Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

NY newspaper plans to publish more gun owner names

NY newspaper plans to publish more gun owner names

The publication of the names of gun permit holders by the NY Lower Hudson Journal News sparked controversy, including publication by a blogger (additional here) of equally personal yet publicly available information about the editors and writers of the Journal News.

Now the Journal News is raising the stakes, announcing that it is compiling similar information for neighboring counties.

Reuters via HuffPo (h/t reader):

A suburban New York newspaper  that sparked an uproar among gun enthusiasts by publishing names  and addresses of residents holding pistol permits is now  planning to publish even more identities of permit-toting  locals.

Further names and addresses will be added as they become  available to a map originally published on Dec. 24 in the White  Plains, New York-based Journal News, the newspaper said.

The original map listed thousands of pistol permit holders  in suburban Westchester and Rockland counties just north of New  York City.

Along with an article entitled “The gun owner next door:  What you don’t know about the weapons in your neighborhood,” the  map was compiled in response to the Dec. 14 shooting deaths of  26 children and adults in Newtown, Connecticut, editors of the  Gannett Corp.-owned newspaper said.

The next batch of names will be permit holders in suburban  Putnam County, New York, where the county clerk told the  newspaper it is still compiling information.

The Journal News thinks it’s good journalism to put people in danger, and to reveal personal details about people’s lives even though they have done nothing wrong.  And they’re going to do it again.

What other Alinksy Rules might apply?

Related:  Nation running out of ammo


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


The Journal News thinks it’s good journalism to put people in danger…

Of course. As long as they aren’t putting themselves in danger.

Do you think it has occured to them that pissing people off will hurt their business?

    “Do you think it has occured to them that pissing people off will hurt their business?”

    No. We’re in a war now, and the bottom-line does not enter the thinking. Indeed, they probably consider their defiance of it a kind of holy act. This is part zeal and part delusion. In their righteous imagination it’s not possible that news-consuming “true” citizens — not the subhuman gun-owning slopeheads — would not believe this was heroic journalism. Anyway, they probably believe that in the worst case Obama will bail them out.

      Milwaukee in reply to raven. | December 29, 2012 at 12:26 pm

      Case in point, look at The Big Dicks decision about giving up gun and ammunition sales. Yo! Dude! We have choices about where to spend out dollars. Your store ain’t gonna be one of them.

    jasond in reply to rinardman. | December 29, 2012 at 7:32 pm

    Reveal personal information about the paper’s editor.

    Alinsky rule #3 – Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

    Implement rule #3 by publishing a photograph and home address of the editor of the Journal News and note that this person does not have a gun in the house for self defense. I doubt the editor has ever been intimidated in this way.

    Rule #8 – Keep the pressure on.
    Implement by frequently re-publishing the information.

    Rule #5 – Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
    Implement by finding and revealing some personally embarrasing information about the editor.

    This would in effect be rule #13 – Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

    Alinsky says all this will result in…Rule #11 – If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.

    There’s only one way to find out.

TrooperJohnSmith | December 29, 2012 at 10:17 am

Do this in Houston, and everything outside of Loop-610 will be a big, red dot.

This has taken on the air of a man-bites-dog story. This silly little Fishwrap put itself on the map. The only way to stop it is to boycott the advertisers. Fishwraps exist to sell ads. No ad revenue, no Fishwrap.

All they have to do is put a sign in their yard that says the following: Yes, I am a registered gun owner. Also note that when my un-armed neighbors are robbed because it has been published that they are un-armed that I will not force my views on gun-ownership on them by comming to their aid. Have a nice day.

This is part and parcel of the sweeping liberal effort to stigmatize guns in the same way they have done with cigarettes. The focus for the moment may be on “banning” and “confiscation” but this will be a total propagandistic effort involving every aspect of social pressure. It will not stop. Republicans cannot hold their breath and wait for this to pass. It will not pass. It will not end. Not at least until it faced and fought.

Publish away!!! Majority of robberies are committed during the day now because the thieves know there is less chance for confrontation with the occupants. So knowing which houses are armed would tend to make my `occupation` safer for me because I will avoid them.

Lightening’s post has merit.

What the Journal News is doing is doubling down on its strategy: to wit, to use the publication of the names and addresses as a threat. The ‘exposure’ is meant to cow ordinary people and to delegitimize firearms ownership. By doubling down the editors intend to ‘push back’ the push back they received nationally for their tactic.

So what do we do? Keep the pressure on. Alinsky-ize them. Ridicule works well, so we need to keep ridiculing them. Making them play by their own rules works, so certainly we should find out which Journal News employees own firearms and publish that in turn. And of course, find a way to hit the Journal News in the pocketbook — talk to their advertisers (who are very likely all local and not very responsive to out-of-town email, etc).

The Journal News is digging in. They have all their usual friends and allies on their side. We have to hit back twice as hard.

    Milwaukee in reply to stevewhitemd. | December 29, 2012 at 12:33 pm

    Perhaps somebody could publish a listing of their advertisers. Time spent answering my call to protest their support of this paper is time away from profit generating activities.

      legalizehazing in reply to Milwaukee. | December 29, 2012 at 2:02 pm

      They did it to Limbaugh, though they were unjust annnd failed. I wonder what kind of advertisers use a local paper? How can you communicate to these people what they’re doing is wrong?

      It puts a small pit in my stomach thinking about messing with people’s livelihood, but these zealous idiots are actually putting lives and property in danger. For the greater good, must tear at “liberal” activists’ eternal soul.

        Local Newspaper, Local Advertisers.
        For those in the coverage area, just pick up a paper, make up a list, and post it on the net.
        Just remember, no threats, just tell the advertiser that you intend to spend you Dollars elsewhere, and that the store is wasting its money advertising in the Journal News.

“What other Alinksy Rules might apply?”

Was Alinsky fond of “sue the bastards til their eyes bleed”?

    creeper in reply to Ragspierre. | December 29, 2012 at 10:55 am

    What argument do you make, Rags? These listings are a matter of public record.

      Ragspierre in reply to creeper. | December 29, 2012 at 11:09 am

      Simple or gross negligence might apply very nicely IF anyone can show damages from this stunt.

        creeper in reply to Ragspierre. | December 29, 2012 at 11:18 am

        So we have to wait until there’s a body? Great.

        The objective should not be to punish them after some harm is done. It should be to get them to stop.

        Rethinking my opposition to publishing info on the kids. But I don’t think that will stop them, either. They seem to be perfectly willing, eager even, to place themselves in the crosshairs…an irrational position. When reason goes out the window there are very few options left.

        This will not end well.

          Ragspierre in reply to creeper. | December 29, 2012 at 12:45 pm

          I can also see a move in the legislature by the (somewhat) conservatives to take back the “public information” portion of these laws.

          This is a privacy issue, affecting not just the gun owners, but their children, and by deduction, their unarmed neighbors.

          legalizehazing in reply to creeper. | December 29, 2012 at 2:07 pm

          It seems like someone locally should sue whatever gov’t agency has these records. An injunction could stop them from publishing more. Direct attacks on the paper seem like they might be less effective.

      Reckless endangerment in general. Endangering named children in particular. Interference with civil rights. You don”t have to WIN, just sue them over and over and over.

      Milwaukee in reply to creeper. | December 29, 2012 at 12:35 pm

      Are you sure these are a matter of public record? Many states do not make that information public.

      In many states, a concealed carry permit holder is expected to keep their piece concealed, hence the name.

      Colorado has open carry, and those weapons are expected to be open, as in ‘everybody can see you got that’.

        I’d suggest that someone keep an eye out for people that were robbed in the area and if they aren’t registered gun owners offer them lawyers fees to sue the paper for “reckless endangerment” or whatever, for essentially publishing the fact that they were the ones who didn’t have a gun for protection.

        creeper in reply to Milwaukee. | December 29, 2012 at 2:07 pm

        It depends on the state, Milwaukee. Here in Iowa the records are open. Last year a weekly rag in Des Moines posted a list of Polk County gun owners. Evidently the outcry was so great that the list is pulled, although the original post remains online. Iowa is a fairly liberal state but there are a lot of gun owners here. Makes things interesting, to say the least.

        Our permits are designated “concealed carry” but that does not limit us to keeping them out of sight. In our case, “concealed carry” means MAY carry concealed but may also carry open. I was surprised to read in your comment that some states require carried guns to be concealed and some require open carry. Happily, we have the option to do either.

        Also, Iowa is a “shall issue” state, which means that CCW permits are not up to the discretion of the sheriff. Absent some disqualifying factor, the permit must be issued.

        We’re currently working on getting legislation which will seal our records, to prevent another attack on our privacy. It can’t come too soon.

    Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | December 29, 2012 at 11:11 am

    And ONE way this crap will backfire…

    When some idiot proposes registration or licensure in the future, this will be a powerful argument against it that anyone will understand.

