.

Statement by Senator Carlucci Calling On The Journal News to Remove their Map

Senator Carlucci Responds to The Journal News Gun Permit Map

 

"Lawful gun owners and all citizens have been outraged by the mass shootings around our country.  However, the timing of the disclosure of individuals possessing pistol permits by The Journal News when families are reeling from the tragedies in Newtown and Webster is troubling.  While exploiting the privacy of law abiding citizens may technically be legal, it is not the appropriate course of action.  Because of the safety concerns that have been brought to my attention by the residents of the Hudson Valley, I ask the Journal News to remove their map."

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Denise January 11, 2013 at 08:50 PM
Thank you Mr. Carlucci for your attention to this irresponsible example of journalism!
Mike January 11, 2013 at 11:05 PM
Even the lib Dem politicians are condemning JN and yet they still hold to their position. This has got to be hurting them financially.
Don January 11, 2013 at 11:13 PM
"The timing is troubling"? How about it's troubling that it was done at all? The issue is that criminals now know where the pistols are and aren't. Regardless of Newton, this never should have been done. I hope you join other elected officials from stopping something like this from being published in the future.
stephany January 12, 2013 at 04:52 AM
better late than never
Brian Goudie January 12, 2013 at 11:30 AM
It's about time. I guess he was weighing the 'pros and cons' given that he is a Democrat.
Deejay January 12, 2013 at 01:28 PM
Correct. Day late and a dollar short.
Michael Gries January 12, 2013 at 02:18 PM
Very weak. Rather than just a 'naughty, naughty' response to the damage incurred, how about a commitment to end this misdirection toward gun owners and the 2nd Amendment. For instance, what is Carlucci's position on Cuomo's push for confiscation and additional harassment towards gun owners.
Pat January 12, 2013 at 02:30 PM
The gun Nuts have spoken!
Kathleen Johnson January 12, 2013 at 03:46 PM
Let's move beyond what is technically correct and do what's right, instead. What purpose does such a map serve? Journal News, please remove it.
CR January 12, 2013 at 03:57 PM
How about we all agree to never go to the Journal Rag's website, buy their paper or support their sponsors again. Pretty soon they'll have to take down the gun map because they'll be out of business.
Gnome, Sgt at Arms, NYXVIII, BKFFBK January 12, 2013 at 09:40 PM
I am all law abiding citizen. I own a gun. I have an inalienable right to defend myself and my property. The Journal News has compromised my ability to do so. If you are a lawyer looking to sign up clients for a class-action lawsuit, please post your phone number. I will sign on as your first client.
Carl Petersen III January 13, 2013 at 03:47 PM
Gnome, Sgt at Arms, NYXVIII, BKFFBK 4:40 pm on Saturday, January 12, 2013 "If you are a lawyer looking to sign up clients for a class-action lawsuit, please post your phone number. I will sign on as your first client." . . Are you familiar with the amendment that comes before the second amendment?
Mike January 13, 2013 at 04:31 PM
It does not appear from Gnome, et al, comments that he is seeking to impede the 1st Amendment rights of the JN. It does appear he is seeking to find out if the JN acted in a libelous or defamatory way that infringed upon his Constitutional right to privacy. I think he is acting in a reasonable manner to explore if the JN infringed upon his rights by publishing information that was by some media accounts 25% inaccurate. Yes, the news media are free to publish any information or opinion they desire. This freedom, however, does not immunize them from liability for what they publish. A newspaper that publishes false information about a person, for example, can be sued for libel. Most journalists strive to exercise their freedom to publish in a responsible and ethical manner. Good luck Gnome.
Carl Petersen III January 13, 2013 at 04:50 PM
Mike 11:31 am on Sunday, January 13, 2013 "I think he is acting in a reasonable manner to explore if the JN infringed upon his rights by publishing information that was by some media accounts 25% inaccurate." . . He states that he owns a gun. Therefore, if his name was on the list, it was not there inaccurately.
Carl Petersen III January 13, 2013 at 04:52 PM
Mike 11:31 am on Sunday, January 13, 2013 "It does appear he is seeking to find out if the JN acted in a libelous or defamatory way that infringed upon his Constitutional right to privacy." . . Does the Constitution include a right to privacy?
Carl Petersen III January 13, 2013 at 04:55 PM
Mike 11:31 am on Sunday, January 13, 2013 "Yes, the news media are free to publish any information or opinion they desire. This freedom, however, does not immunize them from liability for what they publish. A newspaper that publishes false information about a person, for example, can be sued for libel." . . Doesn't the existence of libel laws show that the Constitution allows limitations on the rights that it espouses? Do these limitations extend to the second amendment?
Gnome, Sgt at Arms, NYXVIII, BKFFBK January 14, 2013 at 12:36 AM
Mike. I was thinking more along the lines you so well defined. To add insult to injury, I understand there was a burglary in White Plains today. Supposedly, guns were targeted. Mr. Peterson. Thank you for your input. Do you gentleman have any opinion with regard to the new law that allows a plaintiff to sue a sponsor of terrorism. In my opinion the Journal News has assisted would be criminals/terrorists by posting the information, thereby sponsoring terrorism against me.
Mike January 14, 2013 at 01:03 AM
Carl, good quetions that are open to interpretation and judicial review. You ask Does the Constitution include a right to privacy? Explicitly, no, but one could argue and several Courts have indicated that several Amendments would imply a right to privacy. These would include protectionsm for privacy, of beliefs (1st), privacy against your home being used to quarter troops (3rd), privacy from unreasonable searches and seizures (4th), protection from being forced to reveal private information (5th). Lastly, the 14th Amend. "Liberty Guarantee," has been used several times in courts to also guarantee a fairly broad expectation to privacy. The Roe v Wade decision is really about a woman's right to control the privacy of her body. As far as your second question, yes i would say that even without libel laws, the Constitution is limiting in nature. It does not allow freedom of speech for example in all cases and i would say it does not allow rights to every type of guns in every case to everybody. .
Anthony Mele January 14, 2013 at 05:58 AM
Now read my post carefully to avoid mis-understandings on this: I will not support a government imposed censorship of the Press either. They are protected by the 1st Amendment. What the JN did was malicious and abusive. They should feel the impact of their propaganda in the market place as the Framer's intended and where we have the muscle to flex. I will not ask the government to censor them. I expect the government to be better stewards and custodians of our privacy and tax dollars than they have been. What I do expect our government to do to cool this fire is to issue [Rockland County Legislature, NYS Assembly and NYS Senate] a resolution that they will never pass any legislation that would offend the Bill of Rights and specifically hinder our 2nd A. I would also ask of every local Sheriff to issue a public pledge, his office and deputies, will never enforce any law offensive to the Bill of Rights. This is what every American should demand and expect." ~ Anthony Melé
Anthony Mele January 14, 2013 at 06:00 AM
Senator Carlucci: What we would support is your sponsorship of a resolution in diametric opposition to Governor Cuomo's unwise offensive attack on the Bill of Rights.
Anthony Mele January 14, 2013 at 06:04 AM
"Inalienable" as it pertains to the Founding Documents and Bill of Rights means "untouchable", "non-transferable". I marvel at the pundits who claim the the Bill of Rights need to be interpreted as if the authors were not masters of the English language. The 2nd Amendment is perfectly clear.
Anthony Mele January 14, 2013 at 06:06 AM
I am sure a threat of a 'time out' will protect our rights more effectively than adherence to the US Constitution. What say you?
Issy January 14, 2013 at 10:26 AM
The Second Amendment is far from clear, in the recent DC v. Heller case the ruling was 5-4.. That does not indicate clarity.
Meg Wilson January 16, 2013 at 06:04 PM
I wont even look at the Journal News again.
Meg Wilson January 16, 2013 at 06:06 PM
Yes, Journal News, what purpose did this serve except to lower your readership significantly and put legal gun owners homes in danger. Amazing idiocy.
Defender January 17, 2013 at 03:54 AM
Couldn't be all that much attention, he waited until everyone else and their mother had condemned it to join in the piling on.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »