The Glade 4.0

New York Newspaper's Gun Permit Map Already Having Negative Repercussions


Many of those who expressed outrage at the publication of a two-county interactive map of pistol permit owners by Gannett's White Plains, New York-based Journal News just before Christmas have raised serious concerns that the paper's action would directly harm law-abiding citizens. Evidence is pouring in that those fears are legitimate.

Fox News, doing something the wire services should have been begun within days of the map's publication, has unsurprisingly found that "Reformed crooks say the New York newspaper ... did a great service – to their old cronies in the burglary trade." Additionally, a Newsday report identifies four concrete examples of negative impact: "Inmates are taunting corrections officers" at an area jail; one of the counties' sheriffs says that it's "hurting law enforcement as a whole"; a Rockland County Democratic legislator who currently doesn't own a gun says "he now fears for his safety" and will get one; and a divorced woman who says her ex-husband tried to strangle her is worried that "now he can find me." Excerpts from the two news reports follow the jump.

The Fox News report contains testimonials from reformed criminals affirming what critics have contended from the start, namely that the map's publication has great potential to harm gun owners and non-owners alike (bolds are mine throughout this post):

... The information published online by the Journal-News, a daily paper serving the New York suburbs of Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties, could be highly useful to thieves in two ways, former burglars told FoxNews.com. Crooks looking to avoid getting shot now know which targets are soft and those who need weapons know where they can steal them.

“That was the most asinine article I’ve ever seen,” said Walter T. Shaw, 65, a former burglar and jewel thief who the FBI blames for more than 3,000 break-ins that netted some $70 million in the 1960s and 1970s. “Having a list of who has a gun is like gold - why rob that house when you can hit the one next door, where there are no guns?

"What they did was insanity," added Shaw, author of "License to Steal," a book about his criminal career.

... “They just created an opportunity for some crimes to be committed and I think it’s exceptionally stupid,” said Bob Portenier, 65, a former burglar and armed house robber turned crime prevention consultant.

Professional burglars are always looking for an edge, and like most folks, they read the paper, said Portenier.

... While some burglars may use the newspaper’s information to avoid guns, Portenier said others will target homes with guns. The newspaper’s decision could even lead to legally-owned guns proliferating on the street, he said.

“That’s one of the first things we’d check out—guns are on the top of the list of what you want to steal,” he said. “They can walk out with a shotgun and a couple of handguns and sell them on the street for $300 or $400 a pop. They can sell them to a gangbanger who ends up killing someone.” (Portenier seems to believe that the map identifies specific guns owned, which it doesn't; nevertheless, his point about "legally-owned (but stolen) guns prolierating on the street" is valid. -- Ed.)

“When I first saw that story it kinda freaked me out. If I had a gun if I was a registered legal gun owner and had my information in there I’d be outraged.

Portenier isn't the only person who is "kinda freaked out." The Newsday report quotes representatives of four specific groups who have similar feelings (the italicized numeric listing within the excerpt is mine):

1. Prison guards

... Inmates at the Rockland County jail are taunting corrections officers by saying they know the guards' home addresses -- information they got from the list published by Westchester (County)-based newspaper, Rockland County Sheriff Louis Falco said.

"Since about 9:30 this morning, I've been in a meeting with my corrections officers and their unions. They have inmates coming up to them and telling them exactly where they live. That's not acceptable to me," Falco said at a news conference Friday morning in New City, where local leaders condemned the list.

2. Law enforcement in general

... Robert Riley, a White Plains police officer who is president of the department's Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, agreed that the database is putting officers' lives at risk.

"My members are outraged," Riley said, noting that the potential dangers to law enforcement extend beyond Westchester and Rockland counties.

"You have guys who work in New York City who live up here," Riley said. "Now their names and addresses are out there, too."

Falco said there are 8,000 active and retired NYPD officers currently living in Rockland County.

3. Non-permit holders

... Legis. Aron Wieder (D-Spring Valley) called the publication of the list "irresponsible journalism" and said he now fears for his safety because the map broadcast that he does not have a gun license. At the news conference Friday morning, he handed a $150 certified check and a completed pistol permit application to Rockland County Clerk Paul Piperato.

