https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr_PXqJmRnU

The Journal News should not have published the names of gun permit owners in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties. But the News’ morally unconscionable “expose” was legal. By law, all New York licensee information—be it dog licenses, building permits or handgun permits—must be available to the general public (unless that information is used for fundraising or solicitation). What’s needed here is legal protection. In other words, if citizens of the Empire State want to put pistol permit info behind a veil they should do so by passing very carefully worded legislation. usatoday.com reports that New York State Sen. Greg Ball is on the case. Yes, but—at yesterday’s news conference, Ball pledged to hound the Journal into oblivion. [Click here for full press conference video.] As a gun rights guy I appreciate the passion and outrage. But IMHO that’s OTT. There’s a reason our Constitutionally protected right to free speech is the first amendment. Just sayin’ . . .

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

119 COMMENTS

    • I know right!! The time I agree with Anne or Rush….checking the sky for pigs. She did a good job, but I would rather have less abrasive folks taking up our cause…

      • Uh too late. Maxwell the pig flies all the time!!! The stewardess made him quit playing his little word game too!!!

      • ” I would rather have less abrasive folks taking up our cause…”

        This mentality is why we are always having to fight this battle.

    • I’d love to see a debate between her and Obama. Within 30 min he’d have that look as if he’d just been tasered. Joe Biden would be neutralized in half that time.

    • yeah i thought i would never say that either. I actually agree with her. im shocked…almost too shocked for words.

      • You agree with the “10 times higher home invasions in the UK” remark? And I love how she’s repeating that wild nonsense that Bruce Krafft recently wrote about “only 1 mass shooting was in a non-gun-free zone.” You agree with that too?

        • …and where did i say i agreed with everything she said? i agree with her feelings towards concealed carry and aurora.

  2. I’m just going to pretend I didn’t find myself on the same side of the issue as Coultersnatch. Wow.

    • I find that many of the people who can’t stand Ann Coulter have never listened to a full interview nor read one of her books. They base their opinion on liberal’s shocked reactions to Coulter statements. Are you that ignorant or do you have some substantive basis for your hate?

      • Distaste, not hate. I know enough about debate and rhetoric to recognize that she’s made a living off of trolling people with extremist positions, often exquisitely calculated to induce the maximum outrage possible in the listener.

        She is absolutely an intelligent, educated and confident woman. That doesn’t make her any less reprehensible for how she conducts herself.

        I also happen to disagree with her on a vast number of topics, but that takes second place to her exploitative intellectual dishonesty.

        It’s probably worth mentioning that I’m one of those dangerous atheists who has actually read the bible. Similarly, I wouldn’t hold such distaste for Coulter if I hadn’t evaluated her behavior and arguments personally.

      • Yup. Ann and Rush are moderate. People who dislike them are why we are fighting for our gun rights today. Turn on MSNBC and see true psychosis.
        Liberalism is a mental disorder.

  3. Someone should post the home addresses of the executives who run that fish wrap. Since they’re apparently a bunch of anti-gun nuts, their homes would be an easy target for a would be burglar…just sayin’

  4. The Journal News was out to “name and shame”. Speaking as one who was “named” by the Journal News, I can say that it is important not to allow oneself to be “shamed”. I’ve already received two weaselly double entendre references to my status as a gun owner. I can’t wait for an outright confrontation to see if/why I own a gun, it’ll be loud and proud: “Damn straight I do, and you can thus be assured that I am among the most law-abiding and mentally stable of your neighbors.”

  6. She crazy as all hell, but I do agree with her statements. I bet she is hell on wheels with a few beers and a couple of shots…

  7. I agree with Anne, lets see the list from Manhatten. If NYC refuses to show the list of which includes many celebs I am sure, then why out the people in the other counties. double standard hmmm ?

  8. Wow, I’m in agreement with Coulter on this one for once.

    Normally I can’t stand her, but she is right on the money with this issue.

  9. Personal information shouldn’t be a matter of public record. This isn’t a free-speech issue. This isn’t about sunshine and public accountability. Private citizens who aren’t in government and aren’t acting in an official capacity have a reasonable expectation that the facts about their lives will also remain private.

