Handgun owners irate over having names published online

[lawson4]

Quote:
"The Constitution gives people the right to own guns in this country, and it also gives people the right to know whether they own a gun or not," said Henry Freeman, editor and vice president/news at The Journal News. "This is a public record. People have a right to know that".

The writer must have read a different Constitution than I. Mine doesn't give me any rights, it guarantees the rights I was born with.

lawson4
(Rick)

 

[ReadyontheRight]

The First Amendment should not allow you to hurt people or place them in harm's way...just like the Second Amendment should not allow you to shoot people.

Anyone using the Second Amendment like this bozo uses the First Amendment would be in prison.

 

[Fudgie Ghost]

Yeah, my wife and I are on the list. . . So are several of my friends. Also some well known "personalities"----former Westchester DA, an actor. . .I'm sure many LEO's, judges, etc. With the list including those types, -----yeah, I'm sure old Jorge was suprised at the "intensity",------ the idiot.

Obviously this guy, and the other's at the Journal News ( I stopped subcribing to that rag many years ago----Gannett turned it into a McPaper) who signed off on this hare-brained notion are educated waaaaaaaaaayyyyy beyond their intelligence.

I am sure the anti-gun editors at the paper (and they are very anti-gun and have been for many years) would say, at the very least, that they do not want guns in the hands of criminals ( and anybody else, but let's leave that out for now. . ). And yet they publish (in Excel format--great for sorting by town, name, etc) a list that makes it very easy for criminals to locate the homes where guns are located, stake them out, break in, etc.

I have one question for Jorge (if that's his real name): What exactly was the point of publishing this list? What was he hoping to accomplish? It's not enough to say, "Oh, it's public records. " Yeah-- so what? It was done for a reason. What was that reason? I'd like to hear him explain that.

I can see a silver lining in this: some of the people on the roster are no doubt anti-gun, at least publicly. When they are exposed as PP holders,---well that will be interesting. And also, many of those on the list are VIP's, wealthy types who will NOT, ---let me repeat that--- NOT be happy that their privacy has been invaded. And they will have the resources to make Mister Jorge's life, well,----- a little busy in the next few weeks.

Like it or not, that's how the world works. The heavy hitters of this world, when stung, will sting back. So we may gain some allies of a sort from all this. Having been the victim of the anti's arrogance, lack of judgement, inability to see the ramifications of their emotionally driven agenda, some of the residents of Westchester/Rockland county might not be so sympathetic to these types in the future.

So, to paraphrase Bill Murray in "Caddyshack": " . . .so, we got that goin' for us. . . which is good!"

But yeah, it is anger inducing. .


I love the "we'll monitor police reports. . ." in response to Art's emailing. Yeah, that'll help alot. Thanks Jorge. As if they would ever admit that there was an uptic in firearm robberies. Even if they did, what would they do exactly? Say they're sorry? Asshat.

 

[M2Pilot]

Our small local newspaper did this for a while a few years ago. I wrote a letter to the editor expessing my opposition to this & the reasons for opposition & asked that if it was published, it be anonamous. The editor called me & informed me that they wouldn't publish the letter without my name. We had a conversation wherein I explained that listing purchasers could increase burgularies & how I certainly didn't want my name "advertised" on the editorial page. The letter wasn't published but the paper soon stopped publishing list of gun purchases.

 

[Soybomb]

I'd like to put in a letter I sent to mr jore and his response:

Mr. Freeman asserts that the public has a right to know what sort of
property I own under my second amendment rights. Do I also have a right
to know what sort of literature and religious texts he keeps in his own
home under the first amendment? His statement has no factual basis at
all.

[quote="Mr. Jorge]
Thank you for reading The Journal News and thank you for your response.
I cannot speak for Mr. Freeman. He is my superior and I quoted him in my story. However, any clarification would have to come from him.
I do know that New York state law asserts that the public has a right to know what citizens are legal pistol permit holders. That is not an editorial opinion
by the newspaper. I do not judge this law, but it is present. The newspaper would not have otherwise legally obtained the list in question were that not the
case.
If there is objection to the state law that allows this, then that is a different matter, irregardless of any media organization. In this case, the newspaper
opted to withhold street addresses, although such information is available as public record to any citizen requesting it. As I understand it, the New York
State Rifle & Pistol Association, among the harshest critics of the newspaper's decision to publish the list, has been in court since 2003 attempting to get
New York City to release a list of about 45,000 pistol permit holders in the city, arguing it is public record. It would appear that The Journal News concurs
with the association's position in that case.
In the present case, the newspaper has gone on record that it will follow up with area police departments to determine if any homes are targeted as a result
of the publication of the list. If such is the case, the information will be reported in The Journal News. Obviously, the newspaper does not believe it will
be the case. The threats and harassment of newspaper employees notwithstanding, no harassment, threats or other targeting of residents has occurred or been
reported as a result of the publication of the list.
Should you have further questions or commentary, please feel free to contact me.
[/quote]

Mr. Jorge seems to have confused my beef with his boss's interpretation of the constitution with the the state law that allowed them to do this. In a way I wish the media could be responsible with this information and just use it for investigations and actual reporting. As we've seen with this (and the TV station in FL not too long ago) there is a reason why more and more states are making this data more restricted. This was really just harassment and the publication of the information in no way served to further the story. They should be ashamed and sadly it doesn't look like the heat has been turned up hot enough on them yet.

 

[Robert Hairless]

​

Is the writer of that article the same Jorge Fitz-Gibbon in "Parents Place" of the Lower Hudson On-Line web site? His brief bio there says that he's a single parent with joint custody of a son. Unless the court records of his divorce were sealed, they are a matter of public record too. By his logic and that of his newspaper's editor, the public has a Constitutional right to know the details of his divorce.

In fact it's arguable that because Mr. Fitz-Gibbon is a public person, the public has the right to know much more about the details of his personal life than about those of the people who lead private lives and wish to preserve their privacy. It's also arguable that there is compelling reason for the public to know those details because Mr. Fitz-Gibbon has assumed the position of influencing public policy in a great many matters. And, of course, Mr. Fitz-Gibbon has thrown open the door--widely--to such inquiries by initiating the publication of information about himself, his second wife, and his parents. Mr. Fitz-Gibbon cannot reasonably argue that he or his family have any expectation of privacy, unlike the private people on whom he has put the spotlight merely because they exercised a legal right.

​

I do not understand the logic in his editor's, Henry Freeman's, statement that "We did take it into consideration and did not publish your street address, which is also public information." Because those addresses are "public information," the newspaper should have published them along with the names. Mr. Freeman's implication and veiled threat is that there is some borderline between publishing the names of private people and the addresses of those people. It's all public information, so if there's nothing wrong for the newspaper to publish some of it there's no reason not to publish it all. On the other hand, if there is some reason why the newspaper did not publish the addresses of those people perhaps the same or similar reasons indicate why it should not have published their names.

Some people acknowledge that just because something can be done there is no imperative to do it. Mr. Fitz-Gibbon and Mr. Freeman do not seem even to recognize that distinction, although its exercise is among the factors that lend decency to everyday life. When Mr. Freeman, then editor of the Wilmington (Delaware) News Journal, applied for membership in the prestigious Wilmington Country Club in 1992, was it really a coincidence that then Governor Castle was one of his sponsors and received the newspaper's endorsement in his race for a seat in the Congress? That's a matter of public record, as were complaints about it.

 

[jeepmor]

I wish the media could be responsible

Don't we all? Face it, ain't going to happen.

If I was on the list, I think I might be reporting some missing guns, just to add fuel to the fire and help foster a lawsuit against the paper...... Oops, sorry judge, I'm getting up there in years, I think my son or daughter has that firearm right now, or maybe I passed it on to one of the grandsons, not really sure anymore.

When you throw a bunch of gas on the bridge (editorial staff), don't act surprised that you get burned when your opposition (pro 2A) decides to throw a match on it and see if you make it to the other side before getting scorched.

I don't even think a uber-Liberal rag like the Oregonian here in my area would stoop that low. Some people have no scruples at all, these two signed their name to it. If I got that rag, I'd be cancelling my subscription and firing some letters off to the spineless editorial staff. Some people just don't care who they hurt and they should be returned the favor.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Jeepmor, do you really think it would be helpful to file a false police report? I think such tactics wrong and harmful.

