Virginia newspaper publishes list of all permit holders

**KaiGywer** · 03-16-07, 10:59 AM

Found this very hot discussion over on The High Road. It's a long thread, but very good. Roanoke Times published a list of over 130,000 Virginians with a permit.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=261555

Would be interesting to see what the responses over here are on this topic.

**Virginian** · 03-16-07, 11:11 AM

Another paper in VA did this online once, then took it down after all the complaints. Guess this makes two. Glad to see people will still fight for what's right and get things done.

**Virginian** · 03-16-07, 11:12 AM

Also glad to see there's 129,999 other Virginians with a CHP

**Rhino** · 03-16-07, 02:32 PM

I often challenge those that are anti-gun to put a sign up in front of their home that says "This House is Gun-Free".

So far, no takers. I wonder why.

**Jackalope** · 03-16-07, 02:39 PM

Having a permit doesn't necessarily mean that someone routinely carries. My dad has a permit, and I think he's only carried his gun out of the house once since he got it. I had a teacher in high school who had a permit, too, but only carried when he was travelling.

**KaiGywer** · 03-16-07, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by Jackalope

Having a permit doesn't necessarily mean that someone routinely carries. My dad has a permit, and I think he's only carried his gun out of the house once since he got it. I had a teacher in high school who had a permit, too, but only carried when he was travelling.

But if you have a permit, you are very likely to have one or more guns at your house. Crook breaks in based on this knowledge and now has your gun

**TXCharlie** · 03-16-07, 02:46 PM

I haven't decided how I feel about that, but I suspect their motives - and KaiGywer is probably right, it does open people up to being targets of burglaries.

Why don't they print something useful, like a list of felons, deadbeat parents, wife beaters, or child molesters?

**TXCharlie** · 03-16-07, 02:56 PM

I bet the list contained some Congressmen, TV personalities, judges, and people like that, not just "the public"

http://www.roanoke.com/gunpermits/

The Roanoke Times Removes Database of Handgun Permit Holders

//

March 12, 2007 — The Roanoke Times has decided to remove the online database of registered concealed handgun permit holders from its website.

The newspaper is requesting the Virginia State Police, which provided the information, verify the data.

“When we posted the information, we had every reason to believe that the data the State Police had supplied would comply with the statutes. But people have notified us that the list includes names that should not have been released,” said Debbie Meade, president and publisher of The Roanoke Times. “Out of a sense of caution and concern for the public we have decided to take the database off of our website.”
The database was posted on roanoke.com on Sunday as part of a New River Valley editorial page column about open records. This column, as well as others that will be published this week, is part of a special focus on Sunshine Week, a national initiative to raise awareness about open government and freedom of information.

http://blogs.roanoke.com/roundtable/columns/comment_on_trejbals_column_12. html

**KaiGywer** · 03-16-07, 02:59 PM

They later stated they will not put it back up. Now the fight is to get an exception to the FOIA

**Jackalope** · 03-16-07, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by KaiGywer

But if you have a permit, you are very likely to have one or more guns at your house. Crook breaks in based on this knowledge and now has your gun

Heh heh. No burglar is getting my gun.

But I understand what you're saying. I wasn't defending the reporter. But his "justification" for publishing the list was so that employers will know if you're carrying at work and things like that. When I was an unarmed security guard, I didn't carry to, from, or at work, I just carried everywhere else. The fact that I went to the trouble to get a permit indicated that I was more likely to follow the rules, not less. There is no good reason for that list to have been published.

**TXCharlie** · 03-16-07, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by Jackalope

...his "justification" for publishing the list was so that employers will know if you're carrying at work and things like that...

I realize you're not defending the reporter, but that's not a valid justification.

This could cause some employers to go too far and use intimidation and coercion to search employee cars in their parking lot, and even interrogate and search their employees - Lawsuits have been filed over that kind of crap, against an oil company and a paper company that I know of in Oklahoma I believe.

I think about the only two things an employer can legally do to an employee for refusing a search in Texas is fire you and eject you from their property, even if they do have a conformant 30.06 sign. The police normally don't get involved unless someone actually sees something, or the employee refuses to leave the property, but I'm sure it would depend on the police department.

Of course if they responded and asked for your ID, and the employeer had a conformant sign or a document on file where you were notified, you'd be screwed at that point if you're carrying, because as soon as they find out you have a CHL, the next question would be "are you armed?" - Not answering would be a crime for CHL holders, not telling the truth would be a crime, and carrying would be a crime (if they gave you written notice comformant to 30.06 in the penal code).

**Vendetta** · 03-16-07, 04:14 PM

I was on that list and here is what bothers me:
Im a cop in a small county where alot of the residents in the town I live know where I live and what I do. Most people in the other parts of the town didnt know where I lived but they could now.
Im sure that there were several ex-battered women on that list that left abusive relationships and moved to re-establish there lives. Many of these women obtain CWP to further there new sense of security. Now that is gone because of some freakin' liberal trying to write a masterpiece and change the world.

**BEB** · 03-16-07, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by Vendetta

I was on that list and here is what bothers me:
Im a cop in a small county where alot of the residents in the town I live know where I live and what I do. Most people in the other parts of the town didnt know where I lived but they could now.
Im sure that there were several ex-battered women on that list that left abusive relationships and moved to re-establish there lives. Many of these women obtain CWP to further there new sense of security. Now that is gone because of some freakin' liberal trying to write a masterpiece and change the world.

Hmm. I was going to respond "Thanks Mr Misguided Liberal, now I have a big list of people to make friends with", but your point is well taken.

I'm still mostly neutral on this, if for nothing else not to let anti-gun nuts get my goat. But then I'm not in your shoes.

**Jackalope** · 03-17-07, 02:14 AM

Originally Posted by TXCharlie

I realize you're not defending the reporter, but that's not a valid justification.

Believe me, I know it's not valid justification. That's why I put quotes around "justification." The reporter is way out of line here.

I will grudgingly accept that private property owners (including employers) should have a right to allow or prohibit guns on their property. But they should not have any right to know who has a permit and who doesn't. Like I mentioned before. A permit does not automatically mean that the person is carrying. And of course, the lack of a permit is certainly no guarantee that a person is unarmed.

**TXCharlie** · 03-17-07, 04:08 AM

Originally Posted by Jackalope

Believe me, I know it's not valid justification. That's why I put quotes around "justification." The reporter is way out of line here.

I will grudgingly accept that private property owners (including employers) should have a right to allow or prohibit guns on their property. But they should not have any right to know who has a permit and who doesn't. Like I mentioned before. A permit does not automatically mean that the person is carrying. And of course, the lack of a permit is certainly no guarantee that a person is unarmed.

Amen to that...

As to employeers, they often don't even own the property - they just rent space from a property management company. They still have a right to have rules, but the bottom line is that [if] they don't dot all their i's and cross all their t's, the only leverage they have over an employee is a job (which they can have, if they intimidate employees because they appeared on a list - I would instantly quit) and their power to order an employee off their property.

**lewisipso** · 03-17-07, 05:19 AM

Permits that I know are mostly for a concealed weapon. I take that to mean no one should know if that person is carrying a weapon. Hence, concealed, as so should the permit be unless asked for. There are truly idiots in this world.

**Vendetta** · 03-17-07, 09:02 AM

The FOIA was designed to keep that Govt from trying to hide stuff. Part of that whole checks and balences thing.
Is there any good reason that the Govt would want to hide this info? Yes there are several.
If the CWP holders are going to be outed then they should just wear there sidearms out in the open as is allowed by law and see how the average citizen likes that