Here are more thoughts:

Another way I would think about it would be, what type of information can I get from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request? For instance, I can get a police picture of a traffic accident, but to comply with FOIA policies as I understand them, the license plates in the picture should be blurred. I may or may not know the identities of the cars involved from other sources, but this type of personal information would be restricted. Similarly, I could as an agency how many people died of a heart attack at my local hospital. But I couldn't ask how many 55 year old Army veteran men with diabetes and born in Rhode Island died at my local hospital - because this would likely be personally identifying. I can also ask the IRS about the average income in my area, but not the average income of residents of a single house. Similarly, I could ask a the firearms agency how many guns are permitted to addresses in a certain area (note, there may be legal ownership that is not registered, depending on many factors I do not know or understand). So long as the area is big enough that the information does not result in personally identifying information, I think I would get the information.

In all four, some amount of information is not included in the FOIA or government records request for confidentiality. It seems to me that the idea is that the government has good reason to have the information, but it isn't clear whether or not it should be legal to distribute the info.

For example, in the health case, many people have access to health records. There may be good public interest reasons to release more information than we are legally allowed to (for instance, it may be a public benefit for some nurse to sneak out health information about politicians like Trump or Fetterman). However, doing so would be a crime, and the individuals would rightly be subject to penalty (for an example of this, consider what happened to Chelsea Manning, for better or worse she thought she was doing the right thing although she knew she was breaking the law). The reason I think they would rightly be subject to penalty is because the law cannot possibly be nuanced enough to determine when information should or should not be withheld. Even something less blunt than the law, such as journalistic ethics around exposing confidential sources, often is not nuanced enough and sources get to keep confidentiality even when the public benefit of exposure is high.

So, in your case, you don't really know if knowing this information would be useful; you don't actually know if your neighbor might commit a gun crime. But you could believe you are justified in breaking into your neighbors house and finding out if there is a gun. You could also bribe the firearms permitting agency into letting you see the information. Or you could get yourself hired by an agency that has access to the firearms agency's database. You could eventually feel vindicated in your search if you somehow used that information to prevent a crime in the future (I don't know exactly how this would work, maybe it wouldn't). But we currently think you would have committed a crime.

As with the Manning case, a future governor or president may later pardon you or commute your sentence in recognition of the failure of legal nuance in properly handling your case. Or they may not.

So, while it currently is illegal, circumventing the law is always possible (ie civil disobedience). If you did circumvent the law, you may be vindicated by the writers of history or even by society or a future politician. Or you may not be so vindicated and just be viewed as a creepy busybody.

I love this question, and wrote a long answer. Here is my short answer, and I've added more thoughts as a reply to my post.

Other than addresses, I do not know of a public database connecting people to items owned of any other type in any country, do you? The reason we don't demand a publicly accessible database of who has access to, say, large amounts of dangerous chemicals, is that we trust government regulations around those chemicals to be strong enough to prevent their coming into possession of a person who wishes to use them for ill. We do not have the same trust of gun regulations. So your proposal may be interpreted as enabling private means for gun control through letting people identify gun owners, decide if they think the owner is justified in owning the gun, and then act based on their private decision. Ie, it sounds to me like you want the ability to decide on your own private gun regulation scheme in your immediate vicinity. This sounds like a bad idea. For this reason, I think a public database of gun owners is a far inferior solution to significant restriction in gun ownership rights.

That said, your proposal sounds like a fascinating mix of communitarianism, policy anarchism, information totalitarianism, and who knows what else. Its like a mix of dystopias, I can make out some Orwell, but maybe even some Rand and Atwood if I squint just right.

Then I hope she knows that even after remediation, dead mold spores remain intact on flower and under the right environmental conditions, new colonies can even form.

Yeah actually my wife has an immune disease, and is a medical patient.

Ever talk to an immunocompromised patient, or one with mold allergies? I'll wait.

You said not illegally.

And it all gets killed off when you smoke it anyway, so there’s no health risk in it whatsoever.

When you're serving about 200 and trying to keep the line moving, plating is not considered.

Yeah, allowing 10 times more yeast and mold than Massachusetts seems way better.

I personally generally dont but theres scenarios where its ridiculous. Therell be heavy traffic at times but people dog the shit out of the left lane and want to swerve back and forth without signaling. Amd in these situations both lanes are probably locked at 50-60 if that and shit would move faster if everyone would just drive normal and use all the lanes

St Philip's Hall on Rt 44.

Ba ba ba ba ba ba ba ba ba ba ba ba ba ba ba ba ba

Go play somewhere else dude .

“Hello, 911? My neighbor is acting the fool. Please hurry.”

Correct, just physically able not legally able if you were someone legally or mentally bound from following the legal process, A couple hours in a car and you can have a gun in your house with none of the hassle.

I was saying the person’s behavior you are describing is against the ethics they need to live by in order to maintain their license. I wasnt talking about guns at all. Your concern was their behavior right?

There is only one acceptable Reddit answer, OP’s mom

...... A criminal

Oh stop I didn’t tell them to mention guns but if the person is outside acting the fool they can absolutely call for a wellness check .

Ate a magic mushroom bar and talked with my friend, played video games and made shrimp risotto after

I’m confused as how people in charge of the state 400 years later are responsible in any way for apologizing for the actions of former state officials that aren’t related to them in any way except job function…or what difference that will make.

We all know the judicial sham of the witch trials in New England and those actions have been widely condemned and looked down upon for a long time. But people today aren’t responsible for actions people made hundreds of years ago. Random people apologizing isn’t justice.

Damn, you’re lucky

“I am civilly trying to obtain information on my neighbor because I sense a mental illness.”

Wait, if these people want the State to apologize to their deceased ancestors.... might they be planning on using WitchCraft to do it?!

“You’re Honor, I am seeking to obtain firearm licensure information on this private citizen. You see, I sense a mental illness.”