# New York Newspaper Publishes Address' of Permit Holders



## Al Hansen (Sep 7, 2007)

This makes me angry.http://xfinity.comcast.net/video/Contro ... ero_sf_TIV


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

How would you feel if you lived in a area that didn't have the firearms present. It looks to me like they gave the crooks some easy places to check out.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

I agreed with everything the Brunette said.

She said the map jeopardizes the safety of the permit holders.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

I wonder if there is a lawsuit in the works? I doubt that they have the right to publish that information.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Fishrmn said:


> I wonder if there is a lawsuit in the works? I doubt that they have the right to publish that information.


Right to information act, you would be surprised at what people can find out if you name is on a government form.


----------



## huntingbuddy (Sep 10, 2007)

This makes me mad, just because this sort of thing is un-called for, what are they hoping to accomplish. All it tells people is that these people are armed. If I was a criminal I would use this list to as a list of people to avoid.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

huntingbuddy said:


> This makes me mad, just because this sort of thing is un-called for, what are they hoping to accomplish. All it tells people is that these people are armed. If I was a criminal I would use this list to as a list of people to avoid.


And a list of people to rob! :O•-:


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Idiots!


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

And another groups reaction was to publish the names and addresses of the publishing companys people.

http://christopherfountain.wordpress.co ... the-goose/


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

While I don't think this is illegal, I consider this extremely unethical. There are plenty of public records that have no business being made public for no reason. Imagine if we published other "lists" like: welfare recipients, those who declared bankruptcy, those who have been convicted of DUI, those who don't pay income tax, those on disability, etc. I think that much prudence needs to be used by those exposing records especially with maps, names, and addresses to the general public even if it is perfectly legal.

In my mind, this act illustrates the problems in society just as much as the shootings do. Apparantly, morals and ethics have become antiquated and love for one's neighbor is more often the anomoly than the rule. ---SS


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

Springville Shooter said:


> In my mind, this act illustrates the problems in society just as much as the shootings do. Apparantly, morals and ethics have become antiquated and love for one's neighbor is more often the anomoly than the rule. ---SS


The effects of publishing this list could well be *exactly* the same as a shooting.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

SS, if we published those other lists you mentioned the antis and the left would sh*t down both legs until they drowned in it.

Come to think of it, maybe those lists should be made public, might encourage a few to change their behavior for the better.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

I agree with Mojo.... perhaps you will see a few people at work, school or church bright red in the face with embarrassment. Then again maybe not. I know a lot of shameless people.

On the publication of this list.... very unethical! That paper should be ashamed and I do hope that some lawyer takes this case and runs with it. I would argue that there was malicious intent in the publication of this information.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

More names on the way....

http://news.yahoo.com/york-newspaper-li ... nance.html

Now that is dirty pool !


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

I would be pissed if I wasn't a gun owner because this disclosure has painted a "defenseless target" label on those people too. It makes no sense on many levels.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Apparently a Facebook page was set up disclosing personal information of the editors of the paper that did this and the page was removed. I am surprised to see that they are publishing even more names. I sure hope the editors learn a big lesson in this fiasco as their own confidential information is out there for all of the world to see. I discussed this with a peer of mine who supports gun control and was appalled at the idea of what this paper has done. I wonder at which point the ACLU gets involved once the tables are turned and other lists are published.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> Apparently a Facebook page was set up disclosing personal information of the editors of the paper that did this and the page was removed. I am surprised to see that they are publishing even more names. I sure hope the editors learn a big lesson in this fiasco as their own confidential information is out there for all of the world to see. I discussed this with a peer of mine who supports gun control and was appalled at the idea of what this paper has done. I wonder at which point the ACLU gets involved once the tables are turned and other lists are published.


I saw that....is Facebook run by the government?


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/340339

Now it is being reported that the New York Paper has hired armed guards to protect themselves from a perceived threat.

Ironic how they run to the firearm for protection. Where is their government protection?


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

It's always the double standard that surfaces with the libs. Notice how threats have not been made; a class act by all those gun owners. It disproves their claims that we are all of a violent and irrational nature.


----------



## huntingbuddy (Sep 10, 2007)

Found this article on KSL, I am glad to see this County Recorder is sticking up to the paper. My favorite part of the article is this one though. http://www.ksl.com/?sid=23589315&nid=15 ... id=queue-5



> The newspaper says it received threats and has posted armed guards at its offices.


I wonder if those armed guards were listed in what the paper has done? It is also interesting the double standard that they have. It is ok for them to be protected by guns but not others.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

In spite of the obvious intent of the Journal News in publishing those names, they are promoting even more gun sales. If your name is on the list, you may not have to worry much while you're home, but when you're not home, it's a good place for a thief to get one (or more), in which case you'll likely have to replace it/them. And if your name is not on the list, you now know you're vulnerable to breakins whether you're home or not and you'll now need one. So, who now is willing to get and/or renew their legal handgun permit knowing their name and address is going to be published? And then there's the issue of privacy for protection (restraining orders, battered women and children, home addresses for law inforcement officers, prosecuting attorneys, judges and their families). I, too hope they are taken to court and lose.


----------

