Indy Star at it again

[Robert Richardson]

And they wondered why I quit getting the Star...

 

[CarmelHP]

I believe that violates HEA 1068 from this year:




A person logging on to the HT website is not doing journalistic nor academic research, and all it takes is for someone on a street by himself to be personally disclosed on the HT site as holding a LTCH, and they have violated it.



Anyone out there looking at a financial opportunity, I'm not greedy. 33% of the "take" would suit me nicely.

Blessings,
Bill

Forget, as I said, it was legally obtained, new info, after the effective date is all that's protected. If the info the paper already had was sought to be suppressed, the winning suit would be by the paper on the 1st Amendment violation.

 

[Knife Lady]

I was only getting the Sunday paper but cancelled due to not getting all the sale ads in it. They didnt even care either. I called many times to complain and got nothing not even any free papers to make up for it. About 2 months after I cancelled someone called trying to get me to subscribe and I told them what happened aand they said that since I live out in the country I would not get all the sale ads. I said ok let me understand this , you expect me to pay the same amount as anyone else but I dont get all the paper has to offer. She said yes and I said that is why I dont want it anymore. I guess they are so rich they dont need me as a customer and their customer service stinks too. I am being penalized living in the country.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Forget, as I said, it was legally obtained, new info, after the effective date is all that's protected. If the info the paper already had was sought to be suppressed, the winning suit would be by the paper on the 1st Amendment violation.

Not arguing it with you, but though I'm not a lawyer, the way I read the law, that information is now "confidential, may not be published, and is not open to public inspection" because it is "information submitted by a person to obtain or renew a LTCH". The statute does not specify that it was obtained before or after that date. Is there some rule of law that dictates that as well?

Edit: I agree they cannot be prosecuted for having published prior to June 30, but if they continue to do so after the effective date of the law, it reads to me that the publishing after the date would not qualify as ex post facto.

Thanks in advance,

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Roadie]

Someone posted:

The 2nd Amendment is perminate... nobody can take away our right to own a firearm... however, there's nothing in the Constitution that sez what "type" of firearms we can have... I say ban all handguns & every rifle over 22cal. & all shotguns over 410 guage.

I replied:
​

I will ask you the same question I have asked many, many people who propose a gun ban. None have yet been able to answer it...

How do you propose to collect all of the the banned weapons from every citizen, house, barn, backyard, business, etc etc once this ban takes affect?

No answer as of yet...

 

[gunowner930]

Someone posted:

I replied:
​

No answer as of yet...

Did you expect an intelligent reply from someone who writes "perminate"
and "sez?"

 

[Roadie]

Did you expect an intelligent reply from someone who writes "perminate"
and "sez?"

wots rong wit dat, huh? they culd have a gud respons fer there statement

 

[CarmelHP]

Not arguing it with you, but though I'm not a lawyer, the way I read the law, that information is now "confidential, may not be published, and is not open to public inspection" because it is "information submitted by a person to obtain or renew a LTCH". The statute does not specify that it was obtained before or after that date. Is there some rule of law that dictates that as well?

Edit: I agree they cannot be prosecuted for having published prior to June 30, but if they continue to do so after the effective date of the law, it reads to me that the publishing after the date would not qualify as ex post facto.

Thanks in advance,

Blessings,
Bill

It was obtained and published prior to the law. After the law, the information cannot be released for publication. A newspaper cannot be prosecuted for publishing legally obtained information, under just about any interpretation of First Amendment jurisprudence in the last century. I do not see the phrase you're interpreting as a ban on publication the way you see it, I interpret it as prohibiting release for the purpose of publication as there are a few exceptions for other purposes.

 

[Bill of Rights]

It was obtained and published prior to the law. After the law, the information cannot be released for publication. A newspaper cannot be prosecuted for publishing legally obtained information, under just about any interpretation of First Amendment jurisprudence in the last century. I do not see the phrase you're interpreting as a ban on publication the way you see it, I interpret it as prohibiting release for the purpose of publication as there are a few exceptions for other purposes.

The analogy that came to mind was a suppressor, circa 1934. If I had been alive then and purchased it prior to NFA becoming effective, would the enforcers of that law (FBI?) have given me a "pass" on it, or would it have been not the lawful purchase but the then-unlawful possession sans tax stamp that would have led to my arrest, trial, and conviction?

If you're correct, and again, I'm not arguing yea or nay on that, then the passage of HEA 1068 was as pointless as 1065, in that by that reasoning, it doesn't protect anyone at all from anything.

If the portions of the statute addressing the release of information by ISP do not differ from those which address publication, why differentiate between release of information and publishing/inspecting/confidentiality of that same information?

<rant>
It seems like any law passed or decision made (a la McDonald or Heller that looks initially to be to our benefit is discovered only after the fact to be nothing of the sort:

HEA 1065: Can't be fired for guns in locked vehicles! (but you can be fired for anything else.)

