CCW Lists (VA/Roanoke Times Redux)

[strat81]

After the debacle in VA today, I researched my state's law. If you can, post yours too. For those in VA, write your legislators asking that similar language be added.

Nebraska:

Section 69-2444
Listing of applicants and permitholders; availability; confidential information.

The Nebraska State Patrol shall maintain a listing of all applicants and permitholders and any pertinent information regarding such applicants and permitholders. The information shall be available upon request to all federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. Information relating to an applicant or to a permitholder received or maintained pursuant to the Concealed Handgun Permit Act by the Nebraska State Patrol or any other law enforcement agency is confidential and shall not be considered a public record within the meaning of sections 84-712 to 84-712.09.

 

[LawBot5000]

I just heard the funniest thing. Apparently included in that CCW list were the chief justice of the virginia supreme court and a good percentage of the LEOs, prosecutors and governnment officials in the state. Anyone want to bet publishing their home addresses is a crime in virginia?

Anyway, they yanked the list.

Oh yeah and FL's lists are protected from the sunshine laws.

 

[vis-à-vis]

In my Kentucky CCDW class they said the list of permit holders was public. I'd pull out the statute but Im on my way to bed.

 

[jeepman77cj5]

Looks to me like NV permit information is already protected.


NRS 202.3662 Confidentiality of information about applicant for permit and permittee.

1. Except as otherwise provided in this section and NRS 202.3665:

(a) An application for a permit, and all information contained within that application; and

(b) All information provided to a sheriff or obtained by a sheriff in the course of his investigation of an applicant, are confidential.

 

[gunsmith]

Jim March

had tried to get CA ccw info to prove racism in issueing procedures, at the time I sided with him ..we needed the sunshine law to prove CA was not being fair, however I was one of many calling Virginia last night.

oh...btw..thanks jeepman for posting that info! welcom to thr

 

[Cacique500]

Looks like they can't get it in Georgia:

http://www.gfaf.org/resources/sunshine_laws.pdf - page 22

(d) This article shall not be applicable to any application submitted to or any permanent records maintained by a judge of the probate court pursuant to Code Section 16-11-129, relating to licenses to carry pistols or revolvers, or pursuant to any other requirement for maintaining records relative to the possession of firearms. This subsection shall not preclude law enforcement agencies from obtaining records relating to licensing and possession of firearms as provided by law.

 

[AntiqueCollector]

Since there's no permit needed in VT to carry, no privacy worries.

I think the next goal to work towards in other states that have allowed conceal carry with permits, is to allow it without. That'll be a very hard battle but a necessary one. A right should not require a permit or license to exercise, permits and licenses are for priveleges not rights.

 

[Mazeman]

Anyone with info on PA?

I can't seem to find the privacy question addressed in their gun laws.

 

[Flyboy]

The way to address this, and still make things work for Jim March, is to consider the difference in situations.

1) Shall-issue states should be non-disclosure states. I'd be willing to consider disclosure of denials, since denial would be the actual discretionary "action."

2) May-issue states should be required to list at the very least a proper statistical abstract--with demographic fields defined by the requester--and preferably a full list of names (to point out things that wouldn't necessarily be shown by statistical analysis, such as political cronyism).

 

[javacodeman]

It's public in SC!!

Here's my letter (adopted from a VA letter):

On Sunday, March 11, the Roanoke Times of Roanoke, Virginia published an editorial titled, "Shedding light on concealed handguns." This article appeared on the online version of the newspaper at http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/trejbal/wb/108160. To summarize the topic of my email, editorialist Christian Trejbal provided a searchable statewide link to all Concealed Handgun Permit (CHP) holders in Virginia, www.roanoke.com/gunpermits, which included complete addresses. The link is no longer active. This is due to an overwhelmingly negative response from affected gun owners, as well as the fact that information was published that should not have been about several individuals such as police officers, judges, victims of and witnesses to criminal violence, politicians, etc. Such a publicly documented list can only serve as a shopping list for criminals. Several states have enacted legislation to protect the privacy of CHP holders, but not Virginia and not South Carolina. As a South Carolina resident and a Concealed Weapons Permit (CWP) holder, I am asking that you write legislation to protect the personal and private information of CWP holders from such egregious abuses of the Freedom of Information Act and the right to free speech. CWP holders know that concealed means concealed. As such, any information about CWP holders, in my opinion, is none of the public's business. This is not a gun issue; it is a safety and privacy issue. Without a change in the current law, any newspaper in South Carolina could perform the same sophomoric stunt that threatened the safety of many Virginia families. Please amend SC Law Section 23-31-215 (I) to say that the CWP list is “confidential and shall not be considered a public record.” Thank you for taking the time to read my message. I await your response.

Thank you,



XXXX XXXX

Feel free to use, edit as you see fit.

javacodeman

SECTION 23-31-215. Issuance of permits.
.
.
.
(I) SLED [State Law Enforcement Division] must maintain a list of all permit holders and the current status of each permit. Upon request, SLED must release the list of permit holders or verify an individual's permit status. SLED may charge a fee not to exceed its costs in releasing the information under this subsection.

 

[javacodeman]

Revision: I just learned that there is already a bill in place that would change SC law:

A BILL
TO AMEND SECTION 23-31-215, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF CONCEALABLE WEAPONS PERMITS, SO AS TO RESTRICT THE CIRCUMSTANCES UPON WHICH THE STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION MAY RELEASE ITS LIST OF PERMIT HOLDERS.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:

SECTION 1. Section 23-31-215(I) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"(I) SLED must maintain a list of all permit holders and the current status of each permit. Upon request, SLED must may release the list of permit holders or verify an individual's permit status only if the request is made by a law enforcement agency to aid in an official investigation. SLED may charge a fee not to exceed its costs in releasing the information under this subsection."

SECTION 2. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.

As such, I've edited my letter:

Please amend SC Law Section 23-31-215 (I) according to H. 3528. On Sunday, March 11, the Roanoke Times of Roanoke, Virginia published an editorial titled, "Shedding light on concealed handguns." This article appeared on the online version of the newspaper at http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/trejbal/wb/108160. To summarize the topic of my email, editorialist Christian Trejbal provided a searchable statewide link to all Concealed Handgun Permit (CHP) holders in Virginia, www.roanoke.com/gunpermits, which included complete addresses. The link is no longer active. This is due to an overwhelmingly negative response from affected gun owners, as well as the fact that information was published that should not have been about several individuals such as police officers, judges, victims of and witnesses to criminal violence, politicians, etc. Such a publicly documented list can only serve as a shopping list for criminals. Several states have enacted legislation to protect the privacy of CHP holders, but not Virginia and not South Carolina. As a South Carolina resident and a Concealed Weapons Permit (CWP) holder, I am asking that you write legislation to protect the personal and private information of CWP holders from such egregious abuses of the Freedom of Information Act and the right to free speech. CWP holders know that concealed means concealed. As such, any information about CWP holders, in my opinion, is none of the public's business. This is not a gun issue; it is a safety and privacy issue. Without a change in the current law, any newspaper in South Carolina could perform the same sophomoric stunt that threatened the safety of many Virginia families. Again, please amend SC Law Section 23-31-215 (I) according to H. 3528. Thank you for taking the time to read my message. I await your response.

Thank you,



XXXX XXXX

java

 

[scbair]

Javacodeman, the REASON this change was introduced in SC is interesting. According to some sources, the State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) was supportive of the list of CWP holders being public, thinking the fear of being "outed" might discourage some folks. When SLED realized the only folks requesting the list were gun rights organizations/activists, for use in mailings and 2A alerts, SLED sought the change . . .