This should definitely make the Plaine Squealer think twice about publishing names and addresses. Reporter types are much less likely to own firearms so making their names and addresses public may put the crime bullseye squarely on them.

Way to go. Let's see how they like it.

No, wait.

This is win/win, check it out:

• Criminals find out who has guns and doesn't bother them.
  So those brave enough to carry publicly deter those who would mess with them, and
  
  
• No guns are used in self-defense
  since criminals are smart enough to prey upon those who don't have guns, no guns in self-defense.

Actually, I guess that's not a win/win, since the real winners would be those who like to whip out meaningless numerolgy (statistics) to prevent freedom of choice.

Never mind. I said nothing.

Are the staff going to start by publishing the names (and possibly address) of all the law enforcement officers in the state? If not, why not?

Mind if I copy this post in whole and put it up on my site? (With attribution, of course.)

Be my guest.

Truly Classic!

Awesome. Love it. I applaud your printing the information of the Scumbag-in-Chief.

Count me among your "guests" as well.

I wrote him and asked him to reconsider. Please write, call and visit him.

Please post data on others who are responsible, editors, managing editor, etc.

Ravenwood,

I'm just wondering if you collected all the info yet. I'm thinking if not, the "interested parties" might change some of that information .... and it should be collected post haste, if it has not been already.

I like fighting fire with fire too, if nothing else, it's effective and, IMO, fair.

Though I doubt Dougie will think so .... or his cronies.

Ah well ...

Personally, I've already asked my rep. and senator to work to promote a change in the law that makes it a criminal act to publish this information. The legislature was quite clear of the intent of the law, and I am trying to get them to back it with teeth.

And, also, I plan on working through the civil justice system as well should these people actually publish my private information.

Copy/Paste. Awesome info.

the only problem with this approach is, why sink to their level. WE ARE better than them. we rely on ourselves to take care of our own problems. they have to run to mommy or daddy if they are hurt or if someone hurts their feeling.

In 1981 the first aids case was reported but the identity of the carrier never made public. Now that there are several million people in the country that are infected, the Plain Dealer and the medical establishment feel that the right of the people to know who is infected is none of the public's business. The irony here is that this lack of information has created an epidemic similar to the black plague that beset Europe a few hundred years ago. The public, through taxation, has had to support this epidemic, yet the Plain Dealer has failed to notify public of the lethal hazards of contact with these people because the public is not allowed to know their identity. Why do suppose this is? Hmmmm?

Honestly, the release of names of CCW holders might be an "invasion of privacy" since the info is not public; but better yet, does the release of sucj info violate the Patriot Act ?

Anyone whose name was NOT published and is a victim of a crime, in which a gun was used by a (non licensed) person. They should add the Cleveland PD to the list for criminal and or civil action. Especially the civil case, as they might be able to get cash settlement out of it. That would be for the listing of EASY TARGETS for criminals. (The one’s not listed in the paper) Hit the paper were it hurts in the pocket.

The address, the map......funny stuff. But if this guy is a true liberal, he will own several "unregistered" handguns, and keep them where his children can find them. All the while not teaching his kids about the dangers / responsibilties of legal firearm ownership, and publically denying he is a firearm owner. Better yet, I'd like to see the paper publish HIS name, when (if) he decides to legally carry. THAT would make my day, and illustrate the hopeless position of all the liberal anti-gun advocates. It still amazes me......to a liberal....the choice to kill a fetus should be a protected right in the Constitution, and my CHOICE to protect myself legally should
be abridged at every possible opportunity. Maybe we all need to shut-up and watch Baywatch reruns....yeah...thats it.....he'd like that.......

I sent the following email to Mrs. Schultz of the plain dealer. Feel free to use it in more if you like.
Did you make the same fuss when the government made drivers license records private? How about when they made license plate records private? It seems to me that picking and choosing what public records you want to complain about public access to is a little bit hypocritical. If your going to complain about access to public records you should do it with regard to all records, not just the ones that are hotly debated or the ones that you don't agree with.
Open access to certain personnel information has proven to be dangerous in the past for a good number reasons. The same reasons they used to privatize drivers license and license plate information could be used to privatize CCW license holder information. In my opinion, publishing a list of this type is a bad idea. Abusing this right is exactly whats going to get it taken away.