 

[evan price]

Well, let's thin kthis through in the interest of fairness.
Since more people are killed every year with motor vehicles than firearms, and since there are MORE motor vehicle operation permits than CCW permits, in the interests of public safety, why don't they publish a list of anyone with a driver's license? or better yet, say, a list of anyone who owns high-end automobiles? Names, addresses, the whole works.

Also in many jurisdictions alarm systems are required to have permits; why not a list of people who have alarm systems? We could list the maker, type, and whether it is monitored or not.

 

[LAK]

30,000 people; that is one deep pocket. $100/head ought to buy them the best laywer in the State, or the country. These people need to get together, retain a law firm, and prepare in advance, a class action suit against the state representatives/appointees who allowed the information to become public in the first place, and the paper. They can do it in blocks of X number of plaintiffs as their homes get burglarized or they are otherwise targeted - and sue that paper into oblivion, as well as the state representatives/appointees who set them up for it.

----------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[Desertdog]

Jeepmor, do you really think it would be helpful to file a false police report? I think such tactics wrong and harmful.

IMO, It would only be harmeful to the person filing a false police report, with nothing good coming from it.

OTOH, if your house is actually burglered, or robbed, right after your name appeared in the paper; might it be grounds for some legal action against the paper on invasion of privacy?

 

[Robert Hairless]

IMO, It would only be harmeful to the person filing a false police report, with nothing good coming from it.

OTOH, if your house is actually burglered, or robbed, right after your name appeared in the paper; might it be grounds for some legal action against the paper on invasion of privacy?

I doubt that the newspaper actually invaded anyone's privacy in legal terms. If the record of permit holders is indeed a matter of public record in New York State, it did nothing legally wrong--just as, I think, there would be nothing legally wrong in republishing matters of public record about Jorge Fitz-Gibbon and his family. I think that there probably wouldn't be anything legally wrong in distributing the name of his son, for example, or those of his parents and ex-wife and where they live. These are matters of public record, as would be details of any traffic tickets, arrests, convictions, and other such publicly available information. My understanding is that there also wouldn't be anything legally wrong with photographing Mr. Fitz-Gibbon whenever he has no expectation of privacy, just as there wouldn't be anything legally wrong with photographing any public figure. But many people, perhaps including Mr. Fitz-Gibbon, would find it awfully uncomfortable to live that way. Still, it's probably all perfectly legal and--I think that Mr. Fitz-Gibbon would agree--if it can be done there's no reason not to do it.

I do think that permit holders should be concerned that the publication of their gun ownership does create potential dangers for them. Mr. Fitz-Gibbon and his employers must be pathetic, small souled creatures indeed if they really think that their decision to monitor robberies connected with their publication helps in any way at all. It simply doesn't matter if none of those people are ever robbed because they own a gun.

People who apply for permits often do so because they fear danger. Their fear often is justified: a handicapped person who cannot defend himself otherwise, a woman terrorized by an abusive husband or boyfriend, an elderly man or woman who lives alone. Who really has "a right to know" their vulnerability and their remedy for it? Mr. Fitz-Gibbon and Mr. Freeman think that everyone has a right to know, whatever the cost to those people whose fears must now be increased by the newspaper's outing of them.

In my own lifetime our society has experienced almost the total destruction of privacy for little people, so-called "private citizens," who want to live their lives quietly. There used to be many things that people knew about each other but never told because they had a sense of decency and compassion. Newspapers have contributed much to the destruction of decency and compassion as well as privacy, and their instruments are shrivelled creatures such as Mr. Fitz-Gibbon and Mr. Freeman. That's the most serious wrong they have done.

Nobody needs to know who has a concealed carry permit. It is supposed to be concealed so that nobody knows. Fitz-Gibbon, Freeman, and their employers are contemptible little creatures crowing to a fast diminishing audience who has little respect for any of them. But they are incapable of seeing that.

 

[foghornl]

The Cleveland "Plain Dealer" is a leftist rag as has been previously described here.

Douglas Clifton, the Managing/Executive Editor In cheif {or whatever the title is} prints the names/ages/county of residence of Ohio CCW license holders, "...because the public has a right to know who has a gun" but doesn't publish Sex Offenders Lists, "...because even criminals have a right to privacy."


JERK!

 

[xd9fan]

I think the people should go after the papers staff members. Fire with fire.

 

[geronimotwo]

i have no problem with public record being made public. in fact if i realized how many people had a gun in my county, it might raise my awareness to the fact that gun owners aren't criminals. i might even ask my neighbor on the list how i could get a ccw permit. it seems to me that coming out of the closet would be the first step for gun owners to gain the popular support, as well as having our 2nd ammendment rights.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Douglas Clifton, the Managing/Executive Editor In cheif {or whatever the title is} prints the names/ages/county of residence of Ohio CCW license holders, "...because the public has a right to know who has a gun" but doesn't publish Sex Offenders Lists, "...because even criminals have a right to privacy."

If so, perhaps Mr. Clifton and the Cleveland Plain Dealer merely believe that criminals deserve more support than people who want to defend themselves against criminals.

Law enforcement officers also carry firearms: since "the public has a right to know who has a gun," am I right in assuming that the Plain Dealer publishes such information about them too? If not, they certainly need to do it.

 

[doubleg]

if i see that man i'm going to introduce his face to the bottom of my boot

 

[Robert Hairless]

i have no problem with public record being made public. in fact if i realized how many people had a gun in my county, it might raise my awareness to the fact that gun owners aren't criminals. i might even ask my neighbor on the list how i could get a ccw permit. it seems to me that coming out of the closet would be the first step for gun owners to gain the popular support, as well as having our 2nd ammendment rights.

Fair enough. Why not start by providing your real name, home address, telephone number, social security number, age, employer's name and address, and other identifying information about you that are matters of public record. Put them in your Profile now. Since you don't have any special concern for other people's privacy, it's surprising that you've concealed your own identity here.

Why do you need your awareness raised to the fact that gun owners aren't criminals? You've posted 40 messages in this forum for gun owners. How many bank robberies or other criminal activities have you seen forum members planning here?

Why do you need to ask your neighbor on a list for information about how to get a concealed carry permit when that information already is publicly available? In New York State, where you live, you start by asking the "licensing officer" in your county for an applications packet. The licensing officer is usually the County Clerk, County Sheriff, or Police Headquarters, and all you have to do is ask. The information also is available at packing.org and other places on the World Wide Web. Or, of course, you could ask for the information here or in other gun-related forums on the Internet. There doesn't seem to be a need for you to know what your neighbors do before you can find out the information you said would justify the publication of that information. If you won't make the slight amount of effort to find what's available when it's all around you, how could any rational person believe that you would go to the greater effort of looking up a stranger on a list and contacting that person for it. And why do you think a stranger would welcome your intrusion on his or her life to get information you're too lazy to get from official sources.

 

[October]

Most of the complaints above are addressing the symptom, not the root cause of this issue. Soybomb and LAK hit upon the real root cause of this problem – the legislators that decided that information on pistol permit holders should be a matter of public record. That is where the anger and calls for change should be directed, not the media.

Telling a newspaper to not print a public record or hoping that someone sues them for doing so is an infringement on First Amendment rights much like gun control laws are an infringement on Second Amendment rights. It makes no sense to support only some of the Bill of Rights.

 

[romma]

Bigots!

 

[Tim James]

This happens every few months. A local TV station published Florida's list and my name and address was on there.

They're just trying to drum up some fear ("oh my goodness, I'm shocked at how many people own guns") to increase newspaper sales or to "change the world." Then they use passive-aggression to defend their actions ("but we're just publishing public record!").

The best procedure is to shout them down so they'll take the list down, and then immediately write your state Congressmen to draft a law to take CCW names and addresses out of the public record. That's what we did in Florida.

Finally, I can understand the benefit of being able to obtain those records, like the gun club in NY is doing, to make sure permits aren't being granted only to the elite, for example. I guess locking those records is more of a no-brainer in shall-issue states.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Most of the complaints above are addressing the symptom, not the root cause of this issue. Soybomb and LAK hit upon the real root cause of this problem – the legislators that decided that information on pistol permit holders should be a matter of public record. That is where the anger and calls for change should be directed, not the media.

Telling a newspaper to not print a public record or hoping that someone sues them for doing so is an infringement on First Amendment rights much like gun control laws are an infringement on Second Amendment rights. It makes no sense to support only some of the Bill of Rights.

I most certainly agree with the central point of your first paragraph. The seminal fault lies with New York State's legislators.

