Daily Press Chimes in on the public availability of the CHP list!

imported post

What do you think?
Should names of concealed-weapons holders be shielded?
March 27, 2007
There's a move underfoot to deny the public access to some information that is now open: the identity of those who have permits to carry concealed weapons.

That information is available on request to the public, from the state police or maybe a local court, but there's no handy registry you can check online.

Some gun-rights advocates don't think the public has a right to the information, and they have been successful in getting it secreted in other states. The latest flare-up is in Virginia, precipitated when The Roanoke Times posted on its Web site a list of the names and addresses of permit holders statewide. The controversy got so ugly that an editorial writer was threatened, and the newspaper took down the list (citing questions about accuracy). Now there's a state group looking at the issue and a push for the legislature to lock up the records.

Should that be public information? What do you think?

Under what circumstances would someone want to know who - among their neighbors or workmates - might be armed? Does publicizing permit holders' identity put them at risk? Does keeping it secret put the public at risk?

Because permitting is a governmental process, should there be a presumption in favor of open government? Should information on gun permits be as available as that on other government-issued permits, like marriage and medical licenses? Does the fact that guns are involved make these government records any different, and does that argue for or against public access?

It's now easy to find out (online) if someone has been involved in a case at a local court; should it be as easy to find out if they have been issued a concealed-carry permit by the court?

How much information should be available (full addresses, just street names, just city or county)? In what form - an easily searchable online database, or information released by request? Should it be published in newspapers, as it is in some Virginia communities?

Is there a right to privacy here? If there is, is it trumped by the public's right to know?

What do you think?

As you consider, remember this: A permit isn't required to carry a weapon. Except for a few excluded groups, such as convicted felons, and odd exceptions, anyone can carry a loaded gun just about anywhere except schools, courthouses, churches, airports and restaurants that serve alcohol.

A permit is required only to carry a weapon that's hidden rather than in the open. And concealed-carry permits aren't hard to get. All you have to do is file an application, pay a fee, provide minimal documentation of competence with a gun and submit to a criminal history check.

There's a list of people who can't get them; some of the conditions could be verified (like certain kinds of convictions), some a court would be hard-pressed to know about (like using marijuana). Would public scrutiny offer a check on those folks who shouldn't get permits, but got past the screening process?

So what do you think?

Let us know, following the instructions in the accompanying box. We'll consider readers' opinions as we prepare an editorial on the subject, and print as many as we can.


And just to save folks some time, here is the contact information so we can let them know the correct facts:

EDITORIAL PAGE CONTACTS
Editorial Page Editor
Jesse Todd | 928-6448

Associate Editor
Carol Capo | 247-2837

Associate Editor
Prue Salasky | 247-4784

Contributing Editor
Gordon Morse | 258-4422

Editing Assistant
Sandra Owen | 247-4611

imported post

Please be polite.

The article is actually fair and almost accurate, and brings up reasonable questions about the balance between open government and privacy. Other than part about not being able to carry in places that serve alcohol, which needs to be pointed out.

A little honey as opposed to vinegar can go a long way.

imported post

SicSemperTyrannis wrote:

Please be polite.

The article is actually fair and almost accurate, and brings up reasonable questions about the balance between open government and privacy. Other than part about not being able to carry in places that serve alcohol, which needs to be pointed out.

A little honey as opposed to vinegar can go a long way.

 

Click to expand...

+1

This is an opportunity to make the case with someone who might listen.

imported post

Here's the link: http://www.dailypress.com/news/opinion/dp-87892sy0mar27,0,1865974.story

Here's my letter to: jtodd@dailypress.com; ccapo@dailypress.com; psalasky@dailypress.com; gcmorse@cox.net; sowen@dailypress.com

We'll see if it gets published!



