I'm speechless...

[ExtremeGunCare]

My license plate says "TWO GUNS" on it. Guess you know how I feel. To date, no one has tried to rob me, stolen from my car, nor have I been pulled over by the police. Maybe a little advertising is a good thing.

Hilarious. My brother has a License Plate states "Dr. Gun" which he has had for numerous years now.

Jason

 

[Onward Allusion]

7thCavScout
I'm speechless...
So I get home from work tonight and pick up a copy of our local daily newspaper. Hey! There's my name..... Low and behold, they decided to publish the name of every single concealed weapons permit holder in the county. I keep fluctuating between mad and indifferent. The list is public information available from the Sheriff's Dept, but why would they publish something like this. What good can possibly come from this. I have a lot of friends who have no idea I carry. Guess they do now.
Curious as to how those of you with CCW permits would feel in this position.

How about compiling a list of individuals who DO NOT have a CCW permit and publishing that? It can be easily done, but I wonder about the legality, however.

 

[Panzercat]

The writer/editors name should be in there. Dig though some public records. Take up a fund to buy a local roadside advertisement posting his picture and his sins. It would take a bit more than a news paper article to get me that vindictive, but I'm certainly creative enough to consider it.

 

[Tim the student]

Dig though some public records.

Or just use spokeo.com or beenverified.com

 

[NavyLCDR]

So much for the "element of surprise!" Might as well open carry.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Thee is a cure. Push for permit-less carry.

Woody

 

[btg3]

Our paper publishes real estate sales each week.
Names of seller and buyer.
Address of property.
Price paid.

"News" indeed. I guess inquiring minds want to know--LOL--and supposedly that keeps "reporters" employed??? What a "profession". All terms used loosely, as you may have surmised.

Regarding the list of CWP permit holders, be proud to be listed among those exercising their 2A right to the extent that law has not infringed upon it.

If you do not CC legally, ask yourself whether you are part of the solution or part of the problem.

 

[Tim the student]

Thee is a cure. Push for permit-less carry.

We're working on that.

 

[writerinmo]

Heck, I could care less if my name was published in the paper as a CC permit holder. It doesn't necessarily mean that I have firearms in my house, it means I have firearms on ME!!!!

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Publish Publisher

I seem to remember that something like this happened in, what, Oregon?

I'm a little fuzzy on the details, but I seem to remember someone digging up the "public records" of the people who published the paper and published that information (names, addresses, etc.) on-line.

I don't recall what other information might have also been published with it.

From what I remember, the publisher eventually thought better of it and had the list removed.

Anyone recall this incident?

Have a better memory than mine?

 

[Ske1etor]

Anyone recall this incident?

Have a better memory than mine?

Roanoke Times, guys name is Christian Trejbal.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Actually, the disservice was done to those NOT on the list - better known as targets.

 

[sig220mw]

Did they publish your address also? If not then the anti gunners will have to still find it so that they can come and trash your yard.

This is private information. It's not as if you are a child molester or on parole in a halfway house. This is purely an intimidation tactic in order to put pressure on you from friends, family and anyone else that decides to get in your business.

This a tactic anti gunners have tried to put into practice in several states in the past with little success and it tells you that they obviously have too much power when they can do it.

 

[mhphoto]

Them printing a public record list is just them trying to be activist "journalists". Even though it's public record, I'd get with an attorney. Sticking it to a bunch of leftist rabble rousers is never a bad thing.

 

[Owen Sparks]

If it is public knoledge that you carry, why should you have to carry it "concealed"? Doesn't the public have a right to know?

 

[W L Johnson]

You could look at it one of two ways
1) Criminals now know who to avoid
2) Criminals now know where to find guns

Of course this assumes criminals can read and if they can would even read the newspaper.

 

[Thlax]

I would be irritated when i read it, but then again my name was in the paper for when i needed to apply for my CCW. Such as life..

 

[MidwestHunting]

I suppose the newspaper would claim violation of freedom of speech if anyone would question their "activist journalist" style.

If it is public knowledge that you carry, why should you have to carry it "concealed"? Doesn't the public have a right to know?

I would say that most people who carrying concealed comes from the motive of "self-defense" and not to publicly announce "I have a gun" everywhere you go.

Good for you for being on the list, though. At least you are exercising your right to carry concealed.

 

[rust collector]

It's just what passes for journalism lately. It would cost money to hire a writer and actually create content. This info is free, so they post it and hope it will be controversial so emotions can become superheated and feed the op-ed page.

Once upon a time, newspapers were useful for something besides birdcage berber. Now, not so much.

 

[RS14]

The following isn't meant to dismiss your irritation, but rather at the people suggesting lawsuits. The proper course of action is of course to write to your congressmen and suggest that the state not publish that material, or better yet, that it adopt permitless carry. And stop buying the paper, if it bothers you.

