TexasCHLforum.com

Rex B wrote:I sure hope someone asked that newspaper editor how he would feel if he had to pass a federal background check and buy a license to exercise his 1st Amendment rights

Touche'!

Love it!

Since the Richmond, Virginia paper did this to this incident, I am wondering why it became this "new" thing to print interesting public record information on just people with CCW permits in the first place...

Just because you can, and have space available on your paper to do so, doesn't mean it is right...

And once its out in the open there is just not much you can do about it...There are also many reasons to be extremely angry, and not very nice to editors and papers for pulling stunts like this, but if taking them to court and sueing for whatever reason you can come up with doesn't work, and they (paer and their minions) hide beside a lame shield like the First Amendment, I say that just incites futher need to remove the accessability of this information from public record...

We've successfully done this in Texas, and a few other states have moved on this as well...So if some state hasn't done so, until they are compelled to do so, doesn't seem like much can be done till then for those folks...

I think this is all an under the radar attempt by the gun-control crowd to instigate these public releases of personal information...To somehow create this negative stigma via public knowledge that your nieghbors carry a gun to kill people because thats what they are used for...(I'm being sarcastic in delivery there)...

I'm just not sure what recourse is proper and effective to stop this from happening...Other than protecting the information legislatively...

stevie_d_64 wrote:Since the Richmond, Virginia paper did this to this incident, I am wondering why it became this "new" thing to print interesting public record information on just people with CCW permits in the first place...

Just because you can, and have space available on your paper to do so, doesn't mean it is right...

And once its out in the open there is just not much you can do about it...There are also many reasons to be extremely angry, and not very nice to editors and papers for pulling stunts like this, but if taking them to court and sueing for whatever reason you can come up with doesn't work, and they (paer and their minions) hide beside a lame shield like the First Amendment, I say that just incites futher need to remove the accessability of this information from public record...

We've successfully done this in Texas, and a few other states have moved on this as well...So if some state hasn't done so, until they are compelled to do so, doesn't seem like much can be done till then for those folks...

I think this is all an under the radar attempt by the gun-control crowd to instigate these public releases of personal information...To somehow create this negative stigma via public knowledge that your nieghbors carry a gun to kill people because thats what they are used for...(I'm being sarcastic in delivery there)...

I'm just not sure what recourse is proper and effective to stop this from happening...Other than protecting the information legislatively...

IMHO, part of the problem is the assumption that carrying a handgun is so that you can kill people. There is no stigma associated with defense of self. It's the media & the anti-gunners that want there to be some stigma associated with self-defense.

The fundamental reason publishing this information is wrong is the same reason that publishing who has $1500 diamonds in their home, or publishing lists of who has restraining orders against their ex-, or publishing the names of the people at the womens' shelter is wrong.

It's the intent to harm that is the problem. Truthfully, I don't care if my neighbors know I have a gun, aside from the potential harm that that information can do to me or others to have it be public (for example, the potential for break-ins to steal the handguns by BGs, or the impact it has on my childrens' lives).

Mithras61 wrote:Truthfully, I don't care if my neighbors know I have a gun, aside from the potential harm that that information can do to me or others to have it be public (for example, the potential for break-ins to steal the handguns by BGs, or the impact it has on my childrens' lives).

Most people here don't mind anyone knowing we have guns in our homes; we're not ashamed of them.
However, it is wise to limited the number of people that know a) you have guns, and b) where you live for the reason you stated above.

Most of my students know that I have guns, and that shooting is a hobby. (Some have even brought their targets to school to show me how well they've done.) However, I don't make my address public knowledge-- I'm not naive enough to think there aren't a few aspiring felons in the mix.

Venus Pax wrote:

Mithras61 wrote:Truthfully, I don't care if my neighbors know I have a gun, aside from the potential harm that that information can do to me or others to have it be public (for example, the potential for break-ins to steal the handguns by BGs, or the impact it has on my childrens' lives).

Most people here don't mind anyone knowing we have guns in our homes; we're not ashamed of them.
However, it is wise to limited the number of people that know a) you have guns, and b) where you live for the reason you stated above.

Most of my students know that I have guns, and that shooting is a hobby. (Some have even brought their targets to school to show me how well they've done.) However, I don't make my address public knowledge-- I'm not naive enough to think there aren't a few aspiring felons in the mix.

Exactly my point. Publishing my name & address isn't the problem. The issue is that they intend harm to CHL holders.

I think we should publish the home address, phone, email, ssn, etc of all the politicians who are gun grabbers.. Rudy, Hillary, Shumer, Fienstein, Pelosi, Kennedy and of course anyone who ever contributed a dime to the Brady Bunch.. I think it's a public service to those who agree with their viewpoints??

para driver wrote:I think we should publish the home address, phone, email, ssn, etc of all the politicians who are gun grabbers.. Rudy, Hillary, Shumer, Fienstein, Pelosi, Kennedy and of course anyone who ever contributed a dime to the Brady Bunch.. I think it's a public service to those who agree with their viewpoints??

and point out in said publication that these folks are anti-gun and are almost assuredly unarmed.

