davidmcbeth
Banned
of course another aspect is that the records should never exist .. need permission to carry? need papers?
-
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.
-
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 - Should CHP records be public
- Thread starter Grapeshot
- Start date
Maverick9
Regular Member
I thought this had already been discussed wrt the harm that it can cause.
Abusive spouses can find their targets, for example.
Abusive spouses can find their targets, for example.
JamesCanby
Activist Member
Awful analogy. Pedophiles are convicted criminals. CHP holders are law-abiding citizens who are once again following current law in order to give themselves yet another self-defense alternative. Surely you are not equating the two...
Pedophiles are not by definition "convicted" criminals. The tendency is abhorrent and considered potentially harmful. Still it is the "action" of the individual that determines if a charge and resulting conviction might occur.
Yes, we hope that all are law abiding and conduct themselves with regard to the safety of others.
JamesCanby
Activist Member
I'll accept the distinction between one who is a pedophile and one who has been convicted of pedophilia. In response to the commenter who said that he wants open records because he wants to know where the pedophiles were in his neighborhood, they would only be so listed if they had been convicted of that crime. Hence, my comment about them being convicted criminals. Sorry I did not include that distinction in my original post, but I think the analogy is still poorly chosen. Perhaps a better analogy might be open records access of those who are receiving welfare. Should we have access to those records?
I suspect that you are only clarifying my comment, and I appreciate it.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Making CHP records closed to public scrutiny is good.
The possibility that a bureaucrat might act unlawfully is not a valid reason to not restrict access to a CHP list.
This issue is not about, in my view, the CHP holder, but about the state being held accountable for the unlawful acts of their minions. While a CHP holder may not be a favored son of the RKBA movement to some folks around here, a subset of our liberty movement if you please, they are citizens and deserve privacy.
The state being permitted to disclose that which the CHP would likely never disclose is abhorrent. Stating that "well, that was part of the deal you make with the state to get permission...." is dismissive. Akin to, "well, if you did not dress that way you would not get the undeserved attention you received."
If VAs "sunshine laws" are not where they need to be then change those laws to make them where they need to be. CHP holders deserve privacy and advocating that their information must remain public to keep government in check is not liberty centric.
The possibility that a bureaucrat might act unlawfully is not a valid reason to not restrict access to a CHP list.
This issue is not about, in my view, the CHP holder, but about the state being held accountable for the unlawful acts of their minions. While a CHP holder may not be a favored son of the RKBA movement to some folks around here, a subset of our liberty movement if you please, they are citizens and deserve privacy.
The state being permitted to disclose that which the CHP would likely never disclose is abhorrent. Stating that "well, that was part of the deal you make with the state to get permission...." is dismissive. Akin to, "well, if you did not dress that way you would not get the undeserved attention you received."
If VAs "sunshine laws" are not where they need to be then change those laws to make them where they need to be. CHP holders deserve privacy and advocating that their information must remain public to keep government in check is not liberty centric.
Indeed that is the case.
POPS VA
Regular Member
James
You are right, it was a poor analogy, I stand corrected, however, my point still stands. The point is that this law could be used as a precident for other laws that might be used to hide government abuses. Do you agree that the possibility exists?
It's not dismissive at all, where do you get some of this crap!
Open Government laws are there to allow everything they do to be reviewed by Virginians. Everything!
This isn't about CHP holders except that once again, they are blubbering about being "special" There are other ways to prevent the lists from being published. It's about keeping the Open Government laws from being gutted a piece at a time.
What it IS akin to is the outta stater that moves to Va near a shooting range, then starts a campaign to close it because of the noise that he knew about when he bought the property.
I'm a member of the Open Government Coalition and had to take a no position stance on it. Megan, whom I have a lot of respect for, opposed it for all the wrong reasons, the lists did need to be stopped and no one was introducing a reasonable law, so I sat on my hands during the session. That doesn't mean I like it which it should be very clear, I don't, and if a move comes along to repeal it....I'll support the hell out of it.
If we spent half the time on Constitutional carry as we do on CHP's...we may actually get it, but I've never seen the gun lobby as fragmented as it is now. I'm afraid we're in for a very bad couple of years because of it.
Last edited:
JamesCanby
Activist Member
Given the predilections of current government actions, I cannot deny that the possibility exists. I am not convinced, however, that a high probability exists. We must be ever watchful and ready to move to action whenever any of our rights to privacy are threatened.
sraacke
Regular Member
In Louisiana our governor just signed a bill making it against the law to publish personal information of CHP holders.
Personally I don't care. I open carry 90% of the time that I'm armed. If you go to the Louisiana Secretary of State website and do a business search for Louisiana Open carry Awareness League you will find my full name and address since I'm an officer of that group and my personal information was included on our Incorporation paperwork. If you look on my car you will find....
An NRA Sticker and a LOCAL sticker.
It's not like someone isn't going to know that I have guns.
Personally I don't care. I open carry 90% of the time that I'm armed. If you go to the Louisiana Secretary of State website and do a business search for Louisiana Open carry Awareness League you will find my full name and address since I'm an officer of that group and my personal information was included on our Incorporation paperwork. If you look on my car you will find....
An NRA Sticker and a LOCAL sticker.
It's not like someone isn't going to know that I have guns.
Thanks sraacke!
Sounds like it was directed at the offending parties instead of everyone.
Can you post a copy of that law?
Last edited:
OC for ME
Regular Member
Crap? Interesting assessment.
How does the disclosure of a list of citizens in VA who have been issued a CHP to any other citizen maintain a open government? It is a list of CHP holders, not a window into a government bureaucracy. Unless of course the disclosure of the list is fundamental to any VA citizens being able to see how their government works.
I suspect that the disclosure of the list, when requested, was used to verify if a bureaucrat will did his/her job and disclosed the list as was required under the law. In this regard you are correct and I stand corrected. Disclosing certain details regarding CHP holders in VA does seem to support a more open government. So, by not being able to disclose the list upon request has closed a window into the workings of VA government.
Thanks for the clarification.
p.publius
Regular Member
Privacy
I have had a CHP for a while now. Oddly, Because I work at an indoor range in Ashburn, VA I generally open carry. I have had at least two neighbors sell their house or move away and rent out their house after they found out I own guns. My new neighbors could care less if I hold their two year old daughter on my hip while my gun is plainly exposed in a level II retention holster.
I object to the government allowing the publication of my information pertaining to my CHP as much as I would object to them publishing my VA (or federal) tax information. It is none of anyone's business whether I can carry concealed or how much money I make!
I have had a CHP for a while now. Oddly, Because I work at an indoor range in Ashburn, VA I generally open carry. I have had at least two neighbors sell their house or move away and rent out their house after they found out I own guns. My new neighbors could care less if I hold their two year old daughter on my hip while my gun is plainly exposed in a level II retention holster.
I object to the government allowing the publication of my information pertaining to my CHP as much as I would object to them publishing my VA (or federal) tax information. It is none of anyone's business whether I can carry concealed or how much money I make!
POPS VA
Regular Member
I am with you there, and as a CHP holder, this law is good for me. I am just trying to be a little circumspect in my position on this. At a national level it appears clear to me that our rights are being usurped almost daily, and our 4th ammendment means little to those who legislate, what we end up with is unintended consequences further diluting our rights. I fear that "possibly" the same mechanics could happen on the coat tails of this law. I don't want the government to be able to veil themselves from public scrutiny in any way. There must be a way, other than this law, to maintain the privacy of CHP holders.
Costitutional carry comes to mind.
Last edited:
I can't resist it - I tried, but I'm weak
Is Costituional carry more expensive or less than Constitutional Carry.
The conditions constantly considered constitute constraint, collaterally combined consistently crushing coordinated Constitutional Carry considerations. Si?
Yes, Crap! Let me put it in Larger letters for the show me state....CRAP!
Now as far as explaining it to you, go back and read instead of arguing. It's been explained and I'm tired of chewing my terbacky over and over.
Looks like Louisiana Didn't cut off their toe to cure an ingrown toenail. Well done guys!
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/louisiana-gun-bill-journalist-criminal-jindal
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/louisiana-gun-bill-journalist-criminal-jindal
Gotta love porch dogs that growl and show their teeth. :lol:
POPS VA
Regular Member
I can't resist it - I tried, but I'm weak
Is Costituional carry more expensive or less than Constitutional Carry.
The conditions constantly considered constitute constraint, collaterally combined consistently crushing coordinated Constitutional Carry considerations. Si?
Golly gosh durn it....busted:banghead: