The Witch Hunt Against Gun Owners

cjhsa wrote:

Did you read my post? Do you know what CCW stands for? Are you a complete idiot, and not just an idiot?

I read your post. Are you too ashamed to answer my questions?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

George wrote:

cjhsa wrote:

Sure, but what if you are in the garage when it happens?

What in the hell are you talking about?

We don't all pack heat to go into the garage or cringe at the sight of a bum. You're talking like you're dangerously delusional.

So everyone with a CCW is dangerously delusional? Some of those folks won't take a shower without packing heat - and for good reason. In some parts of the country retarded "journalists" have taken it upon themselves to out CCW holders. Many of these people are in fear for their lives from abusive exes, drug dealers they put in prison who now walk the streets... you never know who has your number.

Obviously those are just a couple examples. There's lots more. And a lot more people carrying than you think. Oh wait, are you in Wisconsin? I'm so sorry.

Fine, I will spell it out for you if I must. The police aren't interested in protecting you. To them, everyone is guilty. This is an unfortunate side effect of liability law. [..] you are already a criminal in the eyes of those who are tasked to uphold the law by simply stepping outside of your door in the morning [..]

Maybe the journalist could list who has AIDS, who has been divorced, who is a member of the ACLU and who voted for Kerry?

McGentrix wrote:

Maybe the journalist could list who has AIDS, who has been divorced, who is a member of the ACLU and who voted for Kerry?

I like that idea. Lets publish the list of everyone who has AIDS. AIDS is a public health hazard. It only takes a cut on the finger to spread AIDS and any who would help that person has the chance of getting AIDS.

Everyone who has AIDS should be reported on a list.

Well there might be some durn sneaky liberal out there armed with something dangerous -- like a book or an education.

Baldimo wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Maybe the journalist could list who has AIDS, who has been divorced, who is a member of the ACLU and who voted for Kerry?

I like that idea. Lets publish the list of everyone who has AIDS. AIDS is a public health hazard. It only takes a cut on the finger to spread AIDS and any who would help that person has the chance of getting AIDS.

Everyone who has AIDS should be reported on a list.

Yeah, we should make 'em wear a big star on their shoulder for easy identification.

Cycloptichorn

Doctor-patient information is legally protected, of course.

Perhaps you should be seeking better privacy laws, rather than supporting the PATRIOT Act.

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Roanoke.com drops list of gun owners

A list of concealed-carry permit holders was part of a newspaper editorial column.

Laurence Hammack

One day after igniting a firestorm of criticism, The Roanoke Times decided Monday to remove from its Web site a list of Virginians licensed to carry concealed weapons.

The list, published as part of an opinion column about open records that ran Sunday in the newspaper's New River Valley Current section, was taken down Monday afternoon out of concern that it might include names that should not have been made public, president and publisher Debbie Meade said.

Although she had received no official word from Virginia State Police, which provided the data at the paper's request, Meade said she was concerned enough about complaints from readers to act out of an abundance of caution.

"Our concern is that if the information should have been protected and it wasn't, then we don't want to run it," Meade said.

The list, which included both the names and street addresses of about 135,000 Virginians with permits to carry concealed weapons, was linked to a column by editorial writer Christian Trejbal that ran in the Current section.

Hundreds of readers complained on the newspaper's message board and to a gun-rights group that publishing the names of concealed-weapons permit holders violated the privacy of law-abiding citizens and gave potential criminals information that would help them find victims.

"By publishing that list, you've created a windfall for criminals," said Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Van Cleave and others argued that convicted felons, barred from buying guns at stores, could use the list to select homes to burglarize in their search for firepower.

Another concern was for the safety of domestic abuse victims, who might want to carry concealed weapons for their own protection but don't want an abusive former partner to know where they live. With those addresses now public, "the stalkers and the rapists and those people are more empowered," Van Cleave said.

Similar concerns were shared by the director of interactive learning for The Poynter Institute, a journalism think tank in Florida.

"You could take that information and you could do a lot with it," said Howard Finberg. "I would say it raises some serious concerns about the unintended consequences of such actions."

Critics have also questioned why Trejbal chose such a polarizing topic as guns to illustrate a column meant to discuss Sunshine Week, a national initiative to promote the importance of open government and public records.

"Could the point he wanted to make -- highlighting Sunshine Week -- been done in a different way that would not raise the potential of someone doing something with that list?" Finberg asked.

Meade said the pros and cons of running the list were discussed in advance.

The decision to publish the list was made, with Meade's knowledge, by Editorial Page Editor Dan Radmacher, who was out of the office Monday.

"I think Dan would say that we probably underestimated the kind of response that this would prompt," Meade said. In hindsight, she said, "I think we could have asked for a broader and deeper discussion."

However, Meade said heated opposition to Trejbal's column was not a factor in pulling the list.

A written statement released by the newspaper stressed that the decision to remove the list was made "out of a sense of caution and concern for the public" that was based on questions about whether some names should have been included.

The newspaper is in the process of asking state police to verify the data and clarify whether it can be made public, Meade said.

It was not clear Monday exactly what category of names should possibly not have been released.

But if a revised list is ever published, Van Cleave said his organization is already discussing ways to fight back, which could possibly include boycotting major advertisers and making public as much personal information about Trejbal and other editors as the group can find.

"If you're going to light us up like a Christmas tree and invade our privacy, then we want you to know what it's like to live in a glass house," Van Cleave said.

Trejbal, who said he has received threats from some angry readers, said he was disappointed that "so many people have missed the point about the column. It was not fundamentally about guns. It was fundamentally about open government."

While expressing sympathy for concealed-weapons permit holders who might have been put in a difficult position by publication of the list, Trejbal added that information about individual permit holders is readily available at any courthouse.

"Did we make it easier [to obtain the information]? Yes," he said. "But it's still a public record."

But Trejbal's "mean-spirited" column did more than expedite fishing expeditions, Van Cleave said.

It also unfairly compared law-abiding gun owners to sex offenders, he said, by noting that "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 Dale Hawley wrote on the newspaper's message board, such a comment ignores the fact that people who apply to carry a concealed weapon for legitimate reasons of self-protection must undergo background checks to ensure they have no criminal record.

"That you don't understand this is, at best, terrible ignorance and at worst smacks of prejudice and yellow journalism," Hawley wrote on the online forum, which had generated more than 300 comments by midday Monday.

Another poster wrote: "I've moved twice to get away from a violent ex. Now I have to move again. I really appreciate you publishing my address. Gee, thanks."

Van Cleave said he has received more than 500 angry calls and e-mails, including two from state legislators.

Past gun-related controversies have been "like a firecracker" by comparison, he said. "This one is like a thermonuclear bomb."

Wow, ya'll have gotten over my head with the last 2 pages....

I would have done exactly what Baldimo did.



For the sake of those without guns, which I don't personally have a problem with, but think is foolish. I think just yelling at the "bum" would have scared him off.

However, I see no problem with letting an intruder know I have a weapon and he needs to leave immediately.

Without going back and rereading every post, here's what I see....this was not some bum going through my recycle bin, it was an intruder trying to break into your home. If it was someone at 4:30 am fooling with my soda cans, I would have done the same thing, thinking it was possible he was just casing the place, making some noise, doing something innocent like looking in my trash, to see if anyone inside the house was reacting. If I was breaking into someone home, I'd test the waters like that too. I would figure better I get caught by the homeowner messing with his trash, than being caught standing in his kitchen.

That term bum? At 4:30am more likely some tweaked out crackhead than a lovable hobo. In either case, I'd rather assume it's the crackhead when deciding what to do about my safety.

Calling the cops? Sure, I guess that would have been something Baldimo could have done. But come on, do you think the police were going to immediatly pull up when you called about a suspicious character? Unless they were, on the off chance a block away, they probably wouldn't have gotten there for 20 minutes. Even if they arrived in 5 or 10, that would have been plenty of time for the intruder to make his way to a busier street, where he would blend in.

The comment about leaving the intruder free in the neighborhood? Well, the guy probably figured Baldimo DID call the cops, so got out of the area as quick as he could. The chances of the police arriving, taking a description, and finding this guy were very dim.

When there's an intruder on your property, that's not the time to analyze what his motives are or what kind of childhood he had that turned him into the sort of fellow trying to break into your garage.

You go by your gut, which if you have any sense at all, tells you this is an unknown danger, and it is wiser to error on the side of caution than to think it's just Charlie the Hobo passing through.

Yes, strangers wandering around my recyle bin, my garage, my home at 4:30am scare me. Not scared in the meaning of going off the deep end and shooting someone, scared in a sane way in that my defenses would be on high alert.

I think you did the right thing Baldimo. Some can go on all day about what MIGHT have been happening, but you made sure Nothing happened.