The database is defintiely still live, I'm looking at my own name and former address information(!). :mad:
- Janq is pissed!
The database is defintiely still live, I'm looking at my own name and former address information(!). :mad:
- Janq is pissed!
Then there was the link to an ex-con forum that discusses this list and brainstorming ideas on how to get firearms from owners when they aren't home ("if they have one, there is more likely more guns in the house")....more motivated to get that safe now....
i like how he compares us to sex offenders:rolleyes:Quote:
"A state that eagerly puts sex offender data online complete with an interactive map could easily do the same with gun permits, but it does not.
As a Sunshine Week gift, The Roanoke Times has placed the entire database, mistakes and all, online at www.roanoke.com/gunpermits. You can search to find out if neighbors, carpool partners, elected officials or anyone else has permission to carry a gun."
I have just posted this email to the editor of The Roanoke Times, Carole Tarrant, cc'ing Virginia Governor Tim Kaine and the article's author Mr. Trejbal. May it do some good.
Breach of privacy -- publication of records of concealed weapon licensees.
Re: "Shedding Light On Concealed Handguns"
In a March 11, 2007, article by Christian Trejbal in The Roanoke Times newspaper, the list of Virginia licensees for the carry of concealed handguns has been published.
What are you thinking, in publishing that information? Certainly, you're not thinking very clearly. You're not considering the damage you're doing to a large group of law-abiding Virginia citizens.
This is a gross breach of privacy for those concerned. The rationale in the story used by Mr. Trejbal is that the mere fact the government has compiled and tracked such records is sufficient cause to publicize these records for all to see.
In simple point of fact, you have breached the privacy of these people. You have placed them at risk they did not previously know, until you stepped in. You have publicized their Constitutionally-protected, personal decision to carry a concealed firearm along with details about them.
While we can perhaps agree that some people would find such records of interest, it is simply nobody's business to know the details of someone's decision to be protected from criminals in a legally-protected manner. Let alone, who has made such a decision.
The rabid, angry "left" in this country fail to appreciate that it's simply not okay to put people at risk in that way. It's simply not kosher to publicize personal details about people who are legally protecting themselves. You have brought harm to these people, by your lackadaisical and irresponsible decision.
You know, using the logic presented by Mr. Trejbal in the article, many people might find it very interesting to know details about all news reporters and publishers in Virginia, given the importance of quality information and all. Information of interest like their names and addresses, their political affiliation, the schools their children attend. You know, because the government tracks the records and all, and it's in the public interest to ensure that proper record-keeping procedures are being followed by the government. What do you think: good idea?
These citizens have chosen to legally carry a firearm under their constitutionally protected right to self-defense via firearms. They are some of the least-likely people in this country to commit crimes of any kind. This group votes. This group is relatively affluent. This group has passed all of the hurdles and background checks you would think are required to justify that someone isn't a felon, mentally incapable or otherwise shouldn't be allowed to own or carry a firearm. Who are you to put such citizens at risk?
The whole point of CONCEALED carry is the fact that it's nobody's business but the person carrying. It may well be of interest to folks, but frankly it's nobody's BUSINESS. Your actions may well have placed these people at increased risk of future crimes. These people are now known, and it's known that those homes contain firearms for the taking (by criminals). Do you also fail to see that criminals read the newspaper as well?
You and your newspaper should be ashamed. You have executed a terrible breach of privacy of a law-abiding group of citizens that has done nothing but GOOD for the state of Virginia. Do you desperately want to publish a list? How about a list of the number of felons recently released ahead of schedule for reasons of over-crowding? Now, THAT would be of interest to voting Virginians, don't you think?
The citizens you have so callously and brazenly harmed via this disclosure deserve your immediate, public apology and shutting down of the records you have made available.
We here in New hampshire have open public records law as well.
However, there are a few instances in our State Law that prohibit open records to the public. One of them is making public any records of persons who have a concealed carry permit. Here in New Hampshire that would be a crime.
Only exception to that is to law enforcement and most of that to law enforcement is by permission of a New Hampshire Superior Court judge upon petition with good reason to the court.
Nice work! Wish I'd written it myself. To the posters that said that their state does NOT allow a ccw list out, could you please post those law numbers. My reasoning is that KS ccw law is still in its infantcy and may need a little more tweaking to prevent some reporter with a lack of a lot of things from publishing something like that here. Thanks, Geno
I may get negative feedback over it, but my take on the whole thing is if you don't want anyone knowing your personal info, that's your decision and it should be respected. As for me however, while I don't advertise the fact, I could care less if someone knows I have a CC license or not. I'm not a public figure, few people know me outside of family or friends and if someone should happen to harbor me ill will (I don't know of anyone, but they may be out there), the fact that I may be armed just might make them think twice about starting trouble. :gah:
I know a lot of permit holders prefer to be in constant stealth mode as to whether they carry or not and under other circumstances I might feel the same. Many of the same people don't "advertise" any gun associations (NRA or gun club stickers on the bumper or windshield for example) because they feel it singles them out as potential gun owners. I once thought the same way, but I've had two different LEO's tell me they have talked with many BG's over the years and to a man, the BG's said that unless it was a "hit" of some sort on an individual, the LAST thing they want is an armed confrontation and if they know a potential victim may be armed, they will find another mark. The same goes for breaking into a car with gun related stickers. Unless the vehicle has weapons openly visible and nobody is around, they usually don't bother a vehicle just because it's owner may have weapons. In fact, many avoid them for just that same reason!:nono:
Do you know how many ex or soon to be ex-wives I trained for CHP permits? I looked one up that I know was trying to hide from her ex after she found out he was trying to hire someone to kill her. Yep, she's there. How about the judge? The LEOs I know who got permits for reciprocity. A few lawyers as well. Personally I could give a crap, my info is out of date by two moves (VA doesn't require address updates to the permit) and I was a CHP instructor in NoVA, so hundreds of people know I carry and I worked at a local gun shop part-time so other people could do the math.
The thing I find disturbing is that if I wanted the info I would have to go to a government office in VA to request it. They would collect my identifying info and I would have to pay for it. The way it is now any felon with a computer can search this database without anyone knowing that he has the info or is accessing it. Also they don't have to physically be in Virginia. Seems a bit more than any sunshine law that was written intended.
What a way to start my Monday morning, :aargh4:
Yep, I'm on the list, F#^%#$* ******* :rant:
As others have said, it may be info that can be obtained through the proper channels, this idiot just bypassed that only failsafe and put out into public circulation info the general public does not need to know.
If he got a hold of a list of Air Marshals, would he print that too, they are operating under the same premise we do.
Yet another prime example of irresponsible use of the 1st amendment. I hope this one bites him in the A$$.
It looks like VCDL is on this one:
It's time to put the Roanoke Times and the Fredericksburg
Freelance-Star in their place.
A columnist for the Roanoke Times, Christian Trejbal, **who has an
unlisted phone number and unlisted address**, has posted the names
and addresses of all of Virginia's CHP holders on the Roanoke Times
What a hypocrite!
He did it with the blessings of the Roanoke Times editor and others
He claims that neighbors, employers, and carpool members might want
to know if you have a permit. He said, just like the sex offenders
database, the CHP database should be public.
So, now the safest, most decent citizens in the Commonwealth are to
be treated like sex offenders because they exercise their right to
bear arms? Friendships and jobs lost because of a personal decision
to be able to protect oneself? Being treated like a criminal after
jumping through all the LEGAL hoops to get a permit?
Besides being mean spirited, Mr. Trejbal has just given a huge
windfall to criminals and is endangering lives! All a stalker or
rapist has to do is run his intended victim against that database and
he will know if she has a permit and could be armed. Without the
database, the criminal would have no way of knowing if she has a
permit and a concealed gun. The database erases such doubts from the
Smart move, Mr. Trejbal.
VCDL is communicating with its lawyers on this matter as I write this.
Rest assured that VCDL is tired of this foolishness and we are going
to be working vigorously for a solution. I will advise when we have
a plan of action.
My husband and I are looking to get relocated to Virginia and just the thought of having our names and addresses in the paper as carriers just appalls me.
His reasons for publishing the list were ridiculous at best. I think it was a personal vendetta. Why else would he publish such information and pay $100 to do so.
ARGGGG.. that makes me mad!
The writer may have broken the law............
Folks...here's some info! IF any of you on this list have ever been victims of ANY crime, your personal info cannot be disclosed without your written consent, including your address!! IT would seem that not only has the VSP screwed up, but now Mr. Trejbal is now an accessory to the crime. Here's the Virginia State code that is in violation. I would recommend no more contact with him on this matter as it is about to get legally ugly.
§ 19.2-11.2. Crime victim's right to nondisclosure of certain information; exceptions; testimonial privilege.
Upon request of any witness in a criminal prosecution under § 18.2-46.2 or 18.2-46.3, or any crime victim, neither a law-enforcement agency, the attorney for the Commonwealth, the counsel for a defendant, a court nor the Department of Corrections, nor any employee of any of them, may disclose, except among themselves, the residential address, telephone number, or place of employment of the witness or victim or a member of the witness' or victim's family, except to the extent that disclosure is (i) of the site of the crime, (ii) required by law or Rules of the Supreme Court, (iii) necessary for law-enforcement purposes or preparation for court proceedings, or (iv) permitted by the court for good cause.
Except with the written consent of the victim, a law-enforcement agency may not disclose to the public information which directly or indirectly identifies the victim of a crime involving any sexual assault, sexual abuse or family abuse, except to the extent that disclosure is (i) of the site of the crime, (ii) required by law, (iii) necessary for law-enforcement purposes, or (iv) permitted by the court for good cause.
Nothing herein shall limit the right to examine witnesses in a court of law or otherwise affect the conduct of any criminal proceeding.