Newsday
Journal News gun permit map used by burglars to target White Plains home?
There was broken glass in the backyard Sunday and a ladder leading up to a second-story window. Neighbors on the street of modest, Colonial homes said they had heard about the burglary.
The homeowner’s name and address were included recently on the controversial interactive map of gun permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties published on The Journal News’ website.
Neighbor John Mascia said he thought the gun permit database should not have been published.
“I could [not] care less what they have in their home,” Mascia said.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Sue everyone. Take them to the cleaners.
tom daschle concerned on January 14, 2013 at 8:03 AM
Unintended consequences.Steve Eggleston on January 14, 2013 at 8:04 AM
It’s not like “journalists” can plead ignorant. Other newspapers have tried similar stunts in the past which resulted in similar controversies.
MechanicalBill on January 14, 2013 at 8:06 AM
Gosh…this was totally unpredictable. ///
ironbill on January 14, 2013 at 8:07 AM
Liberal judges control the courts so – no relief there. There is another option – but I won’t mention it.
HondaV65 on January 14, 2013 at 8:08 AM
Won’t go far suing the paper. It was publicly available information after all.
The real culprit is the State of New York for making this information available at all.
iconoclast on January 14, 2013 at 8:18 AM
Who could have foreseen this?
Good Lt on January 14, 2013 at 8:27 AM
Yup. Having criminals take guns from law abiding citizens. A twisted but satisfactory result of disarming the public presently desired by liberals/progressives. They knew this would happen. The paper should be held liable for aiding and abetting criminals.
Fallon on January 14, 2013 at 8:36 AM
I’m hoping someone with deep pockets will take the Journal News to court. Make them pay and pay dearly to defend their own recklessness. Bring in the lawyers. Make such a stink that readers and advertisers will shy away. You don’t have to win the case to win the battle.
Let them understand that their actions have consequences.
petefrt on January 14, 2013 at 8:38 AM
Oh for God’s Sake. You Conservatives and your fake outrage. These people were gun owners. They hate children and had it coming to them.
hawkdriver on January 14, 2013 at 8:45 AM
Agreed. I am not a litigious by nature, but there are appropriate times when you need a lawyer to sue the hall out of someone. This is one of those times.
BigGator5 on January 14, 2013 at 8:45 AM
I wonder that consolidating the information wouldn’t be seen as inciting crime though. Honest question. What does your average citizen have to go through to garner this “public” information? I mean, if I were a courthouse clerk and some person started asking for records of gun-owners, I’d be suspicious.
Anybody?
hawkdriver on January 14, 2013 at 8:48 AM
20 paces
wheelgun on January 14, 2013 at 8:49 AM
Being a lawyer is not about knowing the law, but arguing about law and theory.
BigGator5 on January 14, 2013 at 8:55 AM
I mean, how easy is it to actually get that info. I keep reading it’s public record. So that means anyone can walk down to the courthouse and ask if I have a weapons permit?
hawkdriver on January 14, 2013 at 9:02 AM
Just ask any law student who took a “Constitutional Law” course without reading a single word of the constitution.
gryphon202 on January 14, 2013 at 9:05 AM
“Public record” doesn’t mean it’s necessarily easy to get that information. Sometimes there are, in fact, hoops one must jump through. I know in my home state that’s a big frustration for open government advocates.
gryphon202 on January 14, 2013 at 9:06 AM
So maybe these folks do have a case to sue.
hawkdriver on January 14, 2013 at 9:10 AM
I’m pretty sure it’s not an anonymous process, either. One would need to sign the request for information. That’s why the paper should have liability. They requested the information, aggregated it and made it available to anyone to use as they wish. To me, it’s the same as leaving your neighbor’s key, fully labeled, hanging on a hook outside your door. Anyone can walk by and do as they wish with the key.
Mitoch55 on January 14, 2013 at 9:16 AM
Maybe. In a case such as this one, there is absolutely no guarantee of success, but that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily the wrong thing to do in a tort action.
gryphon202 on January 14, 2013 at 9:17 AM
Basicly, but you hit it on the head the first time. The average Joe Citizen would likely get laughed out of that office. Putnam County Clerk told the The Journal News to pound sand, so they can refuse if they wanted.
The public records was originally meant, and get this, for corpoate/politcal marketing purposes. Permits of all kinds in New York are all open records. However this was done before the internet, where searchable databases was unheard of. This is from my understand of New York law since this started and thus I could be incorrect.
BigGator5 on January 14, 2013 at 9:18 AM
So, the moral of the story? Don’t get on lists?
Bmore on January 14, 2013 at 9:31 AM
From a liberal point-of-view, maybe. But I think they would sing a different tune if this was a list of women who got abortions.
BigGator5 on January 14, 2013 at 9:35 AM
Kill your baby? You have a right to privacy mentioned nowhere in the constitution.
Exercise your explicitly enumerated right to keep and bear arms? Forget about it. No right to privacy exists.
gryphon202 on January 14, 2013 at 9:44 AM
I’d bet that the paper had their lawyers file the FOI request. Since they’re a paper, they have those resources and since they’re a news organization, the clerk might not think twice about releasing the information.
I’d suppose you could make a similar request – but whether that request requires legal assistance, time and money is uncertain.
We do know that the most transparent administration ever, has dragged their heels with regard to numerous FOI requests – so without having legal representation, the Average Joe might very well be inclined to give up.
Hill60 on January 14, 2013 at 10:03 AM
The paper had to file a FOIA request. It wasn’t as simple as asking.
Round Two is coming:
Washington Nearsider on January 14, 2013 at 10:04 AM
The whole point of FOIA is that it shouldn’t require any assistance beyond the helpful people at whatever government agency you’re seeking the information from. It’s never that simple in practice, but that was the intent of the law.
Worth noting, this occurred in New York State. Had nothing to do with the federal government outside of making some New Yorkers less sympathetic to the cause of federal gun control legislation. New York is already one of the most anti-gun states in the union, thanks largely to NYC.
gryphon202 on January 14, 2013 at 10:06 AM
You think maybe — just maybe — the supposed “need” for armed guards at the Journal will make them rethink publishing that Putnam County info? (hint: I wouldn’t bet on it)
gryphon202 on January 14, 2013 at 10:09 AM
I think if I was hired as a contracted guard for the Journal, I’d have to ask myself if I was really willing to take a bullet to protect an organization dedicated to endangering innocent civilians.
Washington Nearsider on January 14, 2013 at 10:10 AM
The MSM thinks that it’s OK to place limitations on rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Maybe it’s time to place some limitations on the freedom of the press?
HarryBackside on January 14, 2013 at 10:11 AM
They should be forced to use rolling presses and movable type. After all, that’s what technology was available in the 18th century.
Washington Nearsider on January 14, 2013 at 10:13 AM
There are already limitations on the freedom of the press. What do you think the FCC exists for? There just aren’t limits on the printed word.
gryphon202 on January 14, 2013 at 10:13 AM
How do we know this burglarly was the result of the gun permit map. And for that matter, if guns deter crime, why would the gun permit map attract people to folks who had a gun? Shouldn’t criminals be scared?
libfreeordie on January 14, 2013 at 10:44 AM
Sounds as if the burglars were trying to steal the homeowners’ guns…who knew? Oh, yeah, sorry.
d1carter on January 14, 2013 at 10:48 AM