Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Government Doxxing – Australian Officials Release “Map” of Legal Gun Owners


Charlie T Waite

Recommended Posts

“Community safety for everyone,” Western Australia Premier Mark McGowan said, as he introduced his proposal to rewrite his state’s gun laws, adding that it was important to ensure “[we] prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands.” According to a government statement, “Western Australians now own more than 349,000 guns – a 60 per cent jump in the number of licensed guns compared to 13 years ago.”

As part of a public relations campaign in support of the coming reforms, the office of Paul Papalia, Western Australia’s Minister for Police, prepared and made available to the media a “map” depicting locational information for licensed gun owners, broken down using green dots (handguns) and blue dots (rifles). The purpose, it seems, was to underscore the need for urgent changes in the law by showing what the government considered to be the alarming spread of licensed firearm ownership, despite the absence of any evidence that tied these owners to crime.  

In remarks on the push for new legislation, Police Minister Papalia emphasized that “community safety is not the number one concern” in the existing law, and “we are going to fix that ...You’ve got to think, that with (almost) 350,000 firearms in the community, some of them, many of them probably are lying around just waiting to be stolen by criminals.” Apart from the fact that existing law already mandates that “firearms and ammunition are to be stored in a locked cabinet or container” that meets minimum specifications and not be kept “lying around …waiting to be stolen,” the irony of releasing a “shopping list” for criminals that helpfully narrows down where licensed firearms, by type, are kept seems to have been lost on Papalia. 

Further, while his office maintains that the map indicators are anonymous and “span several potential house locations,” one newspaper claims it was able to identify, within hours, the exact locations of about 50 firearms owners, by “overlaying the [police] chart with a map of property boundaries using free software.”

A spokesperson for the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia called on Papalia to apologize to lawful gun owners for this “breach of trust,” characterizing the government’s action as one of “blatant disregard for the sporting and recreational shooting community” that caused “significant distress for responsible gun owners.” As far as the government message of “safety for all” and keeping guns out of the hands of criminals was concerned, the release of the map backfired spectacularly, as one gun owner pointed out. “I believe now my gun safe is a target for criminals who otherwise would never have known I or my safe existed.”

Situations like this explain why so many gun owners oppose government registries of firearms and firearm owners. Hacking attacks of government databases, accidental leaks, or the deliberate release of citizens’ private information exposes individuals to unwanted public attention, or more seriously, to harassment and threats by those hostile to guns and gun rights, and potentially other crimes.

In New York State, for example, a newspaper claimed that identifying citizens who chose to exercise their Second Amendment rights was responsible journalism because one of the “core missions [of] 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.” It published an online, interactive map with the names and addresses of state gun license holders that likely revealed the homes of local and federal “police officers, judges, battered women and ‘guys that did some undercover drug work,’” along with others who had no connection to firearms (as not all the underlying information was correct). Homes on the map were burglarized, and law enforcement officers reported threats by criminals who now knew where the officers’ families lived. The resulting public outrage prompted a change in state law.

The NRA is currently challenging legislation in California that authorizes the state to disclose to the California Firearm Violence Research Center at UC Davis and any other entity considered to be a “bona fide research institution,” private information about legitimate gun owners maintained in a state registry – including name, address, place of birth, phone number, occupation, driver’s license or ID number, and types of firearms owned.

As is likely the case with the Australian firearm owners, the plaintiffs in the litigation complied with the compulsory disclosure of their personal information on the basis that the state would use it exclusively for legitimate law enforcement purposes and would otherwise protect it as confidential. In addition to being a frightening violation of privacy rights, it’s not too difficult to believe – in a state as notoriously hostile to the Second Amendment as California – that the law is just another way of singling out and burdening those who actively exercise their gun rights.    

“This information is a person’s identity,” Jason Ouimet, executive director, NRA-ILA, explains. “And it’s being handed over to organizations that have no duty to safeguard it. This will do nothing to prevent crime – it will only serve to put law-abiding gun owners at risk. Gun owners are entitled to the same privacy rights as all law-abiding citizens. They should not be ‘doxxed’ for exercising their rights.”

Link to comment

This kind of irresponsible handling of personal information in addition to the overwhelming attitude of "we know what is best" is at the core of the distrust (and contempt) the average citizen has for officials, employees, elected members and appointed personnel. If they were actually concerned about serving the law abiding members of society (instead of backstabbing them) those persons would be clamoring to put out a  "map" of their home address, phone numbers, drivers license, FOID or other identifying information as well as information regarding their families and relatives. After all what could be more important than instant access by the citizenry to those who purport to represent them? sarcasm mode on - I am certain that no one would use that information in a nefarious manner - sarcasm mode off

:FlagAm:  :FlagAm:  :FlagAm:

Gateway Kid

Link to comment

Yea a shameful situation here in Australia. These so called Firearm Registries were initially set up as a totally secure data bases. That's turned out to be an absolute joke with firearm details, name and address being recorded in gunshops all over the country everytime you go and buy something. Held on the shop's computer and can be accessed by almost anyone.!

As for our beloved Sporting Association of Australia, (SSAA) that's an even bigger joke. They have a massive war chest to fight the govt. but don't use it for fear of a worse outcome. They're no NRA by a long way, but there are a few others like Shooters Union Of Australia who has gone into bat for gun owners albeit they have very smaller funding, but growing as the dis satisfaction with SSAA is growing and members are leaving in droves.

They're a lame duck organisation that most of the time works with the govt, a case of if they say JUMP,... they ask HOW HIGH.???

An organisation that here the SSAA Branch in Queensland and Victoria state even banned non vaxxed shooters from their ranges, & open air ranges mind you. Oh we're abiding by the govt guidelines,..they say what BS,... that only applied to pubs and clubs and restaurants.

And with no second amendment here I believe we're almost doomed.

 

 

Link to comment

I think if I was a gun owner there I would release the address of ever Government official involved in the doxing and give them a dose of there own medicine. Bullies never stop until you stand up to them. You will also never beat the wolf until you become a wolf. Sometimes you have to feed the other dark wolf.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.