Ammo For Sale

« « Quote of the day | Home | Revolting » »

More on the Tennessean publishing a CCW database

Les Jones:

What “The Tennesseean” did was perfectly legal, but what exactly was their motivation to go to all that trouble? Publishing lists of CCW holders tends to suggest that they need to be tracked, like sex offenders. It implies that they’re nefarious characters who can’t be trusted.

That seems to be the question of the day: Why publish this information in a story that is only marginally related to such data?

6 Responses to “More on the Tennessean publishing a CCW database”

  1. Robb Allen Says:

    They did it to scare us “gun niggers” and our masters feel the need to whip us into submission from time to time.

    The Tennesseean tried to remind us that our employers and future employers can easily find out about our “concealed” status and fire us / not hire us. I know my company is virulently anti-gun and would fire me in an instant upon knowing I carry in my car.

    The true crime (as has been said before) is that this list even exists at all.

  2. Snowflakes in Hell » Because They Don’t Like Us Says:

    […] relation to the Tennessean controversy over the publication of CCW holders in that state, SayUncle asks: That seems to be the question of the day: Why publish this information in a story that is only […]

  3. #9 Says:

    The Tennesseean tried to remind us that our employers and future employers can easily find out about our “concealed” status and fire us / not hire us. I know my company is virulently anti-gun and would fire me in an instant upon knowing I carry in my car.

    This was a case of the Scarlett Letter. The Tennessean wanted to brand the “gunnies” with a Scarlet CCW so people would be afraid of them.

    In the end all the newspaper accomplished was to show their bias, prejudice, and contempt for law abiding citizens who believe the right to self-defense is a God given right protected by the U.S. Constitution.

  4. Jay G Says:

    Interestingly enough, MA law expressly forbids the naming of LTC holders.

    Surprising that MA would be more protective of gun owners than TN. Or VA, for that matter…

  5. Jack Says:

    Here in Mass, many years ago, a local paper did publish a list of gun dealers, probably from the state dealer license list. Anyway, CCW is mandatory here in my office and in my car. Jack.

  6. Lyle Says:

    Ibelieve that what they did could be considered actionable. There are laws against intimidating people against exercising their Constitutionally guaranteed rights. 18 USC 241 comes to mind. The word “intimidate” is right in there, and there is no doubt that this was an attempt not only to to intimidate, but as some here have said, to actually injure, by either getting people fired or not hired, etc., due to their CCW status. Lawyers and/or U.S. attorneys– get busy, mo fos:

    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC241

    “Sec. 241. Conspiracy against rights

    If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or
    intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession,
    or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege
    secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or
    because of his having so exercised the same…They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both…”

Used three kinds of generics. I liked the Levitra Pills more, although the others acted quite well. Perhaps it all depends on the characteristics of each organism.