Newspaper Releasing Names and Addresses of CHL Holders in New York

[ZA_Survivalist]

All this is going to do is put even more stolen firearms on the street of NYC.
Buglers now know what houses will have a safe with firearms or just firearms in general.
I know no one who has JUST a pistol for CC with a CHL and not another firearm. Most everyone with a CHL is 90% likely to have at least 1-2 more firearms in the house.
Essentially what this paper has done is up the murder and crime rate with stolen firearms.
Printing the names is incredibly wrong let alone their addresses.

Hope they publish each and every employees address, color of car with license plate, where their children or nieces and nephews go to school and various other info that would be legal to post. Let them see how dangerous and uncomfortable it feels to have all your info printed for the world to see.. Deranged lunatics and criminals eat this stuff up making everyone on those lists a target.

 

[BAMCIS]

It's not about the 1st A it's about our freedoms to protect ourselves without putting a target on our backs. It's about our safety.

I've seen many posts saying the newspaper shouldn't have published this, and this is an invasion of privacy, and our 2nd amendment rights need to be respected. I'm simply saying the ENTIRE constitution should be supported and defended no matter where you happen to be in the political spectrum. Even the provisions you don't agree with.

Having said that and not wanting to highjack this thread I started another. http://www.northwestfirearms.com/le...e-should-not-arguing-against-gun-control.html

 

[WhyteCheddar]

I've seen many posts saying the newspaper shouldn't have published this, and this is an invasion of privacy, and our 2nd amendment rights need to be respected. I'm simply saying the ENTIRE constitution should be supported and defended no matter where you happen to be in the political spectrum. Even the provisions you don't agree with.

Having said that and not wanting to highjack this thread I started another. http://www.northwestfirearms.com/le...e-should-not-arguing-against-gun-control.html

This is not a 1A issue. It is a right to privacy issue.
The only way this touches on the 1A is that there are time and place limitations on it. It's the yelling fire in a crowded theatre thing.
The press has no right to expose info about you that has a negative effect on your safety.
This will end up in court and the publisher will be successfully adjudicated against.

 

[HKFooey]

The 1st grants your speech freedom from government tyranny - not public ire. Words have consequences beyond legal ramifications. Ask Michael Richard's (Kramer from Seinfeld) how asserting his 1st amendment rights worked out for him.

The media is frequently guilty of this – just because you CAN say something doesn't mean you should. Every married man on the planet knows this rule. Ever have your wife ask you "does this outfit make me look fat?" If we were honest the response would be "No, vision makes you look fat" but in the interest of avoiding a fat lip and a divorce we don't say such things

 

[trainsktg]

Nearly everyone here is concerned with the constitution. Specifically the 2nd amendment right. But what about the 1st amendment right?

Actions have consequences. The paper used their 1st Amandment right to publish these names, and others are now using their 1st Amendment right to protest that decision. Too bad, so sad for them if their names and addresses are posted in response.

Keith

 

[lamrith]

So much bravado in this thread, "Let them come, I am armed." "Now they know which homes not to rob"... Think again, some of these criminals are smart, it is why they are not in jail. We all need to think past how bad *** you are and realize you cannot and will not be home 24/7. And as good a shot as you are, the criminals will have the element of surprise on you at 3am..

Now they also know which houses to watch and rob when the tenant leaves. Nice big target on the house as having a firearm to steal and commit more crimes with....

The press has no right to expose info about you that has a negative effect on your safety.

Beyond safety it could very well cost you your job, home etc. Some people are so anti that they will do everything in their power to ruin your life once they find out you have guns. They can be just as bad as the Peta folks burning businesses and throwing paint on people..

 

[beavertonbuck]

I wonder how many of those individuals have a gun for a very specific threat? Say a woman who was in an abusive relationship or someone who has been threatened. While most people won't fall into that category there is likely a small percentage that is trying to hide from someone and having their name and address plastered on the web makes it easier to find them.

 

[Swedish K]

Yea, my dog would like a burgler burger too.

is it wrong to grill the burglar to suit your dog's taste?

 

[deen_ad]

I'm simply saying the ENTIRE constitution should be supported and defended no matter where you happen to be in the political spectrum. Even the provisions you don't agree with.

Why, our president doesn't!

 

[pokerace]

Inexplicably angry with law-abiding gun owners after the Newtown, Connecticut, school shooting, a New York newspaper decides to print the names and addresses of gun permit holders in two counties. We'd like to return the favor:

Reporter:
Dwight R Worley
23006 139 Ave
Springfield Gardens, NY 11413
718-527-0832

Journal News President:
Janet Hasson
3 Gate House Lane
Mamaroneck, NY 10534
914-694-5204

Editors:
Cyndee Royle
1133 Westchester Ave. Ste N110
White Plains, NY 10604
914-694-9300

Nancy Cutler
9 Woodwind Ln
Spring Valley, NY 10977
845-354-3485

Parent company of The Journal News (Gannett):
CEO Gracia C Martore
728 Springvale Rd
Great Falls, VA 22066
703-759-595

 

[Shaolo]

Be prepared for it happening out here in the PNW too.

Buy a gun safe.

Oregon has a law against this: <broken link removed>

<broken link removed>

 

[slingshot1943]

Kim Thatcher is responsible for this law. We owe her for making this happen, support her when you can.
The NY paper is a Gannet paper. There are Gannet papers here in Oregon, You might want to find out if you are feeding these vultures.

 

[Bam]

Nearly everyone here is concerned with the constitution. Specifically the 2nd amendment right. But what about the 1st amendment right?

I'm not saying I agree with the decision to publish this or not. They argue the 1st amendment provides the constitutional right to publish whatever they want. Then we need to come back and argue the same document that gives them the right to publish anything they want also gives citizens the right to be armed.

Before you start preaching about the constitution and the first amendment, you really need to learn the limits of it.

The First Amendment is NOT an unconditional, unrestrictive right to say whatever you want. Contrary to belief there are limits on what you can say. The First Amendment does not protect speech that is harmful. You yell fire in a crowded theater... the first amendment isn't going to save you from criminal prosecution.

The paper's actions are harmful, reckless, and negligent. They have put people's safety and lives at risk and need to be held accountable. Their gross misinterpretation of the First Amendment doesn't apply here.

The same document that gives us the right to arm ourselves, does not give them the right to publish ANYTHING they want. Nor does the Second Amendment gives us the right to own whatever firearm we want, otherwise I'd have a M249 in hand.

 

[Bruin]

check out publisher Janet Hasson nice $1.4 million house, 3 Gate House Lane, Mamaroneck, NY 10534. Phone number914) 694-5204

3 Gate House Ln, Mamaroneck, NY 10543 - Zillow

 

[ATCclears]

<broken link removed>

 

[pokerace]

<broken link removed>

looks like her facebook page has been taken down.

 

[Dave Workman]

Some thoughts on this you might consider, since I provided a link to this thread:

Grandstand journalism versus guns produces backlash

<broken link removed>

 

[Angie]

Reading the comments, I did not see ONE positive comment and I read through 3 pages of them. Even people who do not own guns were pissed. Their argument was that now criminals can wait for these people to leave and burglarize their homes. Also that maybe a woman has a restraining order against her ex and now he can find out where she lives. It also shows who doesn't have a gun in their home for potential burglaries/home invasions/violence. I hope they lose a lot of subscriptions over this and go bankrupt.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

I have brought the conversation about this to a screeching halt on the Washington Post opinion site.

 

[Shaolo]

Link?