<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;guns&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Working The Crowd...</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110505/00310814157/dailydirt-working-crowd.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110505/00310814157/dailydirt-working-crowd.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Crowdfunding and crowdsourcing has been a popular area of experimentation for the last few years, but people still haven't quite figured out how best to work a crowd. Some projects are insanely successful. Other projects seem to fall far short of their goals. Here are just a few examples of projects that could use some help.

<ul>

<li> <a title="http://nocera.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/the-gun-report-march-27-2013/" href="http://nyti.ms/13JoYE7">A crowdfunded report on gun research might not get full funding on Microryza.</a> The campaign ends <a href="https://www.microryza.com/projects/gun-control-research-project">soon</a>, so if you want to see more independent research on gun statistics, pony up! [<a href="http://nocera.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/the-gun-report-march-27-2013/">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.galaxyzoo.org/" href="http://bit.ly/16I9beE">Galaxy Zoo is a crowdsourced astronomy project to classify the numerous newly-discovered galaxies seen by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and Hubble Space Telescope.</a> The project started in 2007, and over 150,000 volunteers have helped categorize millions of galaxies. [<a href="http://www.galaxyzoo.org/">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.nature.com/news/tepid-showing-for-genomics-x-prize-1.13081" href="http://bit.ly/13Jp3HT">The Archon Genomics X Prize challenges teams to sequence 100 complete human genomes in 30 days.</a> The genomes belong to centenarians, but it doesn't look like many teams want to compete for the prize. [<a href="http://www.nature.com/news/tepid-showing-for-genomics-x-prize-1.13081">url</a>]</li>

</ul>

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt post</a> via StumbleUpon.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110505/00310814157/dailydirt-working-crowd.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110505/00310814157/dailydirt-working-crowd.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110505/00310814157/dailydirt-working-crowd.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110505/00310814157</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 07:43:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Pretending That Instructions To Print A Gun Aren't Out There Won't Change The Reality That They Are</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130511/02295223046/pretending-that-instructions-to-print-gun-arent-out-there-wont-change-reality-that-they-are.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130511/02295223046/pretending-that-instructions-to-print-gun-arent-out-there-wont-change-reality-that-they-are.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We recently had an article about how intellectual property makes people <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130410/12051322665/copyright-lobotomy-how-intellectual-property-makes-us-pretend-to-be-stupid.shtml">pretend to be stupid</a>, by forcing us to pretend that digital works act in the same way as physical products do, even though we know that they don't.  This seems silly, but it goes beyond just copyright.  There's been a lot of hubbub recently concerning 3D printed guns.  While there's been some discussions about them in the past, it went into overdrive last week when the <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/05/05/meet-the-liberator-test-firing-the-worlds-first-fully-3d-printed-gun/" target="_blank">first fully 3D-printed gun</a> was unveiled.  The plans were uploaded online and... <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/05/08/3d-printed-guns-blueprints-downloaded-100000-times-in-two-days-with-some-help-from-kim-dotcom/" target="_blank">over 100,000 people downloaded them</a>.
<br /><br />
And then the US government freaked out, as the State Department argued that the company that put the files online may have <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/05/09/state-department-demands-takedown-of-3d-printable-gun-for-possible-export-control-violation/" target="_blank">violated export control laws</a>.
<blockquote><i>
The government says it wants to review the files for compliance with arms export control laws known as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, or ITAR. By uploading the weapons files to the Internet and allowing them to be downloaded abroad, the letter implies Wilson&#8217;s high-tech gun group may have violated those export controls.
<br /><br />
&#8220;Until the Department provides Defense Distributed with final [commodity jurisdiction] determinations, Defense Distributed should treat the above technical data as ITAR-controlled,&#8221; reads the letter, referring to a list of ten CAD files hosted on Defcad that include the 3D-printable gun, silencers, sights and other pieces. &#8220;This means that all data should be removed from public access immediately. Defense Distributed should review the remainder of the data made public on its website to determine whether any other data may be similarly controlled and proceed according to ITAR requirements.&#8221;
</i></blockquote>
Remember, this file has already been downloaded over 100,000 times.  It's not going to be removed from public access.  That's <i>reality</i>.  But the laws that demand we pretend to be stupid include pretending that something like this is stoppable, when plenty of sites are <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-takes-over-distribution-of-censored-3d-printable-gun-130510/" target="_blank">still making them available</a>.
<br /><br />
As Rick Falkvinge notes, the whole idea of pretending you can <a href="http://falkvinge.net/2013/05/10/united-states-shows-the-world-it-doesnt-understand-the-internet-claims-ownership-of-specific-files/" target="_blank">delete these files from existence</a> and keep it under control suggests a very confused US government.  Not only is the concept impossible, but even stepping in like that has only drawn much more attention to the files.  Falkvinge points out that this highlights how the US government is "unfit to set and shape Internet policy, due to their simply not understanding of what the internet is and how it works."  Of course, that hasn't stopped them before.
<br /><br />
I recognize that a 3D printable gun freaks some people out.  But just because some people are freaked out, it doesn't mean we should deny reality and pretend it's possible to disappear these plans when it's clearly not.  I don't know about you, but I prefer a government that deals in reality, rather than one that chooses to act stupid on purpose.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130511/02295223046/pretending-that-instructions-to-print-gun-arent-out-there-wont-change-reality-that-they-are.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130511/02295223046/pretending-that-instructions-to-print-gun-arent-out-there-wont-change-reality-that-they-are.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130511/02295223046/pretending-that-instructions-to-print-gun-arent-out-there-wont-change-reality-that-they-are.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>why-can't-our-government-live-in-reality</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130511/02295223046</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 04:11:46 PDT</pubDate>
<title>EA Says It's Going To Keep Using Manufacturers' Guns In Its Games -- It's Just Done Asking Permission</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130507/21473422998/ea-says-its-going-to-keep-using-manufacturers-guns-its-games-its-just-done-asking-permission.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130507/21473422998/ea-says-its-going-to-keep-using-manufacturers-guns-its-games-its-just-done-asking-permission.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>
Given the current climate surrounding guns, violent video games and all points where the two intersect, it's not surprising that a large developer like EA would attempt to distance itself from gun manufacturers.
<br /><br />
No, EA isn't going to stop making video games with real-life weapons in them. It's going to continue business as usual in that respect. <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/07/us-videogames-guns-idUSBRE9460U720130507?irpc=932" target="_blank">What it <i>is</i> going to do is stop licensing the weapons</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>[A]t least one game maker, the second largest by revenue in the United States, is publicly distancing itself from the gun industry, even as it finds ways to keep the branded guns in the games. Electronic Arts says it is severing its licensing ties to gun manufacturers - and simultaneously asserting that it has the right, and the intention, to continue to feature branded guns without a license.</i></blockquote>
A rep for EA says this decision has nothing to do with the NRA's immediate willingness to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121219/09124821437/nras-plan-if-we-blame-video-games-movies-sandy-hook-massacre-perhaps-people-will-stop-blaming-guns.shtml" target="_blank">lay the blame</a> for the Newtown shooting at the feet of violent video games. But that's a rather tough sell, especially considering the hard line EA is pursuing.
<br /><br />
Gun licensing for games has never been particularly lucrative for gun manufacturers, at least not in terms of licensing fees. Most agreements were felt to be mutually beneficial: game developers were able to craft authentic weapons and gun manufacturers received free advertising and the best kind of product placement -- right in the virtual hands of potential customers.
<br /><br />
Now, it seems the relationship has become mutually toxic.
<blockquote>
<i>"It gives publicity to the particular brand of gun being used in the video game," said Brad J. Bushman, a professor at Ohio State University who has studied video game violence. "On the other hand, it's linking that gun with violent and aggressive behavior."</i></blockquote>
Bushman's studies on video games and violent media have frequently resulted in <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090318/0212264165.shtml" target="_blank">dubious conclusions</a> (to put it kindly), but if anyone's going to take him seriously, it's the NRA and gun manufacturers. What once looked like an ideal match now puts gun manufacturers' implicit endorsement of violent video games in a very unfavorable light.
<br /><br />
EA may be able to help them out with this. It's not going to give up using real world weapons in its games -- it's just going to stop asking permission.
<blockquote>
<i>"We're telling a story and we have a point of view," EA's President of Labels Frank Gibeau, who leads product development of EA's biggest franchises, said in an interview. "A book doesn't pay for saying the word 'Colt,' for example."</i>
<br /><br />
<i>Put another way, EA is asserting a constitutional free speech right to use trademarks without permission in its ever-more-realistic games.</i></blockquote>
EA is going to rely on fair use and it should have a fairly strong case. More promising is the fact that gun makers haven't been very litigious in the past. According to Reuters, a gun manufacturer has yet to sue a game developer over lack of proper licensing. However, the recently introduced friction between these two industries makes EA's new "license-free" stance a bit more combative that it would be otherwise.
<br /><br />
This approach almost appears to be EA throwing down the gauntlet and daring embattled gun manufacturers to wander back out into the public eye. There's no way gunmakers will look any better pursuing licensing fees or suing for breach of contract, and EA knows this. Once again, I'm not buying EA's "no harm, no foul" statement in reference to the NRA's recent attempt to toss video games under the bus.
<br /><br />
EA may have the upper hand at the moment, but Reuters mentions a pending lawsuit that could spell trouble in the future.
<blockquote>
<i>Aircraft maker Bell Helicopter, a unit of Textron Inc, has argued that Electronic Arts' depiction of its helicopters in "Battlefield" was beyond fair use and amounted to a trademark infringement. EA preemptively went to court, suing Bell Helicopter to settle the issue.</i></blockquote>
Should Bell prevail, EA may find gun makers willing to test the legal waters and attempt to pry EA's unlicensed guns from its cold, injunctioned fingers.
</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130507/21473422998/ea-says-its-going-to-keep-using-manufacturers-guns-its-games-its-just-done-asking-permission.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130507/21473422998/ea-says-its-going-to-keep-using-manufacturers-guns-its-games-its-just-done-asking-permission.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130507/21473422998/ea-says-its-going-to-keep-using-manufacturers-guns-its-games-its-just-done-asking-permission.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>somehow-I-think-the-NFL-won't-push-over-as-easily...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130507/21473422998</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 9 May 2013 08:57:54 PDT</pubDate>
<title>This Is My Pencil. This Is My Pencil Pretending To Be A Gun. One Is For Writing. One Is For Mandatory Suspensions.</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130507/16130622982/this-is-my-pencil-this-is-my-gun-one-is-writing-one-is-mandatory-two-day-suspensions.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130507/16130622982/this-is-my-pencil-this-is-my-gun-one-is-writing-one-is-mandatory-two-day-suspensions.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>
A majority of human beings would look at two 7-year-old boys pretending their pencils are guns and say something about "boys being boys" or "someone's going to poke their eye out" and leave it at that. Those who <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130304/16481322196/7-year-old-student-suspended-waving-around-gun-made-pastry.shtml" target="_blank">craft and enforce zero tolerance</a> policies see something more sinister. They see "threatening behavior" that must be dealt with swiftly and with as little thought as possible.
<br /><br />
The end result? Two 7-year-old boys with otherwise clean records were handed two-day suspensions for <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/07/a-pencil-is-considered-a-weapon-when-its" target="_blank">pointing their pencils at each other and making shooting noises</a>. This ridiculous punishment was (of course) defended at length by school administration.
<blockquote>
<i>Suffolk Public Schools spokeswoman Bethanne Bradshaw said a pencil is considered a weapon when it&rsquo;s pointed at someone in a threatening way and gun noises are made.</i></blockquote>
Really? Administration thinks a pencil becomes a weapon when "gun noises are made." (They don't actually think this, of course. They've just crafted a policy that <i>states</i> this, thus preventing administration members from "erroneously" coming to independent conclusions.) I can see a pencil being considered a weapon if it's being "pointed" (in a stabbing motion) at a sensitive area like an eyeball or a neck. <i>Then</i> a pencil is a weapon.
<br /><br />
When two boys point pencils at each other and make shooting noises, a pencil is still a pencil and their imagination is doing all the heavy lifting. All it would take to "disarm" these kids is asking them to stop. Which is what a teacher did.
<blockquote>
<i>On the suspension note, the teacher noted that the boy stopped when she told him to do so.</i></blockquote>
Problem solved. No one is harmed and the perpetrators were left with nothing but non-threatening pencils. Why this was written on a suspension note, rather than on a simple concerned note to the parents or better yet, on NOTHING AT ALL, is beyond me. But Bradshaw has an answer for every question and <a href="http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/05/07/2-va-boys-suspended-for-using-pencils-as-guns/" target="_blank">a terrible excuse for every idiotic zero tolerance policy</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>&ldquo;Some children would consider it threatening, who are scared about shootings in schools or shootings in the community,&rdquo; Bradshaw said. &ldquo;Kids don&rsquo;t think about &lsquo;Cowboys and Indians&rsquo; anymore, they think about drive-by shootings and murders and everything they see on television news every day.&rdquo;</i></blockquote>
Do they? My kids don't think about that kind of stuff. Then again, they rarely watch the news. Would my boys be "threatened" by a pencil gun? I doubt it. They're probably packing a pencil or two themselves during the school day. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that these hypothetical, hypersensitive children who bruise whenever the wind changes direction <i>do not actually exist</i>, at least not outside of statements like Bradshaw's. They're straw children.
<br /><br />
Bradshaw also defended the moronic policy using this gem:
<blockquote>
<i>Bradshaw said the policy has been in place for at least two decades.</i></blockquote>
So... you're saying the administration has been stupidly overreacting since back when MTV still played music videos and no one has <i>once</i> thought that <i>maybe</i> a few policies might need to be updated or relaxed or given a good once over with a dose of context or common sense? Rules <i>can</i> be changed, even big, important ones. (See also: Amendments 1-27 to the Constitution, but pay close attention to nos. 18 and 21.) Nothing's so inflexible that anyone should be reduced to the rhetorical level Bradshaw is, fending off irritated parents with "Yeah, it's a shitty policy but what are you going to do. It has tenure."
<br /><br />
Bradshaw doubles down on the importance and inflexibility of "rules" as well.
<blockquote>
<i>&ldquo;It&rsquo;s an effort to try to get kids not to bring any form of violence, even if it&rsquo;s violent play, into the classroom,&rdquo; Bradshaw said. &ldquo;There has to be a consequence because it&rsquo;s a rule."</i>
</blockquote>
Yeah, I get it. A rule is a rule. And enforcers like Bradshaw are throwing stuff on kids' permanent records that wouldn't pass the laugh test in the real world. Will this file note that the two boys "pointed pencils at each other and made shooting noises?" Or will it state something to the effect that the boys broke the school's policy on violence and threatening behavior? My guess is the latter, which will allow anyone perusing the record to imagine the worst.
<br /><br />
We can only hope that having these stories reported widely might push a few administrators to consider loosening or removing these so-called "zero tolerance" policies. Unfortunately, to date most administrators (and their policies) seem impervious to public ridicule, and every school-related tragedy just results in a newer, more rigid set of unbreakable rules. Until the day comes when kids can be kids without being suspended for pretending pencils are guns, parents might want to sit their kids down and have a long talk about safe pencil handling and the requirements and responsibilities that come with the "conceal-and-carry" permit they'll be needing before being allowed to start the next school year.
</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130507/16130622982/this-is-my-pencil-this-is-my-gun-one-is-writing-one-is-mandatory-two-day-suspensions.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130507/16130622982/this-is-my-pencil-this-is-my-gun-one-is-writing-one-is-mandatory-two-day-suspensions.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130507/16130622982/this-is-my-pencil-this-is-my-gun-one-is-writing-one-is-mandatory-two-day-suspensions.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>school-admins-looking-to-shutter-known-arms-dealer-OfficeMax</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130507/16130622982</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:54:19 PST</pubDate>
<title>7-Year-Old Student Suspended For Waving Around A 'Gun' Made From A Pastry</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130304/16481322196/7-year-old-student-suspended-waving-around-gun-made-pastry.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130304/16481322196/7-year-old-student-suspended-waving-around-gun-made-pastry.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>
So, it's come to this. Oh, wait. I've already used <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130303/18153122181/misheard-will-smith-lyrics-results-arrest-student-district-wide-lockdown.shtml" target="_blank">that opening</a>, back when I thought the pinnacle of guns-n-schools overreaction had been approached, if not actually surmounted. Let's start again.
<br /><br />
So, <i>NOW</i> it's come to this. A seven-year-old suspended from school for crudely fashioning his breakfast pastry into a gun-like shape and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/anne-arundel-second-grader-suspended-for-chewing-his-pastry-into-the-shape-of-a-gun/2013/03/04/44c4bbcc-84c4-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html?hpid=z4" target="_blank">brandishing it in the most menacing fashion a gun-shaped pastry can be wielded</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>A 7-year-old Anne Arundel County boy was suspended for two days for chewing a breakfast pastry into the shape of a gun and saying, &ldquo;Bang, bang&rdquo;&mdash; an offense the school described as a threat to other students, according to his family.</i>
<br /><br />
<i>The pastry &ldquo;gun&rdquo; was a rectangular strawberry-filled bar, akin to a Pop-Tart, that the second-grader had tried to nibble into the shape of a mountain Friday morning, but then found it looked more like a gun, said his father, William &ldquo;B.J.&rdquo; Welch.</i></blockquote>
Yes. A Pop Tart knockoff makes a handy makeshift weapon, perhaps explaining why pastries are no longer served in prisons. When I say "it's come to this," it really has, but it's been a long time coming and there's plenty of precedent.
<blockquote>
- Feb. 5, 2013 - A ten-year-old Virginia student <a href="http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-05/local/36758640_1_toy-gun-orange-tip-school-bus" target="_blank">was suspended for bringing an orange-tipped toy gun on a bus</a>.
<br /><br />
- Feb. 1, 2013 - A 9-year-old student was <a href="http://www.newstribune.com/news/2013/feb/01/third-grader-suspended-over-toy-gun-fob/" target="_blank">suspended for bringing a 2-inch toy gun on a key fob to school</a>.
<br /><br />
- Jan. 29, 2013 - A 5-year-old student could be suspended for <a href="http://www.freerangekids.com/school-may-suspend-5-y-o-for-making-a-lego-gun/" target="_blank">crafting a Lego gun during an after-school program</a>. Not only that, but he'd crafted his <i>fingers</i> into a gun mere weeks earlier.
<br /><br />
- Jan. 22, 2013 - A 5-year-old is suspended <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/21/us/pennsylvania-girl-suspended" target="_blank">for discussing her Hello Kitty bubble gun</a>, saying, "I'll shoot you, you'll shoot me and we'll all play together."
<br /><br />
- Jan. 2, 2013 - A 6-year-old in a Washington D.C. school was <a href="http://www.freerangekids.com/boy-6-suspended-for-making-gun-gesture-with-hand/" target="_blank">suspended for making a gun gesture with his hands</a>.
<br /><br />
- August 28, 2012 - A deaf 3-year-old preschooler is asked to change the sign he uses for his name -- Hunter -- <a href="http://www.1011now.com/home/headlines/Grand-Island-Preschooler-Forbidden-Sign-Language-for-His-Own-Name-167394325.html#.UDv3-z1PhKg.facebook" target="_blank">which he signs by forming a gun with his hands</a>. Apparently, "saying" his name violates the school's weapon policy.
<br /><br />
- Feb. 24, 2012 - A drawing of a gun by a four-year-old resulted in <a href="http://www.therecord.com/news/local/article/676150--schoolgirl-s-father-shocked-by-arrest-on-gun-charge" target="_blank">the arrest of her father when he came to pick her up from school</a>. He was detained by police and strip-searched while his children were questioned by social services. The gun his child depicted? A plastic toy that belonged to his kids.</blockquote>
That's just a sampling. There are many more stories like these out there. There are many that are underreported or never reported, where parents just deal with the ridiculous outcome of zero-tolerance policies. For some reason, many schools still labor under the delusion that "zero tolerance" equals "tough, but fair." It's neither, and utilizing zero tolerance policies simply prunes the whole process back to a disfigured stump devoid of logic, perspective or context.
<br /><br />
So, a child eats something and starts playing with his food because it resembles something other than the RDA-approved Pop Tart knockoff. And his school responds by twisting its own weapons policy into a parody of itself. <a href="http://www.loweringthebar.net/2013/03/update-ii-school-offers-counseling-for-students-troubled-by-pastry-gun-incident.html" target="_blank">The actual wording pertaining to prohibited items</a>, courtesy of Lowering the Bar, reads like this:
<blockquote>
<i>Any gun of any kind, loaded or unloaded, operable or inoperable, including any object other than a firearm which is a look-a-like of a gun. This shall include, but is not limited to, pellet gun, paintball gun, stun gun, taser, BB gun, flare gun, nail gun, and air soft gun.</i></blockquote>
How does this policy apply to the pastry? That's a great question, and Lowering the Bar doesn't have an answer:
<blockquote>
<i>Josh's gun was not a firearm, because it was a pastry, and it seems highly unlikely that it qualified as a gun "look-a-like," again because it was a pastry. It certainly is nothing like any of the "look-a-like" items set forth in the list, largely because those items are not pastries.</i></blockquote>
The school's logic apparently is that if it <i>vaguely resembles</i> a gun and someone is <i>pretending</i> it's a gun, then it's a gun look-a-like. Case closed.
