Paper Publishes Names, Addresses of Legal Pistol Owners

[VMI77]

Even the Brady Bunch says it's a bad move: http://home.suddenlink.net/video/play/822290/channels/cnn/us

[dac1842]

Well thank God Texas does not make CHL info public. The newspaper has created more of a monster. Their reasoning was the public has a right to know who owns guns. Pardon me, but as a gun owner, especially one like most of us on this forum, owners of several guns, I do not appreciate the paper telling every thief in town where the guns are.
Well I am thankful I have video cameras, alarms, pressure plates and a few surprises in case someone breaks in... the suspect will be easy to spot, he will be the guy(s) running out crying and red pepper spray all over his face.
This was totally irresponsible on the part of the paper.

[MeMelYup]

A gun (my guns) is not public property. They do not have the right to publish my personal information without my consent. They claimed that they only printed the gun licensed people. They printed this knowing they it would cause alarm among the people and possible discention.

[philip964]

http://christopherfountain.wordpress.co ... -petition/

Did you know that swimming pools are 500 times more deadly than guns to children. He suggests posting an interactive map of swimming pool owners so parents will know where there are swimming pools.

Or posting an interactive list of Honda Accord owners so car thieves will not have to search around for them to steal.

Good reading.

[bayouhazard]

Someone should publish a list of New York Newspaper reporters who don't own guns along with a list of jewelry bought in the last 10 years. Or maybe there is an insurance list of all their valuables? We can start a whole website!

Also on that web published list should be the names and home addresses of the lawmakers and judges who said it's legal to release that information about private citizens. As public servants they have no moral or constitutional grounds to keep their home addresses confidential while invading the privacy of private citizens. Let's see a list of valuables owned and home addresses for the NY legislature, Cuomo, Bloomberg, NY and Federal judges living or working in NY, etc. Let them richly reap what they sow. That is true justice.

[VoiceofReason]

Hopefully this will have the unintended effect of states enacting laws to keep gun owner's information confidential and out of the hands of those who do not have a legal need to know.

[Excaliber]

A blogger has taken a "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" approach to the newsaper's action. Read the details here.

[magillapd]

Maybe these gun owners should all buy this sign and post it in their yard! When life gives you lemons...make lemonade

[Oldgringo]

Oh, the irony! Gannett's Journal News hires armed guards.

http://www.newser.com/story/160267/arme ... n-map.html

[Fangs]

Did a quick search and didn't find this previously posted. Thought it fit well here:

[philip964]

Here is the publisher's info. Phone number has been disconnected since this was first published.

[jayinsat]

MrcolionNoirs response: great!

[Excaliber]

Did a quick search and didn't find this previously posted. Thought it fit well here:

[ Image ]

.....and the dots are several layers thick.

[philip964]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 8-18-48-16

Taken down, afraid after two robberies at homes on map, may be sued.

Dooh.

[Jumping Frog]

What a crappy NY law! The first news reports simply said NY had passed legislation protecting gun owners privacy rights.

Now, a decent law, like Texas law , simply protects the privacy right of all CHL's by default!

Not New York! There, gun owners needs to have an "acceptable reason" to request privacy and they have to "opt in" to protect their privacy. Want to bet that NY will not be very aggressive about notifying gun owners of their option, nor will they make it easy and simple?

From the story linked in the previous post:

On Tuesday, as part of a gun control bill, the state Legislature passed and Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed new regulations that give permit holders several ways to opt out of the public record.

Applicants can ask to be exempted because they are police officers or served on criminal-case juries or are victims of domestic violence. They also can just say they might be subjected to harassment.

By the way, the "subjected to harassment" route is entirely consistent with the thinking in "may issue" states, and that is an entirely slippery slope of its own because the phrase now becomes subject to interpretation by hostile bureaucrats. For example, in Maryland, a "shall issue" permit is supposed to be available to someone who faces risks where they may need to defend themselves. You or I may interpret that as a small business owner that has to carry cash bank deposits. But the Maryland State Police has interpreted the clause to mean someone has verified and documented threats made against them. Documented as in police reports.

I'll be willing to bet that it won't take long before NY bureaucracy is asking gun owners to document why they would be "subject to harassment" and some bureaucrat will decide whether there request is accepted or not. The government bureaucrats will entirely subvert the intent of the legislation.

Edited to correct: "may issue" versus "shall issue".