Doxxing is always about intimidation, shaming and invitation to retaliation.
This is consistent with how FOIA and CCW laws interact in most states. For example, here's NY's explanation of how SAFE and FOIL interact[1].
[1]: https://safeact.ny.gov/protect-your-privacy-foil-exemption
Their state counterparts are explicitly excluded. Why? Because there's no obvious public interest in them. This is in contrast to firearms, where I have a public interest in knowing whether my neighbor has the ability to shoot me the next time I make a complaint about him.
If the number of shootings where a CCW holder has shot a neighbor over a complaint is substantially smaller than the number of cases where a CCW holder has not shot a neighbor over a complaint, doesn't this just serve to make holding a CCW intimidating in a way that most CCW holders neither want nor need? Most directly relevant to your public interest argument, is the rate of people shooting neighbors over a complaint substantially higher among CCW-permit holders than non-CCW-permit holders?
Is the claim you're making that 1.7 million CCW permit holders have shot another neighbor over a dispute?
The first result I got from your search query was this
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-tehama-county-shoo... (archive https://web.archive.org/web/20210718215711/https://www.latim...)
> Neal fired eight rounds into a Ford F-250 occupied by a mother and her son who were headed to school. The boy suffered non-life-threatening wounds, but the mother was seriously injured, Johnston said. The mother, who had a concealed carry permit, pulled out her own handgun but was unable to fire it before Neal drove away, Johnston said.
CCW permits are neither of these: you opt into them, and they reflect no amount of privation while being entirely in the public interest.
See above for the public interest: people engage and escalate disputes all the time, believing that the other party is unwilling or at least incapable of conveniently murdering them. CCWs change that calculus; it's in my best interest as a member of the public to know whether my neighbor might murder me rather than merely being angry at a dispute.
If you are pretending you want constitutional open carry, we’ll, that’s pretty funny I suppose. Because you definitely don’t.
Scalia is extremely explicit about this in District of Columbia v. Heller[1]:
> Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.
[1]: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290...
Carrying is not brandishing. Hot take there!
Did you really just try and cherry pick Heller vs DC to pretend carry is not protected? Read the words you posted...
prohibitions have been upheld.
And the hilarious next sentence Scialia uses that restores the context to tried to omit:
The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire-arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Yes, a state can prohibit for felons, mentally ill, etc. If you stopped reading the rest of the opinion, and didn't go on to read McDonald v Chicago 2010, this still implies that a state will allow concealed carry for law abiding citizens.
The two options are:
1. You are hard-line and wrong, where all the states with concealed carry now including CA, HI, NJ, MD that will issue permits are respecting civil rights.
2. Everyone has it wrong but you!, in which case, this is surely frustrating.
Either way... Concealed carry exists and shall-issue is now the minimum law of the land. More states going to constitutional carry every year.
Turns out your desire convince people using frantic posts and omissions doesn't actually change anything. Crazy huh?
EDIT: Here is a cool gif that shows states over time. It'll now need to be updated to remove all the may-issue states.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Right_to...
Here are two points I've made, both of which I think are defensible:
* SCOTUS has repeatedly recognized that the Second Amendment does not reflect an absolute right to either own or employ guns however individuals would like. In particular, SCOTUS has recognized that both the states and the Federal Government have rightfully and reasonably regulated concealed firearms, and that there is no constitutional threat to such regulation as long as it does not constitute prohibition. The Federal precedent for such regulation goes back to 1897 and is not meaningfully adapted by either McDonald 2010 or Bruen 2022 (which both preserve "shall issue," like you've mentioned).
* There is a reasonable public interest in knowing who receives a CCW permit, one that is not impeded by the current "shall issue" standard. That public interest complements the current privacy standards under most states' FOIA/FOIL-style laws. You can see above and adjacent comment threads for why I think this is.
People engage and escalate disputes all the time, believing that the other party is unwilling or at least incapable of conveniently murdering them. Cars change that calculus; it's in my best interest as a member of the public to know whether my neighbor might murder me rather than merely being angry at a dispute.