Gunco Forums banner

Indiana: Bloomington Herald-Times Remains Defiant, Refuses to End Searchable Gun Per

614 views 2 replies 3 participants last post by  smittygj 
#1 ·
On November 30, the Bloomington Herald-Times made the following announcement: âThis week, HeraldTimesOnline.com will launch its new gun permit database. Youâll be able to search gun permit records by county, city or town and street." Anyone who visits the newspaper website will be able to search the number of permits on a given street or neighborhood. The newspaperâs website treats law-abiding Indiana gun owners like sex offenders on a searchable database. The editors have shown they have no intention of removing the information and protecting the safety of law-abiding permit holders. It is important that you not only contact the Bloomington Herald-Times but their advertisers as well to respectfully voice your displeasure at the irresponsible action of the newspaper has made. For contact information, please click here.

More...
 
#2 ·
Same thing happened with the Sioux Falls newspaper Argus Leader. One of their editors published the CCW list. MY info was in that public internet database. :censored:

Caused such a stink our legislature passed a bill signed by the Governor prohibiting reporters, LEO, etc. from making the info they requested public.
 
#3 ·
From the HT

Direct from HT Online here in Bloomington

HeraldTimesOnline.com

Monday morning

H-T targeted over gun permit database

NRA action alert on gun story leads to hundreds of angry calls, e-mails from across the country

By Bob Zaltsberg H-T Editor
December 7, 2009



The NRA used its muscle against The Herald-Times last Tuesday, sending to its supporters an e-mail that was widely misunderstood by those who received it.
The e-mail took issue with the database published on HeraldTimesOnline.com that included minimal information about personal protection handgun permits held by people in Indiana. The NRA said the database treated law-abiding gun owners like sex offenders.
That unfair and unfounded characterization set off an angry reaction. Hundreds of calls and e-mails flooded in from all over Indiana and, among other identifiable locations, from Maryland, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, Illinois, Tennessee, Wisconsin and Texas. One e-mail signature was from Chile, another the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
What a vast majority of the NRA supporters who contacted the H-T didn’t realize was that the data we made available to the public was much, much different than any information the state would make available on sex offenders. The comparison was inaccurate and incendiary.
The information we published did not include any names, any specific addresses, and would have been difficult if not impossible to use to identify any law-abiding permit holder in the state.
Some of the people who contacted us asked a good question: “What is your purpose?”
As with a lot of items we publish, our purpose was to provide information we believed would be of interest to our readers. We believed and still believe that many people would be interested in knowing how many permits have been issued in their county, or the neighboring county, or their city, or on the street where they live.
This data base was published in conjunction with stories by reporter Michael Malik last week that explored the increase in permits issued in the last year and about how those permits are distributed through our circulation area.
Between us, publisher Mayer Maloney and I returned calls or e-mails to roughly 1,000 people. A vast majority of them misunderstood, from what the NRA had sent them, that we planned to publish names and addresses, which was never under consideration. Most were relieved and satisfied when they learned the truth.
E-mailer John had called us “stupid” in his original note, but when informed of the truth said: “Thank you for clarifying. I think you should inform the NRA Web site that they are distributing misinformation ... . I stand corrected.”
Patricia, who started her original note with “How dare you,” wrote: “I accept and thank you for your explanation. Sorry for any misunderstanding.”
Steve, who wrote that he had “never been more upset with any of your policies,” followed up with: “Thank you for the clarification. Perhaps something similar, placed on the front page, would be helpful to many others who are upset with this.”
Of course, some didn’t agree with our explanation and still believed we had made too much information available. Others were incensed, abusive and threatening, and nothing would change their viewpoint that we were slime, “un-American,” and other things not printable in a family newspaper.
Here are some lessons learned:
The NRA is a powerful voice. The way it portrayed what we did put us in the crosshairs of a lot of very angry people. Like a lot of organizations, its members are not all alike. Some were thoughtful and reasonable in their contacts with the newspaper. Many were not.
A lot of gun owners do not trust the media, and they really don’t trust government. Ironically, I heard dozens of times that if an individual had a gun permit, only the government should be able to know it.
A lot of people believe society is on the verge of collapse, and those with the guns have the best chance to survive. I can only surmise this is because of economic realities, the recent failings of institutions, and serious distrust of government — as well as, for some, plain paranoia.
A lot of people who are dedicated to the Second Amendment don’t have a clue about the First Amendment. One caller said he couldn’t believe we would provide such an easy way for the government to find out where all the guns are. He clearly didn’t understand government provided that information to us, and that information held by the government belongs to the people. One recent president put it well.
“We believe that the more transparency there is in the system, the better the system works on behalf of the American people.”
Well said, George W. Bush.
Copyright: HeraldTimesOnline.com 2009
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top