Why we printed the [ccw holder's] list


PDA






Nightspell
August 1, 2004, 11:19 PM
This was originally posted by HerrGlock on Glocktalk. I felt obligated to spread word of this as far as possible. I appologize if this has already been posted.

===========================================

http://www.cleveland.com/search/ind...88690.xml?occli
Why we printed the list
The media are the public's only access to concealed-carry permit records
Friday, July 30, 2004

In the past two days, The Plain Dealer ran a list of the Northeast Ohioans who applied for and got a license to carry a concealed weapon.

We were able to do so because the state legislature, bowing to Gov. Bob Taft's threat to veto a bill with no public access provision at all, gave the news media access to the list. The general public is not allowed to see it.

From the start, The Plain Dealer opposed that media-only provision, and so did most news organizations. We don't believe the media should have access to records that the general public is denied.

And, like the governor and millions of others across the country, we believe licensure in-

formation of all kinds should be open to public view.

Concealed-carry advocates have a decidedly different view. That became abundantly evident during the negotiations to pass the law and exceedingly so after we published the list.

Ohioans for Concealed Carry, the lobbying arm for proponents, posted my name, home phone number, address and a map to my home on its Web site. It also reported what I paid for my house in 1999 - $550,000 - my wife's name - Peg - and that I have two children and two grandchildren (in fact, I have three).

The posting, I gather, had two purposes. The first was to say "turnabout is fair play": Public records are public records, and you're not exempt.

The second was to intimidate. Why else run a map?

Calls home began flowing shortly after the posting went up at noon on Wednesday. Because I was at the office, my wife bore the brunt, though most of the callers were polite. (One apologized to her and told her it was "just your moron husband" he had a problem with.) A few, predictably, were ugly.

The majority asked a version of this question:

"Why did you single us out? Why don't you publish the names of sex offenders or people convicted of carrying an unlicensed concealed weapon, or other holders of other licenses?

The answer is that as the law is now written, the one and only way the average citizen can learn the identity of a concealed-weapon permit holder is if the news media publish it.

Thank the legislature for that.

Want to know if a sex offender lives next door? The state will send you an e-mail.

Want to know if your co-worker has a prison record? You can look it up.

Want to know how much my house costs? Ditto.

Want to know who has a fishing license - indeed, virtually any license? Correct, you can look it up. It's all public record.

License to carry a gun? Nope. The average Joe has only the slim reed of the news media to help him on that count.

Would we publish those names if the record were public? Of course not. There would be no need. Why? Because you could look it up.

You can do that in many of the other states that have concealed-carry laws. In one - Delaware - the entire process of getting a permit is a public record. And there, the law requires that the names of permit holders be published.

Ohioans for Concealed Carry is urging the legislature to negate the "privilege" the news media have to see the names of permit holders. We agree. That "privilege" (I would call it a right) belongs in the hands of the general public.

As it's now written, the only people truly "privileged" are the holders of concealed-carry permits, because they can shield their identities from the pub- lic.

That's a privilege most other license holders in the state can't claim.

Clifton is the editor of The Plain Dealer.

Contact him at:

dclifton@plaind.com, 216-999-4123

Douglas Clifton
19 Shoreby Dr.
Cleveland, OH 44108-1161
Tel.: (216) 761-6577

===========================================


Contact "The Plain Dealer" (http://www.plaindealer.com/contact)

If you enjoyed reading about "Why we printed the [ccw holder's] list" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
BHPshooter
August 2, 2004, 12:33 AM
That makes my blood boil at a temperature that would melt platinum.

They're lying -- they say that the reason they do that is because, if they didn't do it, then no one would know... When what they really want to do is put a neon sign around the property of everyone with self-preservation morals, and of course, to make the big splash that the left-leaning media so loves.

People have no RIGHT to know what licenses I have. I DO have a RIGHT to my own #$%!&* privacy! I DO have a right to defend myself with ANY means necessary.

This is one of the biggest problems with the whole CCW system as-is. It gives the whole issue endless mystique -- that 'forbidden' thrill of knowing -- and it makes the media think it's their duty to poke their noses where they don't belong.

Vermont / Alaska style carry is (Constitutionally) the only way to go. You don't get people posting where you live, the floor plan to your house, and when you won't be home in a freaking newspaper.

I can't think of what else to say. That is absolutely outrageous.

Wes

Nightspell
August 2, 2004, 12:50 AM
I like the idea that anyone looking for a gun can just open up the paper and have a couple thousand places to rob. Aside from the fact, of course, that CCWs are SUPPOSED to be secret, otherwise we wouldn't be required by law to conceal them.

Oh well...

swingset
August 2, 2004, 12:51 AM
Turnabout IS fairplay, jackass.

JPL
August 2, 2004, 12:51 AM
Did he reprint his own address and phone number in his editorial?

Got to give him credit for that.

Majic
August 2, 2004, 12:58 AM
I was taught when grewing up that just because you can do something doesn't mean you have to do it. Things must have changed somewhere along the way.

Zundfolge
August 2, 2004, 01:12 AM
Mr. Clifton needs to tell the whole truth here ... the reason he chose to print the names of CCW holders is because he opposed CCW and lost and is now trying to discourage people from getting CCWs or face being "outed" in the newspaper (plus a little FU to his opponents on this issue ... most of which went out and got CCWs).

Frankly there is no reason my neighbors need to know I have a concealed carry license or a fishing license.


From the start, The Plain Dealer opposed that media-only provision, and so did most news organizations.
Ah ... so he's been planning this stunt from the beginning.

The posting, I gather, had two purposes. The first was to say "turnabout is fair play": Public records are public records, and you're not exempt.

The second was to intimidate.
Mr Pot to Mr Kettle: "I dare say old man, you're black!"


If he really gave a damn about the "pub-lic" he'd be editorializing in favor of privacy for all ... not just CCW.

Steelharp
August 2, 2004, 01:17 AM
Well, here's a copy of the e-mail I just sent him... and thank you, Nightspell and Thefumegator; I used just a bit of what you had to say... Mikey D...
--------------------

Mr. Douglas Clifton:

I must say, I am truly glad I am not a resident of Ohio. I feel sorry for the family members I have there. It just amazes me, the idea that anyone looking for a gun can just open up the paper and have suggestions for a couple thousand places to rob. Are CCWs in Ohio SUPPOSED to be secret? If they are, wouldn't it be required by law to conceal them? And if that is the case, wouldn't common sense dictate that that same secrecy/discretion should apply to the actual holders of the license? Are you not, in fact, infringing on these folks right to privacy?

Here in TN, open carry is allowed; it's not the wisest choice, however. It makes you a prime first target for the non-law abiding citizen in the process of commiting a crime; much better for all concerned if you have the element of surprise working for you.

Mr. Clifton... with all due respect, it is my humble opinion that you are indeed "denying a village somewhere of a perfectly good idiot."

Sincerely,
Michael ******tte

Nightspell
August 2, 2004, 01:39 AM
Mr. Clifton... with all due respect, it is my humble opinion that you are indeed "denying a village somewhere of a perfectly good idiot."

Heheheh... Well put, Steelharp!

Wildalaska
August 2, 2004, 01:52 AM
Mr. Clifton... with all due respect, it is my humble opinion that you are indeed "denying a village somewhere of a perfectly good idiot."

Thats the High Road

WildwhymakethemthinkweareneanderthalsAlaska

Majic
August 2, 2004, 01:59 AM
open carry is allowed; it's not the wisest choice, however.
opinions should be left out as all may not share that idea with you.

Steelharp
August 2, 2004, 08:28 AM
Majic, perhaps I should have added "in my opinion;" you are probably right. It was 1 am, and I was sleepy... sorry about that.

Mikey D...

Calhoun
August 2, 2004, 09:20 AM
I've got to go with Wildalaska on this one. I agree that this paper should not post the info on CCW, but we need to go about this fight like adults. This is not the schoolyard, even though some people are acting like they are in kindergarten. (No offense to my nephew who just started kindergarten.) Two wrongs don't make a right, treat others as you want to be treated, if you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all, and all that.

I do agree with this editor on at least 1 point. The purpose of posting his info, including the map to his house, was for intimidation. Shame on us!!

Let's stop acting like idiots, people. We are only hurting ourselves. Actually we are hurting the CCW movement in Ohio more than anything. You are supposed to be an adult to own a gun, even more of one to CCW, so why don't we start acting like one.

Calhoun

DragonFire
August 2, 2004, 09:45 AM
While I'm not saying I think they should have published the list of names, I think a bigger issue, that the paper was somehow trying to get to, is why is the list of names available to "the media" and not to average citizens?

Just because you happen to work for a certain employer that somehow makes you more honest or responsible to be able to access the information? There's only one reason why the govenor would insist the media have sole access to the list of name. So they could publish things like this. So that everytime a sensational crime is committed, they could look up to see it the suspect was on the list (whether or not CCW was related to the crime or not).

Let's face it the 2nd amendment is only ONE of the rights that are in jepardy these days. The government shouldn't be allowed to decide that only certain groups of people have access to some information (especially if the access is granted based on some whim of employment). The editorial is partially right. With so information about a person readily available, that I'm not sure whether I have a CCW is going to make THAT much of a difference.

I know this will get me into trouble but:
I guess I don't really buy into the idea that the bad-guys will use the list to find places to rob. How would a robber know whether a house would contain a prized gun collection or a lone single-shot .22? Wouldn't it some-how make you less of a target? I have 2 potential places to rob, one I know has no guns, one has a good possibility of having at least one. Maybe I don't have the mind-set of a bad-gun, but I think I'd go for the gun-less home.

This isn't to say I'd want my name published, or agree any names should be published, but I think we should be more unset with the law that restricted the access, or gave limited access, than with the paper that published the list.

hso
August 2, 2004, 09:52 AM
I'm not sure that posting a map to his house was appropriate, but posting his name and address is exactly what he did to CCW holders in his area. If it had an intimidating effect on him then it should put the point across that it had the same effect on those folkes he "outed". Matter of fact, he made an attempt to intimidate a whole group of people as well as the individuals.

The posting of his address may be viewed as vendictive, but it actually serves as tit for tatt to illustrate the point.

Mauserlady
August 2, 2004, 09:57 AM
We were able to do so because the state legislature, bowing to Gov. Bob Taft's threat to veto a bill with no public access provision at all, gave the news media access to the list. The general public is not allowed to see it.

Correct me if I'm wrong here but... Didn't the paper break the law by publishing the list for the general public to see?

0007
August 2, 2004, 10:00 AM
Translation of the editor's liberal babblings "I did it because I don't like you and I could." :cuss:

And why not circulate every thing that can be found out about this guy and anyone else on the editorial staff. They are all just as guilty. Print anything and everything. "We do it because we can." Same justification. Fight fire with fire and stop being Mr. Nice Guy(s). These people will NEVER come around to the idea that anyone (besides themselves, of course) is entitled to protect his own goods, family, or self. And will ALWAYS insist that they (as the elite of the nation) know what is best for the peasantry out in their hovels. :fire:

Rant mode off; going to get some cold caffine and with lots of sugar(a coke)...

Sven
August 2, 2004, 10:09 AM
Jim March has been fighting for years to get the CA CCW list, not to post the names publicly but to research for bias.

Highland Ranger
August 2, 2004, 10:10 AM
So a media outlet is hiding behind free speech (in this case access to a list of names) to futher a political agenda?

Not really shocking.