HEA 1068: Can't publish LTCH info! (unless they already have a copy of the db from before the effective date.)

Heller: Can't have a total ban on handguns! (but that only applies to federal territories, and you can have unGodly-restrictive laws with prohibitive fees, and that's OK.)

McDonald: See above, except that now it applies to states, too.

<sigh> </rant>

(the above is in response to the situation, not to your post. Don't take it personally.)

It appears that the distinction will hinge on the definitions of release and publish. Did ISP "publish" the LTCH database prior to July 1, or did they "release" it when they were paid?

SOURCE: IC 35-47-2-3; (10)HE1068.1.1. --> SECTION 1. IC 35-47-2-3, AS AMENDED BY P.L.155-2007, SECTION 1, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2010]:
[...]
(l) Except as provided in subsection (m), for purposes of IC 5-14-3-4(a)(1), the following information is confidential, may not be published, and is not open to public inspection:
(1) Information submitted by a person under this section to:
(A) obtain; or
(B) renew;
a license to carry a handgun.
(2) Information obtained by a federal, state, or local government entity in the course of an investigation concerning a person who applies to:
(A) obtain; or
(B) renew;
a license to carry a handgun issued under this chapter.
(3) The name, address, and any other information that may be used to identify a person who holds a license to carry a handgun issued under this chapter.
(m) Notwithstanding subsection (l):
(1) any information concerning an applicant for or a person who holds a license to carry a handgun issued under this chapter may be released to a federal, state, or local government entity:
(A) for law enforcement purposes; or
(B) to determine the validity of a license to carry a handgun; and
(2) general information concerning the issuance of licenses to carry handguns in Indiana may be released to a person conducting journalistic or academic research, but only if all personal information that could disclose the identity of any person who holds a license to carry a handgun issued under this chapter has been removed from the general information.

(text of HEA 1068 included for reference)

Thanks for the replies.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[CarmelHP]

The analogy that came to mind was a suppressor, circa 1934. If I had been alive then and purchased it prior to NFA becoming effective, would the enforcers of that law (FBI?) have given me a "pass" on it, or would it have been not the lawful purchase but the then-unlawful possession sans tax stamp that would have led to my arrest, trial, and conviction?

If you're correct, and again, I'm not arguing yea or nay on that, then the passage of HEA 1068 was as pointless as 1065, in that by that reasoning, it doesn't protect anyone at all from anything.

If the portions of the statute addressing the release of information by ISP do not differ from those which address publication, why differentiate between release of information and publishing/inspecting/confidentiality of that same information?

<rant>
It seems like any law passed or decision made (a la McDonald or Heller that looks initially to be to our benefit is discovered only after the fact to be nothing of the sort:

HEA 1065: Can't be fired for guns in locked vehicles! (but you can be fired for anything else.)

HEA 1068: Can't publish LTCH info! (unless they already have a copy of the db from before the effective date.)

Heller: Can't have a total ban on handguns! (but that only applies to federal territories, and you can have unGodly-restrictive laws with prohibitive fees, and that's OK.)

McDonald: See above, except that now it applies to states, too.

<sigh> </rant>

(the above is in response to the situation, not to your post. Don't take it personally.)

It appears that the distinction will hinge on the definitions of release and publish. Did ISP "publish" the LTCH database prior to July 1, or did they "release" it when they were paid?

SOURCE: IC 35-47-2-3; (10)HE1068.1.1. --> SECTION 1. IC 35-47-2-3, AS AMENDED BY P.L.155-2007, SECTION 1, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2010]:
[...]
(l) Except as provided in subsection (m), for purposes of IC 5-14-3-4(a)(1), the following information is confidential, may not be published, and is not open to public inspection:
(1) Information submitted by a person under this section to:
(A) obtain; or
(B) renew;
a license to carry a handgun.
(2) Information obtained by a federal, state, or local government entity in the course of an investigation concerning a person who applies to:
(A) obtain; or
(B) renew;
a license to carry a handgun issued under this chapter.
(3) The name, address, and any other information that may be used to identify a person who holds a license to carry a handgun issued under this chapter.
(m) Notwithstanding subsection (l):
(1) any information concerning an applicant for or a person who holds a license to carry a handgun issued under this chapter may be released to a federal, state, or local government entity:
(A) for law enforcement purposes; or
(B) to determine the validity of a license to carry a handgun; and
(2) general information concerning the issuance of licenses to carry handguns in Indiana may be released to a person conducting journalistic or academic research, but only if all personal information that could disclose the identity of any person who holds a license to carry a handgun issued under this chapter has been removed from the general information.

(text of HEA 1068 included for reference)

Thanks for the replies.

Blessings,
Bill

The courts have seen the 1st Amendment as more of a hurdle than the 2nd. Also, this section, as far as i read it, constrains state use of the information, there are no are restraints or punishments for private use of already released data.