1

Gun Owner Privacy Rights:

An Analysis of the Gun Owner Privacy Debate

Blake Johnson
April 16, 2014

Introduction- The Day that Started it All
December 14, 2012, was a tragic day that resulted in the deaths of 27 innocent
men, women, and children
1
at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The tragedy sparked new
debate on issues such as gun control, video games, mental health, and many other issues
related to the massacre.
Just over a week after the shooting The Journal News, a newspaper servicing the
Westchester, Rockland, and Putnam counties in lower New York, published an article
and an on-line interactive map displaying a Google map of the area and then signified
with little blue dots, the name, address, and permit information for all handgun permit
holders in those counties
2
.
The map sparked outrage among many conservative media outlets as well as
commentators across the board. The Journal News doubled down on its publication
saying that many of its readers had expressed appreciation for the information, while
even those most staunchly opposed to guns, such as New York Mayor Michael
Bloomberg, conceded that the publication was probably not a great idea
3
. Amidst the
debate surrounding all the issues connected with the Newtown massacre, one more had

1
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting

2
Newspaper sparks outrage for publishing names, addresses of gun permit holders. KC Maas, and Josh
Levs, CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/

3
Bloomberg uncertain about papers gun map. Dylan Byers, Politico.com,
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/01/bloomberg-uncertain-about-papers-gun-map-153370.html

2
entered the arena: Gun-owners privacy rights vs. the right to disseminate information
and know who might own firearms in your neighborhood. The debate boils down to
privacy rights vs. safety concerns.
The Newtown shooting and the aftermath have spurred a lot of debate and a
myriad of responses. Many states have enacted new gun laws aimed at restricting
magazine capacity, and other gun measures
4
. Other states have responded to the permit
disclosure by the Journal News by enacting laws designed to specifically protect gun
owner information
5
. Many changes have already occurred regarding these issues, and
many will still come. The purpose of this paper is to inform about the debate between gun
owners privacy and the interest to disclose gun owner information.

Background- The Journal News Strikes First
Just nine days after the Newtown massacre, the Journal News published the name
and addresses of gun-owners
6
. The newspaper itself has already taken incredible criticism
for the move. Online bloggers figured that what was good for the goose was good for the
gander and published the names and addresses of the editor and other employees
7
at the
Journal News. In what some characterized as a hypocritical move, the Journal News hired

4
Gun Owners Privacy. Eva Gutierrez, Epic.org. http://epic.org/privacy/firearms/

5
NY State Senator: Gun Bill Passed In Middle Of Night Turns Law-abiding Citizens Into Criminals.
Steve Watson, Infowars.com. http://www.infowars.com/ny-state-senator-gun-bill-passed-in-middle-of-
night-turns-law-abiding-citizens-into-criminals/

6
Newspaper sparks outrage for publishing names, addresses of gun permit holders. KC Maas, and Josh
Levs, CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/

7
Blogger Creates Interactive Map of Employees of Paper Which Published Names and Addresses of Pistol
Permit Holders. Tom Blumer, Newsbusters.org. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-
blumer/2012/12/26/blogger-creates-interactive-map-employees-paper-which-published-names-an
3
armed security officers to protect its employees at work
8
. The outrage has probably
resulted in both cancellations, and also subscriptions to the paper. And, although
unconfirmed that its related to the gun map, 17 journalists and 26 total staffers have been
fired from the Journal News
9
. This is just the aftermath relating to the Journal News. The
publication prompted many other moves across the nation.
Amidst the ethical debate of whether the paper should have exposed such
information, one thing is clear, it was perfectly within its legal right to obtain such
information and publish the information
10
. Another thing is also clear, the move has
prompted privacy advocates and gun-supporters to get involved and defend their
perceived rights as well.

