These morons just don't get it.

[jsalcedo]

http://galvestondailynews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=61f81ae84220845b



Every time the Legislature meets, it considers a bill that would make it impossible to find out whether

your neighbor, your crazy former brother-in-law or your worst enemy has a license to carry a concealed handgun.

Under Texas law, people who get a license have a right to carry a concealed handgun.

Under law, you have a right to check the public records to see whether someone you know — and perhaps fear — has a license.

Every legislative session, someone introduces a bill that strikes language in the law that makes information on licensees open to the public.

This year, that bad idea comes to you in the form of House Bill 318 by State Rep. Suzanna Hupp of Lampasas.

We’ve said this many times before: The public has a right to know about the affairs of the state. If the state is going to give people a license to carry a weapon, it has the obligation to let that person’s neighbors know about it.

Representatives of Galveston County, please take note: Don’t erode our right to know.

 

[Bear Gulch]

I wholeheartedly disagree. I have a CCW license, but wheter I have one or whether I carry is my business. Busy bodies can take whatever steps they must to feel safe, but asserting that you should have a "right" to pry into the affairs of others is plain old bovine sucretion.

 

[critter]

The whole idea of 'concealed' carry is so that NOBODY knows WHO is carrying and who is not. It is NOBODY's business to know who is legally armed and who is not.

It is especially important that a felon bent on harm to my person FIRST knows that I am armed when he hears a REALLY loud noise and falls down!

 

[jsalcedo]

The point the author is missing and the point that fails all these creeps is:


The moronic brother in law, the crazy stalker, your worst enemy, boogeymen from planet omicron pusaie 8 are not going to get a concealed handgun license to come shoot you.

Publishing and listing names of CHL's will just make a shopping list for thieves
and violate the privacy of license holders.

 

[Mark in California]

Burglery Lists

Why should the state issue a list of houses to rob. The government should never issue a list of gun owners. The only people that need know are the police of the issuing authority.

If you abuse your permit it will come to everyones attention.

Final question, just how many people who had a CCW (non-police) have been charged/covicted of comitting a violent crime?

 

[Bear Gulch]

I would seem that hoplophobia also results in fear of those who MIGHT be armed. I would also think that if said person has passed the background check they have sufficient respect for the law to remedy their problems within the bounds of it.

 

[migoi]

I'm having a difficult time..

of imagining any legitimate use for this information. What possible legitimate use would this information be used for? So what if your moronic brother in law has a concealed carry license? What good will that information do you?

In my way of thinking, revealing this type of information could actually be dangerous. By revealing this info there will be some who will be led to believe they know who around them is armed. In reality the ones that are armed that need to be worried about are those that don't bother to jump through the hoops to do so legally.

migoi

 

[Sparks]

The moronic brother in law, the crazy stalker, your worst enemy, boogeymen from planet omicron pusaie 8 are not going to get a concealed handgun license to come shoot you.

Sure, if the system works.

Thing is, systems don't always work:
Date Place Dead Legal status
26 Apr 2002 Erfurt, Germany 16 + 1 Legal guns, pistol club member
27 Sep 2001 Zug, Switzerland 14 + 1 Legal guns, licensed pistol owner
29 Jul 1999 Atlanta, GA, USA 12 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
20 Apr 1999 Littleton, CO, USA 13 + 2 Not legal guns
28 Apr 1996 Port Arthur, Australia 35 Not legal guns
13 Mar 1996 Dunblane, Scotland 17 + 1 Legal guns, pistol club member
16 Oct 1991 Killeen, TX, USA 23 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
13 Nov 1990 Aramoana, New Zealand 13 + 1 Legal guns, licensed gun owner
18 Jun 1990 Jacksonville, FL, USA 9 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
06 Dec 1989 Montreal, Canada 14 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
19 Aug 1987 Hungerford, England 16 + 1 Legal guns, pistol club member
20 Aug 1986 Edmond, OK, USA 14 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
18 Jul 1984 San Ysidro, CA, USA 21 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
01 Aug 1966 Austin, TX, USA 16 + 1 Legal guns, no licence

 

[nico]

You're right, the system doesn't always work. People break laws all the time. But, how exactly would making the list of CCW holders public do anything to make the system work better? The only reason I can see that the gun grabbers would want such a list to be public is to harrass the people on it.
The public doesn't have a right to know if you have a ccw permit any more than they have a right to know what kind of underwear you wear or your sexual orientation.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think the underlying sentiment is the same as having a searchable and public "sex offenders" list. I think THAT list ought to be open and public. But lumping gun owners in with sex offenders is hardly accurate.
No, the state has no right to publish such a list.

