CCW list to be made public?

[wacki]

This was on fox news. Should the concealed carry list be made public? Somebody I know was very angry at those that claimed the right to privacy. My arguments were:

1) a public list of CCW holders makes soft targets easy to spot for criminals (i.e. mass murderer knows what teachers carry in what schools)
2) a public list of CCW holders can make you a target for criminals looking for a specific type of gun to steal

He seemed to agree those are valid concerns but insisted that if doctors licenses are public then a gun license should be too. I just kind of looked at him odd and changed the subject. What are your thoughts?

 

[Daps]

No one's business and last I checked doctors got paid to doctor on on people and serve the public for payment of course

 

[44AMP]

How does Doctor license = CCW?

There is some leap of faith here that I just don't get. Doctors are licensed professionals. Doctors make a living being doctors. Doctors advertise.

Does a doctor's license being public info include their home address? Or business address? Does your friend think that doctors keep drugs at home, and therefore are at risk from drug fiends looking for a fix because their business license is public info? So since they are on a public list CCW should be also?

On the other hand, maybe it makes some sense that doctors should be on a list, after all they kill more people every year with their mistakes than CCW holder do.

It doesn't take a mental giant to realize that if you publish a list of CCW holders (especially with their addresses) that they have a handgun, so if you want to steal a handgun, then you know where one is. And on the other side of the coin, you also have a pretty good idea of where the guns aren't. So if you are looking for an unarmed victim, all you have to do is not to choose someone on the list.

Perhaps your friend would want lists of other valuables people own being public info as well. How about a list of everyone that owns jewelry (over $1,000 worth), or a personal computer, or a big screen TV, valuable art, or anything else portable and worth a few hundred dollars or more?

Your neighbor doesn't have any right to know what you own. Nor do you have any right to know what he owns. Period. If you wish to make it known, that is your business, not the state, not any media agency, not the local gossip, not your doctor, not even your priest. Nobody's business.

I can understand an argument that under freedom of information, any govt. documents (including various licenses) should be available to the public, meaning that an interested party should be allowed access to that information, by filling out a request form and paying a reasonable fee. However, those persons seeking info should also have their names on record as requesting such info. And, it should be balanced against the right of privacy of individuals.

Licenses and certifications issued by the state for people to act in a professional capacity should not have the same expectation of privacy as private citizens do. After all, we don't CCW for the money.

And how exactly does the info that someone does or does not have a CCW make you any more or less safe? Unless, of course, you are planning some criminal activity. Then it might be very useful to you. Maybe that's why your friend wants to know. Maybe you should ask him.

 

[RockRifle]

Publish the Concealed Carry list?

It makes no sense whatsoever. Look up the Roanoke Times incident, when "journalist" Christian Trejbal used the freedom of information act to obtain a copy of the state carry list and then published it online for everyone to access.

Suddenly parolees were showing up at probation officers houses when they weren't home-stalkers and abusive ex-spouses were able to find victims that had started a new life. These people did nothing wrong, so why victimize them by publishing where to find them.

The Times finally pulled the list, but not before several people were forced to move for fear of their families security. "Journalists" like that need to lose their jobs.

Christian Trejbal
675 School Lane
Christianburg, VA. 24073

[email protected]


Unknown is the number of houses that will be broken into by criminals looking to score some new guns while you are at work...

on the other hand, the burglers could use the list to determine which houses NOT to sneak into...

 

[Robert Hairless]

Doctors' licenses are public information because they do business with the public. Concealed Weapons Permit holders do not. The state requires Concealed Weapons Permit holders to conceal their firearms so that no one knows they have a concealed weapon.

When a newspaper publishes a list of concealed weapons permit holders, the newspaper reveals what is supposed to be concealed.

One point of concern that nobody seems to mention is that the publication of such lists can put a concealed weapons permit holder in danger from stalkers and other deranged people with grievances against that person.

