Busybody News 12! (With Update)

Someone in Rochester has taken a photo of a man who apparently has a valid Minnesota carry permit, put it on a sign, and posted it on their lawn – to wit:

KAAL TV in Rochester is on the story.

Of course, if you follow the news and the law, you may legitimately ask – what precisely is “the story”?

I can see two stories here:

  • Unless there’s been some accusation of an actual crime, the “story” is that a law-abiding citizen is doing something that he (given that he presumably has a valid Minnesota carry permit, which proves he has a spotless criminal record) is legally entitled to do.
  • One of the man’s neighbors is publicly harassing him for doing something perfectly legal.

I don’t know what angle KAAL is going to take – the “story” is going to run during their evening news tonight.

I have emails in to the reporter and her news director.   Most reporters disdain responding to the peasantry, but we shall see.

This will be a subject on the show tomorrow.

UPDATE:  I got an email from the station’s news director.  I’m less concerned about the station’s motivations than by the neighbors’, at this point.

This is less a matter of media bias to me (at this point) than certain peoples’ intolerance, bigotry and penchant for drama.

11 thoughts on “Busybody News 12! (With Update)

  1. Looks like someone needs to remember that (a) Rochester does have a federal prison and an area of town that is “not quite so good”, and that (b) posting a sign like this just might suggest that the homeowner does not have the equipment to do this, and therefore (c) certain former residents of the correctional institution, or like-mindless individuals, might take that as an opportunity.

  2. I don’t see why someone would put a sign like this in their yard. Of course I don’t understand why some people leave purses and laptops in unlocked cars or why some people leave their garage doors open while they’re not home either. If I had to make a bet on who in this neighborhood is likely to be the victim of a home invasion, I’d put it on the guy with the sign on the yard who just told the world they don’t believe in using firearms to defend themselves, their home or their family.

  3. I don’t get why someone would put a sign like this in their yard. Of course I also don’t understand why some people leave purses and laptops in unlocked cars or why some people leave their garage doors open while they’re not home either. If I had to make a bet on who in this neighborhood is likely to be the victim of a home invasion, I’d put it on the guy with the sign on the yard who just told the world they don’t believe in using firearms to defend themselves, their home or their family.

  4. I’ve gt a great idea, bikebubba!
    A few years ago some New York paper got in trouble when it printed a list of all the licensed gun owners in town. Why not reverse it and publish a list of all the non-gun owners in town? It’s the same information. You can find out who is a licensed gun owner by seeing who is not on the list. Anti-gun folks should not have a problem with that.

  5. Huh. That’s interesting. I live half a block away from Harriet Bishop elementary. I actually think I recognize the house in the background of that picture.

  6. You’d think that the alleged gun carrier could get a restraining order (HRO) to prevent the person from posting the sign. Aside from the potential danger the sign could pose, it makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims that are unproven.

    I agree though, that perhaps the alleged carrier might enjoy the potential benefits of being named as a gun owner. The exposure the sign provides isn’t much different than that experienced (and sought by) those who carry firearms openly. He could also fight fire with fire …

    I’d sure like to hear the whole story though. Things like this don’t often happen spontaneously …

  7. Perhaps conceal and carry permit holders should be required to wear blaze orange apparel. This would serve both interested parties. Although I would concede the conceal component is removed from the equation.

  8. ” …it makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims that are unproven.”

    Is there such a thing as an unsubstantiated claim that is proven?

    Sorry for the redundant and unnecessarily repetitious phrase.

  9. Great idea. I’m going to take a photo of my neighbor and put up signs everywhere: “Don’t let this woman near your children, she voted for Obama TWICE!” I’m certain my other neighbors will appreciate the heads-up.

    .

  10. Calling any lawyers does the guy whose photo was taken have a libel slander or invasion of privacy complaint against this holier than thou prick?

  11. I’m no lawyer, but to sue for libel or slander, you’ve got to prove the claims were false–that you’re not carrying a gun around children. So no go there.

    However, there is probably a place in the law for suing someone whose actions endangered you. So if they guy had a real need to carry and was now exposed, or if hordes of anti-gun activists started harassing him, there might be grounds for an action.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.