In Cox Broadcasting v. Cohen, 420 U.S. 469 (1975), the Supreme Court of the United States held that the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits states from imposing a penalty on the press for publishing accurate information obtained from a public court record. As a result of this case, most states recognize an absolute privilege for publication of information found in a publicly available (i.e., not sealed) court record. While the case involved traditional media, there is no reason to believe that its reasoning and holding would not extend to non-traditional journalists and other online publishers. This means that you cannot be held liable for publishing accurate facts about someone that you find in a public court record, regardless of how embarrassing they are. Note that this privilege will protect you in publishing information about past crimes (discussed above), so long as you gather your information from publicly available court records, such as an indictment or trial transcript. For information on accessing court records, see Access to Courts and Court Records.

Many states have extended this protection from liability to the publication of information found in "public records" in addition to court records. The exact meaning of "public records" varies, but in some states it includes information obtained from government agencies through state freedom of information requests. See State Law: Publication of Private Facts for details on the scope of the First Amendment privilege and Access to Government Records for information on freedom of information requests.

Source.

The decision of Cox Broadcasting v. Cohen is worth reading. In particular, while the case concerned public court records, the court does not seem to particularly concern itself with the distinction between public court records, and other public records. The failure of all states to extend this protection to all public records does not mean that such publication is necessarily unlawful.

The previously linked site also lists four conditions for liability in the case of publication of private facts.

1. Public Disclosure: The disclosure of facts must be public. Another way of saying this is that the defendant must "give publicity" to the fact or facts in question.
2. Private Fact: The fact or facts disclosed must be private, and not generally known.
3. Offensive to a Reasonable Person: Publication of the private facts in question must be offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.
4. Not Newsworthy: The facts disclosed must not be newsworthy. Stated differently, the facts disclosed must not be a matter of legitimate public concern.

1 is clearly met. 4 is probably met. 2, 3 are probably not met. It's factual information already publicly available, and furthermore the fact that your state chooses to allow concealed carry would seem to imply quite strongly that it is not offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.



Really, for a bunch of people who want the state to just go away and leave you alone when it comes to all things firearms, some of you sure are quick to run to it for assistance when people say things you don't like. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand.

(Yes, I understand that the phrasing of the 1st amendment is different. Call it poetic license.)

 

[Neverwinter]

1 is clearly met. 4 is probably met. 2, 3 are probably not met. It's factual information already publicly available, and furthermore the fact that your state chooses to allow concealed carry would seem to imply quite strongly that it is not offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.

The publication of CCW licensees would definitely be newsworthy if it showed discriminatory practices in the issuance of may-issue states.

 

[Justin]

Anyone recall this incident?

Incidents like this have happened more than once. Assuming that a certain critical mass of ticked off permit toters can be reached, the following steps should be taken:

1.) Insistent, upset, but nonetheless polite and constant phone calls to the editor expressing your displeasure with the publication. (This will be ignored.)

2.) Putting the editors on notice by stating you will be contacting advertisers. (This will be ignored.)

2a.) If the newspaper folks really are jerks, look up their private home contact information and publish it online.

3.) Riffling through the local paper, calling up every advertiser, and politely but firmly explaining what the paper did, why it upsets you, and that you are considering a boycott of all local businesses that advertise in the paper. (If enough people do this, you will not be ignored.)

4.) The newspaper, once pressured enough by advertisers threatening to yank their ads, will pull the database down/promise not to publish the list ever again.

5.) The newspapers will publish editorials for a couple of weeks calling gun owners all kinds of nasty things and highlighting the three or four troglodytes who did write threatening and stupid letters.

6.) Petition your county/state representatives to amend the law prohibiting the concealed carry database from being made public due to concerns about public safety.

7.) WIN

 

[KodiakBeer]

Low and behold, they decided to publish the name of every single concealed weapons permit holder in the county.

They did you a favor. Now you have a Political Action Committee. Do a mailing to everyone on the list, scheduling a meeting.

First order of business, raise enough money to do a bulk mailing to everyone in the county.

The mailing to contain the names, phone numbers and addresses of everyone who works for the newspaper (available as public information from the city or county that issues their business license).
The mailing will detail the vicious political nature of the newspaper along with the criminal backgrounds of any employee, and ask for all citizens to boycott the newspaper and any business that advertises in the newspaper.

You can also solicit funds for further actions to step up your campaign against this propaganda organ.

Do a separate mailing to all the advertisers specifically advising them of the boycott.

Newspapers are a business, and they run on a tight budget. If they lost just ten percent of their revenue it might well cause them to fold. At a minimum you can bet that the editor who decided to use the paper as a leftist political organ would be out of a job.

 

[clem]

Find out the name, address and phone number of the reporter and editor of the Newspaper and post them here, we can all take turns calling them, putting their names in for various vacation plans, interesting magazine subscriptions and any number of things, after all, it is public information. We all can play "reveal information that should be private".

Yes! Do it! I'll spend the time to write them letters and call them!

 

[jhco50]

This is exactly why I carry openly. I don't have to worry about being the center of attention for the media or some anti-gun group. They don't know my name and so they can't use me for their liberal crap.