1. Last Read for the Journal:

Sept. 25, 10:13 a.m.

"One of the first things that an instructor tells them is, if you're going to conceal this in public you keep your mouth shut and nobody's supposed to know anything about it," Koog said. "Because, you tell your best girlfriend who's sittin' in the beauty shop tellin' her best girlfriend and next door is a drug dealer's girlfriend and she tells him that you have one, so they watch you and the first dark night you come out of a corner shopping center and head for your car, well, they're gonna mug you and take your gun."

And so The Journal disregards the advice of those more knowledgeable. Did the author or editor/publisher of this article not understand why it's called a CONCEALED carry permit? Regardless of your opinion regarding firearm ownership, this irresponsible article may actually encourage criminal activity and possibly endanger innocent human life. I'm suspicious that this "outing" is little more than a thinly veiled attempt to create problems in our community, Why would anyone want to know which of our neighbors is armed. Is it because you can safely treat the UNarmed with shameful disrespect or worse? This response probably won't be printed.

2. Steve:

Sept. 25, 10:18 a.m.

Since there obviously are no statistics that support any theory that those that carry concealed weapons engage in any more hand gun violence than those that don't, I find the whole purpose of your article to be highly suspect. Additionally while the records, themselves may be public domain, you're publishing them, without permission, would appear to constitute a direct invasion of their privacy. Nevertheless with the number of criminal assaults, robberies, stabbings, etc in Humboldt especially in Eureka I would think that these citizens are rather more intelligent in their defense of their lives. Obviously the criminal element will utilize whatever deadly force they find necessary to obtain money for their drug addictions.

3. Joe Jones:

Sept. 25, 1:16 p.m.

Publishing the faces and names of CCW holders was a despicable sinister act that is beneath the acceptable conduct legitimate newspaper. You did NOT publish this to show the community an assortment of honest trustworthy citizens who are NOT carrying a gun illegally. They were issued CCW licenses because they were viewed by their local sheriff to be of upstanding character, with a clean record and a sense of personal responsibility.

You printed it vindictively, like publishing a WANTED poster. You shamed yourselves for the sole purpose of chastising these folks publicly for their choice to LEGALLY exercise their 2nd amendment right. It is no different that putting people in a stockade in the public square to suffer public humiliation for whatever dastardly deed they have been accused of committing.

Is the paper going to publish the faces of people in this community who are GAY, or have AIDS, or have a string of DUI arrests, or a drug addiction? How about people who have unpaid parking tickets? What about printing all of the faces of people who are receiving WELFARE because they're just too darned lazy to get a job!? It seems that they you have better served your readership by printing photos of registered child molesters in your area along with their "public information." You wrapped yourself in the flag, but I believe you should be brought up on charges!

There is a LOT of "public information" but that does NOT mean that you should go out of their way to print it on the front page of a newspaper. It means that where there is a need for someone from the public to know the information, it is available UPON REQUEST. It means that the public can go FIND the information IF they need to know it. Singling out and publishing the names and faces of law-abiding citizens on the front page for merely doing something that is perfectly LEGAL but not approved of by YOU is not borne out of any NEED for the public to know. It is borne out of a seething hatred for gun owners. I WISH I had the resources to expose your paper for the socialist rag it is.

I doubt you'll have the courage to publish THIS letter word-for-word! It doesn't promote your socialist agenda. SHAME ON YOU.

4. Joe Jones:

Sept. 25, 6:18 p.m.

To Steve: you are exactly correct. I think that the faces and identity of adults who have been arrested and convicted for ILLEGALLY carrying a gun, or using a gun in the commission of a crime is ALSO public information. Why didn't the paper post THEIR photos (mug shots) along with THEIR names, home addresses and such? If the NCJ's purpose for printing this was to somehow "warn" the public about people who are armed and mingling among them, the public would have been better served by seeing the faces and learning the identities of those who carry illegally and have demonstrated that they are indeed a threat to the public.

5. Mark:

Sept. 25, 8:46 p.m.

Congratulations, you just painted a bulls-eye on the back of every person on that list. Why not put their names in the classified section under the heading of "Free Gun Here"?

If even ONE of these upstanding citizens looses his or her life because you self-important booze-bags can't leave things lie, you deserve to be sued for every penny you own by the surviving family members.

You can hide behind the 1st Amendment all you want, but until you "reporters" show the common decency to not put your fellow American citizens at needless risk, you deserve every bit of scorn your "profession" has earned.

Enjoy your trip into irrelevancy, Old Media. You've earned it.

6. robash141:

Sept. 25, 10:17 p.m.

Lighten up freaks.

All I can say is what a bunch of ridiculous scaredy cats!

It just shows me a paranoid neurotically fearful mindset that hides behind a lot of this bluster and these macho gunslinger facades.

I don't really have anything against gun ownership or hunting.

I'm all for you having a firearm to defend your home. I certainly

However, I believe that if one must have a concealed carry permit to carry a firearm in public it should be for some specific reason and not some vague, amorphous all-encompassing fear of the other.

Concealed weapons permits are a matter of public record. The Constitution says the the newspaper can print them. Deal with it. Sorry, you can't just worship the Second Amendment and disregard the other ones.

7. Sid:

Sept. 25, 11:03 p.m.

The First Ammendment is protected by the Second Ammendment, much appretiation due to the wisdom of our founders. The Constitution is worth protecting and if we do not all excercise and protect our rights, we will surely lose them.

8. Mark:

Sept. 26, 12:36 a.m.

Robash41, you may think it ridiculous that we permit holders would react like this, but permit holders have been killed before as a direct result of their name being published in similar circumstances elsewhere in the country. Actions like this have real world consequences, something that newspaper "reporters" have historically not given a rats butt about. The Newspaper can publish these names, indeed, but it can also suffer the consequences if one of the permit holders gets killed as a result. Since this is California, I predict nothing will happen to make this kind of thing more difficult in the future, but in the rest of the free United States, the public record rules have been re-written after "reporter" tomfoolery like this to make any further fishing expeditions like this illegal. On a side note, I wonder what kind of future is in store for the one person found to hold a permit that is on the staff of the newspaper. Apostasy is not well received in the rarefied world of print media.

9. robash141:

Sept. 26, 6:41 a.m.

Tf these people are theoretically responsible enough to carry loaded firearms in public then they should be responsible for for the consequences of that decision.

If carrying a gun in public makes their lives more dangerous rather than safer.

then perhaps they should leave it at home.

The First Amendment is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment . Im not sure where you got that notion.They are both important freedoms

One could just as easily say that their right to jam a gun in someones face trumps that persons right to free speech.

It sounds more like runaway paranoia and reflexive knee-jerk bashing of the free press.

Stop trying to blame the newspaper for every problem, have some personal accountability or put your guns away.

10. Ryan:

Sept. 26, 8:04 a.m.

Robash wrote: The First Amendment is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment . Im not sure where you got that notion.They are both important freedoms...

Robash, Concord Green is where the idea started, for this nation at least.

And yes, the 1st and 2nd amendments are important as guarantee's of freedoms But so is the right to privacy. Would it be valid for Hustler magazine to publish the Ms Walter's Chest, waist and hip size along with her weight and an expose on her past flings and current sexual interests? She's a public figure, a writer, surely that's fair game? Perhaps along with that a photo and an address? It's public record right?

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. There's something called integrity and Ms Walter and her editors appear to lack this.

11. Mitch:

Sept. 26, 10:01 a.m.

It is LEGAL to carry within 1000 feet of schools, including IN the schools, with a CCW, in California. PC 626.9

12. Mitch:

Sept. 26, 11:14 a.m.

And to clarify further, the FEDERAL school gun free zone act exempts CCW holders whose state as required backround checks to determine suitability for the permit.

13. Broadsword:

Sept. 26, 3:26 p.m.

Good article Heidi. Wonderful to let those 2nd Amendment types just how much more highly evolved you 1st Amendment type are. Who the hell do they thihk they are, expecting their names and addresses to be kept out of the paper. When can we see the lists of the names of all the cross-dressing, formerly axiomatically challanged, reformed past fornicators with cows, and other lists of gypsy moths and perverts, and when will you and the paper begin distributing the colored triangles?

14. Chris Romero:

Sept. 26, 5:06 p.m.

While the article might be some way useful to someone (not me) the fact the author Heidi Walters would actually go to the brink of invasion of privacy to post the information just shows how much of bitch she is. The totals could have been published with the list of names.

Thank god the are many liberals who are not bitches and who also take the time to research their in order to thoughtfully, truthfully, and accurately state the facts of gun ownership. Too bad Heidi Walters is not one of those liberals.

15. Not A Native:

Sept. 26, 5:47 p.m.

While I don't really care who has these permits, the attitudes of people who have them and how they feel about it is interesting and certainly part of "local color".

There are many gun owners in the area, I seriously doubt identifying these particular ones by name will cause the permit holders any harm.

I suspect some people don't want to be identified because they just enjoy having a "secret" that gives them a feeling of security. From the article, permits holders don't carry their guns all the time, and I'm glad for that.

16. Scandalous Cy:

Sept. 26, 6:38 p.m.

I hope the next article Heidi considers is a list of all the card carrying medical marijuana smokers in Humboldt County. I'm sure that they would appreciate being identified as much as the CCW permit holders are. Oh, don't forget to put in the article that each and every one of those Med-Marijuana holders can grow their own on their property.

17. robash141:

Sept. 26, 9:40 p.m.

Ryan seems a bit confused about what is public and what is private information.

If someone wishes to carry a loaded firearm ---in public, then I believe that it is a public issue.

Frankly, I'd like to know if there is someone near me with a loaded firearm, If for no other reason than to know where things stand

If these folks are all the righteous upstanding citizens that they purport themselves to be, then they have nothing to hide . They shouldn't feel the need to sneak around.

What are you all so afraid of?

That's what I cant understand

I'd also like to point out that every dictator and despot for several centuries has had a huge amount of guns at their disposal

But only free societies have had a free press.

So I take all this ridiculous NRA agit/prop blathering about guns being the first freedom with a grain of salt.

Because guns are often the first choice of tyrants as well.

The NRA used to be a respectable organization when my parents belonged to it, However, in recent years, it's been taken over by what I believe to be a bunch of far right extremist nutjobs.

Finally, Heidi Walters sexual predilections or what she does in the privacy of her own bedroom with other consenting adults is private information. If she chooses to discuss it with Hustler Magazine then it becomes public information.

If she wants to keep a gun in the nightstand to fend of would be intruders, or a rifle to do skeet shooting that's her private business. If she chooses to take that gun out and walk around town with it then that becomes the public business.

Since Ryan so eagerly brought up the subject of someone else's Perhaps we can feel free to speculate on his psycho/sexual motivations for why he needs to feel strapped all the time.

Judging by the misogynistic tone of some of the other commenters he's not the only one feeling a bit flaccid and some dire need of compensation.

18. B:

Sept. 26, 10:37 p.m.

If someone of questionable moral character is looking for a person to steal a gun from, this author just gave them a big list.

19. bogie:

Sept. 26, 10:41 p.m.

So... Does the paper have its insurance paid up? You guys have to realize that if someone with a carry permit is attacked without seeming provocation, you guys are going to get hit by an attorney storm... You may claim freedom of press, but what you did is akin to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, in absence of said flames. And IIRC, my journalism law prof insisted that that was a bad thing to do. I got an A in that class...

20. upstanding citizen:

Sept. 26, 10:45 p.m.

I feel like a target has been painted on my back for no good reason. I didn't get a CCW so everyone in the county would know I carry/own guns.

21. Cameron:

Sept. 26, 10:49 p.m.

Publishing names of CCW holders just shows how low so many people in this country have sunk. Let's also start publishing names of undercover agents, confidential informants, and police officers while we're at it. All you are doing is painting a target on law-abiding, decent people. Whether you know it or not, these people keep you safer. After all, in an area where people can carry a concealed weapon, how does a criminal know you're not the one carrying it? Oh wait, you answered that question. All he needs is a copy of your paper to know who's safe to attack, and who to ambush to get another gun to commit his crimes. Brilliant, just brilliant.

22. Anonymous:

Sept. 26, 11:07 p.m.

I can't believe the ignorance of publishing a list of those with a permit to carry concealed. Where has the common sense/concern for others safety gone?!?!

23. Steve:

Sept. 26, 11:12 p.m.

Way to keep the appearance of journalistic neutrality. Only one thing to do now. CCWers need to publish the name, addresses, home phone, cell phone, credit report, criminal record, background information, spouses information, kids schools, etc. of the writer, and the editor. 'Call it curiosity sparked by' an all out assault on the privacy of the average Joe.

24. werstlna:

Sept. 26, 11:14 p.m.

In response to robash141, since when do we need public permission to exercise a Constitutionally guaranteed individual right? By your reasoning it's ok for me to practice free speech in my dwelling, but the moment I take it outside and make it "public business" then certain curtailments and public notices should be enacted. Perhaps we should warn you before we peacably assemble or pray outside of our homes, too. To use your words and logic: Frankly, I'd like to know if there is someone near me practicing their religion, if for no other reason than to know where things stand.

Taking the solemn responsibility for one's safety and the safety of those one loves is the morally correct thing to do. Just watch the local news or read this local newspaper a couple days and you'll observe seemingly random violence on otherwise good people. Since we cannot fully predict violence against ourselves, we can at least be best prepared to avoid and defend against it.

25. max:

Sept. 26, 11:15 p.m.

Just another example of our fine, upstanding dirtbag media looking to make a mountain out of a molehill. Can't you find something productive to do to justify your jobs? I hope you get sued until you bleed.

26. ccw:

Sept. 26, 11:18 p.m.

I'm just appalled at The Journal's lack of responsibility. The Journal has just endangered a whole lot of good people for no reason.

27. Mark:

Sept. 26, 11:22 p.m.

This is an absolute outrage, and a fine example of the media running with something they know nothing about. I love the line about kids finding the guns, and how they'll find anything... hmmm perhaps that's why we lock the guns up at night? And educate our kids..

28. AL:

Sept. 26, 11:22 p.m.

robash141: I totally agree with you. We should all find out how much money you carry on you at all times and if you do or do not have a gun to protect yourself and other important sensitive details of your life. Starting today I think the reporter of this fine article should go and investigate the amount of wealth in that town and publish their addresses and list their assets and make that public knowledge. If they choose to keep their money at home it's their business but when they take that money out into the public then it becomes our business too. We also need to know how many family members and their ages and their daily activities, I think they should stay at home if they expect any kind of privacy. Ok, point of fact you are entitled to your opinion as I, but nothing good can come of posting ANYONE's name in public for something that has any reasonable expectation of privacy that is just common sense. I think this reporter just put a lot of people at risk of losing more than just their right to privacy but possibly their jobs, friends, or God forbid a family member because some crook decided to go and find out what else this person has at his/her home. We all have things that go on in our private lives that anyone could find out with the proper motivation but does that mean they should do so? I can't wait to see someone sue this reporter their employer and the agency that released this information when something happens to one of those citizens on that list. Something bad will happen you have just guaranteed it.

29. John L.:

Sept. 26, 11:27 p.m.

Absolutely pathetic "journalism".

30. JR:

Sept. 26, 11:34 p.m.

I'm in Virginia and just heard about what this newspaper did by posting names. We had a similar incident here not too long ago with a newspaper doing the same thing. You know, not everyone who gets a concealed handgun permit is the "average citizen". Some of undercover police officers who get permits to 'explain' to their law breaking cohorts why they may have a gun. Some are victims of violent crime. Some are pseudo-law enforcement and may be in a position where their job does not issue a firearm to them, like a bail enforcement agent or probation officer. Thanks for endangering all of them, in addition to the citizens.

We use our 2nd Amendment rights responsibly to protect your 1st Amendment rights.....can't you responsibly use yours to protect ours?

31. Chris:

Sept. 26, 11:38 p.m.

Gee, what should be the next article? Where journalists live and where they keep their valuables?

Absolutely irresponsible. Real journalists of the past are likely spinning in their grave when so called "journalists" publish trash like this.

You should really apply for a job at McDonalds, perhaps they can better use your "talents". Look in the mirror and ask "Would you like fries with that?" over and over.

32. Harry:

Sept. 26, 11:47 p.m.

As a woman, has Heidi thought of this consequence?

A woman is hiding from an abuser or stalker. That's why she's packing. Then, a newspaper tells the creep exactly where she is.

33. John Smith:

Sept. 26, 11:55 p.m.

Congratulations, you just gave a bunch of people a good reason to carry WITHOUT a permit!

34. Mr. C:

Sept. 26, 11:55 p.m.

I guess the brilliant Ms. Walters has also identified who is NOT armed. So all a criminal has to do is print off her list, identify their target, make sure the name is not on the list, and have at it. Great. I'm sure the entire populace of Humboldt County is thrilled about that.

Ms. Walters, did you skip your Ethics class?

35. redbeard:

Sept. 26, 11:57 p.m.

Those of us who carry legally are not bad people. We are not criminals. We are not blood-thirsty, violent, or homicidal.

What are responsible, licensed, registered, trained, and qualified gun owners.

We are prepared for the worst while hoping for the best.

We are there when the police are not.

We make the world safer.

We do not deserve this.

36. Jim:

Sept. 26, 11:59 p.m.

I am astounded of the lack of journalistic integrity that is exhibited by this piece. Only someone who find all firearms and their owners evil would have the gall to write an article that names legally armed citizens of their community. These people didn't get their permits by bribe or political favor. They followed the proper application process, was approved by your elected Sheriff, and are an inarguable benefit to society (have you CHECKED the statistics of crimes committed by CCW holders?).

God bless the Constitution, because the foundation of an amazing society. Even the First Amendment that allows fools like you to pretend to be journalists. But remember that you are not entitled to pick and choose the parts of Constitution that you want to support.

37. Loop:

Sept. 27, 12:13 a.m.

As a journalist of more than 30 years I find the decision to publish the names of concealed weapons permit holders abhorrent.

Nothing about it serves the public interest. It also may endanger the lives of a number of permit holders.

Did it occur to the editor or reporter that a person may have a permit because they are victims of crimes or, that they are under imminent threat by a criminal?

As someone who has spent 20 years as an editor I must say, this was a boneheaded move.

I hope they run everyone who had anything to do with it out of town on a rail.

38. Matthew John:

Sept. 27, 12:21 a.m.

Another example of irresponsible journalism.

Someone should place the authors picture, address and home phone number in every bus stop, billboard and bar in Humbolt County and then see how they feel about freedom of speech.

This is not protected speech it is harassment. Not one of the people who has a weapon for personal protection is a criminal, they are exercising their rights, the same as when you will go and vote this November.

Shame on the Humboldt County Sheriff's Office Records Supervisor Melva Paris and other staffers who put this list together, they should be terminated immediately and sued by EVERY person on that list.

Simply disgraceful Un-American conduct.

39. BiG PoPpY ThUgStA:

Sept. 27, 12:31 a.m.

Thanks! I have been looking for a gun for a while but due to my multiple felony convictions i cant just go to the gunstore and buy one. Now all i have to do is look these people up and wait till they leave for work and i can have as many guns as i can carry!

this is what many people are going to be thinking now that these names are public. By publishing this list you may very well have cost somebody their life. You must be one sick individual if you can live with the fact that somebody may die just so you can force your beliefs on others.

40. Jimbo:

Sept. 27, 1:24 a.m.

You do realize that some of the CCW holders that you outed may have someone after them - and now they know where to find them. Think of battered women with vengelful exes. Way to go. You bunch of freakin' idiots.

How would you feel if your (writer, editor, publisher) names, addresses, pictures of houses and where your kids go to school get published? 'Cuz it just might happen.

41. Oana:

Sept. 27, 1:32 a.m.

Cue Sinatra singing, "Call me irresponsible..."

Irresponsible journalism, hands down. Not illegal, but unethical. There are a lot of things I'd like to know about my neighbors. Just because a newspaper can get its hands on a database and share it with the world doesn't mean they should. The only names that should have been printed are those of the individuals who chose to speak to the paper.

A number of these CCW permit holders may have obtained a permit because of a threat to their life. What does the Journal think about broadcasting their information? Take this quote from your own article and apply it, please:

' "Because, you tell your best girlfriend who's sittin' in the beauty shop tellin' her best girlfriend and next door is a drug dealer's girlfriend and she tells him that you have one, so they watch you and the first dark night you come out of a corner shopping center and head for your car, well, they're gonna mug you and take your gun." '

Maybe no one on the list will be mugged. What about a home break-in while they're out? What about stalkers?

A little forethought would have been best before printing this article.

42. John:

Sept. 27, 2:16 a.m.

What an outrageous invasion of privacy. I have never heard of such an thing. Such information should not be made public about what people do like that. The author of that article now made those peopel targets of the criminal element.

I don't live there but if I were one of the victims of invasion of privacy I would be tempted to have posters of the author with name, address and work hourse and then put them in such places like Little Compton and other high crime areas. See how that person likes it.

43. Mr F.:

Sept. 27, 2:31 a.m.

What is the point of listing names of CCW holders?

Is this suppose to be some kind of harassment?

44. Joe:

Sept. 27, 3:45 a.m.

The very same article could have been done without printing the names. Because you can do it doesn't make it right. On the other hand, we can now assume that all law abiding citizens other than those on this list do not believe in personal self-defense and are fair game for a late night mugging by those that are not law abiding.

45. Kevin P.:

Sept. 27, 4:06 a.m.

This would have been a decent article if you had not printed out the names of every CCW permit holder. Without their individual consent, that is just wrong and an invasion of their privacy.

Would it be OK to post the names, telephone numbers and addresses of the editors, reporters and staff at your newspaper on the Internet, suggesting that all of you kept money in your home? How about the names and ages of your children and young daughters? Would that also be OK? It is the public's right to know about the journalists who bravely fight to uncover the truth, no?

46. Kevin P.:

Sept. 27, 4:09 a.m.

Here are suggestions for future stories where you can publish names en masse:

The women in the county who have received abortions. The names of doctors who provide abortions. Battered women at the local shelter for women. The staff at the local shelter. Rape victims who have filed a police complaint. Gay citizens, including those who are not publicly known to be gay. Businessmen who carry cash.

We're waiting.

47. Brian:

Sept. 27, 5:24 a.m.

Way to expose peoples privacy, a$sholes.

48. Dr. Frank Latimer:

Sept. 27, 5:48 a.m.

Publishing the names of law-abiding people who hold concealed carry permits serves no legitimate journalistic purpose. Doing so is an invasion of privacy and puts these people at risk for criminal attack (such as burglary by thieves looking to steal valuable firearms).

Lawful people being armed for self defense pose no risk to society. I wish I could say the same for the news media.

49. LKB:

Sept. 27, 6:13 a.m.

Maybe you should post your own address and include that you do not have a gun to defend yourself from a criminal invasion. You are helping criminals choose victims, and I personally don't think that the CCW holders are likely to be their targets.

50. gun owner:

Sept. 27, 6:24 a.m.

what a complete sack of crap the writer of this story is why in the hell would you endanger the CCW permit holder and there family like this it just sickens me that this paper even published this trash they should be sued and the writer fired and charged for placing these people in danger what a sht rag paper and even shiier writers if they even should be called a writer

51. bob:

Sept. 27, 6:31 a.m.

Robash141"If she wants to keep a gun in the nightstand to fend of would be intruders, or a rifle to do skeet shooting that's her private business. If she chooses to take that gun out and walk around town with it then that becomes the public business. "

You must not know that if someone knows you have a gun, concealed permit or not, they can call the police on you and you will go to jail, for brandishing a firearm. If you did know that, you wouldn't think it was ok to give away the names of everyone who has them.That is why it is called "concealed" <-Get it. And if these people with concealed weapons were to go anywhere in public and tell people they have a gun they would go to jail also. You seem smart enough, yet you can't figure out something so simple.

52. Ben:

Sept. 27, 6:33 a.m.

To further this newspaper's anti-gun agenda they see fit to endanger all the ccw permit holders by printing their info. That is really low. I hope people boycott this newspaper, both by simply not buying it and pulling adds.

53. Rob:

Sept. 27, 7:06 a.m.

What can you be thinking? Posting the names of law-abiding citizens, who have passed a rigorous background check and are carrying a concealed weapon to protect themselves is just wrong. Would you make a public records request to get names and addresses of people in a witness protection program? I guess you would if you thought it might titillate your readers.

Shame on you. I will never visit your county again, despite its wonderful sequoias and friendly people. My dollars will go somewhere more responsible.

54. Mike C:

Sept. 27, 7:40 a.m.

I find it amusing that the media, in general, does its level best to make the world seem like a horrid place, with every event painted in the most dramatic language possible. Then they act shocked and amazed that anyone would consider the world dangerous enough that you might want to take steps to protect yourself from the legions of muggers, murderers and rapists that roam the streets.

People who carried concealed are not necessarily fearful, paranoid people. Some may be, with good reason - those who have been stalked or abused, as mentioned by previous posters. The majority are simply preparing as best they can for the worst possible scenarios. We are exercising personal responsibility for our own safety. You don't get to choose when something bad happens. You do get to choose how to respond. Calling 911 in the midst of being attacked isn't the best available option in my book...

55. JDar:

Sept. 27, 8:04 a.m.

The article is another example of sensationalism and invasion of privacy passing for journalism. It would be interesting if Ms Walters investigated the vetting of concealed carry licensees, or the facts about how law abiding they are--these facts are available and truly enlightening. Ms Walters instead enjoys the creepy voyeurism of publishing names. Two good things I'd predict will happen from this unwarranted exposure--the law about releasing such information will be changed and Ms Walters and her paper will be shunned.

56. Aimless:

Sept. 27, 8:29 a.m.

Would Ms. Walters like photos of herself and any family members, including children, put up on a website with google earth maps showing day care centers, photos of her home, work shifts when she's not at home, car license plates etc?

I suspect that could be done in a day or two if someone decided to bother.

57. ben:

Sept. 27, 8:38 a.m.

How about a list of all people who do NOT have CCW in your area. Makes it lots easier for criminals to know who is defenseless.

58. Charles Lee:

Sept. 27, 8:39 a.m.

This is one of the most irresponsible things I've ever seen a "journalist" do. As a concealed firearms carrier from another state, I've got nothing but contempt for both a reporter or a newspaper that would put so many peoples lives in jepordy with such crap.

I hope that both the writer and the "newspaper" are held responsible for this and the offended and extract every last ounce of revenge possible to put you all out of business.

