Virginia CCW list published

[Guest JCE]

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=5&f=10&t=41302&page=1-1

Anyone here been following this story?

Seems some asshat in Roanoke who calls himself a "journalist", decided to

create a database of all the gun permit holders in the state, not just names

but addresses too, all in the name of "freedom of information":mad:

I was wondering if this could happen here in Tennessee?

Discuss

[Guest GlocKingTN]

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=5&f=10&t=41302&page=1-1

Anyone here been following this story?

Seems some asshat in Roanoke who calls himself a "journalist", decided to

create a database of all the gun permit holders in the state, not just names

but addresses too, all in the name of "freedom of information":mad:

I was wondering if this could happen here in Tennessee?

Discuss

Is that even legal?

[Marswolf]

Yeah, it's legal. Public records. But the newspaper pulled the list. The author (journalist???) has supposedly gotten death threats. The paper has gotten lots of nasty mail.

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/108563

[Guest JCE]

Is that even legal?

That's where it's going to get interesting, apparently the list includes women

who have restraining orders against abusive ex-husbands and whatnot

Here is the Glocktalk thread, where I first learned of all this

http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=669393&perpage=25&highlight=&pagenumber=1

And even if it is legal, it doesn't make it right:mad:

[Punisher84]

It's been on TheFiringLine as well. I think, legal or not, it's a good case for a lawsuit and a possible law change. That article has potentially put alot of people at risk. I'd love to see that twirp get his come-uppance.

[Guest jackdog]

I'll second hat sss

what a crock of s**t

Jackdog

[Marswolf]

Well, the Virginia (and other states') laws need to be changed to where you can't get the list. This same thing has happened in other places.

[Guest jackdog]

I guess I assumed wrongly (can not believe i used that word), that the privacy act offered protections for us. What would stop someone from publishing say the DMV records of everyone. Well Mars is right the laws need to be changed.

Jackdog

[Guest Phantom6]

The article on the Roanoke Times' website, roanoke.com quoted the spokesperson for the VA State Police, Corinne Geller as saying:

It is up to the recipient of that information to be a responsible guardian of the information.

Anyone else thinking right about now that considering that the information was being requested by a newspaper writer, WHAT IN THE WORLD DID THEY EXPECT? <>

This turd writer is a serious anti-gunner and member of the "Brady Bunch" trying to erode the very amendment that protects his 1st amendment right to act so irresponsibly. This is clearly evidenced by such sentances in his original article as:

There are good reasons the records are open to public scrutiny. People might like to know if their neighbors carry. Parents might like to know if a member of the car pool has a pistol in the glove box. Employers might like to know if employees are bringing weapons to the office.

and

There are plenty of reasons people choose to carry weapons: fear of a violent ex-lover, concern about criminals or worry that the king of England might try to get into your house. There are plenty of reasons to question the wisdom of widespread gun ownership, too.

He went on to write:

Any Virginian can show up at a government office and request a public document. If it is something simple such as a council agenda, officials usually gladly duplicate it, maybe charging a few cents for the photocopy.

Why didn't he request and print a council agenda to take the reader "on an excursion into freedom of information land."? I think it's clearly evident what his reasoning and intentions were.

To read his entire article and get a good view of this turd and others like him go to http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/trejbal/wb/108160

The Roaneoke Times, in fear of loosing thousands of subscribers wrote the following ' We're really good citizens and want to do the right thing' disclaimer:

“Out of a sense of caution and concern for the public we have decided to take the database off of our website.â€

To read the entire withdrawal message go to http://www.roanoke.com/gunpermits/

This kind of irresponsibility really CHAPS MY ASS!

</:D > Rant over... for now.

[Guest JCE]

Is there anything in Tennessee law that would prevent this from happening here?

Or could some anti-gun reporter from the Tenneseean or CA do the same thing here?

Personally, I don't give a rats butt who knows about MY permit, but I understand that many others would'nt want the info divulged, and may

even be in grave danger if it were.

[towerclimber37]

man...I took a few minutes to read that newspaper. I'm SOOOO glad that its not here in tn!

that is a fine example of irresponsible people that live in a microcosm and think they automatically deserve something, no matter who it hurts.

[shaftbass]

Well that editor may have just helped undo the very thing he wanted everybody to see

In fact, Del. Dave Nutter, R-Christiansburg, said Tuesday that he is seeking an attorney general's opinion on whether state police were within their legal rights in providing the information to the newspaper.

Even if the attorney general finds that police acted correctly, requesting the opinion could be the first step in a move at next year's General Assembly to pass a law exempting concealed-weapon permit information from the Freedom of Information Act.

"It's something that we're going to have to take a look at," said Nutter, who had received more than 20 calls from constituents concerned about the newspaper's use of the information.

[towerclimber37]

niiice.

oh..and the editor is a girl.

[shaftbass]

Oops, I meant the editorial columnist.

[towerclimber37]

Its ok Reef...Gender doesn't matter here...what matters is that a. they're an asshat (I like that one) and b. they've put people at risk because of this!!

[Guest jackdog]

What really gripes me the most is that people with carry permits are being treated like pedophiles or sex offenders, and that is totally unacceptable to me.

Jackdog

[Guest jackdog]

Update: They apologized, Well kinda ,maybe HMMM sorta.

The Roanoke Times apologizes

Lessons learned in database incident

More discussion and thought should have gone into the decision to publish a database of concealed carry holders in the state.

We heard from literally thousands of people after our decision two weeks ago to post an online database of people in the state permitted to carry concealed handguns. Many people presented rational objections.

Many others responded with personal threats of violence and acts of intimidation -- responses we declined to publish.

The difficulty we've faced since is how to respond to the rational objections without validating the abusive tactics and attacks waged against this newspaper and the columnist who wrote a piece linked to the database.

Amid the firestorm of criticism, we've re-examined our decision-making process and reflected on the valid criticisms.

We've come to some conclusions.

First, we had a legal right to post the database. These were public records, legally obtained.

In some journalistic circles, that would be enough. The Washington Post's Marc Fisher praised the decision to post the information and accused The Roanoke Times of caving in to criticism when we decided to pull the database.

But upon reflection, we wish we had more fully discussed the potential ramifications before we made this decision. Dozens of concealed permit holders expressed heartfelt fear because of the exposure of what they believed was private information.

We gave insufficient thought and discussion to the potential that crime victims, law enforcement officers and domestic violence victims might be put at risk if their addresses were published.

Though many of our critics believe that the database handed burglars a shopping list of households with guns and abusers a list of their victims, no one can point to a single incident where similar publications led to a crime.

But we didn't know that until after the database was published. The potential for harm is something we should have given far greater thought to in making the decision.

For our failure to do so, The Roanoke Times apologizes.

We also regret that there was not a more compelling public purpose -- beyond illustrating how the Freedom of Information Act works -- behind the decision to post the database.

There are vital reasons these records should remain open.

But those reasons were not well illuminated -- or even particularly well served -- by the publication of the entire database.

The public should be able to monitor how well various jurisdictions screen concealed carry applicants.

So, yes, we made mistakes. The process for vetting this decision was not as thorough as it should have been.

Those mistakes, though, in no way justify the outrageous and threatening nature of much of the response. Very early on, a rational discussion of this issue became all but impossible.

It was extremely important that we not allow the unacceptable antics of the fringe to distract us from a careful examination of our own decision-making.

We want to assure our readers that, where we erred, we will strive not to repeat our mistakes. And we will continue to advocate passionately for the free flow of information that is the lifeblood of an open society.

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/110214

_________________________

"Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready."

-Theodore Roosevelt

[Marswolf]

What they are saying is that they deeply regret that their liberal anti-American news rag got called on the carpet by it's revenue base.

They will try to be more clever next time to hide their propaganda in the guise of a news column.

[Guest Ghostrider]

There are good reasons the records are open to public scrutiny. People might like to know if their neighbors have VD. Parents might like to know if a member of the car pool has a Anti-aids medicine in the glove box, or a heart condition. Employers might like to know if employees are having sex outside the office.

My emphasis and words added in bold. Now does that statement make any more or less sense than the original.

Just because you can OBTAIN information doesn't make it moral, legal, or right to use it.

The laws need changed!

And congrats to marswolf for correctly interpreting the doublespeak.

