The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 28, 2012, 04:16 AM   #26
tipoc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 11, 2004
Location: Redwood City, Ca.
Posts: 2,505
First off what the Journal News did was wrong and unexcusable. Second, it's useful to look at exactly what they did closely.

They say:

Quote:
The map indicates the addresses of all pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties. Each dot represents an individual permit holder licensed to own a handgun — a pistol or revolver. The data does not include owners of long guns — rifles or shotguns — which can be purchased without a permit. Being included in this map does not mean the individual at a specific location owns a weapon, just that they are licensed to do so.
So someone at the address at one time or the other had or has a permit for a handgun. The paper pretends to publish this info as a "public service". The information, they say is a matter of public record.

A good deal of things are public record. The cost of your home, how many children you have, are you married or divorced, arrest records, etc. Why not publish all of this at random? Because it's an invasion of privacy on such a scale that it becomes a threat, an invitation to stalking or worse. It's a transparent attempt to paint the owners of guns as threats for no other reason then that they own them.

It's an attempt to intimidate gunowners and their families. To make them pariahs. Social untouchables. It's part of an effort to create a climate of fear among gun owners and among those who are anti gun, neutral or ignorant on the matter of the 2nd Amendment and the Bill of Rights. If all gun owners are potential killers of children and potential purveyors of mayhem then it's in the interests of society to keep them on a tight leash ain't it?

Feinsteins's latest proposal would make it retroactive that owners of AR type guns bought after the "Assault Weapons Ban" would have to fess up that they owned such weapons and register as the owners of such, along with any future owners. It would become a matter of public record. Law enforcement would have that list. So could the media obtain it.

Millions of Americans grow up worried, afraid really, that their names will get on a FBI or government list somewhere. That it could effect your job, if you get a bank loan, your family somehow. There is a long history of the Feds using such information against people, particularly those with minority opinions. This action by the Journal News shows there is reason to fear and promotes that fear.

The more power cops and the politicians that back them are given the more they want. It always happens that way. Let me see your papers please! Stop and Frisk, etc.

Also it's inexcusable to publish the home addresses, etc. of the folks who work for that newspaper! It's wrong and a violation of their rights as well.

There is much more than the 2nd Amendment at stake here.

tipoc

Last edited by tipoc; December 28, 2012 at 04:21 AM.
tipoc is offline  
Old December 28, 2012, 08:18 AM   #27
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
On Wed morning I believe, I watched the broadcast news morning shows, to see what the tone of the MSM was on guns.

On CBS they basically condemned the action of publishing the addresses. They had a current, or former, I can't remember which, assistant NYPD Chief, he made the point that 40% of the published list are current and former NYPD officers. And of course the points were made about burglary.

It would be something indeed, if the next school shooter steals his neighbor's gun, while they're on vacation, because he knew they had one from the list. They didn't raise that possibility on the TV, but the Chief made the point, that the most likely would be burglars, would be people who lived in the same neighborhood and knew their neighbors were gone.

I know I find this sort of thing despicable myself, especially from the same kinds of people that are probably against a sex offender registry. Oh no, the poor little child molesters have rights, lawful gun owners on the other hand are potential child killers, it their twisted view.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
(>_<)
nate45 is offline  
Old December 29, 2012, 09:34 AM   #28
Cascade1911
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2011
Location: Dutchess County, NY
Posts: 450
I tried checking this AM to see if the map was still up. Yep it's still up. I also found that The Journal News is running a pole entitled "Weigh in on gun legislation in New York state" which asks the question :
Quote:
State Sen. Greg Ball has proposed legislation that would bar the public from learning who the gun permit holders are in their communities. Good idea?
I find it interesting that 89.12% (172 out of 193 votes cast) have voted yes.
Cascade1911 is offline  
Old December 29, 2012, 10:06 AM   #29
Xfire68
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2010
Location: Communist State of IL.
Posts: 1,428
The Anti's are crying out that gun owners need to better secure our guns from people that might want to steal them to do criminal acts and then they do things in which makes it easier for those same criminals to find these guns??

What a smart group! Sarcastic
__________________
NRA Life Member, SAF Member

www.aac300blackoutbrass.com A Veteran owned Business.
Xfire68 is offline  
Old December 29, 2012, 10:08 AM   #30
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
This this thread is an embarrassment I think.

The real issue here is that many women who are in fear for their lives from stalkers, former family members, people from former relationships arm themselves as the police can not protect them. They then go to great lengths to hide their current address. This publication has pointed out where they live opening the door for stalkers to find them.

The stalkers are violently unpredictable as noted by the Gloucester shooting the other day and the sea of violent crime against women that follows them everywhere. The real issue here is telling violently unstable members of society where their potential victims are hiding.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 11:36 AM   #31
Dan F
Member
 
Join Date: July 13, 2011
Location: MD *gah*
Posts: 54
I read the article that was linked to the map. Follow it if you wish, but be prepared to have your mind boggled (http://lohud.us/W1Ybx8). Mine certainly was.

In an article that was trying to defend the publication of the map as “the public has a right to know where the guns are”, they led with a tragedy about an insane old man shooting a neighbor in the head.

“What was equally shocking for some was the revelation that the mentally disturbed 77-year-old man had amassed a cache of weapons — including two unregistered handguns and a large amount of ammunition — without any neighbors knowing.”

Yes, that’s correct... it’s important to publish where the LEGALLY HELD weapons are, so we will be safer from the UNREGISTERED ones. They even had the following quote: “Would I have bought this house knowing somebody (close by) had an arsenal of weapons? No, I would not have.”

Un-beeee-leivable.

The neighbor to whom the quote was attributed wanted to remain anonymous “because it’s not known whether the gunman... will return home or be sent to prison.”

Soooooo... let me get this straight. This guy is too scared to let his name appear in an article about the story, because he doesn’t know if a lunatic that just attempted murder and has unregistered weapons may just be sent home, feels that the solution to this situation is to publish a map of registered gun owners.

Oh my. I don’t know what else to say.
Dan F is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 11:43 AM   #32
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,945
This isn't a new tactic. Newspapers in Indiana and Illinois have done the same thing by publishing the names and addresses of License to Carry a Handgun and FOID card holders respectively. In both cases, they were dealt with through new state laws making such information no longer public record. I suspect that, given the public outcry over such practices in NY (last I saw 89% of people disapproved), I predict that it will be dealt with in a similar manner as it was in IN and IL.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 07:53 PM   #33
Warrior1256
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 11, 2012
Location: Louisville, Ky.
Posts: 156
Nothing new. The liberal media is ALWAYS trying to intimidate lawful gunowners. I simply refuse to be intimidated and fight back in every way that I can.
Warrior1256 is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 11:02 AM   #34
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,843
Sigh - please drop the liberal media phraseology. HOW many times must we say that. Given significant numbers of folks who are liberal support gun rights, blanket statements serve no one.

Then a thread gets diverted into a I'm liberal who likes guns vs. I demand conservative ideological purity to be part of the gun club.

We DON'T do that. Take the hint or begone.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 11:18 AM   #35
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeblyMKV
Newspapers in Indiana and Illinois have done the same thing by publishing the names and addresses of License to Carry a Handgun and FOID card holders respectively. In both cases, they were dealt with through new state laws making such information no longer public record.
Ohio had the same problem. Journalists opposed to the new concealed carry law were entitled to have the full roster of concealed carry permits printed by each sheriff and provided to the journalists.

After this abuse continued for a couple of years, Ohio left information the public record, i.e. anyone is entitled to view it, but any of the copying of the information needed to be performed manually. This minor obstacle appears to have curbed the abuse.

Last edited by zukiphile; December 31, 2012 at 11:43 AM.
zukiphile is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 11:26 AM   #36
Mr.Bluster
Member
 
Join Date: April 24, 2011
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 28
Impossible in Wisconsin. Our concealed carry law expressly confirms confidentiality of permit holders.
Mr.Bluster is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 11:55 AM   #37
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 7,109
Quote:
After this abuse continued for a couple of years, Ohio left information the public record, i.e. anyone is entitled to view it, but any of the copying of the information needed to be performed manually. This minor obstacle appears to have curbed the abuse.
So ..... only a really dedicated, or well funded, or both ..... organization can pull this crap in Ohio. I have a feeling that such is going on right now .... the scribes are just not finished with the list yet......
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 12:25 PM   #38
iraiam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2012
Location: Lakewood, CO
Posts: 875
They did this briefly in Colorado to CCW holders, it was viewed as an abuse, the legislature acted and now only law enforcement has access to the list of CCW holders
__________________
NRA Lifetime Member Since 1999

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." George Mason
iraiam is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 01:03 PM   #39
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,215
It really has little to do with "liberal" and "conservative", or D vs R. It's really a class issue. The political elite and the self-proclaimed intellectuals don't want the Hoi polloi to have the any means of resistance. Even if they are not exploiting the underclasses, they reserve the right to do so.

I think that's another reason the constitution (Article I, Section 9) prohibits titles of nobility.
__________________
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun"
zxcvbob is offline  
Old January 1, 2013, 07:20 PM   #40
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
Journal News Hires Armed Guards

Well, well, well looky here. Hypocrisy so thick you can cut it with a knife.

The Journal News of West Nyack, N.Y., has hired armed security guards to defend its offices after receiving a torrent of phone calls and emails responding to the paper's publication of the names and addresses of area residents with pistol permits.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/...ds-153103.html

No threats, or anything illegal transpired. The staff of the Journal News was merely alarmed by the negative response they received.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
(>_<)
nate45 is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 03:02 AM   #41
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 1,688
It was pointed out in another forum that the New York Times itself during the Civil War Riots mounted Gattling guns on their building.

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/i.../t-377666.html

http://www.nytco.com/company/milesto...line_1851.html

http://www.bwefirearms.com/gatling.pdf

Maybe we should do a recap of anti-gun hypocrisy...I'd toss out Carl Rowan's name (Washington Post columnist)... he shot someone on his property with an unregister firearm in Washington DC in 1998. Charged but never convicted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Ro...ol_Controversy
DaleA is offline  
Old January 3, 2013, 06:24 PM   #42
RLM870
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2013
Posts: 5
Hello everyone.....

This is my first and surely not my last post to the forum.

I've been living in Rockland County all my life and have been a CCW license holder for 30 of those years.

Yes....I found myself on that list and am not very happy with the Journal News doing so

That being said, I have already sent letters to the Rockland and Westchester County Editors, and copying the Districts NYS Senators, US Congressman and US Senators voicing my true dissapointment and outrage for what they have done to me, my family and fellow Hudson Valley comrades.....

Credit is due to Robert Cox, who's blog "Talk of the Sound" (see attached link)...has shown great support for the injustice that was done....

http://www.newrochelletalk.com/conte...r-neighborhood

As my Father (RIP) used to tell me "The pen is mightier than the sword, and if that does not work, hurt them in the wallet".

Its now time to Boycott the Journal News and its Advertisers.....

Sent from my iPad2 using Tapatalk HD
RLM870 is offline  
Old January 3, 2013, 07:51 PM   #43
Kreyzhorse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2006
Location: NKY
Posts: 11,518
Quote:
Its now time to Boycott the Journal News and its Advertisers.....
And don't forget Gannett, their parent company. Additionally, and more importantly, boycott those that advertise with Gannett including Target, Best Buy, CVS and Ikea just to name a few. Those are the wallets that you really want to hit. Me dropping a subscription to a Gannett paper means nothing,lie ing dropped by Target might get their attention.
__________________
"He who laughs last, laughs dead." Homer Simpson
Kreyzhorse is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 12:47 AM   #44
doofus47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 1,353
Sigh. I was reading the local paper today that reprinted an editorial from the LAtimes concerning this issue. The LA times position was that gun owners taking offense at this were being sensitive, b/c the paper was only quoting public documents.

And I got to thinking... Do you suppose the editorial writer would be so sanguine if the published list were for the home addresses of married same sex couples or married inter-racial couples or just people with the last name "Doofusski"? I think not.

It's a crazy world. Why do people go so far out of their own way to make the lives of others more difficult?
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time.
doofus47 is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 01:01 AM   #45
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
Because they hate their own lives, and thus the responsibility of defending it. Any man who denies another a right often does not believe he can handle that same right.
__________________
I told the new me,
"Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'"
But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back."
Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor
Dr Big Bird PhD is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 09:44 AM   #46
USA SHARK
Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Posts: 37
I have a different view on what is happening here. While I think this was wrong from a moral issue (I've never known any media outlet to think about morality first), I think they are pressing this to make an example. They are "flaunting" their 1st Amendment right in this fight about the 2nd Amendment.

Right or wrong, what they published is public information and the 1st Amendment allows them to print it. I don't agree that they should have done it, but they also don't agree that I should own a gun. It's a "tit for tat". We are screaming about exercising and protecting our 2nd Amendment rights, while saying they shouldn't be able to exercise their 1st Amendment right. They are probably loving the irony of it all, even though it is perceived as being such a negative thing that they have done.

In the media, there is a belief that bad press is better than no press. I think they are all smiling right now with all of the publicity this has raised.

I have to say that I hate the USA that we live in today, in so many different ways. It's a shame where we are headed and I am concerned about my kids quality of life, and not just from a monetary standpoint......
USA SHARK is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 11:38 AM   #47
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,829
Quote:
Right or wrong, what they published is public information and the 1st Amendment allows them to print it. I don't agree that they should have done it, but they also don't agree that I should own a gun. It's a "tit for tat". We are screaming about exercising and protecting our 2nd Amendment rights, while saying they shouldn't be able to exercise their 1st Amendment right. They are probably loving the irony of it all, even though it is perceived as being such a negative thing that they have done.

In the media, there is a belief that bad press is better than no press. I think they are all smiling right now with all of the publicity this has raised.
I'm sure some of them are smiling, because publicity = profits in their business. However, I think you missed a piont or two.

We are "screaming" about our right to arms, because we are responsible gun owners. We despise misuse, or deliberate evil use of arms. We aren't denying them their First Amendment right to free speech, we are decrying their irresponsable use of it.

They have a right to their own opinions, and a right to write about them. But what they are doing in this case is the moral equivalent of standing in the crowd at the stake, shouting "BURN THE WITCH!!!"

Also note that they did not publish a list of all gun owners, only permit holders. No doubt because it was the only information they could get, but still, it is not a list of those peole who are exercising their right to own a gun, but a list of those who have obtained permission from the govt to own a handgun.

Would it be ethical for us to publish a list (and a MAP!!!) of the names and homes of the editors and every member of the paper's board of directors?

After all, we have the same First Amendment rights as they do....

and before you jump in, no, it would not be ethical...but it would be emotionally gratifying...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 12:07 PM   #48
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Besides, it's already been done.

I think the question raised by others about, "Would you have done this with a list of same-sex married couples?" should actually be asked of one or two of those editors and reporters.

I would be very curious to hear their answers.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 12:25 PM   #49
Maxb49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
The reprehensible actions of the newspaper are instructive as to how each of our civil liberties - our Constitutional rights - are inextricably tied together. In an attempt to intimidate lawful United States citizens from exercising their Constitutional right to own a firearm, the newspaper and the state invaded the privacy rights of these Americans. Privacy is the foundation of personal autonomy, and we are in a lot of trouble until we demand that ALL of our Constitutional rights are respected. Europe has been on a downward spiral in inhibiting the privacy rights of Europeans (including Switzerland, which many gun owners mistakenly treat as a bastion of liberty, which is not). Do we really want to turn into a European cesspool?

EDIT: For those who are concerned that every record held by the government is subject to FOIA or NYS FOIL laws, this is not true. The state and courts have long held privacy exceptions to the freedom of information laws. Ex., your tax returns are not subject to public disclosure.
Maxb49 is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 12:51 PM   #50
USA SHARK
Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Posts: 37
AMP
With all due respect, I think you missed my point. First, I'm on your side. I agree with you. I didn't mean the word "screaming" as a negative to what we are doing. I am "screaming" because I am infuriated with what is going on! I've never been so involved, written so many letters to the Congress, Senate and White House. I don't see this as merely Gun Control, I see it as Government Control. All of our rights must be protected!

What I am saying is that they are using their 1st Amendment right to public knowledge and speech. Basically they are saying "how can you say we can't do that? It's our right under the 1st Amendment, and if you say we can't do it, then we can say you can't have guns.

It is immoral, and I wouldn't stoop to that level even if I had public information. But I am confident they are using the 1st Amendment to defend what they are doing, and how can we fight that when we are saying we need to protect our rights under the Constitution?
USA SHARK is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13657 seconds with 7 queries