 

[Mulliga]

Sure, if the system works.

Thing is, systems don't always work:

Not sure what your point is here, Sparks. The original poster's point was that if a person is a violent criminal, they won't obey the law and go through the hoops to obtain a CCW.

If you're saying law-abiding, licensed gun owners can go on homicidal rampages, I agree, that can happen. But it ain't common. And, of course, anyone with a car can decide to plow through a busy marketplace and kill plenty of people that way. There's no way to read minds, after all.

as having a searchable and public "sex offenders" list. I think THAT list ought to be open and public

I disagree. If someone was a convicted sex offender and they might potentially still be dangerous, why are they out and about in the first place? And if someone's paid their debt to society, it's hard enough finding a job and getting back to a normal life when you're a convict. Can a sex offender ever reform? Weighty questions, but I think it's wise to not be afraid of people on such lists of known offenders and to worry about all the unknown criminals out there.

 

[Standing Wolf]

The public has a right to know about the affairs of the state. If the state is going to give people a license to carry a weapon, it has the obligation to let that person’s neighbors know about it.

If CCW holders were convicted criminals, sure. In point of fact, we're definitely not criminals.

 

[Bear Gulch]

As Rabbi pointed out the Sex offender list gambit is fallacious as SOs are convicted (and may pose a continued threat) whereas CCW holder pass a background check that assures that they pose a minimal risk.


Sure folks break laws. Why don't we all voluntarily go to prison because some day we might break a law if we don't. It would stop crime, but at what cost?

 

[BenW]

The public has a right to know about the affairs of the state.

If "The State" upheld the Constitution and Bill of Rights, this would be non-sequitor, as one wouldn't need a permit in the first place.

 

[VARifleman]

Definantly agree ben...

Public CCW lists are bad, m'kay? A lot of companies out there don't like gun owners, should they have the right to know I own a gun or conceal? No. It's my buisness, not their's, not yours, not anyone's but mine.

 

[El Tejon]

Would the say paper be in favor of who held a library card or subscribed to their paper being a public record?

 

[nico]

Would the say paper be in favor of who held a library card or subscribed to their paper being a public record?

of course not. Last year (I think it was in Iowa), the media was given access to the concealed carry list in one state, but the general public wasn't. One paper decided to protest by publishing the entire list. Some gun owners (not sure which group), in turn, threatened to publish the names and addresses of all the paper's employees. I think the jerks at the paper ended up backing down. I'd try to find the thread on here, but I have no idea what to search for.

 

[TheEgg]

jsalcedo

Sorry friend, don't agree with you on this. I support Rep. Hupp's work on this one.

 

[jsalcedo]

TheEgg

I didn't write the article.

I believe in keeping the records of CHL holders private.

 

[RoyG]

Last year (I think it was in Iowa), the media was given access to the concealed carry list in one state, but the general public wasn't. One paper decided to protest by publishing the entire list. Some gun owners (not sure which group), in turn, threatened to publish the names and addresses of all the paper's employees. I think the jerks at the paper ended up backing down. I'd try to find the thread on here, but I have no idea what to search for.

It was Ohio and they did publish it.

Cleveland Plain Dealer fulfills promise to violate privacy of CHL-holders

 

[TheEgg]

My apologies!!!!!!!!

I thought you had written the item -- did not notice the link at the top of your post.

Thanks for the correction.

 

[Trebor]

The advantage of CCW records being treated as "public records" is in cases where "discretionary permits" are the rule. If you can access the public records that show who has been grated a CCW permit, you can show the pattern of favoritism, cronyism and abuse that you can use to show why "discretionary issue" should be eliminated. Ask Jim March about this.

 

[nico]

Are there any may-issue states where CCW records are public? I would be surprised if there are because politicians would want to hide favortism and I can't see any reason for a CCW holder wanting to make their status public.

 

[Bear Gulch]

Sorry, I too leapt before I looked. There has been cases here in Idaho of those records being used by the press. I apologize for being hasty.

 

[Art Eatman]

I came from a different angle in my letter:

"In regard to the story, "You have a right to know" published March 19:

Why would Mr. Heber Taylor worry about a neighbor with a CHL? After all, the FBI has already certified that the person is as pure as any policeman, as to background. The CHL holder has had training in conflict resolution by non-violent means; can Mr. Taylor claim such?

Aside from that, the CHL holder has been fingerprinted and mugshot and approved by local police or sheriff's officials. Up and down the line, a CHL person has been proven to be a Good Guy.

I suggest that Mr. Taylor have more concern for those people without a CHL, for there are millions more of them.

Cordially,

Art Eatman"

, Art