Breaking: Attempted Gun Burglary Tied to Journal News Gun Map

Who didn’t see this coming? From

Today Senator Greg Ball (Patterson – R, C, I) announced that a burglary has been reported on Davis Ave. in White Plains, New York that evidently ties into The Journal News gun maps. It is reported that the burglar used The Journal News’ interactive gun map to target a home included on the map. Luckily the gun was locked up and no one was hurt.

“The Journal News has placed the lives of these folks at risk by creating a virtual shopping list for criminals and nut jobs. If the connection is proven, this is further proof that these maps are not only an invasion of privacy but that they present a clear and present danger to law-abiding, private citizens. Former convicts have already testified to the usefulness of the asinine Journal News ‘gun maps’ yet the reckless editors are evidently willing to roll the dice, gambling with the lives of innocent local homeowners,” said Senator Greg Ball.

Senator Ball indicates that he’ll be introducing a couple of Senate Bills to address this, one of which is S2132 which will “protect the privacy rights of ordinary citizens; including: law enforcement personnel, victims of domestic violence and private citizens.”

How does Senator Ball feel about the Journal News’s editorial standards?

The same elitist eggheads who use their editorial page to coddle terrorists and criminals are now treating law abiding citizens like level three sexual predators. These bills are critical to keep folks safe and fundamentally protect their inherent right to privacy. I hope all of these bills will be brought to the floor for an up or down vote, and allowed to fail or pass on their own merits and not as part of a large, overarching gun-control package. This is not about the Second Amendment; these bills are simply about commonsense and personal privacy. Publishing this information on a website, as we have evidently just witnessed in the recent attempted gun burglary, provides criminals with a map of where they can steal firearms from lawful owners for later use in the commission of crimes. This legislation is critical.


  1. avatar imrambi says:

    Time to sue the paper for facilitating in the act of burglary, along with asking for replacement for what was stolen.

    1. avatar ready,fire,aim says:


    2. avatar WC says:

      Does this mean criminals are more likely to target your house for burglary if they know you own a gun?

      1. avatar WC says:

        I remember seeing an “Insured by Smith & Wesson” sticker displayed at my uncle’s house. Should I tell him that this won’t deter, but rather encourage robbery?

        1. avatar S.CROCK says:

          i have seen a “represented by the firm of mossberg and glock” sticker. cool at first, but the low life scum will just wait till you leave to burglarize your house.

        2. avatar Gregolas says:

          Not only will it encourage robbery/burglary, but if you shoot the perp in a home so decorated look for an army of plaintiff’s lawyers representing the dead crook’s family to come gunning for you. Also, since your “funny” sign announced to the world your intent to kill rather than call the cops, your homeowner’s insurer will decline to defend you b/c the shooting clearly wasn’t accidental. Take it from a lawyer with 17 years trial experience, get rid of all your clever window/bumper stickers yesterday.

        3. avatar AlphaGeek says:

          “Please burglarize my [home|truck] looking for guns” stickers are the opposite of good operational security.

          On the other hand, the tasteful but visible sign in front of my house gives the terminally stupid a hint that they should look up and see the blinky lights on the motion-sensing, audio-recording cameras before proceeding.

          If I ever find a sign that effectively conveys “homeowner gets email with pictures 15 seconds after you cross the property line” I’m totally posting that one, too.

          Because: deterrence.

      2. avatar APBTFan says:

        “Does this mean criminals are more likely to target your house for burglary if they know you own a gun?”

        Given New York’s laws few if any of the gun owners listed are able to carry their firearm outside the house and the criminals know this. What does that mean? If you’re a dirtbag that wants a gun all you need to do is hit houses on that list during business hours when the owners are most likely away.

        1. avatar WC says:

          I’m glad this family had taken precautions to keep their guns out of the hands of criminals. It would be nice if the newspaper bought gun safes for all the addresses it published.

        2. avatar Eric says:

          All those not on the list – do not have guns!

      3. avatar William says:

        It means some of them will – the stupider ones.

    3. avatar ensitu says:

      This Paper has intentionaly mis-used FIOA:
      #1 to make money off of the Sandy Hook Killings
      besmirch the reputation of law-abiding citizens
      intimidate and put at risk same (and their familys)
      There is Case Law supporting legal action on many levels

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Uh, it’s FOIA, not FIOA. And the Journal News exploited it for all it’s worth.

        The way FOIA and other statutes work is that the media gets all kinds of access based on a simple request, while mere citizens have to fight like hell for information to which they are entitled. Why? Because media and party are one, that’s why.

