April 2, 2007, 06:50 PM
Sorry to sound like chicken little here, but it's CNN, not me...At the very end of the Paula Zahn Show on Friday night, CNN said that
tonight, Monday, April 2nd, at 8 PM, the Roanoke Times' story that we
have been waiting on is scheduled to be aired. 8pm EST.
April 2, 2007, 07:53 PM
Whats this Roanoke story?
Apparently somebody with the Roanoke times decided to assemble a database of all the names of concealed carry holders in Virginia, stating that it was in the interest of the public because of open records.
The bastard also had to nerve to go a step further, comparing concealed carry holders to convicted sex offenders, saying that if there can be interactive online databased of CSOs there should be one for CCHs as well.
April 2, 2007, 08:07 PM
Sorry for the brief info, I was at work and a 6 inch water main broke, well I should say, one of my guys broke it so I had my hands full.
It's on Paula Zahn at 8 pm eastern.
April 2, 2007, 08:10 PM
Paula Zahn on CNN, 7pm Central.
I'll be watching. FWIW, I have to give CNN credit for putting Glenn Beck on CNN-Headline News five nights a week. Glenn is as far from your typical leftie psuedo-journalist as you can get, and his show is doing well.
Give him a try. 6 and 8pm Central.
April 2, 2007, 09:29 PM
Just watched the piece. It really wasn't bad at all. Now...this panel discussion could be entirely different. But they talked to decent, bright-sounding permit holders, which always helps.
Edit to add - The panel is handling this really well, clearly pointing out the travesty of the comparison between firearms owners and sex offenders. I gotta admit - I'm impressed.
April 2, 2007, 09:44 PM
Well that went far better than I thought it would. I just wish it wasn't so short. The lady they showed had a bersa Thunder /firestorm. Good choice for CCW. Even the guy that didn't agree on the panel wasn't really against them, he just thought the law should have prevented it from being public info in the first place. I was also extremely pleased to see the issue of comparing CCW'ers to sex offenders brought up. The only thing I wished they'd stressed more is the notion of CCW carryers as normal, law-abiding citizens.
I understand the fear that the parole officer had. When I was younger I remember a few times when a violent offender escaped or was released from jail we'd get a call to be on our toes because it was someone my dad had prosecuted. Too bad my parents were (and still are) anti-gun hoplophobes.
April 2, 2007, 09:56 PM
I just watched the CNN story. It was good and not anti. most agrees that CCW info should be kept private. I loved the parole officer that had a parolee show up at his house. This is exactly why this info should be kept private in every state. If you want the info you shuld have to fill out paperwork showing who you are and why you want/need the info. It's still public information but getting it would be like requesting public information through th efreedom of information act. Final thought, Conceal Carry Weapons Permits is called that because Concalment is ment for people NOT to know you're carrying. It is ment by definition to be kept private. Otherwise let's do away with CCW all together and let everyone carry without permit or open carry with the option of concealment.
The discussion was balanced and fair. Good reporting IMHO.
+1 for CNN. Shame on the guy who was a publisher who laid balme with politicians for the way the law aloowed it to happen and defending the paper who was clearly wrong.
April 3, 2007, 12:02 AM
I was very impressed with the piece. The only thing I took issue with was the one panelist calling ccw a "privilege", and no one called him on it. The gent saying there was a reason there was a reason the 2nd Amendment was, well, 2nd was pretty gratifying as well.
Anyone else see their comments to the Times scroll by on the screen behind the panelists? :)
Guy B. Meredith
April 3, 2007, 02:55 AM
This presentation had some surprises for me.
Firstly, there seemed to be support for gun owners in general even outside the question of privacy and protection of the personal information. Very strange thing to see on CNN.
Secondly, the strongest supporter amongst the "talking heads" was the gentleman from the Congress of Racial Equality. I had assumed CORE to be anti gun. I looked at the CORE site, but could only find an article on Mr. Innis representing the US at the UN small arms talk. In part:
"Given the variety of opinions present at the conference, it is unlikely that the nations involved will agree on many practical, universally acceptable measures to solve the problem of illicit weapons. While some nations favor the creation of laws that could endanger the legal sale and ownership of small arms such as rifles and pistols, the United States is attempting to stake out a position that both reduces the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, while at the same time protects constitutional gun ownership rights."
Is anyone aware of CORE's position on gun ownership?
April 3, 2007, 03:51 AM
I looked at the CORE site, but could only find an article on Mr. Innis
Was it Niger Innis? He's a good guy.
He was the target of a drive by lib media hit (which they of course claimed to be an accident.. funny how all those accidents only happen to conservatives), like the "black X" incident pulled on VP Cheney.
April 3, 2007, 07:49 AM
Here's Phil's news.
The CNN story ran Monday night around 8:30 PM. It was actually well done. I personally didn't get much air time, but the air time given instead to the two victims of the Roanoke Times' attack on permit holders was probably more important to the story.
Basically the story, the host, and most of the discussion panel gave the Roanoke Times another black eye ;-)
The crime scene pictures of Teresa Sayers, who was stabbed eight times by her husband, really brought home just how very close she had come to a violent death.
And seeing parole officer Hassan Thomas' wife and baby who were home by themselves when the first parolee decided to drop in on them, also caused me to take a deep breath at what could have been.
Hopefully there will be video available in the next day or two, but in the meantime I have posted the transcript at the end of this alert (due to its length).
As you recall last week WMAL's Chris Core said that permit holders should not mind having their personal information published on the Internet.
In yesterday's VCDL Update I decided to see how Chris liked having HIS private information posted on the Internet.
He didn't and he is waving the white flag already.
His timing is excellent because once that alert went to 5,800 gun owners, several of you provided a new batch of private information about Chris that I was about to run.
The information in that alert would have made the original alert look like peanuts!
Here is what Chris emailed one of our members (who had forwarded the VCDL alert to Chris). Sounds like Chris got a whole bunch of emails from gun owners:
"yes i get it. please tell the person to stop. my wife is pretty upset. thanks.
ps...abc legal has been sent a copy of all these...at my boss's request not mine. cc"
Anyway, since Chris now gets it, it's time to bury the hatchet and move on.
Please do NOT send Chris any more emails on the privacy issue.
Here is the CNN transcript from Monday night's show:
SANCHEZ: And I welcome you back. I'm Rick Sanchez, filling in for Paula Zahn.
Out in the open now once again: a huge controversy that's raging in Virginia. This one is over concealed weapons and public records. How would you like it if your name was made public to everybody in your community just because you happen to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon?
Well, that's what happened to 135,000 people when "The Roanoke Times"
published a list with all their names on it. Some of them say that revealing their identity has now put their lives in danger.
So, we sent Kyung Lah to look into this one for us.
TERESA SAYERS, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVOR: All I was saying was, oh, my gosh, oh, my gosh, oh, my gosh. This can't be true.
KYUNG LAH, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): After years of being careful to make sure that she couldn't be found, moving around and carefully guarding her whereabouts wherever she went, Teresa Sayers'
personal information, including her home address, was suddenly just one mouse click away.
SAYERS: I was just so shaken, when I did so much to try to protect where I was, that it was out there.
LAH: Sayers has reason to be afraid. Her ex-husband is serving a 36-year sentence for nearly killing her.
SAYERS: Knocked me to the floor and stabbed me multiple times.
LAH (on camera): How many times did he stab you?
SAYERS: About eight.
SAYERS: If he would get out today, he would find me. He would kill me.
LAH (voice-over): Sayers was one of 135,000 registered concealed carry permit holders in the state of Virginia whose names and home addresses were published on the Internet by the "Roanoke Times"
newspaper as part of a series on open government records. The paper never anticipated the fear and the outrage from the gun community that followed.