"I never owned a gun but now I have no choice," Wieder said. "I have been exposed as someone that has no gun. And I'll do anything, anything to protect my family."

4. Ex-spouses and others who were in abusive relationships.

... "When I saw the list, I had an immediate flood of emotions that I cannot even describe to you," said (Orangetown resident Charlotte) Swift. "I originally obtained a gun permit because I had previously been married to a man who attempted to strangle me . . . The first emotion I felt was, 'Oh my gosh, he can find me.'"

Heckuva job, Journal News. (/sarcasm)

Though much of the damage has obviously already been done, the Newsday article notes that law enforcement officials have called on the Journal News to take down the map. If the paper won't do it on their own, perhaps adults at Gannett, if any can be found, might demand that they do so.

It would also be fascinating to get a reaction to the two stories excerpted above from Connecticut legislator Stephen Dargan. As I noted yesterday (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), Dargan wants the Nutmeg State to change its laws, which currently protect the privacy of the state's handgun permit holders, to make such information accessible via Freedom of Information Act requests -- so that anyone can do to his state what the Journal News has just done to the residents of two New York counties. How can Dargan still submit his proposed legislation in the face of mounting evidence of the harm it would cause?

Yeah, base question: was this information available to the general public? If not, I'd say there are some charges to be filed. If so, and the newspaper just aggregated it...well, it's kind of a dick move, but there's nothing actually wrong with it.

I'm a little confused, though...the prison guard thing, for instance. Isn't address information readily available (phone book, internet, etc.)?

In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin

So one has to assume that this data was already publicly available. At some level it seems the core problem is why is that info was public in the first place. The actions of the paper were stupid in the extreme but this seems to be more of a privacy issue more than a media issue.

Wait...I thought having a gun was supposed to make it less likely that your home was hit. Wasn't that what people are complaining about? That the list was a list telling burglars what houses weren't "protected?"

Wait...I thought having a gun was supposed to make it less likely that your home was hit. Wasn't that what people are complaining about? That the list was a list telling burglars what houses weren't "protected?"

It's only like that when it's convenient for arguing against gun control legislation. C'mon get with the program...

Wait...I thought having a gun was supposed to make it less likely that your home was hit. Wasn't that what people are complaining about? That the list was a list telling burglars what houses weren't "protected?"

No, actually, I simply hadn't thought about it. I suppose the "guns make people safer" indoctrination worked; it literally didn't cross my mind until Nitefox brought up the alternative.

I do find it darkly humorous, however, that you have people saying "This list makes it more likely that people with guns will get robbed!" and "This list makes it more likely that people without guns will be robbed!" It kinda feels like this publicly-available information would A) have already been in use, and B) cancel itself out, thus making both gun-infused and gunless homes each the same amount of likelihood to be robbed.

No, actually, I simply hadn't thought about it. I suppose the "guns make people safer" indoctrination worked; it literally didn't cross my mind until Nitefox brought up the alternative.

I do find it darkly humorous, however, that you have people saying "This list makes it more likely that people with guns will get robbed!" and "This list makes it more likely that people without guns will be robbed!" It kinda feels like this publicly-available information would A) have already been in use, and B) cancel itself out, thus making both gun-infused and gunless homes each the same amount of likelihood to be robbed.

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

No, actually, I simply hadn't thought about it. I suppose the "guns make people safer" indoctrination worked; it literally didn't cross my mind until Nitefox brought up the alternative.

I do find it darkly humorous, however, that you have people saying "This list makes it more likely that people with guns will get robbed!" and "This list makes it more likely that people without guns will be robbed!" It kinda feels like this publicly-available information would A) have already been in use, and B) cancel itself out, thus making both gun-infused and gunless homes each the same amount of likelihood to be robbed.

Publishing it in an easily-digestible format was a dick move, to be sure...but again, wasn't the information already out there for the taking? Granted, people become criminals generally because they're lazy. NY needs to change the law to keep that information private.