Comment / By j.courtois / Oct. 2, 2008, 12:27 p.m.

Dear Hank, I read your defence of your journals irresponsible publishing of the names of ccw permit holders and find it ludicrus (to borrow one of your words). Yes you can legally publish thier names, but was it a responsible thing to have done?. First thing that jumps out is that your reporter sites the political oreintation of all the interviewees (mostly republican), then we find out that the Elsebuches thanfully are not actually LIKE hunboldters of witch “so many people who love to go out there, and get all drooly about the thought of going out there to find some innocent animal and cause it to suffer and die” What a wonderful description of hunters in humboldt county. But more to the point is the fact that you quote one interviewee, Mr Koog who trains women to defend themselves and instructs them “about talking to much”,he tells us “one of the things that an instructor tells them is, if your going to conceal this in public you keep your mouth shut and nobody is supposed to know about it.” and the goes on to describe what might befall the women he is addressing which is walking to their car at night and being mugged because some drug dealer knowes they have a gun and they want it. Do you think publishing these womens names has improved their safty? or put them at great peril. Then you describe the reasons most ccw holders get permitted to begin with, like “while carrying large sums of money” gee what are those peoples names who are possibly carrying lots of cash? then the Caseys we now know are at times carrying around thousand of dollars worth of guns in their car. i didnt quite get their cars lic. number, but no problem I can probably get that information from other public records. Im sure you know by now how irresponsible I feel your printing of names is. If any of these people suffer harm or death because of your actions I would encorage that a civil action against your journal be persued. by the way is Heidi Walters home address or yours public information? Also please do not print my e-mail address

Comment / By Colorado CCW / Oct. 2, 2008, 4:26 p.m.

you title your response “unconcealed” and I suppose you think that is cleaver. You rationalize away your irresponsible actions, you distort the fact that very few if any CCW want their names published. You are correct that it is legal to publish the names but that does not make it less irresponsible (all low life behavior is legal until it becomes illegal). You note that people from out of state are responding to the story … because it is irresponsible to the point of being criminal in most CCW states. the fact that you have to resort to distortions and rationalizations for your actions tells me that you lack knowledge of, both CCW issues and journalist ethics toward your own neighbors. I spent 25 years working with criminals at pelican bay state prison and Atascadero state hospital and I assure you, your article was a ND .. negligent discharge. Spend some time with mr. Koog learning a little something about CCW. If I were one of the names published, I would have a flyer with your picture, your house, your family, your net worth, your address and note that you are not in favor firearms for protection of self or family then i would approach you to publish that informtion in your paper and when you declined, I would post it in your community anyway. Shame on you for the story but mostly shame on you for not even knowing you are so far out of line on this issue.

Comment / By VA CHP Holder / Oct. 3, 2008, 6:57 p.m.

To those whom much (power) is given, much is expected. A lesson taken to heart by those of us who hold CCW/CHP permits… but apparently not by those at the NCJ!

Comment / By Hmmm / Oct. 3, 2008, 9:40 p.m.

Interesting defense of the article. So why not publish serious public health infractions from area restaurants? Those have far more direct value to your readership and it’s public information. Until your digging escapades through public records are actually applied to service journalism, I have a hard time seeing the gun article as anything other than an attempt to be edgy.

Comment / By Joe Jones / Oct. 3, 2008, 9:53 p.m.

To quote Mr. Sims - “and because the thing became a minor cause celebre in Internet gun circles last week, by people who understand little to nothing about the county — we want to explain our position.” Your position is quite clear Mr. Sims. No further explanation is necessary. Your arrogance, your condescending attitude on the phone with me, your snobbish elitism … it is all on grand display. So you believe gun owners know little to nothing about the country, eh? You believe that you, the editor of a one-horse town liberal rag like the NCJ that is usually only read by potheads, tweekers and aging hippies, a paper that serves the community best when it is used to line the bottom of a bird cage, employing left-wing reporters like Heidi Walters whose rabid hatred for everything American is clearly demonstrated through her verbose rants found in the CITY LIFE archives … you think that YOU can teach US --anything-- about this country! Well go right ahead! Take a section of that throw away paper that lands at the end of people’s driveways and dedicate it to MR. SIMS TEACHES AMERICAN GUN OWNERS ABOUT AMERICA! I’ll link to every word you post, and make sure the whole nation gets a chance to absorb your sage wisdom. Thank you Mr. Sims, for proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that you possess the unique ability to view your navel from inside your abdomen by inserting your head deeply into the only body orifice large enough to accept it.

Comment / By Hank Sims / Oct. 3, 2008, 10:14 p.m.

Joe: Not to condescend, but the word is “county.”

Comment / By Joe Jones / Oct. 4, 2008, 12:19 a.m.

I know that, Mr. Sims. Humboldt COUNTY is a part of this COUNTRY. Does the Constitution apply differently, exceptionally, or not at all to Americans living in your county? What is there to know about your county that is different than any county? Do Humboldt county criminals give the people a pass, because “just about everyone within the borders of the place is a hyper-intense freedom-lover of one stripe or another?” Are you implying that the people in your county are so laid back, so mellow, so communal and so at peace with nature and society that the risks and dangers associated with needlessly publishing their names, the intrusions that may arise by the community, neighbors, employers and business associates widely knowing that this or that person carries a gun even though they had the RIGHT to know, but not the NEED to know, the same outing of names of people who are required by law to keep their CCW quiet is of no concern to anyone?

You admit that “At least some of the 641 people in the list were not too pleased about this.” I am wondering … since newspapers and politicians and radio stations generally count one response as the opinion of many who feel the same way but just don’t take the time to write or call, what is the exact number of the “some” who were not pleased? If six people bothered to contact you, what factor do you routinely apply to estimate the actual number of people who are deemed to be concerned? x 15? x 30? Or is it your position that in this instance every single person bothered by his or her name appearing in your piece came into your office already, and that no one who may be irritated by it chose to steer clear of the NCJ out of fear of having the spotlight shone on them?

There is nothing special about Humboldt county, Mr. Sims. It is filled with hard working people who want to be left alone, and left OUT of the spotlight of journalistic sensationalism. You of all people should know this, so it just seems odd that you would approve outing their names, and for what purpose? You have told us that the PRA allows you to publish them, but you have not yet given your reason for including all but 11 of them.

Seeing as how newspaper space is so precious, letters to the editor are whittled down to meet strict word count limitations, private party ads are charged by the line, ad space is sold by the column inch … so assuming that SOMEONE benefited from the large graphic depicting the names of CCW holders when it could just as easily have been a smaller photo of a real pistol, and it wasn’t those named who benefited in any way that I can see, can you explain your decision to use valuable front page acreage for the names?

BTW, I have NO real problem with the article itself. It was fairly well written and may have even painted gun owners in a favorable light, but why won’t you just admit that including the names was wrong? Not illegal. Just unethical, and wrong.

Comment / By Colorado CCW / Oct. 4, 2008, 2:58 a.m.

Whether public information or not, we would not have published the names of permit holders if we had thought that doing so would place anyone in harm’s way. And the first thing to be underscored, in this instance, is those 11 names that the Sheriff’s Office did not give us.

Mr. sims did not publish the names of the 11 because the sheriff withheld those 11 names, not because mr. sims was concerned about any of the CCW holders well being. Thankfully your local sheriff withheld those 11 most at risk to his knowledge even though legally perhaps he should have released those 11 names as well. Mr. sims and Ms. Walters were playing Journalistic Drunk driving with the well being of the good people of his community. surely if Mr. Sims was incorrect and one of the CCW permit holders is injured because of the knowledge disclosed to the general public, No doubt Mr. Sims will accept responsibility in full for his misjudgement. In feb/mar. I have an article scheduled to be published in the United States Concealed Carry Assoc. magazine called “Shadow figures, assessing Criminals dangerousness”, this organization has about 30,000 member nationwide and I would offer Mr. sims the opportunity to confer with the numerous experts associated with that organization if he plans to write other stories related to CCW so that he might get some guidence on how to write about CCW in a responsible way and not endanger law abiding members of his community. The life of a small news paper is dependent on the good will of the community and I suspect that Mr. Sims and Ms. walters have lost a large portion of the good will they once enjoyed and that will translate into dollars and cents over the long haul.

Comment / By still wrong / Oct. 4, 2008, 11:25 a.m.

Sure, what the Journal did was legal. It was also wrong and unnecessary.

This pathetic attempt at defending such trash is sad.

If the Journal had any INTEGRITY it would admit that the posting of CCW-holders’ names was completely unethical. The article, although slanted, would not have brought about such a sensational response without the inclusion of the names.

I guess stepping on the people who make our community safer just to get a rise out of the public is one way to get into the national spotlight.

Comment / By Joe Jones / Oct. 4, 2008, 5:31 p.m.

Mr. Sims, you have not yet answered my question, so I’ll politely ask it one more time. No one disagrees that “public information” of all classifications should always be available for any citizen to view upon demand. On this we both completely agree. DELIBERATE public disclosure of certain public information is also good idea, when that disclosure is clearly beneficial to society at large, whether they have requested it or not.

For instance, the names of registered sex offenders and child molesters living in your area are “public information.” Although the names are available for any citizen to view at any time by walking into the courthouse and requesting them, the harvesting and publication of those names in a paper such as the NCJ is beneficial to the community, because it is important for people with children to know that friendly man down the street who grins at kids as they ride by on their bicycles is a REAL threat to their child’s safety. This man has already broken the law, and presumably has the potential to break the law again, given the opportunity. His record shows that he cannot be trusted, that he has no regard for common decency and he has the potential to harm or kill a child. I don’t think you’ll find anyone, even in my “right wing conservative gun-owning circle” who will disagree with educating a community about real threats in their area. The 1st amendment and the Public Records Act allow you to publish these names, but your motivation for actually doing it is to single out those people who are a danger to society.

You chose to publish 641 names of people who were issued a legal CCW license by the sheriff. They passed background checks. They don’t have criminal records. They are NO THREAT to society by virtue of legally exercising their 2nd amendment right along with permission to exercise that right in public with the blessings of the sheriff. Thus far, you have held up the first amendment and attempted to justify your actions by saying that the PRA allows you to publish the names. On this, we also agree, and I wouldn’t want that to change. However, outside of deliberately “outing” the names of sexual perverts so that the community will rightfully look for them, recognize them, shun them and avoid them as your REASON to publish their names, WHAT WAS YOUR REASON for actually publishing these names? I suspect that you did it for the very SAME reasons, and you lack the courage to admit it.

Comment / By B / Oct. 4, 2008, 8:11 p.m.

Mr. Sims wrote “We strongly reject the idea that we have invaded anyone’s privacy. There was no privacy involved. In California, the privilege of carrying a loaded firearm in public is a public matter. Licenses to do so are granted and bestowed by representatives of the people of the state of California, in their name, and the people have the right to examine the work of its representatives in granting or denying such licenses.”

In contrast, the privilege of growing marijuana for medicine or for profit, is granted by doctors, so the North Coast Journal protects the privacy of pot growers by not using their real names without permission, as evidenced in “After Hacker Creek” where author Kym Kemp interviewed a couple of pot growers after a diesel spill from a pot-growing operation damaged the Hacker Creek ecosystem. An editors note was quick to point out that “The names and a few identifying characteristics of “Max” and other non-convicted marijuana growers in this story have been changed.” They wouldn’t want to endanger any pot growers or violate their privacy.

Medical marijuana being legal in Humboldt County, I would suspect that the Sheriff’s office has a list of known grow operations. I also suspect that the North Coast Journal has no interest in obtaining that information and putting it on the cover of their publication.

I am curious why the Journal feels it necessary to out CCW holders, who carry weapons legally, but conceals the identity of marijuana growers who are criminals under federal law, if not under state law.

Who is more dangerous to our community? Is it the people who carry weapons for their own protection (and often for the protection of their loved ones and those around them), who would probably just as soon use that weapon to defend your life as they would their own? Or is it the pot growers who spill diesel into our rivers and streams, attract a criminal element to our county, damage our local economy by driving up prices while good legitimate jobs remain few and far between, and encourage laziness and complacency through the product they sell?

The Journal’s opinion is obvious.

B

Comment / By Joe Jones / Oct. 4, 2008, 8:49 p.m.

“Though many people have since argued that we have “painted targets on the backs” of permit holders, we simply fail to see how this is the case. Idle minds can conjure all sorts of fantastic scenarios, but we have yet to see any evidence of anyone singled out …” - Hank Sims - Editor - North Coast Journal

This text was copied from one of the forums in the “Internet Gun Circle.” You know, those

“people who know little to nothing about the county …” - H.Sims

“Where I live everyone knows me. They didn’t know I carried until this paper told them. As far as giving criminals too much credit, I’m not worried about my guns being stolen, I’m worried about being the first person killed if anyone who knows I carry decides to go ballistic in my presence.Now that this paper has outed me, people who are gun-paranoid and uninformed are treating me differently, or avoiding me entirely. I get the impression they’re afraid my gun is going to start going off by itself and killing everyone within sight of me. They had no problems when they didn’t know I carry.”

Mr. Sims, STATE YOUR REASON for publishing these names!

Comment / By angryman / Oct. 4, 2008, 9:31 p.m.

Idle minds can conjure all sorts of fantastic scenarios, but we have yet to see any evidence of anyone singled out …” - Hank Sims - Editor - North Coast Journal

It’s been a week you pompous jerk!

You won’t regret this until someone gets hurt will you?

Comment / By GingerGuy / Oct. 5, 2008, 10:51 a.m.

Sims and Heidi are pals of Obama. They are doing their part in the assistance of finally removing guns from our society. Then, Pelosi, Reid and the gang will start to really take over this country.

Look at what is happening in England….it is coming here unless conservatives voice their opinions through the continued reduction of buying newspapers, viewing the evening news and voting.

Comment / By Why / Oct. 5, 2008, 5:18 p.m.

If the staff of the North Coast Journal had anywhere near the sense of responsibility that the CCW holders they outed have, those names would never have been printed and this pathetic attempt at defending that underhanded and unnecessary act would never have been written.

This was irresponsible, and defending it is just plain asinine.

Comment / By Poogsdad / Oct. 5, 2008, 7:21 p.m.

Mr. Sims,

I sent you a “Letter to the Editor” in response to your “Pistol Packing People” article published September 25th, 2008.

You acknowledged reciept of my letter and responded with a personal e-mail, which I appreciate.

You chose, however, to not publish my letter. This is your right as the editor and I was, quite frankly, not surprised that you chose to not publish my letter.

I have no intent to use the California Public Records Act and the 2nd Ammendment of the United States Constitution to find and publish all personal information about you which is available as a matter of public record.

You and I both know that it would be completely legal for me to do this. I will not do this because, just because it is legal does not mean it is RIGHT.

I do respect your privacy, in spite of the fact that you apparently do not respect mine.

I also find it interesting that you apparently have more respect for the privacy of criminals than you do for the privacy of law abiding citizens.

Like Joe Jones, I am also interested in hearing your answer to his question.

WHY DID YOU PUBLISH OUR NAMES?

Comment / By B / Oct. 5, 2008, 8:33 p.m.

I know why they did it!

To get some attention for their rag by doing something controversial.

It worked, too. Hopefully the people who pay for the Journal (the advertisers) realize what a horrible mistake it was an how the Journal has angered, outraged, endagered, and alienated not only the 640-something people they outed without permission, but like-minded people throughout our county.

I for one will do everything I can to point out to these advertisers how the Journal needlessly endangers the upstanding citizens of our community while simultaneously protecting the privacy of dope-growers who may or may not have permits to peddle their pot.

I encourage others to do the same.

Comment / By RG / Oct. 6, 2008, 12:35 a.m.

After two very frustrating phone conversations with Mr. Sims I am convinced that I would never want to be involved in the business of journalism because I would probably be expected to leave my values outside the office door. When I asked why the list and the article were published I was told that it was simply thought to be of interest to the public. Where is the substance that the NCJ claims to have but seems to fall short of? What about the people whose families built this county many generations ago? What of the pioneers who cut through ferns as high as a horse’s head to establish schools, homesteads and industry? What about the people you pass every day whose local contributions make your position possible? You may have missed out on 641 interesting stories or more when you alienated this slice of law-abiding Humboldt citizens. Interesting need not consist of controversy and dirt. People want to be elevated not constantly disappointed or wronged.

When I pointed out that there are real people behind the names I got very little response. I pity the people in your life who look to you for guidance and affirmation.

I asked what was going to be done in light of the public outcry and overwhelming disapproval. Nothing will be done. For 641 of us, our lives were trespassed upon without just cause or our consent. There will not even be a letter of apology as per my request. It was not too much trouble to acquire 641 public records complete with occupation, physical address, height, weight, age and date of birth, fingerprints, personal references etc. of each individual. But it does seem to be too much of an imposition for the Northcoast Journal to put forth a simple form letter to those of us whose lives were disrupted and whose comfort level was diminished all for the sake of “public interest”. Isn’t bulk mailing part of the package? We are not idiots. We know this is public information. But most people don’t go to the lengths of cultivating it for jollies.

Honor is never the wrong choice. A real man can admit to his shortcomings Mr. Sims. Are you ready to step up to the plate yet?

Comment / By Joel / Oct. 6, 2008, 7:47 a.m.

I hope the NRA descends on the North Coast Journal and slaps them with a nasty lawsuit. This whole thing was irresponsible to a dangerous degree. The North Coast Journal clearly has no sense of right and wrong. This wasn’t about public service, it was about deterring gun ownership and concealed carry.

Comment / By Humboldt Leatherneck / Oct. 6, 2008, 1:39 p.m.

Well the printing of the names of those of us Humboldt County CCW license holders, was not a wise business decision. I know I will be boycotting the advertisers of the NCJ in the future…

Not all of the users of the internet CCW forums are from out of the area, as you printed. “But since not everyone who took issue will want to call in — and because the thing became a minor cause celebre in Internet gun circles last week, by people who understand little to nothing about the county — we want to explain our position.”

Mr. Sims I have lived and worked in Humboldt County since 1982, and I do understand more than ‘little to nothing’ about our county. It makes me wonder how long that Mr. Sims has been a resident of Humboldt County?

I know that I will be boycotting the advertisers of the NCJ and want to know why my name was published three times on the cover (once in the black print, and twice in the blue section). I guess that they needed more that 641 names in order to fill the cover of their attention grabbing edition.

Yet the NCJ wraps itself in “journalistic intregity” to disguise the names and descriptions of those in the current issue that are involved with marijuana growing, and polluting streams with diesel fuel runoff. The pollution of salmonid habitat for the pursuit of guerilla growing of marijuana, is apparently not news worthy..

Mr. Sims, please furnish us Humboldt County residents, with the names of those whom have been tried and convicted of “illegal marijuana grow operations” in a court of law. That is if you wish to further access County of Humboldt legal records for a future cover story of the NCJ!!!

Comment / By Site Administrator / Oct. 8, 2008, 11:36 a.m.

@HumCo resident: Because of a system error this morning, your comment was lost. Many apologies, and please feel free to resubmit it.

Comment / By j / Oct. 9, 2008, 4:37 p.m.

Wow, classic.

All the gun nuts show their worst stereo types screaming and ranting.

They want to publish lists of the gays people’s medical records.

Those are private. CCW permits are public. That’s not the NCJ’s fault.

The ranting and screaming of the NRA types confirms all of the rest of our worst fears about gun nuts.

These rants look like parody of right wing paranoia, yet they are real.

CCW permit holders living in fear of their own shadows. Now THAT scares me!

Please don’t shoot!

-j

Comment / By WOW, CLASSIC / Oct. 9, 2008, 5:12 p.m.

J, YOU SOUND LIKE A PARODY OF LEFT-WING IDIOTS WHO FEAR ARMED LAW ABIDERS MORE THAN ARMED CRIMINALS! YOU’VE GOT IT BACKWARDS DUMBASS! LETS PASS LAWS SO THE ONLY PEOPLE WITH GUNS ARE THE CRIMINALS AND THE GOVERNMENT, GREAT IDEA!

Comment / By Andy / Oct. 14, 2008, 9:09 a.m.

Am I still locked out?

Comment / By Andy / Oct. 14, 2008, 9:20 a.m.

Hey J, Nobody said anything about printing gay peoples medical records. They aren’t the only ones who have AIDS, HIV or other deadly diseases, the rest of us are just as able to get these diseases.

Comment / By Tammy / Oct. 15, 2008, 2:24 p.m.

Lets just look at the facts. This story was legal. Was it right?? HELL NO. Lets not forget the graphics department- They made the cover. No one seems to be mentioning them.
As a permit holder you are not allowed to tell anyone that you are carrying. Well now those listed don’t have to. Everyone knows. Hey, here is an idea. Can you run an article on registered sex offenders? Names and pictures would be great. It is public record. Its legal. I wont hold my breath for that to be on your front cover. Your paper still isn’t fit to line my cat box.

Comment / By RG / Oct. 15, 2008, 2:57 p.m.

There is still no apology and I doubt there will be. I will repeat that our consent was NOT sought before our names were printed. We were not called or written to even though they had our phone numbers and addresses. We were not treated with the respect and dignity that we were owed. The staff of the NCJ will put ethics aside to get a story. The public has a right to know about that too. This will not be forgotten.

Comment / By Joe Jones / Oct. 16, 2008, 9:09 a.m.

“outside of deliberately “outing” the names of sexual perverts so that the community will rightfully look for them, recognize them, shun them and avoid them as your REASON to publish their names, WHAT WAS YOUR REASON for actually publishing these names? I suspect that you did it for the very SAME reasons, and you lack the courage to admit it.

Humboldt County CCW holders are still waiting for your answer, Mr. Sims and Ms. Walters.