Jackson Jambalaya

I have an ancient WW2 era Army issued pistol and a coachman's double barrel but I don't want newspaper advertisement or a test of the gun deterrent theory.

Is that a picture of a man with a wig on?

Are you outing Shadowfax?

I heard she likes to be called between midnight and six AM.

Someone should tell Prince we can't get drivers license info from the DMV nor license plate info from the county tax collector. No different.

Thank you to Senator Longwitz for this bill. I shouldn't be a sitting duck in my own home. Thank you also to Jim Prince for running a fine paper. I see his point, but on this issue he's wrong.

i used to live in n.y and worked as a corrections officer. a few of my friends still working have been approched by inmates and being told{i know where you live} nice to know you are protected by hipaa, but might beouted if you own a hand gun eh?

It's not unreasonable to believe that at some time in our future we will see Prince (and others) publishing the names of all gun-owners who are taking prescription medication for depression. Eventually that information will make its way to federal records via medical records based on conversations/questionnaires of patients.

What's next? Maybe patients taking viagra who own binoculars.

I'm tempted to start doing the same thing to Prince and the MPA lobbyists they are advocating.

Real tempted.

I am a single mother with 2 small children. I don't want anyone knowing I have guns in my house or that I don't have guns in my house. Can't these people understand it's not just about privacy, it's about safety?

What needs to happen is for some of these criminals to break into one of these concealed permit holders houses that this elitist newspaper has published the permit holders address and marked it on a map for all to see and the resident be home and drop the criminals in their tracks, pow pow pow!!!

Now that would be called justice!

Ah, ha...hubby is making a fortune off of government contracts, his wife, this homely bitch controls one of the biggest mouthpieces for Obama admin.
nothing to see here...move along...

We as a society have decided that some information needs to be private. Your mortgage application information, etc. WHY is this differenct?
When the CL first published the information, as I recall they were very opposed to the concealed carry laws int he first place. They published the information because they wanted to make it seem like the permit holders were dangerous people. They aren't. They are law abiding citizens that deserve their privacy not to be violated.

Why does Jim Prince think that the records ought to be public? I don't get this one at all. I'm all for keeping any gun ownership or registration private.

I'd like to see him print a list ... and then I'll send flowers to his family. We don't play in Mississippi. My privacy is more important than a fake news rag anyway.

Isn't the arrogance of liberalism a wonderful thing?

What about the poor woman that has a stalker or a abusive spouse and has hidden from them and got a permit for protection. Publish the address and it will let them know where she is.

1:25 What a scary possibility. This type of information should never have been public in the first place

Will due respect to J Prince, he is 100% wrong. Glad Longwitz introduced bill, hopefully they will get it through.

This whole mentality of putting people at risk to make copy is unbelievable.

This whole argument on guns is absurd to me. A gun is an inanimant object. It doesn't jump up by itself. Deaths are caused my a huge number of things: vehicle accidents, knives, clubs, natural causes, overdoses, various illnesses.

You cannot take out the risks involved with being alive on this planet. People are killed by vehicles (accidents, drunk driving, etc)....nobody is trying to outlaw vehicles as a danger to society.

and one more thing. If guns should be such a danger that people shouldnt have them, may the secret service be the first to turn theirs over. They can shout "Stop" and see how effective it is.

What's good for the goose...

11:29 its comments like yours ("I'd like to see him print a list ... and then I'll send flowers to his family. We don't play in Mississippi. My privacy is more important than a fake news rag anyway.") that make me think twice about the need for more registration information for mental idiots!

Many of the posts here haven't even bothered to read the discussion, or else they are too damn dumb to interpret it.

The question being raised by Prince and Longwitz ONLY applies to concealed carry permit holders - not gun owners. In MS, you can own the guns all day long. But under current statutes you have to get a permit - from the government - to carry it on your person. Prince's argument is that since the government has given you the permit, it is a matter of public record. Longwitz is trying to change the law to make that public record secret.

This is the slippery slope argument on both sides. There are plenty of lawmakers who would like to make most everything the government does be secret. In this case, its a "conservative" lawmaker on a "conservative" issue. But what's next - let's not make public what perks the lawmakers receive; what their travel schedules are; what the receive in pay?

On the other side of the slippery slope, does the allmighty press think that they are entitled to everything and can do with that information whatever they want, damned the consequences?

The solution to this quandry is to correct the "concealed carry" laws. Individuals are entitled to own guns now; why should they have to obtain a permit from out allmight government to carry it on their persons.

Longwitz, fix the real problem then this conflict of the two "rights" wouldn't exist. Clarify the fact that individuals don't have to obtain a permit to "carry" - probably was an opinion issued by someone several years ago in the furtherance of their agenda.

I just took my enhanced weapon training, today. Prince would go ballistic over that...no pun intended!

This is the slippery slope argument on both sides. There are plenty of lawmakers who would like to make most everything the government does be secret. In this case, its a "conservative" lawmaker on a "conservative" issue. But what's next - let's not make public what perks the lawmakers receive; what their travel schedules are; what the receive in pay?

Pardon? You equate the sequestering of citizen's personal information stored via the government as "government secret"?

What public interest does it serve to provide the names and addresses of individuals who, under law, have to obtain a permit so that they will not be breaking a law?

Should a database for all drivers be made available, as well?

The suburban New York paper that caused a nationwide uproar over its online interactive map of gun permit owners in two counties has finally removed the chart from its website.

The map prompted thousands of complaints to the paper which also prompted the anti-gun paper to hire its own armed guards supposedly to protect its employees. The removal of the map was preceded by a new state law which protects gun permit holders’ privacy.

I've already commented on the follow up post, but I need to add that Jim Prince is never going to publish a list of concealed carry permit holders, and any of you who think otherwise don't know him nor do you read the papers he publishes. His argument isn't about this list - it's about public records being public records. He has a duty as a journalist, and as the current president of the Mississippi Press Association, to oppose any law that allows the government to keep more secrets from the press, and by extension, the people. This one walks a fine line, but I'm confident a solution can be found.

While I lived in Jackson the Clarion Ledger DID publish lists for several months of Concealed Carry permit applicants. This was approximately 91-93 time period. Some change was made to the permitting process, a story was run on it and next thing we knew there were lists complete w/addresses. This was also during the period of time when Belhaven was literally under seige with break-ins. At least two break-ins resulted with probable cause being the list - one in the small downtown office where my employer had biz. Several attorneys were also headquartered in that building and one used the address for his permit. Sure nuff, next week the building was broken into. Another instance was my very near neighbor. Letters flew back and forth in Letters to the Editor and eventually CL backed off and quit publishing. Check it out!

That was, of course, before David Hampton relocated back to Fondren from Ridgeland where he had located in order to avoid having to send his children to Jackson Public Schools.

Bill: I'm having a problem with your logic. And, by extension, with Mr. Prince's logic. Both of you seem to be saying that the way to ensure public records remain public is to publish them.

For a public record to be public only requires that the record be available upon request (or upon the meeting of certain request standards), not that it be pasted up in the town square.

Likewise, and even more meaningful to Mr. Prince, why does a newspaper NOT publish the names of sex crimes? Why do newspaper publishers decide that that particular information should be withheld from public view? And if Mr. Prince is adamant about running public information up flag poles, why doesn't he start publishing the names of rape or sexual assault victims? Clearly, the answer is that it would serve no public interest or good and would not benefit the public to know those names.

And since Mr. Prince is hellbent on publishing that which is public (simply because he can), we'll look for a change in sex crime policy.

5:45, neither I nor Mr. Prince said anything about publishing the information. The issue is whether or not it should remain public. Yes, someone could publish it like the idiots in New York did, but Mr. Prince has made it clear that he wouldn't do so. There are ample arguments to be made that concealed carry permit applications should be confidential and only one argument that they shouldn't - the slippery slope toward government secrecy. I didn't say I was on Mr. Prince's side - I simply said that I understood his position and it was valid. I will encourage my legislators, one of whom authored the Senate bill, to vote for passage of this law, because I think the protection it provides is worth the public losing a little bit of transparency. Lawmakers can propose bills at any time that could prevent the public from keeping track of what they're doing, and I don't believe this one will change that.

I'm with the poster who points out that getting a concealed carry permit is not something 'the govt' does - it is something a private citizen does. Publishing addresses and I suppose phone numbers next of those who follow the law and obtain a required permit is what I view as a slippery slope. How many folks get a concealed carry for no reason whatsoever? Most of us have some specific situation, work duty, or perceived dangerous circumstance which causes us to feel that concealed carry is desirable for us.

I'd never dispute the 'right' of the press to view records. It might be desirable or important for them to compile a list of (for instance) how many concealed carry permits are out there by neighborhood or voting district, or other such division. But publishing an individual's address should be prohibited for ANY type of required license. What is next - are papers going to claim they have the right to publish the deceased addy in an obit in order to let burglars know when the family will probably be out attending a funeral or visitation - after all, dead people have to get a death certificate from the state, right? What about publishing all marriage license addys so distant relatives can judge whether the couple was shacked up prior to marriage? And certainly, since numerous levels of govt approval are required to run for office or to be appointed - and after all licenses are required - every lawyer, accountant, and judge must be subject to having their address published.