In response to your article on March 27th, 2007 titled "Should names of concealed-weapons holders be shielded?", this is what I think:

I think the names and addresses should beprotected from disclosure.There isno need or purpose served by thepublishing of the list, and recent publishings have proven to benothingmore than amalicious attempts to strike out against lawful gun owners. Criminals do not have CHP's and do not purchase guns legally and listslike this are merely a handytool for those who would strike out against others.

In the form it has been published, full names AND addresses,it also may have recklessly endangered some of those CHP holders. In the recent article and list published by the Roanoke Times, many on that list suddenly found themselves contacted by the very people they were hiding from. Someare victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse,rape and other violent crimes and are actually in hiding from their assailants.Parole officers' families have been contacted by parolees.Victims who had to moveyear after year have been contacted by violent former spouses,boyfriends and criminals who now had a convenient tool to aid in exacting their revenge. Allthanks to the Roanoke Times andother papers around the nation that continue this practice under the guise of their right to "Free Speech" and "Open Government". I would not want to be the Roanoke Times if anyone is harmed by another who got the information they needed from that list.

With every right comes responsibility.

If a paperwants to prove that itcould get the list, exercising it'sFOIA rights (while they exist), theycould havedone so and merely published the fact that they received the list. Or at a minimum listed only the names without addresses or permit details. "We the People" do indeed have the right to access those records as long as they remain public. However, I do not subscribe to the belief that the press speaks for "We the People".

I often hear the overused and misused statement throughout the journalistic world on a multitude of issues thatthe "people have a right to know". While we indeed have that right, we do not necessarily have a need to know and sadly most will just not care because it doesn't affect them personally. Reporters and journalists are not now, nor have they ever been the keepers, custodians or guardians of the people's rights, nor do they speak on behalf of anyone other than themselves. The use of that statement is merely self-serving in the interests of "getting the story" and selling papers and advertising.The free exercise of one right not not interfere withthe rights of others, especially when that information may cause others to come to harm. Just because something is legal does not make it right.


If an individual or other entity expresses a desire or need to gain access to a particular piece of information, for whatever reason, they have legal means to use the FOIA system as necessary and as is their right. But with that right comes responsibility. They must then be responsible custodians of that information.

This wholesale attitudeof themedia that thy can hide behind the statement that "the people have a right to know" does not now, nor has it ever empowered the media to act on their behalf, and most certainly not to act irresponsibly to the endangerment of others. We already have elected officials acting irresponsibly "on our behalf" enough and do not need more from the press.While the "press" in general may be able to expressthe opinion or that of those you interview, but not of all Americans.

Responsible journalism, like responsible gun ownershipis nothing to be taken lightly. I think there is a greater potential to harm peoplethrough disinformation and the wholesale spread of fear (terrorism) through irresponsible journalism. Imagine how you would feel ifwe required"Press Permits" and someoneused the FOIA rights toaccess that list and publishthe names and home addresses of every journalist.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Bob Cavalcante

imported post

The first thing I thought when "governmental process" was included was "National Security". Our government can withold information from its citizens if it's in the interest of "National Security".

I'm not procuring and keeping large arms and military vessles. I'm carrying a handgun. A small arm. I think that because I'm concerned about "Personal Security" that nobody should have access to what/when/how/why I carry unless they have a "need to know"... that need to be determined by myself. I don't like the double standard to which antis want us to adhere. It's still security, just not on a national level. Do you think antis would be all for the government releasing any and all national classified information, military arms/vessel specs, operations and troop locations? I'll bet that it wouldn't make antis feel warm and snuggly in their beds at night would it? And I would bet my year's salary that any and all media would publish that information. I don't believe that media has any genuine interest in ensuring national or personal security. They want to get their name out there and $$ in there.

imported post

This is on it's way. It is too long for them to publish, but it should make them think a little.

******************

To the editors,

I am writing with regard to the questions you raised in your "What do you think?" editorial (Should the names of concealed-weapons holders be shielded). Forgive the length of this submission, but one of the problems with this entire discussion of Concealed Handgun Permits (CHP) is people keep trying to find "news bite" sized answers to a complex issue. That just will not work.

It should not go unnoticed that the context of your question relates to the Roanoke Times release of this information on the internet. While the release of the information was a significant element in the events that followed, the way in which it was released and the reasons it was done were far more relevant. It was very clear to many, even some on the Times staff, that the actual purpose was to harass the CHP holders of this state, based on the personal attitudes of the author of the supporting article. Your readers might enjoy reading some of his other opinion pieces so they might make an informed decision for themselves. In particular I would recommend his "Virginia is for Haters" opinion. Those are the reasons that the reaction was so large.

I for one welcome your attempt to open a reasonable dialog on this issue, and I hope that it will remain both civil and productive.

You asked a number of questions, but the one which is really central to all the others is this -

"Because permitting is a governmental process, should there be a presumption in favor of open government? Should information on gun permits be as available as that on other government-issued permits, like marriage and medical licenses? Does the fact that guns are involved make these government records any different, and does that argue for or against public access?"

Within this statement are a number of presumptions that are the source of the confusion on this issue. Once those are correctly understood, the answers to all the other questions become clear.

The concept that because permitting a is "governmental process" so the presumption should be in favor of openness, is flawed, because you have it turned inside out. For the same reason that tax records, library records, driving records, drivers licensing information, and a host of other "government process" records are closed to the public. What these records share in common is that while they are the RESULT of a "Government Process" they do not contain information about the "Process of Government". That is a VERY important distinction. More import still is that it is a distinction that applies to CHP records.

The FOIA laws are designed to provide the public with a tool to observe and oversee the "Process of Government", not "government processes". They are NOT designed so that neighbors, work mates, and individual citizens can spy on, or pry into each others private activities. As such, so far as government data can shed light on how the government works, the data should be available. But when the data can only provide information or data about the activities of individual private citizens, it should be withheld.

The CHP records, like a lot of other records accumulations held by the government, contain personal information on individual citizens and their activities, that is collected so the government can perform a public function. This data is NOT data about the actual workings of the government, it is private personal information about individual citizens. It therefore should enjoy the strictest of protections that the government can provided.

What should be available, because it directly relates to the "Process of Government", are the statistics in general terms. Things like, how many permits are issued, How many in a particular court, what is the crime rate among permit holders. All of these data elements are used by the government to make decisions about budgets and allocation of resources that are the business of the people. But the data for any particular applicant is personal information that should NOT be available to the public.

One point I disagree with in your original article is the following statement.

"...And concealed-carry permits aren't hard to get. All you have to do is file an application, pay a fee, provide minimal documentation of competence with a gun and submit to a criminal history check."

This is actually not quite correct. While the documentation required to show completion of the training may itself be minimal, the training required to obtain that documentation is not minimal. Most classes are two day all day classes with a written test, and a proficiency test at a firing range. Moreover you do not simply "submit to a criminal history check", you must PASS that check with a clean record. The check is the same one required to gain entry to secure government offices. Many people who are arguing that CHP records should be public are actually not able to pass such a records check themselves.

So the rest of your questions now become simple to understand and answer -

"Under what circumstances would someone want to know who - among their neighbors or work-mates - might be armed?"

Well people "want" to know about a lot of things. Simply "wanting" something does not confer a "Right" to it. So your question should actually be "Under what circumstances do other people have a "right" to know ..."

It is important to note that there is no requirement that a person who obtains a CHP even own a weapon. I personally know people who have a permit, but do not own any firearms. So these records do not tell us anything beyond the fact that the person has taken training in firearms safety and Pertinent Virginia firearms regulations, demonstrated firearms proficiency, and that they have been investigated and found to have a clean criminal record.

So, that leaves us with the following question-

"Under what circumstances do other people have a "right" to know, what types of training, their neighbors and work-mates have taken, what types of proficiency testing they have had, and what forms they may have completed and submitted to the government?" Or more simply put, "Under what circumstances do others have a right to know, if or when you are exercising your lawful rights?"

The fact is that the government issues library cards too. Your neighbor DOES NOT have a right to know that you have one. Why? because you have a right to read or not read whatever you want whenever you want without someone looking over your shoulder. The fact that you have the card says nothing about your ownership or use of books, or even if you carry one around, all it says is that you may use the library and nothing more, That fact is nobodies business but your own. And the CHP records are no different in this regard.

"Does publicizing permit holders' identity put them at risk? "

The provision of this information contains safety issues for a number of categories of people. Crime victims, witnesses to crimes, court experts, prosecutors, judges, and a number of other people have obtained permits after receiving actual threats against themselves and their families. These are real people with actual self defense requirements.

In some cases these people have been advised by the police and others to take the required training, apply for a permit, and obtain a weapon for their own protection. This is because the police CANNOT protect individual citizens. That is not their function in society. In many cases these people are battered women who have also moved or been moved to new addresses for their protection from abusive domestic partners. The CHP records contain their new addresses and the release of that information only helps their tormentors track them down.

These three questions are closely related so I will take them all at once.

"Does keeping it secret put the public at risk?"
"Is there a right to privacy here? If there is, is it trumped by the public's right to know?"

Since open carry of firearms is legal in Virginia, and does not require a permit, and the information in the CHP cannot even tell us that a particular person owns a firearm, and in any case does not regulate access to or ownership of firearms, then the information is of no value in protecting the public. It is only valuable insofar as people might want to harass CHP holders

I could not help but notice that in this case you got the question correct. Again "wanting" something and having a "right" to it are different.

The CHP records, like a lot of other records accumulations held by the government, contain personal information on individual citizens and their activities, that is held for government use, to serve a public function. This data is NOT data about the actual workings of the government, it is private personal information about individual citizens who have complied with a government regulation in the exercise of their rights. It therefore should enjoy the strictest of protections that the government can provided. If an argument can be made for the release of CHP data, then the same argument can be made for library card data. Does anyone really think we should release a list of books someone reads just because his neighbor might be curious?

The publics right to know IS trumped where the release of the information might put peoples lives at risk, and where it cannot be shown that withholding it would exceed that level of risk for the public at large. Therefore, since there is an identifiable and significant portion of the public that is placed in danger by release of the data, and there is no information that can be shown to improve the public safety in any way, the publics right to know IS TRUMPED by the privacy issues involved.

"It's now easy to find out (online) if someone has been involved in a case at a local court; should it be as easy to find out if they have been issued a concealed-carry permit by the court?"

General court records are not the same thing at all. If these are criminal matters, they bear directly on the public safety, and criminals lose there rights upon conviction, including the right to privacy in the matter for which they are convicted. If they are real estate matters or other issues, then they bear on land use, schools, roads and other issues of direct public import.

CHP records do not share this level of community impact, and most certainly the individual records of a particular citizen have no impact on these kinds of issues. In fact once the permit is issued, there is no cost or risk to the community whatsoever associated with the simple existence of the permit. Others licenses are very different in this respect. Doctors, electricians, lawyers and others are providing their services to others in the community, and so the license process has a direct impact on large segment of the community using those services. This is NOT the case with CHPs.

"How much information should be available (full addresses, just street names, just city or county)? "

This of course presumes that some or all of the information SHOULD be available. In my opinion this presumption is effectively rebutted by the forgoing arguments. But if we ignore that, a reasonable compromise would be to make ONLY the names available. Most permit holders that I know would have no objection to this as it partially meets a requirement to notify an attacker that you are armed prior to any incident. But more to the point the information is insufficient to place people in harms way.

"In what form - an easily searchable online database, or information released by request? "

ANY of the CHP data should only be release with the knowledge and consent of the individual involved. The information SHOULD NOT be placed on line, as this removes ANY accountability in accessing it. If a person has to go to the courthouse to obtain the data, there will be a record kept of that access. If a problem occurs later, there will be a record. The internet does not provide these protections.

"Should it be published in newspapers, as it is in some Virginia communities?"

No, The forgoing arguments speak for themselves on this point.

"Would public scrutiny offer a check on those folks who shouldn't get permits, but got past the screening process?"

No. The concept that the records should be available so people can determine if a permit holder should have been issued one in the first place is flawed. The law is very specific as to who can perform criminal background checks on citizens. Since your neighbors and work mates are not among that select group, they have no way to verify a permit. So this reason for public access also fails.

"Should that {CHP records} be public information?"

The CHP information should NOT be covered by FOIA because it is NOT about the "Process of Government", but is instead information on private individuals and their activities. The public cannot determine anything from the information beyond tracking individuals engaged in lawful, protected activities, and the exercise of constitutional rights. That is not a reasonable justification for release, and in fact is a very good reason not to allow the government to collect the information in the first place.

The release of the data posses an actual identifiable threat to the safety, and lives of a group or groups of citizens, that society has a duty to protect. There is no public purpose served by release of CHP information that is sufficient to override an individuals right to privacy in the pursuit of lawful activities. There is certainly no public purpose in endangering crime victims and court officers, and there is a significant public purpose served by having them in a courtroom convicting the guilty, and defending the innocent.

In short, the records should be sealed. If someone wants to know if their neighbor or "Work Mate" has a CHP, why don't they just ask?

imported post

Someone needs to keep an eye on these guys and report back when they print their next editorial on this subject.

Regards

imported post

I'm watching 'em like a "Hawk":lol:

imported post

My Letter:

Yes.

Unlike marriage and medical licenses,by definition, concealed handgun permit(CHP)holdersvalue discretion. One need look no further than thename of the permit to see the word "concealed," defined by theVA CHP Code as, "hidden from common observation."
If you were to publish my address as a CHP holder, could you foresee acriminal targeting my house when I am at work, or executing me before I could defend myself? Where does that leave my homemaker wife and young children?

Being granted a CHP is an extension, albeit a constitutionally contentious one, of a human right. Citizens have elected to submit themselves to an FBI background check for the "privilege" of carrying a concealed handgun. Permit holders are unquestionably more law abiding than the average citizen. Criminals, on the other hand,are still free to carry illegally, as such is the nature of a criminal, to disobey the law.

It serves no public interest to make CHP holder's information public. Certainly, noonewould consider making public the names and addresses ofpublic safetyofficers, rape/ domestic violence victims, homosexuals, orjudges,of which somecan beassumed to have CHPs for their own protection against assault. CHP holders are taking personal responsibility for their own safety. Look around right now, do you see a police officer nearby, or have one posted outside your residence?

Who cares if your neighbor or coworker has a CHP? What does that mean? Does it change the person? Does a piece of paperchange your perception of that person? So what if you can look up someones court cases? A CHP holder is not a criminal!

imported post

bayboy42 wrote:

I'm watching 'em like a "Hawk":lol:

Click to expand...

Ok Thanks. I'll just wait over here in the corner and sharpen my "Talons" until you call.

imported post

Here we go again....the Daily Pravda has posted an editorial against open carry today...http://www.dailypress.com/news/opinion/

I was thinking of responding to them with a copy of the Va State Police statute 18.2-308, J1, which states:
J1. Any person permitted to carry a concealed handgun, who is under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs while carrying such handgun in a public place, shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Conviction of any of the following offenses shall be prima facie evidence, subject to rebuttal, that the person is "under the influence" for purposes of this section: manslaughter in violation of § 18.2-36.1, maiming in violation of § 18.2-51.4, driving while intoxicated in violation of § 18.2-266, public intoxication in violation of § 18.2-388, or driving while intoxicated in violation of § 46.2-341.24. Upon such conviction that court shall revoke the person's permit for a concealed handgun and promptly notify the issuing circuit court. A person convicted of a violation of this subsection shall be ineligible to apply for a concealed handgun permit for a period of five years.

Wonder if there is a law against unlawful carry, or use of an ink pen or computer by a reporter when under the influence of alcohol or narcotics, as that leads to far more danger than my concealed firearm.

imported post

My guess is that it was a slow day :lol:. Someone must have corrected the paper's original mistake, which made the "journalist" do some homework (or not). So instead of just admitting to the error, they were able to turn it around and have another excuse to ding being armed.

imported post

And here's my reply to the editors: jtodd@dailypress.com; ccapo@dailypress.com; psalasky@dailypress.com; gcmorse@cox.net; sowen@dailypress.com


In response to the Opinion: "Go figure - Loaded guns are legal where people get loaded" dated March 30, 2007, I submit the following rebuttal:

The answer is not to ban guns from anywhere, but for anyonewho carries or uses a gunto be held responsible under the law equally.

I am an"Open Carrier" and prefer to OC wherever I go unless otherwise prohibited. I only Conceal Carry (CC) when I can't otherwise OC. I and my friends who also OCare fully aware ofVirginia laws regarding carrying a gun, both OC and CC andoften times better than the Law Enforcement Officers (LEO's)we encounter! Would you recommendwe get "dumber" or would you rather the law enforcement officersget smarter regarding the law? We're also committed to educating our fellow citizens on their right to OC, safe gun handling and the responsibility that goes along with it.

I and my fellow OC'ersare not only fully aware of our surroundings when OC'ing, but many are are trained in weapon retention techniques as well.And to date, not one person I've asked has been able to provide me witha single example of where a citizen who was legally OC'ing, had their weapon taken away from them. It just doesn't happen to citizens but it makes a great anti-gun argument. Why? Becauseanti-gun arguments are all based on irrational and unjustified fear. Fear is a great and powerful tool for swaying opinionand controlling the population, but isn't that what their agenda is all about?There is one greater tool than fear and and it's called THE TRUTH.I chose not to live in a nation that is controlled byfear, but one of law abiding, responsible citizens.

In your opinion you stated:

"The potential for tragedy was illustrated by an incident in Hampton some years back. An agent with the Drug Enforcement Agency, off duty but armed, got to drinking in a restaurant and shot two customers in the parking lot." The key words there are "got to drinking".

Although thatDEA Agent isexemptunder Virginia Code § 18.2-308and allowed to conceal carry in a restaurant or bar that serves alcohol, the real question here is should theybe completely exempt? Whileoff duty he (or anyone authorized to carry a gunin a bar) should be held to the same high standard as the rest of us responsible citizens.That standard is simply that if I'm carrying open OR concealed, I'm not drinking - PERIOD. Carrying a weapon is a HUGE responsibility not only for yourself, but for those around you, and not one to be taken lightly.

The Virginia Code is quite clear for the rest of us responsible citizens:
You askif that "sworn officer of the law - trained in handing firearms and, presumably, conflict - couldn't restrain the impulse to start shooting, what can we expect of the general populace?", I would say you should instead be asking why LEO's are held to a different standard than the rest of us? Are they better people than us? Should we have a new class of people that are above the law and deserve greater privilege than just us common citizens? That is precisely the kind of Police State that we should be fearing, not responsible citizens carrying guns.

This agent violated the public trust and his oath and perhaps should not have been an agent.The problem there wasn't the gun, or the availability of one since I'm sure that right now THOUSANDS of LEO's are carrying off duty and perhaps even drinking. The problem was his lack of better judgment. He should not have had a single drink while carrying. As stated, it was in the "heat of passion". Passion, being what it is, had he not had a gun, he likely would have used something else as a weapon.

I completely agree with you and the Judge in that case that alcohol and firearms don't mix. I practice what I preach. Perhaps so should those we trust to protect us. If they cannot, then perhaps either we should change the law so they are not exempt or they should find new vocations.

Bob Cavalcante
Springfield, Virginia