White Plains (NY) Journal to Publish Names and Addresses of Additional 44K Pistol Permit Holders

 

The White Plains Journal created a huge uproar when it used FOIA info to create an interactive map showing the name and addresses of Westchester and Rockland county’s pistol permit holders. Gun owners considered it a dangerous heads-up to criminals as to which homes had firearms worth stealing. And a bullseye for ex-cons looking for some payback on law enforcement officers who put them away. Despite or because of the outcry, the Gannett-owned paper has promised to publish 44 thousands additional names and addresses. According to Reuters, the Journal will be “outing” gun owners in suburban Putnam County. Journal’s editor and news VP CynDee Royle [above, left] is keeping schtum, standing by her original and only statement. “We knew publication of the database would be controversial, but we felt sharing as much information as we could about gun ownership in our area was important in the aftermath of the Newtown shootings.” I’m sure that doesn’t mean what she thinks it means.

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

100 Responses to White Plains (NY) Journal to Publish Names and Addresses of Additional 44K Pistol Permit Holders

  1. avatarDrVino says:

    This is a witch hunt.

  2. avatarjwm says:

    Ms. Royle address and info needs to be published. That way if one of the outed gun owners suffers loss because of her disregarsd for the gun owners families safety they can find her to express their anger with her.

    And any body in her chain of command needs to be outed as well.

  3. avatarMike123 says:

    Any chance we can get the list from the NYPD of rich manhattenites that have licenses.

  4. avatarProfBathrobe says:

    Is this seriously legal for them to do? Can this fall under the jurisdiction of hate crimes at this point?

  5. avatarWilliam says:

    This is PERFECT! These stupid @ssholes are playing right into our hands!! Way ta GO, fools….

  6. avatarJFR says:

    I’m convinced that a lawyer could make the jump that this would make her an accomplice to any home invasions at these locations.

    • avatarpeter says:

      I agree. Wouldn’t surprise me if that was the intent. Why else would you do that? So people would know how to be afraid of? No! They should fear the people who DON’T have a licence to carry their weapon concealed

  7. avatarAccur81 says:

    It’s almost as if the antis are lying, cheating, POS’s.

    Oops, I meant to say “responsible.”

    If unwanted everyone to know everything about my life I’d spend 6 hours a day on Facebook. I don’t.

  8. avatarPhil says:

    What would be interesting is if some one broke into one of these gun owners house
    Stole there weapon used it to kill some one
    Then the Owner could sue the paper and god only hopes the family of the victim sue the living shit out of the paper to

  9. avatarSkyler says:

    If any if those homes gets burgled, I hope that paper gets sued.

  10. avatarIn Memphis says:

    Nothing will happen and they wont be held responsible for any crimes. Why?

    Someone at the ATF already has an approval letter waiting on their desk.

  11. avatarSanchanim says:

    This is getting silly… Is there nothing that can be done to stop this madness??
    Come on Ralph where are your lawyer buddies who are looking to make some money, I bet it wouldn’t be hard to start a few class action lawsuits.

  12. avatarBill says:

    More incentive to drive down to take a trip down south and buy whatever handgun you want, no questions asked.

  13. avatarJeff Smith says:

    They should have their license pulled. This is plain disregard to the safety of anyone in the area.if someone gets killed in a burglary they should be held accountable since they published this info.if i have a permit to carry or own a gun its no ones business but mine.

  14. avatarJAS says:

    The real danger is not for the gun owners – criminals wont go there. The ones in danger now are the homes with no dots on the map!!! The people who published this data have it all backwards. They have just opened up unarmed citizens to crimes. And their blood will be on their hands.

    Think about it. No guns in the premises are the preferred target for criminals.

    • avatarDQ says:

      I think it goes both ways. Robbers knows where to get guns when no one is home and which homes to avoid when robbing with people at home.

      • avatarJAS says:

        I would buy that if they are strictly going after the guns. Probably not the case in a run of the mill robbery.

        • avatarAir Force TSgt says:

          Our next mass shooter now has a nice list of places to go to get guns… now that he can’t get them at Dicks…

    • avatarRalph says:

      I have it on good authority that most burglars in New York are illiterate, and the ones who aren’t mostly read the Wall Street Journal.

      The people who are most endangered by the publication of names and addresses are women who have been battered or stalked and who needed a gun for self-defense. It’s good of the newspaper to let their potential killers know where to find them. And if you think for a second that the editor and publisher gaves a sh!t about anyone but themselves, you are very naive.

  15. avatartdiinva says:

    The more likely victims will be the people not on the list. Now the criminal class knows who is armed they can choose wisely and knock off the disarmed members of the community.

    I think the publication of the list is a good idea because those gun grabbers have been freeloading off of gun owners for years. Now they will be on their own for protection as the bad guys won’t have to ask themselves “do I feel lucky?”

  16. avatarCurzen says:

    get over yourselves. it’s public information, don’t shoot the messenger.

    • avatarMr aNINNYmouse says:

      We know it is.
      But the unspoken implication and intent here are to stigmatize and harass gun owners.

    • avatarLauderdale Vet says:

      It shouldn’t be. Some of these people purchased a gun to protect themselves against specific threats, such as a battered spouse or girlfriend.

      Florida understands. It’s illegal to do that here. Someone should take the initiative to make it illegal there, too.

      • avatarand1 says:

        Only government agents have a right to privacy.

      • avatarCurzen says:

        so you want to make “dangerous” information illegal, like they want “assault” weapons to be? interesting.

        • avatarKeith says:

          Get over yourself.

        • avatarCurzen says:

          are you a parrot?

        • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

          Are you an idiot? I suspect so, a Collectivist coming to a gun site.

        • avatarCurzen says:

          I’m not sure if you’ll comprehend the irony in how your comment reinforces my previous statement and also how with that the categorization as a collectivist is more applicable to you then me.

        • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

          No I won’t.

        • avatarCasey T says:

          Curzen,
          We Americans have the right to bear arms. It isn’t a privilege, but an actual right. New York decided that in order to exercise that right, you need a permit which is probably a violation of the Constitution (if you don’t believe me, than I would love to see voting permits for everyone). After New York decided to violate the Constitution with permits, they also decided to violate the Freedom of Information Act since names, addresses, and phone numbers are considered private and thus are exempted from disclosure. So we have one or two laws and the Constitution violated and people are pissed because idiots with agendas are willing to ostracize people who support and exercise their Constitutional rights and do so by compromising people’s safety. No, it’s not the same as owning a rifle that’s no more dangerous than a knife or a shotgun, so don’t make that argument, it’s a deliberate act of aggression by a newspaper which is supposed to be unbiased and is obviously not. As far as I’m concerned, both the paper and people like you are what is wrong with this country, people who want to mold the country into their ideals. That isn’t American, it’s akin to treason but then again, I joined the military to protect the Constitution and people like you haven’t. In fact, I bet you are a coward who would run away and leave your family to die if the country was invaded or a natural disaster struck in your back yard.

        • avatarLauderdale Vet says:

          Casey T makes some good points. I’m going to make an additional smaller one. Deterrence gets some of its teeth from uncertainty. Doubt might stay a burglar’s hand if he thinks a house MIGHT have an occupant with a gun present. Doubt might stay a spree-killer’s hand if he thinks that might NOT be a gun free zone. Take away that doubt? There’s less deterrence. A gun is a tool, and deterrence is one of the things that make it useful. Publishing that list (and not addressing the aspects of intimidation, illegality, immorality) makes those guns less effective for their intended purpose: protecting their owners.

          Something I haven’t seen discussed: it makes those houses targets for when their occupants are away. Bad Guys want guns. The Journal just gave them a Christmas list. I’m sure many of them are not as secure as they should be.

    • avatarWLCE says:

      and youre missing the entire point.

    • avatarjball says:

      No in this case the messenger is the instigator. No one told the messenger to do this but the messenger. It may be public record, however we don’t publicize all public records now do we.

  17. avatarEd says:

    the NRA talked about getting a list of the papers sponsors if we can get that list we can all write them and tell them that we will not support them un till they stop supporting the paper.

  18. avatarCA_Chris says:

    Have they not figured out that many, if not most, of the CC holders in NY are police officers or other law enforcement or government officials? This will not end well.

    • avatarSanchanim says:

      My understanding from the news last night is around 8,000 of those listed so far are either current duty or retired police officers!!!
      This is nuts…

    • avatarMike in NC says:

      Unless I’m mistaken, the permits detailed in these outing articles are the ownership permits, not carry permits. This means that unless the owners are breaking the law by carrying anyway, the firearms must be left at the home or business on the license when the owner is away.

      The whole public-access issue to these records should have been structured for one-off access. From a news organization perspective: A specific individual makes news for some reason and the paper wants to know if they were licensed for a handgun and report that in a story. I can’t imagine that the law was written with the intent to out entire counties of handgun owners.

      • avatarAaronW says:

        We can carry concealed to and from the range. There is generally no criminal penalty for carrying “off hours” – just a risk of revocation of the permit.

  19. avatarJP says:

    You should also cancel any subscription and discontinue going to any website run by Gannett. This includes USA Today.

  20. avatarsdog says:

    god these people are sick, i feel so badly for the folks who havew the unfortinate coincidence to have their personal information to be used in this way, and the worst part is that they are so convinced that they are righteous for doing this.

  21. avatarLance says:

    To all gun owners either hide your guns and not register them or leave the Nazi State of new york!

  22. avatarMike in NC says:

    When one of the local TV stations (WRAL) put up an online tool to get anonymous information (street name, issue date and expiry date) about CHP holders on a particular street there was enough uproar from the fairly reserved people to get some advertisers to pull their ads from the station. I can only imagine what must be happening in New York if the stereotype of new yawker attitude is even halfway accurate.

  23. avatarSteve Ramsey says:

    The thing to do would be to got to these idiots neighborhoods with signs indicating homes that are gun free and defenseless. I’m sure their neighbors would than them for pointing it out to criminals.

    Even a targeted letter campaign to the gun free houses telling the their neighbor, so and so, of the **** newspaper fingered them for the criminals.

    • avatarBuddhaKat says:

      I wonder if they edited out the names and addresses of any JN employees that own a gun? Their names should be on the list just the same as everyone else’s. Even the author of the article says he owns a gun. Where’s his name on the published list?

  24. avatarJSIII says:

    I think we need empty holster protests outside not only this paper but also these journalists homes. We need to take some lessons from the left ala occupy and take the gloves off.

  25. avatarSaul Feldstein says:

    This just shows the dangers of gun registration, the records being published are, indeed, public info because NY requires permits for pistols.

    I would wager NY protects DMV info as confidential however, and the gun permits should have been categorized the same way.

    But anyone who lives in Peoples Socialist Republic of NY knows they are in a gun hating liberal state, so its one of the downsides of living there as a gun owner.

    All considered, this is still public info and within the 1st Amendment rights of the Gannett flacks to publish it. We cannot let the love of the 2nd Amendment cloud our tolerance for the 1st.

    • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

      I don’t have a problem with the First. We are using it!

    • avataruncommon_sense says:

      Saul, I totally disagree that citizens’ handgun permits are public information. Everyone has an inalienable right to privacy and the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld that concept. When two rights conflict — such as a newspaper’s 1st Amendment rights and a citizen’s privacy rights — a citizen’s privacy rights take precedence, especially when the citizens have done nothing illegal.

      The intent of the 1st Amendment is to protect the right of people to air-out matters of public interest, debate public policy, express opinions and beliefs, etc. The intent of the 1st Amendment was NOT enable newspapers to publish citizen’s names, addresses, and their personal belongings.

      • avatarLongPurple says:

        +1
        Yet we see the 1st expanded to protect such “speech” as flag burning, porn as “art”, and the protection of liars who falsely claim military service and decorations. This is just another step in that expansion.
        Meanwhile, we can expect a drive to contract the 2nd A. any way possible.

      • avatarRalph says:

        I totally disagree that citizens’ handgun permits are public information

        You may want permit information to be private, but as a matter of law in NY it’s public. If it wasn’t public info, we wouldn’t know that in NYC, only royalty — actors, millionaires and political cronies of the mayor — can own a handgun.

  26. avatarMotoJB says:

    Pathetic…painting a target on every home without a gun. I’d be pissed, permit or not.

  27. avatarSammy says:

    The print media is dead. They are just trying to garner attention with an outrageous act(s). But I HATE the smug little smiles on the faces in the picture above.

  28. avatarJeh says:

    What a handsome women he is.

    Hey this could be a good thing in a way,
    now the criminals know where NOT to go.

    “Oh now I cant rob #1224 ill get shot, lets go to #1226 they dont have a gun!”

    Neigbor gets robbed, make a point of the holders safty, spread, and maybe convert a few sheep.

  29. avatarJOE MATAFOME says:

    I think it’s great for the gun owners because the bad guys will now rob the house down the street and leave the permit holders alone. These crooks are cowards and they prefer any easy target to taking a bullet everytime.

  30. avatarMike says:

    The writer of the article (Dwight R. Worley) owns a S&W 686 (permit from Feb 2011) and left his name off the list. One rule for them and one for us.

  31. avatarThomas Paine says:

    My fear is that something like this will provoke some violence, and then shit will really get out of hand.

  32. This is egregious all right, but it warms my heart to look at that map of Westchester county, a seething hotbed of liberal heaven, and see those thousands of dots packed together. I’m pleasantly surprised. Can you imagine what the rest of the country looks like? We have a LOT of company.

  33. avatarduck says:

    Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.
    Yes, under NY law, this is public information, using it in this manner, is feebleminded.

  34. avatarAharon says:

    All Gannet Medias especially the Journal need to be boycotted.
    All Gannet Media advertising sponsors especially at the Journal need to be boycotted.
    Gannet and especially the Journal need to have their employees outed in detail.

    An organization needs to be formed to organize and orchestrate a pro-gun community move against them.

  35. avatarBuzzlefutt says:

    Let this serve as reason why we cannot allow any sort of registry, licensing, or permits to own or carry firearms.
    Illinois attorney general Lisa Madigan attempted to get access to Il. FOID data for similar purposes. (Fortunately she failed)
    Since these registrations have been compromised and used beyond the spirit of “security” it shows that we cannot stand for them.

  36. avatarjball says:

    These mindless idiots are following the Saul Alinsky rule for radicals playbook. The only problem is when they succeed, no one will know who’s on who’s side anymore so like the Biblical account of Gideon, they will probably eliminate each other.

  37. avatarGauger says:

    Even if I were a non-gun owner I would be ticked off if this data became available. The other thing this shows the criminal class which houses are safe to rob because the homeowner is not armed!

  38. avatarCasey T says:

    This information being disclosed violates the Freedom of Information Act. Someone just needs to sue New York and the paper and they would win.

    • avatarRalph says:

      Casey T, the information was obtained pursuant to New York’s FOIA. FOIA doesn’t prohibit disclosure, it requires disclosure. Anyone who sues the paper will lose.

  39. avatarspeedracer5050 says:

    Class Action Lawsuit. Make it so any crime commited against any of the people shown on the map is automatically brought to court as a liable suit against the paper and everyone involve in gathering and publishing the info.
    Wonder if they could be prosecuted for aiding and abetting the Commision of a crime or endangerment?? You know some of those homes have kids or grankids!!!

    • avatarRalph says:

      A lawsuit would be dismissed rapidly and would be a waste of time and resources. The paper had a right to publish public information. But as we all know, just because we can do something doesn’t me we should do that something.

  40. avatarlolinski says:

    So she “feels” that it is important to endanger the lives of legal gun-owners?

  41. avatarFarmer bill says:

    Would these same fools want to “out” everyone who had an abortion? How about treatment for Depression?

    • avatarRalph says:

      Under federal and NY state law, medical records are private, not public. By NY state law, permit records in NY are public, not private.

  42. avatarGS650G says:

    How about looking at this another way: Scumbags break into gun owners house and get their ticket punched. Think Roach Motel.
    But in NYS a DGU can be pretty hard to defend in court.

  43. avatarAC says:

    Newspapers are incredibly sensitive to loss of advertising revenue and subscribers (the latter number dedicates how much they can justify charging advertisers for “display ads”). If one were really worked up about these lists reach out to the companies that advertise with the Journal News and let them know why you can’t do business with them. Additionally you could reach out to other Gannet properties (e.g. http://www.gannett.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?Dato=99999999&Kategori=MARKETING&Lopenr=101103001&Ref=AR ) and cancel your subscription with them (make sure they know the reason) and choose to no longer patronize their advertisers.

    A quick look through the advertisers on the JN website ( http://circularcentral.shoplocal.com/thejournalnews/default.aspx?citystatezip=westchester+ny ) includes:

    Sears, Target, Kohls, Lamp Plus, Lowes, Macy’s, Michael’s, Office Depot, Office Max, Petco, Petsmart, Radio Shack, Staples, Toys R Us, True Value Hardware, Walmart, Walgreens.

    Gotta be some stores on that list you don’t need to shop at anymore.

    • avatarJarhead1982 says:

      Make sure you get the boss at that division and suggest their name & publicly available info will be outed eventually as a gun free home, maybe even as a billboard!

  44. avatarpat says:

    Insane. And quite dangerous.

  45. avatarTom Hobbs says:

    AC has the right idea. Law suits won’t do a thing. Hit them in the place it hurts the most, their pocket. Visit the places that advertise with Gannett, and let the manager know that you will no longer use their store. Yes it will mean change for you but when the stores hear enough comment they will listen and Gannett will hear it too.

  46. avatarLarryR says:

    Somebody needs to burn a cross on Ms. Cynndee Royles lawn….

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.