I don’t live in NY, but I like the idea of boycotting their advertisers and letting the advertisers know that there is an inter-state boycott brewing. I just hate the idea of buying even 1 of their rags [no offense Rags], but there is no other way to find out who advertises in it. I don’t even know where to buy a copy. If anyone has info on their advertisers, please post it.

    Online edition –

    The site opened with an ad for a Yonkers casino and shows ads for several other local businesses. The local gun owners should get together and purchase billboard space voicing their displeasure with the advertisers.

[…] This is why media competition is good. It would be interesting to run a background check on them, too, and look for DUI’s, unpaid support, etc. All in the public interest, of course . . . Especially since the Journal News is doubling down. […]

the names, addresses, and phone ##s of the newspaper staff have already been put on the web. how about the names, pictures, and schools of their kids, from Facebook, etc?? time to escalate.

“The next batch of names will be permit holders in suburban Putnam County, New York, where the county clerk told the newspaper it is still compiling information.”

This rag is too lazy to do its own work. The county clerk is NOT paid to write articles for a third-rate scandal sheet. If I were a citizen there I’d be screaming for that reason alone.

The temptation among gun owners there to do something…anything…to stop this must be great. Stay the course, people. That’s what they want.

OK, legal eagles…we have a constitutional “right to privacy” even though it appears nowhere in the Constitution. Does this “right to privacy” only apply to women wanting to pickle their babies in utero in hypertonic saline?

    Observer in reply to Con Ed. | December 29, 2012 at 11:10 am

    Does this “right to privacy” only apply to women wanting to pickle their babies in utero in hypertonic saline?


    Since the constitutional “right to privacy” is an amorphous emanation from a penumbra that is visible only to lefty judges, we don’t really know how far it extends. But if I had to guess, I’d say it does not protect the rights of any bitter clinging gun-owners (or at least, not any that are registered Republicans). Of course, we won’t know for sure until some lefty judge consults his crystal ball (and the NY Times) and lets us know what new and improved “rights” he or she has discovered emanating from our “living” (and ever-morphing leftward) constitution.

Someone is going to be harmed by these disclosures. It could be a criminal who chooses the wrong home, it could be a home without a firearm, it could be en employee of the paper, it could be anyone.

    jimzinsocal in reply to Towson Lawyer. | December 29, 2012 at 11:40 am

    I agree. Nice to have public info available but that availability shouldnt be an excuse for misuse. Its strange but the publisher has basically demonstrated in an unintended way the same sort of misuse that some unbalanced gun owners/users have demonstrated of late. Public information like guns arent the issue..their misuse is.

      CptNerd in reply to jimzinsocal. | December 29, 2012 at 5:39 pm

      Someone should run a cross-check on the names of gun owners and employees of the newspaper. I bet the results would be enlightening…

Something to be learned here

If small government republicans/libertarians could only seem this organized. Its amazing really how well the NRA has organized itself..its messaging etc that the vast left has such a horrible time winning over public perceptions.
Maybe Republicans are missing a simple moral message to attract public support.

[…] York Newspaper Publishes Gun Owners Addresses, Again: Heh, they are letting criminals know where they case safely burglarize a home that does not have a gun. Maybe a lawsuit will follow from […]

There are reasonable limits on 2nd amendment rights, why not 1st amendment rights?

The left is happy to provide suggestions for those limitations on those rights. They want no guns and no conservative speech. They would explode if anyone from a libertarian or conservative viewpoint suggested that we should limit their right to publish this information in such a reckless fashion.

This is linked above through an article – but needs far more direct exposure:,-73.855591&spn=0.379541,0.222049

These self-righteously foolish ‘journalists’ will come to understand the double-edged sword of free speech if enough people contact them.

Fight fire with fire.

NC Mountain Girl | December 29, 2012 at 11:48 am

How much information about the editors and reporters is in the public record?

    Divorce/marriage records, traffic violation (including DUI/DWI) records, property tax records, internet activity, including (if you are an enterprising Computer Science student) on line purchases, etc.

    There is a lot out there that can be found out about the employees of that rag.

    But the best action is to boycott the advertisers.

Since they’ve potentially made the likelihood of burglary more likely for firearms owners, as firearms are desirable burglary targets, what if someone were to check DMV records on addresses of the newspaper’s staff to see who, or who’s spouse or partner, owns a high priced automobile?. After all, it’s public information isn’t it? What harm could there be in publishing this information?