<br /><br />
This, in and of itself, would be pathetic enough. But it gets worse. The school sent home a letter regarding the (non) incident, which hilariously offers the assistance of staff counselors for anyone "troubled" by the weaponized pastry.
<blockquote>
<i>Dear Parents and Guardians:</i>
<br /><br />
<i>I am writing to let you know about an incident that occurred this morning in one of our classrooms and encourage you to discuss this matter with your child in a manner you deem most appropriate.</i>
<br /><br />
<i>During breakfast this morning, one of our students used food to make inappropriate gestures that disrupted the class. While no physical threats were made and no one [was] harmed, the student had to be removed from the classroom.</i>
<br /><br />
<i>* * *</i>
<br /><br />
<i>As you are aware, the ... Code of Student Conduct and appropriate consequences related to violations of the code are clearly spelled out in the Student Handbook, which was sent home during the first week of school and can be found on our website, www.aacps.org....<br /> If your children express that they are troubled by today's incident, please talk with them and help them share their feelings. Our school counselor is available to meet with any students who have the need to do so next week. In general, please remind them of the importance of making good choices.</i></blockquote>
Kevin Underhill at LTB adds:
<blockquote>
<i>Pretty sure that if your children are "troubled" by another kid biting a pastry into something that looks sort of like a gun and waving said pastry around, you have already failed as a parent.</i></blockquote>
And I'd add that if you've done even a merely passable job as a parent, the only "feeling" your children might want to "share" is that their school is run by officious asshats, even if they haven't quite developed the vocabulary to say that in so many words. (Don't kid yourselves, parents: they're quite capable of swearing well above their grade level.)
<br /><br />
This is the nadir of the education system's zero tolerance weapon policies. Zero tolerance does nothing more than relieve the administrative staff from the possibility of having blood on their hands. No situtation is too ridiculous to be taken seriously -- and punished harshly. Reducing every incident to binary ensures that no school employee can ever be held responsible for overreacting to any perceived "threat," no matter how innocuous. In many ways, the education system is a reflection of our current "homeland security" ecosystem where the endless pursuit of "safety" has become the impetus for thousands of terrible policies, all enforced inflexibly.
<br /><br />
There's a way to pull out of this nosedive but it involves many, many people being willing to make judgement calls on the fly and able to face the heat should their judgement falter. Unfortunately for many in the system, the risk is much higher than the reward. For many in these positions, the possibility of being wrong is incapacitating and zero tolerance policies relieve this pressure. Trying to steer the system back towards a greater reliance on common sense won't be easy, but continuing to let it drift in its current direction will do nothing to improve the safety and security of our schools, much less our country.
<br /><br />
<br />
</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130304/16481322196/7-year-old-student-suspended-waving-around-gun-made-pastry.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130304/16481322196/7-year-old-student-suspended-waving-around-gun-made-pastry.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130304/16481322196/7-year-old-student-suspended-waving-around-gun-made-pastry.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>'always-be-a-good-boy/don't-ever-play-with-buns'</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130304/16481322196</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 08:42:54 PST</pubDate>
<title>If You Want Two-Thirds Of Americans To Agree That Violent Video Games Are More Dangerous Than Guns, All You Have To Do Is Ask The Right Americans</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130208/17362421926/if-you-want-two-thirds-americans-to-agree-that-violent-video-games-are-more-dangerous-than-guns-all-you-have-to-do-is-ask-right.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130208/17362421926/if-you-want-two-thirds-americans-to-agree-that-violent-video-games-are-more-dangerous-than-guns-all-you-have-to-do-is-ask-right.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ If you need some handy numbers to argue that violent video games are more dangerous than guns, Public Policy Polling has just delivered a <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_207.pdf" target="_blank">gift-wrapped poll result</a> especially for you. In the middle of a long poll attempting to suss out potential front runners for the 2016 elections, PPP <a href="http://gamepolitics.com/2013/02/08/ppp-poll-games-more-dangerous-guns#.URWb0aVEF8E" target="_blank">decided to toss in a question comparing violent video games and guns</a>.
<center>
<img alt="" src="http://i.imgur.com/gV2sFzF.png" style="width: 351px; height: 114px;" /></center>
<p>
There you have it. Violent video games are a "bigger safety threat" than guns, according to two out of three respondents. Seems pretty open and shut. Everyone cross out the word "gun" on your pet piece of legislation and replace it with "video game!" The nation is saved!<br />
<br />
Many of you may be reaching for your guns/lower jaw/commenting implement. Before we start firing off mouths/angry wall o&#39; text screeds/bullets, let&#39;s have a look at the methodology.
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>PPP surveyed 800 voters nationally from January 31st to February 3rd. The margin of error for the survey is +/-3.5%. We oversampled 416 Democratic and 508 Republican primary voters with margins of error of +/-4.8% and +/-4.4% respectively. In Iowa between February 1st and 3rd we interviewed 313 Democratic and 326 Republican primary voters with margins of error of +/-5.5% and +/-5.4% respectively. This poll was not paid for or authorized by any campaign or political organization. PPP surveys are conducted through automated telephone interviews.</i></blockquote>
This certainly seems above board. So, why do the results seem so surprising? Well, maybe it&#39;s the prevailing demographics of those surveyed. <a href="http://kotaku.com/5982842/oh-come-on-67-of-polled-voters-say-video-games-are-a-bigger-threat-to-safety-than-guns?post=57188875" target="_blank">As pointed out in the comments at Kotaku</a>, there are two factors that skew the results.<br />
<br />
1. 72% of the respondents are older than 45.<br />
<br />
2. The "violent video games" question was only posed to Republican primary voters.<br />
<br />
Now, this data pretty much agrees with the stereotypical view that older people and Republicans trust guns more than they trust violent video games. Sure, there are plenty of outliers along the way, but the Republican Party has generally fought gun control laws, and older people are generally more distrustful of recent technology. In fact, given a narrow enough demographic, you could probably get poll results that indicates that "most Americans" believe cellphones are a bigger safety threat than depleted uranium.<br />
<br />
So, what PPP has <i>actually</i> done is gift-wrapped a set of numbers useful for preaching to the converted. All it does is add to noise that surrounds this heated topic. Considering there&#39;s nothing else resembling that question in the other several dozen pages, one wonders why the question appears at all. Truly bizarre.
</p>
<center><div id="DV-viewer-602442-ppp-release-national-207" class="DV-container"></div>
<script src="//s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/viewer/loader.js"></script>
<script>
  DV.load("//www.documentcloud.org/documents/602442-ppp-release-national-207.js", {
    width: 550,
    height: 560,
    sidebar: false,
    text: false,
    page: 44,
    container: "#DV-viewer-602442-ppp-release-national-207"
  });
</script>
<noscript>
  <a href="http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/602442/ppp-release-national-207.pdf">PPP Release National 207 (PDF)</a>
  <br />
  <a href="http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/602442/ppp-release-national-207.txt">PPP Release National 207 (Text)</a>
</noscript></center><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130208/17362421926/if-you-want-two-thirds-americans-to-agree-that-violent-video-games-are-more-dangerous-than-guns-all-you-have-to-do-is-ask-right.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130208/17362421926/if-you-want-two-thirds-americans-to-agree-that-violent-video-games-are-more-dangerous-than-guns-all-you-have-to-do-is-ask-right.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130208/17362421926/if-you-want-two-thirds-americans-to-agree-that-violent-video-games-are-more-dangerous-than-guns-all-you-have-to-do-is-ask-right.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>two-thirds-of-a-foregone-conclusion</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130208/17362421926</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:32:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>New York State Starts Walking Back On Transparency; Grants Gun Owners Exemption From Disclosure Of Public Records</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130116/18542921709/new-york-state-starts-walking-back-transparency-grants-gun-owners-exemption-disclosure-public-records.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130116/18542921709/new-york-state-starts-walking-back-transparency-grants-gun-owners-exemption-disclosure-public-records.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The backlash against the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121228/09311521511/more-post-newtown-fallout-gun-owners-vs-journalists-new-york.shtml" target="_blank">publication of gun owner data</a> by the Lower Hudson Journal News late last month has turned into a <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130103/07544121562/blowback-publication-gun-owner-data-continues-threats-lawsuits-rejected-foia-requests.shtml" target="_blank">backlash against "freedom of information"</a> laws. Putnam County officials started this regressive ball rolling by refusing to comply with the Journal News&#39; request, breaking a state law in the process. No matter, Sen. Greg Ball was there to share the limelight and offer to rewrite the state law to limit gun owner date to prosecutors and law enforcement.<br />
<br />
As was noted then, making exceptions to freedom of information requests on the basis of public outcry is a giant step in the wrong direction. Holding back public records or granting disclosure exceptions simply because the information might be used in an unpleasant way just makes it easier to make more exceptions and withhold more information down the road. This is the direction the state of New York is now headed with the passage of its gun control bill, the <a href="http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S2230-2013" target="_blank">NY SAFE Act of 2013</a>, an <a href="http://techpresident.com/news/23382/new-gun-control-law-foils-foia" target="_blank">exemption for gun owners that flies in the face of Governor Cuomo&#39;s earlier transparency promises</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>Last week, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo laid out an ambitious open government agenda in his state of the state address, <a href="http://techpresident.com/news/23351/new-york-governor-announces-transparency-initiative" target="_blank">declaring his commitment to provide "easy, single-stop access to statewide and agency-level data, reports, statistics, compilations and information."</a> This week he carved out his first exemption: gun owners.</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>The anonymity exemption, which requires gun owners to provide a reason they wish to remain out of the public record, is a response to the controversy that followed the Journal News&#39; publication last month of the names and addresses of over 33 thousand hand gun permit holders in Rockland and Westchester counties, north of New York City.</i></blockquote>
The problems with this exemption are obvious. If one set of individuals can effectively "opt out," what&#39;s to stop others from claiming they too should be exempted?
<blockquote>
<i>"It sets a dangerous precedent," says Noel Hidalgo, Code for America&#39;s New York Program Manager, "where special interest groups can exempt their communities." If firearm owners can create an exemption from public disclosure, than why couldn&#39;t licensed livery car drivers, healthcare workers, sellers of pesticide or lawyers?</i></blockquote>
For that matter, what&#39;s to stop those in power from crafting even broader exemptions for favored lobbying groups, colleagues or for any other data they wish to keep hidden from the public? It&#39;s not so much that this exemption is a slippery slope -- that slope has <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120910/15182220334/testing-most-transparent-administration-history.shtml" target="_blank">long since been descended</a> -- it&#39;s that placing arbitrary limitations on requested data, especially in response to an isolated incident, compounds an existent problem: the ongoing lack of transparency in many government agencies.<br />
<br />
Even worse, there were better ways to handle the gun owner data that would not have required altering existing laws by adding an exploitable exemption:
<blockquote>
<i>"Some of the concern with the Journal News dataset is the fact that they put an individual&#39;s name and address with a gun," says Hidalgo. According to him, listing gun permit holders by name and zip code or census tract could better satisfy the competing demands the personal privacy and public disclosure, than simply exempting data from public record.</i></blockquote>
The law gives gun owners a chance to opt out using one of two reasons: belief that publication of their data would put their life at risk (police officers, former witnesses/jurors in criminal cases, etc.) or the wish to avoid "unwarranted harassment." Bob Freeman, the executive director of New York&#39;s <a href="http://www.dos.ny.gov/coog/" target="_blank">Committee on Open Government,</a> says this wording is way too vague.
