Newspaper Establishes Registered Gun Database, Equates Gun Owners to Sex Offenders

[bigalexe]

On this discussion board there are a lot of calls to support the rights guaranteed by the 2d Amendment. I believe those rights are important. But here's a reminder, folks. There's one amendment ahead of it in the Bill of Rights--the 1st Amendment. And one of the things the 1st Amendment guarantees is the right to a free press.

Why don't we have a little less outrage about it?

We also have a RIGHT to Privacy that is formed from the 1st, 9th, and 10th Amendments. In a roundabout way this violates the right to privacy. Unfortunately in America of 2009 it seems that people think they have a right to pry into everyone else's life unless expressly forbidden by law.

 

[searcher451]

Here's a CNN piece on it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kUIPRFgRE8

Thanks for sharing that piece, DJ. It's quite good and quite informative.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

If you don't want this information available to the public then get your state to make it confidential so that the individual names and addresses are not available to the public.

CHL holders had to do that in Oregon after one of the papers demanded the lists be given to them. Most of the sheriffs even posted a quick form on their websites to request your info not be released in case they were forced by courts to hand them over.
There was a push back with a bill to limit public access to those records but it died in the state senate.

Things like this make me joyful that newspapers are dying. The vast majority have become liberal tabloids anyway.

 

[Jim K]

If a gun owner is robbed as a result of the newspaper "expose", could the paper be charged as an accessory before the fact?

Jim

 

[McCall911]

If a gun owner is robbed as a result of the newspaper "expose", could the paper be charged as an accessory before the fact?

Good question, but I could see where the newspaper might be civilly liable.

 

[jcwit]

If you don't want this information available to the public then get your state to make it confidential so that the individual names and addresses are not available to the public.

One of our state representatives is working on this issue right now. Problem is just what does one do till the wheels of government solve the problem.
Remember even laws voted on and passed do not take effect immediately.

 

[TimM]

one of the reason I haven't got my ccw quite simply dont want to target my self for burglars looking for guns

I believe that is the dumbest reason I have ever heard for not getting a CCW.

 

[billybobjoe]

I quit watching "Law and Order" after I figured out all the anti gun BS the writers were trying to put over on the public. One issue a boy was killed when his friend found a Beretta Bobcat in a park. In another episode, they search a sex offender suspect and find some smut mags. Then the detective says "Well look what else we have here "GUNS and Ammo magazine".

 

[Tamlin]

If I'm a burglar, and I find out John Smith over on Elm Street has a Concealed Weapons Permit, there's no way in hell I'm gonna break in to his house looking for guns while he's gone, because I know he's carrying his gun with him -- He's not gonna leave it in the top drawer of his dresser for me to find. And I certainly know I will see his gun if he finds me in his house.

Not saying, as a CCW permit holder, that I want my name and address published. I want the choice if people know that I and my premises are protected by S&W.

 

[SigP229R]

I sent them an e mail stating my displeasure with what they were doing. As far as I can determine it seems to me that should someone target a legaly armed person because of something like this they should be held just as responsible as the actual doer. As I see it they are just as responsible because had it not been for their irresponsibility in posting these owners names and addresses it would have never happened. JMHO.

 

[Aran]

If I'm a burglar, and I find out John Smith over on Elm Street has a Concealed Weapons Permit, there's no way in hell I'm gonna break in to his house looking for guns while he's gone, because I know he's carrying his gun with him -- He's not gonna leave it in the top drawer of his dresser for me to find. And I certainly know I will see his gun if he finds me in his house.

Tell me, do you know many people who only own one gun, of the people you know who are gun owners?

And accessories, ammunition...

 

[zoom6zoom]

there's no way in hell I'm gonna break in to his house looking for guns while he's gone, because I know he's carrying his gun with him

I know quite a few folks who, despite having a permit, sadly never carry.

 

[Warhawk83]

quit watching "Law and Order" after I figured out all the anti gun BS the writers were trying to put over on the public. One issue a boy was killed when his friend found a Beretta Bobcat in a park. In another episode, they search a sex offender suspect and find some smut mags. Then the detective says "Well look what else we have here "GUNS and Ammo magazine".

One episode they found spent casings on the ground, the casings let them know there was no a doubt it was a particular Colombian drug cartel... The casings

On Topic; 1st amendment yes it's great.Just as with the right to bear arms there should be responsibility and accountability with the media. Publishing those names was GROSS negligence.

 

[harmonic]

You mean people in Indiana actually read the freaking newspaper? What a dinosaur!

And as a former hoosier (southern IN), bloomington is a tutty fruity liberal hole. IU and all that.

 

[fireflyfather]

On this discussion board there are a lot of calls to support the rights guaranteed by the 2d Amendment. I believe those rights are important. But here's a reminder, folks. There's one amendment ahead of it in the Bill of Rights--the 1st Amendment. And one of the things the 1st Amendment guarantees is the right to a free press.

Why don't we have a little less outrage about it?

If I am reading you correctly (I hope I am not!), you are arguing that the press SHOULD publish sensitive information including the home addresses and names of police officers, crime victims, witness "protectees", and other targets of criminals because they have the constitutional right to free speech? Implicit in the bill of rights is the idea that you should be safe from government interference in your own home. That the government violates this right by making publicly available information on gun owners and/or those with carry permits does not mean that it is RIGHT (correct) for the newspaper to publish that information in a manner that aids and abets criminals in targeting these people for retaliation or burglary. Rights (vested protections) like the first amendment are not absolute. For example, your right to call me a jerk and scream at me ends at the point where you threaten or harm me. The newspaper's right to print information ends when they aid and abet criminals to harm me, my family, or to steal my property. The paper must be responsible for its speech if it incites riot, treason, murder, or similar serious crimes. Publishing this sort of data is nothing less than that. The only reason this particular paper can get away with it is that they don't actually use names or house numbers. If I were to check public records for newspaper editors and publish addresses, tax information showing relative wealth, names, genders and ages of family members, and cross-check that to show a lack of a carry permit for all of the above people with a vague implication that these people were somehow unsavory or otherwise morally bankrupt/dangerous to society, I would be expecting a call from their lawyers if anything unpleasant happened to someone in their family. Any LIST of undesirables published publicly is tantamount to inciting violent action against them.

