Des Moines Cityview outs gun owners
Old Trooper sent us a link to an article in the Wireupdate concerning the breech of privacy of 5200 gun owners in Iowa by the Des Moines Cityview newspaper, when for purely sensational reasons they published both online and in print their names and addresses;
“With nearly 5,200 applications to carry already this year, it’s safe to say that plenty of people, including your neighbors and friends, are now “packing heat.” Cityview author Jared Curtis wrote before naming all the residents.
“Publication of that list would tell the criminal class where the guns are, which could be useful to two different sorts of lawbreakers: gun thieves who want to know where the guns are and burglars who want to know where they are not.” Stossel concluded.
According to Polk County Sheriff’s office 5,195 applications for a permit to carry were received by the department so far in 2011.
Irony being what it is, I tried to find Jared Curtis’ address and it’s not listed in any of my databases. I guess he’s a little sensitive about his privacy.
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists
Privacy really doesn’t matter when its the OTHER guy does it?
One of the newspaper pulled this crap in Memphis a few years back.
I went to the “Cityview website and found this:
Jared Curtis
arts & entertainment editor
jared@dmcityview.com
The byline on the article now reads: by Cityview Staff.
Iowa is fast becoming as wacky as Californicate, and it used to be full of good conservative farmer types. Shows what crop subsidy and such will do to a state.
The banner ad on the top of Cityview’s web page is for http://www.equip2conceal.com/
Apparently they have no problem collecting ad revenue from those who teach others how to “pack heat.”
You mean Jared Curtis who lives on S 16th St in Centerville, IA and graduated from Iowa Lakes Community College in 2006 with an Associate in Arts degree?
Nah ROS, not that liberal, hehehehehe. Arts n Entertainment in Central Iowa, woohoo, that is some calling. Sorta like Les Nessman and his lowly job at WKRP, eh? Wonder if he is watching for an opening on the NY Slimes Broadway critic staff…
He needs his neighbor to put one of these signs up: http://www.cafepress.com/frankopinions.339589357 from this collection: http://www.cafepress.com/frankopinions/6293752
It’s time for Atlas to Shrug and the Immutable Law of Consequences to kick in.
I wonder how far & fast incoming revenue will drop when advertisers and subscribers/readers cancel?
For the record, this information is incorrect. The publication merely listed the names in alphabetical order. No other personal information was listed. The information provided was astounding, no doubt, but not “sensational.” On the Cityview website they even tout an arms-friendly banner ad right across the top of the page. This is the 21st Century. Sorry guys. But there is no privacy. Why the hell do you think so many people are growing more interested in carrying guns? Patriots adhere and respect all 10 Bill of Rights. If you respect the 2nd, you’ve got to respect them all, including the 1st. Quit your whining and stand by your convictions proudly, I say.
Weak sauce, there, Iowa Roots. Would you defend the “free press” if they published a list of every woman in town who had an abortion in their lifetime? Or if they published the names of everyone with more than $1000 in their savings account? And you would still blow it off by telling those people that they have no expectation of privacy in the 21st century?
Are you also telling me that it’s not possible to take that list of names and NOT find those addresses with Google or at White Pages.com?
Better yet, let’s take a list of names of single women living alone, match them against a list of people who DON’T own firearms, and make THAT public knowledge. Would you support that, Iowa? How about the woman who just got a restraining order against her violent husband? Would you support HER information being made public because she felt the need to own a gun for protection?
If you support the First Amendment, then you’ve got to respect them all, including the 2nd–even the part that says, “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”. Quit your whining and stand by your convictions proudly, I say.
You’re comparing logic to horse shit guys. Those things (i.e. a person’s salary, medical records/abortion and NOT owning a gun) are not items of public record set down by our forefathers in the U.S. Constitution of this fine country. You guys call yourselves patriots? pff. I think you’re all poor representatives of the good, intelligent and reasonable poeple who do carry weapons legally — people who should rightfully be as pissed off at you as you are at this newspaper. Your irrational, defensive responses are damaging your cause. Channel your energy to something useful, would you?
Yeah, you know us all so well. Answer me this: What legitimate interest does the public have in knowing whether or not I, the average citizen never arrested, convicted, or even otherwise suspected of a crime, own a gun?
And while you’re at it, please point me to the Constitutional provision or common law interpretation thereof stating that the right to keep and bear arms is contingent on having that information available in the public sphere. If it’s as clear-cut a Constitutional condition as you so smugly assert, several million Illinois gun owners would not have had a leg to stand on, and this bill should have been plainly unconstitutional:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/11/illinois-house-approves-keeping-names-gun-owners-private/
So there exists a right to privacy to effect an abortion, but there is not a right to privacy in owning a small caliber firearm. So far as is known, abortion kills more people than handguns do, so perhaps Ms. Wasserman should require a database of women who’ve had abortions.
If, of course, one wishes to maintain 100% integrity in the argument.
Huh…and here I thought all along I was a good, intelligent, and reasonable person who could legally carry a weapon.
Here’s a retort for you, whatever happened to the reply of, “None of your fucking business?” That’s what SHOULD be the answer when someone asks me if I have a gun, or wants to know my salary, or my medical records.
It’s called “expectation of privacy”. 4th Amendment and all that shit, right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects…remember that part? And throw in the 14th for good measure since you’re dealing with equal (or unequal) protection under the law.
Just because YOU don’t own a gun doesn’t mean you can shit on the rights of those of us who do. Gun ownership lists shouldn’t be a matter of public record either–but you insist that they are. Pray tell, why?
I’m channeling my energy to a very worthwhile effort–that of the protection and preservation of my rights. What have YOU done to help that effort, scooter?
The issue, then, isn’t: Why did Cityview run the names? The issue is: Why is it legal for them to do so? It’s federal law. I’ll debate the necessity and validity (or lack thereof) of our laws all day. For the most part, the majority of them are bullshit, and we’d be a freer country with fewer of them. So take it up with your legislators. You can get as pissed off as you want at media for all the slimy things they do — and debating why they do them is futile — but you’re barking up the wrong tree. If you actually want to do something about it, that is, “to channel your energy more usefully,” then take it up with your legislators about why carry permits should not be public record. I really don’t see why it bothers you so much. Didn’t you know it was public record when you got your permits? You agreed to the rules when you signed the damn paperwork. Now you want to bitch about it? Trust me, Cityview is one of hundreds of newspapers all over the country who have done this type of thing. Whether or not you agree, a large population of people are opposed to guns. So knowing who has them, law-abiding or not, is important to them, and therein lies the value of Cityview’s decision to print the names as an interesting, useful and newsworthy service to its readers. You can disagree as loud as you please, but it’s six on one side and half a dozen on the other, as is true with most political issues. And your abortion argument is not based on fact, and by that I mean, it’s plain stupid. There is no way for you to make such a claim with any level of credibility, because abortions are NOT public record. You don’t have a clue which of the two — guns or abortion — “kills more poeple.” Just because it sounds profound, doesn’t mean it’s true. So in the words of my teenaged sister, DUH. And that goes for all of… Read more »
I am a lot more afraid of the mentality that put those names in the paper, than I am of the mentality that applies for a concealed carry permit.
“I could’ve cooked a pizza in that time, and I’d be left feeling much more satisfied”. So would we, believe me.
Yet, the libs get all up in arms when a paper decides to print the names, addresses and mug shots of citizens arrested for DUI. What’s the problem, arrests are public record? Whether or not you agree, a large percentage of the population is opposed to drunks getting behind the wheel of an auto, truck or snowmobile.
“The issue is: Why is it legal for them to do so? It’s federal law.”
It’s actually state law, but that’s neither here nor there. We can debate the merits of the law, but we can also debate the ethics of publishing the personal information of private citizens in a readily accessible online medium, even if it’s public record. Newspapers refrain from publishing plenty of information that is perfectly legal for them to do so, or otherwise public record, e.g. the names of rape victims, molested children, minors arrested, the names of people who were fired from their jobs and reasons for it, etc. The general public’s supposed “opposition to guns” is a weak justification at best. The only possible effect of publishing this information is to notify any literate crook with a phone book whose house they need to break into to steal guns, or gin up unwarranted fear of law-abiding citizens. In fact, the latter seems to be Cityview’s clear intent, judging from the bold subheading “Who’s Packing?” accompanied by the graphic of a gun pointed at the reader. Good for them; they join a long and proud journalistic tradition of idiotic pandering to uninformed fear of guns. But hey, anything to generate page views, I suppose. Hell, it worked- we’re talking about it.
“And that goes for all of use wasting our time arguing about shit behind anonymous handles instead of doing something about it.”
Of course. Because the five minutes it takes to write a response on here just totally wears me out, and thereby precludes me from doing anything else all day. Word to your false dichotomy.
@ #16 Iowa Roots-So knowing who has them, law-abiding or not, is important to them, and therein lies the value of Cityview’s decision to print the names as an interesting, useful and newsworthy service to its readers. You can disagree as loud as you please, but it’s six on one side and half a dozen on the other, as is true with most political issues.
How many criminals do you know of that pack heat? How many of them have a CCW permit? You are completely blind according to the above portion of your post there and others above as well. I’m even willing to bet, when a criminal does invade your home, you’ll probably be begging and pleading for your life or one of your family wondering why the damn police aren’t there saving your lives.
In all my life I have never seen a minor child’s name published in reference to a minor or criminal offense committed either by or against them. Politics is an entirely different horse, you’ve obfuscated the two, either on purpose or out of shear stupidy.
I get the feeling this Iowa Roots is the writer of this article as well.
Wrong again 🙂
Well, it was an easy mistake to make, considering his cock is probably resting comfortably between your gums.
“you’ve obfuscated the two, either on purpose or out of shear stupidity”. I vote for the latter, and either this is the author of such monumental stupidity, or an apologist for him.
Iowa, more people are opposed to abortion, so it’s important to them too….the analogy can be made and is every bit as sound. You don’t get to have your cake and eat it too. You people will oppose picture ID’s to vote because getting a free one is too much of a stigma yet we have some need to know the names of people who are actually following the law? Your arguments are ridicululous, the “everybody does it” one really takes the cake….
Iowa Roots; do you honestly think that the bad guys names are on the list of people with conceal carry permits? The problem you seem to have, that most anti-gun types have, is that you don’t understand that criminals don’t follow the law to begin with, so they don’t register their guns, they don’t apply for permits to carry their guns, and they sure would like to know who has them and who doesn’t. Of course, so do abusive men that have a restraining order against them to suddenly find out that the person they were abusing now either has a CCW permit, or not. It makes it easier for them to plan their next move. Plus, the person with the restraining order now has their name plastered all over the paper, so that their abuser might know they have one, too.
That’s just awesome, eh?
#16 Iowa Roots, I don’t know you, so I don’t trust you. Hundreds of papers and information outlets across the country have NOT published the names of gunowners, otherwise TAH would have hundreds of posts on this topic. You mis-identify the core issue at stake. The issue is not 2d Amendment versus 1st Amendment. The issue is the inability to discern the value, or public good, gained by the people of Iowa by publishing the names. As a secondary issue, not Constitutionally but of major importance in terms of civil and criminal law, Cityview has an obligation to safeguard all other information gathered on those over 5,000 people, other than the information that they have guns. The 1st Amendment will not protect Cityview should its information network be compromised by hackers seeking to sell data to identity thieves. Back to determining the value of publishing names of gun owners, a venerable Justice of the SCOTUS made an analogy about shouting fire in a crowded theater. The justice made this analogy to explain how reckless disregard for public safety can trump the 1st Amendment. Criminals now know where to go, and not to go. Whether they go after gun owners, or non-gun owners, criminals will be prepared and can exact levels of violence of their own choice to ensure success. Using Cityview’s list, and a phonebook, ordinary citizens of Iowa are now at the mercy of predators. No public good will come of this. Folks not on the list will now scramble to buy a gun to protect themselves since the police are always a phonecall and twenty minutes away. Folks on the list will have to invest in additional measures to ensure that they will get the drop on criminals, and won’t be out-gunned too. Criminals will have to move quickly and with overwhelming violence to make their scores before either arming or up-arming occurs. No public good was served. The list has no value to the law-abiding citizens of Iowa – at best it puts them under the threat of danger and death. Cityview could have filed a great… Read more »
Honestly I think we should just skip CCW and go with open carry…
“An armed society is a polite society…”
-Robert Hienlien
In my town, I could make some nice money selling tickets to watch the fights on who would get to kick the reporter and editor’s butt first. FYI, this would never run because ,we still respect other privacy. I still they just wanted to broost sales without thinking what harm they could cause.