Indy Star at it again

[wag1911]

Did not see another post on this, but I guess that is because no one reads that pathetic rag anymore:

Gun laws remain moving targets | IndyStar.com | The Indianapolis Star

The editorial is not exactly a shock as these are the same folks who think that Big Government GIVES them liberty.

 

[88GT]

What a piece of editorial ignorance.

 

[Bill of Rights]

What a piece of editorial ignorance.

Well, it's a piece of SOMEthing, anyway....

 

[ocsdor]

Indy Star

 

[gunowner930]

"Some curtailment of Second Amendment rights is acceptable"

Because it's worked everywhere it's been tried, correct?

"This year, it enacted a law allowing guns in cars at workplaces and, in response to a Star expose of gun permits issued to known violent persons, made it illegal to publicize those permits. It allows guns in state parks."

correct me if i'm wrong but didn't they want to publish the names of ALL LTCH holders? nice to be a "known violent person."

"At the same time, the ruling expanded the amendment's applicability to states, raising the possibility of a surge of litigation against public safety efforts in places where schoolchildren are getting shot."

Wait I thought schools were already gun-free zones? When your case is weak just say it's for the children.

"At the state level, however, government consistently has tilted against practical safety considerations in favor of platitudes about individual rights."

As it should

Business owners, emergency room physicians and police officers have decried the imbalance, and the Supreme Court has not contradicted them. It would be unfortunate if the court's call for moderation became ammunition for the other camp.

Yep police hate citizens with guns huh? Cops are people with opinions just like everybody else. A cop's opinion does not trump the 2nd Amendment. You will find plenty of cops who feel the opposite. Why in the hell is an ER physician's opinion on guns more important than anybody else's?

More crap from the Indy Star. What the hell is "our opinion?" Who is us? This is nothing more than an outlet for them to spew their leftist crap, while being too cowardice to attach a name to that highly informed "opinion."

 

[Tactical Dave]

I try to see both sides of the story but that was pretty bad. We get the star but just for the coupons but my wife is not really using them much and we trash the paper. I feel it is time to cancel our subscription.......

And since there is no named author the "our opinion" would make one think that that is the opinion of the Star..... even though all the Editorials seem to say that.

I am going to print it off and show it to my wife.

 

[Tactical Dave]

UPDATE: My wife has not even read it read and said she is going to call and cancel our subscription.

 

[aclark]

This year, it enacted a law allowing guns in cars at workplaces and, in response to a Star expose of gun permits issued to known violent persons, made it illegal to publicize those permits

Yes, I'm sure it was to try and cover up their tracks that they gave out LTCHs to violent people....OR it was because it was a severe privacy issue, and a safety concern for those that had guns in their households being robbed/broken into, etc.

What a load of crap.

 

[Suprtek]

It was posted in another thread as well. You may have put it in a more appropriate category than I did though. Plus, the more people that know about it, the better!

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...tch_holders_no_longer_public_information.html

 

[wag1911]

UPDATE: My wife has not even read it read and said she is going to call and cancel our subscription.

It used to be good for small pet droppings but it isn't even good enough for that anymore!

 

[Boilers]

We stopped getting the IndyStar when Ted Evanoff and his merry band of misfits took over the 'editorial' sway (and swish) of the place.

Yes, it's not even good to use at toilet paper.

 

[TopDog]

When I returned to Indianapolis about 10 years ago, without thinking I started getting the paper. Then after just 3 months I canceled it. Now my memory isn't what it used to be, but back in the 70's wasn't the Star a conservative paper? When did it turn into total crap?

 

[buzzard pickins]

DIDN'T David Orntliker run as a dem canidate?

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm both surprised and relieved that what I feared from the Star and/or the HT didn't happen... I knew it was possible, but I didn't want to give them the idea of publishing the complete list including names, addresses, etc. on June 30th. Fortunately, now, they cannot. Does anyone know if the HT still has their database search tool online?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[longbow]

yes the HT will still have it and JJ is proud that they will leave it on the online system.

 

[antsi]

These are the people telling us how important it is to preserve print "journalism" because they're the professionals and amateurs on the internet won't get their facts straight or understand the issues.

 

[rockhopper46038]

I shouldn't have read that editorial...my blood pressure just spiked.

 

[Bill of Rights]

yes the HT will still have it and JJ is proud that they will leave it on the online system.

I believe that violates HEA 1068 from this year:

SOURCE: IC 35-47-2-3; (10)HE1068.1.1. --> SECTION 1. IC 35-47-2-3, AS AMENDED BY P.L.155-2007, SECTION 1, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2010]:
[...]
(l) Except as provided in subsection (m), for purposes of IC 5-14-3-4(a)(1), the following information is confidential, may not be published, and is not open to public inspection:
(1) Information submitted by a person under this section to:
(A) obtain; or
(B) renew;
a license to carry a handgun.
(2) Information obtained by a federal, state, or local government entity in the course of an investigation concerning a person who applies to:
(A) obtain; or
(B) renew;
a license to carry a handgun issued under this chapter.
(3) The name, address, and any other information that may be used to identify a person who holds a license to carry a handgun issued under this chapter.
(m) Notwithstanding subsection (l):
(1) any information concerning an applicant for or a person who holds a license to carry a handgun issued under this chapter may be released to a federal, state, or local government entity:
(A) for law enforcement purposes; or
(B) to determine the validity of a license to carry a handgun; and
(2) general information concerning the issuance of licenses to carry handguns in Indiana may be released to a person conducting journalistic or academic research, but only if all personal information that could disclose the identity of any person who holds a license to carry a handgun issued under this chapter has been removed from the general information.

A person logging on to the HT website is not doing journalistic nor academic research, and all it takes is for someone on a street by himself to be personally disclosed on the HT site as holding a LTCH, and they have violated it.



Anyone out there looking at a financial opportunity, I'm not greedy. 33% of the "take" would suit me nicely.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[bft131]

My sister in law works for that rag sheet and is as lib as they come..She even makes fun of it that NO one reads it anymore...Plus she makes it a point to come out to our family get togethers just to shoot my firearms..The wife and I feel we are converting her one shell at a time....

 

[Bushido Devil Dog]

For me the Indy Star quit being worth a damn when they stopped running the "Old Joe Crow" cartoon on the bottom of the front page.