Our country is facing a great internal crisis today and it is mainly because about on half of the population have absolutely no respect for the rights and responsibilities that have made this nation great...in the past. We are losing it now.

Once again, I've nothing but contempt for you. I hope you are put out of business and shut down. The writer should never write another word. You are lower than scum.

59. Safe at home:

Sept. 27, 8:42 a.m.

Does anyone realize the truly ridiculous part of this?

The pen is mightier than the sword, and this thinly veiled attempt at “letting the public know the truth” could show how her pen can cause a lot of problems for the unarmed of the county.

It is shown in this John Stossel interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA ) that criminals do not want to go after an armed citizen (the maximum security prisoners are the ones to watch for in this video).

Publishing the names of the CCW holders leaves others at risk. She could go to the state next and obtain the handgun registration information and publish all who are in violation of her sense of the world, by even owning guns, to out them. That list would of course show, those who do own handguns and those who don't, and make the unarmed even more at risk. This of course is the power of her pen. This is her potential to hurt those whom she doesn’t intend to harm with her articles.

For those who think this is ludicrous, people with criminal intent are sometimes more clever than is given, based on their bad actions. So the clever reporter in this case becomes more dangerous based on her actions

60. lT:

Sept. 27, 8:48 a.m.

I wonder how employees of the paper would feel if all of a sudden their names, address,phone numbers,martial status,# of kids,pic's of kids and family,schools attended,sports involved,family schedule,job background, vehicles driven,pictures of vehicles,pictures of home and everything else about their private life were published for all to see and read. My guess is they will feel somehow threatened by such an action. Well that's what you have done to those who carry concealed. You have set them up for assault,robbery and life threating situations because you want to be nosy. Because you feel you have some right to do so.

61. robash141:

Sept. 27, 9:10 a.m.

All I'm seeing here is just a lot of Fear fear,fear.

My question once again is what are you people so afraid of?

Apparently everything .

If I genuinely felt that my life was being threatened and that I needed to carry a firearm to protect myself. I would want those bastards threatening me to KNOW I was packing.

62. werstlna:

Sept. 27, 9:30 a.m.

robash141 said: "If I genuinely felt that my life was being threatened and that I needed to carry a firearm to protect myself. I would want those bastards threatening me to KNOW I was packing."

We do not always know when we will encounter a life threatening situation, just as we do not know when someone may T-bone us at an intersection. Does this mean I should only wear my seatbelt when I'm speeding - of course not. You may go about your life blindly naive to the ever present dangers that permeate our society. That is your choice. Don't try to enforce that silly behavior and thinking on the rest of us.

63. Scott:

Sept. 27, 10:03 a.m.

I have had a CCW for 13 years because in my business, I deal with very dangerous people who would do me or my family harm. This isn't the movies. Obviously your reporter's frame of reference is complete ignorance of the point.

Do you realize how irresponsible this article is?

You're not only endangering the permit holder, but their spouses and children. This isn't a game. You're going to get someone hurt or killed.

64. rational:

Sept. 27, 10:32 a.m.

Robash-

It is not fear you're seeing, it is outrage.

True, some CCWers carry because they have someone to be afraid of. There's nothing wrong with that. They may have stalkers, threats against their lives, or threats against their loved ones.

Other CCWers carry because they believe it is better to be prepared for anything. Especially in Humboldt Co. where you could be walking through the woods minding your own business and be viciously attacked by wild animals (as happened to Jim and Nell Hamm).

Furthermore, CCWers carry concealed because they do not want anyone to know they're armed. When others know you're armed there IS a risk to your personal safety, because a gun is not a magic talisman that makes one immune to acts of violence or theft. Anyone wanting to steal a gun now knows who to rob.

Robash, your condescending attitude doesn't help anything. You don't have to approve of CCW. You can vote for a sheriff who doesn't support it. What this paper did was entirely irresponsible because they took what was a closely guarded secret for most of these people and made it public.

How can you not see that that was wrong?

65. robass:

Sept. 27, 10:35 a.m.

Robash if your life was threatened and you let the bad guy know you were carrying they'd just kill you when you weren't looking.

If you had kept your weapon a secret you might stand a chance.

Now these people don't have that luxury.

66. Dave:

Sept. 27, 11:15 a.m.

Wow I'm sure all these law abiding citizens that jumped through all the hoops to get a CCW really appreiciate this clueless reporter letting the world know that they are armed. Thanks a lot lady you can bet I'll never read this publication or website again.

67. Rudolf:

Sept. 27, 11:39 a.m.

I think all guns should be banned except for special people like police, military and democrats because I don't trust independents and republicans to own guns. I think democrats should only only guns, at least they make people feel good and most likely will never pull the trigger. Kudos on publishing the names..now a criminal knows who's not armed.

68. NRA Supporter:

Sept. 27, 11:49 a.m.

So what's your point, Journal? Is this your way of attacking responsible citizens who are exercising their freedoms and rights? Your dislike of firearms is no excuse to express intolerance to those who do. We don't galavant around trying to attack and strip away the freedoms you hold so dear.

The fact is criminals will always carry guns illegaly, so trying to take legal guns away from legal citizens is only jeapordizing their lives (whcih is what I assume your article is hinting at.) I don't know why people like you can't see that, but it seems to be a common misconception with you.

So why don't you go vote for Obama in November and leave us the hell alone.

69. Mark D:

Sept. 27, 11:58 a.m.

There is no constructive reason to publish a story like this. Why not compare the percentage of legal gun owners that commit crimes vs. people who possess guns illegally.

A paper in Roanoke, Virginia went down this same road already. It did not end well for the author. His home address and phone number, as well as all his publicly available information(including google maps to his home) was widely distributed on the internet. He was less than pleased once the tables were turned. If I remember correctly, when DHL delivered a legitimate package to his house days later he panicked, called the police and wound up with the Bomb Squad shutting down his neighborhood.

Here's CNN's take on the story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN4smdjU1e8

Just because you can walk into a government building and request the information doesn't mean you should compile and publish that information.

70. jad0110:

Sept. 27, 12:15 p.m.

robash141,

Post #64 above is exactly right.

We are outraged, not fearful.

Answer this: would you walk out into a busy public place and shout out that you have $1,000 of cold hard cash in your pocket? Would you tell some random person your full name and then proceed to tell them that you own a new 50" Plasma TV?

This isn't about fear, and no, you can never be 100% immune from the criminal element. It is just common sense. It's about not walking about with a "rob me" or "attack me" sign on your back. I prefer not to advertise to the criminal element that I own firearms. All they'd have to do is wait until I leave the house, then smash 'n grab while I'm not there. I suspect that is the most likely risk a CCW holder faces as a result of being outed.

BTW, there certainly are CCW holders out there who are fearful. They may have a very good reason to be ... stalkers, angry ex, etc. Most of us though are not fearful. The simplest way to sum up our attitude is this:

1. Bad stuff happens to good people everyday. The odds of it happening to me may be low, but it can still happen.

2. Said bad stuff can happen anywhere, not just at home.

3. Personal safety is up to each individual person and those whom they may be responsible for (kids, adults with special needs, etc). It is NOT the responsibility of Law Enforcement to protect each individual person 24x7x365 (google Warren vs District of Columbia). Cops can't be everywhere at once; their primary roll is to protect the community as a whole.

4. And again, most of us acknowledge that the overall chance of bad stuff happening is pretty low, though we'd rather have a gun and not need it than need it and not have one. So we view having a permit and carrying a firearm as no different than having a fire extinguisher, life insurance, homeowners/renters insurance etc.

I'll end on this. To those that think they have a "right" to know, I say N.O.Y.D.B: None of Your Darned Business! As someone else already stated, this may well be legal under FOIA in CA, but it doesn't make it right. I've got nothing to hide; I pay my taxes, hold doors open for others, take my son to the park for play, help a neighbor in need and work hard to put food on the table. I'd just as soon live my life in anonimity, and not have my name printed for all to see. I'm an average Joe that doesn't take kindly to be treated as a suspected criminal because I choose to carry a firearm for the defense of myself and my family; God forbid I'm ever put into a position of having to do so.

71. Brian Davis:

Sept. 27, 12:24 p.m.

After "outing" these law-abiding citizens you deserve to be charged with conspiracy and accessory before the fact when any of them is attacked and guns stolen. If it's necessary to know who carries a gun in public maybe you should publish a list of anyone who wears expensive jewelry in public. Inquiring minds want to know. Especially burglars. What a waste of news space! What a waste of journalistic ability!

72. Oregon:

Sept. 27, 12:29 p.m.

I see Ms Walters mentioned who was Republican but not the Democrates. She missed the boat on if they drove a Ford or Chevy. I have a hard time understanding how the editor let this artical pass.

73. Mark D:

Sept. 27, 12:31 p.m.

Maybe the "Journal" should change their "Privacy Policy" that they post on their "About" section of the web site:

PRIVACY POLICY North Coast Journal Inc. respects your privacy. Our complete privacy policy is below, but the bottom line is this: North Coast Journal Inc. will not sell or share any of your personal information to a third party, period. North Coast Journal Inc. will gather personally identifiable information about you only when you provide it voluntarily for specific purposes such as posting an ad or signing up to blog with us.

74. Mike:

Sept. 27, 12:34 p.m.

FOIA goes both ways people! Get over it. If you want to get even, use FOIA on Ms.Walters and place flyers with her info all over town and the Internet. Maybe this little stunt by the newspaper will encourage more law abiding gun owners to seek a CCW. If you get denied, open carry.

75. jad0110:

Sept. 27, 12:36 p.m.

PRIVACY POLICY North Coast Journal Inc. respects your privacy. Our complete privacy policy is below, but the bottom line is this: North Coast Journal Inc. will not sell or share any of your personal information to a third party, period. North Coast Journal Inc. will gather personally identifiable information about you only when you provide it voluntarily for specific purposes such as posting an ad or signing up to blog with us, unless you hold a permit to carry a concealed weapon, in which case, we shall publish your full name for all to see because we hate you.

There, fixed! :)

76. Ryan M:

Sept. 27, 12:48 p.m.

I believe the article that was published was a blatant invasion of privacy. I think all the CCW holders that were mentioned in your newspaper article should sue the Author of the article, as well as the paper, for as much as they can get.

77. jmc:

Sept. 27, 1:02 p.m.

You have exercised your rights under the First Amendment in a very irresponsible manner. Shame on you.

78. ysrracer:

Sept. 27, 1:31 p.m.

And it's not even well written.

79. jamesob:

Sept. 27, 1:56 p.m.

as a ccw holder in a different county, i like to fly under the radar. what i am saying i don't want people to know that i carry because they might learn of my last profession. the writter of this story is such an idiot that they publish the names of people who have the permits to carry, while criminals carry without permits and their names are not published. someone should find the journalist social security number and publish it in a paper or radio, that would be great.

80. dce:

Sept. 27, 1:58 p.m.

robash141, you know nothing about personal security. The little you have posted shows just how skewed your little view of the world is. But jolly good for you for only seeing fear. That is what a CCW is all about. I fear seeing my loved ones robbed beaten raped and killed. The world aint Mayberry anymore just in case you havent noticed. CCW is not about packing a gun in public, supporting rights, or any of the bull that is spewed by BOTH political parties. Its about fending for yourself because NO ONE else is liable for your protection. Thats right, the police have been cleared of ANY responsibility for protecting an individual by the Supreme Court. I guess your false reality protects you in your life, I truly hope that that protection lasts for you.

The author and editor of this "media outlet" you have used your rights to harm your fellow citizen. I do not see any rational for this piece of trash. May you reap what you sow.

81. NC Shooter:

Sept. 27, 2:19 p.m.

What type of Idiot is Heidi Walters. I have a CCW in NC and this would not stand, this underminds the CONCEALED portion of CCW. I think the entire newspaper owes every CCW holder in this county an appology and I hope that legal action can be taken to hinder stupidity of this nature never happen again.

82. don s.:

Sept. 27, 3:50 p.m.

are you out of your fuccing mind!

83. Fetus:

Sept. 27, 4:17 p.m.

WHY ??

84. Fetus:

Sept. 27, 4:18 p.m.

^ i mean post this ??

85. Disgusted:

Sept. 27, 4:27 p.m.

"Humboldt County Sheriff's Office Records Supervisor Melva Paris and three other staffers put the list together for us, hand-pulling files and typing up the names of 652 permit holders."

This is an absolute disgrace on so many levels it's hard to know where to start. One thing immediately comes to mind ... who paid for this abuse of public resources? Who authorized the time it took to have three people compile this information? Surely their time (paid for with tax dollars) could be better spent!!

86. orionengnr:

Sept. 27, 4:29 p.m.

So now, having been given a road map, when a scumbag breaks into the home or car of one of these law-abiding CCW holders, steals his/her firearm, and kills an innocent with it, the blood is on your hands.

Adds a whole new meaning to the term "yellow journalism".

87. Mark:

Sept. 27, 5:09 p.m.

Wow, just wow. Totally reckless. It's time for a boycott of all products and companies that advertise with this "paper".

88. GPC:

Sept. 27, 5:27 p.m.

The writer of this article is a lowlife of the worst degree. I hope this comes back to bite her on the ass...and the paper....I hope they are all put out of business.

89. Heavyheat:

Sept. 27, 5:30 p.m.

What kind of idiot would out a whole community? Have you no regard for people's health and well being? Where is your mind?

I hope someone that was damaged by this cane prove their damages and sue your sorry ass all the way into next week.

What a bunch of lowlifes.

90. Smithguy:

Sept. 27, 5:32 p.m.

I am beside myself! I am so enraged I am at a lack for words.

There is a place in hell for one that would do something as outrageous as this. I hope they all own your ass.

91. Goober:

Sept. 27, 5:33 p.m.

You are a sorry piece of work!

92. Not A Native:

Sept. 27, 5:33 p.m.

There are about 100,000 people in Humboldt over 18 years old. Only 650 feel they need to be able to conceal a gun.

Taking away the detectives and backwoods hikers, it probably leaves fewer than 600 who feel having a gun is necessary. That's a little more than 0.6% of adults. And I'll bet even they carry a gun only infrequently.

So, does that mean that 99.4% of us are foolishly living dangerously, puting ourselves at mortal risk when we go outside? Are 99%+ of people so stupid or ignorant of the need to carry a gun? Carry a gun if you qualify, but its nutzo to believe it makes you safer.

And you know, if you wear a holster, so its readily available, it might be visible at times to trained eyes. If a cop, especially undercover, notices it and you make a sudden move as if to get it, you really would be in danger.

93. DaveL:

Sept. 27, 5:38 p.m.

I hope the editor of the paper see's the damage that has been done here and fires the writer's sorry ass.

I also hope when it comes time for lawsuits, thoese "public officals" that lent a hand in this deed are also held accountable.

This is what is wrong with our country now. We have a "type" and (pardon the pun) "caliber" of person that really thinks they are doing a public service by doing something as dangerous as this. This sorry bag of crap was probably a product of our recent public schools? Where is responsibility? Where is "doing what's right". It doesn't seem to exist anymore...does it?

94. Sig Mama:

Sept. 27, 5:44 p.m.

While you sit safe and comfy in your little Humboldt journist office, I trek off each day to teach in a gang and drug infested neighborhood in the Bay Area. As you mentioned, I am not allowed to protect myself with a concealed weapon of any sort. All I can do is befriend the people who live there and pray. It's not just some of the people that are vicious, but most own pit bull dogs. I love my job, but it is dangerous (even the local police have deemed the area the worst in the city). Well, maybe you don't see the need for self protection in your safe zone all the way up there in Northern CA, however, the sensible people in your area do.

You are so wrong to critize people for wanting to protect themselves and their families. What an assinine article.

How about publishing the names of people who carry a concealed weapon illegally?! Oh wait, there's no record. Only the law abiding, test taking, had to qualify, trained, waited 10 days before attaining their legally purchased firearms are kept track of. You need help understanding why people need to protect themselves. We are not issued our own personal police officer to be with us 24/7. Have you ever had to wait hours for the police to arrive after calling for help? People in the city do. Have you ever been attacked by a vicious dog?

Wake up! You need to get out of your little town for a while. But please, don't come to my town, I don't want to have to protect your ass because you think everyone is nice.

95. andy:

Sept. 27, 6:49 p.m.

If you look throughout history the tyrant also disarms his subjects. Just look at what Adolph Hitler was able to do once he disarmed the German citizens. One of the reasons for the Second Ammendment was to give the people a means of recourse against an overbearing tyrranical government that was no longer for the people. In closing I think that you should use the freedom of information act to go after criminals not law abiding citizens. You have now lumped CCW holders with child molesters, drunk drivers, drug addicts and other undesirables.

96. Patrick:

Sept. 27, 7:04 p.m.

This article is a shame for journalism..

97. bob:

Sept. 27, 7:21 p.m.

CENSORSHIP is alive and well at the Journal. They,ve blocked my IP address so I had to post from my blackberry. So much for the 1st Amendment......

98. Mad Mom:

Sept. 27, 7:56 p.m.

I just recently had the opportunity to be interviewed for News Channel Three at a public event. I actually had the chance to decline because I was asked first. Why wasn't I asked about this?

Since you decided to use my name, I want to share a little something more about myself. I was molested at the age of four by a stranger. When I was eleven I was attacked in a public place by a teenager weilding a knife and nobody came to my aid despite my screams. Neither one of my perpetrators were caught and prosecuted. You could say that I have some knowledge that bad things can happen to innocent people. I don't want to stand by helplessly should anything or anyone threaten my children. Is that reason enough for me to carry? Does that justify it in your mind? If you want to know more I'll tell you my life story. Apparently you can find me.

99. Perplexed:

Sept. 27, 8:28 p.m.

Now the criminals know who not to bother. Worthless 'journalism'. You don't keep the First Amendment without the Second Amendment. Evil has many forms. This was one ignorant form of it.

100. You should be ashamed:

Sept. 27, 8:40 p.m.

I think you should be completely ashamed of your behavior. Rather than go into a lengthy explaination of why, I'll leave you with this thought: When you are attacked for your money, possesions, or body, I hope one of the people you outed is there to save your worthless butt. But if karma is what it is, they probably won't be.

101. Isaac:

Sept. 27, 8:59 p.m.

I am astonished at the lengths a newspaper will go to just to sell a paper. The news days must be pretty slow when you gotta send a reporter digging through Sheriff's Office files for information that shouldn't be passed out like candy.

102. 1911 bad judgement:

Sept. 27, 9:03 p.m.

this is journalism at its worst. you've just targeted all of the above people because of your limited views regarding handguns... most peoples knowledge regarding handguns are from the MEDIA and MOVIES... there are no actual facts to base your opinion.

103. Joe:

Sept. 27, 10:26 p.m.

Reading the comments here I would say that this paper has lost a few subscribers. Editor: Are you paying attention?

104. James C.:

Sept. 27, 10:35 p.m.

I will definately have to obtain my CCW after reading this article. Also, I will not patronize anyone who advertises in this rag anymore.

105. b:

Sept. 27, 11:34 p.m.

Heidi, The next time you have an idea...

Just let it go.

106. Richard Dakesian:

Sept. 28, 4:46 a.m.

This is a gross invasion of privacy. Why don't you also publish a list of all women obtaining abortions in the County?

Of course, I'm being sarcastic but you, HOPEFULLY, get the point.

107. jad0110:

Sept. 28, 5:02 a.m.

Not A Native,

"So, does that mean that 99.4% of us are foolishly living dangerously, puting ourselves at mortal risk when we go outside? Are 99%+ of people so stupid or ignorant of the need to carry a gun? Carry a gun if you qualify, but its nutzo to believe it makes you safer. "

As you say, simply carrying a gun won't necessarily make you safer. Attitude, training, awareness and reliability of the firearm all come into play. Among many other factors. The firearm itself is just a tool. But I wouldn't say that "its nutzo to believe it makes you safer." If they didn't make you safer, than why do cops carry them? They aren't the only ones who are confronted by scumbags intent on doing evil.