He published those names to dissuade people from getting permits. Period. Used his position as a media person to do it because he is an elitist just like every other anti-gun snob.

Hey guess what? I bet there are big guys with guns guarding his home right now.

foghornl
August 2, 2004, 11:13 AM
The "Plain Dealer" is a fairly liberal rag...uh fish-wrap.....ahh newspaper.

Dosen't usually give the gun-owners a decent break. Used to subscribe, but no more. And "Plain"-ly said why I choose to "Deal"-er them that way.

halvey
August 2, 2004, 11:15 AM
"Why did you single us out? Why don't you publish the names of sex offenders or people convicted of carrying an unlicensed concealed weapon, or other holders of other licenses? The answer is that as the law is now written, the one and only way the average citizen can learn the identity of a concealed-weapon permit holder is if the news media publish it.
Want to know if a sex offender lives next door? The state will send you an e-mail.

Then why didn't the paper say "if you want to know CCW holders names, we'll send you an email."

Dot_mdb
August 2, 2004, 11:22 AM
Having just gotten my CC license in FL, I can honestly say it wouldn't bother me if the list was published. Besides, unless it was put in the sports section of the paper nobody would see it anyway.

Bill

MP5
August 2, 2004, 12:53 PM
I'd recommend writing to the paper and/or Mr. Clifton directly to politely but firmly express your opinion. (I did.) It may not make any difference, but doing it here alone will likely make less of a difference--preaching to the choir, you know?

Let's stop acting like idiots, people. We are only hurting ourselves. Actually we are hurting the CCW movement in Ohio more than anything. You are supposed to be an adult to own a gun, even more of one to CCW, so why don't we start acting like one.

Yup. Don't stoop to your opponent's level if you want to win with honor. Take the High Road.

Tharg
August 2, 2004, 01:24 PM
heh and then read the other responses here =)

Copy to follow:

Dear Mr. Clifton,

I’m not from Ohio nor have I visited it.

I do read a number of boards and one of them listed your newspapers decision to post the names/addresses of CHL holders in whatever area’s you covered (I guess – or is it all area’s?)

I read you are against CH licenses.

Recently your “Why we printed the (CCW holders) list” was posted to the board I read, and I read what you said. I’m truly sorry your Wife had to be subjected to that – I know that many proponents of the right to carry and proponents of CH licenses can get …. Out of hand.

Of course – the vast majority of us consider what you did to be completely out of hand as well. I have not yet gotten my CHL in Texas – but I DO plan to. Time and money – money and time…

I don’t know how many people who are/would be criminals read your paper – and I’m guessing that the vast majority ARE lawful citizens who prolly won’t really read every name in there to begin with. (Although I’m sure there might be some) The problem with the list doesn’t stem from wanting to remain hidden. The problem stems from printing a list of guaranteed gun owners in your area of publication and their addresses. You have effectively printed out a list of targets for those who would like to obtain firearms illegally. Not only that – half the purpose of having a CHL (CCW) is that its CONCEALED that you own/could be carrying one. (Vs. Open Carry – which is legal in a whole bunch of states – but does not (once again – in my opinion) offer protection to the person carrying or from the person who decides to case open carry person till their guard is down in order to do whatever nefarious activity they would have planned)

Concealed carry citizens have acted decisively in any number of conflicts that might have turned out bad for all present. And like I said – I couldn’t begin to tell you who might or might not be a criminal scoping the list for places to rob. I just pray that the adage is right and criminals are stupid – and thus probably don’t even know the list is there.

