Media abuse of gun owners continues.

[gopguy]

There has been a growing nasty problem with the news media going after private information on gun owners. Here in Ohio we dealt with this over the summer when the Sandusky Register published the home address and names of over 2000 CHL holders in North Central Ohio.

In the wake of the Shirley Katz story, a newspaper in Oregon is suing the Sheriff to get CHL holder lists so they can publish those too. Sadly this is happening in other states too. Some in the news media have declared war on our rights to privacy just because we choose to be gun owners. Help us fight this trend and give the media a taste of what they are doing to us. Please feel free to share this story with your pro gun family and friends.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article4085.html

 

[gunsmith]

when it comes to abortion, they cherish the "right to privacy"

When it comes to "right to privacy" for gun owners, their values disappear.
We have to publish the names and addresses of everyone that works for the paper and the advertisers.....they really hate having the same spotlight on them.

I really like buckeye firearms org...keep up the good work.

 

[Eric F]

unfortunatly there is no legal leg to stand on because it is public information. The only way around that is to make court records sealed which is possible but very unlikely. So I guess it is sit and hold on.

 

[Geno]

Eric F:

It is only public information because the legislation allows it to be so. In Michigan, the information is private.

The "media" is not our friend. In the past few years, the Detroit News(less) and Detroit Free (to destroy us) Press along with the "Joke"land Press published a series of articles regarding Michigan's schools, alleging them to employ 4,500+ convicted felons.

After forcing the powers that be in Lansing to pass legislation to "protect the children" (it's always for the children), the finger prints were taken, a database constructed for school employees' names, and fingerprints run. OMW...there was one, 1 felon, and that years and years old, and no it did not involve violence or a child.

Lies, distortions, perverse presentation of disinformation...that is contemporary media. Stop the presses!!!! No, there is nothing important to add...just stop the presses!!!!

Doc2005

 

[gunsmith]

legs

“The truth is, whether it is legal for the press to obtain these names or not, (and attorneys have recently informed us it may NOT be legal) the only purpose being served is to chill the rights of gun owners.”

if it turns out to be legal, and they publish it, it becomes Zumbo time again.

 

[LoadedDrum]

First boycott the paper. Next inform all advertisers in said papers to stop advertising in those papers or they will lose your business.

The rest of my ideas on how to fight are not very high road.

 

[Eric F]

First boycott the paper. Next inform all advertisers in said papers to stop advertising in those papers or they will lose your business.

I agree whole heartedly but for say 40-50 folks that actually follow through with the plan the papper and the advertisers could care lless about you. It can only work if there are enough supporters and realisticaly there arnt enough that will follow through.

 

[feedthehogs]

I suggest that in a very friendly and non threatening manner, remind the newspaper staff what has happend in the past to papers that have printed that information.
Remind them also if they would like their addresses and phone numbers and personal infromation splashed accross the web.

Heck, send them the links to the threads about previous papers and let them see what their up against.

 

[40SW]

Here in Florida, the CWP records are sealed to the media and the public and are only available to law enforcement via subpoena/warrant, etc.
As an NRA certified pistol and rifle instructor, I keep my students' names and addresses confidential.
If the media ever published by CWP information, I would sue them to high heaven, not only for violating the statute, but also for placing me and my family at risk. Any potential robber would know where I live and that there are firearms there. It would paint me and my home/loved ones as a potential target. I would take that very personally.

 

[the pistolero]

When it comes to "right to privacy" for gun owners, their values disappear.

Yep. I remember after the list of CHL holders was taken out of the public domain here in Texas, the Houston Chronicle editorial board threw a wall-eyed fit. They actually tried to spin the open records as a property-rights issue, arguing that "the list was compiled at public expense and is owned by the public...where is the sense in depriving the owners of their property?" Morons.

 

[The Annoyed Man]

the pistolero is correct. Here in Texas, the CHL laws specifically protect the privacy of the CHL holders, and only law enforcement agencies may access the records, and then only for law enforcement purposes.

 

[siglite]

It'd be interesting, every time some paper does this, to take up a collection and just hire a PI for $35/pop to find the personal information of every employee he can for that given newspaper from public sources. Compile it somewhere on the web. Leave it on the web. Forever. I'd contribute.

Yeah, that pesky 1st amendment's a double edged sword.

And you can't hide.

 

[MakAttak]

They actually tried to spin the open records as a property-rights issue, arguing that "the list was compiled at public expense and is owned by the public...where is the sense in depriving the owners of their property?" Morons.

They are quite right. If the public paid for it, then they ought to have access...

Except, didn't all the CHL owners pay for it in fees?

In any case, the solution is easy. There should BE a list.

 

[TCUGLOCKER]

Well everyone just needs to move to Texas, where what is private stays private. Heck, you can carry here now without a permit as long as you're traveling to or from your vehicle or residence

 

[Beatnik]

In any case, the solution is easy. There should BE a list.

I assume you meant should not be a list.
I agree. The answer isn't a privacy rights issue - it's a 2nd Amendment issue.
Let's get to the root cause, not deal with whether they're violating any other rights when they violate our RKBA.

 

[The Annoyed Man]

In any case, the solution is easy. There should BE a list.

I don't have a problem, per se, with the existance of a list of CHL holders. How is the state going to know whether you are a new applicant or a renewing applicant unless they already have a list of those who have applied and been licensed? What I have a problem with is access to that list by anybody other than an LEO agency. It's just nobody else's damned business. I don't know about other states, but here in Texas, getting your name on that list is expensive - $140.00 - not to mention the cost of the CHL class. I say my $140 give me the right to decide who gets to know my personal information. That may not be sound legal reasoning, but seems morally defensible to me.

What I would find interesting, which, so far, googling has failed to turn up an answer for me, is how many of us are there?

 

[AndyC]

I say my $140 give me the right to decide who gets to know my personal information. That may not be sound legal reasoning, but seems morally defensible to me.

Quite right, too. Besides the money itself, to me it's a need-to-know issue:

"Do you absolutely need to know?"
"Er... no..."
"Ok, bugger off, then..."

 

[Rumble]

What I would find interesting, which, so far, googling has failed to turn up an answer for me, is how many of us are there?

I heard - somewhere - that the number of people with an LTCF in Pennsylvania was about 1 in 24, so...maybe 500,000 of us here? Granted, PA's license is very easy to get, and inexpensive, so more people might get one. 102,000 and change were issued in 2006 (including renewals, I assume).


Edited to add: I found this blog, http://blogostuff.blogspot.com/2004/12/percentage-of-adults-with-carry.html, that claims to have crunched the numbers as of 2004, and gives percentages. Texas is about 1.6% of the population, it seems. Overall, some three-million-plus people are licensed to carry.

Edited to add again: the link above may only apply to shall-issue states.

 

[40SW]

There are about 400,000 in FL.

 

[gopguy]

I suggest that in a very friendly and non threatening manner, remind the newspaper staff what has happend in the past to papers that have printed that information.
Remind them also if they would like their addresses and phone numbers and personal infromation splashed accross the web.

Heck, send them the links to the threads about previous papers and let them see what their up against.

We are sitting on the private information on Mr. Hunter and the others for the moment. BFA got some grief when we published the information we had on Mr. Westerhold, some took the attitude two wrongs do not make a right. I figured if we could reason with the man, via mail and so forth hopefully we would not have to use the bomb of publishing his home address and other information. But if he does not see the light Oregon Firearms Federation will run that info along with that of his associates.

 

[mekender]

one of the central FL news channels posted the FL list on their website before it became a sealed list... the list stayed up on their web site for 24 hours...they got hit with a class action suit so quick they couldnt see straight... id suggest a class action suit

 

[Riz58]

Here are two suggestions, the first legal, the second practical:

1. The Buckeye Assoc enters the lawsuit as an interested party or files a seperate lawsuit seeking an injuction. The basis: the threat of potential deadly harm to some CCW holders. For example, in VA I believe, after the list was published, an ex-wife who took out a CCW permit for self-defense had successfully "hidden" herself from her abusive ex-husband. After the list was published he found her.

Mnay who obtain CCW permits do so because their job, status, wealth, etc put them at risk. Many have unlisted phone numbers so that they cannot be located by nut jobs or enemies easily.

I am sure you can come up with other examples. Basically these individuals face an increased risk of death or bodily harm for little or no reason. They have a right of expectation of privacy with regard to their address and phone number, and even the fact they have a CCW permit - the non-disclosure of which could yield a tactical advantage in a life-threatening situation.

2. Publication of the publisher's, editor's, and the reporter's home phone, address, etc. is putting the shoe on the other foot. These guys who think they are responding to some "higher calling" need to understand the consequences of what they do, and this is a good way to demonstrate this to them. It may not stop the first publication, but newspapers have been known to pull the list off their website when their own information is distributed worldwide.

 

[BAT1]

Well, we need to use the public info system to find out if they have a gun. Quit watching the news, people. It will make you crazy.