We recently asked the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office for the names of all of the people holding a permit to carry a concealed weapon (CCW) in this county.

Why did we ask for this list? Call it curiosity sparked by the recent Supreme Court ruling overriding Washington, D.C.’s ban on private ownership of handguns, in which the court decided once and for all that the words in the Second Amendment, “the right to keep and bear arms,” define an individual’s right, not just that of a well-regulated militia.

Or call it pure nosiness — an “invasion of privacy,” one CCW permit holder told us, in a calm, patient voice.

We call it exercising our rights under the First Amendment as well as the California Public Records Act. A CCW permit in California allows a person to carry on his or her person, or in a car, a concealed, loaded handgun. You don’t need a CCW permit to keep a gun in your house. You also don’t need one to openly carry a gun in unincorporated areas (but who’d want to do that?) or to have one, unloaded and locked away, in your car. But, just so you know, in California even with a CCW permit you can’t carry a loaded firearm into a bar, within 1,000 feet of a K-12 school, or into a public building like a courthouse.

More interestingly, it’s a way to take the pulse of the generally law-abiding portion of the community (for, there’s no telling how many people out there are packing without a permit; in Humboldt it’s probably a pretty damned high number). How many of us feel the need to carry a concealed weapon? And why?

 

 

The number of CCW permit holders in gun-tolerant Humboldt has fluctuated over the years, but it’s always been high up on the per-capita list — at one time second only to gun-encouraging Kern County. According to a state Department of Justice report on the number of CCW permits in California counties between 1987 and 2007, Humboldt’s count rose steadily from 387 in 1987 to 794 in 1993, then jumped to a high of 1,439 in 1994. In 1995, the number of CCW permits in the county dropped to 1,339, and in 1997 there were 977. By 2003, the number of CCW permits hit another peak, 1,247, then tapered off in years after that, to 1,031 in 2007. As of late August 2008, there were 652 CCW permit holders in the county. The count could change, as permits are good for two years and some may expire while others get issued or are renewed.

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 and the number and type of guns they’re packing (you’re allowed up to three guns on the permit, the serial numbers of which get printed on it). Eleven of the CCW permit holders remain confidential, said Paris, because their stated cause for wanting to pack a gun (such as having a stalker, for instance) indicates they could be endangered if identified.

Looking at the list, one thing is immediately apparent: Having a CCW permit in Humboldt is very much a family thing. There are oodles of couples packing. Packs of siblings. Mom-dad-and-offspring groupings. There are also great quantities of Republicans, a generous dollop of Democrats, and a sprinkling of Greens and assorted others. There are people many of us know. A retired police chief. School employees. Lots of real estate agents. Judges. A garbage company owner. A pastor. Gun dealers. Government workers. Caltrans employees. A harbor commissioner. An HSU professor. Letter-to-the-editor writers. Activists. Our sales manager, Mike Herring (who, we hasten to add, does not pack while on Journal business). Shopkeeps. A famous tennis player. Artists and mechanics. A man who shares the name of that musician who, legend has it, found himself at a crossroads one day and sold his soul to the Devil in exchange for some serious chops. A deputy D.A. A sitar player. A loan officer.

They mostly seem like ordinary folks. Still, something makes them different from those of us who don’t carry a concealed weapon.

 

 

To get a CCW permit a person has to pass muster with the local Sheriff, whose job it is to decide who gets a CCW permit and who doesn’t. CCW laws differ from county to county and even more from state to state. In Los Angeles County, gun people say it’s next to impossible to get a CCW permit. But in rural counties such as Humboldt, which Sheriff’s Lt. Michael Thomas said has been called a “rifle-rack community,” it’s easier.

You do need to be a Humboldt County resident, a non-criminal (no conviction within the past 10 years), stable of mind, of “good moral character,” not on any psyche meds or under the influence of any other drugs, at least 21 years old, able to pass the shooting test (shoot 50 rounds and hit the target dead-on with 40 of those, at a distance of 45 feet), and able to show a good cause for wanting to carry a concealed weapon. And, said Lt. Thomas, who interviewed applicants for a couple of years, you have to show you know the laws regarding gun ownership and gun violence.

Thomas said most applicants have done their research. But he likes to stress to them the possible ramifications of carrying a gun around. What if an attacker grabs it from you? What if you drop it and it goes off?

“You have to ask yourself: Do I really understand if I pull that gun out and point it at somebody, I could change at least two people’s lives forever?” said Thomas. “That’s scary. The potential there is life-ending or life-changing. And kids at home — handguns in the house. If you’re going to carry a concealed weapon, you’re obviously going to have it in your home somewhere. And kids can find anything. If you hide something, they’ll find it. … That scares me to death.”

Thomas said the most common causes people give for wanting a permit is for personal protection — in places where there might be a long response time by the Sheriff’s office, or while hiking, or while carrying large sums of money. Most aren’t planning to pack all the time. He said he only rejected a couple of otherwise eligible applicants because of something they said in the interview.

“One guy was just so honest with me that he wanted to be there for law enforcement whenever it was needed — ‘I want to be there for you guys,'” said Thomas. “He actually pretty much saw the light, so to speak, and he actually praised me for explaining to him why maybe he didn’t actually need one and how that would put him in a very liable situation.”

Of course, said Thomas, some people don’t bother to get a permit to carry. Maybe they don’t want to pay the $170 application fee. Maybe they think it’s nobody’s business.

Still, it’s better if they get the permit, he said. If you’re caught carrying without one, the gun is seized and you face possible jail time and a fine.

 

 

Some of the CCW permit holders we called weren’t happy about it. One, a pastor, warned: “Be careful what you say — you might get bit.”

Another CCWer said we couldn’t use his name, but he wanted to say that he thought the actual physical part of the application process — where you shoot the gun and display your familiarity with it to a trainer — could be more thorough. A woman who used to ride her bicycle alone a lot into remote country, who also asked that we not use her name, shared that she first got a permit 10 years ago after serial killer Wayne Adam Ford turned himself in at the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office, bringing with him the severed breast of a woman. “That really scared me,” she said.

Others, some reservedly and others goodnaturedly, agreed to talk. And at least one guy, David Elsebusch, said he thought the story might even motivate other people to get a concealed carry permit. “Everyone has a right to defend himself,” he said.

And now, a few of our local CCW permit holders:

 

 

If you’ve been to a public meeting — county supervisors, perhaps, or the harbor commission — you likely know David and Penny Elsebusch. The McKinleyville citizens have been vociferously active in community dialogue ever since they moved up to Humboldt from Los Angeles and found themselves appalled by what David characterizes as shockingly slipshod government demeanor.

They’re a dynamic couple — David’s a Republican who may have been leaning sort of Obama-way but now vows gleefully that he’s going to be voting for “that gun-toting Palin!”

“Are you kidding me?” he said the other day on the phone. “She should be on top of the ticket! Don’t even think about anybody else. I’m serious. I’m voting for the maverick reformer. … In fact, I want to find a McCain/Palin sticker and cut it so that Palin is on top.”

Penny, a Democrat, got on the phone and said she doesn’t vote party line, but, still, she guesses they’re “going to have different campaign signs on the lawn.”

The Elsebusches both first got their Humboldt CCW permits 10 years ago — they’d have had CCW permits in Los Angeles, too, if they could have. Twice their home was burgled down there — one time, said David, he wasn’t sure if the burglars were still there when he got home. And Penny had a couple of scary close encounters with carjackers while leaving her office at night.

They both belong to the National Rifle Association and the California Rifle and Pistol Association. But neither grew up around guns. They’re not into competitive gun sports. And they certainly don’t hunt.

“I’m not a Humboldter in the sense that so many people just love to go out there, they get all drooly about the thought of going out there to find some innocent animal and cause it to suffer and die,” said David. “And I’m an animal lover, so, why would you do that?”

However, David did qualify as an expert marksman while he was in bootcamp with the Marine Corps in the 1950s. He was even assigned to coach fellow recruits on how to fire firearms.

The Elsebusches each are permitted to carry the same two firearms. One is a .22-caliber Beretta semi-automatic that’s generally Penny’s — “a little bitsy thing; I can carry it in my hand and you can’t see it,” she said. The other is a .38-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver with a two-inch barrel, a bigger gun that’s generally David’s.

David and Penny said they carry concealed not so much for burglars, however, but because of the nature of their jobs. Penny is a real estate agent, and David is a licensed private investigator and an independent insurance adjuster.

“So, the type of assignments that I have, which would include sometimes surveillance, can be a little dangerous if someone is thinking you’re stalking them and they’re the kind of person that you don’t want to meet on the street,” said David. “If I have an assignment and I know I’m going to go into Southern Humboldt to some rural location and investigate some matter, that’s when I would want to carry. Particularly during marijuana time. If I’m going to the city of Eureka and investigating, I don’t bother with it, that’s not an issue.”

Penny said she hasn’t carried her gun in years, actually. These days she’s mostly in town, working with people she knows. But she keeps her CCW permit renewed and may carry still on rural trips by herself.

“Because I’ve always remembered a gal who was driving a bright red car,” she said. “They found her car on 299, and they have never found her. That’s why I decided to get a concealed weapon. Something happened to her car, and whoever stopped to help her certainly did not.”

 

 

On a recent afternoon at Ron and Donna Queen’s real estate office on Main Street in Fortuna, Donna was dabbing a soft sage-colored paint onto one of the walls — they’re sprucing the old place up and converting the walls into gallery space. Her husband, Ron, was fielding calls from clients. Donna went to clean the brushes, and Ron gave a quick tour into another room to show where they plan to hang some of their photographs, including ones of sea creatures taken while scuba diving off La Paz and Cozumel. “We go to Mexico every year,” said Ron.

Ron and Donna Queen are Republicans. They’re voting for McCain. Ron, 59, has lived in Humboldt County for 35 years, and Donna, 50, for 17 years. Ron moved to Humboldt after he graduated from Cal Poly-San Luis Obispo. Donna moved up here from San Diego. Donna’s had her CCW permit for about 15 years, and Ron’s had his 26 years. Donna’s license is for a revolver, and Ron’s for a revolver and a semi-automatic. Ron has a son who has a CCW permit, but he didn’t want to be interviewed.

Ron, not very tall, blue-eyed and with short white hair, was wearing jeans cinched by a belt with a massive oval belt buckle that said “Champion” on it. Years ago he trained horses for a living, and he had one special quarter horse that won the High Point All Around Horse. Donna, tall, blonde and hazel-eyed, also wore jeans and a crisp white blouse.

Both grew up around guns. Ron spent his early years in Illinois, then later lived in Bakersfield. His dad trained bird dogs and kept the hunting rifles in Ron’s closet. “When I was 5 years old I had a BB gun and a dog,” said Ron. “We lived out in the country. That’s all I had to play with.”

Donna’s dad also hunted. “I was going out with him since I was 10 or 11,” she said. “My kids grew up with guns, too. My son has ’em. He hunts. Our grandkids are learning how to shoot. So, it’s a family tradition.”

“In order for a gun to hurt somebody, somebody has to pull the trigger,” Ron said suddenly, sensing a possible argument. “Guns aren’t dangerous. People are.”

Ron used to take his Smith & Wesson .38-caliber horsepacking: “Something big enough to stop something big.”

These days he and Donna don’t hunt much. “We stalk animals to photograph them, now,” said Donna.

But they still want to be able to carry a concealed weapon to protect themselves against bad characters. They live in a rural area near Hydesville, where Ron said it could take the Sheriff’s department a long time to respond to a call for help.

“You drive in the driveway, you don’t know who’s going to be there,” he said. “My parents have been robbed. One of my college roommates came home to a guy in the house; he lived in a rural area.”

And sometimes their work takes them into sketchy places.

“One guy I met, he told me to put my camera away,” said Donna. “I was meeting him to refinance his house, and I was told not to take my camera out till we got to his house.”

“I got caught between growers and a CAMP raid one time,” said Ron. “We had a client that had foreclosed on a 40-acre piece out in the Alderpoint area. And we were out wandering around, and a bunch of helicopters come in with CAMP, and we get back out on the road and there were guys checking our vehicle out. They had assault rifles, and they were not police. We got the hell out of there.”

Ron also has had trouble in town. He’s been representing the people trying to sell a church on Wabash in Eureka that was in the headlines earlier this year when a group called “Redwood Teen Challenge” wanted to house recovering adult addicts in it. That fell through; now the building’s in escrow again and still sits vacant.

“One time I walked in there and there were people ripping wires out of the wall,” Ron said. “I didn’t know who they were. I thought they were somebody from the church cleaning, and I had no idea they had broken in. … And there’s a guy running through the hallways upstairs carrying a bunch of wire. I was quoted in the newspaper as saying, ‘I don’t show up there without a gun anymore.'”

Ron said he and Donna also drive Highway 36 to Oroville frequently to visit his parents.

“I’ve seen some scary things out there on Highway 36,” said Ron. “I remember years ago there was a lady, on a Sunday morning, walking down the highway in a short skirt trying to hitchhike. It was like, ‘What the hell are you doing out here?’ You never know if somebody’s going to jump out of the bushes if you pull over to help somebody. That was the first thing that came to my mind.”

 

 

One evening last week, as sun approached ocean beyond Clam Beach, Stephanie and Craig Casey sat on the back porch of their home in McKinleyville. Cats, theirs and assorted strays, sauntered in and out of the yard. One crept close to where they sat then stopped, frozen, staring up into the jungly overgrowth of the neighbor’s yard where some apple trees slowly drowned in blackberry vines: A rat was scurrying along a treelimb amid the apples.

The Caseys, both Republicans, are pretty much immersed in guns. Craig, 47, who was born in Arcata and grew up in McKinleyville, owns Craig Casey Gunsmithing. Mostly he just sells guns now, but he used to work on them, too, until he went to work full-time at Schmidbauer Lumber. Stephanie, 51, who works at Coast Central Credit Union, was born in Yuba City, and her family moved to Humboldt when she was a child.

“There were always guns in the house,” said Stephanie. “We were taught as kids, every gun was loaded and not to touch it. And we abided by that. My dad hunted, he hunted pheasants, ducks and deer.”

She’s hunted most of her life, too. As has Craig. When they started dating in 1993, though, neither knew the other was into guns.

“She asked me, ‘Do you like to hunt?'” recalled Craig. He said he worried she might not like his answer, but went for it anyway. “I said, ‘Yes.’ And she said, ‘Oh good! So do I.'”

But aside from Craig’s gun business, which finds him making big bank deposits sometimes, the main reason the Caseys carry is to protect the valuables associated with their big hobby: cowboy action shooting, where they dress in 1860s-1900s attire and blast away with era-specific guns. “And for each stage, or scenario, you have two pistols, a rifle and a shotgun that you shoot,” said Stephanie.

“With our cowboy competitions, we probably shoot more than 99 percent of the people across the country do,” said Craig. “This year, we probably shot over 10,000 rounds between the two of us.”

That means, at these competitions and gun shows, they’re often carrying around in their car thousands of dollars worth of guns and ammunition, which some savvy crook might figure out and try to get his mitts on.

Neither Craig nor Stephanie carry their guns to their day jobs, of course. But Craig said he’d like to see a more expansive and streamlined permit system. A federal permit would be nice, so you don’t have to always be checking what this or that state’s carry laws are. He also said California’s three-gun-per-permit limit is silly — especially for people like them, with lots of guns. He chafes at the ban on bringing guns near school campuses, too — what’s a guy who regularly carries supposed to do when he goes to pick up his kid?

They’re voting McCain. “If Obama gets in there, he’s going to sign away our rights,” said Stephanie.

 

 

And now we come to Al Koog. Koog, 79, lives in McKinleyville, and he’s one of the half dozen or so trainers in Humboldt certified to train CCW permit applicants and assess their shooting skills. He’s been doing it since 1994. He also has a CCW permit, of course.

Koog is a retired assistant fire chief from the City of Oxnard. He moved to Humboldt in 1981, although he’d been coming up here since the 1960s. He grew up on a ranch in Texas, shooting pesky tree squirrels that liked to get into the attic and tear things up; rattlesnakes that sneaked into the basement where the food was stored and scared the bejeezus out of everybody; and birds and other critters that became “basically part of the table supplement for surviving in those days,” as he put it in a phone interview last week.

He’s had a gun since he was a small child. That first one was a single-shot 22 with the stock sawed off to fit him.

“My grandad set me up for it when I was about almost 6,” Koog said. “I was just getting ready to start school.”

Koog figures he needs to have a CCW permit so he can show his trainees what one looks like. Plus, it doesn’t hurt to be prepared for surprises.

“Where we live, you can step out the door and there’s a bear standing there, or a rabid fox,” he said. “Or you go down to open your gate to leave your property and there’s a mountain lion come strolling down to visit with you. And then there are all kinds of people that roam the areas with packs on their back and they camp all over the place and you never know whether one’s on your property or not. And then there’s the marijuana folk, and they wander around in the rural areas.”

Koog said the first thing you do — and he makes this point very clear in his classes — is try to back out of a tricky situation. Give the rattlesnake some room, if you can.

“I teach along the lines of, a person should use every method of avoiding any situation that they can, if they have to go on a dead run,” Koog said. “There’s nothing macho about having a gun.”

Most of all, he preaches awareness.

“Most people walk around in, I call it a daze,” Koog said. “They lack the knowledge of what’s around them. Say you walk out in the morning to get the paper, and there are mud tracks along the edge of the road. Supposing it’s ‘just a doe’ — that was scared out of the woods and ran down toward your clear area, trying to escape what is behind them. And there stands some unarmed human, upright, and they don’t get out of the way — it’s going to run over you. Follow me? So, you can get run over by a rabbit that’s running from something.”

Koog likes to train women, especially — the gun, he said, is the best equalizer between a small woman and a large adversary. But he warns “the younger ladies” about talking too much.

“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.”

Koog — who’s a Republican, and who’s happy Sarah Palin has come along — is proud of his new hobby. “I’m passing on something, that people may use down the way, before I take a dirt nap,” he said.

 

 

In the NRA publication the Caseys get, Stephanie said, there are usually some personal accounts of people who ended up in situations where their concealed weapons saved their or some other victim’s life.

Interestingly, it turns out that none of the people we picked to interview have ever had to pull their gun on an attacker. And, actually, none of them had ever been attacked, by animal or human, prior to getting their permit either.

But each said they’d willingly use their gun to save themselves or someone else. Which brings us back to what distinguishes the gun-packing folks from the non-gun-packing ones. At some point, the CCWers had to come to the sharp realization that there may come a time when they actually pull out that gun and kill someone.

“I’d do it in a heartbeat,” is how one guy put it. Mary McCay — who has had a CCW permit for 10 years, and whose late husband, E. Dale McCay, was in the gun-selling and training business with Al Koog — put it another way: “Well, I’m 88 years old, and I don’t play games.”

So don’t mess with these people.

Heidi Walters worked as a staff writer at the North Coast Journal from 2005 to 2015.

Join the Conversation

257 Comments

  1. "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. 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. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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?

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

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

  17. 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…

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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?!?!

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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..

  26. 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.

  27. 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?

  28. 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.

  29. 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.

  30. 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?

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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.

  34. 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.

  35. 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.

  36. 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.

  37. 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.

  38. 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.

  39. 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.

  40. 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?

  41. 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.

  42. 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.

  43. 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.

  44. 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 shi
    ier writers if they even should be called a writer

  45. 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.

  46. 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.

  47. 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.

  48. 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…

  49. 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.

  50. 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.

  51. 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.

  52. 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.

  53. 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

  54. 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.

  55. 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.

  56. 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.

  57. 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.

  58. 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?

  59. 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.

  60. 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.

  61. 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.

  62. 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.

  63. 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.

  64. 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.

  65. 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!

  66. 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.

  67. 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.

  68. 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.

  69. 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! 🙂

  70. 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.

  71. 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.

  72. 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.

  73. 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.

  74. "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!!

  75. 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".

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

  77. 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.

  78. 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.

  79. 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.

  80. 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.

  81. 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?

  82. 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.

  83. 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.

  84. 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……

  85. 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.

  86. 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.

  87. 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.

  88. 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.

  89. 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.

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

  91. 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.

  92. 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".

  93. 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!!!!!

  94. 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.

  95. 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.

  96. 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.

  97. 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!

  98. 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?

  99. 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???

  100. 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.

  101. 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.

  102. 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?

  103. 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.

  104. 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.

    🙂

  105. 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.

  106. 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

  107. 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 waffen SS trooper could publicly pack any kind of sidearm they wished.

    No matter what that moron Jonah Goldberg thinks It wasn’t incense and peppermint sticks that those stormtroopers were holding when they herded the Jews onto the box cars.

    Contrary to what some people on this have implied No I have not lived a sheltered life.
    I’ve lived in tough and poor neighborhoods where as a white person I was a definite racial minority.

    Unlike almost every one in the article. I actually have been in a few scrapes,

    been knocked flat on my back in the middle of a busy street when I was sucker punched By a crazy homeless person .
    Had bottles flung at my head(one just missed) from a moving car.
    And had a loaded weapon pointed at me by an angry drunk man.

    I’m happy to say that I’ve broken up quite a few more fights than I have been involved in.

    Occasionally had my property stolen or vandalized, like everyone else.

    I got through those situations physically ok and they hasn’t t caused me to regard all my fellow humans with hate and suspicion.

    That hasn’t caused me to go through life in a state of semi-panic. I know I can defend myself if I have to and had to use a gun I would. But I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about it.

    I don’t have any pretentious of being exceptionally brave I just choose not to be constantly ruled by fear.

    There are No guarantees in life.
    If I dwelt on all the bad things that could hypothetically happen to me in a given day. I’d never be able to get out of bed in the morning.

    I’m sorry some of you have such a bleak view of the world.

    Go ahead and sue.

    I predict that this lawsuit would get laughed out of court in ten minutes.

    Even these numb skull Humboldt County judges won’t buy it.

    No addresses were printed. So I can’t see why. people are getting so nutted up about?

    Case closed

    If you want to keep guns at home that’s your own business. Almost everyone I know does.

    If you choose to carry a firearm in public. Tt’s public information

    Its not the guns I object to ,It’s the sneaking around with them.

    If people want to pack think it should be just like old Dodge City people should just pack their weapons in the open.

  108. Does anyone else find it amusing, and somewhat hypocritical, that the person calling everyone else ‘afraid’ because their names have been listed as CCW holders is posting under a screen name to hide his identity?

    As for the article, it had nothing to do with ‘public information’ or ‘safety’.
    It was all about trying to dissuade people from applying for or using a CCW permit by means of an oblique threat.
    "Go ahead, get a permit, we’ll tell everyone you have it and make your life more difficult and dangerous."
    It’s not journalism, it’s a petty attempt at social engineering while cowardly hiding behind the claim of ‘public good’.

    BTW, yes I appreciate the irony of posting under a screen name to excoriate someone for the same thing.
    However there are a couple of significant differences.
    1) I am not calling people chicken for not wanting their identity revealed.
    2) My information is so readily available on the website linked that it’s not even an effort to see who I am.
    Kestryll, Paul, Owner/Adminstrator of Calguns.net the largest California Firearms Forum on the net.

  109. Is there a law in CA that addresses "brandishing" a firearm? If so, then CCW permit holders are duty bound to keep their weapons concealed, and out of sight of the general public.

    Essentially, this article "brandished" all their firearms.

    Why would you care if your law abiding neighbor carried a handgun? I’d be more concerned about the driving records of my neighbors, or, if they drinks too much. How about the sex offenders that reside in your area?

    Legal gun owners are an historically reliable and responsible group. Concealed carry license holders tend to be even more conscientious about their weapon and their responsibility to the general public.

  110. And remember folks…

    "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."

  111. Because California is a “may issue” state, and several sheriffs and police chiefs arbitrarily issue to celebrities and campaign donors, we need the Public Records Act in order to identify these people; simply to point out these corrupt chiefs and sheriff do not respect the right of law-abiding residents to protect themselves and their family.

    However, I don’t agree with the local papers printing the names of those CCW permit holders

  112. Lets just say there is a female on that list, who has an abusive boyfriend or ex-husband that has threatened her – she has a restraining order but that doesn’t seem to deter the gentleman. She obtains a CCW permit because she is genuinely afraid for her life.

    Because of your "responsible reporting" her would-be attacker now knows she potentially might have a gun to protect herself. sort of defeats the purpose of concealed. And you dissenters say it’s her problem since she chooses to conceal – she deserves for the guy she is afraid of to know- she carries a gun to protect herself so she should face the consequences – with neighbors like you who needs enemies. Your paper has just further endangered her life.

  113. I find it interesting those anti-gun, anti-ccw folks love to aruge the “fear factor”. They constantly state, “why do you need a gun, are you living in fear”? I find it amusing these same people have car and home insurance policies. I value my life and families life that I choose to protect it with a CCW. It’s my insurance policy.

  114. Jad0110, I completely agree that awareness of your surroundings is an excellent way to protect your safety. And trying to avoid being conspicuous in unfamiliar/uneasy situations is important. I’d also add that attitude, not being thin skinned or assuming the worst is very important too to prevent overreacting.

    But theres a big difference between the need police may have to openly carry guns and a citizen carrying a concealed gun. Police are directed to and respond to situations that already have the potential of physical confrontation. Police are obliged to "take charge" and "be in control" of situations and that makes them the object of reactions. Finally, police have authority to arrest and jail and bring immediate legal complaints. Fear of arrest can easily cause people to "act out" against the police in a way they wouldn’t to anyone else. Finally, police carry guns openly, in part to have them available but mostly to serve as a deterrant by reminding everyone they may use them. A concealed weapon isn’t a deterrant, in fact it is likely to escalate a situation when it is brandished.

  115. "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."

    Robash141…

    Police officers around the county and around the world are armed and clearly identified yet they too can be victims of criminals. They are criminals because they don’t obey the laws. Knowing that someone is armed is not enough to stop some people, the element of surprise can save lives. I was a Boy Scout and I live by the motto "Be Prepared." For what you may ask? Anything. I own a gun but am unable to get a CCW, but if I my name was listed in this article I would share the same outrage as many others. Why should the names of people who have decided to be aware of the world we live in be made public? This article could have been written without names and would have conveyed the same anti-gun mentality that it does.

  116. Thank God my local paper doesn’t have an overly nosy moron like the author of this article on their staff. I pray that the author has not just painted a giant bullseye on the back of everyone on this list but I fear that is exactly what has been done. It was not only inappropriate but grossly irresponsible to print such a list. By revealing these people as carriers of firearms you have made yourself fully responsible for any harm that may befall them as a result of your petty excuse for journalism.

  117. Yes, I carry a concealed weapon. Yes, I have pulled it. No, I have never shot it at anybody. At first, this article and it’s shock-jock mentality bothered me, but then I understood that the Journal had done me a favor. So now I wish to say thank you North Coast Journal. Thank you for showing all of Humboldt County just how many men and women there are here who actually choose to exercise their rights. Thank you for showing all of the county that we are NOT surrounded by sheeple, but by citizens willing and able to protect themselves. Not only are they ready to protect themselves, but also those people too afraid to take a stand for their own lives or the lives of their family or neighbors. So again, thank you North Coast Journal, and thank you to all of you whose names appeared on the front cover with mine. I’m in good company.

    As for The North Coast Journal printing our names without our consent (I was never asked for permission to have my name published), perhaps we should all charge royalties… BTW NCJ, we are required to carry concealed so that nobody knows we are carrying (it’s the law). You kinda blew the intent of the law, don’t you think? Or perhaps the staff of your esteemed paper would like to help us change the law to allow open carry in all locals. Then you wouldn’t need to waste your time and ink publishing our names, you could just see whom is armed.

  118. Heidi Walters the unintended consequences of your actions could cause serious safety issues for many of these people. Unintended Consequences.

  119. Yes I thought it was hilarious that robash141 was lecturing us about being angry with publishing names of CCW holders….yet he/she doesn’t even post his/her real name!!??

    Unbelievable!!

    Robash141: History is replete with dictators disarming the general population. There are so many examples that I simply cannot believe how you try to shuck and jive your way around this basic, IRREFUTABLE, fact.

    I too grew up in a poor area with alot of crime and violence. So, what’s the point?

    How I grew up doesn’t make it any more justifiable for me to own a firearm than one who hasn’t grown up or lived in dangerous ares. It is an argument without a point. It’s silly and childish. It’s the kind of thing a tyrant would do.

    You know, like painting the star of David on all shops owned by Jewish people back in WWII era Germany.

    Publishing someone’s name, who has a CCW, is a classic way to intimidate and ostracize.

    It is a dangerous practice and in violation of many State laws. Apparently it’s ok in California. It shouldn’t be.

  120. For what it’s worth, I don’t make much of an effort to conceal my identity.

    As I stated before I’m not against people owning guns for home defense,hunting or sport shooting or even carrying weapons in public as long as the person carrying is doing so in a responsible manner.

    I agree with you about 95% of the stuff, but apparently that’s not good enough
    Either I’m 100% in line with them or I’m a proto-fascist gun grabber. No middle ground.

    I just fail to see what all of the hysteria is about.

    All this overblown overwrought sense of grievance the bullying manner and willingness to imply threats by some people on this thread demonstrate to me that they might not really be the kind of person who should be allowed to carry a loaded weapon in public

  121. Robash, your problem is that you don’t trust YOURSELF with a gun, and you are projecting your distrust of your ability to responsibly own and carry a gun onto the rest of society. You believe those who have CCW licenses are paranoid, but you only put your own paranoia about other citizens being armed on display by stating so. Until criminals send out courtesy notices stating their intentions in advance, no one can ever know when, where, how, or to what level of severity they may suddenly find themselves in a situation where their lives are instantly on the line. There are the bigger, more famous situations such as Columbine, Virginia Tech and the McDonalds massacre at San Ysidro, CA., but those are only sensationalized incidents fueled by the media who wrongly gives the perps 15 minutes of fame by printing their names and giving them attention they could never have achieved on their own. When something like Columbine occurs, the names, faces and information about the shooters should be deliberately omitted all the way to the grave. Those people have not EARNED public recognition. Those people should ONLY be referred to as "The low-life" or "The person of no redeeming social value." These deranged sociopaths wouldn’t do these things if they were captured, sentenced to death and buried in an unmarked grave with absolutely NO mention of who they were, where they were from, or anything else, as should be the case. Each and every day, ordinary people are faced with direct threats to their lives. Someone drawing cash from an ATM. The woman in the Lexus who has her driver’s window smashed out while waiting at a red light, to be pulled from her car and raped. The waitress who leaves after the closing shift with her tips in her purse, to be stabbed and left for dead over a matter of $40.00 in cash. The guy who takes his family to the movies, only to encounter some junkie with a knife, a club or GUN in the parking lot looking for money at any price to feed his addiction. You ALSO ignore the millions of DGUs that occur every year. Those are Defensive Gun Use incidents, where someone who WAS armed neutralizes the threat by drawing his defense weapon. Not a shot is fired in most DGUs, but of course, the NCJ doesn’t publish DGUs because they are almost never reported. It is part of that personal accountability held by gun owners. We don’t go running to the authorities every time we have a confrontation. You say you don’t see the "need" for someone to carry a gun. I pray you are never "street educated" to the need.

  122. When my son was in a traffic accident at the age of 19 law enforcement would not let me have a copy of the report so that I could give it to his insurance company while he was in the hospital because he was no longer a minor. I find it sad that law enforcemnt does however think that it is O.K. to give out the names of ordinary ciizens and also government employees who legally carry a firearm concealed. By the way my point earlier was that a tyrant takes guns away from his subjects but of course he keeps his own private army of soldiers who are fearful of him to the point of protecting him well armed.

  123. This is one of the most irresponsible articles I have ever heard of! Would you have pointed out Jews to the Nazi’s during WWII? The "publics right to know" is not as important as a persons right to privacy. You should be ashamed.

  124. In light of her obvious and willful violation of the North Coast Journal Weekly’s Privacy Policy (shown below), I recommend that Heidi Walters be terminated immediately.

    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.

    Source: http://www.northcoastjournal.com/about/

  125. It wasn’t that long ago that everyone grew up in a house where guns were present – and knew not only how to handle them but how to act responsibly. Kids could take shotguns to school, leave them in the coatroom and go duckhunting after school, you could carry one on your lap in an airplane. If you had a pistol in your car you would put it in the glove box, so that it wouldn’t roll around or get stolen. Rifles could go under the seat.

    Times have changed and ever more restrictive rules have been put in place. More people live "in town" and get their food from Safeway, and no longer own guns – with that has come FEAR on the part of the NON-GUN OWNERS, robash.

    Gun owners have complied with the new rules. Owning a gun is legal. A concealed weapons permit is HYPER-LEGAL. It means they have taken the time and trouble to get certified and registered.

    Were it not for the rules, they would not have had to do this. Never had to in the past.

    In fact, you have just slammed the most law-abiding among us.

    I add my voice to this stream of voices saying – printing the names of these people was flat out wrong. It can’t be taken back. There is no excuse.

  126. Publishing the names of people who have concealed carry permits is really ignorant on the part of the paper. What happened to common sense here??? You do understand this sort of lack of discretion is EXACTLY why reporters and newspapers have lost the faith and trust of the average American citizen and with law enforcement officials across the country? And you probably published the information FULLY KNOWING that it would be detrimental to at least SOME of the people on the list. And now, when your paper and reporter gets sued to the maximum, you’ll whine about frivolous lawsuits from your perspective of having been RIGHTLY sued and lost EVERYTHING you owned. Serves you right.

  127. Robash you’ve articulated a reasonable position. But its just ignored as naive and unrealistic. The idea that for a typical person, carrying a gun while in public isn’t necessary and won’t make them safer, is just unfathomable to those who believe unseen extreme dangers are everywhere around them.

    Some people are just especially fearful and anxious. It causes them stress. For a few, carrying a gun eases that stress. Others carry a rabbit’s foot or good luck charms. I don’t really care, but it is nice to know who the paranoids among us are.

  128. There’re some problems with your logic Not a Native –

    First of all, we’re only talking about Concealed Weapons permits, not registered and unregistered numbers, people who own for protection or hunters, and people who don’t carry and/or carry without a permit.

    In addition you seem to be hi-balling and lo-balling your population numbers to come up with a number you like. You also have to go with the last full yr’s numbers on the CWPs, not the yr to date number.

    If you adjust for current populations and the most recent yr data, look at the approximate number of HOUSEHOLDS (about 51,000) v. number of permits (1.031) Not such an insignificant number.

    Maybe what we ought to be printing is the names of PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT ALLOWED TO OWN, CARRY, OR EVEN TOUCH weapons, those who have been convicted of crimes. For some reason, you understand that THAT would be a violation of privacy. Why is printing the names of people who haven’t done anything wrong ok?

  129. My God woman. I can’t believe that anyone would be stupid enough to even think about publishing a list of CCW permit holders. Pretty soon, only the criminals will be able to protect themselves. No… that isn’t right. The criminals will have all the fake liberals doing it for them.

    Give me a break. I would love to see all the CCW owners listed join in a class action law suit against the paper and the Sheriff. Shame on you

  130. Rose, this has little to do with gun ownership, only with people who have CCW permits. Many more people possess guns but don’t find a need to be able carry them around. Its pure speculation to guess the number of people who carry unpermitted concealed guns, but even you would find doing that indicates a "lawbreaking" state of mind and presumably you disapprove of people doing that.

    Households have nothing to do with it. It’s individuals carrying guns outside their homes, not inside households. In fact, as the article points out, several people in a household often have a permit. So there are actually fewer households with permitted residents than the total number of permits, contrary to what you claim.

    And the number of outstanding permits, as of this August is 652. That’s not an issuance rate, that’s the actual total number of permits that are valid now. So my calcuations are correct, 0.6% have a permit and 99.4% don’t.

    As the article points out, the number of permits has fluctuated, its down from a 2003 peak. I’d guess older people with permits are dying off, hopefully not as a result of gun related violence.

    Finally, the voter registration roll is public information, including party registration, address, and record of ballots cast. The party affiliation of individuals is often aired in the media. In fact, this article says many permit holders are Republicans. Do you find airing voter information unacceptable and would you want that concealed too?

