Listen to Ross and Burbank weekdays on KIRO Radio 97.3 FM
 Ross+Burbank


gunowners.jpg
It's a public record. The Journal News says neighbors have a right to know in case they feel insecure about living next to a gun owner. (Screen grab of the Journal News map)

Gun owners - outed in New York!

BY Dave Ross  on December 27, 2012 @ 7:36 am (Updated: 7:51 am - 12/27/12 )

There it is - on the website of the Journal News, which covers New York's Westchester, Putnam, and Rockland Counties. An interactive map with red dots, which you can click on to see the names of people with gun permits and where they live. Not the number and types of weapons, just that they have a permit.

It's a public record. The paper says neighbors have a right to know in case they feel insecure about living next to a gun owner.

I checked out a gun owner I know in Westchester, Sure enough - she has a permit. Which makes sense because I know her to be a law-abiding citizen.

That's the bottom line here - this is a map of law obeyers, not law breakers. Now - if I knew that a neighbor had guns, and saw there was NO red dot indicating a permit, that's what would worry me.

The newspaper's gotten flak from people worried that outing gun owners like this will just help bad guys steal guns. Maybe - if the bad guy could be sure the owner wasn't home. But it seems to me a crook would want to avoid the homes with the red dots, right?

As for how this might affect our current gun debate: When you look at the map of Westchester (where I grew up, by the way) and you see those 16,000 dots in just the one county - you realize gun confiscation is not going to happen. What you DO hope is that under the dot is a responsible gun owner who's been trained, who has a safe, and is in a good mood today.

Dave Ross, KIRO Radio Talk Show Host
Dave Ross is co-host of The Ross & Burbank Show on KIRO Radio (weekdays 9-Noon) and never too far from the spotlight.
More Ross and Burbank

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (82)


  • Add A Comment

  • DesertRez wrote...
    Did you see Feinstein's bill?
    December 27, 2012 10:45 am
    The blatant communist from Kalifornia will be introducing this bill in January: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

    Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include: Background check of owner and any transferee; Type and serial number of the firearm; Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint; Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

    So you have to be registered like a sex offender to keep your own guns.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Hayduke wrote...
    DesertRez: And that's different from requirements to own and operate an automobile how?
    December 27, 2012 10:50 am
    No one's constitutional rights are being taken away, it's simply asking that they be registered.

    BTW, how did you feel when the GOP Congress and Bush passed the Patriot Act? What was it were were told about these infringements on our liberties and the Constittuion? Something along the lines of, "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear?"

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Hayduke: The difference is there is no constitutional right to "keep and bear" an automobile
    December 27, 2012 11:08 am
    Every single gun law on the books is entirely unconstitutional. Infringing, impeding, or discouraging the sale of firearms in any manner is just flat out contrary to the Second.

    Let's give the gun nuts their Nirvana. Sell pistols at 7-11. Ammo in vending machines at Quest field. Don't impede or infringe on anybody by demanding a background check, registered ownership, etc. Get out of the way of the Second, and let's see what happens. (We'll soon discover what hell hath wrought).

    The body count is going to need to be much, much, higher before the gun enthusiasts grudgingly admit that the unfettered distribution of an instrument primarily designed for the killing of human beings just might, maybe, possibly, be a factor. By then it will be too late- but, not big deal----- it's already too late. That said: in the end, the same people who go off the rails and kill somebody with a gun would pick up a heavy rock and do the same thing. Maybe we should register all the rocks in our yards. :-)

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    But there IS an implied 'freedom of travel' , as real as the unemerated 'right of privacy'.
    December 27, 2012 11:54 am
    And although the State of Washington considers driving a privilege, most other states DO consider it a right. ... After all, how much freedom do you have if you are restricted to walking ? ... And maybe not even that if the State were to restrict your walking on public property.

    But, then, denying rights seems all too easy for the left.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • irony wrote...
    actually the robbers go to un-armed homes
    December 27, 2012 10:57 am
    because they know they won't get shot. any logical person can figure that out. only an idiot would believe criminals would go to an armed house to rob.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    How about we post maps w/ red dots where liberals live.
    December 27, 2012 11:10 am
    Those people are the truly dangerous amongst us.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ratrustle wrote...
    We ought to disclose
    December 27, 2012 11:18 am
    Who owns boats, airplanes, second homes and other luxury items too! There's way too many people with disposable income who ought to be using it to better society than spending lavishly on themselves! How dare these people enjoy the fruits of their labor when there are people without a boat in the midwest. What we really need are salary limits -- not more taxes. I can't see why anyone would need more than $250k a year to live on if they're single or $400k if they're married. This way, companies could just send all that money they would have paid out in salaries to the government to pay for those boats!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cdbtx wrote...
    Gould a perfect example of
    December 27, 2012 11:40 am
    Ideological extremism.. so I ask everyone... who do you fear most in America... a legal responsible gun owner of an ideological extremist?