For the record – while I know you newsies have all sorts of ways to look up information (it IS part of the job I would rekon) – the only way I’ve been able to look up any public records is to pay. (something I’m not willing to do for mere curiosity) Sex offenders are posted on the web. I’ve yet to find the website that just “lists” people who have been in jail for one reason or another. Or the place I could look up who had a hunting/fishing license without paying. The reason (I believe) there was a exception for the media to be able to see the lists in my opinion was so you guys would help police (as news reporters are often want to do) CCW holders. Imagine an expose on the 10 CCW holders you found that had criminal rap sheets as long as the Mississippi? Found CCW holders that “slipped through the cracks” … that would be a community service. This printing of the lists was nothing more than a cheap tactic, which could turn dangerous for the families of whom you posted their address, for criminals who would then know exactly where to go for a few guns.

Once again I’ll repeat that I’m sorry your wife got those calls. Even if it had been you instead of her – I’d rather think people could be more polite, of course – that goes both ways.

Jason



J/Tharg!

7.62mm
August 2, 2004, 05:45 PM
FWIW:

My relpy to the editor:

Mr. Clifton:

So. Tell me again why it is that the public has a right to know who is licensed to carry concealed weapons? You compare access to sex-offender lists, prison records, and the like. Why do you compare law-abiding citizens to criminals? Your clear implication is that CCW permit holders are of the same ilk.

You are wrong though, it is a violation of the privacy of CCW permit-holders and there is no compelling reason for the public to be privy to such information.

Of what possible use can the knowledge that my neighbors are licensed to carry concealed be to me, or anyone? Except for harassment, intimidation, embarrassment, ostracizing, or otherwise making their lives less pleasant?

For that matter, why can't you publish the names of citizens who have had abortions, been committed for psychiatric treatment, are taking mind-altering substances such as Lithium, Paxil, Thorazine, etc.? Violates their privacy? No kidding!

Simply put, publishing the names of CCW applicants is a method of intimidation to discourage participation in the process. It demonizes ordinary citizens and compares them to low-life criminals. Exactly your intent, belief, and passion.

You lost the legislative battle, so you abuse your right to free speech by abusing the privacy of law-abiding, tax-paying, citizens exercising THEIR civil right to self-defense.

Pardon me, but your bigotry against gun-owners is showing. And bigotry is ugly, especially yours.

Regards,

Cajunmarinedad
Lafayette, LA

aka: 7.62mm

Stay well, stay safe, stay armed. Yorktown. (Courtesy of the late Harpseal of Freerepublic.com)

Standing Wolf
August 2, 2004, 10:56 PM
Vermont / Alaska style carry is (Constitutionally) the only way to go.

Amen! It's nobody's business whether I'm carrying, what I'm carrying, when I'm carrying, where I'm carrying, and why I'm carrying.

Persnickety
August 3, 2004, 12:50 PM
Publishing CCW permit holders' names could also be considered a little unfair to the people who don't have permits.

If a paper is publishing all the known CCW holders in a given area, it tells me that if so-and-so is not on the list, so-and-so is probably unarmed, at least in public, and therefore easier pickin's.

trooper
August 3, 2004, 03:04 PM
That's what I thought anyway.

Everybody complains that CCW holders might feel intimidated because someone might come to rob them, but it seems that a house of which I know that the owner carries would be the last place I'd break into...


Regards,

Trooper

Nightspell
August 3, 2004, 08:06 PM
Not if you park down the street in the morning and wait for them to leave for 8 hours of work. That's what I'd do.

Jeff Timm
August 3, 2004, 08:28 PM
What gets my *ss.

I used to live in Cleveland. The people working the PD trucks carried concealed, or semi concealed.

Other people who worked for the PD were seen with Gun purses. They had armed guards.

Geoff
Who can say "double standard." :cuss:

Mannlicher
August 3, 2004, 09:13 PM
I am not very eloquent, but I sent this:

Mr. Clifton,

I find your editorial argument for publishing the names of CCW holders in
Ohio to be disingenuous at best, and a total distortion of the facts, at
worst.

Once again, the left wing, elitist media , marching to it's own (not the
public's), agenda, has looked through myopic eyes, and made a wrong, harmful
choice. You truly do a disservice to the public. The use of the public
trust, to push an agenda that is opposed by so many, is just plain
reprehensible.

