A newspaper in New York has received a wave of criticism from its readers after publishing the names and addresses of all of the individuals with handgun or pistol permits in its coverage area.

Hundreds of residents in New York’s Westchester and Rockland counties were surprised to find their names and addresses listed on a map posted by The Journal News on Sunday. Users can click any dot on the map to see which of their neighbors has a permit for a gun.

The map sparked more than 500 comments from readers within a day of its appearance on the website, many of them voicing outrage at the paper’s decision to make the information public.

“This is CRAZY!! why in the world would you post every licensed gun owner information?? What do you hope to accomplish by doing this. This is the type of thing you do for sex offenders not law abiding gun owners. What next? should i hang a flag outside my house that says I own a gun? I am canceling my subscription with your paper today!!!” said commenter Curtis Maenza.

“How about a map of the editorial staff and publishers of Gannett and Journal News with names and addresses of their families…,” wrote commenter George Thompson.

Political correctness gone mad. Let the witch hunt begin. See the map here.

  1. bracketcreep says:

    The justification is public safety and this stuff is pubic record, and people have a right to know. Ok, then why don’t we gets lists of:

    * Known pedophiles?
    * People on the pubic dole?
    * Current of former office holders, their conviction records, and real estate holdings?

    Put these in a map format with names and addresses the same Gannet people who published the gun list would screech about privacy.

    I’m now 100% convinced that this gun debate has nothing to do with public safety or protecting children. It’s about CONTROL of the left’s political enemies.

    Same thing with the gay marriage debate, which is a manufactured wedge issue which impacts less than 1% of the population. The way the left screeches, and the press spills ink, about it, you’d think it was a HUGE public issue. It’s not. It’s just a way to claim new moral high ground, allowing them to point and sputter.

    BTW, more people have died of AIDS directly attributed to homosexual “lifestyle choices” than guns in the US each year. Given their notoriety as disease vectors, wouldn’t it be in the interest of “public safety” to list the names and addresses of homosexual HIV carriers? NOOOO CAN’T DO THAT!!! THAT”S PRIVATE!!!!

    • Now Reach A__hole! (NRA) says:

      I like most of what you said. But…

      I don’t think your statements on homosexual lifestyles are really all that sane. Saying that AIDS is caused by a homosexual choice or something is completely ridiculous and an insane THEORY that still seems to be promoted by right-wing NUTS (a.k.a. “churches”)!

      BTW, I’m not a liberal dumb-”ass” either. I’m actually a heterosexual Republican and devout atheist. (Yes, I know that’s a oxymoron.)

      It may have BEEN true in the past that AIDS within the gay community was significantly higher than for any other group of people, but it was PROVEN in many CDC (and other) studies that AIDS was NEVER a direct or even an indirect result of that lifestyle. Rather, the gay community was simply the first group of people AFFECTED because of their higher rates of body fluid exchanges. So to say that gays somehow caused AIDS is a STEREOTYPE which is no different than saying only crazy people use assault weapons. It’s total bullshit!

      But when it comes to HIV (the virus that causes AIDS) or even crazy Bob down the street, it should be pubic knowledge to all those it/he might AFFECT! And that’s the key – potential danger!

      Owning a gun affects (endangers) NO ONE until some idiot gets a hold of one and fires it at another human being or even as a blood sport on another animal. Protection from dangerous animals, pest eradication or even animal harvesting (hunting) are NOT exactly blood sports either. I’m sure someone may want to argue just what a blood sport is but then it would be a trivial divergence from what’s being said here.

      Broken human beings (crazy people) with a potential for violence who have given up their rights by managing to get convicted in a court of LAW need to be public knowledge just like sex offenders or even paroled prisoners. NOT INNOCENT REGISTERED GUN OWNERS!!! There needs to be a list of irresponsible (crazy) people with a way to get off the list in the event of being cured/corrected. And that list would make it illegal for anyone on it to even ATTEMPT to purchase a firearm or actually obtain one. The reason is simple: THEY (not it) MIGHT AFFECT US!

      No matter how you look at it, guns and ammo can not affect anyone until SOMEONE USES IT, or tries to. But then that’s really all a matter of RESPONSIBILITY – something the leftie-loosie-liberals haven’t got a clue about.

