Public Documents should remain public

[Guest 2HOW]

http://www.crossville-chronicle.com/opinion/local_story_064171845.html?keyword=topstory

[Mike.357]

This information includes the names (but not specific street addresses or Social Security numbers) of individuals who have been issued a gun carry permit by Tennessee.

I had to quit reading when I came upon this bit of misinformation. Commercial Appeal later also left out street addresses. But they could show that if they chose to.

[tng27]

1. I wonder who wrote this as it was unsigned.

2. Really. Is there any documentation to support this?

"we do know that inspections of these records by citizens and the news media have uncovered serious problems with the permit process. Journalists have used these records to prove the Department of Safety was issuing permits to convicted felons and renewing permits to felons convicted since getting their permits. These records also helped to uncover the fact that the department had not been checking the criminal backgrounds of applicants as the law requires."

3. Anybody who believes the Commercial Appeal put up a searchable database solely to serve the public - well I have a really nice bridge in the Sahara - interested? Even if it remains public record, why does the CA feel they should take it upon themselves to provide this "service".

4. What are they going to license next? Rock gardening? Will there be demands for a database for that? Simply because the state decides to license something doesn't necessarily mean that licensees information should become public record. I think the whole notion of "public record" needs to be reexamined. It's being abused.

The continuous stream of crap makes my head want to explode.

[Guest nofearracer]

I think its ironic, the media likes to tell us what guns we shouldn't be able to own, but when we look to restrict private information from them, they cry. I have a HCP and to be honest I could give a flip about people knowing it or what they think about it. However, I realize there are people whose need for a permit is less about exercising a right than it is for protection (like trying to escape from an abusive partner) or what not and having their names published could present new dangers for them. I wonder how many lives have been lost down through time because of the media and their famous "The public has a right to know" mentality, so they could push their own agendas.

Edited March 6, 2009 by nofearracer

[Guest nofearracer]

Sorry double post

Edited March 6, 2009 by nofearracer
double post

[threeshot]

2. Really. Is there any documentation to support this?

"we do know that inspections of these records by citizens and the news media have uncovered serious problems with the permit process. Journalists have used these records to prove the Department of Safety was issuing permits to convicted felons and renewing permits to felons convicted since getting their permits. These records also helped to uncover the fact that the department had not been checking the criminal backgrounds of applicants as the law requires."

Yes. Newschannel5 in Nashville exposed this problem back in Feburary 11, 2008.

http://anonym.to/?http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=7856189&nav=menu374_6_1_2

Edited March 6, 2009 by threeshot

[tng27]

Thanks for the link - missed that one. The process obviously can be improved but the numbers don't seem to indicate it's a large problem.

[threeshot]

Thanks for the link - missed that one. The process obviously can be improved but the numbers don't seem to indicate it's a large problem.

The state's incompetence and the failure of Dept of Safety to be notified by the courts of convictions or protection orders undermine the HCP program and that the HCP holders are the law biding citizens.

This can be used to prevent current bills from becoming law for HCP holders to carry in parks, restaurants and making the HCP records private except to law enforcement.

[Guest pl1ght]

these are the same ppl against the patriot act andd all of the privacy invasion laws bush supposedly imposed. hypocritical anyone?

[Mark@Sea]

Lets' see if I have this straight. The paper can abuse their first amendment right by publishing HCP holder information wholesale, violating the privacy expectations of hundreds of thousands, yet to prevent them from doing so is wrong. HCP holders are overwhelmingly more law abiding than even our police and legislature, yet to prevent them from carrying as often as possible, in as many places as possible, is the right thing to do.

You know, the first amendment doesn't say a darn thing about "the publics' right to know", but the second amendment specifically says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. I think someone has a serious case of recto-cranial inversion.

[Guest tcampbell]

Any idea if I can get a list of the criminals living in my neighborhood ? or for the entire state ?

[Volzfan]

Any idea if I can get a list of the criminals living in my neighborhood ? or for the entire state ?

http://www.criminalsearches.com

[analog_kidd]

If I try real hard, I can sort of see their point about wanting to know if someone who shouldn't have a permit was able to obtain one, even though I think that is highly unlikely. However, if someone wants to see if another person has a HCP, then I wouldn't have a problem with them being able to go to the couthouse and request a lookup for specific individuals. That keeps the records open and the public still has their access.

[-boatman-]

If I try real hard, I can sort of see their point about wanting to know if someone who shouldn't have a permit was able to obtain one, even though I think that is highly unlikely. However, if someone wants to see if another person has a HCP, then I wouldn't have a problem with them being able to go to the couthouse and request a lookup for specific individuals. That keeps the records open and the public still has their access.

I agree completely and if news papers in this state had not published the HCP info it would stay that way. I never heard anyone complain about this info being public until after the papers put the data base online. I know I would not be complaining about it being public record if it had never been published. The papers that are screaming about this in their editorials are also the cause of this.

[Punisher84]

I agree completely and if news papers in this state had not published the HCP info it would stay that way. I never heard anyone complain about this info being public until after the papers put the data base online. I know I would not be complaining about it being public record if it had never been published. The papers that are screaming about this in their editorials are also the cause of this.

Kinda how I felt about it. I don't think anyone here is naive enough to think if someone really wanted to find out your info they could, but it's the ease of doing so that the database provides that is the issue. If someone wants to drive to the courthouse, pay 80 bucks, wait for a list, and then search to find me well that's fine, they must really want to see me I guess.

My issue is that the CA did this for crappy reasons and with malicious intent. This type of crap should be stopped.

[Guest MediaBuster]

This is obviously an abuse by the media for no other purpose than to advance their anti-gun agenda. If they are so concerned about the validity of people's HCP's, they should report THAT & THOSE individuals, without exposing the personal information of those who are obeying the law. Their lying is unconscionable, & their agenda is clear to anyone with an average intelligence.. I personally think that any handgun owner at this point who buys a newspaper, is of below average intelligence & might as well shoot themselves in the foot with their own gun, because the money that you spend on newspapers is now being spent on an organized effort by the largly leftist medai to TAKE YOUR RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE AWAY..

[Guest MediaBuster]

This is obviously an abuse by the media for no other purpose than to advance their anti-gun agenda. If they are so concerned about the validity of people's HCP's, they should report THAT & THOSE individuals, without exposing the personal information of those who are obeying the law. Their lying is unconscionable, & their agenda is clear to anyone with an average intelligence.. I personally think that any handgun owner at this point who buys a newspaper, is of below average intelligence & might as well shoot themselves in the foot with their own gun, because the money that you spend on newspapers is now being spent on an organized effort by the largly leftist medai to TAKE YOUR RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE AWAY..

[DavidD]

Simple question, anyone ever publish the drivers license database?

[Guest 270win]

It is my understanding that DL's are private information in TN. So if DL's are private and only available to law enforcement, why not handgun carry permits? I am all for professional services like doctors and lawyers online (most use their business address), but why a license that an individual uses not as a part of a job? I think if handgun carry permits are public, so should driver license information. There are a lot of nuts on the roads in the Memphis area, with and without DL's.

[Guest Linoge]

Just because something is public does not mean it should remain public, especially when organizations have shown a remarkable propensity for misusing that public information.

I would have absolutely no problems with the newspapers using the state's registry of permits to investigate whether or not felons have permits, or illustrate whether or not someone who just shot someone else has a permit. But publishing that entire registry as an easily-searchable, internet-available database? That is something else entirely. Furthermore, if the newspapers, or anyone else, has any concerns with who is or is not receiving permits, they should take that up with the TNDoS, TBI, and/or FBI, and address their concerns with the agencies specifically responsible for the registry of those permits and the background investigations. I, and the vast majority of the other HCP holders in Tennessee, had nothing to do with felons receiving permits. As such, my information is no one else's business.

Constitutionally, we cannot keep the Commercial Appeal from republishing what they already have. But we can bloody well keep them from violating ours, or anyone else's, privacy in the future.

As I have said from the beginning, "public" and "published" are two entirely different animals. I can tolerate one (the issue of whether or not we should have to have licenses to carry handguns is one for another day). The other, however, is a pointless invasion of my privacy, and one done solely to generate publicity, page views, and attention.

To put it simply, the Commercial Appeal, and more specifically, Chris Peck, is a spineless attention whore, and his actions in publishing the database and rationalizing it since only stand to support that position.

[Guest GhostHunter]

Why not make vehicle registrations public records while we're at it. I need to know who drives that black Ford F-150 with plate #123-ABC and where they live. For all I know, the driver could be a newspaper reporter........or worse, an idiot....But I repeat myself...

[Guest Ghostrider]

Good points all around.

I think this "person" is a worthless piece of slime, I love how he can take a quote and then twist it out of all recognition.

He quotes the TN constitution:

the General Assembly attempting to exercise "prior restraint," which is expressly frowned upon in Article 1, Section 19 of Tennessee Constitution which reads: "That the printing press shall be free to every person to examine the proceedings of the legislature; or of any branch or officer of the

government, and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions, is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write, and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty."

This very much looks to me like the rule quarantees MY personal right to say or print anything I like. It does NOT look like a "right to know", jack-crap...

[Mark@Sea]

Hmm, what government program is well known for abuse, costs taxpayers millions, and would benefit from publishing such a list?

welfare recipients, anyone?

Yeah. Not a chance in hades.