Shame on you for doing it, and shame on you for lying about the reasons.

Regards

Oh, he must be on vacation, I got an auto reply:

"I'll be out of the office until Monday, August 9. If you need immediate assistance please contact call Loreen Oiler at 216-999-4123 or e-mail her at loiler@plaind.com. Thank you."

MeekandMild
August 3, 2004, 10:39 PM
OK, if I felt this strongly about the list I'd hire a private investigator or buy a computer search program and colect a list of all the legally available info including addresses, phone numbers DL numbers, criminal, civil and divorce judgements, bank account and credit ratings of the editorial staff of the offending newspaper. I'd publish it by renting ad space in whatever local weekly paper wasn't owned by the one at fault. Of course I'd get my lawyer to verify that they couldn't put me in jail under some obscure clause and would be prepared to take a large bribe to cease and desist. :neener:

Felonious Monk
August 3, 2004, 11:07 PM
Just sent to Loraine Oiler and Clifton:

Dear Mr. Clifton,

Thank you for letting the community know that I am now legally armed, and well prepared to defend myself and my family, should we be accosted by muggers, rapists, or a home invasion.

I am sure that it has made my area of the community safer, by ensuring that anyone with malicious intent toward citizens in the Cleveland metro area can find out who has excersized this, most fundamental of American rights, thus enabling the Cleveland criminal element to seek non-armed victims in other areas besides those where we are legally prepared to defend our lives, families, and property..

I am confident that many others will want to join me in becoming educated and legally licensed to protect their loved ones in this manner, once it becomes common knowledge that you will assist us in serving notice to any would-be attackers.

Once again, thank you for supporting this fundamental human right of self-defense.

And sir, if you claim to be a balanced media outlet, I'm interested to see if you will print this as a unique perspective on your actions.

Sincerely,
"Felonious Monk"

trooper
August 4, 2004, 02:25 AM
Not if you park down the street in the morning and wait for them to leave for 8 hours of work. That's what I'd do.

That's what I'd do anyway if I were to break into a house, no matter if I knew the inhabitant was carrying or not.


Regards,

Trooper

SUE ROVR
August 4, 2004, 03:56 AM
I sent him this:

Dear Sir:

I am currently a resident of a neighboring state and maintain a permit which allows me to carry concealed in the state of Ohio. I have included my address below for you to publish if you feel it is necessary for everyone to be aware that I am legally excercising my constitutional right when I visit Ohio next month for my cousin's wedding.

Please be advised that I do not agree with your interpretation of Ohio law, and should you choose to publish this information I will file a civil suit against the Plain Dealer, and you personally.

Best Regards,



I only wish I had my name published so I would have something to do (SUE!)

Majic
August 4, 2004, 10:55 AM
Sue Rovr, if you volunteer the info for the expressed purpose of publishing, then how do you think you can sue them if they do?

Jackthelad
August 4, 2004, 11:05 AM
Unfortunately, one less name is on the list that was published, as one of us was gunned down yesterday outside of his check cashing store in Cleveland. As posted on www.ofcc.net this morning-

"Why did Cleveland Plain Dealer editor Doug Clifton decide that these innocent, law-abiding citizens, desperate to protect themselves from violent criminals that no gun control law or background check can stop, are the ones needing to be treated like persons of suspicion?

Why did Doug Clifton act to put people like Bill Singleton at so much risk by revealing to potential attackers that they are armed, and why do they promise to continue to do so?

Initial accounts say the robbers shot first, ambush-style. Did they know Singleton was armed? Did Bill Singleton die upon Doug Clifton's altar of open records?

If they're really interested in public safety, why doesn't the Plain Dealer spend its precious page space printing names of persons like these attackers, with violent criminal histories?

The questions above may yield answers with time. But this one can never be answered:

How many other would-be victims of Rhyan Ikner will live out their lives because of the heroic actions of Bill Singleton?"

