Posted on 12/06/2007 6:22:14 AM PST by Gopher Broke
Here we go again...the libs at the Roanoke Times want to make Concealed Carry information available to the public view....
It's almost inevitable that Virginia lawmakers will allow the public less access to records on who has a state permit to carry concealed handguns.
The hullabaloo this newspaper stirred up in March, when a Roanoke Times editorial writer produced a column that included a link to the online database, pretty much assures a legislative reaction.
What thoughtful Virginians, including gun-rights advocates, should oppose vigorously is legislative overreaction. And that is what came out of the State Freedom of Information Advisory Council on Monday in the form of draft legislation the council is backing.
The draft would prohibit public access to the state police database of concealed-carry permit holders. The information would remain part of the public record in circuit courts, which issue the permits, but available only on a locality-by-locality basis.
In April, Attorney General Bob McDonnell advised state police to shut off public access to its database. The draft legislation would make that restriction the law. But why?
House Majority Leader Morgan Griffith explained: "I think the real concern here was that there were a lot of people on that list who were victims of crime, who had been stalked or who had been in abusive situations."
That's a reasonable fear -- and precisely what prompted the newspaper to reconsider and, after fielding hundreds of complaints, to remove its online link to the database. Rather than put all of that data out of the public's easy reach, though, the state should address the "real concern" and redact only the information that might reasonably be thought to put someone in harm's way.
Anyone with a concealed-carry permit who has obtained a restraining order against someone, for example, could be entered into the database, but removed from the list available to the public.
People need access -- not to satisfy idle curiosity about who of their acquaintances might be carrying, though public records can be used that way. Rather, public access acts as an important check on government.
If the state's concealed-carry law should fail in some way in its intent to protect public safety, the public has a need to know and a right to know. It should have the means to know.
letters@roanoke.com
Virginia is for Gun-Lovers.
Why not publish the names, addresses and phone numbers for everyone on the staff of the Roanoke Times ?
Drivers licenses are also state documents. Does Virginia open all drivers licenses to the public? I doubt it. Nor should Virginia allow open access to CCW permits. This is particularly true if the permit holder is dealing with an abusive spouse or such like.
As I recall, there was some discussion of the VA State SC Justices being on the list, and they did not like having their home addresses published by the Roanoak Times.
I have no problem with this. It lets people know that my house is protected. I would also publish the names of all teh editors and reporters at the Roanoke Times along with their work schedules so that everyone knows when their unarmed home is empty!
Bingo.
But I would settle for the names, addresses, and phone numbers of the editors and reporters.
And, yes, before someone asks, there are places where we cannot carry - school grounds, bars, & Federal buildings (and two or three more) come to mind.
I recently heard a suggestion that more people who carry concealed consider carrying openly in a holster on her belt. She said she had been asked, "Well, why are you openly carrying a handgun?" Her answer was, "Because this is Alaska and because I can!"
Are the rolls of people on food stamps a matter of public record?
Your laws there should be copied in the other 49 states. In Tennessee, we have “carry permits” which allow either open or concealed carry. Any business which chooses not to allow such is required to post a sign to that effect at the entrance. I had a little go-round with a security guard at a Wal-Mart over that when he tried to tell me that Wal-Mart only allowed cops to carry in their stores. I e-mailed their corporate office later that night and they couldn’t have apologized faster. Still, the security guy at another local Wal-Mart says he has instructions from his boss at the sub-contracted security company that he should not allowed armed citizens into the store. I carry concealed, but if he ever notices and stops me, I guess I’ll have to go to the actual store management.
The State should do this, the editorial says. The same State that failed to provide the mental health information -- court required psychiatric care needed -- to the Federal NICS database . Info that would have, and should have, prevented a psycho like Cho from ever purchasing a gun.
What ninnies....
Whether I am authorized to have a concealed carry permit is NOT for anyone to know, unless I chose to tell them. Personally, I don’t care one way or the other if someone knows, but listing it in the news paper is out and out invasion of privacy.
The Roanoke times already ran the information once, then they apologized when there was several law suits filed now they are back at it again.
You’re damned right it is. What the paper is doing is attempting to smear and intimidate gun owners via a non story about their personal preference.
“The same State that failed to provide the mental health information — court required psychiatric care needed — to the Federal NICS database . Info that would have, and should have, prevented a psycho like Cho from ever purchasing a gun.”
The state did indeed fail in the case of Cho, but you failed to note that Virginia was and is at the top of the list of states who DO report these people. Some states report nobody at all.
Yeah. I read that recently. I find that appalling, and a prime example of failure of states to properly enforce existing firearms laws. I just think that before offering up new laws, the politicians should insist that existing laws be enforced. But I realize that standing in front of a TV camera, denouncing the NRA and Second Amendment protections, does get votes. Red meat for lefties....
Am I ever glad that I escaped from this hell-hole!
All that would do is make it clear who does NOT have a gun.....kinda stupid if you ask me.
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.