Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Royal Lounge > D.C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-05-2013, 12:26 PM  
petegz28 petegz28 is offline
Supporter
 
petegz28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Olathe, Ks
Casino cash: $12257
Court: NYTimes's Request for New York City Gun Owners Violates Law

Court: NYTimes's Request for New York City Gun Owners Violates Law

As did the previous release of a list of gun owners.

A New York appellate court has ruled that the New York Times's request for a list of gun owners in New York City, under the Freedom of Information Law, violates the state's statute. The ruling overturns in part a lower court's ruling.

"Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered November 1, 2011, granting the petition to the extent it sought an order directing respondent, under the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law 84 et seq.) (FOIL), to provide an electronic copy of a database, as redacted, of names and addresses of New York City residents who have been granted handgun licenses, and a database, to be redacted, of hate crimes reported to respondent from January 1, 2005 to the present, and denying the petition to the extent it sought an order directing respondent to provide an electronic copy of its crime incident database, a declaration that respondent's practices in responding to FOIL requests violate the statute, and an order directing respondent to cease these practices, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the petition as to the databases of handgun licensees and hate crimes and to reinstate the petition with respect to the demand for the crime incident database, insofar as it seeks production of the electronic crime incident database produced in Floyd v City of New York (08 Civ 01034 [SAS] [US Dist Ct, SD NY]) (the Floyd database), and the matter remitted to Supreme Court for a determination of whether production of the Floyd database should be ordered, and, if so, to what extent and under what conditions, and otherwise affirmed, without costs," reads the ruling.

"The court correctly declined to declare that respondent's responses to FOIL requests and rulings on administrative appeals are as a matter of practice untimely and to order respondent to cease this practice. The FOIL requester's statutory remedy for an untimely response or ruling is to deem the response a denial and commence a CPLR article 78 proceeding "for review of such denial" (Public Officers Law 89[4][a],[b]; Matter of Miller v New York State Dept. of Transp., 58 AD3d 981, 983 [3d Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]). Review of a FOIL determination does not provide for mandamus relief (see Matter of Harvey v Hynes, 174 Misc 2d 174, 177 [Sup Ct, Kings County 1997])."

The appellate court rules that a lower court erred by ordering the release of "the home addresses of handgun licensees in electronic form." "The court erred in ordering respondent to release the home addresses of handgun licensees in electronic form. The fact that Penal Law 400.00(5) makes the name and address of a handgun license holder "a public record" is not dispositive of whether respondent can assert the privacy and safety exemptions to FOIL disclosure, especially when petitioners seek the names and addresses in electronic form (see Matter of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Kelly, 55 AD3d 222, 226 [1st Dept 2008]). In addition, "[d]isclosing a person's home address implicates a heightened privacy concern" (Matter of New York State United Teachers v Brighter Choice Charter School, 64 AD3d 1130, 1132 [3d Dept 2009], citing, inter alia, Public Officers Law 89[7], revd on other grounds 15 NY3d 560 [2010])."

The ruling adds, "However, the Floyd database was produced in an unrelated federal action, governed by very different standards from those that govern public access to records under FOIL (see Svaigsen v City of New York, 203 AD2d 32 [1st Dept 1994]). Further, the database was produced pursuant to strict confidentiality requirements, which indicates that disclosure to the [*4]general public would, at a minimum, raise serious confidentiality and privacy concerns. Accordingly, we remand to Supreme Court to determine whether the Floyd database should be released, and if so, under what conditions."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...aw_700264.html
Posts: 66,693
petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 03:59 PM   #16
RedNeckRaider RedNeckRaider is offline
Got highway?
 
RedNeckRaider's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Close to the big pond~
Casino cash: $7159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Direckshun View Post
It totally has been.

Tell me.

When you're on Drudge, a Republican filter site, and you're directly linked to Daily Caller, a site run by Tucker Carlson...

...are you like "this is totally reliable information"?

Or are you like "JUST GIVE ME SOMETHING I CAN USE" as you wipe the foam from your slacken maw.
Project much
__________________
It would indeed be a tragedy if the history of the human race proved to be nothing more than the story of an ape playing with a box of matches on a petrol dump.
David Ormsby Gore~
Posts: 24,187
RedNeckRaider is obviously part of the inner Circle.RedNeckRaider is obviously part of the inner Circle.RedNeckRaider is obviously part of the inner Circle.RedNeckRaider is obviously part of the inner Circle.RedNeckRaider is obviously part of the inner Circle.RedNeckRaider is obviously part of the inner Circle.RedNeckRaider is obviously part of the inner Circle.RedNeckRaider is obviously part of the inner Circle.RedNeckRaider is obviously part of the inner Circle.RedNeckRaider is obviously part of the inner Circle.RedNeckRaider is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 06:35 PM   #17
listopencil listopencil is offline
sic semper tyrannis
 
listopencil's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Partibus Infidelium
Casino cash: $10086
That ruling is a pain in the ass to read, but I don't see where it was ruled that the NY Times violated any law. It looks to me like the court is just saying that the gun owner data is not to be made available for reasons of privacy and safety, as outlined in the FOIL itself. Here is a correctly titled article:


Court: Granting New York Times Request for List of Gun Owners Would Be Illegal
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...ld-be-illegal/
__________________
"As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn't leave my bitterness and hatred behind I'd still be in prison."


Posts: 28,742
listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 06:51 PM   #18
listopencil listopencil is offline
sic semper tyrannis
 
listopencil's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Partibus Infidelium
Casino cash: $10086
Quote:
Originally Posted by petegz28 View Post
I think discussion has been hi-jacked to Drudge and what not.....
To be honest, this hijacking has merit. The article is a lie. The New York Times did not violate any law by requesting information. In fact, as far as I know, you can't violate a law by requesting information via the FOIL and it would be ridiculous if that were the case. If the NY Times requested info, and that request was granted after the court ruled that it shouldn't be, then the entity granting that info would be breaking the law. When I come across a media source that overtly lies I never give it any merit again. I will occasionally check it again to see what kind of bullshit the hacks are trying to sell. It often will help you see what kind of slant they are going for. But that media source is essentially worthless to me from that point on. I realize that the article is from The Weekly Standard (a source that I now know to ignore) and that it wasn't created by this Drudge collating service. But the title is obviously false and I would blame Drudge for putting it out there.
__________________
"As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn't leave my bitterness and hatred behind I'd still be in prison."


Posts: 28,742
listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.listopencil is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:01 PM.


This is a test for a client's site.
A new website that shows member-created construction site listings that need fill or have excess fill. Dirt Monkey @ https://DirtMonkey.net
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.