$5 Million Fine in Floirda

[Kennedy 0]

$5 million fine proposed for listing of gun owners
By Jim Ash, Palm Beach Post Capital Bureau
Thursday, March 25, 2004

TALLAHASSEE -- Squeezed between the cop on the beat and the powerful National Rifle Association, the Senate leaned toward the NRA Wednesday, tentatively approving a bill that would ban government and private lists of gun owners.

"This bill will stop law-abiding gun owners from being profiled simply because they are gun owners," said the sponsor, Sen. Durell Peaden, R-Crestview.

The measure (SB 1152) puts an exclamation point on the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment right to bear arms with criminal penalties and an unprecedented $5 million fine for anyone who knowingly violates its provisions.

Full Story in Palm Beach Post

Florida Senate page on 1152

Original Bill (web)

Most Recent Text of Bill (pdf)

Analysis of Bill in Committee

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 3,116]

So do you support this bill or not?

[Kennedy 0]

Honestly the bill language is giving me headaches. It seems to contradict itself.

I think the idea is a very good one, provided it allows police to keep records of crimes (it does) and property/evidence (I think it does).

I don't see why some cops would be against it, other than knee jerk antigun reactions from some of them (Broward Co Sheriff, etc).

I like that this expands on the idea that profiling and list keeping on people who've done nothing wrong is inappropriate for law enforcement. Considering Canada and California's experience with registration, I have to say there is no good reason to keep lists of law abiding gun owners.

edit: fair's fair, so what do you think of it, Bill?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[TheAnvil 0]

What the hell is this 'cop on the beat' horse-shyte in the article? Having several friends who are cops, I don't think many of them - no, make that ANY of them - would support the local/state/federal government maintaining a list of gun-owners.

Why the legislature would even consider wasting their time/money maintaining such a list given the horrid state of some public school systems here in FL is beyond me.

I'm back from Church and am off to a DZ somewhere.

Vinny the Anvil

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 3,116]

>so what do you think of it, Bill?

I'd be all for a bill that says people cannot be prosecuted for owning any number or type of legal weapons, or a bill that makes it a crime to pursue someone legally just because they owned a gun. I'd be against a bill that made it a crime for anyone to create a certain type of list. There may well be good reasons for such a list, such as (as the article mentioned) a list of people from whom guns have been confiscated due to the determination that they are insane.

History has shown that any law will be interpreted in the broadest possible way by zealous prosecutors out to prove they are "tough on crime." I would not want to see gun store owners in jail because they keep customer lists. And per the bill mentioned, a gun dealer who kept a customer list that included notes that customer X buys S+W weapons (so he could send him S+W ads) would be in violation of the law.

>I have to say there is no good reason to keep lists of law abiding gun owners.

Careful! There's no good reason for a private citizen to own 20 semiauto rifles either. I thought you disliked that sort of thinking.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I would not want to see gun store owners in jail because they keep customer lists.

Actually the bill specifically states (I'll find the lines later, I'm about to leave) shop owners can keep information that's part of their business, and that of course they are still expected to keep the forms/information required by the ATF.

Quote

>I have to say there is no good reason to keep lists of law abiding gun owners.

Careful! There's no good reason for a private citizen to own 20 semiauto rifles either. I thought you disliked that sort of thinking.

Tsk tsk tsk Bill. One is the limiting of the public's rights. The other is the exercise of those rights.

Where I draw my line is simple in this case. People do not need justification to do things not inherently harmful to others, but the government does need a good reason before they start infringing on people's rights.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 3,116]

>Tsk tsk tsk Bill. One is the limiting of the public's rights. The other is
>the exercise of those rights.

How is my creation of a list depriving you of your rights?

[Kennedy 0]

Firearms registration has led to confiscation every places it's been implemented. If ever there were a government I trusted, I would not really have a problem with an ownership list. You just let me know when there's a government that we can trust.

It is also a misallocation of funds and everytime registration has been tried, it's gone horribly over budget.

Finally, no registration list of legal owners has ever been used to solve a crime.

Your own statement that prosecutors always stratch laws to their full extent guarantees that lists will be misused.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Michele 1]

Quote

How is my creation of a list depriving you of your rights?

Ever hear of the phrase "blacklisting"?

Big problem for Hollywood in the 50's and 60's...heck, there was even some discussion about keeping some sort of blacklist for skydiving gear purchase on these boards a while ago...

If it's there, someone will use it somehow. It's a given. And it's a danger. Especially if it's legal ownership, lawabiding ownership...or political views, or choice of gear...

I'm off to the DZ....

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[billvon 3,116]

>Ever hear of the phrase "blacklisting"?

Yep! But the problem was never the list, the problem was what people did with the list. I'm sure I'm on a thousand lists, but I don't really care as long as none of them are used to prevent me from working, skydiving etc.

>Big problem for Hollywood in the 50's and 60's...heck, there was
> even some discussion about keeping some sort of blacklist for
> skydiving gear purchase on these boards a while ago...

We do keep such lists. The stolen gear lists, the list of people banned at a DZ, the list of people who bought Stilettos back when PD was making everyone who bought one sign a separate waiver. Would you be in favor of making any of those illegal?

>If it's there, someone will use it somehow. It's a given. And it's a
>danger.

Are you talking about guns or lists? Because if you're talking about lists, you are sounding very much like an anti-gun activist in your approach. "They can be used for bad, therefore they will, therefore they must be made illegal and the problem will be solved."

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

How is my creation of a list depriving you of your rights?

In Maryland, where gun registration is required, police came to visit folks who owned so-called "assault weapons" during the D.C. sniper shootings, and confiscated their firearms temporarily for ballistic testing, to see if they were the shooter. No probable cause was available for this behavior, other than that they happened to be on a list...

Let's turn that question around the other way: What benefits and purposes will be served by maintaining lists of gun owners?

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

>Tsk tsk tsk Bill. One is the limiting of the public's rights. The other is
>the exercise of those rights.

How is my creation of a list depriving you of your rights?

Ever heard of privacy?

Scenario:
Government decides to pass a law against parachutes - you have one - you are on the list of people that own parachutes - They come and take your parachute - they give you no compensation - it's just gone - there is nothing you can do about it.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,116]

>Government decides to pass a law against parachutes - you have
> one - you are on the list of people that own parachutes - They come
> and take your parachute - they give you no compensation - it's just
> gone - there is nothing you can do about it.

Oh, so should we just ban all lists? Serial killers make lists of their victims; terrorists make lists of ingredients for weapons. So that means that obviously lists are bad. Does that mean they all need to be banned?

[billvon 3,116]

>No probable cause was available for this behavior, other than that
>they happened to be on a list...

Did the list physically confiscate the guns? Or did people? Remember, lists don't confiscate guns, people confiscate guns.

>Let's turn that question around the other way: What benefits
>and purposes will be served by maintaining lists of gun owners?

A gun organization could send out ads targeting only people who own S+W .50's and therefore make more money while spending less on advertising. I could make a list of people who own guns because I want to do a comparative study. A housing development in a dangerous area could maintain a list so they knew who to call in the event of an armed intruder. You want to outlaw all that?

[riddler 0]

Quote

Ever heard of privacy?

The right to privacy is only vaguely alluded to in the US constitution. I feel it should be a formal amendment, but that scares a lot of people/corporations/governments.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Oh, so should we just ban all lists? Serial killers make lists of their victims; terrorists make lists of ingredients for weapons. So that means that obviously lists are bad. Does that mean they all need to be banned?

Now you're being silly. And that's a sign of a weak argument.

All lists are not equal. Some are good, and some are bad. And all lists require people to collect and act upon them. Who those people are, and how the lists will be used are important too.

So to answer your question; No, all lists are not bad. Only some of them, and some of the people that act upon them.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Did the list physically confiscate the guns? Or did people? Remember, lists don't confiscate guns, people confiscate guns.

As mentioned in my previous message, people and lists are inter-related. You can't have lists without people. If certain people have no intention of confiscating guns, then there is no need to maintain a list of gun owners.

Quote

>Let's turn that question around the other way: What benefits
>and purposes will be served by maintaining lists of gun owners?

A gun organization could send out ads targeting only people who own S+W .50's and therefore make more money while spending less on advertising. I could make a list of people who own guns because I want to do a comparative study. A housing development in a dangerous area could maintain a list so they knew who to call in the event of an armed intruder. You want to outlaw all that?