  131. That’s awful goddam shortsighted to say it doesn’t have to do with gun ownership. It has everything to do with it. A certain percentage of those who own guns get a legal permit so that they can put the gun in their glove box or under the seat, or in rare cases carry one in a purse or holster.

    You can’t go on the year to date apps, permits are good for 2 years, I think.

  132. The people responsible for publishing this list of names should be strung up by their toes in the Arcata square, and left to hang around for a few days to think about what they have done. Honestly there must be about 2 brain cells left in the doped out minds of the communist scum that thought that publishing a list of gun owners would be a swell idea. Look for more firearms being stolen now and in the hands of the criminal, courtesy of the North Coast Journal.

  133. "this has little to do with gun ownership, only with people who have CCW permits. Many more people possess guns but don’t find a need to be able carry them around."

    It’s not that we don’t find we have a need… it’s that in CA the CCW issuance policy is completely up to the city Police Chief or Sheriff. This creates a good ‘ol boys network. Humboldt County is lucky to have a Sheriff who issues on a fair basis compared to Sheriffs in Sacramento County, Los Angeles County, San Diego County, Sonoma County, Marin County… etc. Unless you personally know the issuing officer or make regular campaign contributions, it is next to impossible to get a CCW from the above counties.

    Look at the number of CCW holders in the 40 other states who have a fair across the board Shall Issue policy (i.e. as long as you are not a person in the prohibited category) you’ll see a higher rate of CCW permit holders.

  134. Rose, Its not about gun ownership because you can own a gun, or many guns without having to get a CCW permit and being on the public record. Its more like needing a special permit if you want to run a day care facility while you can take care of your own kids, no matter how many you have, without any permits.

    Read the article closely. Those numbers aren’t "year to date applications", they’re the total number of permits in effect countywide. Apparently it’s fewer people than you expect based on what you believe about the average person, sorry about that. Maybe you’re out of touch with the sentiments of 99.4% of the county’s adults.

    But ss the article implies, its certain that a much greater percentage of Republicans have permits. Perhaps you’ve generalized the ideas of those folks, and figured that most non-Republicans pretty much feel the same way about needing a CCW permit. Well, they don’t.

    Only 652 people in Humboldt have decided they now need to legally carry a concealed gun, and the trend is down. Maybe in the future more will apply than those letting it lapse. But until that happens, 652 is the total.

  135. Finally, the voter registration roll is public information, including party registration, address, and record of ballots cast. The party affiliation of individuals is often aired in the media. In fact, this article says many permit holders are Republicans. Do you find airing voter information unacceptable and would you want that concealed too?

    Did I say anything about the Republican slant, Not A Native?

  136. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

    It’s an individual right to own weapons. The job of the militia was to provide security in national, state and local affairs. That required members to be able to move about with their weapons. At that time, there was no taboo about being armed in public. I am a Humboldt native, guns used to be normal here. We had gunsmithing class at highschool. Over the years the demographics have changed, I feel for the worse.

    We have a right to own guns and the legal ability to have them in public. I choose to exercise my right, just as I vote and call members of Congress. Some may not like it. I don’t care, I won’t quit.

    When you read the 2nd Amendment, one thing is clear; the People have the right to guns for defense, that’s what the Militia did.

    Perhaps a few quotes from the Founding Fathers are in order:

    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and the keystone under independence… When firearms go, all goes- we need them every hour."
    -George Washington, addressing the first session of Congress

    "He who willingly surrenders rights for percieved security deserves neither rights nor security"
    -Benjamin Franklin

    And the court:

    "To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege."
    -The Supreme Court, 1878

    The argument has been made here that this is not a debate about gun ownership. It IS, however, very much an argument about being able to actually use a gun for self defense ANYWHERE it may be needed. There are evil people in the world, and I usually don’t meet them in my home. I keep better company than that. If I can’t carry a gun in public, then I can’t defend myself by arms (my unquestioned right according to the Supreme Court and the Founding Fathers) while in public.

    Guns have also been considered the last line of defense against overbearing government:

    "This country, with it’s institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise the Constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."
    -Abraham Lincoln

    There is, to me, every reason to carry guns, and no good reason not to.

    As for Not A Native and Robash 141, they have their opinion. I disagree strongly with them. I’d much rather have a gun I don’t need, than need a gun I don’t have. An armed society is a polite society, don’t tread on me.

  137. "Do you find airing voter information unacceptable and would you want that concealed too?"

    Yes. How I vote is none of your business. Neither is what I’m packing.

    Mind your own.

  138. Gee whiz I got my name printed in the paper (in the blue print below the trigger guard) without even being intervied. They even listed my profession – Government worker. Now I guess that I have to carry more extra magazines for my concealed weapon (caliber 7.62X25mm Tokarev – amongst others), due to the unwanted publicity!! Thanks NCJ…

    Craig Casey is my long time gunsmith, and Al Koog has done all of my CCW license renewal training. Al Koog holds my range time qualifications to a higher firearm standards, due to my also having had U.S. Marine Corps weapons training. I also have read the California Penal Code section 197 – concerning the justifed use of deadly force.

    The article alleges that no CCW license holder has ever had to use their firearm, Wrong!! I have a CCW and caught a person breaking into a vehicle parked inside a building. I had them at gunpoint until the Sheriff’s Office Deputy took the person into custody. I never fired a single round during the incident. The County D.A.’s office never attempted to proscuted the person, after I tried many times to press charges… The person’s name never even made it to the "On The Record" section of the Times-Standard, due to lack of never going to court.

  139. "it is nice to know who the paranoids among us are. "

    You have to be kidding!

    Many of these people have very good reasons for carrying weapons.

    Many of the people (like you) who don’t think it’s necessary just haven’t needed it yet.

    True, you may never need a weapon to defend yourself or a loved one. But it only takes one time that you need it and don’t have it to ruin your life forever.

    I don’t see why the anti-gun crowd thinks they have a right to judge those of us with a need/responsibility to defend ourselves or our loved ones.

    Can you even see the ground from up there on your high horse?

  140. Rose, My point was that the NCJ may have cross-checked the names of the CCW permit holders with the elections office records, they’re both public. So I asked if you feel publicizing voter info is an offense against privacy rights. Well, do you?

    More likely though, Heidi recognized some names whose party affiliation is known from other sources. Anyway, I’m not bringing up a "Republican slant" any more than the article did. Other than to point out that CCW holders may not be typical of the general gun owning population(who I assume are politically distributed identically to the entire county population). Do you think there is a "Republican slant" to this article?

  141. I believe someone posted this earlier, but for those of you that haven’t seen it check out the video at the link below.
    We’ve been down this road in VA with the Roanoke Times. I’m not sure if the law has been changed at this time, but after the Roanoke Times stunt the VA Attorney General directed the VA State Police to no longer release info on CHP holders to the public. If it hasn’t become law in VA yet, I’m sure it will be tackled in the state legislature soon.
    The North Coast Journal hack that wrote this article is just copying what others have already done-guess that’s easier than coming up with an original idea…

    UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

    CNN Piece on VCDL and Roanoke Times Exposing VA CHP Data
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kUIPRFgRE8

    Also an interesting video?
    VCDL Open Carry Nightline Story
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIjrv5DDs_I&feature=related

  142. I watched the CNN article about the Virginia CCW List Where VA is they put on the internet was that it also had the addresses to along with the names.

    In that case That was an invasion of privacy. Which I’ll deplore

    Whereas the Journal only had the names. They did not print the addresses.

    I believe the names without the address should be part of the public record .
    Again, If you choose to carry a firearm in public. It is not I repeat your own private business.

    And to that guy who said I didn’t trust myself with a gun. That must be why I repeatedly qualified expert marksman when I was in the Army.
    Not only have I successfully defended myself, I’ve successfully defended Joe Jones as well.

    Joe sounds like he learned everything he needs to know about the world from watching the Nancy Grace Show

  143. Three things non-gun people should know about CCW holders

    Thanks to Serenity at 1911Fourum.com for these thoughtful comments:

    1. We don’t carry firearms so that we can ignore other basics of personal safety. Every permit holder that I know realizes that almost all dangerous situations can be avoided by vigilance, alertness and by simply making wise choices about where one goes and what one does. We don’t walk down dark alleys. We lock our cars. We don’t get intoxicated in public or hang out around people who do. We park our cars in well lighted spots and don’t hang out in bad parts of town where we have no business. A gun is our last resort, not our first.
    2. We don’t think we are cops, spies, or superheroes. We aren’t hoping that somebody tries to rob the convenience store while we are there so we can shoot a criminal. We don’t take it upon ourselves to get involved in situations that are better handled by a 911 call or by simply standing by and being a good witness. We don’t believe our guns give us any authority over our fellow citizens. We also aren’t here to be your unpaid volunteer bodyguard. We’ll be glad to tell you where we trained and point you to some good gun shops if you feel you want to take this kind of responsibility for your personal safety. Except for extraordinary circumstances your business is your business, don’t expect us to help you out of situations you could
      have avoided.

    3. We are LESS likely, not more likely, to be involved in fights or "rage" incidents than the general public. We recognize, better than many unarmed citizens, that we are responsible for our actions. We take the responsibility of carrying a firearm very seriously. We know that loss of temper, getting into fights or angrily confronting someone after a traffic incident could easily escalate into a dangerous situation. We are more likely to go out of our way to avoid these situations. We don’t pull our guns to settle arguments or to attempt to threaten people into doing what we want.
  144. Seems like "Not A Native and Robash 141" are the only two on here that have anything that comes close to common ratinal sense. The rest of you, which evidentally you do not even see how ridicululous your statements are have gone into a wild mob mentalitiy and you have guns with ccw! This is very unreal and scary! You all, outrageous gun nuts are the problem, not the cure. Your extreme fear is freightening.

  145. Four more things non-gun people should know about CCW holders

    Thanks to Serenity at 1911Fourum.com for these thoughtful comments:

    1. We are responsible gun owners. We secure our firearms so that children and other unauthorized people cannot access them. Most of us have invested in safes, cases and lock boxes as well as other security measures to keep our firearms secure. Many of us belong to various organizations that promote firearms safety and ownership.
    2. Guns are not unsafe or unpredictable. Modern firearms are well made precision instruments. Pieces do not simply break off causing them to fire. A hot day will not set them off. Most modern firearms will not discharge even if dropped. There is no reason to be afraid of a gun simply lying on a table or in a holster. It is not going to discharge on its own.
    3. We do not believe in the concept of "accidental discharges". There are no accidental discharges only negligent discharges or intentional discharges. We take responsibility for our actions and have learned how to safely handle firearms. Any case you have ever heard of about a gun "going off" was the result of negligence on somebody’s part. Our recognition of our responsibility and familiarity with firearms makes us among the safest firearms owners in America.
    4. Permit holders do their best to keep our concealed weapons exactly that: concealed. However, there are times when an observant fellow citizen may spot our firearm or the print of our firearm under our clothes. We are very cognizant that concerns about terrorism and crime are in the forefront of the minds of most citizens. We also realize that our society does much to condition our fellow citizens to have sometimes irrational fears about firearms. We would encourage citizens who do happen to spot someone carrying a firearm to use good judgment and clear thinking if they feel the need to take action. Please recognize that it’s very uncommon for a criminal to use a holster. However, if you feel the need to report having spotted a firearm we would ask that you please be specific and detailed in your call to the police or in your report to a store manager or private security. Please don’t generalize or sensationalize what you observed. Comments like "there’s a guy running around in the store with a gun" or even simply "I saw a man with a gun in the store" could possibly cause a misunderstanding as to the true nature of the incident.
  146. Four more things non-gun people should know about CCW holders

    Thanks to Serenity at 1911Fourum.com for these thoughtful comments:

    1. The fact that we carry a firearm to any given place does not mean that we believe that place to be inherently unsafe. If we believe a place to be unsafe, most of us would avoid that place all together if possible. However, we recognize that trouble could occur at any place and at any time. Criminals do not observe "gun free zones". If trouble does come, we do not want the only armed persons to be perpetrators. Therefore, we don’t usually make a determination about whether or not to carry at any given time based on "how safe" we think a location is.
    2. Concealed weapon permit holders are an asset to the public in times of trouble. The fact that most permit holders have the good judgment to stay out of situations better handled by a 911 call or by simply being a careful and vigilant witness does not mean that we would fail to act in situations where the use of deadly force is appropriate to save lives. Review of high profile public shooting incidents shows that when killers are confronted by armed resistance they tend to either break off the attack and flee or choose to end their own life. Lives are saved when resistance engages a violent criminal. Lives are lost when the criminal can do as he pleases.
    3. The fact that criminals know that some of the population may be armed at any given time helps to deter violence against all citizens. Permit holders don’t believe that every person should necessarily be armed. We recognize that some people may not be temperamentally suited to carry a firearm or simply may wish not to for personal reasons. However we do encourage you to respect our right to arm ourselves. Even if you choose not to carry a firearm yourself please oppose measures to limit the ability of law abiding citizens to be armed. As mentioned before: criminals do not observe "gun free zones". Help by not supporting laws that require citizens to be unarmed victims.
  147. I am a disabled veteran and I also have a CCW.

    Like all CCW holders, I am a firm advocate of the principle of avoidance of situations, which could lead to incidents of violence.

    Like all CCW holders, I am also a firm believer in effecting a prompt disengagement and calling the police to deal with the situation.

    Like all CCW holders, I believe in the use of the minimum effective level of force necessary to neutralize the attack.

    Like all CCW holders, I feel that the use of deadly force is and always should be the option of last resort.

    Like all CCW holders, I believe that I make every effort to follow the principle of avoiding potentially violent situations in my personal life.

    Like all CCW holders, I am well trained and work hard to keep my skills sharp and honed, while simultaneously praying I never need to employ these skills.

    The most profound effect my disability has had on me is in my ability to effectively disengage should I become targeted for violence. My ability to “Run Away” is compromised and I may be forced to stand my ground should my family or I become targeted for violence.

    The disabled are among the proudest and most productive members of society. They are also among the most vulnerable to being victimized. Their compromised ability to run away or defend themselves makes them easy targets for criminals.

    I have made the protection of myself and my loved ones my personal responsibility. I will not be a victim and I will do whatever I can, to ensure that those I care about do not become victims either.

    I am no different than any other law abiding citizen. We all have the right to self protection.

  148. Jim, how am I the problem? Can you even define what problem I am? I am not the reason for school violence, inner city shootings, rapes, murders, or anything of that nature. I’ve never done anything like that to anybody else. In fact, I’m in the business of saving lives and property. So I ask again, how am I the problem? I’ve never shot anybody, I’m just prepared to if (God forbid) I need to to protect my wife and/or children. BTW, I’d do my best protect yours too, if the situation required it.

  149. Legal – yes. A good idea – no way. Anyway, enough said about that.

    "You also don’t need one to openly carry a gun in unincorporated areas (but who’d want to do that?)"

    You don’t need a permit for unloaded open carry (with ammunition carried on one’s person) in incorporated areas, either. You do need to watch out for school zones and other prohibited places though. See:
    opencarry.org
    californiaopencarry.org

    To answer your question:
    No need to beg permission from government to exercise one’s right to self-defense. More comfortable. Avoid California’s distriminatory issue system. (Most people living in California live in counties that simply won’t issue if you are not a judge or DA.) Legal civil protest of unconstitutional gun control laws. As a visible deterrent to crime. Save recurring fees. Faster access to one’s firearm. (Somewhat negated in California with its absurd unloaded laws.)

    The author also made the following false statement:
    "in California even with a CCW permit you can’t carry a loaded firearm into a bar, within 1,000 feet of a K-12 school, or into a public building like a courthouse."

    There is no statutory prohibition on carrying a firearm in a bar.

    California Penal Code 626.9(l) specifically exempts from the school zone prohibition "…a person holding a valid license to carry the firearm…"

    171b(b)(3) specifically exempts from the public buildings prohibition "A person holding a valid license to carry the firearm…"

  150. It’s farily obvious which way the majority feels. Let’s put this to a vote. 😉

    Someone will stand up to defend any position…..it doesn’t make them right.

    Using the FOIA as a poorly veiled excuse to push your liberal agenda and pressure law abiding citizens is a poor excuse for journalism.

  151. I am absolutely speechless. This is irresponsible journalism! Did you ever stop to think that many of the permit holders are armed because they carry high-value items that are of interest to some bad people out there? I am not talking about expensive personal items either!

  152. Just another example of shotty journalism at it’s worst,Who care’s if joe upstanding citizen blow has a permit to carry,what is it your business to make this public and maybe causeing harm to permit holders,write your story, leave people and their choice’s out of it.The lib media has once again has told us what their take on a story is and not just told us the story from a unbiased stance,very irresponsible on the editor’s part for letting this crap be printed.

  153. Thanks for telling me that the woman who left me, the woman I abused, is still in town and got herself a carry permit.

    See how this works?

    Foolish reporter. The First Amendment shouldn’t be about endangering victims.

  154. Mark #8: Can you site some specific examples of people being killed as a direct result of their names & permit status being published, please? I would very much like to research that.

  155. It’s very easy to put a name together with a phone book, Internet tools, and the county. Even if it’s not exact, the criminal will have narrowed the list of houses down to very few.

  156. Robash141, In regards to your post #163 it says that you repeatedly qualified expert marksman when you were in the army. Isnt that an oxymoron? I didnt think there were any expert marksman in the army… nah Im just messing with ya you seem like a good kid just maybe a little misguided. hopefully with a little bit of real world experience youll have a chance to amend these radical anti gun views that you have. Remember when you squeeze the trigger you are not supposed to close your eyes.

  157. I don’t think that the NCJ should print the names of law enforcement personnel either. However, law enforcement personnel also carry concealed weapons both on and off duty. Just because a person is employed as a peace officer it DOES NOT mean that they are necessarily a good person who is level headed, trustworthy and does no wrong for their own personal gain. So should all off duty peace officers be made to carry their badge and weapon out in the open for all to see? I believe that if this were the case there would be many peace offices that would think twice about their profession. I am glad to know that most peace officers carry their weapon while off duty and would risk harm to themselves in order to keep the peace and try to ensure the safety of the public. As far as telling everybody with a CCW that they should "open carry" remember that a armed bank guard doesn’t necessarily keep the bank from being robbed and he/she is the first one to be shot when the crime is being committed. I did a quick count of the front page and have identified at least SEVEN peace officers who are government workers and I believe that printing those names is criminal. But NO MORE criminal than posting ANY of the other names of private citizens who choose to exercise their CONSTITUTIONAL rights. I believe that the NCJ has given real reporters a black eye and it is my hope that Sheriff Philp will see the error in this and not let this happen again if for nothing else than to assure that the same type of thing doesn’t happen to his employees. Remember Sheriff Philp you are supposed to protect the citizens of Humboldt County from all types of crime or ignorance I would like to know your policy on handing out copies of reports to people who are not involved with the crime in an way? I wonder what other minority group the reporter will go after next? Doctors who perform abortions and the women that have had them done. I think not. People who have hepatitis C or herpes? I think not. People who smoke and grow medical marijuana? I think not. So who will it be next NCJ?

  158. Here’s my gun permit!

    Amendment II
    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

  159. I may have missed it – I tried to read every post. The writer should have done her fact checking. Stating that there are (what was it 652 CCW holders in Humboldt) is actually very wrong. I haven’t done all my checking, but I do know that most police departments around Humboldt can and do issue CCW’s to people living or working in their city jurisdictions. Little ol’ towns like Ferndale even do it. So, the truth is, there is a truck load more people who actually have permits to carry.

    I have a permit from the county – Do I care if people know? Not really… it’s not a secret for me. However, I don’t think I’d appreciate being listed if I were a domestic violence victim. On a side note… I keep my guns locked up and havent carried in months (last time was when I went to Oakland) – remember, these permits are for the State – not just Humboldt… Although I’d suggest checking around before you carry in some cities in California.

    Note to editor: I have a business and represent two others who use your paper to advestise from time to time. Guess what, you have just lost any of my business for printing my name (and others) in such a foolish manner.

    Do yourself and favor and deal with your actions and try to explain what the heck you were thinking here.

    I rarely read the postings on articles but it has been a long time since I have seen almost 100% of the posters agreeing on something.

    P.S. I like the idea of posting all 215 holders in the paper… but that’s probably protected under medical (even though it’s not an actual medical perscription).

  160. Pure nosiness? Awesome reason to write an article. Couldn’t find an actual reason to passively harass the CCW community today?

  161. I do not live in California, but this article has pretty much been passed around the gun forums of the nation. I was recently "outed" by my local newspaper. They also printed a list of concealed carry permit holders. It did not bother me, at all. No one came and stole my guns. I think that most criminals would rather not confront the armed. However, it did provide a nice list for criminals to compare potential victims against, and make sure they are not packing. As for RobASH141, I have no problem with you knowing that I am carrying, that is why I frequently exercise my state’s right to OPENLY carry. Along, with thousands of others that do. We also do not have the problems that Cali does. As for being of a fearful mindset because I carry, do you suggest that I disable my Smoke Detectors, Fire Extinguishers, CO detectors, and seat belts? Don’t wanna be too scared, you know!

  162. It was wrong. Pure and simple.

    I guess we’ll find out tomorrow whose fault it was. Maybe not Heidi’s.

    But you can’t explain why it’s wrong to someone whose mindset can’t see it in the first place.

  163. Robash, you just don’t get it. You may never get it. You’re a lost cause.

    Why don’t we publish the names of undercover or plainclothes police officers? I mean, they carry concealed weapons in public, so isn’t THAT the public’s business just as much as the names of CCW holders?

    What you don’t seem to understand is that these people not only make their own lives safer my carrying, but they make your life safer as well. There was no need to out them like this, and it can do only harm.

  164. The writer moved from NV because she was fired. This CCW outing thing has been done numerous times before. Hopefully people like her will push people like you to call your state reps and get the laws changed. It is happening all over… each time the law get changed to protect ccw holders privacy. You can pick and choose who gets outed – it just doesn’t work that way (excluding domestic violence victims for intance) what about victims of any crime by another peson?

    Go back to NV or even Bishop, CA – Humboldt doesn’t need you here Heidi Walters (or is it Walter)?

  165. This is a very stupid article and should not exist. I am furious that an ignorant individual would put at risk law-abiding members of the shooting community.

  166. I’m not talking about police officers

    I’m talking about people who are not sworn peace officers
    carrying around weapons in public.

    That list should be public information.
    just the names

    not the addresses

    A police officer has their badge that’s their permit to carry a concealed weapon.

    As far as these people who claim that the application process for a CCW is so stringent that only thoroughly upstanding and responsible citizens could qualify. They assure us that no nuts or dodgy people could ever slip through ergo it’s none of our business

    I’d like to remind them that just recently it was discovered that one of the United States top Chemical Weapons scientists A man responsible for handling some of the most lethal WMDs in the entire world. was discovered to be a complete lunatic, a serial killer as a matter of fact. One with ,until very recently super top secret government clearance.

    How many background checks did that dude have to pass in order to get into that position?

  167. Wow, I didn’t think the media could be worse than it already was… On another note…

    Robash, I am a CCW holder, and I feel offended by some of the things you have said. It’s sounds like you have generalized people like myself as fearful paranoid weirdos. Obviously I do recognize the slight possibility that something bad could happen to me. Or I wouldn’t carry a gun. But, I don’t live my life with a mindset based on this fact. I carry all the time, and it’s not a big deal to me. I don’t feel that I’ve had to go out of my way un-necessarily to do this.

    I would certainly not consider myself "dangerous", or a "threat". I’m really quite a pacifist really. I also would not consider a fellow CCW holder a threat, more of an ally actually. The fact is that generally people who get these permits are the last people who are going to commit ANY crime, and simply cannot get one at all if they have.

    So why really are you SO AGAINST the average joe from carrying in public? Are you fearful of me? How many posts are you going to make based on your fear? How much time are you going to spend telling people why you don’t think they should carry a gun?

    Finally, just to clear things up, I don’t think that anyone here is saying that this "article" cannot do what it has, obviously they can, and did. What the vast majority of people are saying is: "Why?" You seem to be a half-way intelligent person, do you think that this article was nice, or a good idea? Remember, "because I can", is never a good reason, unless you are 4 years old.

  168. Chris, as I said before, I’m not against people owning guns.

    I’m not against people collecting guns
    and having guns for home defense
    I’m not against hunting or sport shooting.
    I’m not even against people carrying weapons in public just so long as they do so in a responsible manner there is some relatively small measure of accountability in order for them to be granted that privilege.

    I fail to see where that relatively small deviation from your position and thatsomehow that makes me an "anti gun radical"

    It appears as if you’re "offended" by people who only agree with you 95% of the way.

    Who’s the extremist here?

    I don’t think it’s me.

  169. Dear Robash141,

    I am not accusing you of being against people owning guns, you have made that clear, and I have read all of your posts on this article. You have, however, mentioned that you don’t think people should be carrying in public, or at least not as many as there are. So again, I simply ask you, WHY?

    Also, I want to make it clear that I have not called you an "anti-gun radical", and I REALLY don’t think you are. Like I said, you actually sound half-way intelligent, which to me is a compliment, seriously. Although, after this response you’ve made, I am reconsidering.

    As far as what offended me, it really has nothing to do with your position being 95%, 5%, or 100% the same as mine, but rather the reason I said you offended me. That is because you generalized CCW holders as "fearful, paranoid, wierdos".

    And to address the last tidbit of your vague and twisting post, I still don’t think that you are an extremist, but I’m starting to wonder if you are a "journalist" yourself.

    Now, if you would please, re-read my first post, and actually pay attention to what I said. Then, I would like to hear you actually address the content.

  170. Thank you so very much for making myself and fellow ccw holders targets for the punks that are coming into this area for the "easy pickens." My sincere hope is that they target the Northcoast Journal staff! I am sure that they won’t want to be hit with paper crap! Please run a complete list of all your employe’s and advertisers so I won’t waste my money with them. Wake up idiots!

  171. So … did you people check to see if any of the persons on that list have restraining orders out against violent ex-spouses?

    Are you going to issue a public apology or some-such when one of them gets murdered because of the information you published?

  172. Robash141, I counted at least seven people on the front page of the NCJ who are SWORN PEACE OFFICERS. Since the NCJ reporter was not smart enough to leave those names out she certainly should not have printed any of the names. I don’t think that she really should have printed any of the names anyway. As for the procss, there are many people who drive around in multi-thousand pound killing machines called cars who should not be able to because they lack the talent or common sense to do so. But the DMV allows it because they haven’t found a better way to test the drivers. I think that the CCW process is a good one and there will always be a few people who squeek through any process but we shouldn’t punish the many for the mistakes of the few. And we can’t throw out the process until we have a new one developed but as I said i believe that there is no problem with the process. As for the Sheriffs office, they should now issue all of the CCW holders an open carry permit since they gave out the names of the CCW holders for all to see.

  173. What in the heck did I or any of the other 651 people on the list do to offend or affront Heidi or anybody on the staff of the NCJ? Dentists, doctors, firefighters, ranchers, moms, teachers, police officers, business owners, politicians, grandmothers….the list goes on. Any of these people could be or could have been a part in making your life more pleasant or comfortable in how they live their life. You really want to piss off the person who holds a door open for you at the mall, cleans your teeth, protects your property, teaches your children or even saves your life someday? You people have created this blacklist of sorts, but have in the process dimmed the light for yourselves in your own community. And a small community to boot. We all know who you are too. At least I will be able to sleep at night knowing that I am a better person. I help others. I am kind. I am thoughtful and considerate. I do what is right. But you wouldn’t know that. You plucked my name and applied a blanket term to me without even trying to see the person behind the tool. I am worth knowing. So are the others on this list. You won’t have the opportunity to get to know us now. All you have done is cast yourself out. I hope it was worth it.

  174. there should be an exemption for police officers particularly ones who work undercover.
    But again, we’re not talking about cops. Everybody knows that police carry weapons all the time.

    I don’t see how it logically follows that that someone who is known to carry a weapon would be in MORE danger.

    Could someone please explain this concept to me I just seems irrationally fearful.

    If carrying a weapon made life more dangerous That would kind of defeat the purpose of having a weapon in the first place, Wouldn’t it?

    And if it’s hidden a Cheneyesque bureaucratic veil of secrecy then that gun is absolutely useless as a deterrent.

    If you’re terribly worried about crooks stealing your guns, then it is incumbent upon you to lock your weapons up securely.

    If you absolutely MUST have a weapon handy stash it in a convenient place where no one else can find it except you.

    Don’t blame Heidi Walters if you get ripped off because you didn’t secure your weapons properly. That’s on you.

    I think those women who are hiding from abusive ex’s should not be cowering in fear. Instead Should exercise your Second Amendment Constitutional rights as an American unloading the entire clip into his testicles If he comes around to try and mess with you.
    Perhaps it would be better if the ex knew beforehand that he faced the imminent prospect of getting his nut-sack splattered. would give even the most deranged abuser pause. Maybe he’ll Make a good chioce decide he’d rather keep them.

    I can’t see how it being known to carry a gun would make your life more dangerous. I doesn’t logically follow.

    Granted, I can’t really speak for the "criminal element" but from what I’ve seen and heard about.

    The vast majority of criminals are just petty opportunists.
    They are going to pick on whoever looks the weakest and most vulnerable
    or most afraid
    they are going to snatch whatever looks the easiest to grab and haul away.

    They are going to taget whoever looks the most afraid.
    They are always going to take the path of least resistance.

    They don’t want to work hard, that’s why they’re crooks. And they are not about to go out of their way to get into it with someone who they know could potentially kill them or mess them up bad.
    They are not Anton Chiguer super villains just sub-ordinary punks.

    We certainly have to watch out for punk criminals but we shouldn’t be unduly frightened of them either.

  175. Robash, you are correct in assuming that printing the CCW holders names does not necessarily jeapordize their safety on the street.

    Secondly, your assertion about the opportunistic nature of criminals couldn’t be more accurate.

    The trouble remains in the printing of the names, though. An intelligent thief can get the address of a CCW holder with the County name and Google. Once he has a list of targets he can watch the homes to see if they are generally empty during work days. The criminal will take their "best" shot at an empty home.

    By way of example, I chose a gentleman named Hugo from the list of names. Thirty seconds later, with nothing more than his unusual name and County of residence, I had his phone #, address and a google map of his house. You don’t find that remotely scary?

    As for locking up guns, I have children so I chose to invest in a $2000 safe that weighs 1000lbs. empty and is as big as a refridgerator. No small time criminal can defeat it or even move it for that matter. Not everyone can afford to do that, or has the space to accomodate it. I’d wager that most gun owners use trigger locks to disable their weapons or small personal safes to thwart kids. A theif would grab the small safe and run, or, just break it open. No responsible gun owner wants one of his weapons to find its way into a criminals hand.

    Will all the CCW holders houses be broken into, of course not. Does it increase the potential that it COULD happen to some, sure.

  176. Robash,
    Carrying a gun doesn’t make life more dangerous, its totally the opposite. One of the problems with the public knowing who is carrying a gun is that it completely defeats the purpose of concealed carry. Concealed carriers are actually helping EVERYONE when they carry. The more people that carry concealed, the greater the chance that a opportunistic criminal will confront someone able to defend themselves. The implied threat of an unknown percentage of gun carriers gets erased when criminals know just who has a gun. If we all wore badges saying we were carrying guns, you can bet your top dollar that criminals would simply target the defenseless and crimes on those folks would increase since there would be no threat of getting shot to the criminal.

    Just look at the basic facts….criminals cannot acquire guns legally, so they must steal guns or buy them from other criminals. If a criminal doesn’t know if you own a gun, he won’t be targetting your house specifically for guns. Now compare that situation with one where a list of households that own guns is made available. Obviously a criminal looking to steal a gun has better chances if he has a list of homes to visit than if he has to randomly select homes. Combine that with the fact that otherwise, criminals looking to steal guns would not know who they were facing when entering a home and you have a situation where those gun owners could be targeted specifically and differently than normal when criminals must play russian roulette on whether their victims will be armed or helpless.

  177. What a shame that Heidi Walters is not held accountable for the damage she is causing. Why not post a list of people that have applied for monitored house alarms? I am certain some of the same people that found this article beneficial would like that information too. We have the right to bear arms thanks to the second amendment. Our government has made the decision to force us to register our leagal arms and obtain CCW permits just to exercise that right. Remember, this is not a privelage like driving a car. That information should be confidential not open to the public. Fortunately, I will exercise my freedom to NOT purchase any further publication that supports this sort of short sighted and dangerous articles by this person. Remember the saying "curiousity killed the cat"? Here we have Heidi dangling the carrot above some unsuspecting citizen and claiming innocence when they are victimized as a result of her article. What possible good can come from reporting the names of CCW permit holders? Why not a number? Think about it.

  178. Robash

    We do not carry as a deterrant. It is called a Concealed Carry Weapons permit. Done properly nobody is supposed to know you are carrying. It’s a secret. Most people who carry tell nobody about their permit as a situation can get very dangerous for us very quickly with the more people that know about our carry status.

    You want a logical scenario: Standing in line at the bank and robbers run in with guns drawn demanding money, your friend/wife/etc says "do something, you have a gun!", you will be the only person to leave that building dead that day. As a CCW holder it is not our responsibility to uphold justice or law enforcement tasks. If I actually ever was involved in a bank heist, I’m going to stand there with everybody else, keep my gun hidden and be as good of a wittness as possible, just like my issuing authority told me to.

    We carry as a means to protect ourselves and others if it is absolutely a last option, we do not patroll the streets deterring crime or bad guys. If we carry in a manner where our gun is even exposed we can get in a lot of trouble, may even have our permit revoked.

    Someone who is anti gun could find a name on this list of someone they know, next time they see them at the grocery store they could call the cops saying they had a gun hanging out and feel threatened. Which would cause a lot of trouble for the law abiding CCWer.

  179. I am a former California resident who worked at pelican Bay state prison and was stunned that any responsible writer or editor would publish a story with the names of local citizens who have valuable gun collections as well as CCW permits. Based on the criminals i worked with, you just drastically increased the odds of a home invasion robbery by criminals who now know they will have to rob armed residents if they want the gun collection, do you think there are not lots of criminals who would not be willing to kill for a decent gun collection? I wrote the editor a letter suggesting that Ms. Walters should be fired and the editors should consider resigning over this article and compared it to journalistic drunk driving. I also suggested that if the article had been the writer attempting to train and obtain a CCW permit, that would have been a valuable story and then the writer would have realized how foolish it was to print this article. after reflection, I hope the editor will demand that Ms. Walters takes a comprehensive gun carry couse and tries to obtain a CCW and writes an article on what she learned from her experiance with her new found knowledge of concealed carry and responsiblity.

  180. Robash, you continue to attempt to defend a position that has been clearly and articulately demonstrated by the vast majority of commenters here as indefensible.

    I highly recommend that, rather continuing this argument that you will not win, that you research the requirements for a CCW in Humboldt County and apply for one.

    Sheriff Gary Phelp is no pushover and will not issue a CCW permit just because he can. He does not, however, require you to jump through many of the "Hoops" or pay the exorbitant fees that many other counties seem to force upon their CCW applicants.

    Sheriff Phelp has place a great deal of trust in each of us by issuing us a CCW. We are all well aware of Sheriff Phelp’s expectations of us and, I am confident in saying, we will never knowingly violate the trust Sheriff Phelp has placed in us.

    If you are able to complete a reasonable training program and demonstrate safe weapons handling skills (shoot and qualify with 50 rounds through each weapon you desire on your CCW), pass a federal and state criminal background check, and demonstrate that you are a mature, stable, level-headed adult while articulating a reasonable good cause in an oral interview, you will very likely be issued a CCW Permit by Sheriff Phelp.

    You obviously have a very difficult time understanding why we feel the way we do and why we feel so strongly about having our names on the front cover of the NCJ. Just because it was legal for the NCJ to print our names does not make it right.

    We are not elitist. We are not paranoid. We are not living in fear. We are not looking for a fight.

    The last thing we want is to draw attention to ourselves. When we do it right (CCW), no one will ever know we are doing it.

    We are normal law abiding citizens who have chosen to make the defense of ourselves and our loved ones our personal responsibility.

    Robash, research the requirements for a CCW. Take the training required to obtain a CCW. Submit to the background checks we have all passed. Sit before an interviewer and demonstrate that you are a mature, stable, level-headed adult while articulating a reasonable good cause. Only after doing these things and being issued a CCW will you truly understand us and the responsibilities we have willingly accepted by choosing to carry a firearm for personal protection.

    Only after doing what we have done and walked in our shoes, will you have the credibility to continue this argument, if you choose to do so.

  181. Shame on you Heidi for being so stupid.
    I assure you that you have made hundreds of households beyond pissed off. But, that is probably what you wanted. Oh, by the way, if we are on the same street and you are attacked by someone that should already be in jail, please don’t ask anyone who has a permit to carry to help you. However, I will pull out my cell phone and call the cops.
    Also, be assured that I will not shop or do business with anyone again that places advertising with you. Your paper is not fit to line my cat box.

  182. As this story is getting around the web, many are openly disgusted. Remember that letters to advertisers expressing outrage at their support of such behavior is effective. I know of Editors forced out of local papers for such nonsense. The Editor has final say as to inclusion of a story and/or content. There is such a thing as The Professional Journalist’s Code of Ethics. I am sure these left leaning folks still rely on Capitalism to pay the bills. Vote them out with your dollars by boycotting the advertisers. A gun doesn’t make a person dangerous, their disregard for others does.

  183. Robash141 – "I don’t see how it logically follows that that someone who is known to carry a weapon would be in MORE danger. Could someone please explain this concept to me I just seems irrationally fearful." – – – Okay Robash, consider this for a moment. Lets just DUMP the whole "increased danger" argument. What about how someone’s name appearing in this paper identified as a gun owner AND a CCW holder can adversely and unnecessarily affect his life? So there it is, Mr. Otis Dinkelheimer’s name prominently published in the paper under the "public records act." Gosh, he’s a nice guy! He coaches the high school soccer team and has the team over to his house every Sunday for a bar-b-que, a whole house full of teenage boys! In the summer, he takes the whole team on a two-week-long camping trip in the mountains, and he has owned that bicycle shop on the east end of town for years. In his spare time he works as a church and school bus driver just because he likes to drive big vehicles, and did you know he’s a holiday season greeter at Wal-Mart? Not only that, but the whole town enjoys him playing Santa Claus at the mall every Christmas! How cute our kids are, sitting on his lap! He is so proud of his big white beard! EVERYONE loves Otis! Er … wait just a minute! I didn’t know he owns GUNS! I didn’t know he CARRIES a gun! LOADED? My God! I am trusting my kids to a man who carries a gun? I let my teenage boys hang out at a house where GUNS are stored? Aw, I must be overreacting! Maybe there is another ‘Otis Dinkelheimer’ in this small town … no, that’s not very likely. I guess good old Otis is the guy they named in the paper. Well, I’m not letting MY kid near his house. My son is so curious, all he’d have to do is slip away from the group for a while and rifle through the drawers and cabinets … and what about that Johnson kid on the team. He hangs out with the wrong crowd. What will HE do with the knowledge that coach Dinkelheimer has guns in his house? There must be another bicycle shop in town we can patronize, and so much for Billy and Suzie seeing Santa THIS year! The gun might go off when they sit in his lap! Did you hear that Wal-Mart fired him? They have a zero tolerance policy about guns. The church and school found another driver too. They don’t want the liability. I don’t blame them. He carries that gun CONCEALED, so you never know if he has it on him or not! There it is in black and white! “OTIS DINKELHEIMER!” I mean, yeah, it is “public information” in that the county knows about it, and the sheriff checked him out before giving him the license, and I guess we could have taken the time to go check ourselves if it really concerned us, but gosh, I’m sure glad the paper went out of its way to bring this to the surface, so everyone in town could know! Who would have ever though Otis carries a gun? I’m sure glad they published his name in the paper!

  184. Just because I’m taking an unpopular postion does not mean that I’m wrong

    I’ll concede that perhaps it was a needlessly inflammitory thing to put the names on the front cover of the Journal
    I don’t believe ,however, that in comprimised anyones safety nothing anyone has said here would lead me to believe that
    It is public information and I believe It should remain a public information.

    Another The list should be public to stop an unscrupulous public official from handing out CCW permits to his friends and political supporters. I’m not suggesting that Sheriff Philp would do such a thing But one of his sucessors just might be tempted to do such a thing if the list is secret

    How would you like Derek Bowman to be able to pack legally Just because his dad gave a bunch of money to political campaigns?

  185. OK robash. My name is Allen Gillespie, yep it was on the front cover. Hank Sims, the editor of the North Coast Journal remembered me as having performed crowd control when Bill Clinton came to town and mentioned that in an email he sent me this morning. Yep, I’m a government employee. So who are you robash141? How about you put your money where your mouth is. What’s your real name?

  186. Burt the Squirrel is correct
    except for the "general antagonist" part. I might be opinionated but I get along just fine with most people.
    Perhaps that’s why feel no need to carry a concealed firearm in public

    Allen , do you feel that having your name on that cover makes your life more dangerous?
    or is it just an annoyance?

    Your name sounds very familiar to me as well, do you ,by chance,teach first-aid and CPR classes?
    If so I may have taken some classes from you a few years ago. I actually enjoyed that class very much. If you’re the same guy then I’d recommend you as a teacher

  187. I used to teach CPR, though not for the past couple of years.

    There is the off chance that somebody MAY track down my private residence with intent to steal my firearms. Mostly, it’s an un-needed and un-wanted imposition into my private life. I have a job that pushes me into the public light, as such I try very hard to preserve my private time and shield my family from the public side of what I do. My time off duty is mine, and I want no extra public intrusion into it. The other reason it bothers me is that the state requires people with CCW’s to maintain a certain level of secrecy about the fact that we are carrying. Now, if somebody recognizes me they know I am carrying. Essentially, Heidi has brandished my weapon for me without even asking. Quite simply, it wasn’t polite.

  188. Robash – "The list should be public to stop an unscrupulous public official from handing out CCW permits to his friends and political supporters. I’m not suggesting that Sheriff Philip would do such a thing But one of his successors just might be tempted to do such a thing if the list is secret " – – – Rob(?), do you understand that the names of CCW holders, being "public information" ARE available so that IF AND WHEN someone wants to check it to see if "an unscrupulous public official [handed] out CCW permits to his friends and political supporters" that information can easily be verified WITHOUT carelessly publishing the names of ALL CCW holders on the front page? NO ONE is saying the information should be "private." They are saying that just because it IS public, that does not mean a reporter should go out of her way to MAKE IT public. Consider also, that in order for anyone (even you) to get that information, you would normally have to send a letter to the department requesting the names. The department would gather the data and send it to you. IOW, they would know WHO is requesting the info. When the names are published on the front page, any criminal, old nemesis, stalker, activist, gang banger, scofflaw or anyone else can get ALL of the names anonymously by simply dropping a quarter into a newspaper rack. CCW holders DON’T CARE that their names are public information (read: kept in a file in some cabinet in some office and available for someone to see on request where there is a NEED to know that they have a CCW) but they DO CARE when their names are arbitrarily pulled out of that file cabinet, compiled into a list and plastered onto a billboard for the whole world to see! It is inadvisable to prevent ACCESS TO public information where there is a NEED for SOMEONE to know it, and it is inexcusable and shameful to deliberately and arrogantly collect it and broadcast it where there is NO NEED for EVERYONE to know it.

  189. To all who ask why a person may feel the need to carry a firearm, It is not paranoia, it is not the need to feel like a cop or hero. it comes down to the simple fact of taking the responsiblility of ones own protection and that of our loved ones.
    publishing the names does not automaticly increase the danger to ones life but there have been incidents in other areas before that have previously been mentioned that were a direct result of names being published.
    I agree with an earlier poster that instead of "outing" law abiding citizens for no more reason than "I can" publish the names and faces of the people who are a danger to society, the rapests, child molesters, drug dealers, and those who are convicted of violent crimes. look at the statistics and you’ll see that CCW holders have an even lower number of criminal incidents than any other group including Law Enforcement. (not putting down law enforcement just making a point) because of the higher standard they are held to to get the permit and to continue to exersize thier 2nd amendment rights.
    the best reason for ccw, and I know I’ll catch flack for the cliche’ (sp?) but it is true………………………..
    When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

  190. Nice to see a newspaper with a nice unbiased viewpoint for once. Its time we outed those Republican gun mongers, along with the gays, too. Lets publish THAT list too!

    Your "writers" are morally equivalent to the UK crowd that recently goaded a young man into jumping to his death.

    You disgust me.

  191. I’m not Here to defend Heidi Walters or the Journal so much as to advocate that the list of Concealed weapons carriers remain public (even if no one ever looks at them it should still be publicly available information).

    As should the names of any other people asking for other kinds of special privileges from the government.

    Just to ensure that those favors are being dispensed in a fair and judicious manner

    I’m not a journalist I can’t really speak authoritatively about journalistic ethics.

    I know that what the Journal did was legal. Whether it was ethical or appropriate is pretty subjective.

    I can sympathize to the extent that I once felt I was misrepresented on the front page of the Eureka Reporter
    speaking about an issue which I felt strongly (I was singled out ( not part of a long list) with my name and picture and made to look stupid)

    I wrote a letter blasting them about bogus and biased coverage. I had quite a long email exchange with the Author of the piece Wendy Butler.
    It was lame IMO but it wasn’t libelous so what can I do?

    I respect freedom of the press so I had to let it go. Because there is a larger more important issue at stake than "my feelings"

    Contrary to what some grossly ill-informed commentators on this thread have suggested The First Amendment and the Second Amendments to our Constitution are not some diametrically opposing forces.

    The notion that one is a Blue State amendment and the other is a red state amendment is utter nonsense

    They are part of the same document
    They both grant important freedoms
    and they are both equally worthy of being defended.

    So Joe I can hardly see where we really disagree about anything at this point.

  192. robash,

    Your last comment gives you away: "I might be opinionated but I get along just fine with most people. Perhaps that’s why feel no need to carry a concealed firearm in public".

    You can’t seem to be able to wrap your head around the idea that CCW carriers are not looking for a fight. I’ve been in a fight one time in my entire life, in a playground when I was a kid.

    We do not look for fights, if we ever have to pull our gun we are arrested and put through due process. Our gun is gone and the attourney fees would be huge, unaffordable to put it mildly. But it’s still better than being dead, so we choose to be able to have a last option should we need it.

    The idea that CCW permit carriers are people who don’t get along with others, or are looking for confrontation is ludicrous, yet an idea that you seem to have mired yourself in.

  193. First, I can’t tell you how unbelievably happy I am that I don’t live in your charming little borough. Secondly had you just made my wife a target as she leaves her hospital shift between 12:00-2:00AM, I would be taking a second mortgage on my home, simply to find a lawyer that could make your life miserable for as many years as possible. Have you no Editor, no Ethics, no Conscience, nor even any Common Sense?

  194. Did you fail both your journalism class and your ethics class? It would appear so.

    While I think it was honorable and hopefully helped win over gun owners to have some of the ccw holders voluntarily interview, I think it entirely unethical to print the rest of the names.

    It harms everybody to do this. It hurts the gun owners when their weapons are stolen because criminals know they own guns, and it hurts the rest of citizens when they are killed because the criminals because they know the victims aren’t armed.

  195. I do not see how anyone in his or her right mind could call this a newspaper. This is a complete lack of journalistic ethics and a complete waste of the paper it was printed on. This cannot be called a valid news company. I can’t wait for your next article, possibly a list of all the homosexuals in the county?

  196. The benefit of a state having concealed carry is, no one is supposed to know who is carrying.

    IF THE NORTH COAST JOURNAL REALLY WANTED TO PROMOTE PUBLIC SAFETY…

    …it would print photos of convicted criminals…

    …not intrude on the privacy-and sometimes safety of-‘government approved’ law abiding citizens.

  197. What a blatant disregard to our right to privacy (5A) and a not-so-veiled attempt to diminish our right to keep and bear arms (2A). Cancel my subscription please.

  198. I am dismayed that a newspaper chose to run a story highlighting the identities of everyone in an entire county who chose to obtain a legal license for concealed firearm carry.
    The fact that the firearm is concealed demonstrates the carriers want discreet carry. The journalist and editor displayed a crass disregard for individual citizen’s privacy.
    If they wish to exercise "freedom of information", publish information that will enable the community to better defend themselves from criminals, such as a list of every registered sex offender in the county.

  199. Why would anyone print the names of law abiding poeple who carry concealed ? the fact that they carry CONCEALED mean they want it kept private . I will not get into my opinion on this matter because it has already been expressed by many others . From what i gather in this article Humboldt county has a crime problem . It is understanable for its residents to take measures to make sure that they, their family , and their friends are safe .

    People insure their house , vehicles , and other belongings so that if somthing is stolen or wrecked it can be taken care of . The lives of their loved ones are not something you can go into town and replace if lost , so concerned peole take measures to protect them . This article has just managed to put these people at pointless risk of their family’s safety and welfare due to home invasions . The fact that they had their names printed just gave every crook and convict that wants a firearm and has a phonebook that gives an address a huge list of places to rob .

    Congradulations North Coast Journal you just endangerd peoples lifes and homes just so you can sell a paper . Hope you are proud of yourselfs .

  200. Wow, great article designed to create a little hysteria among the public. I’m looking forward to some companion pieces publishing the names of medical marijuanna users, AIDS & HIV positive people, child molesters, and documented gang members so the public can be forwarned of potential trouble makers.

  201. What a farce!! Just put a target on my back that says I have a gun if you want it. I only carried my gun when going in the rural areas now I am going to carry it everywhere I go now to protect myself and my family. How about if a few of us CCW holders hire a PI to investigate Heidi and rent a billboard on 101 and show the details about her life like tickets, convictions, credit history and where she lives. Now that would be right on target. North Coast Journal just lost all of my advertising business since I own a large comapany in town. I didn’t even know about this until one of my customers made a comment to me.

  202. Why post the names of CCW permit holders? Are you providing a handy reference for burglars? Why not post the names of every registered owner of a Harley-Davidson or a Honda Accord? I have taken a concealed carry course. The instructor is a former law enforcement officer. It is preference that the folks who he once arrested not be notified that he carries a pistol.

    I have grudgingly added my name to the shopping list for burglars.

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

  204. I don’t see what the big deal is about the publication of public information in regards to the names of the CCW permit holders. Is this not public information? And if some tweeker was to TRY to rob a home of a gun fanatic, do you really think they would take the time to look up the victim’s address from a lead from the NCJ?

    The issue here is the sacrifice of anonymity that gun owners face if they are to carry a weapon in public. However, this safeguard doesn’t seem to be enough for all the crazies that shouldn’t own weapons, or even breed for that matter. The consequences of ending up on a red list and ultimately a concentration camp for owning a gun may be consideration for gunowners the near future.

    I feel that the best way to deal with this issue is to "nip it in the bud", if you know what I mean.
    We ALL need to focus on disarming the police. Then can all feel a little safer

  205. WHY CARRY A GUN?

    My old grandpa said to me son, ‘there comes a time in every mans life when
    he stops bustin’ knuckles and starts bustin’ caps and usually it’s when
    he becomes too old to take an ass whupin’.

    I don’t carry a gun to kill people.
    I carry a gun to keep from being killed. I don’t carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place. I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid. I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world. I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil. I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to
    see the evil in the world. I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government. I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry. I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared. I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon. I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones
    they love. I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I AM inadequate. I don’t carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun because I love life and the people who
    make it meaningful to me. Police Protection is an oxymoron. Free
    citizens must protect themselves. Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess. Personally, I carry a gun because I’m too young to die and too old to take an ass whupin’ !!

  206. Jeff Muskrat

    You can’t assume that 100% of the criminal element out there is comprised of brain rotted "tweekers".

    This information is public so that the general public can make sure that the system is not being abused. The list being public was not designed so that a newspaper could "out" the entire CONCEALED carry weapon permit community in your county. Important word being CONCEALED. As a permit carrier I can get in trouble for letting people know I carry a gun, yet the paper can do it to hundreds and they are free and clear? I’m sure you can see the double standard. The reason we are not to be telling people is for legal, social, and personal safety reasons. All of which get thrown into the wind on the front page of a news paper.

    The editor says that obviously the article was harmless because nobody has gotten hurt. Well, if I put an article in the paper saying that it’s good for parents to feed their baby lead paint, but no deaths occured could it be argued that it was a harmless article?

  207. SHAME ON YOU NORTHCOAST JOURNAL! HEIDI AND THE EDITOR SHOULD BE FIRED. COMPLETELY IRRESPONSIBLE! I HOPE NO ONE GETS HURT BECAUSE OF THIS CRAP.

  208. I hope for that no one on this list was avoiding an abusive spouse. It could get real ugly, for them and you as your are responsible outing them.

  209. The only people that would write and publish an article about this, are the ones who were turned down from getting a CCW…. Maybe they have a serious drug addiction.

  210. Just because you do not understand something is not a reason to fear it, or call it out and be against it. For all you know, one day you may be in a situation to where one of these upstanding folks have to use a concealed weapon to save your life. You have to undergo a background check from your states bureau of investigation to apply for one, its not like criminals have these permits. How about finding some real news to report on instead of creating an opinion based article about law abiding citizens?

  211. Just another ration of trash from the North Coast Journal that seems to specialize in producing left-wing, counterculture sewage and justifying it by saying it’s what sells. I stopped buying and advertising in the Times Standard a while ago because of this stuff. Wouldn’t have even seen this if a friend hadn’t emailed the link. Don’t buy the Times Standard or anything advertised in it!

  212. Thursday, October 9, 2008
    (Orange County) Sheriff begins taking away concealed weapons permits
    Hundreds of letters have been sent out advising current permit holders of impending revocation.

    THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
    Comments 94 | Recommend 150
    The Sheriff’s Department has begun the process of revoking hundreds of concealed weapon permits across Orange County.
    This week, department officials confirmed that 146 letters have been sent out advising current license holders that their permits to carry firearms in public – called CCWs – are being revoked. There are currently 1,024 permit holders….

    Locally – Recent Journal story prints the names of local CCW holders.

  213. WE WERE NOT ASKED!!!!!! Our consent was NOT issued before our names were plastered all over the cover. If the goal truly was to promote the idea of carrying concealed, the names would not have been published at all. 641 of us have been violated and there will be no apology because, to the staff of the NCJ, we have no value as human beings. If they saw us as human beings, we would have been treated as such with dignity and respect. We were not. This was a vile move. It was irresponsible, unprofessional and wrong. I just thought I would let everybody know just how low the staff of the NCJ will sink to get a story. This will not be forgotten even after the comments, letters and phone calls stop.

  214. This video has made the rounds, but it so perfectly illustrates the purpose of a CCW that it should be seen by everyone.

  215. So as a school teacher it’s going to be interesting with this information floating around campus. Can’t wait to see how the administrators are going to take it too. Gee, thanks.

  216. Oh and no, I don’t carry on campus, nor Gov’t buildings, or anywhere that primarily serves alcohol. But while I’m at work my students can go rob my house and they can carry on campus! What were you people thinking?

  217. You are ignorant, in the purest sense of the word. Do you happen to think while you type? Do you think at all, really?
    Your lack of knowledge or laziness in your research on the subject has lead to a slated, opinionated, uneducated viewpoint on the subject. You have not EDUCATED your readers, you have NOT followed the first rule of writing: Assume your readers know nothing! This ensures that you explain all sides of the subject so that the most naive of readers comes away with new FACTS, not your personal viewpoints.
    Idiotic article.

  218. Did the "author" or "editor" happen to read the NCJ "Privacy Policy"?? Let me post it here for them:

    "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."

    Strangely enough, I don’t remember getting a phone call/letter/contact asking me personally about my personal information. Hmmmm. Policies are flexible at NCJ apparently? Special.

  219. Who woulda thunk that the NCJ was ahead of its time with this story??!! Kudos to you guys.

    With all this blabber about how publishing this info endangers permit holders, it’d be interesting to follow up, maybe run a search cross referencing these names with violent crimes, and actually see if anyone was really put in harms way as a result of this story. My hunch is no, or no doubt the gun rights folks would have let us know about it.

    Whattya think, NCJ? U up for that?

  220. Wow, just wow. How DARE you ask for and publish private information of people who carry guns for security reasons. How dare you put innocent people at risk for trying to protect themselves and others, at least, we’re supposed to be able to. It is our fundamental human right. Animals in the wild reserve this right. They will attack and kill anything that is a threat to them. Especially mothers for obvious reasons. Yet you arrogantly think humans should not have this right? Self defense laws need to be changed so that anyone can use lethal force as necessary if threatened, no exceptions. Indeed, some of the people in question are victims of crime, and domestic violence situations, that you airing their details puts them in danger! This will put mostly women off from taking steps to protect themselves, not wanting to be outed and have their abuser find out. What a nasty thing for you to do. Liberals showing their true colors. Pretending to be for women’s rights, when nothing could be further from the truth. I have never seen more misogyny and blatant disregard for the well being of women as I have seen on the left over the last couple decades.

    Humboldt county has been taken over by liberal nitwits, criminals and thugs. Phony ‘do gooders’ that hide behind this mask, while implementing immoral policies. Vulnerable females especially have need to protect themselves. Child trafficking is high here. Parents have the right to protect their children from all the traffickers and pedos around. I personally have had horrifying encounters with criminals and my children put at risk. How dare you demonise victims, instead of all the high numbers of creeps and weirdos that have taken over this area. You are smug, and thankless. Imagine one of these permit holders maybe saving your life one day. You would be singing quite a different tune. All this stupid article has done, is prove why we do need a right to bear arms, and why the laws regarding weapons and self defense need to be modified, so that gun owners have more rights. Why Republicans need to work much harder to overtake the liberal garbage that prevails in this place, and has turned an otherwise beautiful and serene community into a cesspool of depravity. California wants to keep going down the dangerous road of hand wringing for criminals, while ordinary citizens have less options. You would never even consider publishing an article with all the names of criminals and people out on probation in humboldt county, so that the rest of us can know who is actually dangerous and a bad person.

    Btw, if you own a gun and never have to use it, that is a good thing. Criminals are less likely to target people who take the initiative to arm and defend themselves fyi. It does not then mean that the gun was not necessary as you try to insinuate. Interesting that the areas with the highest number of responsible gun ownership also have the least amount of crime, if any at all. Just don’t get me started on this debate. I lived in a country where guns were not allowed, and it has made it more unsafe than most places in the western world as a result. Again, women and children are left especially vulnerable. Criminals of course still have guns there as they don’t care about the law or morals. It has created a huge mess that the police cannot even begin to tackle. The rest of us live in reality, while you want to live in cloud cuckoo land. The ‘utopia’ you seek isn’t possible as long as evil still runs rampant. There is no common sense on the left. You want to address social problems backwards. In the meantime, we reserve the right to protect our own.

  221. Oh, and I need to add, that above I wrote criminals are less likely to target people who take the initiative to arm and defend themselves. This only applies when the gun owner has the advantage of secrecy and surprise.
    This does not however apply when people are outed, and bolder criminals plan to catch them off guard.
    It also does not apply to other people who choose to target gun owners in order to discriminate against them, persecute them, using politics and ‘PC social justice’ to silence, attack, ban, get fired etc as we have seen play out all over social media and the western world.
    The thought police that have waged war on decent citizens who won’t buy what liberals are trying to sell in this dystopian nightmare they have created. The left has done it’s best to try and isolate anyone that does not agree with them, and make them the target of convenient labels in order to discredit them. But they are only shooting themselves in their own feet. Just as the Republican office has been attacked and vandalised in Eureka multiple times by (cough, cough, I wonder who….) People are scared to volunteer anymore.
    They are scared to even share their views. The left has created such a hostile climate for anyone who dares to not ‘assimilate or die’. The left has reduced itself to nothing more than a bunch of narcissistic thugs. Carry on. You’re only allowing the public to see you for what you really are.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *