Would You Be OK If Your Name/Address Was Published As A Gun Owner?

[buck460XVR]

Don`t bother me one damn bit, everyone around here knows, they all know I own DOGS & GUNS, come around my place uninvited & you get dog bit or shot, no if ands or buts..............

Pretty much the same here. Same goes for everyone else in my neighborhood and the whole town of 10,000. May be one reason major crime is not much of a factor here. From what I understand, the list published only showed those folks with a permit for a handgun. It did not include long guns or shotguns. Since rifles and shotties are just as much a HD weapon as handguns, I can't see where this list is of any advantage at all for criminals, unless they use the list for contacting and scamming these owners for a monetary donation to a fraudulent pro-gun organization. While I might be upset on principle, being paranoid because I was exposed as to having a permit to purchase a handgun seems a little foolish. Seems folks without such a permit would be the ones at the mercy of criminals. At least this shows I'm a legitimate law abiding citizen, as opposed to the criminals that own handguns illegally. But then in my younger days, my name was in the local paper quite often.........

 

[Justin]

Speaking as someone who once had my name published on a list of concealed carry permit holders, I can tell you exactly what my reaction was.

I was absolutely livid.

 

[OilyPablo]

You know the worst part of this mess? The weasels doing name publishing are still using the tragedy of dead children to further their political views. To me that's just disgusting.

 

[AABEN]

No I would after the people that did it! That is why we have lawers!

 

[easyg]

They not only told every criminal which houses to steal guns from.

They also told every criminal which houses didn't have guns to stop them from stealing everything else.

Not true.


This is the truth:

There is simply no way for anyone to know who has a firearm in their home and who does not.


Just because a person obtained a firearms permit or a CC permit, that does not mean that person actually ever bought a firearm.
Or the person could have bought one and later sold it.
Or the person who bought that firearm may no longer reside in the home listed.
Or the person could have lost the firearm.

And only a fool would believe that there are no firearms in any home not listed.
After all, many folks inherit firearms that have never been registered and have no paper trail whatsoever.
And some folks let relatives and friends borrow a firearm for a while.
And of course criminals have homes also, and often have illegal firearms.


Bottom line is that such list are meaningless.

 

[B!ngo]

I would be outraged just as nearly everyone from liberal to conservative over there is as well. I wouldn't want my annual income, blood type, bedroom behavior, average fuel economy or speeding tickets received shared publicly either.
It is odd that the ownership of a firearm is public record and it is unconscionable that anyone would post it. But then again, the new movie Zero Dark Thirty used illegally leaked content to provide some factual detail which is an equivalent sin. That is, even if you can get some information, give some thought to the privacy and concerns of your fellow man.
I would love to find some details about the editors of that paper and post it all widely. And though I rarely think about an 'eye for an eye', I would in this case.
Finally, as a per-issue liberal, a gun owner, ex-military, patriot and a contributor to the ACLU, this is deeply concerning and just plain wrong.
B

 

[Bubbles]

Would You Be OK If Your Name/Address Was Published As A Gun Owner?

Mine already is - ATF makes the full list of FFL's available on its web site.

 

[4thHorseman]

The fact of of the matter, gun owners are being singled out. Law abiding citizens are being singled out IN CASE they might commit a crime. That means, you are guilty of a crime because you have the means to commit it. Can you see that?
If the newspaper meant well, they would of posted criminals which have been convicted of a crime, like child molesters, sex offenders, paroled prisoners...see what what I mean?
So yes, it is wrong and I would take objection with it.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

No, I would not like to see my name on such a list.

There is a lot of bruhaha about this...and rightfully so.

People who do this kind of stuff are doing it because of the impact that their controvertial actions will have...not because it falls under some moral obligation or right. Everybody knows it, even if they hide behind the "it's legal" excuse.

Yes, the media has the right to do a lot because of "Freedom of Press". However there is an important thing to realize about rights:

NO RIGHT IS ABSOLUTE. All rights have limitations on them, like it or not. This is because we cannot exercise our rights without impacting others as a society. When that impact becomes adverse to anothers rights, then that right must be limited.

Freedom of religion does not mean one has the right to practice human sacrifice in this country, even if it's part of the religion of an individual. The right to freedom of speech does not allow one to incite riots or sedition. The right to keep and bear arms does not allow one to use them in illegal activities.

One of my Quotes of the Week at work was "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." (Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr)

Currently, there may not be much that can be done about the direct act of publishing that information because the laws DO make it public information.

HOWEVER, this does not release the media from responsibility for any potential consequences of that action. If their actions can be shown to have caused someone harm, or death, then they can be held liable.

Also, though releasing that information may have been legal, some of that information which was released MAY have been against other statutes. Such as releasing the names and addresses of those involved in law enforcement, or who have retired from that role. Even if those names were not released as "former officer Joe Schmoe", the fact that "Joe Schmoe, 1313 Mockingbird Lane" was released may still constitute a violation of such statues.

I foresee a number of law suits directly related to the release of the information. And I also foresee a number of upcoming law suits dealing with any collateral consequences as well.

Currently, some government officials have taken a stand against releasing any such information, backed by State Senator Greg Ball. I believe they have a good basis for doing so, even though The Journal News is crying that they can't do this.

These officials have taken an important stand in saying that they believe the wholesale release of such information in manner in which The Journal News did is dangerous and an invasion of privacy.

Personally, I think that this action may backfire against the liberal gun control agenda for a variety of reasons. So it may turn out to be a boon in the long run.

In the meantime, let us pray that no harm comes to people because of these actions.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

This is not like posting addresses of convicted sex offenders.

It is like posting addresses of persons with sex organs like those used or abused by sex offenders.

Who this side of Alice's looking glass actually believes persons with criminal intent or reckless and dangerous gun owners actually bother to get permits?

 

[Russ Jackson]

Next they will list all the makes and models along with all your ammo type purchases. Should you register your reloading stuff also. Giving bad guys a shopping list. Plus if something goes wrong God Forbid they will start with the largest owners. Some idiot kid will post it on Facebook and your children will have problems at school. Its none of any ones business what I have in my home.

 

[Loc n Load]

Gun list

A list was published here in Indiana a couple of years ago. A good friend of mine who had been a victim of a brutal violent crime, had relocated, and taken extensive measures to protect herself and children from a crazy ex who was in state prison for the crime. That included obtaining a LTCH and recv'ng firearms trng. The con saw the list published in the paper, and BINGO, all of the work, effort & expense to cover her tracks went out the window.....then the thug got an early out and the victim rights people did not even tell anybody...she had to quit her job, move, uproot the kids and flee for their lives, all in a matter of 48 hours........gotta love how the system really works.

 

[Westfair]

No, hell no.

The publishing of legal gun carry permit holders serves no positive purpose in this case. It is being used to demean and belittle law abiding citizens also without care of the non intentional side effects like several have already mentioned.

While I understand the need for freedom of information - this is malicious in spirit and I don't believe it should be legal to do so without the consent of each of the permit holders.

 

[au01st]

Since we don't "register" guns here, and it's specifically against the law to out CCW permit holders, yup I'd be pretty ticked.

(b) The name, address, and signature collected from an applicant or licensee under this section shall be kept confidential, shall be exempt from disclosure under Section 36-12-40, and may only be used for law enforcement purposes except when a current licensee is charged in any state with a felony involving the use of a pistol. All other information on licenses under this section, including information concerning the annual number of applicants, number of licenses issued, number of licenses denied, revenue from issuance of licenses, and any other fiscal or statistical data otherwise, shall remain public writings subject to public disclosure. Except as provided above, the sheriff of a county shall redact the name, address, signature, and photograph of an applicant before releasing a copy of a license for a non-law enforcement purpose. The sheriff may charge one dollar ($1) per copy of any redacted license record requested other than when requested for law enforcement purposes. To knowingly publish or release to the public in any form any information or records related to the licensing process, or the current validity of any license, except as authorized in this subsection or in response to a court order or subpoena, is a Class A misdemeanor.

 

[brnmw]

No, I am not okay with it with it. I am a gun owner not a Pedifile!

 

[303tom]

I don`t give a damn, I have a Face Book page..............

 

[303tom]

Not true.


This is the truth:

There is simply no way for anyone to know who has a firearm in their home and who does not.


Just because a person obtained a firearms permit or a CC permit, that does not mean that person actually ever bought a firearm.
Or the person could have bought one and later sold it.
Or the person who bought that firearm may no longer reside in the home listed.
Or the person could have lost the firearm.

And only a fool would believe that there are no firearms in any home not listed.
After all, many folks inherit firearms that have never been registered and have no paper trail whatsoever.
And some folks let relatives and friends borrow a firearm for a while.
And of course criminals have homes also, and often have illegal firearms.


Bottom line is that such list are meaningless.

I like this answer...............

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Not true.

This is the truth:

There is simply no way for anyone to know who has a firearm in their home and who does not.

Just because a person obtained a firearms permit or a CC permit, that does not mean that person actually ever bought a firearm.
Or the person could have bought one and later sold it.
Or the person who bought that firearm may no longer reside in the home listed.
Or the person could have lost the firearm.

And only a fool would believe that there are no firearms in any home not listed.
After all, many folks inherit firearms that have never been registered and have no paper trail whatsoever.
And some folks let relatives and friends borrow a firearm for a while.
And of course criminals have homes also, and often have illegal firearms.

Bottom line is that such list are meaningless.

While I applaud the logical reasoning behind this, nevertheless such information is NOT meaningless.

Yes, only a fool would believe that there are no firarms in any home not listed, for many of the reasons you listed.

However, when it comes to risk mitigation and weighing the pros and cons with respect to what may be reaped at any given burglary or other criminal act, it IS valuable information.

Criminals all have a couple things in common:

1. They don't want to be caught or injured/killed during their criminal activities.

2. Whatever their chosen criminal act, they wish to reap the maximum benefits for their efforts.

Much like hackers, who concentrate far more of their hacking efforts on PCs than Macs, it's a game of numbers and opportunity. They will concentrate their efforts on targets which the information they have tells them they have a greater chance of both success and profit.

To that end, ALL information about a potential target is valuable information. Military organizations have known this very thing for thousands of years.

This means, such lists as these are NOT meaningless.

 

[Deanimator]

Would You Be OK If Your Name/Address Was Published As A Gun Owner?

Would you be ok with your home being burglarized?

 

[asia331]

I would consider such a revelation as a direct threat to my family and would aggressively respond with every legal resource available.

 

[Rich 10mm]

Bad news

It does nothing but gives criminals addresses to steal legal guns from. Which, of course, is what the liberal gun snatchers want

 

[2nd 41]

I hate to say this or even think about it but I'd have to lawyer up on that. That is endangering the people on the list. How about privacy laws...do they exist.

 

[gym]

Only bad things can come of it.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

How many people in this string have actually taken a look at their home state's laws on this particular matter?

South Carolina enacted a law in 2008 which restricts access to their list of Concealed Weapons Permit holders to law enforcement officials for official investigations or by subpoena or court order:

SLED must maintain a list of all permit holders and the current status of each permit. SLED may release the list of permit holders or verify an individual's permit status only if the request is made by a law enforcement agency to aid in an official investigation, or if the list is required to be released pursuant to a subpoena or court order. SLED may charge a fee not to exceed its costs in releasing the information under this subsection. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, a person in possession of a list of permit holders obtained from SLED must destroy the list.

Source: http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t23c031.php

(See paragraph (I) of SECTION 23-31-215. Issuance of permits in the above link.)

Here are a couple links from 2008 discussing this:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/public-barred-from-list-of-s-c-concealed-weapons-permits

http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-la...halts-access-concealed-weapons-permit-holders


What does your home state have to say about this?

 

[au01st]

I found a map of all the gun owners in my state!