Ammo For Sale

« « Lists | Home | Opposing safety » »

More on The Commercial Appeal

First, via Michael, comes Jack McElroy:

The database is a public record, at least for now. The newspaper – our sister in the E.W. Scripps Co. – put the information on its Web site’s “Data Center” months ago. No one noticed, though, until a permit-holder was charged with a shooting death.

Wrong. No one noticed until I pointed it out, thanks to a reader who noticed it. But this canard that it was due to the shooting has been passed around a bit. In fact, it’s now part of the AP story:

The Commercial Appeal added the database to its Web site in December, but it did not draw attention until an early February story about a parking spot argument that ended with a motorist shot dead.

Again, no. I pointed it out. It was posted on various message boards and other blogs, where it quickly spread. I guess the press is afraid to point out blogger influence. That’s a bit odd since it has been alleged by many that the CA did this for the page views.

Anyhoo, The latest from the Commercial Appeal:

Martino Johnson, charged with second-degree murder in the shooting death of Terrelle Beasley this week after a minor traffic accident, held a Tennessee-issued permit to carry a handgun.

The publication of that sentence would be a misdemeanor punishable by a $2,500 fine under one of several gun bills that the state House Judiciary Committee could move on next week.

A fabrication. The bill prohibits publishing the information the state collects. Not mentioning that someone has a carry permit. Via Linoge who asks: Explain to me how his having a handgun carry permit is, in any way, relevant to the charges or the impending court case.

It does matter to the Commercial Appeal that they publish that. They want to paint carry permit holders as dangerous.

Anyway, thanks to the CA. Without you, there wouldn’t be a bill to protect my privacy.

2 Responses to “More on The Commercial Appeal”

  1. Rustmeister Says:

    Like I said over at my place, both those “permit holders” had been drinking, so the fact that they had a permit is moot – they broke the law by drinking and carrying.

  2. Huck Says:

    “It does matter to the Commercial Appeal that they publish that. They want to paint carry permit holders as dangerous.”

    It seems like a lawsuit for libel would be in order.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges


bisonAd

Categories

Archives