bayboy42
Regular Member
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
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