    • What about the alleged right to privacy, on which legalizing abortion was based?
      Publishing weapon permit holders name, address, is an invasion of privacy.
      And I would not be too pleased with having my name/address available for my dog’s
      rabies vaccination tag public knowledge either.
      Hate these “busy body” politicians, seem to operate on the “seemed like a good idea at the time” basis.

      • my understanding is that this is privacy from government intrusion under due process. seems to have no bearing on freedom of the press and speech under the 1st.

  11. “There’s a reason our Constitutionally protected right to free speech is the first amendment. Just sayin’ . . .”

    Yes but rights can only be exercised as long as they do not inringe on the rights of others. The courts have already said that yelling fire in a crowded theatre is not protected. Posting my name and address in a paper just because I have a permit is a violation of my rights. Especially if I’m a battered person who has an unlisted address and a gun to protect myself from my abuser. If there is a a right to privacy so woman can get an abortion then all have the same right to privacy and no new law needs be passed. The current law allowing this would be in violation of my right to privacy and thus null and void.

    • the limitation is speech which intentionally incites imminent criminal action. Coupled with “Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” and an absence of constitutional protection of privacy, your problem is with the registration process which collects the information, not with the constitutionally protected publication of that information.

        • if you are a journalist and can legally obtain my ssn for journalistic purpose I’d have no imminent legal objection

        • Curzen,

          You have heard of a crime known as Identity Theft? A name, address, DOB, and SSN will get you pretty well started on a credit card application, amongst other things.

          It’s best not to argue with Dyspeptic, unless you have a whole lot more solid ground to stand upon.

          Those are my thoughts, anyways. Feel free to be careless with your SSN if you want to, people have tried to rob me, so I keep my information close.

        • Accur81: read closely. I said I have no legal objection, if my SSN would be procured and published legitimately. If he can do it without breaking any law, congrats and go ahead. Doesn’t mean I have to be happy about it in the slightest.

        • Please supply a legal definition (either in statutory or case law) for who is a “journalist.”

          I think you will find, as I already know, that this term has a definition only insofar as “shield laws” are concerned – ie, a bona fide “journalist” may not be compelled to give up his sources. Beyond that, there’s no definition. Oh, the truculent twerps clutching their precious Columbia J-school degrees would like to have us believe that… but the truth is rather more murky.

          But that’s not at question here. The question is: Who can claim to be acting in “the public’s interest” by publishing your private information?

          And there the argument about “freedom of the press” rides straight off the cliff into thin air. A newspaper has no more power or protection for publishing your private information than I do. Your private information is private, and what potential harm may come from the publication of same is not changed by the party doing the publication and promulgation.

          After that question is answered (and I’m not holding my breath for the answer), we should ask “How is the public served by publishing the private information of non-notorious, non-public people?”

          But while we’re at it, let’s see what the “Society of Professional Journalists” “code of ethics” has to say about this:

          http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

          Ah, here we go:

          “Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.”

          Where is the “overriding public need” herein?

        • Dyspeptic Gunsmith: none of that takes away from my assertion that if you are legally able to procure that information (my ssn) you can do with it what you want under protection and limitations of the 1st.

      • The congress doesn’t need to abridge this speach. The posting of this information violates the rights of those affected and thus is not protected. If you tell me I can’t come to your house with a firearm, I can’t. It doesn’t matter that I have the right if my exercising of that right violates your rights. Before you ask, a parking lot at a business is different. You’ve invited me to park in your parking lot to do business with you. If I drive my automobile, an extension of my home, to that lot, you can’t prohibit the articles in my vehicle. I’m torn on what happens inside your store. I’m not torn in my beliefs, I believe the store owner should be able to run his store as he sees fit. Where I’m torn is with the law. The law says I can’t put up a sign that bans minorities from my store. The law says I must accomadate the handicapped. But the law says that stores can ban guns. This is not consistent nor does it pass the equal protection claus.

        • ” The posting of this information violates the rights of those affected and thus is not protected”

          And what right of yours is violated by a newspaper posting that information? Please try to be somewhat precise.

        • The right to privacy that protects abortion. The right to the pursuit of happiness. The right to life, The right to liberty. Just to name a few. The government is supposed to protect these rights, not allow them to be infringed.