  2. avatar Chris says:

    That actually took longer than I expected. The Journal should have to pay for any damage done in the attempted robbery.

  3. avatar Randy [Bullitt.44] says:

    The Right was correct about the use of the map. The paper should be sued to cover damages, free home security for life and a free gun for the homeowner.

    1. avatar Anmut says:

      “Free gun for the home owner.” Now that’s an idea I like! The irony would bet thick and sweet if Gannett was forced to pay for a firearm. Make them buy them a scary black AR rifle too!

    2. avatar Totenglocke says:

      The reporters should face criminal charges for endangerment and aiding and abetting.

  4. avatar SDFreeman says:

    Jail all those journal AH reporters that posted all this information and then sue their ass

  5. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

    Contact the newspaper employees directly to let them know your opinion:

    1. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

      The employees don’t seem to mind being called at home. Well, actually… 🙂

      1. avatar Hal says:

        Agreed. We should all be contacting them to share our opinions with them.

  6. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    Law suit (potentially class-action) in 3…2…1…

  7. avatar Thomas Paine says:

    NO, the point is that any type of firearm related registries are more harmful than helpful.

  8. avatar Ropingdown says:

    Surprise. The Westchester County Associated Police Departments spoke out against the Journal News yesterday, and said they would hold the paper responsible if any police or retired police were the subject of attacks due to the publication. Many of them were on the list of pistol owners, as were numerous prison guards whose home addresses are now known to the inmates.

    1. avatar Pantera Vazquez says:

      Notice how the police only hold the paper responsible for any attack on one of their own……what about the civilians?…………

      1. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

        Unions, Pantera, unions.

      2. avatar GoldiGlocks says:

        I hope you mean citizens. This is a typical attitude coming from the increasingly militarized police of recent decades. In my opinion anyone who is not serving on active duty in the armed forces of the United States is a civilian. If you are represented by a union, doing shift work and you get paid time and a half for overtime, you are a civilian. I call cops out on this whenever I hear them refer to the citizens they serve as civilians. The smart ones get it. The dumb ones with a chip on their shoulder sometimes get pissy, but I don’t care. They are the ones who need to hear it the most.

        1. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

          Police unions don’t care about citizens. They care about police union bosses salaries.

  9. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

    Senator Ball hit the proverbial nail on the head!

  10. avatar Sammy says:

    Revoke their business licenses and permits.

  11. avatar Milsurp Collector says:

    I’m completely unsurprised; it was only a matter of time before this happened and who knows, with some form of media attention it may get worse. I hope this paper gets sued into oblivion.

  12. avatar Roll says:

    There is a word I’m thinking of…starts with “I….” ends with “…told you so”

  13. avatar jp says:

    I can’t even begin to describe my level of disgust over this. Imho…. anyone who had anything to do with that article should be charged as an accomplice.

    1. avatar Bob says:

      Maybe we can start with the politicians reckless assholes who created the legislation making the information publicly available.

  14. avatar jp says:

    I can’t even begin to describe my level of disgust over this. Anyone who had anything to do with that article should be charged as an accomplice.

  15. avatar Kaliope says:

    We need common sense regulations on the use of free speech. I don’t normally advocate new laws, but directly misleading and lying to the populace under the guise of “It’s mah opinion derpderpderp” should be illegal…

    1. avatar AlphaGeek says:

      No. This is not about free speech. This is about one of the very few principles that supersede free speech: the expectation of privacy by private citizens.

      It is well established that private citizens have a higher expectation of privacy than any other entity under US law. This falls squarely under the expectation of privacy, and THAT is why the newspaper was 100% wrong to publish the map: it weakened the privacy protections which previously applied to permit-holders because the newspaper made it easier to access the information.

      1. avatar Not Anon in Ct For Long says:

        Agreed – the newspaper is 100% morally and ethically at fault.

        That said, what they did was legal, and it shouldn’t have been. And that’s not on the newspaper, but on the NY government and bureaucracy. Kudos to the dude in Putnam Cty who chose to put ethics and morality first while waiting for the law to catch up.

  16. avatar Will says:

    I’m with the Senator on this one…. It IS about the right to privacy. Perhaps the Journal wouldn’t mind a shopping list, errr, exposure of the high-dollar goods they’ve purchased over the years to be published, with names and addresses. Oh wait… none of our business about what luxury cars, yachts, silver and gold dinnerware, TVs, jewelry, etc. they own… JUST LIKE it’s nobody else’s business of who owns what firearm and where they live.

  17. avatar Michael C says:

    Now all that’s left is for the Journal News editors to be charged with conspiracy and as an accomplice to the burglary.

  18. avatar TRUTHY says:

    Whoever the victim is, please set up a fund to sue the paper. I’m in for $50.

    1. avatar Larry says:

      I would chip in $50 as well to see these weasels squirm.

    2. avatar AlphaGeek says:

      I’d be shocked if there weren’t a half-dozen legal firms looking at taking this on a contingency basis, no up-front cash required. It’s just a matter of time before someone identifies a good plaintiff and files suit.

      1. avatar Ropingdown says:

        The fault lies with the legislators. The error was declaring the licenses public records without restriction. The paper has facilitated retribution, especially for the poor prison guards on the list, but a law suit is a stretch. We included a privacy clause in our PA statute for carry permits specifically because without specific statutory protection and penalties, a public record is, well, public. Tax returns have similar protection, as do juvenile offender records and health records. A suit in tort for intentional infliction of emotional distress has requirements that are not obviously present in this case. The anger of the local LEO’s listed, however, can easily lead to not-so-subtle blowback.

        1. avatar Bob says:

          Thank you! Proximate cause: Journal News. Ultimate cause: the reckless assholes who call themselves “legislators”.

        2. avatar Hal says:

          Yup. That’s why NY doesn’t get a DIME from me. I don’t live there. Would never live there. I don’t visit. I don’t do a thing to add money to the NY economy.

          This does nothing to affect NY, but I feel good doing it. I won’t reward the NYS government with tourist dollars and hence taxes. They may not feel it but in a decade or two they ARE going to feel the pinch from the exodus. Lots of people are starting to figure out that they can do the same job at the same pay and get a 5-10k raise just by working in another State.

  19. avatar jp says:

    Anyone who had anything to do with that article should be charged as an accomplice.

  20. avatar Accur81 says:

    To me this was more dangerous than publishing a list of jewelry purchases more than $10,000. There is a substantial difference between free speech and a right to privacy. Strangers do not need to know what I own, or whether I’ve been stocking up on 5.56 ammo since I first found out that BHO was getting into office in ’08.

  21. avatar tdiinva says:

    They falsely cried fire in a crowded theater with the intent to cause hard. I don’t see and First Amendment protection here. Arrest the editors!

  22. avatar Larry says:

    I just contacted the Second Amendment Foundation and let them know that this has the potential of being a good pro-2nd amendment lawsuit.

    1. avatar In Memphis says:

      Let us what they have to say

  23. avatar ChuckN says:

    I somehow doubt New York’s AG will do anything. Civil suits
    are another matter. Yet, I can see lawyers coming out of the
    woodwork to protect Journal News; every one crying about
    the 1st Amendment. I also expect most of the MSM will
    throw it’s weight behind the Journal. Anyone fired won’t
    have to worry about work either. Criminal behavior
    seems to be a resume builder at MSNBC and others.

  24. avatar Dracon1201 says:

    Unfortunately, there is no Right to Privacy in the Constitution, nor does one exist legally. A lawsuit over this, if possibly taken to the Supreme Court could establish one. That would be HUGE!!!! Imagine how much of a wrench that would throw into the works of gun registries and such.

    1. avatar Not Anon in Ct For Long says:

      It may not be written into the text of the Constitution, but you better believe it exists legally. Start with Griswald v. Connecticut and carry on from there.

      1. avatar AlphaGeek says:

        *Griswold v CT

        (Griswald is the National Lampoon movie character…)

        1. avatar Not Anon in Ct For Long says:

          Stewpyd spel czequer.

        2. avatar AlphaGeek says:

          I wouldn’t have been a tiresome pedant about this if it hadn’t been limiting to a reader’s ability to Google for it. Probably. On most days. Unless the word loose or break was involved.

        3. avatar CarlosT says:

          A sentence designed to bait AlphaGeek:

          If we don’t fight for our rites, we may loose the write to have mussel breaks on our barrows.

        4. avatar Gyufygy says:

          *head explodes*

  25. avatar Aharon says:

    I’d like to see the Journal prosecuted and/or sued for their actions yet are there actually legal grounds for it?

  26. avatar Thomas Paine says:

    Guys, it’s not the newspaper’s fault per se, it’s the state’s fault for making permit holder information public domain.

    We’re missing the point here. No data collected on permit holders and/or no data made available to the public = tragedy averted.

    It’s as much the state’s fault as the newspaper’s fault (correct me if it’s a county law and not a state law, but same logic applies)

    1. avatar AlphaGeek says:

      I think there’s a claim to be made for harm caused by a weakening of privacy for the citizens affected by the acts of the newspaper.

      Yes, the state should have had better privacy laws, no doubt about it. On the other hand, it wasn’t the state which committed a deliberate act, with a range of negative effects yet to be fully measured, to the detriment of citizens who had previously enjoyed an expectation of privacy in their affairs.

    2. avatar TRUTHY says:

      It IS the newspaper’s fault. I know there’s a fancy legal term for the phrase “if not for”, meaning if not for the effing paper publishing his address, then the effing criminal wouldn’t have tried to effing steal from him.

  27. avatar Shire-man says:

    This would never have even been a possible issue if it weren’t for all the infringements that exist on the right to keep and ear arms in the first place.

    Notice how one infringement begs for another. A permit leads to publication of a database leads to “common sense” infringements on the first.

    Tyranny is a self perpetuating endeavor. One step calls for a second step to regulate that first step and so on until we’re all naked and chained to the floor to ensure everyone is safe and no one is violated.

    Funny. Violate everyone completely to save us all from being violated.

    The only solution to all this crap is liberty for all.

  28. avatar Javier says:

    Public information release leads to ____________ you fill in the blanks.

    1. avatar Bob says:

      Here’s the link to the YouTube video in case they delete it because according to TTAG “it upsets some browsers”. (hey TTAG, surely there’s a way to allow embedded videos in the comments, lots of blogging software supports it)

    2. avatar Casey T says:

      Quit putting videos in comments please. I can’t read the darn post now.

  29. avatar 40&2000 says:

    Are we certain that this victim was chosen due to the published list? From why I can see that claim is being made but one guy who has an agenda. I completely disagree with the paper publishing the list be we should be certain of the facts.

    1. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

      Was/is just a matter of time, 40. Nothing good will come from this last. The last gasp of a dying newspaper.

    2. avatar matt says:

      I was thinking the same thing, and its rather sad that no one else here could exercise enough critical thinking to say the same, but they sure did want to join in the circle-jerk of bashing the paper.

  30. avatar Rob says:

    I hate that this had to happen to the guy but for the sake of holding these clowns responsible, I’m glad it did. Sue those people into oblivion, shut down their rag and hope that they FOAD.

  31. does New York have a reckless endangerment law?
    Time to charge the Journal with multiple counts, 1 for each household published.

  32. avatar MikeP says:

    Perhaps we need “reasonable”, “common sense” restrictions on speech and the press. After all, the purpose of modern media is to spray information into a crowd that could be dangerous in the hands of those with ill-intent. The Founders couldn’t imagine the interWebTubes, or Google interactive maps that can transmit tremendous amounts of data with a single page. How much information do you “neeeeeed” to communicate in one spray anyway? You don’t “neeeeeed” that much information to post an LOL Kitty picture on Facebook! When they wrote the 1st Amendment, they wrote with a quill by candlelight, or had moveable type presses requiring paper, ink, and manual labor and distribution. The king isn’t coming back, people. You’re not going to have to petition the Crown for a redress of grievances. And for those who think that our democratically elected government might someday go all, like, tyrannical and stuff, and therefore you must have effective, technologically contemporary means of communication as an “insurance policy” … LOL! Right, like your little website whining about Big Brother can stand up to the POTUS interWebTube “kill switch”, or your little local radio station can compete with the new national EAS – they can shut you down with the flick of another switch. Relax, nobody’s trying to take your “right” to “free speech”. We just need sensible laws preventing you from using the InterWebTubes to spray information that can be dangerous. It’s time sensible people come together and agree to do what I say! :0D
    Of course I kid.

  33. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

    So the answer is to protect permit holders privacy? Not just no, but hell no! The answer is nationwide constitutional carry now! No permits, no lists, nothing to publish! We carry what we want, when we want, in the manner we choose. In a relatively short period of time our society will become a safer, saner place.

    1. avatar AlphaGeek says:

      The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Personally, I would strongly prefer a solution which included both, not one or the other.

  34. avatar OHgunner says:

    I would say this is due to the “Law of Unintended Consequences”, were it not for the fact that this was exactly the intended purpose of this list…

  35. avatar Dutch says:

    I know Greg Ball – we went to college together. He’s a genuine, no BS guy. Not your typical politician who sells their vote to whatever lobbyist pays the most. He’s true to his values and his staunchly Pro-2A. Great job, Greg!

