Resize 
Related
- Concealed carry is coming to Virginia campuses
- Kaine levies another round of budget cuts
- Letter: Concealed carry owners have a right to anonymity
TOPICS: concealed carry permit holders, publication, kaine
Gov. Tim Kaine signed a bill last week that removes a State Police database of concealed weapon permit holders from public access in Virginia.
The bill protects "from public disclosure permittee names and descriptive information held by the Department of State Police for purposes of entry into the Virginia Criminal Information Network," according the bill's summary statement.
According to the text of the bill, the personal information of the permittees will only be available to police personnel for the purpose of investigation. Only general statistical information would be available to the public.
The bill was introduced by David Nutter, a delegate from House district 7, and signed by Kaine on March 27.
The bill largely came about after the Roanoke Times legally obtained the database of permittees from the Department of State Police and published it to its Web site in what they described as "an illustration of the Freedom of Information Act." An almost immediate outcry from permit holders caused them to quickly change their minds.
A staff editorial by the Roanoke Times in fact described hearing from thousands of people in the two weeks following the publication of the database, some raising rational objections, others responding with "personal threats of violence and acts of intimidation."
In response to a request for comment, Karenna Glover of the Roanoke Times forwarded a pre-written statement.
"The Roanoke Times admits it made some mistakes and apologizes for potentially putting some individuals at risk by publishing a database of concealed handgun permit holders," the statement said.
Also in the statement, Debbie Meade, president and publisher of the Roanoke Times, said they "did not give sufficient thought to the possibility that the safety of certain individuals on the list, like law enforcement officials and crime victims, could potentially be compromised."
Nutter's office also received complaints from constituents after the publishing of the database.
Shortly after the database was removed, Attorney General Bob McDonnell issued an opinion agreeing with opponents of the database and he closed access to the list. That opinion was followed with agreement from Virginia's Freedom of Information Advisory Council, which recommended his opinion be codified into the Code of Virginia. From there, the bill was written and Nutter carried it to the General Assembly.
"I carried this legislation because many of my constituents were harmed by the Roanoke Times' reckless actions, and I felt we needed a permanent solution to the problem," explained Nutter in the statement from his office. "The Code of Virginia needed to be amended to protect law-abiding citizens from being harassed and exposed to attack."
Virginia Tech campus representatives of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus are firm supporters of the bill as well and believe that the database is a violation of privacy.
"There is no need whatsoever for public access to the database of permit holders. A great number of people decide to get permits because they have been threatened or even mugged in the past. ... It is often the public with access to these databases who abuse it the most," said Alyson Boyce, Tech's SCCC campus leader.
Ken Stanton, the creator of Tech's SCCC chapter, agreed, describing the publication by the Roanoke Times as "an example of how the information can be abused publicly."
Some believe the public should retain access to the information of permittees for a variety of reasons.
Ladd Everett of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence believed that one should be able to audit the database to make sure judges adequately screen applicants and also hold permit holders accountable for their criminal record after receiving the permit.
"There is freedom of information in a democracy. ... I would want to find out as a member of the public. What about someone who lives down the street? What about kids hanging out at other parents' houses? ... Do I want to be aware of that information? Definitely," Everett said.
Everett, Boyce and Stanton agreed, however, that the best approach might be in finding equilibrium between the right to know and the right to privacy.
"Perhaps there is a way to maintain checks and balances but not allow for open, public posting of permit holders' names and addresses," Stanton said.
Leave a comment 21 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
By submitting your comment, you agree that it will not:
Comments that violate these guidelines will be moderated by the public editor and will then be buried in the comments section.
Ladd Everett makes owning a gun sound like a crime. The people who have concealed carry permits are upstanding citizens in society who want to be able to protect themselves and their families against crime...how is that a crime?
Reply to this Top
Not to mention the fact that in order to obtain a concealed carry permit, one must have a clean criminal record, complete several safety classes, show proof of need for a concealed carry permit, and show proficiency in handling a handgun. Repeat sex offenders, no problem, publish that list, they have broken the law. Law-abiding citizens, the only place their information should be published is the phone book.
Reply to this Top
Yup, that's right folks - guns cause crime. You see, 100's of millions of guns are just sitting in homes, with innocent children, fuzzy bunnies, and other cuddly things that will definitely be struck when those evil guns decide they want to "go off" unprovoked. Further, whenever someone buys a gun they instantly become a criminal as their psyche now changes to that of a mindless, drooling, blood-thirsty animal. So Ladd is right, you MUST find all guns around you and immediately keep miles away. Get in your safe car and drive miles away from those scary guns and your bunnies and children will be safe!... For real, CT, you called LADD for input? I didn't realize they took calls at the nut house...
Reply to this Top
What does someone who lives down the street having a CCP have to do with you? Absolutely nothing. As for a kid playing at a house with someone who has a concealed carry, this Ladd person does realize that you don't have to have a CCP to own a gun, right? There is no reason for anyone in the public realm to need to know who has a CCP. None.
Reply to this Top
This is a public record, and I believe it should be just as accessible as others. From past experience in other states, that means that if you want to find someone's address, license plate number, etc., you have to take the initiative to find it, often by going to a state bureau and paying for them to pull the record. I do believe that there should be an added condition that it is for personal use only (as opposed to publishing it in a newspaper, for instance). That said, I am not convinced that the publication of the list caused a significant risk to those on it. If someone is out there trying to find out where you live, there are easier ways to do it, like searching for your name in the property ownership database, which is accessible from your computer. I also doubt that many others who wouldn't have otherwise been left alone found themselves harassed (or avoided), by neighbors or the public at large, by the fact that they are now publicly known as a gun owner.
Reply to this Top
Jason, recently in California some individuals took it upon themselves to publish public information about private donors that contributed to the Prop-8 campaigns. This information was then entered into an online map to pinpoint each donor. Those donors have since been harassed and threatened by extremists. I can easily see that same type of harassment by the anti-gun extremists. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,485967,00.html There is no need for the public to obtain information about Concealed permit holders.
Reply to this Top
I think you are going after the wrong side here. 99 times out of 100, if its a government record, it should be open. The better question is if its irrelevant to the general public that you have a CCP, why should you have to get one at all? Shouldn't we be arguing against an unjust regulation instead of giving the government more power to hide information?
Reply to this Top
The issue here became the abuse of a public record to promote an anti gun agenda. I"m ok if someone wants to see the number of guns that I own and what type, but its another thing if the news paper published my name without my consent when I have done nothing wrong in an attempt to demonize gun ownership.
Reply to this Top
When you apply for a CCP, you are told that it is public information, just like when you donate to a political campaign. If you don't want your name to be publicly disclosed, then don't get a CCP. That being said, I would expect the sides to be switched on this issue. Gun enthusiasts always say that they are 'proud gun owners'. I for one would like to be recognized for things I take pride in. For example, a local newspaper back home publishes the names (without asking consent) of local students who made Dean's list. Conversely, when I first read this headline, I thought Kaine did this to protect people who don't have a CCP. A list of CCP holders can also be used as a list of people who don't have a CCP. This could be used to help criminals find unarmed victims. Finally, not allowing newspapers to print public information is a violation of freedom of speech. Would it have been any different if the Roanoke Times just provided a link to the State Police database?
Reply to this Top
You do not have to take "several safety classes" and "show proficiency in handling a handgun" to obtain a concealed carry permit in Virginia. In fact, a one-hour ONLINE course (with a simple multiple choice question test) now suffices as the "training requirement" for a CCW permit in the Commonwealth. The requirements are so lax in Virginia that Seung-Hui Cho would have qualified for a CCW permit at the time he purchased his handguns in the state. Furthermore, independent investigations in several other states have shown that individuals with violent criminals histories are able to obtain CCW permits. In several cases, they have also been able to keep their permits after committing crimes because the CCW lists are not audited thoroughly, and frequently, enough. What is most striking about all these claims about public "abuse" in regards to the VA CCW list is that not a single example has been produced of how an individual has been harmed by the publication of that list. Aren't guns supposed to make you safer? Criminals love "gun-free" zones, right? I guess those arguments are useful except when gun owners have to be accountable to the public and their communities.
Reply to this Top
Safe VA, let's dispose of the Cho argument. The problem isn't with the requirements to purchase a weapon; it was with the fact that the background information that rendered him ineligible to purchase a gun was never reported. He illegally obtained the guns because his complete background was not available to the system. Also, he did not need a permit once he obtained them because he had no intent to conceal them for self-defense. You're right that the requirements for obtaining a permit are not strict, however I think you'll find that most people who own permits take the responsibility very seriously. I'd guess that nearly all know the law inside and out, are very familiar with gun safety, and frequently go to the range to practice. Remember: many would argue that the state has no right to make you prove that you can handle a gun, since the Constitution gives you that right in the first place.
Reply to this Top
Sorry...to be more precise, the Constitution acknowledges that this right is fundamental and that the government may not take it away.
Reply to this Top
Jason T, with all due respect, your guesses are not nearly as effective as strong laws that: 1) Verify that someone is not a threat to public safety even IF their record has not been properly forwarded to the NICS database or to the State Police; and 2) Require adequate training for people that want to carry a concealed handgun out in public around me and my family 24/7. As for the Heller case, the Supreme Court made it perfectly clear that there is no constitutional right to carry a handgun in public. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, stated on page 2 of the ruling: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
Reply to this Top
Safe VA, you are badly mistaken. Open carry is permitted in the vast majority of states in the US, which requires NO permit, background check, etc. and is Constitutionally protected. And you also make the common mistake of crossing law-abiding citizens with criminals. Criminals disregard laws; law-abiding citizens must work around them - and they don't hurt others anyway. All the laws already in place that make sense ensure that your hoplophobia is addressed - I'm not allowed to gun sling in McDonalds or show off to friends.. k?
Reply to this Top
Safe VA, you'll notice that the quote from the Heller decision intentionally omits any wording that suggests outlawing general public carry by law-abiding citizens. Also, what makes a "strong law?" Is it the ability to enforce it? Clearly, with the prevalence of illegal weapons ownership in this country, existing laws are not strong. What do you propose? Currently, nearly all states allow concealed and/or open carry, with differing restrictions on where carry is allowed and who can obtain permits. I mean no disrespect, and I understand your wish to protect your family, but you'd be about as likely to die by shark attack in Blacksburg as you would to be victimized by the actions of a permit holder.
Reply to this Top
Jason T, I've got the Heller opinion in front of me as I type this. Justice Scalia never says that Open Carry is constitutionally protected. What he does say, quite clearly in the quote I provided, is that states are free to regulate the carrying of firearms in public as they see fit, including by prohibiting it. Regarding law-abiding citizens vs. criminals, you admitted yourself that are current gun laws are "not strong," which is a dramatic understatement. Seung-Hui Cho would have qualified for a CCW permit at the time he LEGALLY bought handguns in Virginia. He would have passed the same computerized background check and the county would have been forced to issue him a permit under the state's "Shall Issue" policy. With millions of records missing from the NICS database, and the databases of state police across the country, there is absolutely nothing about the CCW permitting process that guarantees that people who get those permits will be either law-abiding, responsible, or even sane.
Reply to this Top
I don't have the time to read the opinion at the moment, but it sounds to me like, in the quote you gave me, that he is very cautiously avoiding an endorsement of concealed carry prohibition. As for the other issue, I asked you to propose a law that is strong. I maintain that no law will ever be strong unless personal freedoms are severely compromised (metal detectors to walk in public areas, random raids on houses to search for guns, etc.). Also, you are wrong in saying that Cho legally purchased his guns. VA code and US law both deem it illegal for Cho to possess a gun based on the ruling in his court case. The fact that he was able to purchase it doesn't make it legal. He would similarly not be able to legally obtain a permit. That would be like saying that a 17-year-old who buys cigarettes because the cashier doesn't card is not breaking the law.
Reply to this Top
Safe VA - First of all; please explain to me the value of making such a list public, and how the public right to know outweighs the individual right to privacy of those on the list... CONSTITUTIONALLY. Secondly; Cho may, or may not have made it through the process of aquiring a carry permit. Had he done so, or not, he still would not have been allowed on campus with his pistols, so your argument is moot. ------------------------------------------------------------- "...there is absolutely nothing about the CCW permitting process that guarantees that people who get those permits will be either law-abiding, responsible, or even sane. ------------------------------------------------------------- While true to a degree, there is also nothing to prevent the illegal obtaining, or use of a firearm by anyone with the cash to get one on the black market. When someone pulls an illegally obtained firearm on you feel free to protect yourself with a copy of the text of the law forbidding them to have a firearm. Me... I'll carry, and shoot back given no other alternative. The fact is that Cho was in absolutely no danger until the police arrived with their firearms. The safest person in a gun free zone is the one with a gun. Remember that.
Reply to this Top
... and Safe VA... the only "guarantees" you get in life come with cars, televisions, and toaster ovens. There's never been a gaurantee on individual safety in any free society.
Reply to this Top
My local newspaper published the list of new concealed carry holders and when I got my permit, I had a half-dozen phone calls at home from people I didn't even know telling me how I was a crazy gun-nut who had various psychological disorders (none of them would give me their name, though). This same paper refused to publish the (public record) civil unions (i.e. gay partnerships) because they thought it "violated people's right to privacy". Double standards live on in 21st century America.
Reply to this Top