<blockquote>
<i>"We&#39;re all involved in &#39;unwarranted harassment&#39; every day of our lives," he continues, referring to his full e-mail box in the morning, and unsolicited calls from journalists as potential examples.</i></blockquote>
Meanwhile, <a href="http://m.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S2132-2013" target="_blank">Sen. Greg Ball&#39;s legislation is still in motion</a>, looking to exempt pistol purchasers from FOI disclosure. Those registering for a pistol permit will be automatically opted-in under his proposal. Ball lays part of the blame on modern technology, suggesting that if the information were only <i>a bit harder</i> to attach to a Google map, he&#39;d leave the law unchanged.
<blockquote>
<i>When initially established the Freedom of Information Law couldn&#39;t possibly be written to factor in modern technology including social media tools (Twitter, Facebook, etc) or advanced mapping technologies like Google Maps. These social media advancements emerged as commonplace tools to access personal information after many public information laws were passed. The advent of the Internet must be considered when working to ensure every citizen of New York has both their privacy and safety protected, guaranteed by law.</i></blockquote>
Like many lawmakers, Ball only wants to update laws to reflect the "advent of the internet" when it aligns with his agenda. We&#39;ve seen resistance to update laws that operate favorably for those benefitting from the lack of timeliness, including outdated gems like the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=computer+fraud+and+abuse+act" target="_blank">Computer Fraud and Abuse Act</a> or various copyright laws that proponents want stretched past their expiration date in order to treat file sharing like selling bootleg DVDs out of the trunk of a car. Ball&#39;s desired update of the FOI law isn&#39;t about reflecting the current reality; it&#39;s political opportunism that dovetails nicely into the government&#39;s natural tendency towards opacity.<br />
<br />
The state of New York has taken several steps in the right direction in terms of transparency. Now it&#39;s allowing the prevailing winds to push it a step back.<br />
<br />
<b>UPDATE(S):</b><br />
<br />
Some last-minute additions, tacked on to the bottom, as this post has already been "put to bed," as they say in places where ink still hits paper.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/01/18/breaking-journal-news-taking-down-gun-map/" target="_blank">The Lower Hudson Journal News has decided to take down its "gun map,"</a> claiming that it wished to follow the "spirit" of the newly-passed NYSAFE gun law exemptions. Here&#39;s the paper&#39;s full statement:
<blockquote>
<i>With the passage this week of the NYSAFE gun law, which allows permit holders to request their names and addresses be removed from the public record, we decided to remove the gun permit data from lohud.com at 5 pm today.</i><br />
<br />
<i>While the new law does not require us to remove the data, we believe that doing so complies with its spirit. For the past four weeks, there has been vigorous debate over our publication of the permit data, which has been viewed nearly 1.2 million times by readers. One of our core missions as a newspaper is to empower our readers with as much information as possible on the critical issues they face, and guns have certainly become a top issue since the massacre in nearby Newtown, Conn. Sharing as much public information as possible provides our readers with the ability to contribute to the discussion, in any way they wish, on how to make their communities safer.</i><br />
<br />
<i>We remain committed to our mission of providing the critical public service of championing free speech and open records.</i></blockquote>
And, from the if-you-don&#39;t-have-time-to-do-it-right,-how-will-you-find-time-to-do-it-twice department, <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/17/cuomos-new-gun-law-does-not-exempt-new-york-cops-could-prevent-police-from-responding-to-school-shootings/" target="_blank">the rushed NYSAFE bill failed to include exemptions for law enforcement</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>A New York lawmaker says that the state&rsquo;s recently passed gun control law stunningly fails to include any exemptions for law enforcement officers, and technically prohibits police from ever bringing guns on school grounds or possessing extended ammo magazines.</i></blockquote>
Of course, no one really <i>has</i> to do it twice. A Cuomo spokesman has already verbally exempted police officers from the new law, allowing it to join the many other laws police officers are free to ignore. (Jab!) Presumably, amended language will join the rest of the passed bill early next week.&nbsp;<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130116/18542921709/new-york-state-starts-walking-back-transparency-grants-gun-owners-exemption-disclosure-public-records.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130116/18542921709/new-york-state-starts-walking-back-transparency-grants-gun-owners-exemption-disclosure-public-records.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130116/18542921709/new-york-state-starts-walking-back-transparency-grants-gun-owners-exemption-disclosure-public-records.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>first,-they-came-for-my-interactive-map...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130116/18542921709</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:17:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>NRA: Games To Blame For Violence!  Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130116/08485121701/nra-games-to-blame-violence-also-heres-shooting-game-4-year-olds.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130116/08485121701/nra-games-to-blame-violence-also-heres-shooting-game-4-year-olds.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Attention readers of this article! This is important to realize: I do not hate guns, the NRA, or freedom. While this is not the forum for any of us to discuss our personal philosophy regarding firearms or the 2nd amendment, let's just say my views are nuanced and leave it at that. Again, I do not hate guns. What I do hate, however, is hypocrisy and stupidity, and the NRA has a habit of occasionally engaging in both. I mean, the idea that doctors should by law <i>not</i> be allowed to ask questions about <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110509/03074114209/it-may-soon-be-illegal-doctors-florida-to-ask-about-gun-safety.shtml">gun safety</a> in "well-child" visits is just stubborn silliness. That kind of paranoia should be reserved for the lunatic fringe, not the most powerful firearms lobbying group in the country. Likewise, the insane idea that the 2nd amendment should be protected by <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121221/10123121471/nra-to-protect-2nd-amendment-we-must-trample-1st-4th-amendments.shtml">treading upon</a> the 1st and 4th amendments isn't just hypocritical, it's <i>multiplicatively </i>hypocritical.
<br /><br />
But if you thought that kind of PR mistake was the zenith for the NRA with regards to their anti-video game stance, prepare yourselves for liftoff, because the NRA has released <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/online/all-i-want-for-christmas-is-the-national-rifle-associations-video-games-like-nra-varmint-hunter/">several shooting games</a>, the latest of which is <a href="http://www.geekosystem.com/nra-shooting-range-game/">targeted at elementary-aged school children</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>There have been a lot of people blaming violent video games for gun violence in America, especially in the wake of the tragic Newtown, Connecticut shootings. Chief among them, of course, was the National Rifle Association. In his comments after the shootings, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre blamed several video games that featured guns, like Bulletstorm and Splatterhouse, but left off titles like NRA: Varmint Hunter and NRA: Gun Club. He also failed to mention the new NRA branded iOS game which must have been in development at the time, NRA: Practice Range. The new game is recommended for ages four and up, probably because they don't want kids younger than four to see how much fun super-cool guns can be.</i>
</blockquote>
Now, in the interest of being fair here, there's an obvious difference in content between games like Bulletstorm and Practice Range or Varmint Hunter. The NRA isn't putting out games in which human being are shot. But that's a rather weak distinction to draw when you've spoken out so radioactively against violence in gaming. The simple glorification of guns for 4 years olds is probably not the best move PR-wise in the current atmosphere, but even having an NRA sponsored game for shooting animals raises questions. The line on shooting living things is crossed and it would be quite easy to point to harming animals as a<a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-equation/201104/children-who-are-cruel-animals-when-worry"> predictive sign of criminality, violence and sociopathy</a>. Why is the NRA providing a gaming avenue for such behavior while decrying other/more violent games for providing a gaming avenue for that same behavior?
<br /><br />
It should be pointed out that, true to their words, the NRA is littering these games with gun safety tips, but from the standpoint of public relations that doesn't really soften how dumb a move this is. To be clear, I don't think the stupidity is in releasing these games. I'm fine with them. The problem is when you seek to deflect criticism for gun violence by pointing to games, all while you're also releasing shooting games, you lose a great deal of credibility. But when you put forth a game that gives you "one minute to fire off as many rounds as possible" and aims it, by their own words, at children as young as four years old, you just look like jackasses.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130116/08485121701/nra-games-to-blame-violence-also-heres-shooting-game-4-year-olds.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130116/08485121701/nra-games-to-blame-violence-also-heres-shooting-game-4-year-olds.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130116/08485121701/nra-games-to-blame-violence-also-heres-shooting-game-4-year-olds.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>pr-is-a-skill</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130116/08485121701</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 3 Jan 2013 15:37:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Blowback From Publication Of Gun Owner Data Continues -- Threats, Lawsuits And Rejected FOIA Requests</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130103/07544121562/blowback-publication-gun-owner-data-continues-threats-lawsuits-rejected-foia-requests.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130103/07544121562/blowback-publication-gun-owner-data-continues-threats-lawsuits-rejected-foia-requests.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The battle over the privacy of gun owners continues in New York. Last week, the Lower Hudson Valley Journal News secured the names and addresses of gun owners in two New York counties, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121228/09311521511/more-post-newtown-fallout-gun-owners-vs-journalists-new-york.shtml" target="_blank">publishing the information</a> as an interactive map and framing the "story" as a public service -- information people would "want" to have following the Connecticut school shooting.<br />
<br />
Needless to say, this drew the ire of gun owners, along with others who felt the Journal News had crossed a line by publishing this personal information. In response, the names and addresses of various Journal News personnel were posted and the paper found itself dealing with angry phone calls and comments, along with anonymous threats and <a href="http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/199509/journal-news-will-screen-incoming-mail-after-it-receives-suspicious-powder-in-mail/" target="_blank">mail coated with a mysterious (but apparently, non-toxic) white powder</a>.<br />
<br />
Somewhat ironically, <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/01/journal-news-hires-armed-security-guards-153103.html" target="_blank">the Journal News has now hired armed security guards to protect its business and employees</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>The Journal News of West Nyack, N.Y., has hired armed security guards to defend its offices after receiving a torrent of phone calls and emails responding to the paper&#39;s publication of the names and addresses of area residents with pistol permits.</i><br />
<br />
<i>RGA Investigations, a private security company, "is doing private security at on location at the Journal News as a result of the negative response to the article," according to a police report first obtained by the Rockland County Times (Nanuet, N.Y.) and shared with POLITICO. The guards "are armed and will be on site during business hours through at least January 2, 2013."</i></blockquote>
Now, the paper is finding itself stymied by public officials in its search for more gun owner data. Putnam County officials have announced that they will refuse the Journal News' FOIA request, which it had begun compiling before the backlash began. After receiving an "onslaught" of calls demanding that the county not release the data, <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/02/gun-database-putnam-county-new-york/1803821/" target="_blank">Putnam County Executive, MaryEllen Odell, has decided to withhold the requested information, earning an ally in State Senator Greg Ball</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>"I'm proud to stand with Putnam County and proud that Putnam won't be releasing its pistol permit records," [Ball] said in a statement. "The asinine editors at the Journal News have gone out of their way to place a virtual scarlet letter on law abiding firearm owners throughout the region and I thank God that Putnam County has a clerk with the guts to stand up and draw the line here."</i><br />
<br />
<i>[Putnam County Clerk Dennis] Sant said he was happy to protect law-abiding gun owners in his county.</i><br />
<br />
<i>"There is the rule of law, and there is right and wrong, and The Journal News is clearly wrong," he said in a statement. "I could not live with myself if one Putnam pistol permit holder was put in harm's way, for the sole purpose of selling newspapers."</i></blockquote>
Ball has also stated that he will introduce legislation to restrict gun permit information to prosecutors and police. A public press conference is scheduled to announce this refusal, but there's a good chance this move won't stand up in court, should the battle head in that direction.