When a newspaper puts a madman on notice that the person might have a concealed weapon, there is a possibilty that the madman could add it to his list of grievances against the person. Cho, the Virginia Tech murderer, is a good example of that kind of madman. The video he sent to NBC raves about the grievances he had against his fellow students.

I would ask your friend why he supports creating the possibility of danger for so many people he does not even know simply because they have a concealed weapons permit. Does he think they should be punished even if it means their death or injury?

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

Anytime they are public knowledge they are abused. I am willing to bet that at least 1/2 of the state where it is public, some liberal newspaper printed the list (as was done by the paper based out of Cleveland here) just to spite gun owners. Now, no one is disputing law enforcement having such a list and that is the only people who should have access to it. (sure id like Vermont carry but shall issue is a good step).

 

[Jamie C.]

I think I should start wearing my gun out on my hip, out in the open, where it belongs.
( and wearing a bloody damned big one too. )

Then folks won't have to ask or wonder, and there's no reason for papers publishing lists..

Solves a lot of problems, no?


J.C.

 

[Robert Hairless]

What needs to be published on the Internet is the home addresses, telephone numbers, and relevant other information of all journalists and other employees of the media.

The kind of information that would be relevant is anything that might reflect on their training, objectivity, and possible conflicts of interest. It should include all their schools, courses, and grades of course. Stocks, bonds, and other investments including all real estate owned by them and members of their immediate families. Disclosure of medical, psychological, and emotional history. Everything. About all of them, including executives and board of directors.

 

[kellyj00]

put me on the list, make it public. Hell, I sign every post with my name and small town I live in.

Bring it on, criminals... if you dare. You can also search through my posts and find out what guns I've got.

 

[eric.cartman]

How about we make another list or two:

* Subscribers to XYZ Newspaper
* Members of XYZ Church

etc...

Imagine the outrage from ACLU if there was a list of, say, muslims

It's BS, and nobody's business!

 

[GTSteve03]

Yet again, I'm forced to ask...

Why are we required to submit all of our important personal information to the Government and ask permission to exercise our basic right to Self Defense?

 

[eric.cartman]

Why are we required to submit all of our important personal information to the Government and ask permission to exercise our basic right to Self Defense?

Tragedy, isn't it?

 

[1911austin]

It is nobody’s freaking business if I carry or not. I think that it is a really bad idea to make the list public. In addition to the valid points already mentioned, concealed carry is a very political sensitive issue. I can’t think of any good reason to do this. It is only a matter of time before some anti-gun “activist” decides to go screw with CHL holders. The results will probably be unfortunate but predictable.

 

[ETXhiker]

Besides the obvious infringement on privacy, what in the world would it accomplish? Last time I checked, CCW holders are not running around shooting up schools. Why do they think this would be useful in any way?

 

[TamThompson]

If some Bravo Sierra like this were passed, the very first CHL holder who got his or her home broken into and guns stolen should STRONGLY petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

[wacki]

Besides the obvious infringement on privacy, what in the world would it accomplish?

I asked him this. He got quiet and then got really angry and said "all government information should be public. If the government has the info it should be public!".

I then responded "well what about tax returns?"

The conversation ended there. I honestly don't have an opinion on this matter. But as of right now I don't see any positive benefit to society from making the list public. Thanks for all of your responses.

 

[Daemon688]

If we wanted people to know we carry, we would be open carrying. If it's conceal carry then we obviously don't want people to know. How about we start releasing medical records for everyone? I sure would like to know who has an STD. It is for public safety afterall

 

[Pilgrim]

Will they also publish lists of people who are carrying concealed but aren't supposed to have guns?

Pilgrim

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Hairless

Dude, lighten up.

We're still working on the meaning of "is" and now you want us to figure out what "concealed" means?

And if you think about it, it's okay, really, because most people don't know who you are when you're walking the streets with a concealed weapon.

And publishing the list only tells people where you can be found when you're asleep -- and your weapon isn't concealed when you're asleep, right?

So, hey, what's the harm?