Posted on 03/12/2007 10:58:48 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe
The Roanoke Times has decided to remove the online database of registered concealed handgun permit holders from its website.
The newspaper is requesting the Virginia State Police, which provided the information, verify the data.
“When we posted the information, we had every reason to believe that the data the State Police had supplied would comply with the statutes. But people have notified us that the list includes names that should not have been released,” said Debbie Meade, president and publisher of The Roanoke Times. “Out of a sense of caution and concern for the public we have decided to take the database off of our website.”
The database was posted on roanoke.com on Sunday as part of a New River Valley editorial page column about open records. This column, as well as others that will be published this week, is part of a special focus on Sunshine Week, a national initiative to raise awareness about open government and freedom of information.
http://blogs.roanoke.com/roundtable/columns/comment_on_trejbals_column_12.html
The person who had it posted, columnist Christian Trejbal, wrote a thinly veiled antigun screed to accompany posting the database, in the name of "open government".
The mods pulled the previous thread on this stating the reason as "Enough".
Well, I may be stepping in it, here, but people need to know if there is a possibility their information has been accessed.
As well, there are issues of when the First Amendment clashes with not only the Second Amendment, but the right of people to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects.
Just because something is in a public record, that does not justify making it readily accessible, and the columnist's contempt for firearm owners and permit holders is evident from the references in the column found here
BANG!
WTF ping invasion of privacy
Try to keep it nice, folks, the original post of that column was pulled.
I know that posting the entire DB is a bit different, but right now anyone who does a court records search will find a person's CC application and disposition. Court records are public records.
Forgot to mention... I am sure there were more than a few pols and Beltway heavy hitters in the DB, which is why it was pulled so quickly.
Was reading the link to comments
CCW permit records are not court records in the sense of a divorce decree or other judgement. (The writer obtained the master list from the VA State Police because he was having trouble getting the local information from the courthouse.) The application process is not one which any person can walk into, sit down and watch, unlike most courtroom proceedings.
There are a number of reasons for applying for a permit, including those who have very real, specific threats to protect themselves against. The person(s) who constitute those threats could conceiveably locate the data, although the State Police might not give it to them, including the address of the applicant, through normal channels.
The columnist did their footwork for them.
When that act is coupled with the statement "A state that eagerly puts sex offender data online complete with an interactive map could easily do the same with gun permits, but it does not.", the writer's anti-gun bias is made far more clear.
If you have not read the article, do so. link
The entire tone of the piece is that concealed carry permitees are a menace and danger to society and the smugness comes from the writer's attitude that somehow he is doing a public service.
Arguably, the opposite is the case, and he villifies people who have been vetted through FBI background checks to get the permit as if they were heinous criminals.
I agree that the columnist seems to be a jerk, and also agree that people should have some privacy, but how does it harm or endanger me if people know that I might be carrying? Doesn't it just give would-be miscreants a motive to give me a wide berth?
One thing I am sure off it was not flack from other newspapers.
The Internet is far from perfect, but it beats the heck out of the elitist newspapers.
If we weren't required to have permits to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights, this couldn't have ever happened. Alaska and Vermont have this one right.
Yeah, Virginia carry permit holders like me, and our Pit Bull watchdog group the VCDL. Who slammed the paper with letters and phone calls, and convinced them of the errors of their ways, and reminded them of the consequenses of crossing us.
Let's say you have a psycho ex-boyfriend who was bothering you, so you moved somewhere else and, just in case,
got a gun and a carry permit.
Now some newspaper decides to make your name and new address available to anyone, including your crazy ex.
I'd call that harm.
Which means certain matters should be sealed (not open unless with a court order).
There is no reason divorce cases should be open.
Matters with minors are generally closed to the public.
The idea is that public court protect the public, however these days, public courts are used against the public with media whore lawyers and slap suits.
How many women with restrainign order did they expose to their tormentor?
Even if they took the database down, it might still be available via an online archive like wayback.com
If any of those women get hurt I hope this writer is sued for this culpable negligence.
Who slammed the paper with letters and phone calls, and convinced them of the errors of their ways, and reminded them of the consequences of crossing us.
Thank God for the First Amendment.
"Reporters" may hide behind it, but it is also there for us peons to make our voices heard.
Sad that the first amendment is now what protects us FROM the newspapers instead of the other way around. Newpaper corporations (and the MSM) are now the enemy.
No wonder the MSM is trying to shut down and coopt the internet.
I had an incident years ago where I got my carry permit and bought my first handgun. About 3 weeks later, my house was broken into while I was gone and the only thing stolen was guns. I still think someone accessed my records somehow.
And his newspaper.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.