        • They have the right to the information for statistical use which is typically what this information is used for. They do not have the right to put people in danger (proven or not) which they have done and in this case, to both those who own and those who don’t own guns. As another reader posted, you can’t yell FIRE in a theater when no such fire exists.

        • The 14th stipulates due process interpreted by supreme court majority opinion as including privacy from government, in regards to roe v wade concerning doctor patient relation. A newspaper is not a government organization or affiliate, thus the roe v wade ruling has no bearing. Neither life, liberty or pursuit of happiness are imminently and intentionally at danger of criminal action incited by the newspaper publication which would be the supreme court definition of when the 1st’s guarantee of free speech and press can be curtailed by the government and courts.

          • I have to disagree on the basis that negligence is introduced by the newspaper by the publication of the information. There is no reasonable or possibility that the newspaper did not discuss the possibility of putting people in danger by the publication of the information. Therefore they took the responsibility that they feel is reasonable that the information would not cause harm. If it is proven that harm is caused by the publication of the information, then they can be held accountable for that negligence. Of course it would be up to a court to determine if negligence was committed.

        • Todd: you imply that they discussed the possibility of unlawful activity being a byproduct and asserted the chance for that to be negligible. From a 1st amendment standpoint which calls for intent to incite crime for speech to be banned they’d be in the clear.

          • Can you please provide the exact phrase for your statement, as the 1st amendment protects their freedom to of speech but we are dealing with two separate issues. The freedom of speech does not allow anyone to put others in danger. Someone can claim all day long that one overrides the other but that’s not how the courts would look at it. The negligence of their action (which is to cause controversy because that’s what the media does to sell) is not protected by the freedom of speech. Yes, they have th right according to law to the information. Yes they have the right to publish it. Yes people have the right to sue them for harm that was caused by the negligence of publishing that information. It is up to the courts to decide but I would wager that if someone gets hurt because of the newspapers choice to exercise what they feel is their 1st amendment rights, they would lose the fight due to their own negligence. The reason is that they could have just as easily used a generalized map showing areas (not specific homes) of gun ownership and resulted in the same controversy without putting people in harm’s way. If you feel that is not the case then we’ll just have to agree to disagree – and maybe (hopefully nothing bad) wait and see what happens.

        • Amendment IX

          The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

        • theaton: awesome, so once the common sense gun control crowd says they have the right to be free from guns threatening their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness under reason of the 9th you’ll agree and hand over your weapons?

          I go by putting more importance on rights specifically protected in the constitution and supreme court rulings. That means the 1st and freedom of the press ranks higher and is granted more protection than your perceived right to not be offended by a publication or the gun control crowds right to not be frightened by guns.

          • You’ve got me confused on this one Cruzen – you’re saying that because they amendments are in numerical order that also means their ranking (the 1st over rides the 2nd) and so on?

          • And in college we weren’t allowed to use Wiki because it is not scholarly validated. You’ll have to come up with a better source than that. Also, all courts change opinion even in the face of historical track record. We are discussing that very content now as 20 years ago concealed carry wasn’t even allowed and gun ownership was much more difficult and rarer even though the 2nd amendment existed. The courts eventually changed their stance.

        • Todd: no, I argue that theaton’s reasoning is unsound. he previously asserted nebulous rights, which are not laid out in the constitution and essentially clash with rights guarded by the constitution. He then to bolster his argument cites the 9th. My argument is that other rights retained by the people but not laid out in the constitution do not trump the constitution. The 1st stands. Freedom of speech and press. High bars under Brandenburg Schenck for the government to deny either. The gun permit listing is very, very far from passing that bar and being banable.

          • Ah, I see what you’re saying. Of course this is all why I’m not a lawyer – not because I don’t like the law, but because it’s always twisting and turning on itself based on the will of the courts, politicians, and sometimes the people. I’d have to shoot myself..oh wait!

        • Todd: College must have been a rather long time ago for you and you must be unable to read the cited sources. In case you really are unable to find them: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=395&invol=444 the wikipedia entry would have just made it easier for you. I trust for your side of the argument you’ll cite relevant law and court decisions which show how the paper is liable for negligence. I’m afraid given the above it’ll have to be supreme court level papers to counter my side of the argument.

