of disclosure argue that their
right to know where guns are is akin to knowing where hazardous
materials are kept[footnoteRef:38]. They have an interest in
keeping their families safe and away from any dangerous situations.
[38: Even this bleeding-heart liberal believes gun owners have a
right to privacy. Mary Elizabeth Williams,
Salon.comhttp://www.salon.com/2012/12/28/even_this_bleeding_heart_liberal_believes_gun_owners_have_a_right_to_privacy/]
Privacy advocates counter that the disclosure of gun owners is
to publicly shame them and that it creates real safety concerns for
those outed by the disclosure[footnoteRef:39]. Publicly shaming gun
owners is a real concern in that the issue of gun control and
ownership has become a highly politicized issue. The mere ownership
of a firearm often leads others to assume other political
stereotypes about the person. To avoid this problem, privacy
advocates push for total anonymity when it comes to gun
ownership[footnoteRef:40]. [39: Gun Owners Have a Right to Privacy.
John Stossel, Creators.com.
https://www.creators.com/opinion/john-stossel/gun-owners-have-a-right-to-privacy.html]
[40: Gun Owners Privacy. Eva Gutierrez, Epic.org.
http://epic.org/privacy/firearms/]
Other rights rooted in the constitution have an inherent or
implied right to privacy. The 1st Amendment protects the right of
free association, and consequently the country does not keep
records of all church-going citizens and list their respective
denominations for all to see. Even under the constant threat of
terrorism, publishing a list of all Muslims in the United States
simply because there is a higher likelihood or perception that
Muslims are more likely to commit acts of terror would infringe on
their rights.This also holds true for abortion clinics. People have
a variety of reasons for why they might seek an abortion, but if
that information was not protected and their privacy was
non-existent, that information would accomplish little more than
allow those persons to be stigmatized, stereotyped, and possibly
bullied for exercising a constitutional right as provided by Roe v.
Wade[footnoteRef:41]. Publicizing an abortion list would certainly
infringe on a persons privacy. [41: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113
(1973). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade]
Even the staunchly liberal Mary Elizabeth Williams, a columnist
for Salon website, understands the importance of maintaining gun
owner privacy. Williams saw the Journal News map as a way of public
shaming and argued that it did not further public
discourse.[footnoteRef:42] She also mentioned the safety concerns
presented for those who obtained the weapons for self-defense. She
then posed the question of how would you react if a newspaper
published a list of all registered Democrats, or those who had
filed bankruptcy or divorced, or what about a list of doctors that
perform abortions? These questions are in the same vein as the ones
presented above: individuals who would expect to have a degree of
privacy while exercising constitutional rights. [42: Even this
bleeding-heart liberal believes gun owners have a right to privacy.
Mary Elizabeth Williams,
Salon.comhttp://www.salon.com/2012/12/28/even_this_bleeding_heart_liberal_believes_gun_owners_have_a_right_to_privacy/]
No bright-line right of privacy exists, and the individual
states can choose for themselves whether the records will be public
or not. Whether a gun owner should have a right to privacy is a
subjective question that requires weighing the pros and cons. While
few pros exist, many cons exist and the issue should not be
determined based on the political viewpoints of an individual.
Advocates for the disclosure should ask themselves if they would be
ok if the shoe were on the other foot and a paper published their
name as being a supporter of a controversial political issue. Just
as Ms. Williams states, chances are that most people would opt for
privacy. Not affording gun owners a right to privacy could
potentially intimidate, shame, harm, and stereotype a large group
of the population that has done nothing more than exercise a
constitutional right.
Raising Other QuestionsOne certainty of this debate is that the
Journal News got people talking. As already discussed, the majority
of the dialogue is the pros and cons of disclosing the information
against maintaining a citizens privacy. However it has also raised
other questions regarding privacy. The Journal News certainly
caught a lot of gun owners off-guard because they simply didnt know
that their information was a public record. The experience has
provided yet another dialogue in a world filling up fast with
privacy issues. This particular issue has forced many people to
question what other information that they assumed was private is
actually an open record. It also raises questions about massive
data aggregation and how that can affect average citizens.
Conclusion- The Parting ShotThe Journal News started a firestorm
when it published information about law-abiding citizens open for
public inspection. The backlash the Journal News faced after its
publication was a strong indication, and the moves that many states
legislators have made in favor of maintaining and securing an
individuals privacy shows that legislators understand how sensitive
an individuals privacy is. The potential negatives outweigh the
potential positives in this debate and securing an individuals
privacy should rule the day.
1