TexasCHLforum.com

I just saw this on another forum I frequent.

The roanoke times in Virginia posted a searchable database of all CHL holders in Virginia:

http://www.roanoke.com/gunpermits/

There is no need in that I am going to be truely irritated if anything like that ever happens in Tx. Posting names online is way too much but addresses is unspeakable.

That's an incredible invasion of privacy.

ScubaSigGuy wrote:That's an incredible invasion of privacy.

Anyone --any landman or anyone else-- can walk into a county courthouse in Texas, and look through the property records, birth records, etc., which list the very items we're taught to safeguard: name, date of birth, mother's maiden name, address, and social security number. The AG tried to shut this down by requiring that SSNs be redacted from all public documents before being released. Amid a huge outcry, he temporarily withdrew that ruling, and now the legislature has slapped him down and told all Texans that their private information should be viewable by anyone.

I believe any information the government requires you to give, should be under strict lock and key, viewable to no one except the specific agency that has a specific need for that information.

Newspapers can't even begin to invade your privacy like government can. And does.

Kevin

It is interesting that you find information on Mr. Trejbal's past residences, but not on his current VA home.

I may have to pay some money to out this guy.

This is on the page now:

Editor's note: The database has been removed. Read the statement.

The Roanoke Times Removes Database of Handgun Permit Holders
March 12, 2007 — The Roanoke Times has decided to remove the online database of registered concealed handgun permit holders from its website.

The newspaper is requesting the Virginia State Police, which provided the information, verify the data.

“When we posted the information, we had every reason to believe that the data the State Police had supplied would comply with the statutes. But people have notified us that the list includes names that should not have been released,� said Debbie Meade, president and publisher of The Roanoke Times. “Out of a sense of caution and concern for the public we have decided to take the database off of our website.�

The database was posted on roanoke.com on Sunday as part of a New River Valley editorial page column about open records. This column, as well as others that will be published this week, is part of a special focus on Sunshine Week, a national initiative to raise awareness about open government and freedom of information.


http://blogs.roanoke.com/roundtable/col ... mn_12.html


I find the original article a bit disturbing. In it the author states "There are good reasons the records are open to public scrutiny. People might like to know if their neighbors carry."

What business is it of my neighbors what I do in my day to day life? Fankly, its none of their business whether or not Im carrying as far as Im concerned. If the author believes this information should be made available then I think I should be permitted to require my neighbors to undergo the same criminal background check I had to go thru in obtaining my CHL because I want to know if I have a spouse/child beater, drug pusher, arsonist, rapist, etc living next to me - turnabout is fair play right? If they really want to know who is carrying so badly then change the law to allow open carry, that way there is no question


<steps off soapbox>

I have done a little bit of privacy law for about 20 years. I long ago came to the conclusion that anyone who thinks they have any privacy at all is either crazy or a hermit who hasn't seen civilization in 30 years. There just isn't anything such a private information.

Moreover the worst purveyors of your information is the government, whether local, state or federal. They all make your information public in different ways.

Editorial in today's FW Star-Telegram....

http://www.star-telegram.com/225/story/56587.html

Public record
Star-Telegram

Texas issues lots of optional licenses -- for cosmetology, pest control and doling out prescription medicine.

The state also issues licenses to people who qualify under state law to carry concealed handguns.

As has been stated before in this space -- three times -- there are interesting conflicts inherent in this gun-permit issue. Texans who qualify for the permits by law must always conceal the fact that they are legally carrying handguns. So why should the fact that they have a license be public information?

That's the question that state Rep. Patrick Rose, D-Dripping Springs, is asking through a bill that would block public access to concealed-handgun permit records. He's picking up the campaign that former Rep. Suzanna Hupp, R-Lampasas, was never successful in winning during her tries in 1999, 2003 and 2005.

House Bill 991, which won unanimous approval Wednesday in the House Law Enforcement Committee, now moves to the full House for consideration. An identical bill in the Senate, written by Sen. Bob Deuell, R-Greenville, has been sitting in the State Affairs Committee since January.

It needs to stay there.

A CHL is a state-issued permit, which means it should be a public record just like other optional licenses granted by the state: driver's license, auctioneer's license or dental hygienist's license.

If the National Rifle Association, which has backed this effort from the get-go, wants to keep knowledge about who might be carrying and who might not private, it needs to get the state to repeal the law requiring a license to carry a handgun.

Until then, a state license is, by its very nature, a public record.

CNN (Clinton News Network) covered this last night during the Paula Zahn show. Three of the four on the news panel agreed it was wrong to post the list. The fourth said it was the state legislatures fault for not addressing the issue. Color me suprised at their take on the entire story. By the way, the Roanoke Times declined to be interviewed.

RKirby,

I agree with the paper. Lets get rid of the permit for concealed carry. So that we can keep it all private and all, we should just repeal 46.02 and its related sections. Let everyone carry if they want to. hat way it is kept private and the state is not burdened by issuing "optional" licenses.

And we'd have a lot more polite citizens.

jrosto wrote:It is interesting that you find information on Mr. Trejbal's past residences, but not on his current VA home.

I may have to pay some money to out this guy.

Well he's been pushing back the envelope on this issue for a long time...

And there is a long line of people like us who would love to bring his personal information into the public eye...

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should...

His agenda/position is very clear though...

Found The CNN video on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kUIPRFgRE8

SC1903A3 wrote:Found The CNN video on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kUIPRFgRE8

I'm having to go to my happy place now...I need to cool off...

The first commentator in that panel is the most pathetic example of slime under my shoe, I have seen in a long while...

Trying to justify the newspapers posting or access to this information to force the Virginia legislation to produce a bill/law that will protect and keep this information inaccessable to the public???

So the logic is that the paper is doing the Virginia CHP'ers a favor???

I'd love to see Phil Van Cleave and this nucklehead go at it...Phil would make very very short work of him...

If CHL holder names were public information, just how lomg do you think it would take anti-2nd employers to start descriminating in their hiring practices or decide to search the vehilce of every employee who showed up on that list. This would be a disaster. If such a law were passed, I would get a non-resident license from another state that Texas recognizes and then turn in my Texas CHL. Screw em!