Personally,
I don't have a problem at all fighting fire with fire.

Dan

phddan wrote:Personally,
I don't have a problem at all fighting fire with fire.

Dan

+1

Mithras61 wrote:

Venus Pax wrote:

Mithras61 wrote:Truthfully, I don't care if my neighbors know I have a gun, aside from the potential harm that that information can do to me or others to have it be public (for example, the potential for break-ins to steal the handguns by BGs, or the impact it has on my childrens' lives).

Most people here don't mind anyone knowing we have guns in our homes; we're not ashamed of them.
However, it is wise to limited the number of people that know a) you have guns, and b) where you live for the reason you stated above.

Most of my students know that I have guns, and that shooting is a hobby. (Some have even brought their targets to school to show me how well they've done.) However, I don't make my address public knowledge-- I'm not naive enough to think there aren't a few aspiring felons in the mix.

Exactly my point. Publishing my name & address isn't the problem. The issue is that they intend harm to CHL holders.

Its the "correlation" of data, names, addreses and the fact that they are doing this because the CCW database is public record...Accessable...

Most goobs that might want to do us harm wouldn't actually spend the time to access or request this data...Nor have the smarts to do it...

I believe the maliciousness the editors of these papers illustrate is obvious...Their intent is clear...What you can do about it is subject to your personal threashold of tolerance...

I could fall either way on this, as far as what you do about it...I am just glad Texas covered us this last session, so I don't see us in this state having to worry about this too much anymore...

But I absolutely feel outrage for the folks in states that allow the blatant abuse of public data information...

In the day and age of very clever ID theft and abuse of personal information...And everywhere we turn, some government or banking/credit agency dunderheads laptop with private information gets pinched...It really make you wonder why more folks like us don't circle the wagons and start to get their information (or at least make a concerted effort) off the grid...Sounds hard, or nearly impossible to do, but I don't think it would be that hard to do...

Now how that "really" effects you credit wise, or some other form of modern convienience (name some, I'm sure there are a lot of things you need to let other people have data on you beforehand)...

Maybe its something we should start to think about...

stevie_d_64 wrote:But I absolutely feel outrage for the folks in states that allow the blatant abuse of public data information...

i'm not saying that using public data to the ends of the dark side of the force is bad, but is there really such a thing as "abuse"... it is afterall, "public data".

if we dont like how folks use it, then we should change the laws so that the data isn't public, not be mad at how folks use the data. In my mind that's like giving a class of kindergardeners a set of steak knives and then getting upset because they shredded the curtains.

hate the law, not the abusive idiots. if the law wasn't as it is the abusive idiots couldn't be abusive.

just my opinion.

LedJedi wrote: In my mind that's like giving a class of kindergardeners a set of steak knives and then getting upset because they shredded the curtains.

These guys aren't kindergarteners. They knew exactly what they were doing.
As for using the law to fight them... changing the law could, and often does, take years. Publishing the editor's personal information was something that could be done immediately; I imagine it got the point across.

Venus Pax wrote:

LedJedi wrote: In my mind that's like giving a class of kindergardeners a set of steak knives and then getting upset because they shredded the curtains.

These guys aren't kindergarteners. They knew exactly what they were doing.
As for using the law to fight them... changing the law could, and often does, take years. Publishing the editor's personal information was something that could be done immediately; I imagine it got the point across.

I imagine it only fueled the already raging fire in the media that pro-gunners are crazy. (yes, i realize the absurdity of that argument given they just did the same thing)

now, i'm not saying it wasn't .... hmmm, what's the word? Justified? that doesn't seem right.

It just wasn't really a productive move. It probably only made them even more upset. I can't think of a better tactic though. I'm not wild about some of the coverage that was given the situation afterwards either like news pieces about how they published information on people who were in hiding. the news piece just highlights that person even more.

The hole thing was poorly handled on both sides... hilarious in a sense, but poorly handled.

HighVelocity wrote:If this was Wapners courtroom, Ol' Doug would be calling it, "The Case of what's good for the Goose isn't so good for the Gander".
I hope that Mr. Westerhold now sees the error of his ways and will be more appreciative of other peoples right to privacy.

Venus Pax wrote:

LedJedi wrote: In my mind that's like giving a class of kindergardeners a set of steak knives and then getting upset because they shredded the curtains.

These guys aren't kindergarteners. They knew exactly what they were doing.
As for using the law to fight them... changing the law could, and often does, take years. Publishing the editor's personal information was something that could be done immediately; I imagine it got the point across.

Absolutely!!!

You know Jedi, we are not kindergartners either...We are not an organized group of people who have the ability to blatantly publish for the general public (who would give a rats) on a regular basis, information, public or private, whether it be right or wrong for that information to be printed...

The reaction by the people in this case is indicative of how the law has failed or been deficient in protecting peoples privacy...Other states are slowly coming to grips with this...And they are changing the laws to protect this information...

So if that is the proper reaction to this issue, then the logical assumption should be that the original disclosure of permit holders personal "public" information in a public media forum was completely wrong and served no purpose in any capacity...