Collegiate Times

No, what's depressing is that one requires a permit to practice a right enumerated in the Constitution. I doubt you'd be on board with requiring a permit to exercise the right to free speech. Want to go to church? Where’s your permit? How about search and seizure? If you don’t have a permit is it OK for the police to search your home without a permit? What amazes me is how so many people are more worried about responsible citizens who legally carry weapons with a permit than they seem to be about criminals. Despite the fact that Tech does not allow students or employees to have weapons, it seems to me that this didn’t prevent someone from having and using one not so long ago. News flash: it isn’t CCW permit holders who commit gun crimes. Instead of worrying so much about people who obey the law, perhaps you should aim your zealotry at the UNlawful.

What you label as "this supposed right to privacy" is a concept that some bunch of folks called, what i hear it is they're called, The Supreme Court has dealt with alot... Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. What's hilarious, to me, is the notion you all bring up that concealed carriers, who go out of their way to follow the law, waive their right to privacy. I do not own a firearm, I do not carry, or carry concealed. I do not agree with the thought of guns in schools, but I do believe that you all are a bunch of idiots.

When you joined the editorial board at CollegiateTimes.com, were you not implicitly forgoing your right to privacy? After all, what good is a nice writing job to your career if you can't flaunt it a little? Yet, none of you wants to personally be identified as the author of this and many other editorials. Using your logic, we're being deprived of our rights to check the decisions made by collegiatetimes.com. We really should have the names of each board member who takes this position. Further, we must have your home addresses. After all, if I ever have to do business with someone using one of your names, I'd want to be able to confirm that I am indeed dealing with a logic impaired person. Now be truthful: Would or would you not be comfortable with this information being disseminated? Might you ever think twice about what you wrote or how you wrote it? Would you wonder whether there might actually be some unstable types out there that disagree with you or take some un-welcomed interest in you and you really don't want them knowing too much about you? What matters more to you at the end of the day, the public's safety or your own? No you don't have anything to worry about from me. But as long as you are willing to apply a double standard, consider reversing said double standard and putting yourselves on the shorter end of the stick.

One more question. And please be honest, at least up in your small minds. Do you really wander around everyday cowering in fear wondering who's armed? Or do you only become afraid for your safety (and the public's) when you need to write un-bylined editorials?

Dear editorial board, You guys make some pretty funny points. Obviously logic is out the window at this point. "Our government is predicated on the checks and balances...." This is not a checks and balances issue. If someone qualifies for and is issued a concealed carry permit based on the law, that is all there is to it. Do you think you the courts are issuing permits to those that do not qualify? The babysitter example is equally silly. You want to be able to check to see if the person you are hiring has a permit? That is meaningless, since said person might not carry when they do their babysitting work. Wouldn't you want to check your babysitter (permit or not) at the door to make sure they aren't carrying when they come to you house?

Andy, good point about checks and balances. I guess the editorial board doesn't understand that the checks and balances refers to branches of GOVERNMENT, the idea being that no one branch becomes too powerful. It is not meant to be a check on the people making sure WE don't become too powerful.

If a babysitter is packing heat legally that's their business.

on further note: Molon Labe!

This shouldn't even need to be passed. There is no reason for a list of those who have guns to be published or kept on record in the first place.

Alum is right. There shouldnt have been a list in the first place. But since there was it should be publicly accessible. WtBL, you made a big point about the editorial board didn't include their names, but did you look at the bottom of the article.

Agree with Alum, I did see the names. I originally started my comment with, " David, David , Laurel, Jenna and Alexandra," but removed them to get under the 250-word limit. You'll see where I wrote "someone using one of your names" that I must have known their names. Remember that a list of board members is a far cry from an individual author's name or list of names. Even when named, the list gives them a small shield of deniability about who owns which positions. For all we know, someone not on the board wrote it and they approved it. They're not necessarily wrong to shield their ownership of their opinions. But they obviously do it for a reason...and that reason should also be extended to permit holders.

By that logic, WtBL, we should have a list of all gun owners, just without the detail of what kind of guns they own.

WtBL-you are making the rest of us gunowners look dumb. please stop commenting.

First let me say that I think the database should remain public, but, as with everything, with conditions on how it is accessed. You can find out lots of information about someone if you know where to get the public records, and I doubt that knowing someone has a gun is going to make people more apt to harass them. As for the babysitter, just say that you do not permit him/her to carry in your house. Then, if it happens anyway, they are breaking the law. Since law breaking is something that permit holders seem to want to avoid, I doubt this is a big issue; it certainly doesn't seem like it carries enough weight to be a flagship example for why the database should remain public.

Why don't we try and work around this? If we can't have a list of CCW permit holders, maybe we can create a public record of everyone who owns a safe. While not all CCW permit holders lock up their guns, many responsible gun owners keep their firearms in a safe. Not only would we get the names of some of the permit holders, but we would also get the names of gun owners who don't have a permit to carry. Unfortunately, the extremely low rate of crimes committed by CCW permit holders really hurts our argument that we must know who they are for public safety reasons, but if we expand the group we are looking at, we might be able to make a safety argument without someone laughing in our face. Some might contend that there are people with safes that don't own guns, and I agree, they are rich people. No one cares about these people anymore because the only thing worse than a person trying to assert their constitutional rights in this economic climate is a rich person.

Maybe I'm way off base here but I can see where posting the CCW list could be used to identify homes where the owner might NOT have a gun and/or probably has NOT been trained on how to use it. Another words, avoid the homes on the CCW list.

This whole issue is dumb... and so are the people that advocate for public records for concealed weapon holders. Its not YOUR business what I do and what i register for. Get the hell over it. If youre too soft to be feel comfortable enough at night to sleep without knowing who in your neighborhood is legally licensed to carry a concealed weapon, then move somewhere with no concealed weapon law. STOP WHINING.

The board clearly doesn't understand that the information is still available at the local courthouse. Additionally, the publication was in poor taste because many people trying to keep their home addresses private (policemen, victims of violent crime, people who have filed restraining orders and moved). Regardless, checks and balances are for the government, not for the government to check the power of the citizens.

This article fails on many levels to articulate any compelling state interest in maintaining private access to a list of CCW permit holders. 1. The argument that limiting access to this information reduces our safety is not backed up by any statistical evidence or factual examples. What are the statistics concerning the dangers posed to the public by CCW permit holders and why didn’t you include it? The only suggestion along these lines is that a child could be left with a babysitter who has a concealed carry permit. This hypothetical example is designed to make up for a lack of reason based arguments by stirring the emotional fear that a child could be near a gun. 2. The argument that the “supposed right to privacy” being terminated should be examined as well by both sides. This comes out of the 4th amendment right to be free from warantless searches and seizures. Are you stating that the right to privacy carved out by the court in Roe v. Wade is bad law, that there is no constitutional right to privacy, and as such Roe v. Wade should be overturned? The only other option is that you are saying that by exercising one enumerated right we lose another. For those of you arguing that publishing this list would is a violation of the right to privacy, do you support the legal rationale behind Roe v. Wade (just the legal rationale) and therefore believe that it should stand as precedent?

Continued... 3. You state yourselves that the “elimination from public scrutiny does not constitute great damage to a citizen's ability to check decisions made by his or her government.” I for one do not find the sole concept that gun lobbies are powerful a reason to block legislation they favor merely to satisfy an emotional need to defeat the NRA. It might be depressing to you, but that’s not a very strong argument. 4. The argument about checks and balances evinces a lack of understanding about the basic functions of our government as discussed by another commenter.

People bemoan the NRA as if it were some monolithic entity that operates of its own free will. One of the reasons the NRA is so effective at lobbying is because of its membership. People who want to outlaw guns join and donate money to the Brady campaign, among other places. People who wish to protect the Second Amendment join and donate to the NRA. The First Amendment affirms the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, which is what the NRA does. If you don’t like it, join the Brady people.

Clearly the Editorial Board doesn't read their own articles; it makes this one appear as an attempt to rile up gun-rights activists and get some LTE's. Just yesterday, the CT article "Kaine bans publication..." addresses much of what the Board talks about here. One quote from that article stands out: "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." Further, your association of gun owners with criminals (public safety comments) and argument that children around guns is inherently dangerous is blatantly ignorant. I consider your power far more dangerous than a gun, because some people actually believe some of these uninformed ramblings.

Man I love this topic. I've been wanting to know why people want the names of those with permits for a while. I didn't see any need for it but I guess checking on a babysitter is a good idea. I would have checked the Kid Toucher database but that is just me. Man I thought of the same thing as DonJr that if I saw a home on the CCW list I would just target another house that isn't on there. So in that case, publish the list so I don't shoot some silly wannabe robber and have to clean my Glock more than I have to.

The extent of public information is perhaps something that people don't realize. You can easily find out any homeowner's address by simply knowing their names. Online. In a few minutes. When you complete a transaction with the government, which is what accepting a permit amounts to, they keep a record, and I don't see why these should not be public. A vast majority of public information is available but infrequently accessed. I'd argue that property information should be private before gun ownership records. After all, you don't buy the house from the government; they just tax you on it.

The issue for me, Jason, is that one is required to complete a transaction with the government to exercise a Constitutional right in the first place.

echo Chip - in Vermont, there is no permit required, and Alaska is the same deal. There is also no permit required to open carry in about 90% of this country. Yet if I want to keep my firearm out of view suddenly the gov't needs to know everything about me? I'm not against background checks, but if we're going to get philosophical about this, let's take it ALL to that level. Besides, what does a database of CCW permits tell you? The same information that a database of people who debate gov't policies - people who exercise their Constitutional rights. Utility is ??

I would assume that by supporting this then the edirorial board also supports the opening of juvenile violation records, the names, and addresses of victims of domestic abuse, the files containing those in witness protection programs. All are rediculous, and one can only support the editorialist's position by taking a position that the right to know everything about anyone that is contained in government files supercedes EVERYONES individual right to privacy every time... without exception. ...and Chip... RIGHT ON! Perhaps if the editorialists needed a permit with records kept on file by the government to excercise their first amendment right to freedom of expression they'd feel differently about the second amendment too.

CCW holders are some of the most outstanding and law abiding citizens out there. You have to go through extensive background checks, take classes, and learn how to shoot before they'll o.k you to carry one in public. I don't know what good it will do to have those names released. The only thing that it could do is cause paranoia. It's our constitutional right to bear arms, why do you want a database of people who exercise this right?

Re: Babysitters - Wouldn't it be better if she was packing heat? Young women at home with children seem like a prime target for criminals. The babysitter would have to be at least 21 and I think they would be responsible enough to keep it out of the kids' hands

Publish the addresses, phone numbers, and all the other "private" information about the editorial board. You need your info published if you choose to use your first amendment rights.

Maybe a comparison to make: the names, addresses, phone numbers of registered voters is a public record. That's why you get all of the junk mail from candidates and polling questions on your home phone. I agree with posters who say that guns shouldnt have to be registered at all but until we get THAT law overturned (we won't) I think its fair to have the listing. The main reason I was really upset about the Roanoke Times listing is because the paper accompanied the database with such obvious bias and anti-gun rhetoric.

I still don't understand why VT doesn't allow permit holders to carry on campus after the three major incidents that have happened on or around campus in the last couple years. How many more people are going to have to die before students are allowed to protect themselves?