"Outing" the names of Registered Gun Owners

Judge Jeanine Pirro Calls Out “Cowards” at The Journal News for Hiding After Publishing Names of Gun Owners | Fox News Insider:

The Journal News continues to face serious backlash after publishing the names of legal gun permit owners in New York. 

Publisher of the paper, Janet Hasson, cited the reason for doing so in a statement. She said, “We felt … sharing has much information as we could about gun ownership in our area was important in the aftermath of the Newtown shootings.” 

Judge Jeanine Pirro has reached out for a comment from the newspaper to no avail. She slammed those at the paper for going into hiding, and even hiring bodyguards to protect themselves. [emphasis added]  She reacted on her show, saying, “In the aftermath of the shooting of innocent children, you, The Journal News think it’s important to what — to out us? […] How dare you connect law-abiding citizens who’ve gone through rigorous background checks, who’ve been fingerprinted, investigated and received judicial approval to exercise their Second Amendment right.”

IS this a legitimate complaint?

The people involved (gun owners whose names have been published) seem to feel that they have been ranked with "Pedophilias", as if their decision to own guns .. which have been registered in accordance with state laws .....make them appear to their friends and neighbors as some kind of socially perverse sub-culture,

Their concerns may not be entirely unfounded.  They are concerned that their homes may be targeted by  burglars, and other sorts of home-invaders, if only because they are KNOWN to keep firearms in their homes.

That may be a legitimate complaint; and so may their concern be that they will not only be burglarized, but assaulted only because they have been identified as gun owners.

For many of the iconoclized few, however, the unspoken concern may be ...  they worry that their neighbors may come to fear them because they are known "gun owners".

That denomination alone  (or should it be demonization?)  is less important.  Essentially, by identifying them selves as owners of defensive weapons, they become (in their eyes) more of a target then are their neighbors.

That was certainly not their goal, when they (a) decided that they need to take an active role in defending themselves, their family and their home; and (b) determined that the 'best way' to do so was to abide entirely with state law.

That is: they registered themselves as "firearms owners".
_____________________________________

One might presume that when one has taken 'extraordinary measures" (in this case, at least, to actually abide by the law), one might legitimately be recognized as people who are law-abiding according to all definitions of the term.

Do their neighbors feel that way?

Let's get back to that;

But, does their local newspaper feel that way?

No, "The Journal" obviously does not.
"The paper defended itself by arguing that the names of people who hold handgun licenses is public and freely available."

In other words: if the information is available to the general public, the newspaper feels justified in publishing the information of "WHO" owns a gun, and "WHERE" they live.

(We don't yet know if the newspaper has delved into the reasons WHY they felt obliged to own a gun, WHAT kind of gun they owned ... although they might also includedthe information about about WHAT KIND of gun they owned

.  Not having the information about  WHERE the article resides online, we can't give you that information

However, recent news articles suggest that the information provided by The Journal may have been instrumental it at least one recent robbery which appeared to have been targeting the gun which was supposedly owned (and stored safely) by at least one person mentioned in the article.

I can't tell you whether the burglary was planned upon the information provided by The Journal, nor can I confirm that the gun was safely stored (although it appears that it was.)

(Isn't it interesting, that while the newspaper published the details of the private citizens in their community, that same newspaper can't provide the information which might make sense of the story?  Who is the responsible party here?)

I can only tell you that the publication of this information put the owners at risk.

It was as if the publishers acquired a list of 'snitches' for the local police department, and published their names.  Whether or not it should have been a matter of Public Information; whether or not any other citizen would have researched the information;  whether or not that information, once discovered, should have been published in a public (and widely distributed) document ... we don't know that, either.

All we know is that the people "outed" had suggested a variety of ways in which they may be put at risk due to the actions of "The Journal", and at least one of those scenarios have been proven to be true:  one person WAS targeted, and the goal of the scum-bags clearly seems to have been to acquire a weapon.

Who are we to blame, for the introduction of another illegally acquired gun upon the  streets?

The owner?  The scum-bag who stole the gun?  Or the newspaper who made the four-way connection between the owner, the address, the gun and the robber?
 
I know in which direction my finger is pointing.