Brewster, N.Y. – 12/26/2012 – Today Senator Greg Ball (Patterson – R, C, I) called for the Journal News Newspaper, a Gannett Company, to immediately remove a map they have posted on their website that unethically reveals homeowners with pistol permits in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties. The Journal News says that the information contained in the map was obtained by submitting Freedom of Information requests for the names and addresses of pistol permit holders by county. Senator Ball has now announced that he will introduce legislation in the New York State Senate, to prevent this from happening again.
“The asinine editors at the Journal News, have once again gone out of their way to place a virtual scarlet letter on law abiding firearm owners throughout the region. The immediate elimination of the information posted on the Journal News Website is the only way we can ensure the safety and liberty of these New Yorkers. This is clearly a violation of privacy, and needs to be corrected immediately. The same elitist egg heads who use their editorial page to coddle terrorists and criminals are now treating law abiding citizens like level three sexual predators. Am I surprised? No. Should every person with commonsense be offended? Yes. Furthermore, the Journal News has placed the lives of these folks at risk by creating a virtual shopping list for criminals and nut jobs,” said Ball. “Publishing this information on a website provides criminals with a map of where they can steal firearms from lawful owners for later use in the commission of crimes. Preventing the theft of guns and their criminal misuse is an important public-policy goal. This map is bad for the good guys and good for the bad guys.”
In the Assembly Ball multi-sponsored Assembly bill 820, legislation which would prohibit the public disclosure of information in an application for a pistol license with exceptions for prosecutors and police conducting an active investigation. Senator Ball will be introducing similar legislation, immediately. The bill would protect lawful gun owners from being targeted by thieves for firearm burglaries and eliminate a database criminals could use to extort their identity-theft victims.
Education: efforts like No Child Left Behind are ruining education with tests, tests and tests.
"We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons'," Scalia wrote, in an opinion first cited by UPI over the weekend. Scalia reiterated that sentiment in July of this year when he told Fox News Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for federal gun control legislation.
Which is it? Is he low-information (diplomatic for ignorant) and thus not worth quoting? Or is he worth quoting (thus, he must be intelligent)? I get an almost laugh at how you are suddenly willing to quote people whose intellect you trash, when they have a sliver of agreement with you. Will you quote Scalia on anything you don't agree with (abortion, Obamacare)? Or is his intelligence limited to the sliver of agreement you have in this limited case? By the way, I agree with Scalia, and regardless of one's judicial philosophy, this is a very intelligent man. You see, and it is often not accepted on this forum, two intelligent people can have differing viewpoints on an issue.
You are one of many who routinely insult people with whom you disagree. Do you think people who disagree with you are, in the main, intelligent?
I got it, you think Scalia is ignorant. And, you think I am ignorant. If you look at your posts, you also routinely attack the intelligence of those with whom you disagree. Two questions- Is Antonin Scalia intelligent? Can someone with whom you disagree be intelligent and well informed?
Based on the nonsense you've been posting here over the past few days, I pity the children whose minds you must have harmed during your years in the NYC public school system.
It is important to note that the constitution specifically mentions the right to bear arms, but is silent on abortion. That does not invalidate or validate Roe V Wade, but it is relevant to the question of what level of government is relevant in terms of regulating abortion (yes, there is a small amount of regulation, even in abortion procedures) Let's see if Ms. Fanizzi can manage to answer this without name calling. Any bets?
What a fool!
The problem I have with you is your insult to Scalia "low-information jurist" followed by your now saying he is intelligent. Which is it? I concur that there are limits to the 2nd amendment. I also believe that gun control, which I support (as long as it does not materially restrict the 2nd amendment right), will be of very limited impact. It is maybe 10% of the problem. Nevertheless, I support it, within reason. What I dislike on this blog, and you practice it (among many others) is the name calling. You don't see that from me. And I repeat, you first insulted Scalia, then used his logic to support your point, and then upon follow up questioning, you concede he is intelligent.
Incapable of responding without insults, which you do not see from me, and you call me ignorant.