has a nice looking house at 3 Gate House Lane, Mamaroneck, NY 10534..... especially the inside here.
Posted on 12/25/2012 6:07:09 AM PST by Not gonna take it anymore
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
I know I have one not registered - a long rifle circa Revolutionary/Civil war. The condition is perfect - now, if I had black powder and ball, and was strong enough to lift it (weighs a ton), I could use it. It had been in my husband's family for many years.
If a rifle was that old, and someone could load it, would it blow apart?
Nice work.
“If you are a criminal in need of a gun, now you know where to find one.”
In the end there will be more lead in criminals bodies then the newspaper planned for.
I’m up there and pissed off and so are a lot of cops I know whose spouses have weapons permits.
has a nice looking house at 3 Gate House Lane, Mamaroneck, NY 10534..... especially the inside here.
Are YOU a member of the Communist Party, Janet? Hmmm..?
Sure they do: http://www.lohud.com/comments/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-
we should invite them to join us
Journal News President: —Janet Hasson, 3 Gate House Lane Mamaroneck, NY 10534 (914) 694.5204
Editors: —Cyndee Royle, 1133 Westchester Ave., Suite N110, White Plains, NY 10604, 914-694-9300
–Nancy Cutler 9 Woodwind Ln, Spring Valley, NY. (845) 354 3485
Parent company of The Journal News Gannett —–CEO Gracia C Martore 728 Springvale Rd Great Falls, VA 22066 (703) 759 5954
The reporter on the story is: –Dwight R Worley 23006 139 Ave Springfield Gardens, NY 11413 (718) 527 0832
Start here
Domain Name: lohud.com
Registrar Name: Markmonitor.com
Registrar Whois: whois.markmonitor.com
Registrar Homepage: http://www.markmonitor.com
Administrative Contact:
Domain Admin
Gannett Media Technologies International (GMTI)
740 Duke Street
Norfolk VA 23510
US
DOMAIN-ADMIN@GMTI.GANNETT.COM +1.7576242461 Fax: +1.7574698122
Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
InfiNet Domain Services
InfiNet
740 Duke St.
Norfolk VA 23510
US
hostmaster@INFI.NET +1.7576642255 Fax: +1.1111111111
I hope she finds out she is on public view! :)
Time to dish up a big dose of their own medicine. THe media is out of control. Now that her address is published (and I noticed that the house just changed hands this last year), time to give her a little free press of her own.
Fair and impartial my foot. I hope this kind of quick reaction takes place at every news media HQ all over the country, every songle time they overreach.
How about posting all the names of the editors, reporters, owners and employees of the newspaper noting which do not own registered guns?
In the same way that it is ok for their kids to be in schools protected by armed guards, but LaPierre/NRA is insane to suggest that the kids of 'regular' folks in 'public' schools should receive the same protection. "Do as I say, not as I do" .... "what's good for ME is not the same for thee" .... hypocrites ALL and in a way that will result in people being killed, something they profess to abhor.
Looking at the website, I’m just shocked. It would have been one thing to publish a page full of dots, but each of the dots contains not just a name, but an address.
I wonder how many of these datapoints are outdated - I’d guess, conservatively, that likely 1 in 10 is for a previous resident.
I picked a dot at random, and started googling. The dot represented a permit holder - a father, who’s daughter died suddenly, according to an obituary. His daughter’s partner has been in a bitter custody battle with the grandparents over the future of the woman’s child who was from a previous relationship. His wife was the victim of an attack 6 years ago, where she was brutally beaten and hospitalized. His name is listed on the list of a local community group, but his address is one of a few which has been edited off the list. His name and phone number is not available via white pages.
This is a man who has taken steps to maintain his privacy, who’s family has been victim to violent crime, who is involved in a child custody dispute after recently burying his daughter. And this newspaper has decided to publish his name and address.
And mind, the newspaper that did this to him is also the same one which published his daughter’s obituary, who published the story on his wife’s attack, who noted the custody dispute. The newspaper wouldn’t have had to research any further than it’s own archives.
I sure hope that every one who comments that they’re cancelling their subscription does so, and sticks to their guns. This shouldn’t be a ‘oh, if they take it down, I’ll re-subscribe’ type situation. Once this data was published, it’s out there forever. And I hope that more than a few of these people are also ones who own businesses, which is likely the case. And that they further take steps to remove any newsstands for this paper from their property. That some of these permit holders are decision makers at local hotels who will remove this rag from the daily distribution to guests.
I hope that this paper gets the reaction it fully deserves. Because the first amendment is a limitation upon the government, not the people. That referring to the first is a defense against government intrusion, not people’s reactions. Because yes, this paper has the right to make the request, and it may have a right to publish it (which I’m still not convinced about), but the people’s rights trump all; they are the consumers who keep this paper alive through readership, advertising, making it a part of their community.
And I hope that the people reject this paper for their toxic actions.
