Media Intimidation of Lawful Firearm Owners

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/index.php/t-377666.html

http://www.nytco.com/company/milestones/timeline_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_Rowan#Gun_Control_Controversy
 
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/content/map-where-are-journal-news-employees-your-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
 
Its now time to Boycott the Journal News and its Advertisers.....
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
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 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...... :(
 
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.
Click to expand...

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...:rolleyes:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
You know what's really frightening? The subject of today's letters to the editor in the New York Times is whether or not the Constitution as a whole should be abolished. :(
 
They are using 1st Amendment rights, and that's well and good as far as it goes.

However, they are not the only ones who can use 1st Amendment rights, and nowhere does the Constitution guarantee that any words or actions can't have consequences.

In other words, they are free to say what they want, and be free of government interference (for the most part) and retribution. But they are not insulated against private responses, or economic backlash.

Turnabout is fair game.
 
Here a point, the hipocracy of the paper...what they did, we consider reckless, irresponsible, and putting people in danger (and the list/map cuts both ways, it shows who has permits, and who doesn't). And they are saying "we have a First Amendment right to do this!" And, they are correct, the do have the right.

However, we are not saying they have to be shut down. We are not saying they have to be banned. All we want is them to be responsible. All our rights have limitations, which we, as responsible people recognize.

Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, etc....

But the media is not saying we need to be responsible, they are saying we need to be abolished. No guns. No gun owners. Guns are bad. They hurt people.

Well, when someone gets killed, because a thief/rapist/what have you broke into their home, instead of one on the map, where he had been told there was a permitted handgun, then isn't the paper just as responsible? Should we then cry for newspapers to be banned? Or, just restricted in what they can print?

They have a right to what they are doing. They have a responsibility to do no harm. We have a right to what we are doing. And we have great responsibility. IF it is the correct thing to take away our rights because some individual was grossly irresponsible, then it is the correct thing to take their rights also.

"Hey, you can't compare mass murder to a newpaper story!!!"

Can't you? Harm is harm. What varies is the degree. IF the principle is valid, then it is valid. If it isn't, then shut the hell up about banning guns!
:mad:
 
They paper publishes the information they maintain as a public service so that one's neighbors can know who near them has a permit to have a gun. Why? The implication and the meaning from the papers articles are clear... they believe the owner of a legal firearm is a possible threat to others. Or at least they want their readers to think so.

It's part of creating a hysteria (also maybe readership) it's also a very real threat.

The argument that the public has "a right to know" and that "full disclosure" and "transparency" are useful and progressive things for the people as a whole is wrong. In some cases yes but not in all cases and not in this one.

Publishing the names of permit holders implies that these people are a threat in some way to the broader community. But there is no history of that. The holders of these permits have broken no laws, to the contrary. So why in effect accuse them of being a threat.

It holds the permit holders up to threats of violence, chastisement, ostracism, possible trouble at their work or school, possibly danger and more. Publishing the names and home addresses of police officers, witnesses to crimes etc. is never a good idea and that is what has been done here.
All for no valid legal reason.

Legally it can be stopped by a court injunction.

tipoc
 
My rights end when they infringe on yours. Your rights end when they infringe on mine. (credit not taken & don't know who to give it to)
 
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.
Click to expand...
The papers would print the names and addresses of reporters, editor, janitors even - plus throw in home phone and personal cell numbers - in a heartbeat....

If they thought for one second it would sell more papers, which in turn would mean selling more advertising space.

"Responsible" journalism died a quick death at the hands of Hearst when propaganda displaced journalism.
Most people know about Hearst and the Spanish American War - but - not too many know about Hearst and Annie Oakley.

Today, with newspapers poised on becoming as scarse as record stores, the papers will do anything they can to survive..
 
Good post about Hearst, Hal. "Give me the pictures and I'll give you the war!"

Check out this article, inmates are using the list to threaten prison guards.


Journal News gun permit map endangers officers, officials say
Click to expand...

Inmates at the Rockland County jail are taunting corrections officers by saying they know the guards' home addresses -- information they got from the list published by Westchester-based newspaper, Rockland County Sheriff Louis Falco said.
Click to expand...

http://newyork.newsday.com/news/nat...ap-endangers-officers-officials-say-1.4407323
 
From the article linked by pnac:

Legis. Aron Wieder (D-Spring Valley) called the publication of the list "irresponsible journalism" and said he now fears for his safety because the map broadcast that he does not have a gun license. At the news conference Friday morning, he handed a $150 certified check and a completed pistol permit application to Rockland County Clerk Paul Piperato.
"I never owned a gun but now I have no choice," Wieder said. "I have been exposed as someone that has no gun. And I'll do anything, anything to protect my family."
Click to expand...

I kind of enjoyed that one, as well as the complaints by the prison guards, sheriffs, and PBA.

Nothing against the COs or LEOs, and in fact I do not support publishing their personal info, but it did provide irony in the sense that I don't think the paper had thought it through, at all. So I don't enjoy the CO/LEO predicament, but do enjoy the consternation this must be causing newspapers nationwide that had not considered this aspect of such lists.

I did not enjoy this lady's predicament, but this should have been forseeable; we predicted this exact scenario in our previous TFL commentary:

Orangetown resident Charlotte Swift, 55, handed out lists of the newspaper's employees linked to the article, with their home addresses and phone numbers, as well as local politicians who can have an influence on the bill in Albany.
Swift said she has owned a gun for more than 20 years and her name is on the published list.
"When I saw the list, I had an immediate flood of emotions that I cannot even describe to you," said Swift. "I originally obtained a gun permit because I had previously been married to a man who attempted to strangle me . . . The first emotion I felt was, 'Oh my gosh, he can find me.'"
She also feared burglars might break into her own home and those of her neighbors who do not have guns.
"It clearly had no journalistic purpose," Swift said of the database. "In my mind, I felt intimidated, I felt threatened by them . . . and regardless of what The Journal News intended, what was their purpose in publishing it? It really didn't give any information to people that help them in their everyday lives."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Just as an update, the Putnam County (borders on Westchester County where information was released) County Clerk has refused to release the pistol permit information to The Journal News. Will be interesting to see where that leads.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/01/03/putnam-county-wont-give-gun-info-to-paper/

On a different note, I'm a little surprised The Journal News's sister Gannett publication the Poughkeepsie Journal has been fairly quiet. I've not heard of any requests being made for the Dutchess County pistol permit records.


(Edit, added link)
 
Last edited:
It would be nice if some sort of class-action suit could be brought by the afflicted against the newspaper for essentially making criminals out of law-abiding citizens; after all, these people do not fall under the "public figure" doctrine (if that would apply). Just my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top