<blockquote>
<i>Putnam County officials, who say they will refuse a newspaper's request to release the names and addresses of residents with pistol permits, would break state law by withholding the data, a state official said.</i><br />
<br />
<i>The opinion, of state Committee on Open Government Executive Director Robert Freeman, came after an announcement Tuesday by state Sen. Greg Ball and two Putnam officials that they would refuse to release the data requested by The Journal News of White Plains, which sought the records under the state Freedom of Information Law</i><br />
<br />
<i>Freeman said, the law is clear. "The name and address of any gun licensee are public," he said.</i></blockquote>
The Journal News will likely appeal the denial, which would then be heard by the Putnam County government. A second denial would route it to a judge for a formal decision. In the meantime, the Journal News is sticking to its proverbial guns, claiming the info dump was in the public interest.<br />
<br />
In other bad news for the paper, <a href="http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/01/02/53539.htm" target="_blank">it has just been named in a defamation lawsuit filed by a local business</a>, which claims that the Journal News piece which named it as a gun owner caused "customers and clients of First Impression LLC to cease doing business, causing damages in amount to be determined."<br />
<br />
The filing runs only two pages but is loaded with adjectives.
<blockquote>
<i>The two-page, bare-bones Summons With Notice accuses the newspaper of "falsely, maliciously, recklessly, slanderously, libelously and irresponsibly publicly stating in the interactive website www.lohud.com that plaintiff First Impression LLC is a licensed handgun owner."</i></blockquote>
So, it looks as if the future holds quite a bit of court time for the Journal News. It also looks like this fight over gun owner data isn't going to end anytime soon.<br />
<br />
The thorny question still remains: did the Journal News have the <i>right</i> to publish gun ownership? Certainly, the First Amendment grants it the freedom and the fact that the information was gained through legal channels seems to make that "right" argument unassailable. The Journal News was well within its <i>rights</i> to post the information, no matter how irresponsible its use of the information was.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, the many people who opposed the Journal News' actions (which includes people on <i>both</i> sides of the gun control debate) have been vocal enough that government agencies are beginning to arbitrarily withhold requested information, stating a sudden (and unlikely) concern for protecting the privacy of gun owners -- whose permits are a matter of public record. Allowing government agencies to reject FOIA requests because they don't like how the information is being used or are worried about public response is a big step in a very wrong direction. Even worse, grandstanders like Sen. Ball are looking to further restrict the dissemination of information by limiting access to gun ownership data to prosecutors and police. Even if this particular restriction seems logical, the simple fact is once this protection is granted for certain data, the system is opened to abuse by other entities and agencies looking to keep as much info as possible under wraps. This will result in <i>more</i> restrictions and limitations and less actual freedom of information.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130103/07544121562/blowback-publication-gun-owner-data-continues-threats-lawsuits-rejected-foia-requests.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130103/07544121562/blowback-publication-gun-owner-data-continues-threats-lawsuits-rejected-foia-requests.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130103/07544121562/blowback-publication-gun-owner-data-continues-threats-lawsuits-rejected-foia-requests.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>men-with-guns-protecting-journalists-from-men-with-guns</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130103/07544121562</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 28 Dec 2012 15:28:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>MTP's David Gregory Does Journalism, Some Citizens Want His Arrest</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121228/04121521505/mtps-david-gregory-does-journalism-some-citizens-want-his-arrest.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121228/04121521505/mtps-david-gregory-does-journalism-some-citizens-want-his-arrest.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The ripple effects from the Sandy Hook tragedy continue to present themselves. When something so horrific occurs, it's not difficult to understand over-the-top reactions, but that doesn't mean those reactions shouldn't be kept in check. We had folks rushing to blame <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121219/09124821437/nras-plan-if-we-blame-video-games-movies-sandy-hook-massacre-perhaps-people-will-stop-blaming-guns.shtml">videogames</a> for what happened, despite all <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121219/09593821438/yet-more-evidence-shows-no-link-between-video-games-actual-violence.shtml">evidence</a> to the contrary. We even saw how social media and media-media combined to rush to judgement on the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121215/13210521396/inevitable-post-tragedy-witch-hunt-mass-effect-facebook-page-attacked-because-link-to-misidentified-shooting-suspect.shtml">wrong suspect</a> and the wrong related Facebook "likes". Now, one new ripple is that David Gregory is under investigation.
<br /><br />
The moderator of Meet The Press <a href="http://dcist.com/2012/12/white_house_petition_calls_for_davi.php">found himself the subject of a D.C. Metro PD inquiry</a> over his prop use of high-capacity rifle magazines during an interview with an NRA representative. The inquiry being one thing, there's also a <a href="https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/press-charges-against-david-gregory-possession-30-round-high-capacity-assault-rifle-magazine/gMNRPpPl">completely misguided White House petition</a> floating around asking for the immediate arrest of Gregory. 
<blockquote>
<i>David Gregory is not above the law; he is a journalist, and must be held accountable to the same law as every other person.</i>
<br /><br />
<i>DC High Capacity Ammunition Magazines - D.C. Official Code 7-2506.01 (b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term large capacity ammunition feeding device means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition.</i>
<br /><br />
<i>We The People demand that he be formally charged for violation of this law on "Meet The Press."</i>
</blockquote>
I admit, it's difficult to know where to begin. Let's start with MTP's use of the magazines as props. It turns out that the show's producers might make the dean's list for dumb this year. They did indeed get permission to use the props on the show, but they only got permission from the ATF, not local law enforcement, where those magazines are illegal. Stupid, but that kind of thing happens in show business, I suppose.
<br /><br />
Now, dealing with the petition itself. It's just pickles that someone from Boise, Idaho is so whole-heartedly concerned with Metro D.C. gun laws that they need to start a petition to get the White House involved. Either that, or people are having more of those over-the-top reactions to a tragedy I mentioned earlier. Not to mention, as the linked article notes, attempting to get the Obama administration involved in any of this is simply futile.
<blockquote>
<i>The drive to lock Gregory up still needs about 15,000 signers, but in the mean time, let's clear this up. Although the White House could certainly apply political pressure to the D.C. government, it has no direct purview over the Metropolitan Police Department's investigations. To boot, Gregory held up the magazine as an example of the kind of ammunition used in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Conn., and in the wake of that carnage, President Obama has moved toward making gun control a key issue in his second term. So, yeah, demanding that the White House clap David Gregory in irons is kind of dumb. Let's instead focus on the real villains, like CNN blabber Piers Morgan. A petition calling for his deportation back to the United Kingdom has garnered more than 82,000 signatures.</i>
</blockquote>
Now <i>there's</i> a petition I can get behind.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121228/04121521505/mtps-david-gregory-does-journalism-some-citizens-want-his-arrest.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121228/04121521505/mtps-david-gregory-does-journalism-some-citizens-want-his-arrest.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121228/04121521505/mtps-david-gregory-does-journalism-some-citizens-want-his-arrest.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>welcome-to-the-stupid-show</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121228/04121521505</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 28 Dec 2012 14:28:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>More Post-Newtown Fallout: Gun Owners Vs. Journalists In New York</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121228/09311521511/more-post-newtown-fallout-gun-owners-vs-journalists-new-york.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121228/09311521511/more-post-newtown-fallout-gun-owners-vs-journalists-new-york.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The Connecticut school shooting has pushed the discussion of gun control back into the media spotlight, along with <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121217/07455721403/pundits-politicans-very-quick-to-blame-video-game-movie-violence-newtown.shtml" target="_blank">providing a convenient soapbox</a> for lawmakers, lobbying groups and pundits willing to politicize tragedies to push their agendas through. There's been a lot of vitriol on both sides of the issue, with discussion of Second Amendment rights <a href="http://www.popehat.com/2012/12/19/professor-loomis-and-the-nra-a-story-in-which-everyone-annoys-me/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Popehat+%28Popehat%29" target="_blank">often leading those involved to forget all about the opposing side's</a> First Amendment rights.<br />
<br />
One aspect that <i>has</i> changed is the sheer amount of personal information available to those involved in this debate, which results in the sort of exchange that played out recently in New York. The Journal News, covering the Lower Hudson Valley, <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/25/3802960/new-york-newspaper-posts-map-with-names-addresses-of-gun-owners" target="_blank">decided to post a Google map that showed the names and addresses of everyone with handgun permits in Westchester and Rockland counties</a>. This information was gathered via a Freedom of Information requests.<br />
<br />
Published under the fear-inducing title "<a href="http://www.lohud.com/article/20121224/NEWS04/312240045/The-gun-owner-next-door-What-you-don-t-know-about-weapons-your-neighborhood?nclick_check=1" target="_blank">The Gun Owner Next Door: What you don't know about the weapons in your neighborhood</a>,"  the interactive map drew plenty of heat from gun owners who felt their personal information shouldn't have been made public. The map had the slight potential to affect criminal activity, either by steering would-be burglars to safer, weapon-free households, or to give these same hypothetical opportunists a list of addresses from which to poach guns while their owners were at work.<br />
<br />
Also troublesome was the inference made ever so lightly by the article's title: that weapons were dangerous, and by extension, so were their owners. The timing of the article was also problematic -- and intentional. The FOIA requests went out <i>after</i> the Newtown shooting, skewing the purpose of the info dump even further.<br />
<br />
A red-dotted map indicating clusters of gun owners easily, under the circumstances, continued the connect-the-dots inference: with so many weapons around, surely the non-gun owning citizens of the Lower Hudson Valley had something to fear. In totality, it was a badly timed, name-and-shame piece that painted gun owners as ticking time bombs, opening with the story of a mentally disturbed man who had put together a large cache of <i>unregistered</i> weapons, "without any neighbors knowing" -- something no one would have had any interest in if he hadn't used one of his guns to shoot a neighbor in the head. Quotes on both sides of the issue are scattered throughout, but the implication was clear: guns are dangerous, whether in the hands of their rightful owners, or borrowed by murderers like Adam Lanza.