This crap is one reason we must repeal gun registration laws. (Would these Journal people care to register their jewelry, cash, electronic equipment and collectibles?)

Overall, however, I doubt that this will make gun owners more likely burglary targets, especially given the non-portability of large gun safes. I suspect that your ordinary “non-violent” kid burglar also would be more inclined to target homes that do NOT have weapons, just as they are more inclined to seek out homes in which it appears that the occupants are away.

So there may be unintended consequences from this. Just as people put up alarm company signs (sometimes fake), and automatic light management systems to try to obscure when they are absent, they will not appreciate having their homes marked as undefended by any firearms.

    askeptic in reply to janitor. | December 29, 2012 at 4:54 pm

    If gun registration doesn’t run afoul of the 2nd-A, why would not computer registration (or even “smart phone” registration) not run afoul of the 1st-A?

Does the Journal News want their readers to consider their armed neighbors (who are law-abiding to the point that their gun possession is by permit) to be dangerous?

Seems the endangered parties are the citizen whose gun would be a target for burglary while they’re supposedly away from home as well as the unarmed citizen next door who could be robbed at knife-point by anyone big enough to push their way through the front door.

Who’s really dealing in danger here? Sounds like the “journalists” themselves are the most dangerous breed.

Nation running out of ammo

That’s somewhat misleading. That is what’s for sale, not what has already been sold. Some people call it “hoarding”. I prefer “stockpiled for future use”.

Am I the only one who feels that the Journal News is THRILLED about their media attention? And that they want more?

I live in Westchester, wouldn’t give that “newspaper” to my dog with diarrhea, but after the first map was published, followed the blogger who published names of the paper’s employees, the sagging lagging Journal News got exactly what they wanted -PUBLICITY!! I feel strongly that everyone who links to the story, or even reprints the link to the maps, are part and parcel of the Journal News attempt to get what they want – their name out there.

They’d go back to dying on the vine if no one mentioned the articles again. That would be my personal choice.

The REPORTER has a NYC gun permit
“Editor’s note: Journal News reporter Dwight R. Worley owns a Smith & Wesson 686 .357 Magnum and has had a residence permit in New York City for that weapon since February 2011.”

and some reverse Alinksy for this chump

[…] William Jacobson noted that the Journal News, which raised a controversy by publishing the names and… […]

Alinsky rules. Gun owners should bus in to each of their homes by the hundreds or thousands with signs and protest. Make them feel the intimidation they are trying to dish out to gun owners.

The fourth estate carries the anti gun message of the State by pitting neighbor against neighbor. To pretend that this is journalism, freedom of the press or anything else is laughable.

Opening Pandora’s Box is always a dangerous exercise.
Rarely can you put the Genie back in the bottle.
To all those who work at the Journal News, and Gannett in general, you should try thinking before you leap into the unknown, for those unintended consequences can bite, real hard.

They feign concern for the life and welfare of children and people generally. Publish the name of every woman who commits or offers consent to the premeditated murder (e.g. elective abortion) of her child for reason of personal welfare or wealth. Publish the name of every “doctor” or practitioner who commits premeditated murder (e.g. elective abortion) of children for profit and note those who suffer coercion to commit this gross human rights violation.

As for publishing the name of men and women who bear arms, let the criminals beware that their desires to commit involuntary exploitation will expose them to elevated risk and opportunity costs, perhaps even loss of their life.

As for confiscating weapons, we can visit Mexico (or Libya) to recover redistributed goods, or wait for their return through “undocumented” (e.g. illegal) channels.

The bad guys just need to find out if their marks are gun people. The paper is just helping the bad guys.
It would be interesting to overlay crime statistics over the same map that the newspaper published to see if more crimes occur where people do not have guns.

Folks, the website for the Journal News is here:
You can troll all over their website and start picking out their advertisers. There’s one right at the top of their page: Sponsored by Westchester Toyota/Scion

Next, this newspaper is owned by Gannett. It’s a publicly traded company, and their website is here:
We need to go after and publicize the names and addresses of every one of their corporate officers and board members.

If anything bad should befall the women on their list, well, that’s a sacrifice The Journal News is willing to make. It’s for the greater good, don’t you know?

BannedbytheGuardian | December 29, 2012 at 8:37 pm

If it were me named I would be thrilled. I would tie a yellow ribbon round my old oak tree & wear a yellowstar to the shops. On a beret no less.

This would be especially Delish in NY where I note that I was taller at 5’8″ than the NYPD.

Bring it on.