There are plenty of publications in which gun manufacturers can advertise now. Their desire to target their ads to specific lists, does not override the right to privacy of gun owners. Ditto with anyone who wants to do a study. And for the housing development, they can call the police.

You are really streaaaatching...

[billvon 3,116]

>Now you're being silly. And that's a sign of a weak argument.

I find it absolutely fascinating that you call arguments that you yourself make 'silly' when they do not support your position. I agree; they are silly. So is the "knives kill people; should we ban knives?" argument that you yourself have made.

>So to answer your question; No, all lists are not bad. Only some of
>them, and some of the people that act upon them.

Lists are as evil as guns i.e. they are not evil at all. A gun is just a machine, a list is just names. You cannot make an argument for banning one without applying it to the other. Either things are be evil because of how they _might_ be used or they are not. Which will it be?

[billvon 3,116]

> If certain people have
> no intention of confiscating guns, then there is no need to maintain
> a list of gun owners.

And if certain people have no intention of killing people, there is no need for them to own handguns.

>There are plenty of publications in which gun manufacturers can
> advertise now. Their desire to target their ads to specific lists, does
> not override the right to privacy of gun owners. Ditto with anyone'
> who wants to do a study. And for the housing development, they can
> call the police.

>You are really streaaaatching...

And you are trying to tell a housing development that they CANNOT protect themselves in that way. You seem to get irate when someone tells you you can't protect yourself by having a dozen guns; yet you propose a law that would prevent someone from picking up a phone and calling a few people for help?

Until now, I wasn't sure if your adamant stand on gun rights was indicative of your personal philosophy of keeping the government out of our private lives or just a "I want my guns; nothing else matters" kind of thing. I'm a little suprised at Kennedy, though - he has, in the past, taken a very libertarian stance on laws that told you what you could and couldn't do within your home or business.

[jdhill 0]

Simple question... why does any government agency need a list of legal gun owners?

And the reason cannot include the counter-question of why does anyone need a gun, its my constitutional right to have one, period.

Quote

And if certain people have no intention of killing people, there is no need for them to own handguns.

And, IMO, that is BS... there are plenty of reasons one might own a handgun, other than an intent to kill.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[billvon 3,116]

>And the reason cannot include the counter-question of why does
>anyone need a gun, its my constitutional right to have one, period.

Why does anyone need a list? I have a constitutional right to write or say anything I want, either orally or in writing. Period.

>there are plenty of reasons one might own a handgun, other than an
>intent to kill.

And there are several reasons one might own a list of gun owners, other than intent to confiscate.

[jdhill 0]

Quote

Why does anyone need a list? I have a constitutional right to write or say anything I want, either orally or in writing. Period.

I said government agency, not you personally... I think it is pretty hard to tell a private citizen they can't keep a list of whatever they want...

For a government agency to compile a list, without any justifiable reason, could be construed as an infringement, as well as a violation of my right to privacy.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[AndyMan 7]

Does the fine apply if someone tries to keep track of the list in their head, or does it only apply if they write it down?

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[billvon 3,116]

>I said government agency, not you personally... I think it is pretty
> hard to tell a private citizen they can't keep a list of whatever they
> want...

This law does that. It doesn't just affect the government; it says NO ONE (i.e. not even me or you) can keep such a list. You can be arrested for making a list of your friends who own guns - if this law passes that is.

>For a government agency to compile a list, without any justifiable
> reason, could be construed as an infringement, as well as a
> violation of my right to privacy.

I'd agree with a law that said the government can't make a list to aid in confiscating weapons, as long as it had a lot of exceptions (like they can keep a list of felons to be able to identify them and make sure they cannot purchase or own weapons.)

[jdhill 0]

I understand that proposed law includes everyone... I doubt that would pass any sort of court challenge...

The problem is that any list of legal gun owners, compiled for whatever arbitrary reason, could be used to aid in confiscating weapons...

A list of legal gun owners, by its nature, would not include felons, because they would not be legal gun owners, and I do not think this law prevents compiling a list of felons (and if that needs to be compiled, we are all in trouble)

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke