Posted on 03/17/2007 4:17:25 AM PDT by Perseverando
The panel is expected to form a work group to examine whether the General Assembly should restrict public access to concealed handgun information.
By Laurence Hammack 981-3239
A state senator who heads an open records council is calling for a study of whether the identities of Virginians who have permits to carry concealed handguns should remain public.
Sen. Edd Houck, a Spotsylvania County Democrat who chairs the state's Freedom of Information Council, made the request in the wake of controversy generated by The Roanoke Times.
Earlier this week, the newspaper published and then pulled from its Web site a database containing the names and addresses of about 135,000 state residents who have obtained court permission to carry concealed handguns.
Although the information is public record, hundreds of readers and permit holders have complained that making the data so easily accessible on the Internet invaded their privacy and could make them targets of crime.
House Majority Leader Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, who is the vice chairman of the FOI council, said other people -- himself included -- who don't carry concealed handguns could also be put at risk.
"Maybe I need to be on that list," Griffith said. "I'm such a strong gun advocate that I thought I was safe because people just assumed that I had one. Now they know that I don't."
The council is expected to form a work group when it meets Monday in Richmond. After researching the issue and holding public hearings, the group will make recommendations that could lead next year's General Assembly to restrict or eliminate access to concealed handgun information.
"We're going to try to make sure that we protect folks," Griffith said.
One proposal is that Virginia follow the lead of Vermont, the only state that does not require its residents to obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun. "There are people advocating that," Griffith said, adding that he was not sure how far that idea might go.
The issue hit a flash point Sunday, when the database was posted on roanoke.com to supplement an opinion piece about open government by editorial writer Christian Trejbal.
As angry reaction flooded the newspaper's phone lines and Web site, president and publisher Debbie Meade announced Monday that the database was being taken down out of concerns that Virginia State Police, who released the information at the paper's request, might have included the names of crime victims in violation of state law.
The next day, state police said that was not the case. In fact, the state Freedom of Information Advisory Council issued an opinion in 2001 that found police are within their legal rights to release such data.
But the information remains off line as the debate continues.
Houck said he decided to ask for the study after citizens called his office to complain about the newspaper. While it was not a great number of calls, "the intensity was pretty strong," he said.
"This is one of those classic issues where you've got personal privacy rights bumping up against the public's right to know."
"Maybe I need to be on that list," Griffith said. "I'm such a strong gun advocate that I thought I was safe because people just assumed that I had one. Now they know that I don't."
Excellent quote by Morgan Griffith. I think we can count on him to stand firm for 2nd Amendment rights.
I understand there will be meetings on Monday regarding the disclosure of CCH permit holders.
VA Attorney General Bob McDonnell is very aware of the outrageouseous of the publishing of permit holder's information and is looking into the matter as well.
This issue is far from over.
bump
Very good news.
This has been an active topic since Sunday when the paper published the database.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=261555&goto=newpost
Once in a while the "law of unintended consequences" benefits our side as well. This anti-gun lib may have done us all a big favor.
ping :)
Every anti-gun advocate should be required to display a "no guns" poster on or near their front door.
Only fair to the hard working thugs, you know...
Exactly. I was concerned that all the outrage amounted to shooting the messenger. The REAL culprit was the state, giving that info away - and even demanding such useless info in the first place.
The next day, state police said that was not the case.
What was not the case - that crime victims were NOT included? That doesn't make sense. Or is it that State Police did NOT express concerns to the paper - and the publisher is lying to cover up her backpedaling?
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.