Legislative Measures- The Battle on the Hill
Many states have responded to the publication by pushing for more protection of
what they consider to be sensitive information.
On March 4, 2013, Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant signed into law House Bill
485, which protects personal information collected from applicants for concealed carry
permits
11
. The bill removes the personal information of concealed carry applicants from

8
Newspaper That Put Gun Permit Map Online Hires Armed Guards. J. David Goodman, The New York
Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/nyregion/putnam-officials-keep-gun-permit-records-from-
journal-news.html

9
Bang! Editor Fired After Publishing Gun-Owner Map. WND.com. http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/bang-
editor-fired-after-publishing-gun-owner-map/

10
Publishing Gun-Owner Names: Can Public Information Be Too Public? Cormac Foster, Readwrite.com.
http://readwrite.com/2013/01/05/publishing-gun-owner-names-can-public-information-be-too-
public#awesm=~oAYci4Te5Qpkd8

11
Governor Bryant Signs Gun Owner Protection Bills. GovernorBryant.com.
http://www.governorbryant.com/governor-bryant-signs-gun-owner-protection-bills/
4
the public record requirements. The justification behind the bill was that gun-owners
information is entitled to privacy protections, just like medical records, tax documents,
and personnel files.
From the same state during the same month, Senator Thad Cochran introduced
12

federal legislation known as the Gun-owner Registration Information Protection Act
(GRIP Act) which doesnt address any current federal programs or laws regarding
registration (because none currently exist) but states that no federal funding could be used
to contribute to nonfederal gun registries. Senator Cochran stated, The federal
government should not play any role in misguided gun control initiatives that involve the
storage or public distribution of personal information of law-abiding people who own or
purchase firearms legally. His rationale is that gun registries lead to confiscation. The
legislation did not include any restrictions or limitations on states rights to keep records,
permitting laws, or lost or stolen firearms.
Closer to home, in February of 2013, Representative Jacob Anderegg of Lehi,
Utah introduced House Bill 317
13
, Protection of Concealed Firearm Permit, to the
legislature. The bill made it a felony to disclose any information about concealed carry
permit holders to any office, department, division, or agency of the federal government,


12
Cochran Introduced Gun-Owner Registration Information Protection Act. Cochran.Senate.Gov.
http://www.cochran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ID=9362a084-a49b-42f6-b3a2-
0dcf4a9b0d45

13
Utah house passes bill to protect concealed firearm permit information. Mary Mellor, Deseret News,
March 8, 2013. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865575234/Utah-House-passes-bill-to-protect-
concealed-firearm-permit-information.html?pg=all

5
unless the information was required for a background check. The bill passed and was
signed into law during May of 2013
14
.
This very month Representative Dana Layton of Orem, Utah, proposed House
Bill 397
15
after learning of a smartphone application that maps out gun owners in a
neighborhood based on the user-provided information. The bill bans school officials from
asking students if their parents own firearms. Her rationale was that while they couldnt
control the information people turn in on their neighbors, they would prevent the schools
from doing it. The bill was not passed during this years legislative session
16
.
These bills and laws illustrate the bigger picture battle going on resulting from the
Journal News publication. At least nine other states are currently debating bills that
would change the access to firearm owner information
17
. In the world of politics, the
response has been lightning fast to protect privacy.

The Current Legal Lay of the land
18
.
The political and legal landscape changes almost daily on these proposed laws,
and the future is far from certain. Below is the current lay of the legal landscape

14
Utah State Legislature Bill Tracker. http://le.utah.gov/~2013/bills/static/HB0317.html

15
House passes bill blocking schools from asking about gun ownership. Benjamin Wood, Deseret News.
March 10, 2014. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865598352/House-passes-bill-blocking-schools-
from-asking-about-gun-ownership.html?pg=all

16
Utah State Legislature Bill Tracker. http://le.utah.gov/~2014/bills/static/HB0397.html

17
Gun permit data accessibility. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-law/news-media-and-law-winter-
2013/chart-gun-permit-data-acces

18
Chart data from: Gun permit data accessibility. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-law/news-media-and-law-winter-
2013/chart-gun-permit-data-acces

