Herald Times Online to publish carry permits

[Bill of Rights]

Just a thought here, but I'm curious why I haven't heard anyone making the following argument:

In the Heller case, SCOTUS recognized the right to gun ownership as a fundamental right. It is on par with things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to vote, right to privacy, and Equal Protection which includes things like the right to marry a person of any race and the right to procreate outside of marriage. Arguably the right to keep arms is an even stronger right than court-created rights such as abortion, and in some states gay marriage.

Do states require registration or a permitting system for citizens who exercise these rights? Can you image the uproar if citizens were required by a state to obtain a permit before practicing a religion? (True, one must register to vote, but I think that is a procedural necessity, without which the voting process could not happen; people also must obtain marriage licenses, and I'm sure there is some kind of state paperwork for abortions.)

But now imagine that not only must you obtain a permit to practice your religion, but that information could be publicly accessed and placed in a searchable database by an irresponsible news organization (I understand the HT does not make addresses known - but they could because they have legal access to that information). What about a searchable database showing where legally married gay couples live? Or even a searchable database showing where interracial couples live? Can you imagine the uproar that would occur?

The point is that gun rights are on par with every other constitutionally prescribed fundamental right, and should be treated the same. Arguably, the idea of even requiring a permit is unconstitutional. Yet the idea of making right-exercising citizen’s information publicly available is not only novel compared to all other fundamental rights, but it casts gun-owners as problem citizens who should be tracked and identified by non-gun-owning neighbors.

I find it offensive, and I wish the best to those of you working with our state legislature to remedy this problem.

With all due respect, I don't want your best wishes. I want your help making it happen. Write a letter to YOUR legislators.

Best wishes don't make anything happen. They're just like most of the liberal legislation aimed at "gun control"; they're feel-good things that look good on the surface and do not one bloody thing to improve the situation.

Your thoughts are mostly on point. Voting in American elections is NOT a right, however, it is a privilege of American citizenship. The usual "gun control" argument is that an interracial couple, a gay couple, or a fill-in-religion-here person is not by virtue of membership in that group going to kill someone, where a gun (or a gun owner) might. (You never know when one of us might snap, you see.)
The obvious problem with this is that the numbers who DO do that are miniscule and we don't need "watched" any more than do people who drink who might drive after doing so, and who are a much greater threat by any measure.

As Techres has pointed out, when you write your letters, focus on privacy concerns and the rights of victims of crimes to not be "outed" to the criminals who victimized them; the right of those and other intended victims to prevent themselves from being victims in the first place.

To focus on gun rights is to establish a disconnect between those who do and those who don't own guns. Anyone can be an intended victim, however, and we ALL have a right to our privacy.

I look forward to your message telling us that you wrote to your legislators.

Thanks for your help.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[duckhunt]

I have been following this thread for some time now. The main reason being the journalist at H-T that wrote the gun permit stories happens to be my brother-in-law.

I, like many of you, am a gun owner, whole-hearted conservative and a firm believer in the second ammendment. On the other hand, I am also a firm believer in treating humans as humans. Since the time the stories were published, him AND MY SISTER have had their lives threatened, threats to kill their dog, threats to find what cars they drive and vandalize them, threats to follow them home, etc. This is uncalled for.

Let me tell you from a first hand perspective that he is not anti-gun nor anti second ammendment. He simply wrote a story that the paper knew would get coverage. None of this was illegal or information that you cannot get yourself. The database that was posted actually has LESS information than you or I can get from the state police.

I know many of you are upset about this story. But why? You make large claims about how people are going to use this to commit crime. That's nonsense. Talk to your legislators and get something changed if you don't want someone like me finding out what your name and address are. My brother-in-law told me about what the public records had on me and it included: height, weight, eye color, address, birth date and much more.

I look forward to hearing what you all have to say.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I know many of you are upset about this story. But why?

Because it threatens our lives and the lives of our families. The database is a handy shopping list for burglars and home invaders who desire to steal guns.

BTW, no would here at INGO has advocated any misbehaviour. Indeed we have all insisted on being polite.

You make large claims about how people are going to use this to commit crime. That's nonsense

No, it's not, people have been killed in other states by newspapers deciding to pull a stunt like this one.

What if the newspaper published a list of all women that had an abortion in Bloomington? What if the newspaper published a list of all Jews in Bloomington? How about a list of Muslims?

The brave, bold self-appointed defenders of civil liberties at the H-T would whine and cry and lecture us from television and the editorial page about "privacy" and "threats to civil order".

Talk to your legislators and get something changed if you don't want someone like me finding out what your name and address are

Yes, absolutely we will. We will not simply shrug our shoulders at this attempt on our lives.

Welcome to INGO, duckhunt.

 

[melensdad]

I know many of you are upset about this story. But why? You make large claims about how people are going to use this to commit crime. That's nonsense. Talk to your legislators and get something changed if you don't want someone like me finding out what your name and address are.

First off, many of us who have carry licenses have been threatened in the past and have moved, have unlisted phone numbers and have done what we can to protect our families by trying to keep our locations private from those who wish us harm. The H-T simply provides a list for those who wish us harm to more easily find us. And think there are not many of us? Think again, many women with carry licenses have gotten them for protection specifically after being beaten, attacked or nearly killed by a former spouse or partner. Many business owners, lawyers, and doctors have been threatened by employees or clients. Some of us have children that have faced attempted kidnapping attempts.

You think this is funny? You think your brother is serving the public good? Think again. This has been done in other states and resulted in tragic consequences. To continue this practice in the name of journalistic freedom is a moronic and simplistic argument that holds no gravity. I was almost ordered by the chief of police in my former town to get a license. There is a story behind that. There are stories behind many of us who have carry licenses. The stories are rarely humorous and often are tragic or near tragic.

Service or disservice? What did your brother do? When the first tragedy occurs because of his actions then you will know the truth and he will have to live with the guilt because his hands will be covered with the blood.

 

[thompal]

What if the newspaper published a list of all Jews in Bloomington?

I dare say that if the newspaper had published a list of streets where Jews lived, the ADL would swarm the town in a millisecond, and everyone would be screaming "NAZIS". If the newspaper had published a list of streets where gays lived, the gay community would be screaming "HATE CRIME!!"

BOTH of those groups would be complaining about how it was making them a target for persecution, as well as for harrassment, and crime.

What would the academic community think if, when they woke to their morning newspaper, the headline blared: "FIVE NEGROS LIVE ON ELM STREET!" or, perhaps, "FAT LADY MOVES ONTO MAIN STREET!"

What's next?? A headline of "5 Jews, 3 blacks, 2 Muslims, and 2 gays live in single block of 14th"? Why not?? After all, the paper's ONLY justification is "Because we CAN." There is a huge difference between "possible" and "responsible."

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Duckhunt,

I personally believe that NO ONE should be threatening anyone's life over this. EITHER WAY. I respectfully disagree with the editorial staff of the newspaper in question. They have done what they legally had the right to do. The problem is this - while it is their legal right, it IS NOT the right thing to do!

I have the legal right to own a firearm. If I use it in an irresponsible manner, waving it around in a crowd, what would you say to me? I would wager that you would say something to the effect of "Knock it off you crazy *&&%((*%%% ! You're going to get someone hurt!"

That is what we are saying to people who irresponsibly are using this data! It is no different. In Ohio, people arguably were KILLED by the reckless use of this data. Yet they, and by your note above, you also appear to tell us to "Go pound sand" when we express the concern. Is that your true opinion? Stand up and be counted, sir...

To their credit, the editorial staff of the H-T listened to our first concern. They did not publish the data outright. I appreciate that - and regard it as a step in the right direction. That said, they told us to "go pound" when we raised the second concern - the one about folks who are the only people on their street and they are "outed" by the publication of the data - as done by the H-T. I DON'T appreciate that, and I will make my displeasure known. Let the record show that I've been nothing, if not even handed...

I will be the first to say that NO ONE should ever threaten your brother in law's life over this. Whomever did that does not speak for me.
I may disagree all to heck with your brother in law, but I wish him no ill. As has been mentioned here - I know of no one here that has threatened his life. And I do not condone it. Period.

Now - since we have people - both in Bloomington and earlier in Ohio, end elsewhere, who have PROVEN that they cannot be trusted to use this sort of data in a rational manner, then what pray tell is our choice? We have no choice but to take our concerns to the State house where they have the power to remove this from the public domain.

Please note that there are even some among us - yourself, 6Birds, JackRyan, et al. who seem to think it's no big deal. We all have a right to our opinion. I will have to "agree to disagree" with each other. Good people CAN disagree.

But please - don't expect us not to pursue the free exercise of our rights, just as your brother in law exercised his.

But let's deal with the two issues you mention above as the separate issues that they are.
First, freedom of the press is guaranteed by the Constitution. Your brother in law has every right to write what he wrote - without being threatened over it. We, likewise have the right to encourage people not to patronize the H-T. That is free speech, and it's a sword that cuts both ways.

Second, except as an example of irresponsible use of the data, your brother in law has darn little to do with the feelings that many of us have - that this information should not be public. That way it cannot be used irresponsibly. As I feel it has been.

And yes, we will take that up with our legislators... as is OUR right. And no, I personally don't feel like backing down.

Welcome to INGO, and you are welcome to your opinions. Be warned - unlike a newspaper, this community is not forced to listen to the typical tripe and take it. We talk back....

The internet is a beautiful thing...

 

[JBob77]

I have been following this thread for some time now. The main reason being the journalist at H-T that wrote the gun permit stories happens to be my brother-in-law.

I, like many of you, am a gun owner, whole-hearted conservative and a firm believer in the second ammendment. On the other hand, I am also a firm believer in treating humans as humans. Since the time the stories were published, him AND MY SISTER have had their lives threatened, threats to kill their dog, threats to find what cars they drive and vandalize them, threats to follow them home, etc. This is uncalled for.

Let me tell you from a first hand perspective that he is not anti-gun nor anti second ammendment. He simply wrote a story that the paper knew would get coverage. None of this was illegal or information that you cannot get yourself. The database that was posted actually has LESS information than you or I can get from the state police.

I know many of you are upset about this story. But why? You make large claims about how people are going to use this to commit crime. That's nonsense. Talk to your legislators and get something changed if you don't want someone like me finding out what your name and address are. My brother-in-law told me about what the public records had on me and it included: height, weight, eye color, address, birth date and much more.

I look forward to hearing what you all have to say.

So, you feel that it is permit holders that are making such threats. I take some offense to that. As a general rule, permit holders are some of the most law-abiding citizens in this state. People who would go through all of the trouble to be able to legally carry a firearm, and be so concerned that their information could get out, would be the least likely to do anything that would jeopardize that, in my opinion. To take a few uneducated, malicious people, and group them in with a group of generally law-abiding citizens is just wrong.

As for your comments that the writer is not anti-gun or anti-2nd Amendment is debatable. If anything, writing an article like this, that could possibly incite the anti-gunners, puts him leaning on the wrong side of the fence to me. In addition, this information could be used for other reasons, aside from would-be thieves. People could use this to single out a particular household or family in a neighborhood to be protested against, and subsequently outed as a gun owner to many, not just the person who looked up the information.

How does your brother-in-law feel about being the target of these threats. I am positive that he is very concerned. Now, if his information was less accessible to the general public, he would not be facing this situation, correct. That is our point exactly. We do not wish to leave ourselves out in the open, so to speak. I think that we have that right. As far as your brother-in-law, he gave up a significant portion of his privacy when he CHOSE to be a reporter, author, ect. and put his name on the by line. I did not have that choice. To be within the law, I was required to give out that information.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Duckhunt -

We actually should thank your brother in law for pointing out how easy it is to get the information. So please pass along my thanks for that. And that's not sarcasm.

Now if you'll pardon us, we have some letters and emails to write to our representatives. Those that don't listen and respond to our grievances are on their way to the unemployment line.

 

[techres]

I look forward to hearing what you all have to say.

Duckhunt,

I spoke to your brother-in-law before the article was written. I warned him that tensions were high in this endeavor and that the issue was a big one and that many people were concerned about it.

I also tried to express to him the concerns given many times in this thread about the use of the database and what it means. He listened - to an extent.

Here's the funny thing. He mentioned, as did the HT, that the database is public for anyone to get. He mentioned it again and again as did the HT as a form of defense. And they both did it VERY PUBLICLY for all to see, over and over.

If they never use that database beyond what they have, and even if they pull that database off line, they have still done their greatest act of damage which was to make very public the existence of the database. And they did it repeatedly and without seeming understanding of the key information they were giving out with each written word. I can believe that they did not understand it, or more importantly do not consider it a real threat.

But, here is the sad thing - it was all done to generate web activity and sell papers. When concerns were brought forth, they were given a shrug and a "poo-poo" while saying that the data was public so they did not have any moral responsibility for it.

And your brother-in-law stepped into that minefield. But not without fair warning of it's existence. I just don't think he or the HT really understood, or understand what they were doing.

Now, should he feel at risk? Should he be scared or concerned? I hope and wish not. AND anyone who has made threats should be brought to account by the law.

But perhaps he can also understand the feeling of concern that some permit holders feel when their data, or just the availability of their data, is publicly announced by the local paper - repeatedly.

While they may have not released a map to anyone's door. They did tell people where to go and buy the map.

And sadly, that is not journalistic responsibility.

Techres

P.S. I really do hope that he and your sister are fine. I would do anything in my power to help them be so if I could or can. Seriously.

 

[draben]

With all due respect, I don't want your best wishes. I want your help making it happen. Write a letter to YOUR legislators.

Actually I have communicated with my representatives. I guess I didn't realize I was required to report that here. My "best wishes" were intended for techres (I think?) or those who are spearheading the lobbying for legislative action on this issue, of which I am not a part.

I understand the regulatory function of firearms permits. Until Heller, the 2nd amendment really wasn't given its due credit, and state registration systems and carry permit databases were allowed to flourish. My point was that now the playing field is different (at least to the legal and political world), and the idea of requiring registration in a publicly-accessible database is even more repugnant, especially when viewed by analogy to other fundamental rights. It seemed to me a credible argument, so I put it out there. But thank you for the clarification.

Cheers...

 

[Bill of Rights]

I have been following this thread for some time now. The main reason being the journalist at H-T that wrote the gun permit stories happens to be my brother-in-law.

I, like many of you, am a gun owner, whole-hearted conservative and a firm believer in the second ammendment. On the other hand, I am also a firm believer in treating humans as humans. Since the time the stories were published, him AND MY SISTER have had their lives threatened, threats to kill their dog, threats to find what cars they drive and vandalize them, threats to follow them home, etc. This is uncalled for.

Let me tell you from a first hand perspective that he is not anti-gun nor anti second ammendment. He simply wrote a story that the paper knew would get coverage. None of this was illegal or information that you cannot get yourself. The database that was posted actually has LESS information than you or I can get from the state police.

I know many of you are upset about this story. But why? You make large claims about how people are going to use this to commit crime. That's nonsense. Talk to your legislators and get something changed if you don't want someone like me finding out what your name and address are. My brother-in-law told me about what the public records had on me and it included: height, weight, eye color, address, birth date and much more.

I look forward to hearing what you all have to say.

It saddens me to hear that people have resorted to threats or had intention of unlawful action against your brother in law, duckhunt.

I hold no such level of anger against him. That said, however, I believe I can answer your question as to why the anger is present: It's not that making any of the information in the database public is unlawful, nor that it's information that is not publicly available; it is that to make the information available in a newspaper or on a website in a searchable database is unethical. Just because the paper CAN publish something does not mean it SHOULD.

It is lawful for any of us to obtain your brother-in-law's name, address, phone number, vehicle types, routes to and from home and work, usual grocery store, times when the house is occupied and unoccupied, etc. It would be equally lawful for us to publish that information. It would NOT be lawful to use that information with the intent of doing him harm, and because some people might choose to misuse that information in that way or others, it would be unethical to do so... unless it was to make the point that his action was not appreciated and give an object lesson as to why.

I don't like feeling vulnerable and I like even less BEING vulnerable. At this point in time, it sounds like he knows that feeling and he doesn't like it either. The difference is that he and his paper did that to 300,000+ people, while only a very few of those 300,000+ are doing it back.

I hope that this answers your questions and hopefully, those of your brother in law.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[6birds]

Duckhunt,

Please note that there are even some among us - yourself, 6Birds, JackRyan, et al. who seem to think it's no big deal. We all have a right to our opinion. I will have to "agree to disagree" with each other. Good people CAN disagree.

The internet is a beautiful thing...

While we have had several discussions regarding this topic, a few here, a few on the side with a few others, let me make it clear that I am not FOR it. I bought the list because I have an inherent fear of the unknown. I wanted to see if the list was as benign as the others I see in my daily life.

The difference is, I realized from the second that I filled out the paperwork that I would be on a list. And it would be public! The shock seen here tells me most people did not realize that fact.

I think most people here are ignorant, as in, really do not realize, how many places their names, addresses, and personal information are posted for public use.

The actions listed here are akin to nailing that damned barn door shut, regardless of how far away the horse is.

Kiling the paper trail is a faster, more direct route, and corrects for any "mistakes" and "accidents" in the future, when government list are stolen or made public in error. "We promise not to use it anymore, really!" Do you trust them now?

ArmedP, even when you though we were on different side (and you still may), you were professional, polite, and handled it better than I would have. Nice post!

Merry Christmas

 

[AndersonIN]

I suggest that someone "finds out" the name, address, and phone #'s of the Hearld Bulletin editors and staff and then posts it around the web and list them as "more than likely not owning a weapon to protect their home, property, and self"!

 

[techres]

I suggest that someone "finds out" the name, address, and phone #'s of the Hearld Bulletin editors and staff and then posts it around the web and list them as "more than likely not owning a weapon to protect their home, property, and self"!

One blogger has listed the exact same information on the reporters as they did on gun owners. That is number per street.

That being said, I still think that none of this info should be put public. Not on us, and not on them. Period.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Actually I have communicated with my representatives. I guess I didn't realize I was required to report that here. My "best wishes" were intended for techres (I think?) or those who are spearheading the lobbying for legislative action on this issue, of which I am not a part.

I understand the regulatory function of firearms permits. Until Heller, the 2nd amendment really wasn't given its due credit, and state registration systems and carry permit databases were allowed to flourish. My point was that now the playing field is different (at least to the legal and political world), and the idea of requiring registration in a publicly-accessible database is even more repugnant, especially when viewed by analogy to other fundamental rights. It seemed to me a credible argument, so I put it out there. But thank you for the clarification.

Cheers...

No, you're not required to report it, but it allows me to say that I appreciate your help and to thank you for giving it.

right back atcha.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[6birds]

That being said, I still think that none of this info should be put public. Not on us, and not on them. Period.

+1! Not a private list, NO LIST!

 

[techres]

+1! Not a private list, NO LIST!

Cannot argue with that! No list, no LTCH requirement either.

 

[longbow]

Didn't this exact thing happen to the Roanoke Times, I recall several of us said to the paper this would happen.....

Wonder how many phone numbers have gone unlisted?

I feel sorry for the staff that have unique names that people check out on the internet.

Actions have consequences.....There is no need for this list to be public.....

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Quick note to 6Birds... I think that your take is spot on as to why people are ticked. Their expectations were violated. You knew of the list situation due to your background. That makes sense. Many of us did not. And for the record, all of the discussions I've had with you on the topic have been nothing but reasonable, well thought out, and polite. A great Christmas to you and yours!

It is interesting that the discussion here has been remarkably civil, in spite of the flammable nature of the topic. Maybe the old maxim is true... An armed society IS a polite society!

 

[tdommer]

Stupid Idea

What a terrible idea. I would feel a lot less safe with my info published. The old home protected by 357 signs are a great way to be broken into and this is along the same lines