• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Poll - Protect CHP info or Not - hit it.

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
What started as a simple measure to protect people threatened with domestic violence has been rewritten by the General Assembly’s most gun-friendly committee to close off public access to records of concealed-handgun permits.


If passed by the Assembly, it would be a sweeping change to the state’s decades-old system of regulating concealed weapons, a system whose records have always been public.

Poll found at far left.

http://hamptonroads.com/2013/02/move-would-close-va-gunpermit-records-public
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Done.

Should the General Assembly pass a bill to close off public access to records of all concealed-handgun permits?
Yes


62% (106 votes)

No


37% (64 votes)

Not sure


1% (1 vote)

Total votes: 171

Apparently 65 folks did not understand that the same @$$hattery that happened in New York happens everywhere names and addresses are released. Intimidation of police and prison/jail guards, break-ins specifically targetting homes with guns, etc.

Finding out who has a CHP has nothing to do with transparency of government operations. That's what finding out things like how long it takes to process applications, how many prohibited persons are caught filing applications, or documenting the extra-legal stuff Clerks try to force applicants to perform in order to get a CHP application processed - that would be the role of news gatherers looking to assue transparency.

If the "press" elieves that someone has a CHP who should not, then they can do the same things anybody else can - bring their concerns to the attention of the Clerk and demand a written report of the results of any investigation. Sure there's room for abuse in that, but there will also be a written record of harassment/libel/defamation if it turns out the report was just part of an attempt to end-run the confidentiality rules.

stay safe.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Done.



Apparently 65 folks did not understand that the same @$$hattery that happened in New York happens everywhere names and addresses are released. Intimidation of police and prison/jail guards, break-ins specifically targetting homes with guns, etc.

Finding out who has a CHP has nothing to do with transparency of government operations. That's what finding out things like how long it takes to process applications, how many prohibited persons are caught filing applications, or documenting the extra-legal stuff Clerks try to force applicants to perform in order to get a CHP application processed - that would be the role of news gatherers looking to assue transparency.

If the "press" elieves that someone has a CHP who should not, then they can do the same things anybody else can - bring their concerns to the attention of the Clerk and demand a written report of the results of any investigation. Sure there's room for abuse in that, but there will also be a written record of harassment/libel/defamation if it turns out the report was just part of an attempt to end-run the confidentiality rules.

stay safe.


Not entirely true. The potential problems with government operations surrounding CHPs that can be exposed by open records can also be discovered and/or solved on other channels currently, but only as long as it remains shall issue and the anti-rights requirements to obtain a CHP remain at current levels of infringement.

If, for example, in ten years the General Assembly reverted to may issue, you'd have a devil of time exposing that in some jurisdictions only the sheriff's cronies got CHPs.

One thing we couldn't do if the records are closed to the public is expose the hypocrisy of any permit-holding anti-gun legislators, journalists, editors, etc.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
This is a solution in search of a problem.

Don't want your info published? Open carry (correct me if I'm wrong, but this opencarry.org).

Want to CC anyway? Then let's get our state in line with the Constitution, instead of wasting our energies on dubious measures.

The whole thought process behind this thread is ******, IMO.
 
Last edited:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Apparently 65 folks did not understand that the same @$$hattery that happened in New York happens everywhere names and addresses are released. Intimidation of police and prison/jail guards, break-ins specifically targetting homes with guns, etc.

Apparently at least one of those folks sees no reason to allow people to become even more comfortable and complacent in their privilege held contrary to right.

The Commonwealth of Virginia has no moral or legal authority (by our own constitution) to require licensure of concealed carry.

Frankly, as each day passes, I grow less and less sympathetic to eager privilege-seekers.

Anyone inclined to repeat the standard arguments can spare me. It won't change the fact that you hold privilege against right (as it is denied to others), and expend energy fighting to have that privilege ensconced and protected. Which is fine, but don't expect me to care about your precious address.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Yes this site is dedicated to promoting and defending the right to OC, but OCing is not a requirement for the privilege of posting/reading here. We espouse the option to OC as a personal choice.

Those that do not "get it" as to why such anonymity is a good thing should consider the reason(s) that they did not register on this site under their full real name and did not give their home address for their location. Those reasons are quite obvious to most........think that little more needs to be said.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Those that do not "get it" as to why such anonymity is a good thing should consider the reason(s) that they did not register on this site under their full real name and did not give their home address for their location. Those reasons are quite obvious to most........think that little more needs to be said.

Apparently you didn't read my post.


Don't want your info published? Open carry (correct me if I'm wrong, but this opencarry.org).

Want to CC anyway? Then let's get our state in line with the Constitution, instead of wasting our energies on dubious measures.

Anyone inclined to repeat the standard arguments can spare me.

And finally:

marshaul said:
...you hold privilege against right (as it is denied to others), and expend energy fighting to have that privilege ensconced and protected. Which is fine, but don't expect me to care about your precious address.

Right now, today, if you have a CHP, your information is published. Apparently you were OK with that at the time, or at least enough so to beg for permission for that which is your right.

And Citizen is completely right. The process needs transparency, so that we the citizens can ensure it doesn't become corrupt – that isn't optional. You don't like that, expend the energy pursuing Constitutional carry. (Hey, at least I didn't tell you to move. :p)

It's nothing personal, but I have zero sympathy for those who seek to have privilege further ensconced in our way of life. I seek nothing less than the complete destruction of all such privilege, and I view any attempt to make privilege more comfortable an obstacle to that aim.
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Grapeshot

Those that do not "get it" as to why such anonymity is a good thing should consider the reason(s) that they did not register on this site under their full real name and did not give their home address for their location. Those reasons are quite obvious to most........think that little more needs to be said.
Apparently you didn't read my post.

Not sure why you address that to me. I did not quote you directly in my reply. Because you give an opinion on a matter hardly precludes me for making a contribution.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
Being neutral....first I'll give my suggestion which was not used because it would have caused the Clerks office to do a little work.

Pass a statute that required the court to seal the record of anyone that requests it. No blanket coverage. My guess is at least 75% of CHP holders wouldn't bother.

When I look at the question I am looking at it from another angle.

Imagine a beautiful rural area with a shooting range. The range had been there for generations and had benefited everyone in the area.

One day a person from up north comes out and says, "What a beautiful rural area. I'm going to buy an acre, build a house and pretend I'm a country person.

They do and a year later start grumbling because the gunfire is noisy and dangerous. A bullet could fly over any second.

Then they ask the General Assembly to close it. Never mind that they knew about the range when they built or that it had worked well for everyone until they came along.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
I also want to add that I'm not against this bill....I'm just not for it. It sets a bad precedent IMO, but really isn't going to bring the curtain of transparency to a close.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Not sure why you address that to me. I did not quote you directly in my reply.

It seemed pretty obvious you were referring to me, all the same. I submit that nobody has a problem "getting it" when it comes to your desire for privacy. What other purpose could your post have had, then? Preaching to the choir?
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
It seemed pretty obvious you were referring to me, all the same. I submit that nobody has a problem "getting it" when it comes to your desire for privacy. What other purpose could your post have had, then? Preaching to the choir?

Grapeshot was addressing the entire thread and readers marshaul.
This is a tough call for some of us because the press has abused the process.

Privacy Vs the Public's right to know is difficult, especially when the process has already been taken down a notch. Police Officers have the right to have their personal information sealed from things like deeds.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
This is a tough call for some of us because the press has abused the process.
Indeed, the press has abused the process. The best way to get even with those people is to go Constitutional carry. ;)

Privacy Vs the Public's right to know is difficult, especially when the process has already been taken down a notch. Police Officers have the right to have their personal information sealed from things like deeds.

It seems difficult, yes, until you realize the perversion that must first occur for such private, personal acts to become matters of explicit permission.

Having lived in California for over half a decade, I'm particularly sensitive to the potential abuses Citizen outlined above, which happen every day in some parts of this country.

I certainly wouldn't be gung-ho in favor of a law to remove CHP record privacy where it already existed, but as it stands I see no reason to expend an ounce of energy in that direction when Constitutional carry can solve that wrong and a host of others.
 
Last edited:
Top