[Guest jackdog]

Mars this is a comment that briantech posted at the A2 forum, thought you might like the comments.

pffft. thats not an apology. lemme interpret this:

More discussion and thought should have gone into the decision to publish a database of concealed carry holders in the state.

We heard from literally thousands of people after our decision two weeks ago to post an online database of people in the state permitted to carry concealed handguns. Many people presented rational objections. (we're quite proud of finding the right button to push to improve our circulation. a few people actually were smart enough to figure this out..>)

Many others responded with personal threats of violence and acts of intimidation -- responses we declined to publish. (we're used to this. we're the press, we live for the opportunity to piss people off. its how we measure sucess)

The difficulty we've faced since is how to respond to the rational objections without validating the abusive tactics and attacks waged against this newspaper and the columnist who wrote a piece linked to the database. (we dont want to appear as scared *****less as we really are, now that we realize some of these death threats are really, really possible. we've already ran to the police, fbi, etc, but the same crap we hide behind to publicly defame those agency's is throwing it back in our face. we're gettin no protection :sad: )

Amid the firestorm of criticism, we've re-examined our decision-making process and reflected on the valid criticisms. (we like the word firestorm. makes us sound like we actually make an impact on society... and we had an office party.)

We've come to some conclusions.

First, we had a legal right to post the database. These were public records, legally obtained. (see how sorry we are? :tongue: )

In some journalistic circles, that would be enough. The Washington Post's Marc Fisher praised the decision to post the information and accused The Roanoke Times of caving in to criticism when we decided to pull the database. (see how sorry we are? hell, even some WP dude backed us up!! but since he's not being stalked by several gun crazed sniper biznatches, we're gonna waste our time trying to trick the weak minded into thinking we would take it back..... bear in mind, you'll find no reference to us wishing we could take it back!! we love this *****!!)

But upon reflection, we wish we had more fully discussed the potential ramifications before we made this decision. Dozens of concealed permit holders expressed heartfelt fear because of the exposure of what they believed was private information. (just as we intended.... we shouldve made this into a 3 part series, and REALLY pumped up the circulation.... damn 20/20 hindsight...)

We gave insufficient thought and discussion to the potential that crime victims, law enforcement officers and domestic violence victims might be put at risk if their addresses were published. (dont get me wrong. again, you dont see a "sorry" attached here. we just underestimated how much we could benefit from this. hopefully, this sad excuse for an apology gets us another sellout and reprint requests!! woo hoo!!! cant wait for the year end bonus's!!)

Though many of our critics believe that the database handed burglars a shopping list of households with guns and abusers a list of their victims, no one can point to a single incident where similar publications led to a crime. (see how sorry we are? but hey, we gotta walk that tight rope here... only an idiot would think its NOT gonna happen... my money says we dont print it, if it does...)

But we didn't know that until after the database was published. The potential for harm is something we should have given far greater thought to in making the decision. (again, reminder to self: next time, make this a 3 part series, or more....)

For our failure to do so, The Roanoke Times apologizes. (we are truly sorry we didnt capitalize on this more...)

We also regret that there was not a more compelling public purpose -- beyond illustrating how the Freedom of Information Act works -- behind the decision to post the database. (we regret not having come up with better excuses to publish this list.... but we're gonna throw up ol' faithful "Freedom of Information Act, which we'll capitalize and throw in everyones face again, and again, and again...)

There are vital reasons these records should remain open. (we love that act. talk about selling papers!!!)

But those reasons were not well illuminated -- or even particularly well served -- by the publication of the entire database. (we can't really tell you why the act shouldnt be amended to reflect persons, like you guys, because that wouldnt help us at all.)

The public should be able to monitor how well various jurisdictions screen concealed carry applicants. (see how sorry we are? still justifying why we should be able to see who you are....)

So, yes, we made mistakes. The process for vetting this decision was not as thorough as it should have been. (my editor is REALLY pissed we didnt do a 3 parter...)

Those mistakes, though, in no way justify the outrageous and threatening nature of much of the response. Very early on, a rational discussion of this issue became all but impossible. (ya, just because we endangered YOUR life, doesnt mean OURS should be threatened!! i mean, how fair is it for you to kill me before i get you killed by someone else? besides, who can talk rationally to the press?)

It was extremely important that we not allow the unacceptable antics of the fringe to distract us from a careful examination of our own decision-making. (see how sorry we are? you people that dont agree with our decision and complained, or "unacceptable antics of the fringe"... man, those stupid rednecks with those guns wont even figure out we're insulting them in our fake apology!!! HAHAHAHAH!!!)

We want to assure our readers that, where we erred, we will strive not to repeat our mistakes. And we will continue to advocate passionately for the free flow of information that is the lifeblood of an open society. {ya... WHERE we erred... NEXT time, we promise, a 3 parter!! and dont even THINK we're not gonna use that Freedom of Information Act again, and again, just as irresponsibly...err, i mean, just as legally jusitifiably.... as this time...)

Apology, my arse.

[Guest dotsun]

They had a segment on CNN on that tonight. I was shocked that CNN actually did a responsible job reporting the story. They showed some pics of a lady that was beaten and stabbed by her ex, truly gruesome pics. In the interview she said that she didn't want anyone to know where she was and that if he wasn't in prison he would certainly find her and likely kill her now that her addy was posted. My opinion, which I posted on GT as well is:

I'd love to see a list of all the Roanoake Times employees' information compiled from public records and posted online for all the world to see. I'm sure they wouldn't object to that, either.

Perhaps they would know what that lady's fear of being found is like.

[Guest jackdog]

For those interested, the AG of virginna has closed the CCW list to the public.

State police close list of gun permits

The attorney general said the list contained sensitive information.

By Laurence Hammack

981-3239

Related

Document

• Read the complete opinion from Attorney General Bob McDonnell

An editorial writer's botched attempt to highlight an open record -- the list of Virginians licensed to carry a concealed handgun -- resulted Friday in the record being closed.

Acting on the advice of Attorney General Bob McDonnell, the Virginia State Police said they will no longer release the information under the state's open records law.

The issue of hidden handguns, who gets to carry them and whether their names and addresses should be publicized hit a flash point last month when Roanoke Times editorial writer Christian Trejbal used his column to encourage readers to check up on who in their community was "packing heat."

The column carried a link to a database, obtained by the newspaper under the Freedom of Information Act and published on its Web site, that included the identities of more than 135,000 state residents licensed to carry concealed handguns.

Gun owners and their supporters were outraged, and the newspaper quickly pulled the database after receiving hundreds of complaints.

But the controversy continued. With some lawmakers pledging to introduce bills next year to make the list of concealed handgun permit holders private, Del. Dave Nutter, R-Christiansburg, decided to ask for guidance from the attorney general.

In a three-page opinion released Friday, McDonnell wrote that state police have "discretionary authority" to release the list -- but that doesn't necessarily mean they should.

McDonnell raised two concerns about making the information public: First, the list includes the names of crime victims and witnesses that should be withheld from public view for safety reasons.

A second and broader reading of the law by McDonnell is that the entire list should be off-limits to the public because the data is compiled only for use by police in their investigations.

State police have "the responsibility to refrain from releasing sensitive personal information when the interests of public safety demand discretion," McDonnell wrote.

"Further, it is my opinion that the express language [of Virginia state law] limits the use of concealed carry permit information to law enforcement personnel for investigative purposes."

Because McDonnell acknowledged that police have "discretionary authority," some observers -- including Nutter -- had speculated the opinion would give them enough wiggle room to continue releasing a redacted list.

But state police spokeswoman Corinne Geller said Friday that acting on the attorney general's advice, the agency will no longer release the information, which over the past two years was the subject of 17 FOIA requests by the news media, political organizations and gun-rights groups.

Because crime victims and witnesses are not identified as such in the list of concealed handgun permit holders, there's no way for police to redact their names from the database, Geller said.

McDonnell's opinion settles the issue only for the short term; the General Assembly is expected to take up the issue next year following a study by the state's Freedom of Information Advisory Council.

"I think this opinion will serve as a foundation for future discussion," Nutter said.

Although he said it was too early to talk about specific legislation, Nutter said he could envision a solution in which citizens could still look up information on individual gun owners at their local courthouse, while the statewide list compiled by the state could be off-limits to everyone except law enforcement.

That could draw opposition from both open-record advocates such as newspapers and gun-rights groups, who also rely on the list to target potential members or citizens interested in gun-related legislation.

"There's going to be push-back from all different sides," Nutter said.

Meanwhile, First Amendment advocates voiced concerns Friday that removing information from the public domain simply because it might contain sensitive personal information could cause more confusion than clarity and affect more records than just the list of concealed handgun carriers.

"We've got to be very careful that the law is clear, and bureaucrats aren't left scratching their heads as to what is sensitive personal information and what isn't," said Frosty Landon, head of the Virginia Coalition for Open Government.

"The attorney general is supportive of open government and I'm sure he will work with everybody else to get this clarified by statute, so it doesn't have to be an issue for interpretation."

In an editorial published two weeks after the controversy began, The Roanoke Times admitted its editorial department made mistakes in deciding to publish the information. Those mistakes included not discussing in greater detail the possible effect on crime victims and not having a more compelling public purpose -- beyond illustrating how the Freedom of Information Act works -- for posting the database.

Asked about Friday's decision by the state police to restrict the information, newspaper President and Publisher Debbie Meade released a written statement.

"As a media company, it always concerns us when the availability of information is restricted," Meade said. "However, we recognize and respect the rights of the Virginia State Police to exercise discretion in handling their responsibilities."

[Guest rocktmn1]

Just a thought... The paper claimed they had a right to publish it because it is "public record". I believe the Freedom of (dis)Information act gives them the right to GET the list, but other laws might govern the right to PUBLISH Personally Identiable Information (PII). Like these...

From the Wiki Definition on PII (personally identiable information).

Recently lawmakers have paid a great deal of attention to protecting a person's PII. One of the primary focuses of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), is to protect a patient's PII. The U.S. Senate has recently proposed the Privacy Act of 2005, which attempts to strictly limit the display, purchase, or sale of PII without the person's consent. Similarly, the Anti-phishing Act of 2005 attempts to prevent the acquiring of PII through phishing.

U.S. lawmakers have paid special attention to the social security number because it can be easily used to commit identity theft. The Social Security Number Protection Act of 2005 and Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2005 each seek to limit the distribution of an individual's social security number.

On the other hand, many businesses see this increasing load of legislation as excessive, an unnecessary expense, and a barrier to progress. The increasing complexity of the laws might force companies to consult a lawyer just to engage in simple business practices such as server logging, user registration, and credit checks. Some have predicted such measures may inhibit the industry as a whole, lowering wages and creating a barrier to entry. For this reason, a number of privacy laws stress the "acceptable uses" of PII, such as Massachusetts' Public Records Law and Fair Information Practices Act.

Laws, Regulations and Directives Effecting the Storage and Usage of Personal Data

Below are examples of legal frameworks affecting data privacy in the relevant stated jurisdiction.

United States of America

California has privacy written into the state constitution Article 1, Section 1

• Online Privacy Protection Act (OPPA) of 2003

Federal Laws

• Privacy Act of 2005 • Information Protection and Security Act • Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2005 • Online Privacy Protection Act of 2005 • Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 2005 • Anti-phishing Act of 2005 • Social Security Number Protection Act of 2005 • Wireless 411 Privacy Act • US 'Safe Harbor' Rules (EU Harmonisation)

[towerclimber37]

I'd like to see someone take their butts to court and sue them for damages!!!

I wonder if thats possible?

perhaps like the lady...now shes' in fear for her life..will probably have to move again and keep looking over her shoulder! I think that the Paper should have to cover those costs to keep her safe, and everyone else that has been endangered by that kind of irresponsible reporting by those people who think that they're culturally "enlightened" and therefore need no firearms to be safe...all that THEY have to do to stop something bad from happening to them is to just show the thugs/Bgs' that they're worth emulating...after all..and the bg's will magically turn into nice law abiding citizens..

patooey!

[Guest nj.piney]

When i got one of the first handgun permits in Maryville tn. the local paper

decided to put the names of all permit holders alongside the local crime column

they have since stopped doing that,after my friends and enemys congradulated me.

nj.piney