More from Roanoke times - will not relist list

[shield20]

Paper receives flak for list
Threats of violence, litigation and legislation sprang up after a list of people allowed to carry concealed weapons was released.
By Laurence Hammack
981-3239

Related
Past stories
Roanoke.com drops list of gun owners

The Roanoke Times Removes Database of Handgun Permit Holders

The Roanoke Times will not re-post a list of gun owners on its Web site, even after being told amid continuing public furor that releasing the information does not violate state law.

First published Sunday, the database of more than 135,000 people allowed to carry concealed handguns has become the most controversial content in roanoke.com's history -- sparking threats of violence, litigation and legislation.

One day later, the list was removed from the site because of concerns that state police might have inappropriately included the names of crime victims on a list it provided to the newspaper.
....
One possible irony is that Trejbal's stated intent to trumpet open records could result in their being slammed shut.

"The fear is that this kind of scatter-shot use of public records is going to bolster the position of those who would now want to pull that information from the public domain," Wasserman said.

In fact, Del. Dave Nutter, R-Christiansburg, said Tuesday that he is seeking an attorney general's opinion on whether state police were within their legal rights in providing the information to the newspaper.

Even if the attorney general finds that police acted correctly, requesting the opinion could be the first step in a move at next year's General Assembly to pass a law exempting concealed-weapon permit information from the Freedom of Information Act.

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/108563

 

[Robert Hairless]

I lost a bet.

My bet was that the Roanoke newspaper would resume publication of the list after its lawyers cleared them. I didn't think that the paper's owners or publisher had a social conscience or gave a damn about what happens to ordinary people.

It looks as if I was wrong. If so, I am happy to be wrong and happy that I lost the bet.

A tip of my hat to the people who made that decision.

Perhaps they would now consider publishing a column on how ordinary people--including women and the elderly--can defend themselves and their families, and why they should be able to do so. People understood their responsibilities until the past thirty years or so. Now most people don't, and they equate irresponsibility with virtue. They believe that someone else will take care of them, and should, which is at least a fantasy and a burden on society. We need to help those people understand reality and be comfortable with it. Newspapers can help. The Roanoke paper could demonstrate social responsibility by pioneering in that effort instead of helping to make ordinary people more vulnerable.

Firearms and concealed weapons permits play a vital role in the ability of Americans to pursue their rights to life, liberty, and happiness. But of course the gun is a last resort, the last best chance a good person has to defend against deadly force. There are other ways too (not by blowing a whistle or getting into a car trunk to avoid annoying anyone who wants to kill you).

The newspaper could be of real benefit to its market by having, say, Massad Ayoob do such a column weekly. If Ayoob can't do it, perhaps Pax would. (I'm good at volunteering other people, huh?) The writer of such a column should have that kind of orientation and knowledge. Perhaps Kathy would take the lead by contacting the newspaper and suggesting Mas or herself?

 

[Leatherneck]

I don't think the Roanoke Times, or their sister paper in Virginia Beach could stomach that, Robert. They're *progressive* dontcha' know?

TC

 

[KnifeLawGuy]

The cynic in me suspects that this was more a business decision on the paper's part, rather than the paper's editors and/or publisher having a good social conscience or realizing the potential for harm to law-abiding gun owners resulting from the publication of their personal information.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the paper pulled the list because they were concerned about their permit-holding readers expressing their dissatisfaction and starting to cancel their subscriptions, permit-holding advertisers threatening to pull their ads and take their advertising dollars elsewhere, and permit-holders letting advertisers know that they would no longer do business with advertisers who supported the paper. Not to mention the cost to the paper of fighting a bunch of potential lawsuits. Even if the paper won, that's money down the drain for them.

But that's just the cynic in me. The end result of the paper's decision not to republish the list is a good thing.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Leatherneck:

I don't think the Roanoke Times, or their sister paper in Virginia Beach could stomach that, Robert. They're *progressive* dontcha' know?

No doubt. But among my more annoying characteristics is that I never give up and I never ignore an opportunity to let an opponent give up.

Politics are not gun fights. In politics an enemy is just a friend who doesn't know it.

I know that almost no one else agrees with me. What better evidence could there be that I'm right?

My way has only one thing to recommend it. It eventually works. I won't live in a compound: don't like the idea, will hate the food; don't wanna, ain't gonna.

I'm too old to change and far too old to be defeated or behave like a whipped puppy.

 

[pax]

Robert ~

Gave it some thought. Your basic idea is sound, but you need a Virginia resident to carry it off -- preferably someone right there in Roanoke.

pax

 

[Robert Hairless]

Never underestimate the deviousness of a grumpy, old, rural white male. What I had in mind was the beginning of a syndicated column. It wouldn't require Virginia residency. That, however, is up to you.

My wife just told me that I had neglected to point out that it would allow you to "repurpose" work you've already done.