          • A personal attack? Really? And no, I’m not going to go into searching for relevent law because as I stated in another point, the law changes constantly and will continue to do so, so what is “relevant” at one time in history is not in the next. Yes there is something to be said for past cases, but we’ve seen many times in history where as time changes so do opinions which leads to interpretations, and which this really is all about. I never said that a plaintif would win, but they would be sued for negligence and have as good a chance as any of winning.

        • Cruzen, of course not that’s a stupid argument and not one that I made. You can’t just say you have a right to be free from guns threating life. You might be able to say you have a right to be free from soneone threating your life, which is part of that right to life thing. You just can’t say you have a right to be free from guns, knives, cars, chopsticks or any other deadly weapon. Because this would infringe on the rights of others. This is why most of the “precrime” laws are unconstitutional and should be repealed or thrown out by the courts. Laws such as felons can’t have guns, felons can’t vote, the whole patriot act, etc. A freeman owning a gun is a right. A felon that has served his time is a freeman and all rights should be affored. What a person may do with a right has no bearing on the ability to exercise the right. You can’t deny a right just because a person might abuse the right. You can’t deny a right to all citizens just because a few may abuse it. Jefferson was talking about freedom of religion but I think what he said applies equally to all rights. He said, if it neither breaks my arm or picks my pocket it is of no matter to me. Why should I care about your right to bear arms if you’re not hurting me with that arm?

        • Cruzen, I also never said I had a right not to be offended. I have a right to liberty. Part of the liberty is keeping my life private. I also have a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The non-gun owners rights were just as violated as the gun-owners. The newspaper got this data from the government and asking for and keeping this data is an unreasonable search and seizure. Do you have to register each and every time you want to exercise your right to free speech or freedom of religion? Is there a government database that lists your church of choice? Is there a government database that lists your name and address for each and every post you make here or elsewhere?

        • theaton: then you agree that just as it is legal to own weapons it is legal to post public information. I don’t expect everyone to like all the rights we enjoy, I merely ask they be respected. if you absolutely must seek a change the recourse regarding the published map shouldn’t be to cry for more laws (which is like calling for more gun control) but instead less by doing away with the registration which eradicates the governments ability to gather the information which was published.

          • No, I don’t agree. I can’t use my firearm to do harm unless someone is harming me and deadly force is required. I can’t shoot a gun off in just any direction in a populated area without expecting to do harm and suffer the consquences of that harm. I can’t use public information to do harm to others. The obvious intent of the paper was to cause harm to gun owners. The unintened consequences is that they made non-gun owners in that area targets and they likely outed battered women with permits who were hiding from their abusers. Yes, the abuser could have done a foia but the paper did it for them. You and they can try to hide their ill intent behind the first amendment but the majority see the intent they meant. Yes it is likely that nothing will happen to the paper but it does not make what they did legal. If there intent was to protect neighbors from gun owners, didn’t they endanger their neighbors when they hired armed guards to protect them? They did know that armed guards had guns didn’t they?

        • ” Is there a government database that lists your name and address for each and every post you make here or elsewhere?”

          I wouldn’t be surprised if such a thing exists in the NSA’s Utah facility

        • Curzen, I’m not saying the the Journal didn’t have the right to publish the names. I’m just saying that they’re @ssh0les for doing so.

  13. While this information is public record, it was not simply presented in a single space and interactive point and click map!
    Yes the press have free speech. We have free speech. It is important to remember one important thing. Media has lost journalistic integrity. Was it technically legal what they did, yes. Could it be argued that this might have put lives in danger, either from owning a gun or not owning one, yup!
    Was this journalistic terrorism, you know it!
    I look at it this way. Those records were public, but you had to request them, and then rifle through reams of paper to try and find folks near you. Not an easy task.
    Journal News took the information, and put it all together in a pretty point and click map, which in my opinion is reprehensible.
    Why?
    I worked with classified information for the better part of a decade. Lets say you have an email which is not classified, and another email that is not classified. If you put those two emails together then it becomes classified. So what we had was the paper records, and the interactive map on a web site. Separately they mean very little. There isn’t much there and folks who want to wade neck deep into public record information, have at it. They took the openly public map and the people information and put them together. That is what is wrong with all of this.
    And their demeanor seems to be one of a smug cat, like they knew they were doing wrong but there was nothing the law abiding citizens could do.
    Well now their personal information is out there… This is also public information.
    they have armed guards now, but unfortunately it only take one nut, to use either information to cause great harm to the journal news staff, or the public for which they posted information. I only hope that is not the case..