Felonious Monk
August 4, 2004, 12:13 PM
So is it possible that the publication and the death can be linked from a legal perspective?

Sue Clifton and the Plain Dealer to the moon if so!!!! :fire: :cuss: :fire:

deanf
August 5, 2004, 08:06 PM
I can't say that I disagree with the editorial. All public records and acts should be exactly that: public.

Anything that the government does, on paper or electronically, should be subject to easy public review.

Nightspell
August 5, 2004, 09:28 PM
This guy Bill Singleton that was shot, was this in Ohio and was his name published? Was his gun stolen? Sorry, I haven't read the link yet, was just wondering. If so, I think there might be some lawsuits in the making with some pretty compelling arguments against this jerk...

Jackthelad
August 5, 2004, 09:28 PM
Dean, Please pm me your ss#, and I would like to know what government assistance you have received in the past. I think your position would open a can of worms.

deanf
August 5, 2004, 09:39 PM
Dean, Please pm me your ss#

Would you believe me if I told you I didn't have one? You know, there is no requirement to have a SSN to live or work in this country.

aikidoka-mks
August 5, 2004, 10:27 PM
tell that jackass he should support open carry then!

Mark

Lone_Gunman
August 5, 2004, 11:08 PM
Would you believe me if I told you I didn't have one? You know, there is no requirement to have a SSN to live or work in this country.

I'd bet you have a social security number, and your statement there is just to make it look like you don't.

Michigander
August 5, 2004, 11:19 PM
...the one and only way the average citizen can learn the identity of a concealed-weapon permit holder is if the news media publish it.

Thank the legislature for that.


I believe he got that part correct. I hope you in Ohio remember this come election time.

harpethriver
August 5, 2004, 11:32 PM
So Clifton brought a newspaper to a gunfight?:neener:

Muzzleflash
August 6, 2004, 03:35 AM
I don't have a SSN. Are you going to accuse ME of lying now, gunman? Or are you going to start spouting bullpuckey along the lines of "how can you be a citizen without a SSN?"


:rolleyes: :barf:

Where's the friggin' ignore feature on vBulletin.

Barbara
August 6, 2004, 04:51 AM
I keep thinking that somewhere in that list, there's a woman who is hiding from an ex-husband and who got the ccw because of that..and now her address is there in the paper.

Persnickety
August 6, 2004, 08:19 AM
Barbara: Yep. Probably more than one.

There are probably also a few woman who threatened to get a CCW, or said they did, but didn't actually get one yet, using a bluff to fend off a would-be stalker. & those stalker-types can now look up the woman to see if she really has a permit.

I agree that the media is not special and should not be privy to any more information than is available to the general public. However, the newspaper in question could have made its point just as well by running an editorial explaining that they refuse to print the information out of concern for its readers' equal access.

Once upon a time in America, the individual trumped the collective, or at least that's what the old folks say. :(

Lone_Gunman
August 6, 2004, 09:31 AM
Muzzleflash,

I wasn't talking to you, so I haven't acccused you of anything. As a matter of fact, I don't think I have ever even commented on anything you have ever said.

I don't care if you have a SSN or not.

Go ahead, make my day and put me on your ignore list.

Whoop-dee-doo! That'll really show me.

Next time though, you might not want to accuse people of calling you a liar when they haven't said anything to you at all.

Lone_Gunman
August 6, 2004, 09:33 AM
Muzzleflash,

I wasn't talking to you, so I haven't acccused you of anything. As a matter of fact, I don't think I have ever even commented on anything you have ever said.

I don't care if you have a SSN or not.

Go ahead, make my day and put me on your ignore list.

Whoop-dee-doo! That'll really show me. I don't know how I will get by without your words of wisdom.

Next time though, you might not want to accuse people of calling you a liar when they haven't said anything to you at all.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why we printed the [ccw holder's] list" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!