  2. Supreme Ultrahuman (I see the comment system is still designed for retards.) says:

    If someone on the list is forced to actually use their legal gun to defend themselves, it will most likely be because of the publication of the list, therefore I hope the publishers of the Journal News are brought up on charges. If Anonymous were truly worth a shit, they would harass the publishers for being self-righteous assholes.

    News organizations are supposed to be unbiased. You want to find the root cause of a lot of what’s wrong with America? Look no further than collections of ass-hats like the Journal News.

    • ± says:

      quote from the link at the bottom:

      “Well, I just thought they were being hypocrites,” said Christopher Fountain on CNN’s “Early Start.” “In the aftermath of Newtown, it was obviously one tragedy, but somehow they were conflating legal gun owners with some crazed tormented devil up in Newtown and putting the two together. And I was offended by that and I wondered how they would like it if their addresses were published.”


  3. MikeN says:

    If I didn’t own a gun, I’d want to be on that list, which is now going to be checked by every robber first.

    Do we have speech permits as well?

  4. another case where the folks who like to wave the constitution in the air want to have the 2nd amendment trump the 1st amendment. this is freely available information and the press has the right to report it. if you don’t like freedom of the press, you could move to saudi arabia i suppose.

    • orchidcup says:

      There is also a perceived right to privacy embodied in the same Constitution.

      Should a newspaper be allowed to publish my name and address for any reason it deems appropriate?

      The gun owners should sue the newspaper for a finding of law on this subject.

  5. sargasso_c says:

    A turning point in public thinking. Let’s hope it starts a movement.

  6. Rick says:

    Why should any of them be worried, they own guns.

  7. MikeN says:

    What will you do after they take away your neighbors’ guns?

  8. jim g says:

    Feinstein Goes For Broke With New Gun-Ban Bill
    Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)-author of the federal “assault weapon” and “large” ammunition magazine ban of 1994-2004-has announced that on the first day of the new Congress-January 3rd- she will introduce a bill to which her 1994 ban will pale by comparison. On Dec. 17th, Feinstein said, “I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation” and “It will be carefully focused.” Indicating the depth of her research on the issue, she said on Dec. 21st that she had personally looked at pictures of guns in 1993, and again in 2012.
    According to a Dec. 27th posting on Sen. Feinstein’s website and a draft of the bill obtained by NRA-ILA, the new ban would, among other things, adopt new definitions of “assault weapon” that would affect a much larger variety of firearms, require current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners. Some of the changes in Feinstein’s new bill are as follows:
    · Reduces, from two to one, the number of permitted external features on various firearms. The 1994 ban permitted various firearms to be manufactured only if they were assembled with no more than one feature listed in the law. Feinstein’s new bill would prohibit the manufacture of the same firearms with even one of the features.
    · Adopts new lists of prohibited external features. For example, whereas the 1994 ban applied to a rifle or shotgun the “pistol grip” of which “protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,” the new bill would drastically expand the definition to include any “grip . . . or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.” Also, the new bill adds “forward grip” to the list of prohibiting features for rifles, defining it as “a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip.” Read literally and in conjunction with the reduction from two features to one, the new language would apply to every detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle. At a minimum, it would, for example, ban all models of the AR-15, even those developed for compliance with California’s highly restrictive ban.
    · Carries hyperbole further than the 1994 ban. Feinstein’s 1994 ban listed “grenade launcher” as one of the prohibiting features for rifles. Her 2013 bill carries goes even further into the ridiculous, by also listing “rocket launcher.” Such devices are restricted under the National Firearms Act and, obviously, are not standard components of the firearms Feinstein wants to ban. Perhaps a subsequent Feinstein bill will add “nuclear bomb,” “particle beam weapon,” or something else equally far-fetched to the features list.
    · Expands the definition of “assault weapon” by including:
    · Three very popular rifles: The M1 Carbine (introduced in 1944 and for many years sold by the federal government to individuals involved in marksmanship competition), a model of the Ruger Mini-14, and most or all models of the SKS.
    · Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” except for tubular-magazine .22s.
    · Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches,” any “semiautomatic handgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” and any semi-automatic handgun that has a threaded barrel.
    · Requires owners of existing “assault weapons” to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA imposes a $200 tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE’s permission to transport the firearm across state lines.
    · Prohibits the transfer of “assault weapons.” Owners of other firearms, including those covered by the NFA, are permitted to sell them or pass them to heirs. However, under Feinstein’s new bill, “assault weapons” would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government.
    · Prohibits the domestic manufacture and the importation of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The 1994 ban allowed the importation of such magazines that were manufactured before the ban took effect. Whereas the 1994 ban protected gun owners from errant prosecution by making the government prove when a magazine was made, the new ban includes no such protection. The new ban also requires firearm dealers to certify the date of manufacture of any >10-round magazine sold, a virtually impossible task, given that virtually no magazines are stamped with their date of manufacture.
    · Targets handguns in defiance of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled inDistrict of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects the right to have handguns for self-defense, in large part on the basis of the fact handguns are the type of firearm “overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.” Semi-automatic pistols, which are the most popular handguns today, are designed to use detachable magazines, and the magazines “overwhelmingly chosen” by Americans for self-defense are those that hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, Feinstein’s list of nearly 1,000 firearms exempted by name (see next paragraph) contains not a single handgun. Sen. Feinstein advocated banning handguns before being elected to the Senate, though she carried a handgun for her own personal protection.
    · Contains a larger piece of window dressing than the 1994 ban. Whereas the 1994 ban included a list of approximately 600 rifles and shotguns exempted from the ban by name, the new bill’s list is increased to nearly 1,000 rifles and shotguns. Other than for the 11 detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles and one other semi-automatic rifle included in the list, however, the list appears to be pointless, because a separate provision of the bill exempts “any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action.”

