New York newspaper draws fire after publishing names and addresses of gun permit holders

This is tantamount to a newspaper publishing the names and addresses of all legal immigrants in connection with the movement against illegal immigration. By blurring the difference between "legal" and "illegal" they feed on the emotional public reaction to the word "immigrants". Same with the word "guns". Not only is this not constructive in resolving the gun issue, but inflames the level of ignorance and emotionalism making a resolution even harder to achieve. The legal gun owners that this rag paper made public went through a very difficult process of applying for and acquiring a handgun permit, which includes an FBI background check. NY State is one of the toughest gun law states in the country. They include retired Law Enforcement Officers, Judges, Lawyers, Medical Doctors, respectable law-abiding people and many sportsmen. Hopefully this rag paper and the CEO/Editors/Reporters in personam spend the next decade in court. The excuse that the names and addresses are "pubic information" is merely a legal defense. What this paper did was to make what would otherwise have been a tedious process under FOIA available to anyone with an internet connection. And that has created risks for the gun owners and their non-gun owning neighbors. While legal, it defies any sense of morality or common sense.

We do this when ex-sex offenders are moving into the neighborhood for safety.

Because gun owners and sex offenders sure are comparable. By that logic, you should have no problem with any and all information being put out there. After all, gun ownership is a legal activity. We should also maintain databases on what cars people own, whether someone is married or single, and what hours people work. Make sure burglars have all the information they need!

an invasion of privacy that could put gun owners at risk

That's getting funny.

This sure makes deciding which house they're going to break into a heck of a lot easier for them.

They could already check that listing so far.

We should also maintain databases on what cars people own, whether someone is married or single,

That's the case. Why should ?

and what hours people work.

Certain companies publish that too.

"newspaper draws fire"

That sounds dangerous. Think of the high caliber withering criticism they're going to see in their letters to the editor.

This is not the right approach to take. Very irresponsible.

The map shows conversely all the houses that do NOT have guns.

No, no. The houses of people that have guns + the houses of those that have not the honesty of declaring theirs... No, guess who, potential burglar !

This is a public record and perfectly legal. We do this when ex-sex offenders are moving into the neighborhood for safety.

So far, none moved in and we want to keep it that way.

We should also maintain databases on what cars people own, whether someone is married or single

We DO have databases on these.

What is it about Americans and their guns?

In 2007 there was a horrific home invasion rape/murder in Cheshire, Connecticut in which two local lowlifes killed a woman and her two young daughters. Cheshire is thirty miles from Newtown. Many decisions to buy guns have been prompted by the widespread fear that enveloped at the time. Nancy Lanza would not have been the only homeowner to acquire weapons after that incident. All of America was appalled and frightened by the sheer mindlessness of the brutality.

Is an American who purchases guns entitled to privacy or anonymity?

Based on the fact that a record of the purchase can be had via a FOIA claim, obviously not.

Do members of the community have a right to know who else may be a member of the "well-regulated" militia of armed citizens? Do they have the right to know who else might be a "Nancy Lanza" -- ie a gun-owner with members of the household with serious anger or anti-social problems? Based on the fact that a record of gun purchases can be had via a FOIA claim, obviously yes.

1st amendment vs. 2nd amendment

Is an American who purchases guns entitled to privacy or anonymity?

Of course not, that why they have to through background checks, paperwork and all the legalities to do the right thing and get a legal permit.

Do members of the community have a right to know who else may be a member of the "well-regulated" militia of armed citizens? Do they have the right to know who else might be a "Nancy Lanza" -- ie a gun-owner with members of the household with serious anger or anti-social problems?

I'm sure the community is just dying to know who actually went to the trouble to obey the law and registered for a permit as opposed to those in their midst who have gotten their hands on a gun without that silly paperwork hassle.

Do members of the community have a right to know who else may be a member of the "well-regulated" militia of armed citizens? Do they have the right to know who else might be a "Nancy Lanza" -- ie a gun-owner with members of the household with serious anger or anti-social problems?

When you live in a place that is so dangerous that you feel the need to have a gun in your home, it is time to move

America sells more weapons than the anyone else, many to Muslim countries with poor human rights records. The country runs on and is fuelled by war and the military machine. If the money was spent on aiding other nations through kindness the world would be a better place.

Sad place and an increasingly sad and desperate people, the Empire is almost over.

I am so disappointed by the way people here are treating this issue, the paper has now posted clear details on a person, and the person did nothing wrong.

firearm permits are not something you walk up to counter in the mall and get. and this paper has not only published those details - but left other's open for burglary as well- those who are listed as NOT having permits.

it is so easy to make comments when you do not walk in the other person's shoes, it is so easy to reflect on another country when you do not understand how it is governed.

The map shows conversely all the houses that do NOT have guns. Perfect for prospective burglars. Many thanks.

“People are concerned about who owns guns and how many of them there are in their neighborhoods,” she said.

So busy exploiting a tragedy and wanting to demonize gun owners that it never occurred to this brilliant newspaper editor and its liberal agenda hacks that its mainly BURGLARS and home invasion robbers who are the people that are really the most concerned with wanting to know this information???? This sure makes deciding which house they're going to break into a heck of a lot easier for them. They actually put people at a much greater risk to be robbed now, unbelievable.

The New York Times is on to something positive, but they should ALSO go after all the scums in New York who are HIDING guns, the "better" people of our society do follow the rules of society, but the scum, criminals, drug dealers etc..are they registering their guns??? Hell no! Are the scum gun dealers worried about who they sell guns to????? I really doubt it, they are just happy with $$$$ and this means more and more innocent kids not only in NY, Sandy Hook etc...will keep on getting mowed down but crazies with GUNS!

What is it about Americans and their guns? Perhaps deep in their mind, these gun owners believe in the Hollywood movie stories about Russia or China conquering their country and all citizens go into hiding with their guns to fight back and without these guns, they're toast....

Is an American who purchases guns entitled to privacy or anonymity? Based on the fact that a record of the purchase can be had via a FOIA claim, obviously not.

Circular argument, Yabits.

that has created risks for the gun owners and their non-gun owning neighbors

Could you expand on this, Ossan?

I'll just say for the record that I appreciate you as someone who often posts contrarian but well-considered posts, always a treat with contentious issues like these.

Kobuta ChanDec. 28, 2012 - 03:18AM JST

Now Lawyers will workout how much they can squeeze out from Paper owner for breaching of privacy of Gun owners.

It is perfectly legal. This is a public record, yet I am not so sure it was a good idea though.

AkariYoshidaDec. 28, 2012 - 02:25AM JST

This should not be allowed. Plus, Americans have the right to own guns, so what if they have gun or not it just means that all those people have a weapon in order to protect themselves

And we all have a right to know who own guns too, but again I am not sure if it was a good idea.

NessieDec. 27, 2012 - 11:40PM JST "that has created risks for the gun owners and their non-gun owning neighbors" Could you expand on this, Ossan? I'll just say for the record that I appreciate you as someone who often posts contrarian but well-considered posts, >always a treat with contentious issues like these.

Thanks Nessie. The newspaper making the names and addresses (and even a google map to help you find them) of LEGAL LICENSED handgun owners allows criminals to identify immediately which homes have handguns. It helps criminals interested in stealing a handgun, and it also assists criminals interested in burglarizing a home that does NOT have a handgun. Anti-gun advocates are quick to argue that if a burglar knows there is a handgun in the house then they won't burglarize it. But the vast majority of burglaries occur when the home is vacant, and the newspaper has given a database for criminals to work with. What the newspaper did was legal as the information is of public record. However it removed the long and tedious procedure of obtaining such information through the FOIA and made is readily accessible to anyone on this planet.

http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/breaking-news-senator-ball-issues-statement-journal-news-gun-permit-map-and-introduces

I've come to the opinion that this newspaper could careless of any ramifications that is going to occur by this gross negligence by giving out this information from the rooftops for all to see. Upon reflection and contrary to my first initial reaction and opinion, I now cannot bring myself to the point where I believe a seasoned news staff that is part of the Gannet media network, the same Gannet that publishes USA Today the only national paper in America, is so incompetent that it didn't consider the downside to this at all. They publish a crime section in this rag and cover criminal activity, they can't be so stupid as to not to know how criminals operate.

The Journal News as an "unbiased" newspaper is on a higher mission that trumps that. They obviously don't like and want to ban guns as the ultimate goal and have engaged in a systematic demonization and alienation and shame campaign of permitted gun owners from their non-permitted law abiding neighbors. They'll gladly take whatever heat comes their way in public outrage, they could care less. This narrative that you really can't trust your neighbor with a gun no matter how law abiding they are as they may "snap" at anytime has to be established first. That is what this is really all about with publishing this tripe and then hiding it as some sort of real legitimate news concern for John Q. Public.

My question is what is goal of the newspaper in publishing this list of names? What are they hoping to accomplish with this information?

This is a public record and perfectly legal. We do this when ex-sex offenders are moving into the neighborhood for safety.

True about the first sentence. Would you be comfortable with a citizen of your community demanding access to a list of all the peoples email addresses that are subscribers with public newspaper?

So with this information about gun owners that have permits mean you consider them to be a safety threat to you even though they have lower violent crime, including homicide, rates than the non gun owning population?

Quote from article: "“People are concerned about who owns guns and how many of them there are in their neighborhoods,” she said. The newspaper had also asked for information about the type and number of weapons people owned, but that request was denied."

Well, I am glad to see that some of it was refused. This implies not complete freedom of information. I wonder what reason the journalist gave for the release of this information? Did he/she say it would be published in the papers? I bet county clerks will be more careful considering the reason given from now on. And I doubt the awaited "information on 11,000 permit-holders from a third county" will be forthcoming.

It is clear to see that the many of the pro-gun faction have the kind of personalities that seek to control everything.

That makes absolutely no sense at all. How does one seek to control everything by supporting the right of a person to have the means for his or her self-defense somehow translates into wanting to control them is just mindboggling.

There will more likely be positive ramifications from this -- from the pro-gun faction's perspective -- rather than negative. As a homeowner not on the list, I might now have a stronger incentive to acquire a weapon

Pure insanity, next you'll claim this paper did this as a marketing ploy for the NRA and to increase its membership.

As a neighbor who may not have weapons, if I know that Charley a few houses down has them, I'll be calling him and letting him know that he'll be on speed-dial before or after 911 just in case I or any of my neighbors run into trouble.

That's for "Charley" to decide that and he is inclined to offer you his services to protect you and to confide to you that he has a weapon in his possession. Not for you to find out through a public newspaper and then can call him up and ask him. It may come as a shock to you but 'Charley" may not like you very much at all and there was a reason you had tofind out he's legally permitted to own a weapon through the paper.

i suspect that the newspaper has just created a tremendous incentive for those households that feel more vulnerable without arms to stop procrastinating and acquire them

Ever occur to you that they may not be able to actually afford a gun on a tight budget and a bad economy? What's your next suggestion tax the one percent so they can get Govt money to buy one?

Wow, talk about going over the edge. And from someone who constantly harangues over journalistic integrity

It's nice to know that the majority are. But I believe the public has a legitimate concern about the minority who are not. And neighbors tend to know who is completely responsible and who is not far better than a bureaucracy.

So they can control them better, I have no doubt you'd volunteer to be lead chair on that board of neighbors.

The vast majority of neighbors can be trusted. But there are some -- a small minority -- who simply can't be trusted, and it would be better to take steps to either severely limit the amount of firepower given to them, or remove it entirely

I see your down with profiling your neighbors after all.

.

Wow, talk about going over the edge. And from someone who constantly harangues over journalistic integrity

Missed commenting on this part.......

The two words "journalistic integrity" really have no place in this discussion.

But vigilance is the key word here, and being informed is nearly as good as being armed.

You should seriously reconsider this also. Extremely high possibility that more than a few on this map that they published were retired law enforcement, maybe even a past Judge or two and since this a known problem across the country almost positive a few battered women who've chosen to go underground as best they can to get away from the abuser, That they've more than likely done a pretty good job of ensuring that their addresses and contact information is really pretty hard to ferret out, as there may will be some folks that they've interacted with in the past that have real long memories. That they have a permit to carry only for this reason and hope that paths never do cross but just in case they want that gun for protection...........Ths rag paper just circumvented that whole painstaking process, as you can't put a gun permit into another persons name like you can with so many other things to hide your address or personal information. They just published names and addresses without any consideration as to why the people sought to be legally permitted, that is nothing short of appalling.

That makes absolutely no sense at all. How does one seek to control everything by supporting the right of a person to have the means for his or her self-defense somehow translates into wanting to control them is just mindboggling.

The thing that the pro-gun zealots -- separating them from normal, rational citizens who may or may not own guns -- want to control in this matter is information.

A paper sincerely feels that they are doing their public a service by proving them with information. Information that is available to any member of the public -- obviously -- via a FOIA request. And some of the pro-gun zealots scream like crazed banshees over it, concocting any number of gloom and doom scenarios while completely overlooking the positive aspects.

What they are really screaming about, however, is how their guns give them no power whatsoever against public information becoming public. (Read: Lack of control.) Note that the newspaper made no attempt to "demonize" anyone or to remove any guns whatsoever. (That is all in the minds of the paranoid.) They just made the data more readily and easily accessible.

It is far more likely, based on recent trends, that the publishing of this information will only serve to increase gun sales to responsible, law-abiding citizens.

Extremely high possibility that more than a few on this map that they published were retired law enforcement,

Gee, it makes those "maps" of abortion doctors and political candidates with crosshairs over their images a bit less innocuous, doesn't it?

Nevertheless, there are dozens of ways to find people today, retired law enforcement and otherwise. It would seem that anyone who thinks they might be a target would never assume that the "bad guys" can't find them. Still, with all those "boxes" to check to gain access to the database, it would not surprise me at all that some names are placed in a special category as those not to be released to the public.

Pure insanity, next you'll claim this paper did this as a marketing ploy for the NRA and to increase its membership.

I am not the one reading into the motives of the paper, as you did. They simply published data that was available to the public in a very easy to access format. Data is very much like the ink stains on a Rorschach print: What you read into it says more about you than about the data itself.

For those who claim that the paper had some motive to reduce gun ownership, I simply countered with the well known law of unintended consequences. There are very good reasons to believe that publishing the data will increase gun ownership, while that outcome may or may not have had anything to do with the intent of the paper.

So they can control them better, I have no doubt you'd volunteer to be lead chair on that board of neighbors.

If "controlling" means that a community takes more on itself to try to prevent what happened at Sandy Hook, then I'll leave it to readers to decide how to react to a person who would condemn such an effort.

We've seen the NRA's proposal for this, and it certainly appears to be more insanity to me. As I have written elsewhere, removing guns from responsible, law-abiding citizens (none of whose family members pose a potential danger) is not a solution either. But the pro-gun zealots want it all their way, to the extent of wanting to control publicly available information on gun ownership.

A recent article at The Atlantic is very thought-provoking and provides a lot of support for what this newspaper has done. Titled "How Big Data Can Solve America's Gun Problem," here are some excerpts:

Tag line: "The private sector has all the tools we need to flag rapid weapons build-ups and suspicious purchases. All that's needed is the political will to build the most basic database."

"Just look at the gun-acquiring backgrounds of some of our more recent mass killers to see what I mean. James Holmes, the Aurora shooting suspect, went to three different locations spread out over 30 miles to legally buy his four weapons. All three were reputable outdoors retail chain stores. He then went online, and bought thousands of rounds of ammunition along with assault gear. UPS delivered around 90 packages to Holmes at his medical campus in that short period. It doesn't take a PhD in statistics to see that a quick, massive buildup of arms like this by a private individual -- especially one, like Holmes, who was known in his community for having growing mental health issues -- should raise a red flag."

Now, who would come out in opposition to a database that would flag a James Holmes or an Adam Lanza?

"The list of examples can go on. Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech student who committed the worst mass shooting in American history, bought two semi-automatic handguns, along with hollow point bullets, from dealers in just over a month. A few weeks later, he purchased 10-round magazines from a seller in Idaho through eBay. All this was after he failed to disclose information about his mental health on the gun-purchasing background questionnaire (specifically, that he had been court-ordered to outpatient treatment at a mental health facility)."

"Getting carded for cold medicine does not bother Fox News pundits as a freedom limiter. But government goes even further. Most states limit the number of Sudafed you can buy in a month and keep quietly reducing this quantity. This is more restrictive than the size of soda in New York City. Ammo, handguns and rifle purchases have been excluded from the simple tracking mechanisms and scrutiny of algorithms that these other pursuits are subjected to."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/how-big-data-can-solve-americas-gun-problem/266633/#

The thing that the pro-gun zealots -- separating them from normal, rational citizens who may or may not own guns want to control in this matter is information.

Name calling again...check. This makes absolutely no sense at all, how one decides to provide for ones self-defense is hardly a matter of controlling information. Its called really none of your business but if you want to go to the trouble of filing an FOIA request and the hassle involved to find out go for it.

A paper sincerely feels that they are doing their public a service by proving them with information.

Hired on the editorial board and were involved in the conversations prior publishing, who would have guessed.

Information that is available to any member of the public -- obviously -- via a FOIA request.

No the information is not available to any member of the public, they even denied a portion of their request to the paper just as they can deny it to anybody else.

What they are really screaming about, however, is how their guns give them no power whatsoever against public information becoming public. (Read: Lack of control.)

Dr. Yabits channels Sigmund Freud. It just couldn't be that one of the main reasons you'd rather not advertise that you have a legal gun permit is the same reason that word the "Concealed" is also so prominent as in Concealed Carry Weapons permit.

Note that the newspaper made no attempt to "demonize" anyone or to remove any guns whatsoever.

Explains why the map format so closely represents the same one used for registered sex-offenders in the neighborhood. Must be just a standard template.

It is far more likely, based on recent trends, that the publishing of this information will only serve to increase gun sales to responsible, law-abiding citizens.

Due to Government looking hard passing and assault weapons ban and other stricter measures, publishing this information has nothing to do with the bigger picture what so ever in driving the sales.

Gee, it makes those "maps" of abortion doctors and political candidates with crosshairs over their images a bit less innocuous, doesn't it?

No newspaper is going to publish a map with the location of an abortion doctors address or a map of a politicians actual home address with crosshairs over it, get real.

I am not the one reading into the motives of the paper, as you did.

Doesn't square at all with your previous statement:

A paper sincerely feels that they are doing their public a service by proving them with information.

Data is very much like the ink stains on a Rorschach print: What you read into it says more about you than about the data itself.

What I read is a newspaper right after a horrible tragedy involving a mass shooting of children involving legally permitted guns publishes a map showing its readers they're also surrounded by legally permitted guns and this is all done as just a non-biased "public service".

No the information is not available to any member of the public, they even denied a portion of their request to the paper just as they can deny it to anybody else.

The article claims the information is "publicly available." I'll have to trust that.

Its called really none of your business but if you want to go to the trouble of filing an FOIA request and the hassle involved to find out go for it.

Unless there are bullets that will magically stop themselves at the property lines of the gun owner, citizens have a right to know where bullets could potentially originate. The same Second Amendment the gun-zealots bow before also speaks of a well-regulated militia. Just as citizens have a right to the identity of any law enforcement officer, they have a right to the identities to the self-styled patriots who represent members of the neighborhood militia. That is: anyone who might put themselves into a quasi law "enforcement" situation by using deadly force. Note the man in Texas who shot and killed someone robbing a neighbor's house, for example.

It just couldn't be that one of the main reasons you'd rather not advertise that you have a legal gun permit is the same reason that word the "Concealed" is also so prominent as in Concealed Carry Weapons permit.

There is no right to privacy implied with purchasing weapons and ammunition, for the average citizen. And that is the way it should be. For a militia to be "well-regulated" -- which is the stated end of the Second Amendment, that basic information is vital.

The News/Media have started to turn on the Journal News' actions.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/12/27/poynter-journalism-scholars-criticize-paper-for-publishing-gun-owners-addresses/

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2012/12/27/the-ijournal-newsi-gun-permit-map-went-too-far

It is now rumored that up to 40% of the people made public including their home addresses by the Journal News are active and retired Police Officers.

I am not the one reading into the motives of the paper, as you did. Doesn't square at all with your previous statement: "A paper sincerely feels that they are doing their public a service by proving them with information."

Let's see....from the article: "We knew publication of the database would be controversial, but we felt sharing as much information as we could about gun ownership in our area was important in the aftermath of the Newtown shootings,” said CynDee Royle, editor and vice president of the Journal News, a Gannett Publication.

So, yes, restating that the paper felt sharing the information was important does square with my previous statement. That was their motive: providing the public with information deemed important.

There was no attempt to read into those motives by claiming they were out to "demonize" gun owners or take away guns, as with the zealots.

The News/Media have started to turn on the Journal News' actions.

Actually, the Poynter article gives lots of good examples when publishing the addresses would be an even more effective public service. They actually chide the Journal News for not being aggressive enough in their reporting to justify the release of the database information.

It is now rumored that up to 40% of the people

rumored? Wow.

Just as citizens have a right to the identity of any law enforcement officer, they have a right to the identities to the self-styled patriots who represent members of the neighborhood militia

I seriously doubt there is a block on any persons legal gun owner permit anywhere with a block showing what "militia" they belong to and who is 'well-regulating" them, or that the public is going to get that by a newspaper publishing who has been issued a legal gun permit in the neighborhood. Your throwing out some pretty desperate red herrings to continue to try and justify what this paper did.

Latest update is that the paper has acquired more names and is getting ready to add to the list.

Nobody called "CynDee Royle" should be taken seriously people, even if she is the editor of a tabloid in the gutter press.

Although I agree it's yet another case of knee-jerk activism that can only be detrimental to the cause:

"The newspaper’s Facebook page drew hundreds of comments, positive and negative, with several users publishing the home addresses, phone numbers and email addresses of the daily’s publisher and editors."

Hey, hey - tit for tat. I wonder who'd be held responsible if a "CynDee" gets a third nostril at home by an enraged gun owner with his name in print.

I'd say that unless these people holding the permits signed a paper that says, "this information can be used/distributed for public use" then its an invasion of privacy. But with all the paperwork behind owning a weapon, they probably did end up putting their signature on something like that.

Can we cross reference gun owners with parents of "autistic" children like Mrs. Lanza to let know the dangers in our midst.?

Now Lawyers will workout how much they can squeeze out from Paper owner for breaching of privacy of Gun owners.

I've come to the opinion that this newspaper could careless of any ramifications that is going to occur by this gross negligence by giving out this information from the rooftops for all to see.

It is clear to see that the many of the pro-gun faction have the kind of personalities that seek to control everything. There will more likely be positive ramifications from this -- from the pro-gun faction's perspective -- rather than negative. As a homeowner not on the list, I might now have a stronger incentive to acquire a weapon -- knowing that my inclusion on the list might not be made public for a long time, if at all. (Would-be criminals will have to wrestle with this likelihood too.)

As a neighbor who may not have weapons, if I know that Charley a few houses down has them, I'll be calling him and letting him know that he'll be on speed-dial before or after 911 just in case I or any of my neighbors run into trouble. Neighbors have to help each other out, right? Plus, I'll be asking Charley for advice on the best guns for home protection, as well as how to keep them properly. After all, it's more likely than not that Charley's a responsible gun owner.

They publish a crime section in this rag and cover criminal activity, they can't be so stupid as to not to know how criminals operate...They obviously don't like and want to ban guns as the ultimate goal...

That's a very funny statement. There is what is known as a "law of unintended consequences." i suspect that the newspaper has just created a tremendous incentive for those households that feel more vulnerable without arms to stop procrastinating and acquire them -- making the entire map a much bigger question mark and crapshoot for any would-be criminals. Note: The rising gun sales in the aftermath of the recent tragedies.

...and have engaged in a systematic demonization and alienation and shame campaign of permitted gun owners from their non-permitted law abiding neighbors.

Wow, talk about going over the edge. And from someone who constantly harangues over journalistic integrity. Again, only the possible (and now highly unlikely) "negative" ramifications have been put forward by the pro-gun types on this board.

Another positive ramification: Neighborhoods in that area will likely become much more vigilant. As one poster put it:

the majority of these gun/permit holders are law abiding citizens

It's nice to know that the majority are. But I believe the public has a legitimate concern about the minority who are not. And neighbors tend to know who is completely responsible and who is not far better than a bureaucracy.

This narrative that you really can't trust your neighbor with a gun no matter how law abiding they are as they may "snap" at anytime has to be established first.

I don't see any such "narrative." That is a paranoid assertion from someone who has lost nearly all sense of rational proportion. The vast majority of Americans accept the reality that there are hundreds of millions of guns in our society. But vigilance is the key word here, and being informed is nearly as good as being armed. Again, to paraphrase the pro-gun poster: The vast majority of neighbors can be trusted. But there are some -- a small minority -- who simply can't be trusted, and it would be better to take steps to either severely limit the amount of firepower given to them, or remove it entirely.

Very bad, foolish, and dangerous activist journalism.

They could already check that listing so far.

Not very easily, they would have to do what this rag of a paper did that has now saved them of all of that annoying trouble to get at the info. They would have to file a Freedom of Information Act request with a reason why they want it.

The newspaper defended the publication, saying the information was legally obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request and that its readers had a right to know whether their neighbors owned firearms.

Filing FOIA forms are also real pain to fill out and can get easily denied if you don't have all those X's in just the right boxes. I hear your more astute felons place an X under the " research" block on the form to avoid any pesky questions by the person processing the request.

Libs seem to really want to pump heat into their gun argument. I do expect a class-action prosecution to be taken against "The Journal News" and they are liable for any losses that people may or will accrue from this. This also puts huge pressure on NY State if any of the information is inaccurate.

=Not smart journalism and what is their true intention? If I was in NY I would now consider buying a gun to protect myself and joining myself to the "NY State gun permit holders" list. Everyone should at least put stickers/cards on their windows to say they have guns to keep the thieves with guns out.

http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood

=it is really sad to see the Libs/Globalists promote these types of lists and even worse to see people encourage such practice. Absolutely shameful and Connecticut is not even part of New York State the last I checked.

what morons the majority of these gun/permit holders are law abiding citizens, this newspaper is making them out they are are criminals or future criminals, at the end of the day what are the non permit/non gun owners going to do, knock on there doors and demand they surrender there firearms or move to a different area, good luck with that! LOL

This should not be allowed. Plus, Americans have the right to own guns, so what if they have gun or not it just means that all those people have a weapon in order to protect themselves. Water kills more people than anything, are they going to take that away?!? I realize its a problem that people are shooting innocent people, but you don't answer that by taking away a means of protection to the people who just want to live peacefully and keep their family safe