New York newspaper to list more gun permit holders after uproar

A suburban New York newspaper that sparked an uproar among gun enthusiasts by publishing names and addresses of residents holding pistol permits is now planning to publish even more identities of permit-toting locals.

[tar and feathers]

While free speech is important this is an invasion of privacy. These are lawful pistol owners of which very few commit crimes. The percentage of pistol permit holders that commit crimes is way under 1% so to publish their names & addresses is beyond the scope of free speech. Said publisher should be treated to a bath in a roofer's kettle full of hot tar and liberally covered with feathers for being such a douchebag.

[Tory II]

Publish the editors' names, addresses, kids, their schools, online. It will make all of us more safe - do it for your kids.

[Get Out]

Tory II wrote:

Publish the editors' names, addresses, kids, their schools, online. It will make all of us more safe - do it for your kids.

Someone did and I’ll bet all of my guns they didn’t like it.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/27/us/new-york-gun...
New York (CNN)-- A blogger has posted the home addresses of staffers from a newspaper after the paper published an online, interactive map showing names and addresses of all handgun permit-holders in New York's Westchester and Rockland counties.
Christopher Fountain, who is also a gun owner, spoke to CNN's "Starting Point with Soledad O'Brien" on Thursday to explain his reasoning behind the posting. "I felt they were using this to harass gun owners," Fountain said of the newspaper's staff. "So I harassed them back."
Fountain posted the name, home address and phone numbers of the Journal News' publisher, editor, visual editor and several other staff members. Fountain told CNN's "Early Start" that he was offended by the newspaper's actions and "wondered how they would like it if their addresses were published."

[Tory II]

Get Out wrote:

<quoted text>Someone did and I’ll bet all of my guns they didn’t like it.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/27/us/new-york-gun...
New York (CNN)-- A blogger has posted the home addresses of staffers from a newspaper after the paper published an online, interactive map showing names and addresses of all handgun permit-holders in New York's Westchester and Rockland counties.
Christopher Fountain, who is also a gun owner, spoke to CNN's "Starting Point with Soledad O'Brien" on Thursday to explain his reasoning behind the posting. "I felt they were using this to harass gun owners," Fountain said of the newspaper's staff. "So I harassed them back."
Fountain posted the name, home address and phone numbers of the Journal News' publisher, editor, visual editor and several other staff members. Fountain told CNN's "Early Start" that he was offended by the newspaper's actions and "wondered how they would like it if their addresses were published."

I read the article, but where is the post of the personal info ????

[Tory II]

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/imp...

[Have Seen It Before]

tar and feathers wrote:

While free speech is important this is an invasion of privacy. These are lawful pistol owners of which very few commit crimes. The percentage of pistol permit holders that commit crimes is way under 1% so to publish their names & addresses is beyond the scope of free speech. Said publisher should be treated to a bath in a roofer's kettle full of hot tar and liberally covered with feathers for being such a douchebag.

That sounds reasonable to me. The paper should be ashamed of itself for doing something like that to law abiding citizens. Exposing criminals is one thing but doing something like this to honest people is just plain wrong.

[Richard_]

Chances are, most of the permit holders were aldermen, retired police and fire, people affiliated with being in government jobs locally. Which means the permits for the gun possession privilege are not really amendment II material, more of a infringement and government corruption material.

[Richard_]

Have Seen It Before wrote:

<quoted text>That sounds reasonable to me. The paper should be ashamed of itself for doing something like that to law abiding citizens.

There's no citizenship requirement, nor is there a "law abiding test" required in order for a person to enjoy their right to bear arms in the US. When it comes to citizenship, that's voting rights, not the right to bear arms. Maybe you should actually read the amendment II before running off at the mouthsky?

[Have Seen It Before]

Richard_ wrote:

<quoted text>There's no citizenship requirement, nor is there a "law abiding test" required in order for a person to enjoy their right to bear arms in the US. When it comes to citizenship, that's voting rights, not the right to bear arms. Maybe you should actually read the amendment II before running off at the mouthsky?

Dry up and blow away. In New York to even own a handgun you have to have an issued permit. The paper publishing the names of permit holders is an invasion of privacy.

[Johnny Yuma]

Resist! Arm yourselves with the truth. Tons of it here in actual documents uploaded.

http://assaultweaponsbanof2013.blogspot.com

[lady]

Tory II wrote:

<quoted text>I read the article, but where is the post of the personal info ????

http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/2012... -

[Tray]

I am a CCW gun owner but truthfully I would rather carry open. I am a law abiding citizen and have nothing to hide but the government wants me to hide my gun so not to scare the sheep so I do. Open carry allows a much better choice of guns to carry instead I must reduce the size of the gun to keep it out of sight. The freedom of the press is the right to publish public information and like it or not it is necessary. ALL my neighbors know I carry I've personally made them aware I don't need the press to do it for me. Hell you can read the sign in my front yard. It's time gun owners stop being in the closet and be proud to exercise their rights. I own guns and damm proud of it. Tell the criminals, YES I have a gun and your activity is not welcome here.

[Tory II]

Tray wrote:

I am a CCW gun owner but truthfully I would rather carry open. I am a law abiding citizen and have nothing to hide but the government wants me to hide my gun so not to scare the sheep so I do. Open carry allows a much better choice of guns to carry instead I must reduce the size of the gun to keep it out of sight. The freedom of the press is the right to publish public information and like it or not it is necessary. ALL my neighbors know I carry I've personally made them aware I don't need the press to do it for me. Hell you can read the sign in my front yard. It's time gun owners stop being in the closet and be proud to exercise their rights. I own guns and damm proud of it. Tell the criminals, YES I have a gun and your activity is not welcome here.

Go fk yourself, gun nazi.

[eternal cynic]

Tory II wrote:

<quoted text>Go fk yourself, gun nazi.

When was the last time you carried a loaded firearm in public?

[Tray]

Tory II wrote:

<quoted text>Go fk yourself, gun nazi.

Are you ashamed to own a gun? Does it bother you for the criminals to know you will cap them if they attack you? You want to do something then get rid of the law requiring government permission to carry in the first place then it wouldn't be public information.

[Richard_]

Have Seen It Before wrote:

<quoted text>Dry up and blow away. In New York to even own a handgun you have to have an issued permit. The paper publishing the names of permit holders is an invasion of privacy.

1. those are government permits, the public has right to see them, transparency in government. All the more reason to argue that concealed carry privileges not be regulated by state permits.

2. according to most interviews that I've heard regarding this subject, most of the permit holders were retired cops of New York relation, which means that the average joe blow is being denied permits for handguns and ccw licensure...it's pure "Animal Farm".

[Richard_]

Tray wrote:

I am a CCW gun owner...

What does that statement mean, actually?

[NOTthechildren]

tar and feathers wrote:

While free speech is important this is an invasion of privacy. These are lawful pistol owners of which very few commit crimes. The percentage of pistol permit holders that commit crimes is way under 1% so to publish their names & addresses is beyond the scope of free speech. Said publisher should be treated to a bath in a roofer's kettle full of hot tar and liberally covered with feathers for being such a douchebag.

Free speech is important but it has limitations. Free speech doesn't mean you can yell fire in a crowded theatre. Publishing private information for the heck of it is similar to yelling fire in a crowded theatre. Both are safety issues.

Random publishing what should be private information is more than the security of the gun. It is the security or privacy of the owner. Most states have limits on information they give out to non law enforcement. After 9-11 many states beefed up the scrutiny of their release of public information by doing things like withholding social security numbers and birth dates to non law enforcement to protect the owners privacy.

New York felt it important enough to protect a person's social security number they passed a law to protect it.

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/43636/Da...

Owners gun information can be just as dangerous as a social security number in the wrong hands. How come stuff like gun ownership and permits are not protected in NY.

This paper is trying to make themselves a martyr for their agenda. agenda.

[Have Seen It Before]

Richard_ wrote:

<quoted text>
1. those are government permits, the public has right to see them, transparency in government. All the more reason to argue that concealed carry privileges not be regulated by state permits.
2. according to most interviews that I've heard regarding this subject, most of the permit holders were retired cops of New York relation, which means that the average joe blow is being denied permits for handguns and ccw licensure...it's pure "Animal Farm".

So if you have the Clap and the health department has it on record your name should be in the paper for being a health risk? You might harm someone with your rotten whanger....

[Tray]

Richard_ wrote:

<quoted text>What does that statement mean, actually?

It means I'm armed. Each state has it's own term. I would still be armed even without the stupid state permission. I carried long before any of this permission crap started and have no intention of stopping now. The only advantage to the permit crap is with the numbers increasing daily the government might think citizens are serious about gun rights.