    Never seen a gun owner try to force me to buy something I didn't want or need..

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    cdbtx: Yeah, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
    December 27, 2012 12:50 pm
    is pretty ideologically extreme.

    You can't be a little bit pregnant.

    Where does your bizarre comment about "forcing you to buy something you don't want or need" come from? I can't see any portion of the Second, which I argue is an unconditional (as in not subject to conditions) bestowal of rights, forcing anybody to buy anything. Do you have some issue with the Second amendment, and do you feel it forces you to buy something? What would that something be?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • hawks$life wrote...
    Now if only
    December 27, 2012 11:59 am
    We could get a map of all the homosexuals and democrats living near me. That's who makes ME uncomfortable.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • JohnQEveryman wrote...
    Hmmm
    December 27, 2012 12:03 pm
    "What you DO hope is that under the dot is a responsible gun owner who's been trained, who has a safe, and is in a good mood today." No, what I hope is that Americans can start to take responsibility for their actions, rather than the 'it's someone/something's fault'. I don't have to be trained to know how to use a handgun to protect myself and simply owning a gun doesn't mean I'm a threat to my neighbors or community. It's that ultra-Liberal jibber jabber that's as damaging as the NRA's "arm teachers" rhetoric. The truth and answers always lie somewhere in the middle-ground... let's stop overreacting and start having some serious, honest discourse on how to solidify this nation, rather than further segment it, as this website can and will do.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    Not just any guns, but as you might expect, the very guns the President wants to ban on the grounds that in the wrong hands they are just too deadly.
    December 27, 2012 12:05 pm
    hayduke, you remember when all those who voted against the Gay Marriage bunch was going to have their names made public?

    I want all the names of all those Left wing Parrots who did what they were supposed to do and gave their Dear Leader and us Americans four more years of this Obamunist insanity!!

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    HAHA, you *can* get the names of everybody who voted in the last election....
    December 27, 2012 1:02 pm
    that's a public record.

    How the individual people voted is confidential, to prevent political reprisal against supporters of losing candidates. And should be.

    The names and identities of people who voluntarily sign a petition *must* be part of the public record. Otherwise, there is no audit trail. The government could just say, "Oh, hey, we got enough signatures on this petition to permit porn stores across the street from elementary schools," and unless you could challenge them to make the actual petitions available and verify the names of the signors you would simply have to take their word for it.

    Don't want to risk having your name listed among the signors of a petition? That's easy, don't sign it. If you don't feel strongly enough about an issue that you aren't ashamed or afraid to be associated with it, you probably shouldn't be petitioning.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Stevebo wrote...
    I think the key quote is this one...
    December 27, 2012 12:54 pm
    It's a public record. The paper says neighbors have a right to know in case they feel insecure about living next to a gun owner.

    As I said before, the paper is treating the listing and apparently justifying the listing as if it were a list of resistered sex offenders - and that's where the paper is VERY wrong.

    And also as mentioned by you Dave (and many others too) - in many ways, this now creates a "shopping list" of places for thieves to burgle to try and obtain guns if they are looking to steal guns.

    I think it's irresponsible journalism for this paper to publish this "public document" - especially in the manner that they did.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Agree Stevebo, the act was wrong- but was within "legal rights"
    December 27, 2012 1:11 pm
    I disagree with the crew who are calling Dave names merely for reporting that this happened. I disagree with the guy who is yelling about posting stuff from public records, and then, to demonstrate his moral outrage, turns around the posts stuff that he "suggests" reflect the dates, purchase prices, and current values of Dave and Luke's houses.

    There's sometimes a difference between what is legal and what is right. Even more often, a difference between what is legal and what is smart.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Stevebo wrote...
    Yeah, Chuck, I have to agree...
    December 27, 2012 3:01 pm
    My initial "knee jerk" type of reaction was to blame Dave... but as I re-read the article, it's pretty clear that Dave is merely reporting information... not drawing any real conclusions from what I can tell.

    I was reading the side-debate about the public records issue on page 2 or so... but decided it best to not involve myself in that debate. :D

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }