The West wasn't won with a registered gun. Free the right to bear arms. You're asking for a civil war when you publicize who has the right to bear arms...because then we know who don't.

It probably already is. One of hte newspapers in town should at least ask. Most information, with the exception of personal and corporate taxes, is a public record. Most communities have home assessment information online and the county registry of deeds has the sale price and who you sold or brought your home from online.

What a good idea. Give criminals the information need to steal guns. How would this serve a legitimate purpose?

I work..I earn my WELL-EARNED money..and what I do with that money is none of your business! When will "The Right to Privacy" prevail. We already have cameras following us everywhere we go! Snaping pictures of license plates, now maniquins with tracking devices, not to mention the intrusion we have on the Internet and that there are even Facebook Police. Give me a BREAK! What have we come to! People are storing these arms because where we came from in the Good Old USA and what we've become, people are planning to protect themselves because we are scrapping the bottom with all our rights and privileges reduced to a spy state. Bet lots of Senators and Represenatives have more than the average citizen. Let's start publishing THEIR ownership and addresses first!

Massachusetts gun laws are amongst the strictest in the nation.Licensed gun owners in Ma. must have clean record so this would simply be harrassing law abiding citizens. This has nothing to do with public safety( if anything it would be dangerous). This has everything to do with a political agenda, so while we are at it, why not list those that have had an abortion or have an opinion one way or the other on gay rights? Knee jerk reactions are often not well thought out.

There are two different issues here: The privacy issue created by publishing public records on the Internet, and the high rate gun related deaths in this country. I think it is time that municipalities be held to the same standards that many Internet sites are held to when it comes to privacy. They should be required to have a privacy policy, perhaps set by the state or federal government. They really should have an opt-in policy when it comes to publishing some public records on the Internet, such as your age, address, home ownership, etc.

Information on gun owners should not be public as this would provide a list for criminals to break in and get more guns. If a person is licensed for a gun, the local police have that information and that is sufficient. This would also provide kids a list to try and get guns.

I am disgusted with those who use the tragedy to pursue their political agenda. Why don't the smart guys publish a list of ILLEGAL gun owners?

Even worse, publishing a list of gun owners just makes the non gun owners potential targets for future crime. If you are going to break into a house now you have a list of everyone who does NOT have a gun.

Did you read yesterday that in China a distraught man ran over 22 children with his auto? So I guess we now need more car control laws.

Well the NRA and the prgun lobby all say that people carrying guns prevents crime. So logically they should have no objection to the printing of the names of gun owners. Make sense to me. Also, there is no privacy issue - a license to carry is a government issued document thus making it open to the public.

What was the intent of the "New York Journal News" disclosing this info? Does anyone know? It may be legal, but in my oppinion, it is extremely irresponsible (and political). Isn't this whole argumet about being responsible (gun owners) vs. being irresponsible? If you agree, wouldn't you also agree that the privacy of RESPONSIBLE gun owners should be left private?

I don't see any logic in your logical statement. Owning a gun has definitely prevented crimes from escalating, especially in situations where it was a woman alone or with her child. There are circumstances where owning a gun has proved to be an effective means of controlling an undesirable situation. To take that out of context and declare and encourage a free for all on gun owners because they can prevent crimes is like turning the average registered gun owner into a hero. Which I realize you're probably attempting to highlight how unrealistic it is, and it's supposed to be ironic but really it is coming across as irrational logic.

There is a difference between something being public knowledge and basic human rights being violated. A drivers license is government issued. How would everyone react if the newspaper decided to publish names and addresses of everyone over 21, claiming it was some agenda to stop underage drinking? A newspaper by nature should have news, not serve as a specialized phone book using search requirements designated by a biased reporter running a story.

Fourth Amendment to the Constitution - Bill of Rights

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I think that the title question is the stupidest question I have ever seen. My answer of course is a flat out "NO!" It would just put a big red target on a house for criminals looking for guns.

Another flaw I have considered:

What if if is a family setting and only one member is registered to carry a firearm, and that member is out of the house with their firearm and someone breaks into their house in search of an illegal firearm for themself and as a result the remaining family members are injured?

There is a lot that wasn't considered in regards to safety and privacy when the journalist decided to selfishly follow their pursuit.

In many ways, anonymity is an unfortunate by-product of the urbanization of society. I have a book about Prince Edward Island (where my grandmother came from). It says that in earlier times, everybody knew all about their neighbors. They looked out for each other. They knew who was having trouble and could help. They were a concerned community.

Our increasing isolation — and secretiveness — is not real progress, even if nosy neighbors were an unfortunate side of older ways.

The freedom from warantless searches by the government (4th Amendment) is not an endorsement of anonymity. Nor does it mean that public records should be secret. Government business (such as issuing licenses) should be conducted in the open.

All that said, I think the overall effect of the printing of this information is unfortunate because it tells criminals where they will not be confronted by an armed (legally, that is) homeowner.

How about just posting a list of the entire contents of every house, whereby a thief will only have to break into a house containing the goods or weapons being sought. This will result in a lot of unnecessary breaks. " tongue in cheek"

I think they should make owning a gun against the law just like having heroine or crystal meth. Look how outlawing those have kept drugs off the streets.

Terrible idea to publish this info. A blogger, Christopher Fountain published all the home address info for the reporters of that paper. That seems reasonable.

The problem is NOT with people that own guns legally. The person that killed the kids in CT stole those guns from his mother. Lets not punish the people that own legally. Its the people that use weapons to kill. Its the ill person on the other side of the weapon that is killing! Guns do not shoot on their own. The ill person on the other end has to shoot the weapon! THAT IS THE PROBLEM!!!! Yes, if a person owns a gun legally, it should be known. They have nothing to hide from.

FOIA Freedom of Information Act*

It is actually against the law to publish the names and addresses of gunowners in Massachusetts.

Mg.G.l. Chapter 4 Section 7 Article 26

"Public records'' shall mean all books, papers, maps, photographs, recorded tapes, financial statements, statistical tabulations, or other documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency, executive office, department, board, commission, bureau, division or authority of the commonwealth, or of any political subdivision thereof, or of any authority established by the general court to serve a public purpose, unless such materials or data fall within the following exemptions in that they are:

.....
(j) the names and addresses of any persons contained in, or referred to in, any applications for any licenses to carry or possess firearms issued pursuant to chapter one hundred and forty or any firearms identification cards issued pursuant to said chapter one hundred and forty and the names and addresses on sales or transfers of any firearms, rifles, shotguns, or machine guns or ammunition therefor, as defined in said chapter one hundred and forty and the names and addresses on said licenses or cards;

Regardless of which side of the 2nd Amendment you stand on this was wrong. This made everyone in that area less safe. If any one of those homes is robbed and the guns used in a shooting the news staff should be held criminally responsible.

Hey Deb. Why not ask the parents of the kids your children want to play with. Hey do you or anyone in your house own guns? That will work. no?

Messrs. Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs
Purveyors of Aids to Magical Mischief-Makers
are proud to present:
THE MARAUDER'S MAP

What about the parents who have not told their children there is a locked firearm in the home for their safety and for any other children coming to their home....By publishing this information they have now taken away the parents right to tell their kids...

Be careful when taking others rights away because when they come for your rights, you will find yourself alone.

LIBERAL CELEBRITY WORSHIPPERS - DO NOT WATCH THIS
But the rest of you normal, centered, grounded common sense people watch this video - it exposes the Hollywood elite left for the arrogant ellf - gratifying loathsome Godless creatures they are -- Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxRlpRcorEU

This video has 90,000 likes on Youtube already.

How about you learn how to read yourself, pal.
"Even better...what if a teacher actually USES one of these "concealed weapons" on a student??? Justified or not; that teacher will be vilified for the rest of their life. No teacher/professor in their right mind would ever agree to carry a weapon in this day and age. Please stop spreading this neanderthal nonsense."

And the White House-sponsored bar fight continues.

In Mass you need a gun license to carry Mace. So a published list may greatly mis-represent why a person may have a gun license.

There are ways to arm the school without strapping the teachers. There could be biometric weapons in a locked safe with a small number of trained and certified school administrators that can access it. There could be non-lethal defensive weapons like tazers. Jose, attacking people trying to discuss possible solutions good or bad is very immature. If you can't discuss the topic like a grown up go find something else to do.

Wait until the pot stations and casinos open, crime will skyrocket -- you'll wish you owned a firearm.

And that's better?,...show me the stats on that one,that pot shops and casinos decrease crime.

People who are dealing with illness SHOULD have access to whatever helps them cope,- but money corrupts and here is a link to what happened in LA and what will happen here,- people will get a bogus prescription for pot.
http://www.scpr.org/news/2012/09/25/34425/feds-target-71-pot-shops-la/

Ask any law enforcement person what the impact will be.

Oh, please......like law enforcement would ever say anything else anyway, even though most of them already know that this, in the greater scheme of thing, is much ado about nothing. I'd like to see it totally legalized. I see significant tax revenue possibilities, and an opportunity to prevent the necessity for contact with those involved in other drug traffic. I don't deny that states that were first to do this had problems, but we have an opportunity to learn from those mistakes and do it better.

Yeah Dave, society is not stupid enough, we need to legalize dope,...brilliant, - what could go wrong?

This bill was passed to help people cope with illness, but like California, it will be abused and profits made by pot smoking dirt bags who could care less about the ill as long as they can smoke weed, that's what you're defending.

The hypocrisy is almost funny...

"Armed guards from RGA Investigations have taken up post at the Journal News’ Rockland County headquarters"
http://www.rocklandtimes.com/2013/01/01/the-journal-news-is-armed-and-dangerous/