As for the 99.4% that don't have a CCW, no, I wouldn't say they are all putting themselves at mortal risk when they go outside. Remember, not all of them can own a firearm legally anyway. In many states, a DWI/DUI is a felony. Kiss you 2nd amendment rights goodbye. In fact, I think DWI/DUI is the most common reason for a CCW being revoked.

The most important single factor is being aware of your surroundings. In that regard, a majority of people I see today are completely ignorant of what is happening around them. Women in dark areas of a parking lot yapping on a cell phone, guys whipping out their cash swollen wallets with "bangers/banger wannabees" a few feet away.

One thing I have noticed is that I myself have become much more aware since I started carrying. Funny thing, really. Now that I carry a firearm, I'd really rather not use it if at all possible. I'll use my witts to avoid trouble, but I do have the gun if all else fails and it is "me or them".

108. Luke Currier:

Sept. 28, 6:41 a.m.

The journalist that wrote the article publishing the names of the CCW holders should be fired and sued!!

His editor should be fired and sued!!

The newspaper should be sued!!

What sort of morons would publish an article that endangers people like this article does?

The journalist and editor should be brought up on charges if any ONE of the people named in his article are robbed or murdered!! They should be listed as co-conspirators to the crime - even if the actual criminals are not caught or identified!!!!!

109. lexfin71:

Sept. 28, 7:06 a.m.

FIRE THE *ITCH!!!!

110. David R. Voth:

Sept. 28, 7:26 a.m.

Just because you can acquire and publish information in public records doesn't mean you should publish it. I'm sure people who have permits to carry concealed weapons have all kinds of reasons for doing so. Those reasons are personal. I trust people who are not legally disqualified from owning a gun, to judge for themselves whether or not it is appropriate for them to carry a concealed firearm.

Heidi Walters, shame on you for potentially putting those good people in danger, and shame on the editors of this publication for allowing this atrocity to see the light of day.

111. Chuckles:

Sept. 28, 7:58 a.m.

I would suggest someone publish the names and schools attended by the reporters children as well as her home telephone number. What, don't you feel someone would find this newsworthy? You have just made a list for each criminal of where to go to find a gun, I just hope the homeowner isn't home when they get broken into. Better yet, I hope they are and the list of criminals alive in California drops considerably.

112. Robert:

Sept. 28, 8:01 a.m.

Its very unfortunate that your paper has chosen to publish this list of names.

It was wrong to do. I will do what I can by notifying advertisers that I will not be making purchases from them whenever possible. To ensure this does not happen again.

The writer Heidi Walters,and her Editor should be ashamed of themselves.

113. Criminal:

Sept. 28, 8:17 a.m.

I'm so excited that you've posted this list. Now I have better access to a bunch of potential targets who I know carry guns!

114. AROCK:

Sept. 28, 8:39 a.m.

Good job. No really, you have done a service to your community.

Now when a criminal is ready to act, they know who HAS guns and can now target the non-carriers.

You haven't just put the CCW holders in jeopardy, but you have given criminals a list of probable UNARMED people to attack.

Hope you feel better at night.

I also noticed your names are not on the list... I guess you'll be at the top of their list now, huh?

115. Erom Oremor:

Sept. 28, 8:47 a.m.

Your article does nothing but point out your 'gun hating' agenda and puts law abiding people in danger for no other reason than 'just because you can'!!!

How would you feel if a list of names of Journalists and families and children was compiled with all their 'information' included along with the message; "Robbers, Rapists, Pedophiles; these people are unarmed and cannot protect themselves or their children, help your selves to their property or 'anything else' you may want!!!!

Have at them!!!!

You wouldn't dare make that list; but since you all glorify and believe in the 1st ammendment so much perhaps you won't object if some other group does it. You'll print it for us wont you???

116. citizen:

Sept. 28, 9:34 a.m.

i hope none of the people on that list were victims of violence. you have placed those people in immediate danger, and for what.

i hope you get sued in the order of millions of dollars and shut down. people like yourself journalists a bad name.

117. Robert Cauthon:

Sept. 28, 9:42 a.m.

It's funny how people like you always seem to say "if we outlaw guns then the streets will be safer!" Do any of you realize that criminals DONT FOLLOW THE LAW!? Thats why they are criminals. I agree that everyone in California should blackball this rag. Contact anyone you see advertising in it and tell them if they continue to do so you will not patronize their establishment.

On another note. I too hope that you get sued. I hope that everyone gets fired, and I further hope your transmission breaks down during rush hour traffic. You obviously hope more horrible things happen to CCW members, otherwise you would not have given a list to criminals.

118. Shame On You:

Sept. 28, 9:42 a.m.

This is a perfect example of abusing of the California Public Records Act and abusing the First Ammendment. This is not journalism. Shame on you.

As I see it, you've used your "journalistic" office as a cover to violate the physical security and privacy of these law-abiding citizens. You've also published their stated intentions for voting in a secret ballot election. After seeing this, I would never talk to you about anything.

Why did you publish the CCW holders' names. That was just plain stupid on your part. Truly, it was an abuse of "office". Just because you can does not mean you should. Haven't you learned that yet?

119. boycott:

Sept. 28, 10:03 a.m.

I will not be supporting anyone who advertises in the journal, and I will be writing many of them to let them know this is a direct result of this article. I encourage others to do the same.

Congrats Journal, you've not only put a lot of people at risk for no good reason, you've also also alienated many of your readers.

This was shameful.

120. lol:

Sept. 28, 10:10 a.m.

WOW! Judging from the responses posted here I'd say a lot of people are very, very upset about this!

Looks like the NorthCoast Journal shot itself in the foot!

I suggest the author get a CCW, now that she's made so many enemies.

:)

121. Sam:

Sept. 28, 10:32 a.m.

I could stomach this kind of “intelligentsia” article from a magnet school weekly, written by a tweenager, who believes “Zietgiest” is the paradigm in truth-in-reporting, but when it comes from the adult illuminati, it’s painful and embarrassing.

As implied before, the article is nothing more than an exercise in I-can-so-I-will. Grow up.

You, Heidi, are the sad, scared, uniformed, bigot stereotype, not the law abiding gun owners.

122. Sarge:

Sept. 28, 11:05 a.m.

Why do liberals hate the Second Amendment so much? What do they have against the very basic civil liberties we hold dear?

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."- General Introduction to Psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud

123. robash141:

Sept. 28, 11:24 a.m.

To Andy: Would be Tyrants don't disarm their subjects to the extent that they organize segments of their supporters into heavily armed para military organizations in order to kill and intimidate dissidents. So you are partially correct, they were always for some people not having guns. Namely those ones who disagreed with them. I imagine that in 1938 Germany a waff