NYPD releasing names of permit requestees???

J

jg0001

New member
I came across this WSJ BLOG STORY and was struck by the comment below:

The “New York Police Department has told me that ‘as a preliminary matter’ it believes some of the bankers I inquired about do have pistol permits. The NYPD also said it will be a while before it can name names,” Schroeder wrote.
Click to expand...

**edit: note that they seem to be continually 'correcting' this story, as is mentioned now above the first paragraph in the story -- very shadey**

Exactly when can they name names? I found this disturbing that it basically implied any so-called blogger-journalist could call up the police dept and ask if so-and-so applied for and/or received a permit. It wasn't just referring to carry permits either, but even included in-the-home permits (necessary for NY).

The Bloomberg story the WSJ blog references can be found here.

That story makes clear it's anti-gun bias in the following paragraph:
Common sense tells you a handgun is probably not even all that useful. Suppose an intruder sneaks past the doorman or jumps the security fence at night.
Click to expand...

All so very disturbing that this is what passes for reporting these days.

[I ask in advance that we keep the discussion to firearms & law and not get focused on the people (Goldman employees) involved.]
 
Last edited:
G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
The best part is that Goldman Sachs fears a populist uprising. The interesting point for gun rights is that supposedly conservative upper class folks truly fear a general armed populace.

This reinforces past discussions that 'conservative' is not a useful term as a necessarily gun supporting descriptor. It also is warning that some folks should not be hoodwinked to think that some strata of a conservative ruling class really believe the social conservative mantra they speak. They use it to get votes from the social conservatives - but that's only to support their own power base. They actually don't agree with some fundamental tenets.
 
B

bob.a

New member
Goldman Sachs and the like were given the option of receiving the H1N1 vaccine well before supplies were made availabe to high-risk groups like pregnant women.

My grandkids' pediatrician was forced to wait a month beyond the time the Masters of the Universe got theirs.

I'd like to think they worry about a populist backlash, but they'll be given protection equal to the funding they received, and from the same source.

You may or may not get the government you deserve, but you certainly get the one you pay for.
 
J

jg0001

New member
Jeebus, Glenn. If you weren't a moderator, I'd ask to have your comments stricken as being off topic. :) It's playing politics and demonizing certain "strata" as you call it that helped elect many liberals to power. Don't play that game.

Anyhow, the only topic I cared about was the one relevant to this forum -- the seeming lack of privacy afforded to those who seek to exercise their second amendment rights. It's as if they are being "outed". The "list" of people who apply for a permit to exercise a right shouldn't even exist, let alone be readily available to any schmoe that asks for it.
 
J

jg0001

New member
Goldman Sachs and the like were given the option of receiving the H1N1 vaccine well before supplies were made availabe to high-risk groups like pregnant women.

My grandkids' pediatrician was forced to wait a month beyond the time the Masters of the Universe got theirs.
Click to expand...

G.S. donated the supplies they received to a hospital upon learning they received it while others in greater need did not. Don't believe the hype.
 
G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
I am scolded! :eek:

However, in my defense - my comment was that the incident points relates to a topic we had discussed before. Nowhere did I advocate a political position but was pointing out some of the cognitive discrepanices in common labels - which affects the battle for gun rights.

Pointing out how rhetoric can be used for hypocritical selfish purposes is not demonizing the the Goldman Sachs strata. They do a good job of doing that on their own.

The fear of populism is one of the real agenda in suppressing the RKBA and we should be aware of it as it does exist. You may recall support for renewing the AWB from the past administration and some of the candidates for the presidency who quote the past president in their rationale.

Is this political - it touches on it but I was trying to expand on the incident.

Sorry, again.
 
J

jg0001

New member
Still no comments on the most disturbing item, whether it was against an unpopular class of citizenry or not, there doesn't appear to be a boundry drawn that it would apply only to them:

The “New York Police Department has told me that ‘as a preliminary matter’ it believes some of the bankers I inquired about do have pistol permits. The NYPD also said it will be a while before it can name names,” Schroeder wrote.
Click to expand...

Are there no non-Goldman Sachs employed regular Joe citizen New Yorkers who are perturbed by the above statement?

A snip - Your point was made that you want to discuss the privacy issue - thus this wasn't needed
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

azredhawk44

Moderator
New York police spokesman Paul J. Browne says that their records show only four Goldman employees have applied for gun permits in recent years — and the last application was made in 2003. That application, by the firm’s head of security for a “carry permit”, was granted. The only other employee granted a NYPD carry permit” is a building security guard. It was issued prior to 2003, said a police spokesman. Those applying for a permit must list their employer.

Two Goldman employees have residential permits, allowing them to have guns in their homes. The last of these permits was issued in 2001, Browne said. One of the permits was issued to a trader and the other was given to a graphic designer.
Click to expand...

Consider me irked that:
1) A reporter would ask for specifics like this;
2) The NYPD would release specifics like this.

There is no focus on protecting those permitees. Merely a pandering to populist anger against "the rich" by giving some snack tidbits and saying (between the lines) "we'd love to give you their names, but these people are well connected and we're afraid of political reprisal."

Whomever the NYPD press contact is for this story, and any employees who collaborated to produce information for this article, should be ashamed of themselves.

ETA:

goldmangun1209_D_20091209165355.jpg


I sincerely doubt that the upper echelon of power brokers at Goldman-Sachs are carrying ported Taurus L or N frame revolvers with heavy barrels.:rolleyes:
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
just curious

But where is the line drawn between freedom of information (applying for a license from the govt) and personal privacy?

Wasn't there something a while back (maybe in FLA) about a paper publishing (or wanting to publish) a list of CCW holders? Didn't that turn into a privacy issue? How is this any different?
 
U

Uncle Buck

New member
I understand the need to keep a list (although I do not agree with it) in states in which you have CCW laws. If you are stopped by the police, according to some, they see that you are a CCW holder when they run your name.

However, just because you have applied for and/or received a permit does not mean your information should be given to anyone who asks. What is the purpose of the information and why is it being kept? Who has a right to know and when is it released?

1. Hello, I am planning on breaking in and stealing Mr. Smuckatellies stuff and I would like to know whether he is armed or not, would you please tell me if he has applied for and received a gun permit?

2. I am with XYZ Media and would like to write a smear article on Mr. Smuckatellie. Right now we do not have much to go on, I was wondering if you could tell me, does he, or has he, ever applied for a pistol permit?

You can not get any medical information about a person because of the HIPPA act. Maybe there should be the same program for handgun registration. Basically, it is none of your business, if you want to know something, ask the person.
 
T

tet4

New member
This reinforces past discussions that 'conservative' is not a useful term as a necessarily gun supporting descriptor. It also is warning that some folks should not be hoodwinked to think that some strata of a conservative ruling class really believe the social conservative mantra they speak. They use it to get votes from the social conservatives - but that's only to support their own power base. They actually don't agree with some fundamental tenets.
Click to expand...

Glenn - I also have to raise a major objection to this. A large portion of what GS does in collusion with the Fed is not even close to reflecting on true conservative values of free markets and such, and it's a shame that people think it is. The fed engages in price fixing (the interest rate for the entire economy), fraudulent creation of money which is lent first to large corps like GS, collusion with these groups and the treasury, etc. There's nothing 'free market' or conservative about much of what goes on there - if people woke up and did some research for themselves, they would realize that we really do have a cartel running our economy's money supply.

Anyway, maybe this is what you're saying and I missed your point, I can't tell, but we all need to agree that they have a right to arm themselves as much as anyone else. Now, if they are all getting CCWs in NYC and no one else can, then yes, let's get that corrected (let's get it corrected anyway).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top