(on camera): How many e-mails did you say you had?
PHILIP VAN CLEAVE, VIRGINIA CITIZENS DEFENSE LEAGUE: Well, we got about 700 of them.
LAH (voice-over): Philip Van Cleave is a gun-rights activist in Virginia. He showed us complaints, witnesses who help put criminals away, crime victims, and undercover officers, all outed by the Roanoke paper.
VAN CLEAVE: We don't want that to happen. We don't want anybody to get killed because of this. And we feel that "The Roanoke Times" is playing with a very dangerous weapon by displaying that, using the First Amendment to ruin people's lives.
LAH (on camera): Don't I, under the Virginia state law, have a right to know if you -- whether or not you're carrying a weapon?
VAN CLEAVE: No.
LAH: Why not?
VAN CLEAVE: Why should you?
HASSAN THOMAS, PAROLE OFFICER: Uh-oh. I woke him up. Have a beautiful day, handsome man.
LAH (voice-over): Hassan Thomas was also on the list. He, too, has a reason for a permit to carry a concealed weapon. He has it because he's a parole officer. He checks up on violent offenders. And now, since his name and home address were published, those offenders are checking on him, too.
BETSY THOMAS, WIFE OF PAROLE OFFICER: The doorbell rang. And it was someone I didn't know.
LAH (on camera): So, it was a parolee?
B. THOMAS: It was a former parolee. They said they knew him, because he had -- they had -- he used to be their parole officer.
LAH: And why did he come?
B. THOMAS: Just curious.
H. THOMAS: How did he get that information? How did he know? I'm thinking, did he follow me home? Did he find out where I lived at from a friend or something?
LAH (voice-over): "The Roanoke Times" says the right to know is vitally important. "The Times" would not speak to CNN on camera, but, in an editorial, the paper acknowledged that the right to know must be measured against the potential risk to crime victims and law enforcement.
The paper says that it has been bombarded by thousands of fuming e-mails and calls and many threats of violence. The day after "The Roanoke Times" published the list, they pulled it down off the Internet. But the paper says it still believes that public records should remain public. And they're not alone.
LUCY DALGLISH, REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: Who is licensed and who is given a privilege in this country by a government body is information that the public should be able to have.
EDD HOUCK (D), VIRGINIA STATE SENATOR: It's one of those classic examples of personal privacy vs. the public's right to know.
LAH: Now Virginia lawmakers are wrestling with whether this information needs to be locked away or should be made public.
HOUCK: Generally, I feel That governmental records should be open to the public, because that is what protects our freedoms.
LAH: Teresa Sayers always keeps her handgun within reach on her kitchen counter.
(on camera): Make you feel better, having it in your hands?
SAYERS: It does.
LAH (voice-over): Hassan Thomas says he now leaves the house with a little more caution and a lot more concern.
These gun owners say what they lost was a sense of safety. Whether those fears will be realized is now just a waiting game.
H. THOMAS: Have a blessed day.
LAH: Kyung Lah, CNN, Roanoke, Virginia.
SANCHEZ: So, there's pretty much the information, very clear.
So, let's do this now. Let's turn it over to the "Out in the Open"
panel that we have put together for you.
CNN contributor Roland Martin is joining us, also Niger Innis. He's a political consultant and national spokesperson for the Congress of Racial Equality, and, once again, Miguel Perez, syndicated columnist and professor in journalism at Lehman College in New York.
My thanks to all of you gentlemen for being with us.
Roland, we're going to begin with you.
They're called concealed weapons, right? That would mean that the people don't want them or anyone else to know that they have them.
So, why would we want to put this information out there?
ROLAND MARTIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, first of all, we're assigning the blame to the wrong people. This is a newspaper. They have the right to publish. It's the First Amendment.
The people who they should be criticizing are the dumb lawmakers who did not conceal the concealed handgun records. There are a number of states where they hide the information away. They should have known...
SANCHEZ: So, you're saying there shouldn't a public record to begin with?
MARTIN: Well, I'm not saying that.
What I'm saying is, if they want to make this a law, they should have hidden the record. But I certainly believe, though, that we have a right to know in terms of who has concealed handgun weapons. It may be a matter of, we don't see 135,000 people having the handguns.
SANCHEZ: But you're wanting to have it both ways. Either you have one or the other. Take a look at this woman's picture once again.
Hey, Will (ph), put that picture up once again of her. Thanks.
Look at this woman.
SANCHEZ: I mean, this is a woman -- you can see the fear in her face.
You can understand why a woman like this would probably not want anyone to know where she is.
And that's why you conceal the records or you say, what is a rationale for doing so?
SANCHEZ: So, newspaperman Miguel Perez, what would you do if your publication chose to do something like this?
PEREZ: I would laugh. I would think that it's not necessary. I don't think the newspaper really gains anything from doing this.
I don't think they're going to win a Pulitzer for exposing these people.
PEREZ: You know, it's ridiculous.
I mean, these people have a right to some privacy. And, you know, we as -- the public has the right to know about a sex offender, because that's a threat to society. Somebody who has a gun because she's been a victim of violence, needs the gun to protect herself, I don't get it?
MARTIN: But that's not every person. First of all, let's not assume that 135,000 people Virginia all have been beaten by their husbands.
That's not every single person.
NIGER INNIS, NATIONAL SPOKESMAN, THE CONGRESS OF RACIAL EQUALITY:
But, if it's one, it's one too many.
And the fact is, what the real agenda is, Miguel, actually, you hit it right on the dot, because the writer, the original writer of the story, compared these law-abiding citizens, some former crime victims, two sex offenders, they said, if the government can actually post and, actually, you can have an interactive Web site that can find sexual offenders, then why shouldn't it be the same way with guns?
INNIS: And that's the real -- the real agenda are those that want to undermine our Second Amendment constitutional rights to keep and bear arms.
SANCHEZ: The real problem here is...
MATTHEWS: Right. But what about the First Amendment? Before you get to the Second, there's a First.
INNIS: That's true. But the Second Amendment isn't the 33rd. It's the second.
INNIS: And, somehow, our media pays much more attention to the God -- the almost deity worship of the First Amendment, but we totally have contempt throughout the media of the Second Amendment.
SANCHEZ: Put your hands up if you think that the newspaper was wrong to do this here, by the way. Yes?
INNIS: Can I put up two?
SANCHEZ: You have got two.
You're not saying...
SANCHEZ: You're not saying -- Roland, you're not saying they were wrong?
MARTIN: I have run three newspapers, OK? So, I have made the call in terms of what you decide.
Again, we are...
SANCHEZ: What is to be gained by publishing this story?
MARTIN: Here is what we are doing, though. We are sitting here saying, the paper is at fault for publishing it.
Who were the people who passed the law? Who were the people who could have said, the moment they passed it, hey, let's hide this. Like other states have done. But the onus on the folks that made the law.
INNIS: I buy that. There are two people that are wrong here. The newspaper is wrong and the lawmakers. In fact they're going to make that decision because of the stupidity of ...
MARTIN: And, in fact, Rick, the fact of the matter is because the paper did it, they could make it private. Because we're in the day of Internet, folks who know how to use it, they could have pulled the same information. And so the paper, in fact, is forcing the state to do what they should have done.
So what if someone else had done it? What if a blogger had done it?
What if the same parolee had gotten the exact same information and gone to the guy's house? INNIS: I suppose "The Roanoke Times" is next going to have a list of those who rent adult videos and DVDs, right?
SANCHEZ: We'll have to leave it there. Maybe that will be our next segment. Hopefully we won't have to do it. Thanks, guys. We appreciate it but our producers saying we're out of time for this one. Because we've got so much more that we've got to discuss still.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.