<br />
<center><img alt="" src="http://i.imgur.com/tO7bE.png" style="width: 499px; height: 313px;" /></center>
<br />
The question arises as to whether the Journal News should have published this information. Clearly, the gun owners knew (or should have known) their information was a matter of public record. But should it have been used in this fashion -- or at all? Their personal information was always a FOIA request away, but does that grant a press entity the right to tie this info into an agenda-loaded piece?<br />
<br />
The answer, of course, is that the Journal News had the right to use it in this fashion, thanks to the information being of public record and the First Amendment. The paper has received tons of criticism for this piece, and rightfully so, but that's how free speech works. The response, an info dump on anyone involved with the Journal News, <a href="http://christopherfountain.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/sauce-for-the-goose/" target="_blank">spearheaded by former lawyer Christopher Fountain</a>, is <i>also</i> how free speech works.<br />
<br />
Again, publicly available information was used to compile addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, Twitter/Facebook accounts, of Journal News employees, as well as various Gannett executives. <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/26/journalists-addresses-posted-google-maps-gun/" target="_blank">Techcrunch refers to it as a "transparency arms race," granting the argument a bit of nobility it certainly hasn't earned</a>. It's simply ugly eye-for-an-eye tactics that result in nothing more than each side of the issue becoming more firmly entrenched.<br />
<br />
Both info dumps will have their consequences, in some form of harassment, most likely. Fountain's info dump more clearly paints the Journal News staff as villains, with the original piece leaving that on a more implicit level. Neither group involved has any <i>true</i> expectation of privacy, but both have claimed "victim" status. A followup post at the Journal News <a href="http://www.lohud.com/article/20121225/NEWS02/121225002/The-Journal-News-LoHud-com-assailed-for-publishing-map-of-gun-permit-holders" target="_blank">mentions that it has received threats along with the normal complaints</a>, but that's something it clearly should have expected when it published a map that singled out gun owners for legal activity. (It should also be noted that the headline writers threw some slant into this post as well. The first headline, appearing at 8:39pm on Dec. 25th read "The Journal News/Lohud.com assailed for publishing map of permit holders." The newer headline, published 10:53pm, reads "Journal News' gun-owner database draws criticism.")<br />
<br />
Fountain's response, while troubling in its own way, should also have been expected. Many people still labor under the illusion that their private lives are their own, while leaving so much exposed publicly via social networks like Facebook and LinkedIn, as well as by any number of government services. Failing that, there's always the phone book, which still publishes names and addresses of a majority of US citizens -- a service that is considered default unless the individual makes the effort to opt out.<br />
<br />
The protections granted by the First Amendment will continue to generate ugliness that's often hard to defend. In this case, it opens a lot of people up to harassment and possible danger. People may decry "irresponsible" journalism, but if the First Amendment is to remain intact, that's going to remain a constant. The solution is always more speech, which can take many forms, many of them just as ugly as the original bit of controversial speech.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121228/09311521511/more-post-newtown-fallout-gun-owners-vs-journalists-new-york.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121228/09311521511/more-post-newtown-fallout-gun-owners-vs-journalists-new-york.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121228/09311521511/more-post-newtown-fallout-gun-owners-vs-journalists-new-york.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>you-showed-them-mine-so-I'll-show-them-yours</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121228/09311521511</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:54:15 PST</pubDate>
<title>NRA: To Protect The 2nd Amendment, We Must Trample The 1st &#038; 4th Amendments</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121221/10123121471/nra-to-protect-2nd-amendment-we-must-trample-1st-4th-amendments.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121221/10123121471/nra-to-protect-2nd-amendment-we-must-trample-1st-4th-amendments.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121219/09124821437/nras-plan-if-we-blame-video-games-movies-sandy-hook-massacre-perhaps-people-will-stop-blaming-guns.shtml">predicted</a>, one element of the NRA's "big announcement" today was to lash out and <a href="http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/21/16069537-nra-blames-media-music-and-more-for-culture-of-violence?lite" target="_blank">blame media, music and movies for violence</a>.  Most news stories are focusing on the wacky idea of <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/21/us-usa-shooting-connecticut-idUSBRE8BI1BV20121221" target="_blank">putting armed guards in every school</a> (and to do so in the next few weeks as well) and creating a database of the mentally ill, but the lashing out at video games and movies, despite <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121219/09593821438/yet-more-evidence-shows-no-link-between-video-games-actual-violence.shtml">no evidence</a> that they actually lead to violence, seems equally ridiculous.
<br /><br />
In some manner, it appears that the NRA's response is that the 2nd Amendment is more important than other amendments in the Constitution.  Blaming music and movies is an attack on the 1st Amendment, which allows for freedom of expression, while turning our schools into police states, patrolled by armed guards, at least toes the line on the 4th Amendment.  The database of mentally ill patients also raises significant privacy issues.  No matter what you think of various gun control proposals, it seems rather ridiculous to take a strong Constitutional stand as the basis for your argument... only to make a complete mockery of other amendments.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121221/10123121471/nra-to-protect-2nd-amendment-we-must-trample-1st-4th-amendments.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121221/10123121471/nra-to-protect-2nd-amendment-we-must-trample-1st-4th-amendments.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121221/10123121471/nra-to-protect-2nd-amendment-we-must-trample-1st-4th-amendments.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>well-that's-one-strategy</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121221/10123121471</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 9 Aug 2012 10:44:01 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Honest Mistake: Order A TV From Amazon, Receive An Illegal Assault Rifle</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120809/05445819976/honest-mistake-order-tv-amazon-receive-illegal-assault-rifle.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120809/05445819976/honest-mistake-order-tv-amazon-receive-illegal-assault-rifle.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ With guns and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120723/05472819794/press-speculates-batman-shooter-must-have-played-video-games-theyre-right-he-loved-guitar-hero.shtml">violence</a> in <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/05/us/wisconsin-temple-shooting-scene/index.html?iid=article_sidebar">the news lately</a>, you would think that&nbsp;everyone involved in the chain of&nbsp;the firearms business&nbsp;would be a teensy-weensy bit more careful, from manufacturers, to retailers, all the way up to those handling the shipping and distribution. As with any other business, you have to expect to deal with some human error, but one would imagine that the firearms industry would have the tightest of controls in place right now.<br />
<br />
As it turns out, such notions are exactly that: imagination. Or, at least that appears to be the case in the Wired story of a man from Washington D.C. who <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/08/tv-amazon-assault-rifle/?utm_source=facebook&amp;utm_medium=socialmedia&amp;utm_campaign=facebookclickthru">ordered a television on Amazon and was shipped a Sig Sauer 716 Patrol Rifle</a>. For anyone keeping score at home, that&#39;s a military grade weapon. Seth Horvitz, the guy who is guilty of attempted TV-buying, is not a military grade citizen.
<blockquote>
<i>&ldquo;When I saw some metal parts inside the box, I thought, &lsquo;Maybe this is a TV stand or mount or something,&rsquo;&rdquo; Horvitz said in a phone interview with Wired. &ldquo;When I realized it was an assault rifle, it was pure shock and disbelief.&rdquo;</i></blockquote>
The Wired interviewer chooses not to ask Horvitz if he attempted to point the weapon at his wall and pull the trigger to see if flat-panel televisions shot out, which is disappointing. In any case, Horvitz did the responsible thing and immediately called the D.C. police, who informed him that the weapon is illegal to own in the District of Columbia. There is no word yet on whether flat-panel displays are also illegal, but I&#39;m guessing not.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
The story then details how the mistake happened, which essentially appears to boil down to a lovely bit of insight into the shipping warehouses of UPS, in which the Label Fairy made a mistake and put two shipping labels (only one of which was correct) on the box-&#39;o-death and allowed the box to be shipped anyway. Everyone from the guy who let it leave the warehouse to the guy who delivered the rifle to Horvitz&#39;s door apparently decided to play the new hit game "Shipping Address Coin Flip", resulting in Horvitz getting his new Rambo Halloween costume accessory. Amazon, predictably, disavowed any responsibility for the mistake, which it&#39;s looking like it has every right to do. On the other hand, when Horvitz tried to post a review of his purchase, Amazon blocked it. Admittedly, the review was hillarious, and guns and funny just don&#39;t mix:
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/A0TwV"><img alt="" src="http://i.imgur.com/A0TwV.jpg" width="560" /></a></center>
<p>
I&#39;m not sure what pretending all this didn&#39;t happen accomplishes from Amazon&#39;s end, other than to perhaps flip open the cover to the Streisand Effect alarm, press it, and wait for the derision to ensue.
</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120809/05445819976/honest-mistake-order-tv-amazon-receive-illegal-assault-rifle.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120809/05445819976/honest-mistake-order-tv-amazon-receive-illegal-assault-rifle.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120809/05445819976/honest-mistake-order-tv-amazon-receive-illegal-assault-rifle.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>might-have-been-a-mistake</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120809/05445819976</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2011 07:13:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Loaded Gun Falls Out Of Checked Bag. Feeling Secure At Airports Yet?</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111024/10294616491/loaded-gun-falls-out-checked-bag-feeling-secure-airports-yet.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111024/10294616491/loaded-gun-falls-out-checked-bag-feeling-secure-airports-yet.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's always fun for me when Techdirt has stories about the TSA, but perhaps not for the same reasons as everyone else here. By that, I mean that the range of reaction to such stories always strikes me as incredibly varied. Get a story about the TSA working with the cosmopolitan state of Tennessee to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111020/11465616440/tsa-decides-terrorists-must-be-driving-partners-with-tenn-law-enforcement-to-randomly-search-vehicles.shtml">check drivers</a> for whatever it is they check for, and you'll get serious responses about our civil liberties being eroded. Write about&nbsp;these all-world defenders of truth and justice laying the smackdown on a possible-terrorist but confirmed breast cancer survivor and her <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111003/12305416186/tsa-force-breast-cancer-patient-to-submit-to-patdown-refuse-to-let-her-show-id-card-about-implants.shtml">mammory implants</a>, and truly flabbergasted readers will demand action from our politicians. Relate the words of the guy that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110913/10465415931/guy-who-created-tsa-says-its-failed-its-time-to-dismantle-it.shtml">created the TSA</a> to begin with and his apprehension about where the agency has gone in its off-broadway tour of security theatre, and you'll even get some folks defending the TSA in the comments. These are all well and good, true opinions and feelings from either side; the stirring of a wonderful national debate. <br /><br />
Me? I just like to laugh. And no one has made me laugh lately like the TSA. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=gumnos">Gumnos</a> alerts us (without a patdown, no less) to&nbsp;a USA Today&nbsp;story of how LAX's airport security is trying to <a href="http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/10/tsa-misses-loaded-gun-in-bag-at-lax/1?csp=34news">define ironic comedy</a>. At least, that's what I assume they're doing, because otherwise it means that some of their people may be in need of an IQ test. Look, no security is perfect. Something is going to sneak through occasionally. And we've been told the terrorists are creative, hiding exposives in their shoes (laces out, Dan), their underwear (I'm assuming they have to go with tighty-whities here, right? Or else everything would just kind of fall out?), and we've been told that the clearly deep-thinking and well-funded terrorist networks around the world are looking into hiding a multi-megaton nuclear warhead in a hair bonnet. 
<br /><br />
But what you don't expect to encounter is what happened at LAX. And that's for a loaded .38 caliber pistol to kind of just fall out of a passenger's&nbsp;duffel bag as it was being&nbsp;loaded <i>onto the plane</i>. Now, to be fair, the TSA promptly and proudly announced that it isn't their duty to screen anything but carryon luggage, as if this was some kind of a win for them. But all that makes me wonder is why a federal agency in charge of ensuring safe transportation is more concerned with slapping around our meaty bits than, oh I don't know, checking the damned luggage that goes on the plane! Again, this is <i>not</i> carryon luggage, but rather checked luggage. But how does it make any sense to parse out different sets of luggage to be checked by different agencies with potentially different equipment and...You know what? I'm not going to try to make sense of this for fear of a complete mental breakdown.<br /><br />
Still, I'm all about the positivity, which is why I pictured myself standing in line, waiting to board the plane (why am I always in Group D, damn it?) and watching the baggage handlers out the window lovingly slam my stuff into the luggage compartment, when a loaded .38 pistol comes spinning out of the bag and lands on the tarmac. After a moment of watching the handlers stare dumbly at each other for a moment, I burst out laughing, pointing at the gun, then back at the airline employees, then off in the distance where some TSA agent is playing puppet with a 98 year old triple amputee (try figuring <i>that&nbsp;</i>one out), then back at the gun. Rinse, repeat. Rinse, repeat. <br /><br />
So take a moment to thank the TSA for all the laughs.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111024/10294616491/loaded-gun-falls-out-checked-bag-feeling-secure-airports-yet.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111024/10294616491/loaded-gun-falls-out-checked-bag-feeling-secure-airports-yet.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111024/10294616491/loaded-gun-falls-out-checked-bag-feeling-secure-airports-yet.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>grope-grope-grope</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111024/10294616491</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:28:30 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Theaters On Prescreenings: Bring Your Firearms, But No Mobile Phones</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110923/12352816074/theaters-prescreenings-bring-your-firearms-no-mobile-phones.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110923/12352816074/theaters-prescreenings-bring-your-firearms-no-mobile-phones.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For many years, we've heard various stories of how anyone who attends an early movie screening (i.e., before the movie has actually been widely released), should <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20051104/1927247.shtml">expect to be treated like a total criminal</a>.  The usual stories involve being searched carefully and being required to hand over all mobile phones, which will be held until the end of the film.  Reader <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=minerat">minerat</a> writes in to tell us of his story, which involved going to a 7:30pm showing of <i>Moneyball</i> last week -- just a few hours before the movie was actually being released.  Even so... same process.  "Security made everyone give up their cell phones and checked all bags."  And, it appears that security had their priorities straight from the MPAA:
<blockquote><i>
The better part is after we gave up our phones, another security guard waves a metal detecting wand over us and we had to empty our pockets on any hits.  My friend has a license to carry a firearm and was carrying - we thought this would be a problem (it's a center city Philadelphia theater), but no, he didn't care about his loaded handgun.  Apparently a cameraphone is the bigger threat to a movie that will be publicly released 2 hours after we step out of the theater.  Of course the DVD screener has been available on usenet for 3+ months.  </i></blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110923/12352816074/theaters-prescreenings-bring-your-firearms-no-mobile-phones.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110923/12352816074/theaters-prescreenings-bring-your-firearms-no-mobile-phones.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110923/12352816074/theaters-prescreenings-bring-your-firearms-no-mobile-phones.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>priorities,-people!</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110923/12352816074</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 May 2011 12:45:38 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Philly Police Harass, Threaten To Shoot Man Legally Carrying Gun; Then Charge Him With Disorderly Conduct For Recording Them</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110518/02405714314/philly-police-harass-threaten-to-shoot-man-legally-carrying-gun-then-charge-him-with-disorderly-conduct-recording-them.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110518/02405714314/philly-police-harass-threaten-to-shoot-man-legally-carrying-gun-then-charge-him-with-disorderly-conduct-recording-them.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As police are insisting that having the public record them is a <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110516/03330214280/police-claim-that-allowing-people-to-film-them-public-creates-chilling-effects.shtml">dangerous</a> situation that shouldn't be allowed, we get a striking example of just how important that right is at times.  <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/normative/statuses/70679153728421888" target="_blank">Julian Sanchez</a> points us to a story of a guy in Philadelphia, who had a license to carry a firearm in a city where it's legal to openly carry a firearm -- but who <a href="http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/05/16/philly-police-harass-threaten-shoot-man-legally-carrying-gun" target="_blank">ran into a police officer who apparently did not understand his city's own laws</a>:
<blockquote><i>
On a mild February afternoon, Fiorino, 25, decided to walk to an AutoZone on Frankford Avenue in Northeast Philly with the .40-caliber Glock he legally owns holstered in plain view on his left hip. His stroll ended when someone called out from behind: "Yo, Junior, what are you doing?"
<br><br>
Fiorino wheeled and saw Sgt. Michael Dougherty aiming a handgun at him.
<br><br>
What happened next would be hard to believe, except that Fiorino audio-recorded all of it: a tense, profanity-laced, 40-minute encounter with cops who told him that what he was doing - openly carrying a gun on the city's streets - was against the law.
<br><br>
"Do you know you can't openly carry here in Philadelphia?" Dougherty asked, according to the YouTube clip.
<br><br>
"Yes, you can, if you have a license to carry firearms," Fiorino said. "It's Directive 137. It's your own internal directive."
</i></blockquote>
You can hear all of this <A href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-vUYeJXSrA" target="_blank">via the YouTube clip</a>, embedded here:
<center>
<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Z-vUYeJXSrA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</center>
It gets worse and worse.  Dougherty threatens to shoot Fiorino for trying to show him his license:
<blockquote><i>
Fiorino offered to show Dougherty his driver's and firearms licenses. The cop told him to get on his knees.
<br><br>
"Excuse me?" Fiorino said.
<br><br>
"Get down on your knees. Just obey what I'm saying," Dougherty said.
<br><Br>
"Sir," Fiorino replied, "I'm more than happy to stand here -"
<br><Br>
"If you make a move, I'm going to f------ shoot you," Dougherty snapped. "I'm telling you right now, you make a move, and you're going down!"
<br><br>
"Is this necessary?" Fiorino said.
</i></blockquote>
Other cops show up and they continue to curse at him and scream at him, while he calmly responds to their claims.  They discover that he has a recording device in his pocket, and they go even more ballistic, telling him he broke the law with that as well.  Eventually, they finally realize that he wasn't breaking the law with the gun and let him go... But once he posted the audio on YouTube, suddenly the District Attorney took renewed interest in the case, and charged him with "reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct," claiming that he refused to cooperate with police.  If you listen to the tapes, it's hard to see how anyone could make that claim with a straight face.  It seems pretty clear, from the beginning, that it's the police who were recklessly endangering someone and who were disorderly in how they dealt with Fiorino.
<br><br>
No matter what your opinion is on guns or open carry rules, it's hard to see how this guy deserves the treatment he received from police who clearly did not understand the law in their own city -- and it's even more ridiculous to see him facing a (trumped up) charge, after he uploaded the audio.  It seems like a pretty clear case of vindictive prosecution, even as part of the issue is that the very thing that pissed off law enforcement is precisely what proves this guy was perfectly reasonable throughout the encounter.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110518/02405714314/philly-police-harass-threaten-to-shoot-man-legally-carrying-gun-then-charge-him-with-disorderly-conduct-recording-them.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110518/02405714314/philly-police-harass-threaten-to-shoot-man-legally-carrying-gun-then-charge-him-with-disorderly-conduct-recording-them.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110518/02405714314/philly-police-harass-threaten-to-shoot-man-legally-carrying-gun-then-charge-him-with-disorderly-conduct-recording-them.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>lovely</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110518/02405714314</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Dec 2010 18:33:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>New TSA Report: Every Test Gun, Bomb Part Or Knife Got Past Screeners At Some Airport</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101217/13193112323/new-tsa-report-every-test-gun-bomb-part-knife-got-past-screeners-some-airport.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101217/13193112323/new-tsa-report-every-test-gun-bomb-part-knife-got-past-screeners-some-airport.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While the TSA is still fighting as hard as possible to be able to either see you naked or touch your private parts, apparently it hasn't spent that much time actually figuring out how to look for people carrying weapons onto planes.  A few folks have sent in this ABC story about a man who <a href="http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&#038;id=7848683" target="_blank">boarded a plane with a loaded handgun that had been in his carry-on bag</a>. The guy noted that he normally carries the gun in his bag, but takes it out before traveling -- he just forgot to do so and was pretty spooked when he realized he had the gun on him (he reported the incident to the TSA upon landing).
<br /><br />
But even more scary than that is the article notes that the TSA admits that it's <i>really bad</i> at finding weapons, saying that the "failure rate" of tests is reaching 70% at some major airports and at some airports <b>"every test gun, bomb part or knife got past screeners."</b>  So, while scanners are looking at or touching your crotch, they're apparently not bothering to look for guns.  Comforting.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101217/13193112323/new-tsa-report-every-test-gun-bomb-part-knife-got-past-screeners-some-airport.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101217/13193112323/new-tsa-report-every-test-gun-bomb-part-knife-got-past-screeners-some-airport.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101217/13193112323/new-tsa-report-every-test-gun-bomb-part-knife-got-past-screeners-some-airport.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>but-they-got-to-touch-your-junk</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101217/13193112323</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 2010 06:23:40 PST</pubDate>
<title>While TSA Looks At You Naked, Child Finds Loaded Gun Magazine Left On Southwest Plane</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101123/17282212000/while-tsa-looks-you-naked-child-finds-loaded-gun-magazine-left-southwest-plane.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101123/17282212000/while-tsa-looks-you-naked-child-finds-loaded-gun-magazine-left-southwest-plane.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Another day, another series of bizarre TSA-related stories.  While the TSA still won't provide <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101119/18284511954/whether-not-tsa-has-ever-caught-terrorist-is-apparently-state-secret.shtml">any evidence</a> that its efforts have actually made air travel any safer and continues to defend its security efforts as necessary, CNN is reporting that a child on a Southwest flight <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/23/plane.magazine.found/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn" target="_blank">found a loaded gun magazine in a seatback pocket</a>, which was kicked to the floor as the child climbed over the seats.  Apparently, a law enforcement official (not an air marshal) who was allowed to take the clip on the plane, left it in the seat.  Obviously, this is not a failure of the TSA, in that the mistake was by the law enforcement agent who left the clip, but the point is that it's impossible to protect against all threats on a plane, and many of the TSA's actions seem to be based on the fiction that it is possible.  I have nothing against legitimate security that makes us safer, but there's little indication that that's what we're getting from the TSA.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101123/17282212000/while-tsa-looks-you-naked-child-finds-loaded-gun-magazine-left-southwest-plane.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101123/17282212000/while-tsa-looks-you-naked-child-finds-loaded-gun-magazine-left-southwest-plane.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101123/17282212000/while-tsa-looks-you-naked-child-finds-loaded-gun-magazine-left-southwest-plane.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>feel-safer?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101123/17282212000</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 4 Nov 2010 08:43:26 PDT</pubDate>
<title>James Bond's Gun Gets A Trademark... Based On An Online Survey</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101102/12310011693/james-bond-s-gun-gets-a-trademark-based-on-an-online-survey.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101102/12310011693/james-bond-s-gun-gets-a-trademark-based-on-an-online-survey.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Apparently the maker of the gun preferred by (yes, fictional) James Bond has been able <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/thr-esq/james-bonds-gun-distinctive-says-34520" target="_blank">to get a trademark on the design</a>, as "James Bond's weapon of choice."  The USPTO initially rejected the trademark request, leading the company, Walther, who makes the PPK handgun, to do an <i>online survey</i> that suggested 54% of gun owners recognized the gun, with some of them mentioning James Bond in explaining how they recognized it.  Apparently this online survey was enough to convince the USPTO that it had made a mistake.  Who knew that the USPTO could so easily be influenced by online surveys?  Can we have 4chan or Reddit folks stuff the ballot on future online surveys that might influence USPTO rulings?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101102/12310011693/james-bond-s-gun-gets-a-trademark-based-on-an-online-survey.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101102/12310011693/james-bond-s-gun-gets-a-trademark-based-on-an-online-survey.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101102/12310011693/james-bond-s-gun-gets-a-trademark-based-on-an-online-survey.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>can-we-also-vote-against-it?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101102/12310011693</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:42:25 PST</pubDate>
<title>Inventor Involved In Patent Troll Tracker Lawsuit Arrested For Weapons Stockpiling</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100225/0220418299.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100225/0220418299.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Sometimes you come across stories so odd, you just don't know how to classify them.  You may have heard, recently, about the New England man, Gregory Girard, who was <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/02/11/police_say_man_with_weapons_cache_was_preparing_for_armageddon/" target="_blank">arrested for illegal weapons stockpiling</a> in his home.  The guy, who claimed that he believed Armageddon was quickly approaching, had recently told his wife both, "It's fine to shoot people in the head because traitors deserve it," and "Don't talk to people, shoot them instead."  Not surprisingly, he's being held without bail for being too dangerous.
<br /><br />
So, what does that have to do with stuff we write about here?  As noted at The Prior Art, <a href="http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/2010/02/greg-girard-esn-v-cisco-inventor-arrested-on-weapons-charges.html" target="_blank">Girard is the inventor and claimed patent holder at the center</a> of the high-profile patent infringement lawsuit that involved Rick Frenkel, who had been the anonymous guy behind the still greatly missed Patent Troll Tracker blog.  As you may recall, Frenkel was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080312/020814510.shtml">sued for defamation</a> in East Texas, after he had <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071018/022822.shtml">questioned the legitimacy</a> of a date change on a patent lawsuit filed against Cisco (where Frenkel worked at the time).  Basically, the lawsuit appeared to have been filed the day before the patent was granted and then, magically, the date changed.  The lawyers involved suggested it was an honest mistake, but others suspected otherwise.  
<br /><br />
Either way, Frenkel's case <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090922/1611326286.shtml">settled</a>, and (separately) the judge just recently tossed out the patent infringement lawsuit against Cisco that resulted in all of this, after realizing that it appeared that Girard and the holding company he had set up for lawsuits involving this patent <i>didn't actually own the patent in question</i>. Girard had developed the invention while employed by another company, which was working on similar technology, and Girard's own employment agreement said he would automatically assign any inventions over to the company.  Still, during the lawsuit, Girard's lawyers tried to play him up as an All-American inventor: 
<blockquote><i>
"Mr. Girard is exactly what the founding fathers had in mind when they penned the Patent Clause in the basic Article I of the U.S. Constitution."
</i></blockquote>
But perhaps not what they had in mind when they penned the rest of the Constitution.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100225/0220418299.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100225/0220418299.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100225/0220418299.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>exactly-what-the-founding-fathers-had-in-mind</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100225/0220418299</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 07:03:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>MPAA Worried That People Don't Know A Gun Can't Shoot Through Your TV</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080720/1956161738.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080720/1956161738.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Apparently the MPAA is quite worried that people watching a movie trailer <a href="http://www.avclub.com/content/hater/the_mpaa_thinks_youre_stupid">might 
 not understand that a gun pointed at the screen</a> can't actually shoot through the
screen.  The organization is forcing preview trailers that show someone pointing a gun
directly at the screen to actually change the video or cut that scene out of the ad.  As
the report at the AV Club asks, is the MPAA worried that someone from a century ago who's
never seen TV or a movie is going to suddenly show up and freak out?  Anyone who's seen the movie <i>This Film Is Not Yet Rated</i> knows that the MPAA works in <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060831/152253.shtml">mysterious</a> ways, but this just seems ridiculous.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080720/1956161738.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080720/1956161738.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080720/1956161738.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>how-nice-of-them</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080720/1956161738</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 1 Jul 2008 12:42:52 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Supreme Court Decision On Guns May Cut Promoting Progress Out Of The Constitution</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080627/1427471540.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080627/1427471540.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ I was debating whether or not to write anything about this, but William Patry has done a good job <a href="http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/06/guns-and-copyright.html" target="_new">discussing how the Heller case may impact copyright</a>, and it's something I was concerned about, so it should be discussed.  No matter what your thoughts on "the right to bear arms" (which was affirmed as an individual right in the <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-a-constitutional-right-to-a-gun/">Heller</a> decision), it may come back to cause trouble for those of us who believe that intellectual property has gone too far and does not "promote the progress."
<br /><br />
As I've pointed out multiple times, one of the big questions concerning whether or not intellectual property law should be strengthened or weakened is based on <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080313/031128532.shtml">how you parse</a> the clause in the Constitution that enables Congress to create the IP system:
<blockquote><i>
"The Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" 
</i></blockquote>
By my reading, that means that if the act of securing exclusive rights for a limited time does not promote the progress of science and the useful arts, then it is <i>not</i> covered by the Constitution.  That is, the first part of the clause is defining under what conditions (to promote the progress...) it is okay to do certain things (secure exclusive rights).  Thus, any intellectual property system that is shown <i>not</i> to promote progress (or worse, to hinder it) is by definition unconstitutional.  Others, however, read that first part "promoting the progress" as a sort of "preamble" discussion.  Thus, their reading is that securing those exclusive rights for a limited time, by definition, "promotes the progress."
<br /><br />
So, what does the Heller decision on guns have to do with all of this?  Well, as some in our comments <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080306/003240458#c1760">pointed out</a> way back in March, the key to the Heller decision was how the court interpreted part of the clause: "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State...." If it interpreted that as meaningless preamble, saying that the right to bear arms had nothing to do with "a well regulated militia" then it opens up some pretty serious questions about constitutional interpretation.  As Patry notes, the court can now treat sections of the Constitution it doesn't like as preamble, rendering them meaningless.
<br /><br />
Again, so whether or not you're happy with the way the court decided the Heller case, the fact that it has no problem deciding that a clause in the Constitution can be ignored as "preamble" could have very bad consequences for those of us pointing out that dangerous innovation-hindering intellectual property systems are against the Constitution.  Hopefully, the courts would still recognize that <i>this</i> clause is relevant and not meaningless -- but they now have the necessary tools to claim that promoting the progress is meaningless and has no bearing on whether or not a particular intellectual property system is constitutional.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080627/1427471540.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080627/1427471540.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080627/1427471540.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>promote-the-progress</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080627/1427471540</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2007 20:04:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Dumb Thieves With Saws, Not Guns, To Blame For Internet Blackout</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070823/201044.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070823/201044.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Well, well, well.  Earlier this week we wrote about a report (the second one we'd ever heard of!) saying that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070821/003317.shtml">gunfire had damaged a fiber optic cable</a>, causing a bit of an internet slowdown in the northeastern part of the US.  Turns out that wasn't exactly accurate -- though the real story isn't necessarily any less bizarre.  It appears that <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,136358-pg,1/article.html">the cable was actually cut with a saw</a>, most likely by <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070403/083046.shtml">thieves hoping it was copper</a> that could be sold.  Of course, fiber optic cables don't contain copper, so the thieves ended up with something worth a lot less than they expected.  But what about the gunshot?  Well, it turns out that when crews arrived to fix up the cable, they discovered that the <i>replacement cable</i> had been shot up by gunfire.  It's not explained how or why this might have happened, but the folks who store the fiber optic cable might want to come up with a better storage place.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070823/201044.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070823/201044.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070823/201044.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>by-saw-or-by-gun</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070823/201044</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2007 19:15:56 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Gunshots Slow Down The Internet... Again</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070821/003317.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070821/003317.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Back in 2005, we had quite a story about how DSL lines in New Mexico were apparently knocked offline due to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20051207/1113225.shtml">"random gunfire."</a>  That story got even more bizarre when a guy who was playing online poker at the time, blamed the outage on him going "all in" on the wrong hand (he claims he went all in just as the DSL turned off, but when it came back, it went in on a different hand).  However, it still struck us as interesting that random gunfire could impact your internet service.  Apparently, it wasn't an isolated case.  The latest is that <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/082107-gunplay-blamed-for-internet.html?fsrc=netflash-rss">random gunfire is being blamed for a general slowdown in the internet</a>, after fiber-optic cables near Cleveland were "sabotaged by gunfire."  Who knew that gunfire and internet wiring were such a dangerous combination?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070821/003317.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070821/003317.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070821/003317.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>really-need-to-do-something-about-all-that-gunplay</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070821/003317</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>