If you live in Central FL, read this!!

Much to my surprise, I got to spend about ten minutes on the phone this afternoon with the general manager of WFTV.

He was genuinely solicitous of my input, heard me out at length without any of the "I've heard this all day long, thanks, goodbye" that I might have expected, and thanked me at the end of the conversation for the feedback. He said that he had definitely received a new appreciation for the views of law-abiding gun owners as the result of the many conversations he had today. Highlights:

1) He and his newsroom have been virtually inundated today with feedback from CWL holders in FL, expressing their objection, as I did, to the publication of the by-name lists on the WFTV website.

2) He does not agree with the assertion that in so doing, the station has made everyone on the list a potential target of burglary or home invasion for the sole purpose of stealing firearms. I obviously respectfully disagree. He made a point of saying that there was no effort on the part of the station to promote an anti-gun/anti-protection agenda, despite some allegations to that effect.

3) He said that they felt that they could have handled their story better, in the sense that what they were trying to do was respond to legitimate concerns on the part of parents who wanted to know whether there were guns in the homes of the people that their children played with. He also said that of all the gun owners he talked to today, no one objected to that. I don't, but if it's something I wanted to know, I'd ask directly.

4) He was very interested in the point I made about his reporter's erroneous (and inflammatory) assertion that the new "no duty to retreat" law allowed the use of deadly force for simple property crimes, when in fact it's plain that deadly force can be used only to prevent grievous bodily harm, or in limited cases, in the prevention of what Florida calls a "forcible felony." He even gave me his personal email address, and asked me to send him the Florida statute extract, which I have done. It will be interesting to see whether a correction is issued once the station has this information.

5) Finally, while it's clear that WFTV doesn't intend to pull down the lists and the article on its website, he did say that stories typically stay up for only a day or two as a function of making room for others.

My inference is that if he had been aware of all the above beforehand, the story would not have aired the way it did.

To his credit, the general manager listened to my (our) concerns, and seemed genuinely interested in getting his hands on the correct information regarding the "no duty to retreat" law.

Well I received a formal reply today by the manager I am assuming spoke with Bulldog...

Here is the reply:

"Thank you for taking the time to share your opinion with us. We take your concerns very seriously, and we understand that you strongly disagree with the station's decision to publish state records identifying concealed weapon permit holders in Central Florida.


While we very much respect your viewpoint, we believe that our story regarding concealed weapon permits, as well as the identities of those who have elected to obtain those permits, is newsworthy and of legitimate concern to the public. The Florida legislature has deemed that the identity of permit holders, including their names, addresses, dates of birth and permit numbers, is public information. While the legislature has determined that law abiding citizens have the right to carry a concealed weapon, it also has determined that their fellow citizens have a right to know who has been granted such a permit.


However, to the extent that you have any continuing concerns about the publication on the station's website of the state's list of permit holders, you should be reassured by the fact that this information is no longer available on the website as a result of the station's normal process of removing dated materials. We hope this will ease any concerns you may have.


Again, we thank you for taking the time to contact us. Please know that we hear you, and we understand your concerns. Hopefully, we can move forward from here with mutual respect and a better understanding of each other's viewpoint on this matter.

Bill Hoffman, General Manager "


My reply:

“Dear Sir,

I appreciate your return email and I completely understand the stance that your station takes on this issue, however paradoxical it maybe. I assure you the local firearms community is currently working with their legislators to have a bill proposed in the Florida house. Hopefully this will further protect our community from this type of media-frenzy inducing debauchery.

Basically, your logic that this personal information is of public concern is fallacious at best and liberal bias at worst. The amount of paperwork and back-ground checks that take place before someone can obtain a license to carry a firearm is extremely extensive on both a Federal and local level. I have been informed you attempt to justify your nonsensical babble by stating it is your duty to inform the parents and citizens of these counties, the names and addresses of CCW holders.

However the problem with this logic is that in the state of Florida you do not need a permit to purchase or own a firearm legally. In the Central Florida area there are 65,000+ permit holders, yet it is estimated there are hundreds of thousands of registered firearms. Obviously the permit holders are but a mere fraction of those who actually possess firearms legally, thus diminishing the false concern you propose to have for the citizenry. In fact it is equivocally comparable to a statistical laughing stock of correlation research, more or less a legitimate justification of action.

You apparently also disagree that the wanton release of this information is legitimate endangerment to our property and life. A firearm or weapon is merely an inanimate object, incapable of acts of volition. It requires the will and knowledge by an "individual" to create violence, danger, or death by firearm. Granted, accidents do occur, however that still falls into the realm of human error.

The primary concern I have as a firearms owner, aside from the blatant and constant misrepresentation in the media, is that illegal firearms are constantly getting into the hands of criminals via theft. Less than 5% of crime committed with a firearm is made by the owner of a legally registered firearm. The majority of firearm owners in my community do not own a single firearm, they own several; thus via Bayesian statistics you are creating a virtual maelstrom of illegal and stolen firearms being implemented into the hands of criminals. I assure you that people who read the news and your particular site are not limited to honest and law abiding citizens. To think so is absolutely irrational based on probability alone. I find it disturbing you guise your actions on the pretext of social or civic duty, while at the same time you are promoting the exact opposite.

The BATF, FBI, and Congress have studied legal firearm ownership AD-Nauseum and deduced that private owners and CCW permit holders are statistically more responsible and less like to make an accidental or unnecessary shooting than the majority of local police departments throughout the country.

If parents and the public are concerned with firearm ownership, then they need to take action as sentient beings to obtain this information as opposed to be force fed it via media outlets. This is no different than sex education, drug prevention, and literacy. If the parents in a community are so apathetic and lazy to seek information they deem a necessity for the safety of their lives or child, then that is what you need to spend time demonizing.

The irony of your statements in general should be self evident in the sense that you care for the concern and safety of one part of society at the sacrifice and privacy of another; even though the latter are actual law abiding citizens practicing a function of their Constitutional right.

This only further perpetuates the constant trend amongst the government and the media to victimize/demonize honest citizens at the expense of increasing the rights and protection of criminals. As a libertarian I assure you I respect your rights to the first amendment as I respect all rights in the manner you would expect of a rigid and unwavering constitutionalist.

I promise you I will do everything in my power to help the Florida representatives protect the identity and privacy of those who wish to defend their lives, property, and happiness. I will not bend or yield in the face of something as petty and trite as politics and media hype. Stating ambiguous terms like "responsibility" and "public safety", mean little to me when wielded by media corporations like so many swords, intent on placating and pacifying what you consider sheep.

Would you run an article that list the names and addresses of the top 65,000 most expensive jewelry collections in the central Florida area? Would this not create the propensity and exposure for thieves and criminally minded people to do harm to those people or their property? You must forgive the straw man argument listed above; however to me the lunacy of your condescending justification is equally as unsound.

I would dare to assume the public would be more concerned with firearms falling into the hands of criminals then they would be law abiding, constitutionally practicing individuals who have been checked extensively by the FBI, ATF, and local police departments. Or maybe the quintessential arrogance of the media makes you think your organization is more concerned with the safety of the public than the above institutions.

Lastly, it kind of defeats the purpose of being "concealed" if everyone knows you have it.... Unfortunately the state of Florida is inundated with liberal views on public domain information, and from what I understand, the worst state in the country for this type of ideology. Please wish us luck in protecting the life, property, and privacy of honest and law abiding citizens from the over active imaginations, political agendas, and sensationalism hype of the modern media giant.

Thank you”