Prev Next
Featured Quizzes
Politix Daily Headlines
Featured Debates
Issues

See all 17 issues

People
White House

See all people

ARMED GUARDS

Newspaper that Published Gun Owners' Info Hires Armed Guards

'Guns are good for the goose but NOT the gander' writes paper's local competitor

Next>

by Lisa Fine

Staff Writer t

Gun permits in Westchester County, NY / Image: Journal News

In an ironic twist, the suburban New York newspaper that caused quite a controversy by publishing the names and addresses of area residents with gun permits has hired armed security guards for its office, Politico reports.

The Journal News of West Nyack, N.Y., upped security in response to receiving a backlash of angry phone calls and emails about the decision to print the personal information, according to a police report first obtained by the newspaper's local competitor.

"Guns are good for the goose but NOT for the gander," the Rockland County Times wrote.

After last month's mass-shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., the Gannett-owned Journal News published interactive maps that showed the names and addresses of licensed handgun holders in Westchester and Rockland counties. The paper used Freedom of Information Act records to obtain the data and is working on a third map for Putnam County, Politico wrote.

In retaliation, one Connecticut lawyer posted a blog with the phone number and addresses of the Journal's staff, including a Google Maps satellite Image of the Publisher's home. "I don't know whether the Journal's publisher Janet Hasson is a permit holder herself, but here's how to find her to ask," read Christopher Fountain's blog post.

Via Politico, and the Rockland County Times
Like this article? B Vote Up
?

What do you think about the paper's decision to hire armed guards after publishing gun owners' info?

View results

Comments (view in Forum)

  • u
    S-N-A-F-U
    !
    All that shooting portrayed in that liberal thumb-sucking clip, was in malls, schools and theaters, all advertised "Gun Free Zones" - So that potential crazies can do their dastardly deeds without recourse from honest citizens that may have a concealed carry permit that could have put a 'round' in their brain-pan.
    But liberals were never that smart -- and completely devoid of common sense.....

    "When seconds count and police are minutes away."
  • paperdragons81
    !
    More anti-gun propaganda using celebrities to brainwash the masses, to train the herds subconscience to fear guns and demand our goverment do something about it.

  • View all 17 replies >

  • PNWest
    !
    It makes sense. Just look at the right wing posts here and it is easy to see why the publisher is scared. It wasn't a good decision to post names and addresses of gun permit owners on the newspapers part. Who knows if there is another responsible gun owner like Nancy Lanza with a lunatic child with access to her guns that might want to use a 2nd amendment solution to what they see as an abuse of the first amendment.
  • PNWest
    !
    @bsking Well it wouldn't be the first post of mine that ever got pulled. I think my first one was actually a reply to you where I got a bit over heated!

  • View all 25 replies >

  • PoliticalSpice
    !
    A waste of money, they should just equip the staff with guns and shoot anyone who presents a threat...it would save money, and they would have an exclusive on the story. Proposed headline "First Amendment supporters use second amendment remedy"
  • bsking
    !
    You don't understand the second Amendment do you? In your mind the 2nd amendment is the "right to commit murder" that's pathetic.
  • o
    Sabio
    !
    Would expect nothing less from liberals, "do as I say, not as I do" is their way of life! They always tell others what not to do, then turn around and do the same or worse!!!
  • o
    Bullitt
    !
    EVERY ONE needs some type of protection. I just took the time to learn to do it my self instead of hiring someone to do it. And don't say that the police should do it. They carry guns to protect THEM not you. Plus I just spent a day at the range with the local sheriffs dept TEACHING basic handgun skills. Good guys but pitiful shots. No, I don't want to depend on them for anything but filling out reports.
  • u
    S-N-A-F-U
    !
    Aw, these liberal weenies didn't like a gun owner(s) publishing their vital statistics either, so now their relying on the gun as well. What a bunch of phonies!
    "What comes around, goes around." <wink>
  • cat2009
    !
    Seems that this publisher all of a sudden want's to be protected by the same guns he opposes. Wonder what he sufters from the most the yellow streak or the candy ass man that he is.
  • Denizen_Kate
    !
    Reading comprehension skills are truly beyond price. "... the Journal's publisher Janet Hasson ... " Don't know about you, but I've never heard of a man named Janet.(Sorry, couldn't resist teasing you for this one ...:-)
  • HughAkston
    !
    Could you imagine the outcry if that very same newspaper published the names and addresses of anybody that is HIV-Positive and thinly disguised it as a you have a right to know who is in your neighborhood issue? Could you imagine if that very same newspaper identified women that went into a Planned Parenthood office and published their names and addressees? We'd all be hearing about how these peoples privacy rights were violated! Where are the privacy advocates on this one? Let's be honest, the newspaper published those gun owners name to shame them and hold them up to public ridicule in the context of that Connecticut massacre, as if they are somehow responsible. The newspaper acted with a malicious intent. I have no sympathy for the newspaper.
  • PNWest
    !
    The list of HIV-Positive people is not public record is it? Nor is the patient list of Planned Parenthood. The list of gun permit holders is public record. The newspaper had the right to publish this information. It was a stupid thing to do but being stupid isn't a crime.
  • HughAkston
    !
    @PNWest When a newspaper wants to, they can find information on anybody they choose and publish what they find. You're 100% correct, they had a right to do it AND it was stupid. But where are the privacy advocates? I'll grant you that gun owners and cigarette smokers are generally frowned upon. However, there was no compelling reason to publish these people's names and addresses. The newspaper published these peoples names and addresses with the worst of intentions.
  • Denizen_Kate
    !
    Actually, there is outcry from all sides over this snafu. The publisher pulled what I euphemistically refer to as a "boner" in printing information that was actually publicly available to anyone who wanted to bother looking into it. HIV test results are not a matter of public record, and our medical records are also not public, however, I for one found this paper's action to be needlessly invasive. Just because one owns a gun doesn't mean, IMO, that everyone else needs to know that. I agree that publishing names and addresses of gun owners was malicious in intent. And here we see the consequences of the newspaper's stupidity.
  • PNWest
    !
    @HughAkston I agree - I thought it was stupid to publish those names and addresses. The privacy advocates should say that it was OK to publish it too. After all the names are in the public record. Privacy advocates would probably want these records open - less government secrecy. Still was a bad move on the newspapers part. If they were trying to support gun control it didn't make them any friends.
  • HughAkston
    !
    @Denizen_Kate I know that medical records with regard to abortion and HIV status are not a matter of public record. I was trying to find something that would constitute an intrusion into a person's personal life, published for contemptible reasons, and know that would be responded to. However, I think you and most people understand what I was trying to say ....... BTW happy New Year to you and all the regulars here.

  • View all 6 replies >

  • Drake_Burrwood
    !
    I find it understandable, though it would have been nicer if they had that understanding before publishing the names. Of course that's only if they did learn something if not its only Hypocritical. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
  • Your_Name_Here
    !
    What they just said by doing this is their article is nothing more than propaganda from a subversive organization planning an overthrow of the government. They should all be taken to a military detention facility and waterboarded until they start telling the truth. Their names and addresses should be published along with where everyone in their family works and where their kids attend school. The IRS needs to audit the paper for at least 10 years because anyone who endorses both sides of the same issues depending on convenience obviously must lie about other things as well.
  • jessejaymes
    !
    @Your_Name_Here Your statement is not that much different from how Al-Queda views things and deals with those whom they disagree.
  • Your_Name_Here
    !
    @jessejaymes I guess I need to explain in great detail when I spoof someone else's actions and use sarcasm. My comments are taking what the paper did and putting it into perspective by turning up the idiocracy just a notch. They did something that could result in death because I'm sure there are a lot of psychos running around looking for inventory so they can be the next great mass murderer. Now they have a road map of where all the guns and ammo live. The paper should also publish a list of where the wealthiest families live in case the nutbag needs some cash for gas. I'm not sure about how Al-Qaeda (please excuse my correct spelling of Al-Qaeda) thinks but as a self-proclaimed expert I will take your word for it. Too bad we have laws against publishing names and addresses of mentally ill people who have violent tendencies - it's best to catch people off guard if you're a psychotic mass murderer.
  • jessejaymes
    !
    @Your_Name_Here That's simply not true. the list was of people who have handguns. Rifles and shotguns are not tracked so was not listed. If someone is dumb enough to think a home is unprotected because that home is not on the list then I suspect that load of double O buckshot in the face will be well deserved. Was it a stupid thing to do publishing that list? Absolutely. Was it a road map for criminals? Not at all.

  • View all 8 replies >

  • DARSB
    !
    Step 1 - Newspaper pisses off gun owners, Step 2 - Newspaper hires armed guards, says competing publication, Step 3 - Competitor mocks first newspaper for exercising its 2nd amendment rights.

    Yeah, the logic seems familiar.
  • R Load more comments...