6
regarding the availability of gun permit data. Varying degrees of access are represented
by the following categories: Public, Presumed Open, Access Threatened, Limited Access,
and No public access.
Public
Nevada issued concealed gun permits and their status are public records, but the
applications for permits are not.
Presumed Open
New Hampshire requires local officials to administer a handgun licensing
program and to collect personal information from individuals. There is no prohibition on
disclosing the data, nor are there statutes or court decisions affirming the records are
public.
Access Threatened
In California, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina,
Tennessee, and West Virginia, different information has been available about gun
permits, and gun owners. All of these states currently have bills in the legislature that
would restrict or limit the availability of the information. All of these bills have been
introduced as a response to the Journal News map.
Limited Access
Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island,
Texas, and Virginia all keep and maintain differing levels of information on concealed
carry permits and gun owners, but restrict the access to it, allowing only unidentifiable
information to the public.
7
Interestingly enough, the state that started this whole battle, New York, passed a
sweeping law in January 2013
19
that restricted the access to the information and allowed
permit applicants to request their information not be made available for public record.
The move by NY Senator Greg Ball was swift and was enacted rapidly.
No Public Access
The following states prohibit public access to gun permit records, including
application data: Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Colombia, Florida,
Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Vermont and Wyoming do not require individuals to be licensed to either own a handgun
or to carry one concealed and consequently do not maintain gun permit records.
The landscape varies greatly, but the immediate consequences of the Journal
News publication has been a sharp backlash against the dissemination of gun owner
information. Battles are still being fought, but if the immediate reaction of the nation is
any indicator, support for disclosing the information is low. Despite the legislative
moves, the question remains the same, should gun permit and concealed carry permit
information be public record? Now equipped with background information, a more
informed debate can ensue.




19
NY SAFE Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NY_SAFE_Act

8
Policy Arguments for Disclosing Information.
Immediately after the publication, as the backlash continued against the paper, the
Journal News defended its actions citing that many of its readers were grateful for the
information
20
. Below is the policy argument for why they were grateful and why such
information should be public.
It is certainly established that nothing illegal occurred. The Journal News had
every right to access the data and publish it under New Yorks then-existing laws. The
argument in favor of publishing the information starts with information should be
available and for public safety.
Information should be free.
Journalists make an argument that information should be free and that all the
Journal News did was free the information, allowing the information to be accessed
and then placing the responsibility of what is done with the information in the publics
hands
21
. Many critiques of the Journal News publication are rooted in the question of
journalistic ethics and responsibility. Many have criticized that the publication was
nothing more than disclosing the information and did not have a purpose except to out
gun permit holders with no actual news to report on
22
. The outing created a myriad of
potential problems that will be discussed further. Whether the right choice or not, the
Journal News certainly liberated this data.

20
The gun owner next door: What you dont know about the weapons in your neighborhood. Dwight R
Worley, Journal News. http://www.lohud.com/article/20121223/NEWS04/312230056

21
The gun owner next door: What you dont know about the weapons in your neighborhood. Dwight R
Worley, Journal News. http://www.lohud.com/article/20121223/NEWS04/312230056

22
Where the Journal News Went Wrong in Mapping Gun Owners. Kathleen Bartzen Culver, PBS.org.
http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2013/02/where-the-journal-news-went-wrong-in-mapping-gun-owners053/

9
The information should be free argument is a valid argument. However, ethical
implications should also be considered. While information can be free, releasing
information has implications and consequences that raise the ethical dilemma of should
the information be free. The myriad of potential negatives (as discussed below) that stem
from the publication probably do not outweigh the good it has done.
Public Safety
Many newspapers, organizations, and other agencies map out and disclose
criminal records, drunk driving records, arrest records, professional licensing
information, and of course, the famous sex-offender registry. Advocates for publishing
gun owner information argue that just as it is important for the public safety to know
where these convicted criminals are located, it is equally important that a parent know
which households might have firearms.
There are many reasons why this information might be relevant to the average
citizen. Parents can know which homes might have firearms in them and either discuss
the issue with the parents or simply forbid their kids from playing at that particular
house
23
. Parents might also look at how many potential gun owners live in a particular
area before purchasing a home in the neighborhood. The possibilities are vast, but
ultimately it all boils down to a public safety argument. By allowing access to the
information, citizens can become informed citizens and decide how or whether they
will live their lives in that neighborhood.

23
Newspaper publishes names, addresses of gun owners. Julie Moos, Poynter.org.
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/199148/newspaper-publishes-names-addresses-of-gun-
owners/

10
Although the numbers of accidental deaths are relatively miniscule (a swimming
pool owner registry
24
would probably save more children every year than a gun owner
registry) the fact remains that accidental deaths related to firearms are a very real and
tragic thing. There is certainly a public interest in knowing who and where guns are
licensed to be. The question then becomes who is in the best position to accomplish the
goal of informing the citizens? A public database or an inquisitive parent? The current
database would be plagued with inaccuracies (see below). For that reason a database is
not likely to accomplish a concerned parents goals. However, a parent can ask about
their kids friends and talk with the parents, which would be far more informative as to
other concerns other than just guns. A concerned parent could discover drug use, or other
issues simply by getting to know the parents of their kids friends.

Policy Arguments Against Disclosing the Information.
Given that the widespread dissemination of gun owner information had not
happened on such an accessible platform before (interactive map), the effects of the
disclosure are not yet known or established. The vast majority of concerns are just that,
concerns or theories about what the Journal News map will precede. While there is
anecdotal evidence to support some of the proposed theories, it is far too early to
establish any actual connections with the map. Below are outlined the concerns and
arguments against disclosing the information.
Public Safety

24
Op-ed piece on swimming pools vs. guns as the most dangerous weapon. Steven D. Levitt, University of
Chicago. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2001/07/27/levittpoolsvsguns/

11
Just as there is a strong interest in knowing who and where guns might be, there is
the flip-side of that argument. Privacy advocates offer public safety arguments as well.
The safety discussion is divided into two main concerns: 1) Publishing the gun owners
information and address creates a map for criminals to target/burglarize when looking for
guns, and 2) the map shows which homes are not gun owners and consequently they are
identifiable as defenseless homes
25
.
The idea is that now that a criminal can look up who has/had a gun permit and can
then target those homes and scout them out, waiting for them to leave and then to break
into the house and steal the guns that they expect to be inside. While this is certainly a
potential problem with publishing the information, it is still too early to see if this will
actually happen.
There have been several anecdotal instances of this theory. Several homes have
been broken into with apparently nothing else stolen or disturbed except the gun owners
gun safes
26
. Police have not been able to verify an infallible connection of these crimes
with the map the Journal News published, but the home owners say they are confident
both instances occurred because the criminals knew their homes contained guns.
The other argument that publishing the information is a public safety issue is the
exact opposite. Criminals can look on the map and decipher homes that are likely to have

25
Publishing Gun-Owner Names: Can Public Information Be Too Public? Cormac Foster, Readwrite.com.
http://readwrite.com/2013/01/05/publishing-gun-owner-names-can-public-information-be-too-
public#awesm=~oAYci4Te5Qpkd8

26
Burglars hit home of gun owner IDd by Newspaper. Todd Starnes, Fox News Radio.
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/gun-owners-home-outed-by-newspaper-is-
burglarized.html

Burglars target home of gun owner outed by NY newspaper. Anthony Martin, Examiner.com
http://www.examiner.com/article/burglars-target-home-of-gun-owner-outed-by-n-y-newspaper

12
firearms and of course, homes that probably dont contain firearms. Criminals then are
able to target the homes where they are unlikely to encounter any deadly resistance with a
firearm. This essentially leaves the unarmed homes as sitting ducks and criminals can
target these defenseless homes with more confidence.
Of course establishing such a connection would be very difficult because you
would need to identify the subjective intents and motives of each criminal. Again, no
connection has been verified with regard to this theory.
The final public safety concern is that the information was indiscriminate. It
published the information of all citizens that had gun permits. This included judges,
prison guards, former law enforcement and FBI agents
27
. In one instance prisoners were
telling the prison guards their addresses in an attempt to intimidate them
28
. This also
created a potential problem of disclosing the location of individuals who have escaped
abusive or dangerous relationships and purchased firearms for protection. Disclosing the
information created the potential for many public safety problems for both gun owners
and non-owners.
These are the public safety arguments against the disclosure of gun owner
information. They are certainly valid concern, however, at such an early stage after the
publication, no reliable data or connections have been verified, but it is an area that is
likely to receive substantial attention and investigation after the Journal News move.
Accuracy and Incompleteness

27
The gun owner next door: What you dont know about the weapons in your neighborhood. Dwight R
Worley, Journal News. http://www.lohud.com/article/20121223/NEWS04/312230056

28
Inmates using newspapers gun owner map to threaten guards, sheriff says. FoxNews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/04/law-enforcement-latest-critics-on-public-display-gun-owner-data-
officers/

13
Aside from public safety, advocates for gun owner privacy cite the fact that such
information is highly inaccurate and not reliable. Many factors draw attention to the
gaping issues of accuracy. The Journal News requested the public records from the
County Clerks office and only received information for handgun permit information
29
.
The information did not include permits or information for shotguns, rifles, or assault
weapons
30
. Providing information for just handguns gives a small part of the picture, but
does not provide an accurate complete picture of the actual firearm situation in any
neighborhood. The primary weapon Adam Lanza used in his massacre would not have
been known about anyway, because it was not a handgun. Providing a part of the picture
can be helpful regarding handguns, but does not accomplish much for other weapons that
could be in the area.
The Journal News took down the interactive map within a month of the initial
publication
31
. It cited the fact that the information was not being constantly updated and
changes are likely to occur frequently as the primary reason for taking it down
32
. This is
also another issue with accuracy. The gun owner information obtained is not particularly
reliable because people move, die, or change their gun ownership status constantly. The
method that the Journal News used does not address these issues. The permit information
they requested could be completely outdated and not reliable. If a person has moved then

29
The gun owner next door: What you dont know about the weapons in your neighborhood. Dwight R
Worley, Journal News. http://www.lohud.com/article/20121223/NEWS04/312230056

30
Where the Journal News Went Wrong in Mapping Gun Owners. Kathleen Bartzen Culver, PBS.org.
http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2013/02/where-the-journal-news-went-wrong-in-mapping-gun-owners053/

31
Journal News Removes gun map. http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/201195/journal-news-
removes-gun-map/

32
Journal News Removes Gun Map. Dylan Byers, Politico.com.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/01/journal-news-removes-gun-map-citing-new-yorks-new-
154606.html
14
publishing the information accomplishes nothing but target the new owner as a gun
owner, even if that is not true at all.
The last gaping problem with accuracy is that disseminating permit information
only discloses information about legal firearms, it does nothing to address illegal
firearms. Advocates of privacy are quick to cite statistics showing that the vast majority
of crime is done with illegal firearms and not with legal firearms
33
.
These issues with accuracy and what it included in the information create
significant barriers to the reliability and usefulness of said information. Steps would
certainly need to be taken to ensure higher reliability and usefulness of information to
overcome privacy advocates concerns. It is likely that over time a more reliable database
could be created and eventually become a useful tool for disclosure, however to create
such a database, even more information about gun owners would have to be exposed.
Stigmatizing Gun Owners
Much has been made of the fact that when information is a public record, it is
open to being disclosed. Privacy advocates argue that while legal, publishing such
information causes a problem and puts a target or stigmatizes gun owners in a negative
light. Privacy advocates are quick to point out that other groups that are publicly outed
include sex offenders, and other criminals. By publishing gun owner information, it
serves to either subconsciously or consciously put gun owners in the same category as
other criminals
34
.

33
Publishing Gun-Owner Names: Can Public Information Be Too Public? Cormac Foster, Readwrite.com.
http://readwrite.com/2013/01/05/publishing-gun-owner-names-can-public-information-be-too-
public#awesm=~oAYci4Te5Qpkd8

34
Where the Journal News Went Wrong in Mapping Gun Owners. Kathleen Bartzen Culver, PBS.org.
http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2013/02/where-the-journal-news-went-wrong-in-mapping-gun-owners053/
15
Publishing gun owner information is different from these other groups because
gun permit holders have done nothing wrong. They have actually taken considerable
steps to remain law-abiding citizens and to ensure they can own/keep a firearm legally.
Many privacy advocates see the publishing of their information as punitive toward law-
abiding citizens. This strikes many as unjust because they have done nothing wrong but
are still being outed. Being placed on a list of any kind creates a stigma that many people
would shy away from. Privacy advocates argue that creating such a stigma is unfair and
should not be done. Anyone being thrown into the same company as sex offenders would
agree, it is not good company to be associated with.
It is arguable that the Journal News was at least in part attempting to shame gun
owners. To publish gun owner information so quickly after the tragedy at Newtown
served to enrage people and was done partly as a way to point the fingers at gun owners
while saying, Those people are also responsible for tragedies such as Newtown. Had
the paper publish the information before the massacre, it would not have had the same
appeal.
Potential Future Registry
A final argument that privacy advocates present is that having gun owner
information public encourages and moves toward the creation of a national gun registry.
While there is an argument to be made, there are already many blocks in the way of a
registry being created. The GRIP Act only weakened the possible creation of a national
database. It must also be noted, however, that the federal government confiscated all
privately-owned, legal firearms from law-abiding citizens during the aftermath of


16
Hurricane Katrina
35
. There is no guarantee that this information would not aid a future
confiscation effort.

Weighing the good and bad.
A great analogy explains the conundrum of the current issue. The situation is
analogous to a doctor who must decide whether to perform surgery. The doctor knows
that they would have to cut through good healthy tissue to get to a tumor. The damage to
the skin is greatly outweighed by the good that comes from removing the tumor, but the
surgeon has gone through years of training to cause only damage that is justifiable.
Herein lays the conundrum of the present issue.
Does a journalist/entity have the required training to disclose only the information
that is justifiable and still creates a positive net result? Or does the journalist actual cause
more problems like a surgeon cutting off an entire foot to take care of an ingrown
toenail? These are the questions that cant currently be answered. Gun owner information
has not before been disseminated in the same way the Journal News has done. It was easy
to access and use, and consequently, easy to misuse as well.
There is certainly some utility to disclosing gun owner information. It does
provide a tool that parents can use to become informed and take certain precautions with
their families. The question is whether the utility outweighs the damage is does. Without
solid data it is impossible to determine what effects the disclosure of gun owner
information will have on society. However, privacy advocates have outlined several

35
Gun Owners Have a Right to Privacy. John Stossel, Creators.com.
https://www.creators.com/opinion/john-stossel/gun-owners-have-a-right-to-privacy.html

17
potential problems that may be happening or we may discover in the future that has
already happened.
Ten years from now, we may have more data to determine whether we have
expertly removed a tumor with minimal damage to the rest of the body, or if we have
amputated a foot to alleviate an ingrown toenail.
Given the reliability (or lack thereof) of the gun owner information, along with
the fact that most states dont keep such information as public records anyway, in its
current state, an effective and working database of gun owner information is not likely to
emerge and be a particularly useful tool. Of course there are always ways to improve and
make the product better, but currently it appears that the potential negatives outweigh the
potential positives. The country and legislators would appear to agree and for that reason
have taken steps to protect gun owner information.
One solution is that if a parent is truly concerned about having his/her kids
playing in house that is also a home to firearms, the parent can ask their neighbors
whether they are gun owners as well as inquire as to how they are locked up, what kinds,
etc. The concerned parent has the ability to discover the information and protect their
kids. The gun owner whose information is published without his/her consent has no
control over the situation. It becomes a no-win situation if the gun owner would like to
own guns, but must subject themselves to public disclosure if they choose to buy one.
The very thought of being outed might deter a significant portion of the population from
purchasing a firearm. Not only does the dissemination of gun owner information infringe
on the privacy of already-gun owners, but it acts a deterrent mechanism against those
who might be on the bubble about owning a gun. If gun owner information is freely
18
disclosed then it becomes a situation where a citizen must give up certain privacy rights
to own a firearm. That is not a fair request on an issue for which the Supreme Court has
stated an individual has a constitutional right (see Heller v. D.C.)
36
.
Overall, no one can be certain of anything until we actually witness the effects of
disclosing gun owner information. And truthfully, the sample size is probably too small
anyway to extrapolate any solid causal relationships, but on their faces, the potential
negatives outweigh any positives. If none of the side-effects occur, then yes a database
could be helpful and further public safety interests. On the other hand, if privacy
advocates are correct and some of their concerns occur, we may have a much larger mess
on our hands than we currently do. The Journal News has provided a test case. Although
the map is already down, it was available for about a month, and from it we may come
across trends/effects that would indicate whether there is any validity to either sides
position. Time will tell, but if the inaccuracy of the information and anecdotal evidence
already occurring is any sign, this may be an issue where privacy should be paramount.
Does a Gun Owner Have a Right to Privacy?
The 2
nd
Amendment does not include an express right to privacy, and currently a
battle is waging in West Virginia to determine whether the 2
nd
Amendment trumps the 1
st

Amendment
37
. The Sheriff has refused to disclose the gun-permit records and the
newspaper that made the request is now suing.

36
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

37
Does the Second Amendment trump the First? Eugene Volokh, WashingtonPost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/25/does-the-second-amendment-
trump-the-first/

19
This issue is currently centered around the Freedom of Information Act and then
the 1
st
Amendment. The 1
st
Amendment does not guarantee an individuals right to access
government records, what it protects is the right to disclose and publish the information
they receive through requests. Whether the news agencies can obtain the records in the
first place depends on whether the particular state statute provides that the information is
a public record and whether the information is private. Many states privatize certain
citizen records, and so lays the current situation of a gun owners right to privacy, it is
dependent on whether the individual state has protected the information. It is clear that
the 1
st
Amendment grants the right to publish whatever information the press is entitled to
obtain. The better question is, should gun owners have a right to privacy?
There is no clear-cut answer to this question. Advocates of disclosure argue that
their right to know where guns are is akin to knowing where hazardous materials are
kept
38
. They have an interest in keeping their families safe and away from any dangerous
situations.
Privacy advocates counter that the disclosure of gun owners is to publicly shame
them and that it creates real safety concerns for those outed by the disclosure
39
. Publicly
shaming gun owners is a real concern in that the issue of gun control and ownership has
become a highly politicized issue. The mere ownership of a firearm often leads others to

38
Even this bleeding-heart liberal believes gun owners have a right to privacy. Mary Elizabeth Williams,
Salon.com
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/28/even_this_bleeding_heart_liberal_believes_gun_owners_have_a_right_t
o_privacy/

39
Gun Owners Have a Right to Privacy. John Stossel, Creators.com.
https://www.creators.com/opinion/john-stossel/gun-owners-have-a-right-to-privacy.html

20
assume other political stereotypes about the person. To avoid this problem, privacy
advocates push for total anonymity when it comes to gun ownership
40
.
Other rights rooted in the constitution have an inherent or implied right to privacy.
The 1
st
Amendment protects the right of free association, and consequently the country
does not keep records of all church-going citizens and list their respective denominations
for all to see. Even under the constant threat of terrorism, publishing a list of all Muslims
in the United States simply because there is a higher likelihood or perception that
Muslims are more likely to commit acts of terror would infringe on their rights.
This also holds true for abortion clinics. People have a variety of reasons for why
they might seek an abortion, but if that information was not protected and their privacy
was non-existent, that information would accomplish little more than allow those persons
to be stigmatized, stereotyped, and possibly bullied for exercising a constitutional right as
provided by Roe v. Wade
41
. Publicizing an abortion list would certainly infringe on a
persons privacy.
Even the staunchly liberal Mary Elizabeth Williams, a columnist for Salon
website, understands the importance of maintaining gun owner privacy. Williams saw the
Journal News map as a way of public shaming and argued that it did not further public
discourse.
42
She also mentioned the safety concerns presented for those who obtained
the weapons for self-defense. She then posed the question of how would you react if a

40
Gun Owners Privacy. Eva Gutierrez, Epic.org. http://epic.org/privacy/firearms/

41
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

42
Even this bleeding-heart liberal believes gun owners have a right to privacy. Mary Elizabeth Williams,
Salon.com
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/28/even_this_bleeding_heart_liberal_believes_gun_owners_have_a_right_t
o_privacy/

21
newspaper published a list of all registered Democrats, or those who had filed bankruptcy
or divorced, or what about a list of doctors that perform abortions? These questions are in
the same vein as the ones presented above: individuals who would expect to have a
degree of privacy while exercising constitutional rights.
No bright-line right of privacy exists, and the individual states can choose for
themselves whether the records will be public or not. Whether a gun owner should have a
right to privacy is a subjective question that requires weighing the pros and cons. While
few pros exist, many cons exist and the issue should not be determined based on the
political viewpoints of an individual. Advocates for the disclosure should ask themselves
if they would be ok if the shoe were on the other foot and a paper published their name as
being a supporter of a controversial political issue. Just as Ms. Williams states, chances
are that most people would opt for privacy. Not affording gun owners a right to privacy
could potentially intimidate, shame, harm, and stereotype a large group of the population
that has done nothing more than exercise a constitutional right.

Raising Other Questions
One certainty of this debate is that the Journal News got people talking. As
already discussed, the majority of the dialogue is the pros and cons of disclosing the
information against maintaining a citizens privacy. However it has also raised other
questions regarding privacy. The Journal News certainly caught a lot of gun owners off-
guard because they simply didnt know that their information was a public record. The
experience has provided yet another dialogue in a world filling up fast with privacy
issues. This particular issue has forced many people to question what other information
22
that they assumed was private is actually an open record. It also raises questions about
massive data aggregation and how that can affect average citizens.

Conclusion- The Parting Shot
The Journal News started a firestorm when it published information about law-
abiding citizens open for public inspection. The backlash the Journal News faced after its
publication was a strong indication, and the moves that many states legislators have
made in favor of maintaining and securing an individuals privacy shows that legislators
understand how sensitive an individuals privacy is. The potential negatives outweigh the
potential positives in this debate and securing an individuals privacy should rule the day.