    1. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

      Sorry Dutch, but “genuine, no BS” guys don’t go into politics.

      1. avatar AaronW says:

        One of my range friends emailed him and will get a chance to speak with State Senator Ball about gun rights.

      2. avatar Ralph says:

        Joke & Dagger, geniune, no BS guys do go into politics. They just don’t last very long. They either get out, or turn.

        1. avatar AlphaGeek says:

          Generally about two months in, after committee assignments are finalized and they realize that they have to start fundraising for the next election that day.

          Third option, all too rare: they keep to their principles but piss off so many people that they get pushed out in some kind of ginned-up scandal, frequently via leaks from their own party.

        2. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

          Correction agreed with, example being Col. Alan West of our state. Run out after one term.

  36. avatar AaronW says:

    I’m all for safe storage of firearms, but I’m not in favor of intrusive laws requiring it.
    That’s what we have in Westchester – when you acquire your fifth handgun, approval is held up until a county cop visits your home to verify that you have a gun safe. Safe-checks aren’t the officer’s primary or even secondary duty, so it’s tough to get an “appointment.”
    Oh, and there is at the moment no mechanism by which you can proactively get someone to verify your safe, so you can get it out of the way, rather than let it be held hostage pending the visit, and the judge’s approval.

    1. avatar AlphaGeek says:

      Wow. That sucks worse than the storage requirements in some of the Euro countries.

    2. avatar Not Anon in Ct For Long says:

      Buy lots of doughnuts?

      1. avatar AaronW says:

        The officer that came by was a nice enough fellow, took a fairly cursory look (didn’t ask to have the safe opened), and left quickly. It’s just a lousy, silly process, and Cuomo determined to make the lives of NY gun owners as miserable as possible.

    3. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

      In-freaking-insane. Talk about an arbitrary number. How are 4 unlocked handguns no problem but the fifth makes the big difference?

      1. avatar CarlosT says:

        Everybody knows you get a damage increase power up when you collect the fifth handgun. Didn’t you read the booklet? It’s like the one you get with the eleventh round in a magazine, but way more powerful.

        Of course, you lose the bonus if you have a safe and a cop sees it, so that’s why the law.

        1. avatar AlphaGeek says:

          Well played, sir, well played indeed.

          Let’s just be careful not to let any of the Westchester residents know that you get the dual-wielding perk with your sixth legally owned handgun.

      2. avatar AaronW says:

        Yup… and btw, didn’t you know that this law is what scared me into buying a safe? The decision to get one had nothing to do with the fact that firearms are valuable property that I don’t want to have them stolen.

  37. avatar C says:

    Good thing gun owners aren’t people, or else these lists could get somebody hurt.

    1. avatar Silver says:

      First step of genocide: demonize, marginalize, and de-humanize the targeted populace. And the media has been complicity in every genocide in recent history.

      1. avatar Silver says:

        Er, complicit.

  38. avatar APBTFan says:

    Unlike The Journal, I pray no good guys get killed over this.

    This is all the more reason for more States to enact Constitutional Carry. We have four States currently doing so (my beloved Arizona among them) with no bloodbaths or cops mistakenly shooting an armed good guy.

  39. avatar Silver says:

    If it’s proven the paper was used in this burglary, all involved in that map as well as the editors that let it through should be prosecuted.

    Here’s what I don’t get. This paper’s actions can and will lead to the harm or death of people on that map. I don’t understand why the people on that map aren’t taking action.

  40. avatar Dru says:

    So an uncorroborated second hand report by a person with a vested interest in it’s “worthiness” is published and you guys accept it as gospel? No wonder we are considered “gun nuts”

  41. avatar Iron Knee says:

    Maps don’t burglarize houses, only burglars burglarize houses. Don’t blame the map for the actions of one madman. And isn’t the real issue here the numbers and letters of the English language that gave this individual the information he needed to carry out his crime. I’m going out today and buying as many high-information Mercator projections as possible.

    1. avatar William says:

      Pick up some consonants and vowels while you’re out!

  42. avatar JustAJ says:

    A position of “malicious intent” should be simple to prove, since they deliberately left out their employees from their map. I’d also bet that there are no gun grabbers info listed on there, even the ones who own guns. They could only use the “We’re just publishing public info cause the public has a right to know” defense if they had no redacted their own people’s info. By doing that, they pretty much admitted that there was a possibility harm could come to the people noted on the map.

  43. avatar William says:

    Anyway, “serves them right for owning guns!”

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email