OT - Concealed carry

[Gun Smith]

Oregon is in the midst of a legal (in court) argument about allowing the public to have access to the records of concealed weapons permits that have been issued to citizens. Several newspapers want to publish these lists. Oregon is a "shall issue" state. The requirements for obtaining one are a background check and firearms safety course.
The pro and con arguments are interesting. The "absolutely not" arguement is pretty straight foward and what I think most of us here would vote for. The arguement being it would let the bad guys know where the guns might be found and stolen.
But the "yes" proponents have an interesting position. They say if the bad guys know who might be carrying or armed at home, they would leave those folks alone. A, so called, "automatic" deterent.
The sheriff in one county did send a letter to all the CWP owners in his county asking the question about privacy.
What do you think?

[mescalero1]

I would not have a problem, I have one, had it for years, never had a problem.

[alnitak]

You ought to check out the stink that was raised in Virginia when the RoanokeTimes (I think) printed a list of CHP holders. The VCDL site should have some reference material.

It is a ploy by antis to create public opposition against CHP holders, much like the sex offender data bases. They figure neighbors will get outraged and worried about their safety if they know who has guns in their house living near them, e.g., "I won't let my kids come over and play with yours." "I'm riding in a carpool with a gun owner...OH MY!", etc.. There are a couple bills now before the State legislature to restrict access to such CHP records.

Some comments from the VCDL website:

"It is the Freelance-Star that, to this day, continues to publish the names and addresses of new CHP holders in the region around Fredericksburg. This is done to intimidate people into not getting a permit and to poke gun owners in the eye, all under the guise of being a 'public service.'"

"One of our key points of contention will be that equal protection under the law is being violated by Houck's bill: information on police officers and judges are not disseminated to the public by courthouses and the State Police, but CHP holder information is disseminated.

CHP holders, many of whom have the same security considerations as those of police and judges, should be given the same protections as judges and police."

Do you really want this type of public inspection??

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/trejbal/wb/108160

I also liked this response, on another forum...
"It appears that you do not feel that compromise is good since your article simply blows the lid off of any attempt at discretion. You may truly believe that "the people have the right to know" but I have to ask you WHY do they need to know?

The people you have "uncovered" are law abiding citizens who have been "vetted" by the state via a background check, and who have spent their own precious time and money to go through an OPTIONAL (they could just open carry) process of training and authorization that is supposed to lessen tensions for everyone concerned. That these people have gone through all this bother AND PASSED should make you consider them MORE trustworthy not less.

That you don't understand this is, at best, terrible ignorance and at worst smacks of prejudice and yellow journalism.

Would you post a list of names and addresses for persons known to be gay? (people might want to know.) Would you post a list of names and addresses for persons returning from military service? (people might want to know). The point is that nobody, in any of the examples, has committed any crime so I wonder again WHY you would feel the need to spotlight any of them."

You can bet that if names and addresses of gays, or police officers, or people on wlefare, or whatever were printed, the ACLU would be up in arms. The double standard apllied is appalling!!

Bottom line, it's an invasion of privacy; it's dangerous (e.g., allows crooks to target houses);, and compromises other safety concerns (e.g., publishing peoples names and address when they are avoiding a stalking ex-spouse, etc.). Vote NO to such Big Brother acts!

[mescalero1]

Wow.

[Doc Hudson]

IMO, publishing the names of CCW Permit holders might make them more safe, but it would make the general public less safe.

We I a burglar, I'd avoid homes where I knew the homeowner had access to a firearm and concentrate on the homes that I could be pretty sure were unarmed. Burglars would rather encounter policemen than armed homeowners.

If I lived in Oregon and did not own a firearm, I'd be yelling and screaming that the newspapers were trying to paint a target on my and my home.

[alnitak]

More from the VCDL site on the ongoing battle:

Sunday, August 10. 2008
VA-ALERT: VCDL testifies to close FOIA loophole and protect CHP info!
From Philip Van Cleave

Last Tuesday the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Council subcommittee asked for input on Senator Houck's bill, SB 529, that would prohibit the Virginia State Police from disseminating Concealed Handgun Permit holder information, BUT would still allow Circuit Courts to give out that information.

