Other State Journalists collecting names of CCW holders

[ActionHero1980]

https://www.facebook.com/1295270300525159/posts/2883411825044324

Apparently the Sutter County Sheriff's office is posting this on social media.

San Francisco Chronical is collecting names of California CCW permit holders.

Read More

 

[JeremyK]

Well, it's gonna be a short frikkin list.

 

[nammac]

Another attack on Constitutional Rights. If every state we're a constitutional crafty state, there's be none of this nonsense...

 

[mortar maggot]

Print the names of all the journalist.

 

[NW Backpacker]

Print the names of all the journalist.

^^^
This, with addresses.

Write the Sheriff, and remind him that he does not have to release anything until the US Supreme Court says he has to. Remind him that if any harm occurs as a result of releasing personally identifiable information his office will be liable. If he does release information it should be falsified or redacted so no individual is identifiable. Email him here:

Sutter County Sheriff - Contact Us

Sutter County Sheriff's Office contact page.

www.suttersheriff.org

 

[Jonnyuma]

I've tried but can't come up with a legitimate reason as to why the Chronicle would want this info or how they'd use it.

I can think of several disgusting ways to use it.

 

[Hueco]

I've tried but can't come up with a legitimate reason as to why the Chronicle would want this info or how they'd use it.

I can think of several disgusting ways to use it.

Same.

If they wanted to write about the number of CCW's, they could simply ask for the number. I see no reason for a journalist to have the names of everyone who has a CCW except to draw the line from that to 'gun owner' and to publish their names for nefarious reasons.

Even releasing the names of people will put a target on their backs - thieves won't have to do much to figure out where to rob, considering that deeds to a house are public record.

I see no reason for this information to be released at all, but if it comes back to being forced to release, then names should be redacted. Let the journalist have the permit # and expiration date, sure...but names? No.

 

[bbbass]

I've tried but can't come up with a legitimate reason as to why the Chronicle would want this info or how they'd use it.

I can think of several disgusting ways to use it.

Remember in the Eastern U.S. when the paper released the names of those that were licensed to have firearms??? Early Doxxing. Can't remember whether it was NJ or NY but I think it was NY, maybe Long Island.

 

[Boss]

Hey, they're going to just publish the info...if someone gets fired by their employer or targeted by criminals... Not their fault *shrug*. Freedom of the press and all.

Wonder if that paper has any ties to a certain very wealthy candidate?

Boss

 

[WillametteWill]

So I'm thinking the Sheriff could require the person making the request to provide all of their personal information, thus making it subject to FOIA request. Everyone at the paper who would have access to the information would need to provide all of their personal data as well, which would them become public record.

 

[User 1234]

The chitty part is that the Sheriff released the info before notifying the permit holders and giving them a chance to object or ask a court to intervene.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Thinking outside the box, I wonder WHO owns this fish wrapper? That info would be quite handy in learning the intent of the "News Paper" and it's designs! I'm guessing it's to "Pass on" said information to those with nefarious intentions to deny ones rights at a later date!

 

[titsonritz]

Doxxing is a two edge sword, it can cut both directions.

 

[Caveman Jim]

So I'm thinking the Sheriff could require the person making the request to provide all of their personal information, thus making it subject to FOIA request. Everyone at the paper who would have access to the information would need to provide all of their personal data as well, which would them become public record.

Damn right, make them BGC's for everyone...

 

[OldTengu]

Will people ever figure out that we don't just carry to protect ourselves?
It's for the protection of those around us as well.
All the money I spend on ammo and licensure and training does make me feel safer, but, contrary to lefty belief, doesn't make me feel like I have a big peepee.
Edit: it also doesn't mean that I'm a danger to the general public.

 

[CountryGent]

There is a reason why many polls show that the American people have lost trust in journalists. The cockroach behind this is a good example of why.

 

[Jonnyuma]

Remember in the Eastern U.S. when the paper released the names of those that were licensed to have firearms??? Early Doxxing. Can't remember whether it was NJ or NY but I think it was NY, maybe Long Island.

I remember it but not exactly where it happened.
The paper came up with the line that citizens deserved to know who the gun owners living in their communities are.

I would happily call that person a liar to their face.

You calling me a liar?

Yes. You are a liar! A lying liar who LIES.

What are you trying to say... ?

That you're a chickensh*t liar

 

[Ura-Ki]

The general population has no business knowing sh!t about anyone who carries a gun, and last I checked, we still had privacy laws!

And who daphuck do they think they are to spread this information for the greater good!

 

[BPOR11]

The boldness is getting out of hand.

Either these people don't know what happens when you swat a hornets nest, or they think that this time they really got it.

I'll be dipped if I know which one it is...

 

[ACO]

Pretty sure something like this happened in WA within the last 3 years. Got shut down though.