    The Department of Justice study. On her website, Feinstein claims that a study for the DOJ found that the 1994 ban resulted in a 6.7 percent decrease in murders. To the contrary, this is what the study said: “At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders. Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995. . . . However, with only one year of post-ban data, we cannot rule out the possibility that this decrease reflects chance year-to-year variation rather than a true effect of the ban. Nor can we rule out effects of other features of the 1994 Crime Act or a host of state and local initiatives that took place simultaneously.”
    “Assault weapon” numbers and murder trends. From the imposition of Feinstein’s “assault weapon” ban (Sept. 13, 1994) through the present, the number of “assault weapons” has risen dramatically. For example, the most common firearm that Feinstein considers an “assault weapon” is the AR-15 rifle, the manufacturing numbers of which can be gleaned from the BATFE’s firearm manufacturer reports, availablehere. From 1995 through 2011, the number of AR-15s-all models of which Feinstein’s new bill defines as “assault weapons”-rose by over 2.5 million. During the same period, the nation’s murder rate fell 48 percent, to a 48-year low. According to the FBI, 8.5 times as many people are murdered with knives, blunt objects and bare hands, as with rifles of any type.

    Traces: Feinstein makes several claims, premised on firearm traces, hoping to convince people that her 1994 ban reduced the (relatively infrequent) use of “assault weapons” in crime. However, traces do not indicate how often any type of gun is used in crime. As the Congressional Research Service and the BATFE have explained, not all firearms that are traced have been used in crime, and not all firearms used in crime are traced. Whether a trace occurs depends on whether a law enforcement agency requests that a trace be conducted. Given that existing “assault weapons” were exempted from the 1994 ban and new “assault weapons” continued to be made while the ban was in effect, any reduction in the percentage of traces accounted for by “assault weapons” during the ban, would be attributable to law enforcement agencies losing interest in tracing the firearms, or law enforcement agencies increasing their requests for traces on other types of firearms, as urged by the BATFE for more than a decade.
    Call Your U.S. Senators and Representative: As noted, Feinstein intends to introduce her bill on January 3rd. President Obama has said that gun control will be a “central issue” of his final term in office, and he has vowed to move quickly on it.
    Contact your members of Congress at 202-224-3121 to urge them to oppose Sen. Feinstein’s 2013 gun and magazine ban. Our elected representatives in Congress must here from you if we are going to defeat this gun ban proposal. You can write your Representatives and Senators by using our Write Your Representatives tool here: http://www.nraila.org/get- involved-locally/grassroots/ write-your-reps.aspx
    Millions of Americans own so-called “assault weapons” and tens of millions own “large” magazines, for self-defense, target shooting, and hunting. For more information about the history of the “assault weapon” issue, please visit http://www.GunBanFacts.com.