It is probably no coincidence that Senator Houck likes that FOIA loophole, as the Fredericksburg Freelance-Star is in his district. He made a point of praising the paper in front of the subcommittee (ugh). The anti-gun paper unscrupulously prints the names and addresses of new CHP holders in the Fredericksburg area in order to intimidate gun owners from obtaining CHPs.

Three people spoke: Theron P. Keller, BJ Ostergren, and I.

I told the subcommittee that CHP information needs to be kept TOTALLY private, as many CHP holder's lives can be put in jeopardy by providing their address to those who might wish to do them harm. I told the subcommittee that included prohibiting dissemination of CHP information from CIRCUIT COURTS as well as from the State Police.

I said that there is no legitimate First Amendment reason for releasing CHP information.

Theron and BJ both did excellent jobs, making more or less the same points.

Theron pointed out that the AG opinion last year on the CHP information, says not once, but twice, that "it is my opinion that the express language of §18.2-308(K) limits the use of concealed carry permit information to law-enforcement personnel for investigative purposes." That, of course, strengthens our case to eliminate Houck's FOIA Loophole.

We will continue to fight to keep CHP records from public dissemination when Senator Houck's FOIA Loophole bill is heard again next year.

Here is coverage by Channel 29 (NBC) in Charlottesville.

There is a statement in the story that VCDL takes STRONG EXCEPTION to:

"Prior to the 2008 legislative session, gun rights activists and press associations agreed to a compromise, which became Senate Bill 529."

VCDL most certainly did NOT agree to any compromise on the Circuit Court loophole last year. We wanted the records totally closed, EXCEPT for bona fide gun organizations for education purposes. Perhaps other organizations agreed to the Circuit Court loophole, but VCDL did not and will not. In fact, this year, I did not even ask for the educational exception. We just want to close the list. Period, end of story.

http://www.nbc29.com/Global/story.asp?S ... enu496_2_5

State Lawmakers Spar Over Gun Rights

Updated: Aug 5, 2008 06:04 PM EDT

State leaders are continuing to battle over what, if any, information should be public record when it comes to Virginia's concealed carry permits.

In the past, press organizations have revealed all of the holders, but many gun rights activists say that shouldn't be allowed.

If you think this sounds like an argument the General Assembly had last year, you're right. A deal was struck by the Freedom of Information Council heading into last year's legislative session, but that deal seems to have fallen apart.

"Its hard to get a consensus between the access and the privacy pieces. It's always the balance that, I think, we have some difficulty trying to achieve," said 17th District Senator Edd Houck (D).

Houck leads the subcommittee that has been studying the concealed carry issue. The debate centers on allowing the names and addresses of those who have concealed gun permits to be public record.

"You want to put up where the rapists in a community are, fine. But the decent law abiding people you don't need to put that," said Phillip VanCleave with the Virginia Citizens Defense League.

Prior to the 2008 legislative session, gun rights activists and press associations agreed to a compromise, which became Senate Bill 529. The bill stated that the Virginia State Police would continue to keep a record of who has a permit, but could only release those names to other officials, such as law enforcement agencies.

The press associations said the compromise wasn't perfect, but it was one they could live with. But there were still some questions about the bill during the session, so it's now back in subcommittee for another year. And that's where some activists say it still needs a lot of work.

"It closes a backdoor, but it leaves a front door wide open," said Theron Keller, a concerned resident.

The controversy over this issue began last year when the Roanoke Times printed the names and addresses of all the concealed weapons holders in its area.

[Hobie]

The big thing here in VA was that it publicized public servants' (including former police officers, correctional officers and Commonwealth Attorneys) addresses, abused spouses trying to stay safe from their stalking abusers, and others. It was an act of arrogance, done because they could do it without regard for the consequences. What we did is publish the publishers' addresses, phone numbers, house values, etc. MOST got the point but some folks are dumb as rocks.

[Ysabel Kid]

The public has no need nor right to know this kind of information about law-abiding citizens. Funny how abortion is somehow cast as a "privacy issue", when the same side is so willing to chuck privacy aside if it suits their goals. The goal here is to embarass or scare gun owners, not help keep the public safe. Their own argument is ridiculous - if they actually believed that publishing a list of the people with arms would make them safer, and make potential criminals safer, they are in fact stating that they do not mind those without guns being less safe. Kind of destroys the whole anti-gun argument, doesn't it?

[alnitak]

If they truly want to make people safer, publish the names and addresses of convicted criminals...but, wait -- they can't do that. It's ILLEGAL...duh!

[Leverdude]

Its stupid.
I think, might be wrong but I doubt it, that its public information. If people want to know I think they can ask or look up who has a permit.
But publishing it in the paper serves no purpose but to stir the pot & they should be liable if their stupidity causes any hardship.

[O.S.O.K.]

It's wrong and the information should remain private. I think the first prerson that is burglerized and it is tied to this information being public should sue the bejeezers out of the paper that published it, the public officials that released the information, etc...

I'd rather see all elected official's record's posted - ongoing, every month showing every infraction and their record. Any DUI's, traffic tickets, IRS actions, etc. - show them all. That's what should be published as "a public service".

[Doc Hudson]

What I'd love to see is a published list of members of gun ban groups who own firearms.

Remember some years ago when that jackass news broadcaster in DC shot the kid swimming in his backyard pool? That elitist sonofabiscuiteatingcur openly campaigned for and supported strict gun control laws, and yet he shot that kid with an illegally owned, unregistered handgun. To the best of my recollection, no charges were ever filed against him. I guess newsmen were exempt from D.C.'s handgun ban.

Folks like that deserve to have their privacy violated. Their hypocrisy should be exposed to public ridicule.

Likewise I'd love to see in print the names of the anti-gun leaders who employ armed bodyguards. That is another form of hypocrisy I'd love to see exposed.

[okdee]

Why have Concealed Gun Carry, if you know the people that have the right to carry? You are automatically implying that they are carrying a gun, no matter if they are or not.

The whole point is NOT to Look like you are carrying a gun, as in CONCEALED GUN CARRY states!!!! NO ONE KNOWS!!!! HELLO......

Case in point.

You live 2 doors down from an older couple. This older couple , one of them in a wheelchair. They are in their mid-70's. Great folks, just like Mom and Dad!

You have a CHL and they do not. This is based on the printing of a public newspaper.

Who is more likely to be targeted by thieves, thugs, the bad guys? You can put more people in danger through any number of situations that are advantage to the bad people out there by publishing those names.

I say NO!

[Ray Newman]

"But the 'yes' proponents have an interesting position. They say if the bad guys know who might be carrying or armed at home, they would leave those folks alone. A, so called, 'automatic' deterrent."
--Gun Smith

That simply is a red herring, ruse, etc.:

-- Not unusual for the criminal element to watch a house so as to know when someone leaves. They also ring door bells looking for someone who supposedly lives there. If no one is home, criminals have been know to break a window looking for reaction or an alarm system.

-- Many people are deadly afraid of firearms & reloading materials. The more society demonizes a person, object, idea, etc., the easier it will be control, regulate, & eventually prohibit that object.

-- So called “public awareness” of who is armed is just one part of a subtle campaign to inform the neighbors who is armed. & in some case, this can/will lead to some hard feelings by your neighbors, or you’ll be looked upon as potentially dangerous.

If you don't get along w/ your neighbor(s) or have a neighbor(s) who is the busy body, always calls the police over anything, or is argumentative, borderline verbally abusive/threatening, etc., it is just an excuse to call the police & report that the other neighbor threatened him/her & the neighbor has firearms.

-- Remember a few years ago, the American Pediatrics Asso. told its physician members to warn parents of the potential dangers of firearms in the home during office visits? & since more often than not, the mother takes the child to the doctor, who do think that this warning was really aimed @? By their very nature, mothers are very protective of their offspring. I’ve seen threads where adult posters have been asked about firearms ownership in the home on medical questionnaires.

-- @ one time there was a parent-child related web site or a woman’s magazine site that advised parents of young children to have other parents of young children fill out a model or proposed questionnaire about dangerous objects or situations in their neighbors’ homes before letting child play or visit there. Yup & you guessed it: one/some of the questions asked about firearms -- Do you own firearms, esp. handguns & assualt weapons? How are they stored? Are they stored loaded? Is the ammunition readily accessible to small children, etc.?

Colleagues, the anti-firearms groups & their supporters are very sophisticated in their approach to achieving their end goal(s). Don’t ever under-estimate them or their supporters.

On a personal observation, were I formerly lived, one my neighbors was scared sh*tless of firearms in the home. I never told the couple that I reloaded w/ Black Powder (BP) cartridges. That would have drove them over the edge as BP is a very low grade explosive.

I also knew another guy & his wife who were not worried about the acetylene gas tanks for welding that he had in his garage, but reloading equipment -- Oh NO ! -- way too dangerous as gun powder explodes...

[Gun Smith]

As I thought, you like the "NO PUBLISH" position. By the way, the sheriff that sent out the questionaire received almost a 100% "NO PUBLISH" reponse.

[JerryB]

WELL, WELL, WELL, I just heard on the six o'clock news that the leftist liberal "Arkansas Times" pubished by a Max Brantley published my name along with the rest of the CCW permit holders in the state. This was done on 2-22-09,two days ago and I had to here it on the news. The big paper in Memphis did the same thing for The great state of Tenn.
I am just plain mad right now,but I'll get over it.

[Grizz]

the only sane system is Alaska's. the constitution recognizes the right to bear arms. you can carry open or concealed with no permit necessary. there are a few places where you can't carry, they still cherish their judges for some unthinkable reason. other than that the state says it's none of their business.

every state should be that way and only that way.

[TomF]

The permit is to carry concealed so why would I want to have my name published. Concealment is for a reason. Why do n't we publish the names of those on welfare, or late on payments or wife beaters, or scumbags in general. Seems like the courts want to protect some and not others. If I carry or not is no ones business but mine.


TomF

[JustaJeepGuy]

What I'd love to see is a published list of members of gun ban groups who own firearms.

Remember some years ago when that jackass news broadcaster in DC shot the kid swimming in his backyard pool? That elitist sonofabiscuiteatingcur openly campaigned for and supported strict gun control laws, and yet he shot that kid with an illegally owned, unregistered handgun. To the best of my recollection, no charges were ever filed against him. I guess newsmen were exempt from D.C.'s handgun ban.

That was Washington Post columnist Carl Rowan, who has since died. His son, Carl Rowan, Jr. is on the board of directors of the NRA.

Also, Vermont has no restrictions on concealed-carry.

[Hobie]

What I'd love to see is a published list of members of gun ban groups who own firearms.

Remember some years ago when that jackass news broadcaster in DC shot the kid swimming in his backyard pool? That elitist sonofabiscuiteatingcur openly campaigned for and supported strict gun control laws, and yet he shot that kid with an illegally owned, unregistered handgun. To the best of my recollection, no charges were ever filed against him. I guess newsmen were exempt from D.C.'s handgun ban.

Folks like that deserve to have their privacy violated. Their hypocrisy should be exposed to public ridicule.

Likewise I'd love to see in print the names of the anti-gun leaders who employ armed bodyguards. That is another form of hypocrisy I'd love to see exposed.

His FBI agent son gave him the gun. No charges or punitive action against him either. One of the ONLY ONES...

[AJMD429]

I say publish the names, and addresses, and vacation spots, and kid's school addresses, of ALL the politicians and the news media SCUM who support such legislation. Make THEM feel the vulnerability of the single woman who weighs 95 pounds and has arthritis, and works night shift, riding the last downtown bus to her apartment, whose ONLY defense is the CCW she has.

Every journalist and politician should feel the vulnerability and FEAR many young women deal with daily. Urban Yuppie Scum.

[piller]

If the criminals know that the state allows concealed carry, but don't know who, doesn't it stand to reason that they will be less likely ti simply attack a target of opportunity for fear of getting shot back at? I agree that the publishing of the lists is simply an encroachment toward total ban.