But I don't see the sense in your second paragraph. The First Amendment prohibits the Congress from making any law that abridges the freedom of the press. That amendment does not restrict me or anyone else here from "Telling a newspaper to not print a public record or hoping that someone sues them for doing so." In fact the First Amendment guarantees us all the right of free speech by prohibiting the Congress from making any law that abridges freedom of speech.

There's no question about which of those two freedoms is the more important: the Constitution gives freedom of speech precedence over freedom of the press. So there is greater importance in our telling the newspaper what we think than there is in the newspaper telling us what it thinks. And that hierarchy makes good sense, then and now, because who could justify a situation in which the press has a greater right to speak freely than do the people of this country. In such a situation the press would have the ability to both set the agenda and direct the response of people to that agenda--which, I suppose, is what Mr. Fitz-Gibbon and his editor are doing and claim absolute freedom to do.

Tyranny of a press without conscience is no less harmful than other forms of tyranny. And a corporate press seems to be the most conscienceless form of media imaginable.

 

[cbxx]

Maybe someone should publish on line the names, address, what kind of car they drive, what the value of their house is and so on of everyone who works at the news paper and see if they have problem with that.

Since they see nothing wrong with giving out personal and or public information as they see it, then they should not mind if everyone knows their business including the BG's.

It would seem that there is way too much of do whatever we feel like attitude with no regards for anyones personal privacy, property or safety. It is time to take back our lives. This is why we carry weapons, becuase we are the only who are ultimately responsible for our own protection. Rely on others and sooner or later they will let you down and usually at the wrong time.

 

[geronimotwo]

robert hairless strikes home when he asks me to give MY personal information online. that being said, i still feel that making these lists public do more harm to the anti gun movement than the pro gun movement. i am a newcomer to the gun forums, and local circles of gun supporters. i have never been "anti", but i never realized how many people support the right to bear arms. to see a list with tens of thousands of supporters for gun ownership seems like a beacon of truth. would i have printed it? no. would i want my name on the list? i would like to say, "i could care less". it certainly wouldn't change my mind about gun ownership. would i feel paranoid about being made a victum? one person out of thirty thousand? i have a better chance of being picked at random from our county phonebook. i wonder how many people have a "protected by smith and wesson" sticker on their door?

 

[Robert Hairless]

robert hairless strikes home when he asks me to give MY personal information online. that being said, i still feel that making these lists public do more harm to the anti gun movement than the pro gun movement. i am a newcomer to the gun forums, and local circles of gun supporters. i have never been "anti", but i never realized how many people support the right to bear arms. to see a list with tens of thousands of supporters for gun ownership seems like a beacon of truth. would i have printed it? no. would i want my name on the list? i would like to say, "i could care less". it certainly wouldn't change my mind about gun ownership. would i feel paranoid about being made a victum? one person out of thirty thousand? i have a better chance of being picked at random from our county phonebook. i wonder how many people have a "protected by smith and wesson" sticker on their door?

I'm glad you saw part of my point, but I'm disappointed that you won't walk the walk if you talk the talk. Think about it for a while and perhaps you'll post your most personal information for public view. What harm could it do to expose it to everyone in the world who has access to a computer? After all it's not as if there are people out there whose thoughts and emotions might be outside your own range of experience, people whose reactions are unpredictable, and maybe even people like that who live in your neighborhood who might be triggered by outrage if they learn that you own a gun and who might want to straighten you out.

Do I really think there are people like that in the world? I find it hard to believe that there were people like John Wayne Gacey (who murdered people and buried them under his home) or Jeffrey Dahmer (who murdered men, had sexual relations with their corpses, then ate them). But it doesn't matter what I think. What matters is that you think it's a good idea to publish such lists and that you seem to like the idea of having your personal information published to the world. So, really, you need to do it.

But maybe you will appreciate that there are many people who want to live their lives privately without having to choose between sacrificing their right to defend themselves or having their private information published to the world by the likes of Jorge Fitz-Gibbon, Henry Freeman, and the newspapers that employ them to make a buck by selling the details of other people's lives.

I don't know how many people have a "Protected by Smith & Wesson" on their door. There's nothing wrong if they want to put it on their door. But don't you see that it would be wrong if someone put it on your door without your permission and, perhaps, even without your knowledge?