Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We need an NRA for privacy

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 170 posts

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#141

Post by damoncali »

shpxnvz wrote: post #137
rdl wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an aside, gun trusts are a decent way around the CLEO signature requirement for NFA items, at least in states which don't ban them outright (sigh, California). (acutely noticed since I've seen the fare.)

Note that the NFA branch has a rule change out for public comment that would include removing the CLEO signature requirements for individuals. It's expected to go into effect sometime next year if I remember correctly. Of course, since nothing they do comes without a trade-off, they will be making the trust route somewhat more painful (requiring fingerprints and background checks).

Just when I was beginning to figure it out... What a mess.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#142

Post by rdl »

shpxnvz wrote: post #137
rdl wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an aside, gun trusts are a decent way around the CLEO signature requirement for NFA items, at least in states which don't ban them outright (sigh, California). (acutely noticed since I've seen the fare.)

Note that the NFA branch has a rule change out for public comment that would include removing the CLEO signature requirements for individuals. It's expected to go into effect sometime next year if I remember correctly. Of course, since nothing they do comes without a trade-off, they will be making the trust route somewhat more painful (requiring fingerprints and background checks).

I don't think we need SBR/SBS/suppressors (and probably AOWs and most DDs) under NFA at all, but I'm kind of ok with at least making the requirements for select-fire consistent for individual vs. organization, especially after that LAPD Dorner guy.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#143

Post by rayiner »

smsm42 wrote: post #133
Dirlewanger wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard to have the tech industry back it when most of it is taking part in the surveillance.

Given that not taking part is not an option given current laws, hard to place the whole weight of the blame on them. They might have put a better fight, but the result - until the voters in general take notice - would be the same.

Do you think oil companies and banks look at a law, say "gee" and then throw their hands up in the air and cave?

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#144

Post by shpxnvz »

rdl wrote: post #142
shpxnvz wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that the NFA branch has a rule change out for public comment that would include removing the CLEO signature requirements for individuals. It's expected to go into effect sometime next year if I remember correctly. Of course, since nothing they do comes without a trade-off, they will be making the trust route somewhat more painful (requiring fingerprints and background checks).

I don't think we need SBR/SBS/suppressors (and probably AOWs and most DDs) under NFA at all, but I'm kind of ok with at least making the requirements for select-fire consistent for individual vs. organization, especially after that LAPD Dorner guy.

His is the only second case I'm aware of since 1934 of a legally owned NFA weapon being used in the commission of a crime. I'd strongly disagree with the claim that two criminal incidents in 79 years is sufficient reason to put additional roadblocks in front of the 2nd amendment.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#145

Post by the_watcher »

hga wrote: post #126
damoncali wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

worries about government databases of guns should be very easy to relate to actual government databases of communications. Bingo. There is a strong ally for privacy advocates in the NRA. This hasn't blown up in the media yet, but you can be sure it will next time discussions of gun registration/background checks comes up.

It will seldom if ever blow up in the media---did you hear about the publishing of gun owner names and addresses in various parts of New York, let alone a big media backlash???---but it is something we gun owners know about. For both causes we're going to have to depend a lot on other methods of publicity. E.g. I'll bet you haven't heard that the Democratic administration running Missouri illegally gave the Social Se…

This is damoncali's point. There is a huge opportunity here for both sides. The NRA gets to shine a light on illegal surveillance (or whatever you want to call it) without having to simultaneously fight the battle over guns. They can fight that battle separately, while at the same, any major wins for privacy are generally wins for the NRA in general. It goes both ways too. The NRA is extremely influential (imagine the impact the NRA announcing it would score the vote on Amash Amendment?) and are possibly the most savvy group of lobbyists in the history of democratic politics.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#146

Post by rdl »

shpxnvz wrote: post #138
hga wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I gather that in a lot of states they haven't been put to the legal test. Not a good bet where judiciaries lean more left than the state itself, e.g. any that picks judges with the Missouri Plan, like my home state of Missouri where our Castle Doctrine has been judicially nullified. Especially since you won't find many political profiles in courage supporting ownership of NFA items.

In the cases I've seen state first hand, state law regarding NFA items usually just provides a blanket exemption for legal ownership so long as the item was procured in compliance with NFA procedures. In those states, so long as the NFA branch issues the stamp and you are (federally) legally allowed to possess the item under the NFA, it doesn't matter whether you or a trust owns it. Of course, the trust must be valid…

Ironic that both of them (I believe) involved current or former law enforcement officers, too.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#147

Post by robg »

hga wrote: post #117
robg wrote: post #95

Privacy isn't explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution. So the Court has tended to side with the Government on matters of National Security vs. Privacy. In fact, the Constitution guarantees searches for the Government, so long as they are reasonable. On matters of national security versus a database, national security readily wins. The Court finds those searches reasonable. So, in the case of Privacy, you aren't fig…

We realize it, but one of the secrets to the NRA's success is it's single issue focus, it doesn't give people unrelated reasons to not join it, as what you recommend would do. Unless it directly impinges on it or gun owners, like McCain-Feingold's suppression of political speech, it's not going to get a major push, although I'd expect it'll be added to "reasons we can't trust the good will of those in government".

You say single issue, but really the NRA is single Amendment. They fight for a strong, individual right within the 2nd.

Privacy, unfortunately, doesn't have that same focus within the Constitution. Where the 1st gives, the 4th takes away esp with respect to National Defense. So Privacy advocates are left to fight a broad argument based on the protections in the 1st and by narrowing the definition of reasonable searches. That's a much harder problem and a long game that requires many, complementary actors.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#148

Post by jivatmanx »

bokchoi wrote: post #86
jivatmanx wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prohibition succeeded because they formed an alliance with the Women's Suffrage movement.

This is brilliant: The gay rights movement should align with the privacy movement.

I think the writing is already on the wall in favor of that movement.

The biggest civil rights movement left is the War on Drugs, with soldiers routinely terrorizing minority communities, putting them in chains en-masse, taking their right to vote.

Considering the DEA's use of Laundered NSA intelligence, and the Black Caucus's support for the Amash Amendment (due to the FBI's historical relationship with the civil rights movement) this might be a good fit.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#149

Post by smsm42 »

rayiner wrote: post #143
smsm42 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that not taking part is not an option given current laws, hard to place the whole weight of the blame on them. They might have put a better fight, but the result - until the voters in general take notice - would be the same.

Do you think oil companies and banks look at a law, say "gee" and then throw their hands up in the air and cave?

Sometimes they do, sometimes they find ways around. So we need to give tech companies strong monetary incentive to find ways around surveillance state.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#150

Post by shpxnvz »

rdl wrote: post #146
shpxnvz wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the cases I've seen state first hand, state law regarding NFA items usually just provides a blanket exemption for legal ownership so long as the item was procured in compliance with NFA procedures. In those states, so long as the NFA branch issues the stamp and you are (federally) legally allowed to possess the item under the NFA, it doesn't matter whether you or a trust owns it. Of course, the trust must be valid…

Ironic that both of them (I believe) involved current or former law enforcement officers, too.

I think this was meant in reply to the comment about NFA weapons and crime. If so, yeah, I find that particularly interesting too.

It also fits with the published data showing that police officers commit violent crimes at a significantly higher rate than non-LEO concealed weapons permit holders.

Post reply on HN