They paper publishes the information they maintain as a public service so that one's neighbors can know who near them has a permit to have a gun. Why? The implication and the meaning from the papers articles are clear... they believe the owner of a legal firearm is a possible threat to others. Or at least they want their readers to think so.
It's part of creating a hysteria (also maybe readership) it's also a very real threat.
The argument that the public has "a right to know" and that "full disclosure" and "transparency" are useful and progressive things for the people as a whole is wrong. In some cases yes but not in all cases and not in this one.
Publishing the names of permit holders implies that these people are a threat in some way to the broader community. But there is no history of that. The holders of these permits have broken no laws, to the contrary. So why in effect accuse them of being a threat.
It holds the permit holders up to threats of violence, chastisement, ostracism, possible trouble at their work or school, possibly danger and more. Publishing the names and home addresses of police officers, witnesses to crimes etc. is never a good idea and that is what has been done here.
All for no valid legal reason.
Legally it can be stopped by a court injunction.