Bloomington Newspaper Disclosures

[Titanium Man]

This comes directly from the NRA's/ILA

This is also noted in the politics section but everyone needs to be aware of this. This stuff hits close to home and our newspapers could be next.

Bloomington, Indiana Herald-Times Treats Law-Abiding Gun Owners like Registered Sex Offenders!

Please Contact the Bloomington Herald-Times!​

On November 30, 2009, the Bloomington Herald-Times made the following announcement:
“This week, HeraldTimesOnline.com will launch its new gun permit database. You’ll be able to search gun permit records by county, city or town and street.”
The Herald-Times has begun receiving calls and emails, and their response is a defiant defense of their online gun permit database.

Anyone who visits the newspaper website will be able to search the number of permits on a given street or neighborhood. Although at this point the names and house numbers are not listed, the newspaper’s website treats law-abiding Indiana gun owners like sex offenders on a searchable database.

It is NRA's firm belief that there is no public good served by the publishing or cataloguing private citizens’ gun ownership information, and that more harm is done by such an action. Law-abiding Hoosiers should not be subjected to the same treatment as sex offenders, and if the newspaper won’t listen to their constituents and customers, then NRA Members and Indiana gun owners should send a financial message by cancelling their subscriptions to the Bloomington Herald-Times.

Please contact the Bloomington Herald-Times to respectfully voice your displeasure at the irresponsible action the newspaper has made.
Scott Schurz, Sunday Hoosier Times/Editor-in-Chief
(812) 331-4250
Sschurz@heraldt.com
E. Mayer Maloney Jr., Publisher
(812) 331-4251
Mmaloney@heraldt.com
Bob Zaltsberg, Editor
(812) 331-4364
rzaltsberg@heraldt.com

 

[scheesman]

I guess I'm going to play the devil's advocate here and ask what the big deal is? It is public record. My wife's salary (along with every other state worker) is listed in a searchable database too. Property values, as well as a large amount of personal data, are also listed. My SBA loan details are online to be searched. Why is this particular set of public records causing such a ruckus? Especially since they're not listing personal data, just aggregated data. Let the flaming begin (although I am truly curious to opinions about why this is so pivotal).

 

[mospeada]

I guess I'm going to play the devil's advocate here and ask what the big deal is? It is public record. My wife's salary (along with every other state worker) is listed in a searchable database too. Property values, as well as a large amount of personal data, are also listed. My SBA loan details are online to be searched. Why is this particular set of public records causing such a ruckus? Especially since they're not listing personal data, just aggregated data. Let the flaming begin (although I am truly curious to opinions about why this is so pivotal).

Good question. I think the two main beefs of most folks and mine is that this information while public record, can harm the individual and/or lead to property loss. While the other info you listed can be used against you, it has to be more elaborate than find gunowner's home, kick in door, PROFIT!

The other portion of this is that those other public record items aren't being published in an online database by a newspaper that's supposed to serve it's community.

 

[Lars]

......it has to be more elaborate than find gunowner's home, kick in door, PROFIT!

I look at things like this, and I'm not suggesting this is what YOU are saying.... but the number of pickups I see with browning logos the size of the rear window..... People with nra logos on their cars..... Etc.

A huge number of gun owners, aren't exactly hiding the fact they own guns.

 

[jedi]

MODs could it be possible to "merge" these 4 same topic threads.

The original thread...
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...990-reporter_wants_to_talk_to_gun_owners.html

The 2nd biggest thread after the original
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ld_times_online_to_publish_carry_permits.html

& now this one.

I think there is another smaller one as well just also list the same content as the OP on this current thread or the content of the OP may be in the 2nd threa above. Note sure anymore but the 3 threads are talking about the same thing just in different channels now.

Thanks

 

[mospeada]

I look at things like this, and I'm not suggesting this is what YOU are saying.... but the number of pickups I see with browning logos the size of the rear window..... People with nra logos on their cars..... Etc.

A huge number of gun owners, aren't exactly hiding the fact they own guns.

Sure, but there's a difference between them doing it to themselves and someone coming along and slapping a "I have a gun" sticker on their vehicle.

 

[scheesman]

Good question. I think the two main beefs of most folks and mine is that this information while public record, can harm the individual and/or lead to property loss. While the other info you listed can be used against you, it has to be more elaborate than find gunowner's home, kick in door, PROFIT!