    • Exactly right! How often do you think a criminal is going to go to a government office to look up who has and does not have a gun? Pretty much never is the answer. Instead of having an individual have to put forth some effort to collect this information, the newspaper publicized for their own gain. That was never the intent of the freedom of information act. They have placed both legal gun owners and those who wish not to have guns at risk, while doing absolutely nothing to help resolve the issue of illegal gun use. How utterly stupid. In one article I read, an attorney made the stupid statement that the release of this information has never proven to be detrimental or harmful. Yeah and drinking Coca Cola non-stop has never killed anyone but we all know it’s not a good idea – right?

  14. Why all the hate for Coulter? For those who don’t know she has BA from Cornell, edited the University of Michigan law review and actually published in it. She clerked for a federal Appellate court Judge and worked for a prominent New York Law firm. In other words her IQ exceeds the egos of most us on this site. And despite your collective opinions, she have been correct far more than your average pundit. Plus she hot as hell. I guess most of you can’t handle a woman with strong opinions. Oh, did I say shes hot.

    • She was certainly getting a little PO’d during the interview. If she could learn to control her rage, she’d be more effective. Of course it took an entire staff on The View and she still held her ground even when Whoopie went on off the deep end (not far for her to go) and got belligerent like she always does when she’s lost an argument.

      • Ok, off subject quick diversion – while a corrections officer I had a group of inmates moving desks in a state DMV office. The office was mostly female. Several of the females were getting upset at each other over where the desks should be moved. There was a point where a cat fight was really close and the inmates stepped in between the two females about to go at it. Yes, the inmates stopped prevented the females from going at it!

    • I like her. The Anger Management issues are kind of endearing. Not sure she’d be safe around kids, though.

      • No, she is a nationally syndicated columnist who has the ear of some pretty highpowered people in the political world. Don’t let her act fool you.

      • This. She is a SithLord-level troll. That’s why I don’t listen to anything she says unless it’s specifically brought to my attention.

        • Nope. I’ve been debating trolls on the Internet since the Usenet days.

          Besides, Sith Lords are from the Star Wars mythos, not WoW, you ignorant fool! 🙂

        • Excuse me! I left Star Wars after the first one. I sure hope Ann follows TTAG. Did I say she was hot?

        • I figured it would get deleted.

          There is a certain type of personality that when their model or world view comes into conflict with the data claims that the real world needs to come into alignment with their model.

          If someone does not agree with empirical studies then it is incumbant that they apply the same rigorous statistical methods and vetting process used in those studies instead of attacking the character of the researcher.

        • Most pro-gun exaggerators get their material from La Pierre. I think among the Armed Intelligentsia there are some exceptions to that, guys who are inventive enough to start things themselves. I figure she reads TTAG based on her remarks.

        • No; we get them from the FBI and the Home Office. You know what you have to do so go ahead and do it.

  15. Publishing a list of names and addresses as a thinly veiled hit list is not covered by the 1st amendment. There may not be an exact law to charge the journal with, but don’t kid yourself that they were somehow constitutionally protected in what they did. I just hope karma gets them in the end.

    • Yes that is correct. All it will take is one criminal who beat a little old lady to death because he knew she was un-armed from the information the newspaper provided – and the newspaper is now liable, which should include criminally.

      • The prevailing sentiment of the readership here is that the provisions of the 2nd amendment are absolute. Assuming the same to hold true for the others including the 1st, coupled with relevant supreme court rulings and majority opinions, unless a direct intent by the writers of that newspaper for their publication to result in criminal harm can be proven they won’t be liable.

        • Not true, negligence does not require criminal intent; it only requires that an action was taken without proper or warranted concern of the consequences of that action.

        • If you look at it from a constitutionally purist angle, which I do given the audience here and their 2a sentiments, the papers actions have to be tested according to schenk v brandenburg for intent to incite, not potential negligence in regards to their 1a rights.

        • The papers actions where meant to incite. What else could they have meant? How would this information protect anybody? If their hiring of armed guards wasn’t just a publicity stunt then their actions did in fact incite.

        • If it’s such a cut and dry case of intent to incite I’m sure the paper will by now have been sued into oblivion by the commonly very lawyered-up gun rights community and lobbying groups.

          Oh wait that hasn’t happened.

        • Nobody said it was cut and dried. I doubt that anyone has standing yet to sue because nobody can show harm yet. I hope if someone is harmed, gun owner or non-gun owner, there will be a law suit. However, there are plenty of illegalities that never see the inside of a courtroom. Cash is king.

        • If a rally of armed KKK members with speeches calling for revenge against african americans and jews is constitutionally protected under the 1st as per the supreme court you really think posting an interactive map of information legally obtained from the government has any chance in hell of being found to be illegal?

        • A group of KKK members talking about large groups is much different than a single reporter specifically naming a relatively small group. If the KKK would have named specific people and given their addresses, you can be sure the results would have turned out differently. If the KKK speaches would have resulted in action they would have been charged with inciting.

        • I would argue that there has been a thinly veiled intent to incite. The stated purpose of the map was to enlighten parents regarding the areas and concentrations of guns in their neighborhoods. That much is legitimate 1A speech. For that they could post an obfuscated map showing gun concentrations to a street level detail and be done. They posted names, addresses, makes, models and quantities. That additional information is only useful if one intends harm.

          As for the KKK, they have to watch what they say carefully. They can say there is no place for their kind here, but they can’t say they should all be killed. They know that. They certainly couldn’t host a website of all known Jews, Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics in an area plotted on a map with names and addresses even if it was the only thing on a stand alone web site.

  17. All of you who are trashing Ann Coulter perhaps should realize that those of us who favor 2A rights aren’t dealing with rational opposition. Trashing those on our side only serves to bolster the gun grabbers, who would love nothing better than to have infighting amongst pro-2A folks . As some posters have pointed out above, Coulter’s intellect and IQ far exceed that of most, if not all, of us, but also the opposition. Moreover, the research she does for her books is second to none.

    • Next you’re going to tell me I should slip Grover Norquist a BJ? (Sorry, that was inflammatory and wrong, but I’m leaving it in because it makes me chuckle.)

      I’m entitled to dislike trolls whether they’re found on the Internet or on the TV screen. I’m not going to shy away from criticizing someone because they occasionally say something that aligns with my interests.

      • “Next you’re going to tell me I should slip Grover Norquist a BJ? ”
        You probably already did or at least a reach-around.

      • Well AG we can like or dislike whomever we like.
        To that end though the questions she raises are valid.
        I mean really at what point is the media, be it news papers, TV what have you bare responsibility for their actions?
        I mean it is like many of us have said. If nothing happens then we are lucky, or all of a sudden we will see a rash of home invasions, but low and behold they are at homes that do NOT show up on that list.
        Or
        We have robberies specifically targeting the guns in the homes.
        Really the only thing the Journal News did was all the hard work to make a criminals life a lot easier!
        Unfortunately until there are victims nothing can really be done. Although I do give credit to Dennis Sant for telling the Journal News to go stuff it..

        • K. Free speech and all that. But enough about Norquist and BJ’s. Jeebus, I’m gonna have the cold shivers for the rest of the night.

  19. Just to be clear on something…

    Can anybody here tell me the difference between an anti abortion website listing names and home addresses of abortion doctors and an anti gun rights newspaper listing the names and home addresses of gun owners?

    Neither have said “go out and kill these people”, but one of them has been clearly interpreted as inciting violence against others. I for one see them as one and the same especially given the quantity of like minded news prints and activists publishing explicit calls for violence (not the least of which being the KKK wannabe clown calling for pro gun elected officials to be “dragged behind a truck until they see the light”).

    Calls for violence + Names and addresses = Hit list = Not protected speech

    • implying the nuremberg files site “They also updated the listings of those doctors who had been injured or murdered by “pro-life” individuals, indicating their approval for the elimination of the provider.”

Comments are closed.