HCP holder records to be sealed.

[Randall53]

good move...

[Guest MilitiaMan]

Link?

 

Great news.

[xRUSTYx]

Link?

 

Great news.

 

Here ya go:

 

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/apr/10/tennessee-senators-approve-bill-closing-public-acc/?local

[Guest MilitiaMan]

Good read. Thanks :)

[Oh Shoot]

Unclear whether this will actually forbid the CA online database lookup as it now exists or not, though.

 

- OS

[krunchnik]

Unclear whether this will actually forbid the CA online database lookup as it now exists or not, though.

 

- OS

Accordingly it would be closed to public search,to bad for the Commercial Appeal.When the Appeal originally posted a search area on their web site I e-mailed them with my dislike of said practice,now it will have to be closed.

Edited April 10, 2013 by krunchnik

[Oh Shoot]

Accordingly it would be closed to public search,to bad for the Commercial Appeal.When the Appeal originally posted a search area on their web site I e-mailed them with my dislike of said practice,now it will have to be closed.

 

I can't find actual bill for wording, anyone got number or link?

 

I don't trust these "synopsis" news stories a whit. For example, story says CA's record "does not include street addresses or birthdates.". Well, sorta -- it show year of birth.

 

So maybe it would cause it to be closed, but would like to see actual bill before undue jubilation.

 

- OS

[Garufa]

I can't find actual bill for wording, anyone got number or link?

 

I don't trust these "synopsis" news stories a whit. For example, story says CA's record "does not include street addresses or birthdates.". Well, sorta -- it show year of birth.

 

So maybe it would cause it to be closed, but would like to see actual bill before undue jubilation.

 

- OS

 

The information you seek is here http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HB0009, including the complete bill.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Garufa

[Oh Shoot]

The information you seek is here http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HB0009, including the complete bill.

 
Thakee kindly, I haven't kept up with this.
 
Ummm, seems to me this still has the glaring loophole:
 
"Nothing in this subsection (o) shall prohibit release of the handgun carry permit statistical reports authorized by § 39-17-1351(s)."

Which says, in part:

 

"(s)  (1) The department shall make available, on request and payment of a reasonable fee to cover the costs of copying, a statistical report that includes the number of permits issued, denied, revoked, or suspended by the department during the preceding month, listed by age, gender and zip code of the applicant or permit holder and the reason for any permit revocation or suspension. The report shall also include the cost of the program, the revenues derived from fees, the number of violations of the provisions of the handgun carry permit law, and the average time for issuance of a handgun carry permit. By January 1 of each year, a copy of the statistical reports for the preceding calendar year shall be provided to each member of the general assembly."

 

Isn't this likely the section that allows the CA purchase of the database in the first place?

 

- OS

Edited April 10, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[2.ooohhh]

 
Thakee kindly, I haven't kept up with this.
 
Ummm, seems to me this still has the glaring loophole:
 
"Nothing in this subsection (o) shall prohibit release of the handgun carry permit statistical reports authorized by § 39-17-1351(s)."

Which says, in part:

 

"(s)  (1) The department shall make available, on request and payment of a reasonable fee to cover the costs of copying, a statistical report that includes the number of permits issued, denied, revoked, or suspended by the department during the preceding month, listed by age, gender and zip code of the applicant or permit holder and the reason for any permit revocation or suspension. The report shall also include the cost of the program, the revenues derived from fees, the number of violations of the provisions of the handgun carry permit law, and the average time for issuance of a handgun carry permit. By January 1 of each year, a copy of the statistical reports for the preceding calendar year shall be provided to each member of the general assembly."

 

Isn't this likely the section that allows the CA purchase of the database in the first place?

 

- OS

 

 

No it's basically deidentified statistical data with zip code/age/sex as the most unique identifiers. This is very commonly released even within the medical community for use in research and reporting.

 

This new legislation allows-

 

37027- 6 permits issued last month, 23,44,56,75,81,21,,M,M,M,F,M,F,, 1 permit denied 55, M, Reason "Invalid finger print submission."

 

 

 

Where currently they would get something more like-

 

6 Permits Issued-

Jay Galbreath, 38,M, Street Address, Brentwood TN

Mark Gorman, 45,M,Street Address, Brentwood TN

Rhea Little III,51,M, Street Address,Brentwood TN

Jason Richardson, 40,M,Street Address, Brentwood TN

Paul Webb,60,M,Street Address, Brentwood TN

Regina Smithson, 69,F,Street Address, Brentwood TN

 

1 Permit Denied

David E. Miller, 61, M, Street Address, Brentwood, TN Reason- "Background results- convicted of 2x aggravated identity theft"

 

 

 

Disclaimer: The aprooved example names above were printed in this morning's paper as they are all running for office in Brentwood, I put all 6 candidates in to fairly represent the group of them and I have no idea if they actually hold TCPs. The "denied" example was chosen randomly from a google search of Brentwood residents convicted of crimes in a court of law.

Edited April 10, 2013 by 2.ooohhh

[NashvilleStage]

Where currently they would get something more like-

 

Jay Galbreath, 38,M, Street Address, Brentwood TN

 

You sure? I did a search on the CA website for myself, and it came back with my:

 

- First, middle & last name

- Year of birth

- City, county, and ZIP of residence

- Issue date & expiration date of permit

 

There was no mention of my address or gender.

[Oh Shoot]

You sure? I did a search on the CA website for myself, and it came back with my:

 

- First, middle & last name

- Year of birth

- City, county, and ZIP of residence

- Issue date & expiration date of permit

 

There was no mention of my address or gender.

 

I believe 2.ooooh was just giving an example of the types of detail in the field involved in the two types of reporting.

 

However, the CA does have your street address in their database. They showed them when they first fired it up in '08, then after a while decided to hide that field.

 

- OS

Edited April 13, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[2.ooohhh]

I believe 2.ooooh was just giving an example of the types of detail in the field involved in the two types of reporting.

 

However, the CA does have your street address in their database. They showed them when they first fired it up in '08, then after a while decided to hide that field.

 

- OS

 

 

Yes, my example was to point out the difference in de-identified data used in general statistical reporting vs the over share that is what the state currently releases, and YES there are fields released currently by the state that are not published by the CA.

[Rog O]

Let's pray that this never gets undermined by the anti's.

[shackelford]

Did Haslam eventually sign this? All I can find is that it passed out of the legislature.

[Will H]

^^^ Rusty, I cannot find anything on him signing it yet, but it was just sent to him on the 16th, so I would think it might take a few days.

[ncldwell]

Gov Haslam signed this legislation yesterday 4/25. Edited April 26, 2013 by ncldwell

[Guest mwbates]

 

When does it go into effect?

[Worriedman]

"This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it."

 

 

If it was singed on the 25th, it became law on the 25th.

[Oh Shoot]

CA database still functional.

 

Reading the bill, I don't see where information already out there is necessarily prohibited from display. Meaning, does the prohibition only hold for release forward from the enactment?

 

- OS

Edited April 26, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Garufa]

CA database still functional.

 

I'm sure their lawyers are preparing to file.

[shackelford]

CA database still functional.
 
Reading the bill, I don't see where information already out there is necessarily prohibited from display. Meaning, does the prohibition only hold for release forward from the enactment?
 
- OS

I have a feeling that any attempts to prevent publishing of already disclosed data would run afoul of the first amendment.

Good news though.

[S&WForty]

If it wouldn't leave me dirtier, I'd use the Commercial Appeal as toilet paper.

[macville]

CA database still functional.

 

Reading the bill, I don't see where information already out there is necessarily prohibited from display. Meaning, does the prohibition only hold for release forward from the enactment?

 

 

I would agree. The only thing that I see that might help us is that it doesn't say "from this day forward" this info shall be confidential. They had to put a date for preemption laws (july 1st, 1986 I think), so I would think they would have to do the same thing here if it wasn't retroactive. It would be kinda fun for the Commercial Appeal to fight to keep it and have the NRA sue and win!

[jtmaze]

I am curious. Who do we petition to get the CA to take down the list. Should we contact the NRA and get them involved. I am on enough lists I don't need this one.