Protecting our county-by-county database

[ChamberedRound]

In reference to this post from GunLawyer001 in another thread:
http://www.pafoa.org/forum/nfa-class...html#post22306

There is a concern that the proposed county-by-county database that Dan is working on could be used by antis to contact Sheriff's across the state and put pressure on them to restrict rights, especially with respect to NFA/ClassIII/TitleII signoffs. I agree with this concern and worry that making this database available to any member that signs up for free could be a bad idea.

I would suggest that we restrict access to our county-by-county database to supporters or, once we become an official organization, members.

I understand this may not be a popular idea, but supporters/members could always PM information to site users that aren't members on a case-by-case basis, and giving access to the supporters/members would prevent the mods/admins from being the ones to always have to answer these questions. It would get the word out, and still protect the information from those who sign up here for free with less than honorable intentions.

Not sure if this is exactly the best solution, but I'd like to hear from others. If there's any better solutions, let us know. We have to be careful not to hand people with an anti-gun agenda "the keys to the kingdom".

[KeithPA]

Not bad thinking...

Can't say I'd object

[avizpls]

I'd say we arent giving them the keys to the kingdom. This is similar to the open carry debate. Antis are un-educated by nature. They are not aware of the rights we have. In doing what is proposed, we are attempting to keep them unaware of a right so that they dont attempt to remove it.

I understand the desire for this (I was one against the open carry gatherings for a similar reason) but I do not think that it sheds good light on us. "Shhh-dont let anyone know we are allowed to do this." It makes us look like we realize that our gun rights are too great, and our only defence of them is to keep the publiuc un-aware. We seem to be taking to position that if anyone becomes aware of our rights, they will easily be revoked based on merrits of the rights-that is, we seem to be admitting that we will be defenseless against the revokation.

I think this is an issue we must first address before we can decide how, or even if, we want to limit access to the database.

Whether you agree or not, please tell me if you understand my point. Im not sure I did a sufficient job of illustrating it.

[danp]

I thought about this while I was programming the database and gathering the required information. The one thing I did do was refer to NFA stuff in very vague terms ("NFA Friendly"), the meaning of which is only readily apparent to someone who is already educated on the topic. In the case that there's an anti that is educated enough on firearms law to know what it means as well, chances are they already know what's being displayed. The information isn't exactly top secret, I found it out by simply making a two-minute phone call to each Sheriff, anyone else can do the same.

I think it's really a cost/benefit decision about whether the cost of Sheriff's getting flak from anti's regarding their position outweighs the benefit of having this information available to potential collectors in an easy to find way. I don't know what the answer is because I am unaware of how much of a risk is posed. I do know however that such information would have been extremely helpful to me when I was starting out.

Ideally I'd like to have this information available in a way that is very obvious to someone in the hobby, but not so to someone who is not. Perhaps there's a better way to word things, perhaps there is not, I really don't know.

What do you guys think? I've always taken a "Don't rub it in their face, but don't be ashamed of it and hide it in the basement" stance towards issues like this.

[billamj]

My thoughts? This is a pro 2a, pro sect 21, site. If an anti comes on board here and finds any type of database they are going to realize that it is primarily in regard to the topic at hand. Leave it open to the general public. As Dan said it is all public infomation anyway, we aren't harming anyone by having it all in one place.

[danp]

My thoughts? This is a pro 2a, pro sect 21, site. If an anti comes on board here and finds any type of database they are going to realize that it is primarily in regard to the topic at hand. Leave it open to the general public. As Dan said it is all public infomation anyway, we aren't harming anyone by having it all in one place.

The problem is I very much understand where the person who originally brought this point up is coming from and he has a very valid point.

There is no requirement to sign NFA forms so imagine this scenario:

Troublemaker uses our database to get a list of friendly Sheriff's (Granted they could get this information by calling on their own)
Troublemaker raises a stink around election time
Sheriff manages to get re-elected but decides it's not worth the trouble

An entire county has just been screwed.

Do I think that this scenario means we shouldn't make this information available? I'm not convinced of that but I absolutely understand the argument against it.

[billamj]

No argument from me whatsoever. I'm just of the opinion that since it is public knowledge, or at least readily verifiable, we are not exactly putting any sherriff in a bad light. I understand exactly what CR is saying, and it does make sense, but do we want to look like we are trying to hide public information?

[danp]

No argument from me whatsoever. I'm just of the opinion that since it is public knowledge, or at least readily verifiable, we are not exactly putting any sherriff in a bad light. I understand exactly what CR is saying, and it does make sense, but do we want to look like we are trying to hide public information?

For the record CR wasn't the original poster, he just created this thread so as not to side-track another one.

I'm of the same opinion as you generally, however the poster who originally brought this up was GunLawyer01 who is someone I respect as a knowledgeable and informed guy when it comes to these matters.

[GunLawyer001]

The issue isn't whether we need to hide our rights like shameful secrets. It's a question of whether you want to pay back the sheriff who helped you out when he signed your Forms, by blabbing that fact to the world. Given the state of public perception, and the generally liberal bias of the newspapers and TV, it will not help a sheriff to have this information disseminated a week before his next election. Once one sheriff loses a close race over something like this, guess how many other sheriffs will continue to sign? It's going to be less, that's for sure.

Sheriffs in PA are not legally required to sign. When they do, they are helping you out voluntarily. That's called "a favor". Don't repay this favor by making the information easily available to the press, the anti-gunners, and whoever he's running against in the next election. You hurt the sheriff, you hurt everyone else in PA who wants a signature.

I make money by forming LLC's for people who can't get signatures, so I'm being altruistic by telling you this. The more pressure is put on sheriffs, the more sheriffs will decide it's too much of a risk, and they'll refuse to sign; the more sheriffs who refuse to sign, the more money I make. I'm a pro-gun guy, I'd rather have you guys get signatures. You can follow this advice of not, I think you benefit yourself if you do.

[ChamberedRound]

No argument from me whatsoever. I'm just of the opinion that since it is public knowledge, or at least readily verifiable, we are not exactly putting any sherriff in a bad light. I understand exactly what CR is saying, and it does make sense, but do we want to look like we are trying to hide public information?

IMHO, we're not hiding public information, we CAN'T do that. If people can't find it here, they can do what Dan did: call the Sheriff. It's still public.

I'm suggesting that it be a courtesy for supporters of the site and members of the future organization. This way, it's available to people here, yet still protected from someone who tries to cold-call all the Sheriff's in the state using our list.