I'm not sure that those who are looking for crimes to commit would go to an armed house in hopes of finding a firearm that's not locked in a safe. If that was their goal, they could really just stake out the local gun shops and follow them home. And I would think they'd more go for easier targets (no pun intended), and stuff that is easier to turn over than a firearm.

Also, just because someone has a permit doesn't mean that they have loads of guns. A $200 handgun isn't worth it for most criminals. They'd rather go after the $1500 flat panel tv's that are easy to grab.

Again, just my opinion. It really seems, from some of the responses I've seen in other posts (and other locations) that gun owners are embarrassed to have permits. I've seen less outrage over those church groups that stake out porn shops and post your picture on the web!

 

[norsk]

Here is the text of the email I just sent:

"Dear Editor Schurz,

I write to express my deep frustration that your newspaper has published the searchable database of (legally obtained and held) firearm permits for the Bloomington area. While I understand that one cannot find names and addresses, it certainly would not take much effort for someone to figure out in which residence a permit holder resides. Unfortunately around the country there have already been more than a couple examples of a clever person with ill intent using such databases to 'track down' their victims.
Moreover, and perhaps of more immediate concern to me, is that your paper would publish such an obviously thinly veiled criticism of law-abiding citizens who choose to own, carry, and use handguns. I was very much looking forward to reading a balanced account of these people's motivations, but was shocked and disgusted by what was actually written. You cannot deny that the tone of the article is clearly "anti-gun." To be sure, I did not want a "pro-gun" article; I wanted a fair exploration of the issue.
As someone who has recently moved (back) to Bloomington, a town which I for the most part like, I was seriously considering becoming an HT subscriber for my residence and also my business. After reflecting on my frustrations, I have decided that I in no way whatsoever want to support such a paper. Not only have you lost my subscription money, you have lost the exposure of your paper at my place of business. Finally, you have lost all of my business' advertizing money.
Finally, a cursory web search will reveal an active online community that is equally as upset as I. I hope my, and others', feelings will lead you to make better choices in the future.

[name withheld for fear of blacklisting]"

If I get any sort of response worth posting I will do so.

 

[mettle]

Also, just because someone has a permit doesn't mean that they have loads of guns. A $200 handgun isn't worth it for most criminals. They'd rather go after the $1500 flat panel tv's that are easy to grab.

I think you are off here. A felon who can't obtain a handgun would LOVE to get his hands on one for $50 off a 'friend' with no strings, no papers and no one knowing.... especially if he plans on knocking off a store or performing a robbery. A gun in a perps hands is 'power' he didn't have before.

THAT is why I don't want my name, my street, my general REGION posted.

 

[Panama]

Again, just my opinion. It really seems, from some of the responses I've seen in other posts (and other locations) that gun owners are embarrassed to have permits. I've seen less outrage over those church groups that stake out porn shops and post your picture on the web!

I think he is off too!

Or he is involved in the post accumulation process?

 

[scheesman]

I think you are off here. A felon who can't obtain a handgun would LOVE to get his hands on one for $50 off a 'friend' with no strings, no papers and no one knowing.... especially if he plans on knocking off a store or performing a robbery. A gun in a perps hands is 'power' he didn't have before.

THAT is why I don't want my name, my street, my general REGION posted.

So you think there will become a "black market" that is stocked by criminals researching online databases risking being shot by the very bounty they seek? They could always go to the Indy 1500 and purchase a firearm from a non-dealer. They could always join this board and purchase a firearm from the great selection in the classifieds section. Those $50 guns are the "Saturday Night Specials", not something lifted from someones' house. There are always exceptions, but I don't think that this "problem" will be made worse by the publication of this data.

 

[wag1911]

I'm not sure that those who are looking for crimes to commit would go to an armed house in hopes of finding a firearm that's not locked in a safe.

Five out of six gun-possessing felons obtained handguns from theft and secondary markets, and “[the] criminal handgun market is overwhelmingly dominated by informal transactions and theft as mechanisms of supply.”

The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons , James D. Wright, Peter H. Rossi, National Institute of Justice (U.S.)

If that was their goal, they could really just stake out the local gun shops and follow them home. And I would think they'd more go for easier targets (no pun intended), and stuff that is easier to turn over than a firearm.

Criminals can and do, but why make it easier for them by posting a list?

Also, just because someone has a permit doesn't mean that they have loads of guns. A $200 handgun isn't worth it for most criminals. They'd rather go after the $1500 flat panel tv's that are easy to grab.

I think some of your ideas about typical burglaries are a bit out-of-whack which is leading your opinions away from the realities. Most burglaries last no longer than 5 minutes. Handguns are easier to toss in a bag and get out of the door than a $1500, 46" flat panel. If you already know that the homeowner is very likely to have guns, since that information is handed to you on a silver plater, then just wait for them to leave and you can probably bag them quickly. Fact is, the most common safes for handguns are small safes. Many of which can be removed off their mounts with a 'Wonder Bar' in quick fashion (like 10 secs or less) and can be opened at a later time.

BTW, most handguns are worth a helluva lot more than $200. I'm guessing you didn't know that because you do not own a handgun.

BTW, radios, jewelry, CDs/DVDs, computer equipment, cameras, and Ipods are a lot easier to get out of the door and sell later than flat panels. My point is, criminals take the path with the least amount of time and effort, and items which can be easily stored and hocked.

Again, just my opinion. It really seems, from some of the responses I've seen in other posts (and other locations) that gun owners are embarrassed to have permits. I've seen less outrage over those church groups that stake out porn shops and post your picture on the web!

Gun owners are not embarrassed in the least. They do not want their homes targeted because someone in the media wants to equate gun owners with sex offenders.

Perhaps you should take a look at this article and the ensuing shut down of a posted list of permit holders:

Roanoke.com drops list of gun owners - Roanoke.com

I would say that was outrage wouldn't you?

 

[scheesman]

BTW, most handguns are worth a helluva lot more than $200. I'm guessing you didn't know that because you do not own a handgun.

I have a Kimber 1911, a Walther PPS, and a XD9, so I'm very familiar with handgun prices. I also know that even the nicest stolen handgun isn't going to pull in more than $200 on the streets. Do you?

BTW, radios, jewelry, CDs/DVDs, computer equipment, cameras, and Ipods are a lot easier to get out of the door and sell later than flat panels. My point is, criminals take the path with the least amount of time and effort, and items which can be easily stored and hocked.

You just proved my point. Just because I didn't use the proper "example" of a convenience item doesn't mean my point wasn't valid. And let's face it; burglaries are a crime of convenience. As you stated, they only have 5 minutes or less. Are they going to grab the "radios, jewelry, CDs/DVDs, computer equipment, cameras, and Ipods" that are laying around, or try to find the small safe that may or may not be laying around in a convenience place?

Gun owners are not embarrassed in the least. They do not want their homes targeted because someone in the media wants to equate gun owners with sex offenders.

So my wife is being equated with sex offenders because she's listed on the Indy Star web site due to her employment with the state? Or both of us because of our property? I don't get how you can draw a link between public data being published and "sex offenders". Or is it just more "effective" to make that link. The outrage would be greater, right?

I would say that was outrage wouldn't you?

I think you misread my statement. I didn't say there wasn't outrage over this. I said exactly the opposite. There is MORE outrage over this than other issues that people SHOULD be outraged over.

 

[wag1911]

So you think there will become a "black market" that is stocked by criminals researching online databases risking being shot by the very bounty they seek? They could always go to the Indy 1500 and purchase a firearm from a non-dealer.

Most criminals don't buy guns at gun shows - in fact the last number was 0.7% of convicts manage to illegally buy from gun shows.

Firearm Use by Offenders, Bureau of Justice Statistics

About 93% are bought on the streets, stolen from homes, or otherwise obtained illegally.

BATF, 1999

They could always join this board and purchase a firearm from the great selection in the classifieds section.

Which again would be illegal for a violent criminal to do.

BTW, wouldn't it just be easier to steal a gun from a house that you know has at least one, rather than leave a paper trail at a gun store or gun show. Yes, even most private sales do leave a paper trail with the seller including things such as a driver's license number...I'm guessing you didn't know that.

Those $50 guns are the "Saturday Night Specials", not something lifted from someones' house. There are always exceptions, but I don't think that this "problem" will be made worse by the publication of this data.

Perhaps not, but what exactly is the public's interest in having that information revealed?

 

[scheesman]

Most criminals don't buy guns at gun shows - in fact the last number was 0.7% of convicts manage to illegally buy from gun shows.

Firearm Use by Offenders, Bureau of Justice Statistics

About 93% are bought on the streets, stolen from homes, or otherwise obtained illegally.

BATF, 1999

Because 10 year old statistics definitely tell the story. I mean, barely anything has changed with either the firearms laws or the world in general.

BTW, wouldn't it just be easier to steal a gun from a house that you know has at least one, rather than leave a paper trail at a gun store or gun show. Yes, even most private sales do leave a paper trail with the seller including things such as a driver's license number...I'm guessing you didn't know that.

Not sure what's with the attitude. I don't know you, and I'm just trying to have a productive discussion. You can disagree with me, but some respect (or at least lack of disrespect) would be appreciated.

And if you want to be a smartass, I'll play. The records are for a firearm carry permit right? Not ownership of a firearm. And if they have a carry permit, there's a good chance they're carrying that firearm when they're not home. That's why they got the permit to begin with, right? So what are they going to get if they break in? An empty safe or the business end of a pistol.

Perhaps not, but what exactly is the public's interest in having that information revealed?

It doesn't have to be in the public's best interest. It's public data. But I can also play the devil's advocate on why the public may want to know the data too. But that's probably for another thread...

 

[wag1911]

I have a Kimber 1911, a Walther PPS, and a XD9, so I'm very familiar with handgun prices. I also know that even the nicest stolen handgun isn't going to pull in more than $200 on the streets. Do you?

You know the street value of stolen guns? I can't say I would know that......I have never tried to buy one illegally.

You just proved my point. Just because I didn't use the proper "example" of a convenience item doesn't mean my point wasn't valid. And let's face it; burglaries are a crime of convenience. As you stated, they only have 5 minutes or less. Are they going to grab the "radios, jewelry, CDs/DVDs, computer equipment, cameras, and Ipods" that are laying around, or try to find the small safe that may or may not be laying around in a convenience place?

If you know something is present, it is a helluva lot easier to know where to look for it than if you do not know.

So my wife is being equated with sex offenders because she's listed on the Indy Star web site due to her employment with the state? Or both of us because of our property? I don't get how you can draw a link between public data being published and "sex offenders". Or is it just more "effective" to make that link. The outrage would be greater, right?

Your wife is a public servant being paid for with my tax dollars. Permit Holders are not.

Disclosure of her salary does not potentially threaten her life or property, though I believe her privacy is being violated by naming her by name as her position should be the only thing listed along with a salary.

I think you misread my statement. I didn't say there wasn't outrage over this. I said exactly the opposite. There is MORE outrage over this than other issues that people SHOULD be outraged over.

I did misread it

We'll agree to disagree - I just do not see what public good it would do to release those names or locations.

 

[critter592]

Can I order all the Indiana driver's licenses and search them as I see fit? I honestly don't know. If the answer is no then why in the world is this "public" info available?

Van Cleave said he has received more than 500 angry calls and e-mails, including two from state legislators.

Past gun-related controversies have been "like a firecracker" by comparison, he said. "This one is like a thermonuclear bomb."

I think it's going to go the same way. If your wife has personal info published as part of a job then that aspect was known BEFORE employment. Nothing in the application for LTCH says you may have your personal info plastered across the WORLD WIDE WEB. A great point was made when people are the only house on a street. Making this DB searchable by street is reckless. To state publicly over and over that the DB can be ordered by anyone to get the actual names and addresses is doubley reckless. They think they are washing their hands of responsibility by implying "oh we didn't go that far even though we could have." Well duh. Now more people will ill intent can go and order up the DB on their own.

 

[marv]

Has anyone been into the database? I tried. Couldn't get there. Looks like you gotta subscribe and give them a valid credit card number.

 

[NateIU10]

Has anyone been into the database? I tried. Couldn't get there. Looks like you gotta subscribe and give them a valid credit card number.

Yes. there's some screen shots in one of the other threads, lemme find the link to my post.


https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...line_to_publish_carry_permits.html#post696107

 

[ezdubbin97]

I really don't understand the need or fascination with searching a database to the point of a given street, even if it is pulic record. Should we have databases to every Lamborghini on any given street? That would be interesting to know. How about everyone that has a motorcycle license? The fact is some things are just personal and not everybody's business. State employees make their money from us as taxpayers, and while I think its pointless to publish those figures, I suppose that is the reasoning. All (or almost all) other searchable public records concern crimes, court records, or sex offenders, all things that make sense to search. It should be our right to know if someone has been convicted of a gross felony, but what is the point of searching law abiding citizens who purchased a liscense, that is, other than to "scare" people with numbers of "scary" citizens carrying "scary" guns.