The real point is that we should force our elected officials to keep this information private.

 

[dec41971]

The more I see crap like this, the more I want to buy more guns even if they will be safe queens. I can't stand people who want to trample anyone else's rights. Any rights; This country is unique for the rights we enjoy, and morons like these want to set us back into the 17th century. :banghead:

 

[Kitchen_Duty]

Let them publish it and let the public do what my economics teacher tells us all the time: Vote with your dollar.

 

[Tamlin]

Again, not saying I agree with this, but the story the OP posted was that this newspaper published gun permits by STREET - not by owner's name or address.

So you're a burglar. And you're thinking about hitting a house on Elm Street. You decide to see how many people on Elm Street have permits for guns. Holy %^# you say, when you see that three-quarters of the Elm Street residents have permits for guns. You're gonna stay the hell away from Elm street, because your chances of running into a homeowner or a good samaritan neighbor with a gun are pretty high. Now, if only a couple of people on the street have guns - what's to worry?

Yeah, yeah, I know - burglars are stupid, and if they think one particular street has a lot of guns, they're just dumb enough to think they can steal one. I still think any criminal, no matter how stupid, would rather take his chances on an unarmed target.

 

[Dumptruck]

This also means that the criminals get to pick and choose the houses they want to rob. No fear of armed resistance if you know everyone around the neighborhood is unarmed.

The locals should threaten the advertisers. When the money dries up, I bet their liberal views on gun control might have to take a back burner.

 

[LibShooter]

I knew that Handgun Carry Permit information was public before I applied. When I signed the paper, that was an agreement to allow my info to be published. How can I get angry when it happens?

A Tennessee lawmaker is working to make HCP info less public, and I'm all for that. Until then, however, I have no choice but to put up with the ramifications of the First AND Second amendments.

 

[stickhauler]

On this discussion board there are a lot of calls to support the rights guaranteed by the 2d Amendment. I believe those rights are important. But here's a reminder, folks. There's one amendment ahead of it in the Bill of Rights--the 1st Amendment. And one of the things the 1st Amendment guarantees is the right to a free press.

And you feel that the 1st amendment gives an anti-gun newspaper the right to publish for public consumption a listing of all concealed carry permit holders? Does that same right extend for them to publish a listing of all undercover police officers names, addresses and phone numbers so the criminals can find their homes easily to harm or kill their families? Or a listing of abused spouses who fled their homes to escape an abusive husband or domestic partner?

My perspective is this, if they opt to post names, addresses, or any personal information on any group of people other than those who by law are subject to their residences being displayed (i.e., convicted child sexual abusers, etc.) then they have a responsibility to post their own names, addresses and personal information so those whose right to privacy has been invaded can return the favor to them.

I live in Dayton, Ohio, our press I'm sure know exactly where every elected representative of the area lives, yet very few have their home addresses listed in phone books, nor are their home phones listed. Why? I'd have to guess they feel safer knowing that an irate citizen doesn't have access to such information and as such can't bother them at home. And personally, I have no problem with such measures taken to insure their privacy, if I have a complaint about their actions, or feel a need to contact them, they are available during work hours at their offices.

If you have no problem with any and everyone knowing your personal information, go right ahead and post such for all to see here. I'll bet you aren't that willing to have your personal information available for all to see.

I notice you use an assumed moniker here, as most everyone else does, and I do as well. For a reason. There is no reason for anyone here to know every aspect of my life unless I decide to reveal it to them. But that aspect of being simply a moniker also gives you a venue to say things here you might well not do if everyone knew your real name, address, etc.

The 1st amendment doesn't give the press the right to invade privacy, it gives them the right to report the news without government interference. I suggest you read the document a little closer.

 

[RDak]

+1 on what hso says.

We are lucky in Michigan in that our Supreme Court ruled any information regarding CPL's is confidential and NOT available for private use/review, etc.

This has to be attacked by statute or through the courts IMHO.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

If a gun owner is robbed as a result of the newspaper "expose", could the paper be charged as an accessory before the fact?

Not if the information is public record. In this case, it is public information. I don't recall the redistribution of public information as being illegal. In some instance, the redistribution of public information is demanded by law, such as with some forms of legal filings.

 

[kwikrnu]

a paper in Tenn did something similar last year iirc except their database listed ccw holders !!! one of the reason I haven't got my ccw quite simply dont want to target my self for burglars looking for guns

In the last 15 years there have been no instances of any criminal activity because of the list being made public in Tennessee. If the government issues a permit or license it should be public knowledge. Government can't seem to do anything right. Do you trust that they will issue permits to those who are supposed to have them? In Tennessee the government gave criminals permits to carry and because of the list they supposedly reformed the workings of the department of safety.

The better idea is to change the constitutions of all States to allow the people the uninfringed bearing of arms.

 

[kwikrnu]

Good question, but I could see where the newspaper might be civilly liable.

The list is publically available from the government. All the newspaper is doing is republishing the list with most of the details omitted.

The real liability is going to be with websites and the users who publish information on private citizens who may work for a newspaper or organization they don't agree with. For example gun nuts who go out of their way to find their home address, telephone #'s, pictures, what times they work, what kind of car they drive, their childrens names and addresses, etc. The only reason behind the posting of such info is for harrassment and that is against the law.