Sad part is that business owners and conservatives will continue to buy ads and use this paper.
Good luck finding a "fair" judge in NYC to hear the case. Now if it was in any area in Texas, Austin excluded, that would be easy.
My idea #64 already put into action. How about locals picket the paper with signs with pictures and addresses of the editrix and reporters on them? Also note, whether they made there own gun list or whether they edited out their own names. If this is public info, it can be checked to see if their left their own names off the list.
I got a laugh from that reply. I bet the editor felt like an @$$ and hope his wife dumped him like sour milk.
The most likely answer is that it wouldn't fire. I've seen many antique firearms that look perfect that have problems that must be addressed before it is able to be fired - if it is a cap and ball, it's most likely 1830's or newer (or a conversion of an older piece). If it is rifled, it is likely an 1850's or newer firearm.
Condition issues are usually, in order: Nipple mushroomed from too much dry firing ($10 repair), mainspring broken or damaged ($50 repair), serious bore issues (rustouts, obstructions in the rifling - $150 repair), stock issues (cracks, bad repairs - $150 repair)
Simply take the piece to a local gunsmith, refuse to sell it, and have them look it over. Odds are with a minimum of repairs, this piece can be in firing condition again.
Could this be the end of mandatory gun registration, now that it is shown to be redundant and a violation of privacy?
Seen this before. The idea behind this tactic is that the neighbors are supposed to ‘engage the gun owners’ in conversations about why they want to kill kindergarten kids. I’ve also seen it used to encourage neighbors to prohibit their children from visiting the gun owners homes or playing with their children. Imagine having your six year old asking you to get rid of your evil gun so they can play with the kids next door.
Soros has avoids there - is he on the list?
Not me. I live here. Never subscribe to that rag.
**In that post there are two interesting replies:
Number nine by Malsua:**
December 24, 2012 at 8:12 pm
Linked here from freerepublic.com, about a million unique monthly visitors. Hi Janet!
How would one go about doing that?
I want to know what pharma drugs their “sane” children are on. I want to know how many of them have been diagnosed with a mental health disorder. I want to know so I can circulate those names to parents of hundreds of young children for a safer community, safer schools, malls, theaters, restaurants, churches, medical facilities, grocery marketplaces! Anywhere there’s gatherings in numbers, I want to know who’s under what anti-psychosis medication and WHY? For MY family’s protection, I want to know! Don’t you?
heh heh heh
They must be subsidised by the DNC now, all they report is DNC talking points.
See my reply here> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2972121/posts?page=76#76
Maybe Janet’s contact info (publicly available information) should be mailed to the area’s registered sex offenders (publicly available information).
Of course, if that is illegal, that certainly should not be done...but then, if it’s legal to do so...
Those who perform the "Mini-Waco" duties will be underlings following orders. The ones who must be made to pay are the ones GIVING the orders. I suggest publication of a list of the primary targets, and that those on the list know full well that they are on it. That might give them pause, and cause a change in career choice for some.
It's best to hold onto the original AS IS ( that means no more than a light oil rub to prevent further oxidation - no steel wool or polishing attempts). It has more value that way. Have it appraised, you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Currently black powder rifles and replica pistols DO NOT require a FFL vendor sale. They can be ordered over the web and delivered to your door directly. Of course that leaves a paper trail. Seeing as you're a Texan, you should be able to make a cash buy anywhere. Private sales are unregulated and there are quite a few Cowboy Action Shooters in your neck of the woods that you wouldn't have any problem finding something at a reasonable price. The second advantage is that the modern replicas are made with modern steel and therefore far safer than any original.
If you find a Cowboy Action group (Single Action Shooter Society) near you, call them and attend their local events. You'll not find a more hospitable and friendly group. They're eager to help BP novices. They'll allow you to test their weapons and are free and easy with advice and tips.
Indeed. I visited the site, went through MANY pages of comments, and not a positive one did I see.....even some anti-gun people are getting on their asses for terminal stupidity. A lot of subscription cancellations, too. When I scanned, there were ~1,300 comments. If the usual ratio holds (10 "silent" agreements for every one "public" comment), that is LOT of negative sentiment.
I foresee a precipitous drop in their revenue stream.
I posted that link yesterday. When it was pointed out to me that lohud is ballistic about hotlinks from FR, I asked the mods to remove it. It can be found with a Google search on “map of gun owners in NY.”
The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C.A. 552a) is a federal law that places restrictions on the federal government's collection, use, and dissemination of personal information. As with most comprehensive federal statutes, the act provides general and specific exemptions as well as an administrative appeals process. The genesis of the Privacy Act can be traced back to 1965, when a congressional subcommittee examined privacy issues. Between 1965 and 1974, other congressional committees held hearings and issued reports on how individual privacy rights were affected by the growth of national data banks and the emergence of electronic data collection and storage. An important catalyst for the legislation was a Department of Health, Education, and Welfare report on government records and computers. The report proposed a "Code of Fair Information Practices" to be followed by all federal agencies and urged the adoption of five core principles: (1) the government should not maintain any secret records; (2) individuals must be able to see what personal information about them is stored and how it is used; (3) individuals must provide prior written consent before personal information collected for one purpose can be used for a different purpose; (4) individuals must be allowed to fix or clarify personal information about them; and (5) organizations that store or use personal data must be responsible for the information's veracity and must attempt to prevent its misuse. Congress incorporated these principles into the Privacy Act, which applies to the Executive Branch of the federal government. The executive branch encompasses administrative agencies, government corporations, and government-controlled corporations. The act does not apply to records kept by state and local governments or by private companies or organizations. Only U.S. citizens and lawfully admitted Aliens are given rights under the act. Accordingly, nonresident foreign nationals may not invoke the provisions of the act.
It appears that Mr. Fountain (the gentleman and hero that put forth the editor’s name and address of the offending “news” article) received a comment on just that from a police officer (whose name happened to pop up on their map)
One of those who commented suggested publishing the names and addresses of those who work for that newspaper.
This makes a lot of sense, especially if when the list is posted to the Internet, it includes an “editorial comment”, to the effect that “the employees of this newspaper are opposed to gun ownership, so it is likely they do not have legal guns in their homes.”
Of course the owners, publisher, editors, and reporters would not care, but what about the rest of their employees?
you are right. I was using a work computer (at home)..and for some reason they didn’t show up. They sure do when sing the iPad, though. Thanks.
What’s Wrong With Fusion Centers -
A new institution is emerging in American life: Fusion Centers. These state, local and regional institutions were originally created to improve the sharing of anti-terrorism intelligence among different state, local and federal law enforcement agencies. Though they developed independently and remain quite different from one another, for many the scope of their mission has quickly expanded - with the support and encouragement of the federal government - to cover “all crimes and all hazards.” The types of information they seek for analysis has also broadened over time to include not just criminal intelligence, but public and private sector data, and participation in these centers has grown to include not just law enforcement, but other government entities, the military and even select members of the private sector.
These new fusion centers, over 40 of which have been established around the country, raise very serious privacy issues at a time when new technology, government powers and zeal in the “war on terrorism” are combining to threaten Americans’ privacy at an unprecedented level.
Moreover, there are serious questions about whether data fusion is an effective means of preventing terrorism in the first place, and whether funding the development of these centers is a wise investment of finite public safety resources. Yet federal, state and local governments are increasing their investment in fusion centers without properly assessing whether they serve a necessary purpose.
The lack of proper legal limits on the new fusion centers not only threatens to undermine fundamental American values, but also threatens to turn them into wasteful and misdirected bureaucracies that, like our federal security agencies before 9/11, won’t succeed in their ultimate mission of stopping terrorism and other crime.
http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/whats-wrong-fusion-centers-executive-summary
Now criminals know which homes to break into. The ones that don’t have guns.
Or those who have aborted murdered their unborn children.
Thanks for the link, I grew up in the 70’s and my dad was an MP in WWII he told me about how Hitler used shoe boxes filled with registrations to locate disarm and/or round up gun owners. Nothing miffes me more than the way data is collected by the government that can be used against private citizens. The men and women that fought that war up close and personal made and passed laws against even keeping that kind of information and now those laws are just ignored.
With this kind of love from the Commies, they may as well put up yard signs that say: “Don’t trespass and you won’t have to find out if my license is current.” Of course our militant forefathers would probably have burned the hall of records.
Yup. It's illegal to publish the names/addresses of LEOs in many states.
OMG!!!!! FOlks, take another look at that map that they claim is only for two counties. You can scroll out to encompass a LOT more than two counties, with LOTS more DOTS, in LOTS more STATES.
That publisher is going to be in a lot more hot water than just locally. FWIW, My county in PA. didn’t show any dots.
Perhaps we should publish the names, addresses, phone numbers and any other personal information of the so-called “Journalists” who perpetrated this outrage.
To be more specific, the second map (the one of Rockland County) is the one I’m scrolling out on. I see a few dots in Pa., Rhode Island, West Virginia and Virginia, Carolinas, Georgia, etc.
“....the neighbors are supposed to ‘engage the gun owners’ in conversations about why they want to kill kindergarten kids. I’ve also seen it used to encourage neighbors to prohibit their children from visiting the gun owners homes....”
Please, tell us more. For example, longtime gungrabber Josh Sugarmann favors ID’ing & ostracizing gun owners in the neighborhood. Amitai Etzioni of the “communitarian” school also wrote of neighbors acting in the role of the Cuban Committees for Defense of the Revolution, by deploying informants and neighborhood watch committees who march en masse to a suspected gun owner’s door to demand an accounting.
That’s more spooky than a Di-Fi AWB, in my opinion. On the other hand, it would have to be a majority liberal ‘hood for people to start acting like snitches & scolds.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.