link to The Journal News article which published the names and addresses with an interactive map of some carry permits which are outdated.
Quite the uproar going on.
Soros has avoids there - is he on the list?
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...
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.
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.
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?
Now criminals know which homes to break into. The ones that don’t have guns.
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.
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.
Let’s hope that criminal of all stripes, burglars, home invaders, carjackers and rapists all read that article.
Then those lucky folks won’t have to worry about criminals coming into their homes or around their property anymore.
Too bad for their neighbors, though.
Two ways to deal with this: publish the names and addresses, home phone, emails etc of every person who works at that newspaper and hand them out freely at town shopping areas and malls.
Two: publish the addresses of all the homes that are gun freezones with no weapons permist and post those at area convenience stores
Freegards
LEX
How the heck did the newspaper get this information in the first place?