Florida Concealed Carry banner

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,593 Posts
One wonders how long before all the gun apps draw this kind of attention.

The data base collection on gun owners is growing......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,168 Posts
OMG, I use "SCOPE" after brushing my teeth at least two or three times a day.
Now I have to worry about this crap.
It never ends with these Bloomberg & Soros New World Order owned socialist democrat Trump & America hating fools.
Ronnie
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,039 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
54,227 Posts
The app is used on a N/V capable scope. N/V is restricted from being sent outside the country. They are trying to keep a handle on N/V being sent overseas. The app would prove easier to document than the scope sales.

Just another WGAS, it's nothing to get your panties in a bunch over :dunno
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,796 Posts
The app is used on a N/V capable scope. N/V is restricted from being sent outside the country. They are trying to keep a handle on N/V being sent overseas. The app would prove easier to document than the scope sales.

Just another WGAS, it's nothing to get your panties in a bunch over :dunno
That was my take on it as well. Too bad they waited until the end of the article to mention the reason for requesting the info, as some folks probably wouldn’t read the entire article. :grin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54,227 Posts
That was my take on it as well. Too bad they waited until the end of the article to mention the reason for requesting the info, as some folks probably wouldn’t read the entire article. :grin
:thumsup
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,280 Posts
Discussion Starter #9 (Edited)
I think there are less intrusive means of getting the information than requiring a complete data dump on all users. No one with any sense of patriotism wants to see useful technology exported to our enemies. However, the federal government should use a method calculated to preserve the privacy rights of users of the app, which privacy rights have been determined by court decision to be one of the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, instead of resorting to an overbroad discovery method.
The Constitution acts as a limitation on the powers of government, or at least that was the intention of the Founders. We ignore that at our peril. If we are willing to concede that the Constitution is no impediment to government action when it comes to a right we do not value highly, because of convenience, or in order to achieve a result we think is desirable, or for any other reason, it makes it more difficult for us to argue against the infringement of a right we do value when someone attacks that right. The entire Bill of Rights is important and we should not countenance any violation of any right guaranteed by the Constitution if, in the end, we wish to have any rights left to us whatsoever. The process of chipping away at fundamental rights has been ongoing for many years, it needs to stop or we will end up like the citizens of Great Britain, who can be arrested and imprisioned for expressing an opinion the authorities deem harmful and who have no right to the possession of firearms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54,227 Posts
I think there are less intrusive means of getting the information than requiring a complete data dump on all users. No one with any sense of patriotism wants to see useful technology exported to our enemies. However, the federal government should use a method calculated to preserve the privacy rights of users of the app, which privacy rights have been determined by court decision to be one of the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, instead of resorting to an overbroad discovery method.
The Constitution acts as a limitation on the powers of government, or at least that was the intention of the Founders. We ignore that at our peril. If we are willing to concede that the Constitution is no impediment to government action when it comes to a right we do not value highly, because of convenience, or in order to achieve a result we think is desirable, or for any other reason, it makes it more difficult for us to argue against the infringement of a right we do value when someone attacks that right. The entire Bill of Rights is important and we should not countenance any violation of any right guaranteed by the Constitution if, in the end, we wish to have any rights left to us whatsoever. The process of chipping away at fundamental rights has been ongoing for many years, it needs to stop or we will end up like the citizens of Great Britain, who can be arrested and imprisioned for expressing an opinion the authorities deem harmful and who have no right to the possession of firearms.
Suggestions of possible alternatives? More importantly, what violation of rights do you believe are being violated on this matter?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,355 Posts
Suggestions of possible alternatives? More importantly, what violation of rights do you believe are being violated on this matter?
The fourth amendment comes to mind.

I’m Astounded at how easily people are willing to roll over, and let the gubmint nibble at the apple.

Many on this forum pontificate on the 2nd amendments, “shall not be infringed,” phrase, yet are okay with infringements on other constitutional rights.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,280 Posts
Discussion Starter #13 (Edited)
I believe the right to privacy may be violated. I think the Court, upon proper objection by the parties from whom the information is requested, and I do believe they should make the objection, should examine the request to see if there is a more narrowly tailored means of getting the government the information it needs without exposing the identities and other information to which, absent some proof a crime has been committed, it is not entitled. Trial courts make those determinations all the time, and when the scope of discovery is overbroad, limit discovery to protect the rights of individuals who are not parties to the action. Just because some government agency wants information does not mean it is entitled to that information, a trial court, and perhaps an appellate court will ultimately decide the issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54,227 Posts
The fourth amendment comes to mind.

I’m Astounded at how easily people are willing to roll over, and let the gubmint nibble at the apple.

Many on this forum pontificate on the 2nd amendments, “shall not be infringed,” phrase, yet are okay with infringements on other constitutional rights.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The apps database belongs to the app, not the user. He's just using their app with their consent. So how does that affect the 4th relative personal papers?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54,227 Posts
I believe the right to privacy may be violated. I think the Court, upon proper objection by the parties from whom the information is requested, and I do believe they should make the objection, should examine the request to see if there is a more narrowly tailored means of getting the government the information it needs without exposing the identities and other information to which, absent some proof a crime has been committed, it is not entitled. Trial courts make those determinations all the time, and when the scope of discovery is overbroad, limit discovery to protect the rights of individuals who are not parties to the action. Just because some government agency wants information does not mean it is entitled to that information, a trial court, and perhaps an appellate court will ultimately decide the issue.
And that takes forever to get through the courts. The information is time sensitive. It's a plan, but it's just one plan of many. And no matter what plan is offered, someone somewhere will believe it's a violation of their rights.

My suspicion is even if adjudicated in favor of the gov, people will still whine about their rights being violated. :dunno
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,280 Posts
Discussion Starter #16 (Edited)
And that takes forever to get through the courts. The information is time sensitive. It's a plan, but it's just one plan of many. And no matter what plan is offered, someone somewhere will believe it's a violation of their rights.

My suspicion is even if adjudicated in favor of the gov, people will still whine about their rights being violated. :dunno
If the government wants the information fast, it shouldn’t request it in a manner which opens it up to a prolonged delay. The attorneys working for the government are not stupid, they know how to go about requesting information in a manner not subject to Constitutional question. It’s only when the government overreaches that it finds itself in an extended court battle. If it is acting within its Constitutional bounds, the matter will be disposed of quickly by reference to existing precedent.

And, my suspicion is that if the government loses, it will whine about not being allowed to violate the Constitutional rights of its citizens.:dunno
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,995 Posts
And that takes forever to get through the courts. The information is time sensitive. It's a plan, but it's just one plan of many. And no matter what plan is offered, someone somewhere will believe it's a violation of their rights.

My suspicion is even if adjudicated in favor of the gov, people will still whine about their rights being violated. :dunno
Then LET it take forever. That's what due process and judicial oversight of government butthead buerocrats is for. Scroom. Like China hasn't already stolen the app
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54,227 Posts
I prefer to err on the side of caution. Terrs get the scope and apps, they'll be taking our guys out while due process works itself through the courts. Not something I'll agree on when our guys lives may be put at further risk.

I also don't want Trump to wait for the courts to make a decision on the wall being in place and host of other matter he's dealing with that would normally run through the courts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,355 Posts
The apps database belongs to the app, not the user. He's just using their app with their consent. So how does that affect the 4th relative personal papers?
Customers Personal private information that’s collected by businesses is required by law to be protected. It’s not to be shared with disinterested third parties BY LAW. That includes the government.

Financial organizations are required to send you a Privacy Policy statement every year as a part of that law.

Private companies with whom One does business is not the governments business, and is protected by the fourth amendment.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,995 Posts
Brownie, the Ruskies have had better NV equipment since I was in, and sell to the highest bidder. Sorry, you're wrong on this one
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top