Austin American Statesman editorial on CHL privacy

[O6nop]

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/conten ... _edit.html

Pistol in one pocket, Rose in the other
EDITORIAL BOARD
Friday, April 20, 2007

The Texas House displayed rare unity this week in passing a bad bill that would grant a very special privilege to holders of concealed handgun permits.

The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Patrick Rose, D-Dripping Springs — who apparently can't pander to the gun lobby enough — would deny public access to concealed handgun licenses. Since the right to carry a concealed weapon became law in Texas, the licenses have been public information.
Rose was the sponsor of another gun bill that expanded the legal defenses for uses of deadly force — another solution in search of a problem that sailed through both chambers and was quickly signed into law by Gov. Rick Perry.

Rose once again tips his hat to the gun lobby with his bill to exempt concealed handgun permits from public view.

In a 135-7 vote, the House proposes to extend protection to gun owners that voters, drivers, hunters and fisherman do not enjoy. If the House bill survives the Senate and gets Perry's signature, gun owners will enjoy anonymity denied the state's doctors, lawyers, dentists, barbers and beauticians.

And why?

Supporters of the bill note that "bad guys" can use the information to either steal guns or avoid gun permit holders. Or something like that.

The notion of burglars going through public records looking to steal weapons is akin to the notion of car thieves combing driver's license or vehicle registration records looking for potential victims.

Exempting gun license holders from public records is not a new idea. It's been tried three times in the past six years, but the bill usually is stopped cold in the Senate.

We urge the Texas Senate to kill this lousy idea once again.

I urge anyone who feels compelled, to write a letter to the newspaper, someone more eloquent than myself. The letter I wrote will no doubtedly be disposed of because it is too long, but I couldn't get all my thoughts into a smaller form. My letter is as follows:

"Hopefully, answers to questions about your group disapproval of denying public access to concealed handgun license (CHL) holders. An incident, occurring in Roanake, Virginia, where a newspaper editor published all the names and addresses of these licensed individuals, put them at risk for many reasons. It provided easy access to criminals who could easily review potential victims in order to steal guns from law abiding citizens and put them into the hands of criminals. It also causes rifts between neighbors who may have narrow-minded opinions on guns as does the editorial board of this paper. It also exposed many victims of assault, domestic violence and other crimes to the criminals who performed those illegal acts to enable them to locate and take revenge on their victims or accusers for testifying or pressing charges, when they are desperate to stay away from them and find the need for protection. Protection that Law Enforcement is hard pressed to provide before and during a crime. They are forced to protect themselves with a gun.
Also the term 'concealed' should be a clue. It is illegal for a CHL holder to expose their firearm so it should be illegal for someone to expose the fact that they are CHL holders. With the Editorial Boards reasoning, Open Carry Legislation should be legalized as it is in many states, then there is no reason to hide the fact that you have a gun. To my knowledge there is no such thing as a concealed attorney's license or a concealed physician's license. These people typically advertise about their professions, which is another reason, concealed carry isn't a profession. Also, it's not illegal so it can't be compared to sex offenders, law breakers whose identity probably should be revealed. Concealed carry aids in the prevention of crime. Criminals don't want to be killed or deterred in the performance of a crime. Not knowing which potential victim may have a way to defend themselves will deter a criminal from attacking.
The editorial board is obviously against concealed carry, although no crime has resulted because of this law, e.g. blood baths, shootouts etc. So it seems that the Editorial Board is in favor of creating victims, sort of a "anti-gun / pro-victim" stance after all, without crime victims there would be no "news".
Finally, the fact that the writers of the column hide behind "Editorial Board" for their byline tells me they don't want to be revealed by name. I tried looking it up, couldn't find the names and addresses. Too bad, they must be privileged."

[nitrogen]

There was a great segment on NRANews.com last night with James Dark, TSRA President. Check it out if you have time (nranews.com)

I find it intellectually dishonest that he completely ignores the problem, his own paper, and papers like his getting public information, and printing it for no real reason whatsoever.

"bad guys" don't have to rifle through public records when irresponsible media outlets like yours publish the information for no reason other than to spite gunholders.

My stab:

If your paper maliciously printed drivers license information, or homeowner information for the same malicious purposes, you'd see the legislature react again.

The best way to keep your access to public records public is to not misuse your power as the media. Since you and other papers have shown the inability to do that, you have shown you cannot be trusted, and other actions need to be taken.

[glockoneniner]

What do you expect? They should just change the name to Pravda.

[Geister]

Austin is filled with too many people who picked the wrong state to live in. Then again, they picked the wrong country to live in but that's just me.

[stevie_d_64]

When the Roanoke newspaper did this, I realized that its actually not about the licencees themselves or the fact that they may have guns...

The paper released the full names and addresses of people that probably would rather have their locations kept private...

There was one example of a Parole Officer who would probably prefer not have his physical address known to those he may have been in charge of, that he may have had to provide information to the courts of parollees who violated some form of their parole...Thus being reincarcerated...

I bet when they got out they would love to be provided that type of information from the Roanoke Times...

I guess when it gets right down to it...I would rather not have my name corrolated to a license I have, and an address just because someone with an obvious agenda like the Roanoke Times and now the Austin American Statesman thinks its appropriate to do so...

I guess it just illustrates how pathetic the times have become when an organization like a newspaper or some other media outlet cannot use common sense...And their actions, put at a very credible risk of harm, those that should have no information published about them in the first place...

I wonder what kind of recourse could be pursued if this happens in Texas...

[lrb111]

One of our local tv news outfits is taking their story lines from the A.A.S.
However, one of the reporter's snarls her lips and sneers out the term "concealed handgun licensee's ".

About to get on my last nerve.

[KBCraig]

While I do agree that CHL info should be private, I hope everyone is aware that there are many ways to look up addresses, even if someone has an unlisted phone number.

Property tax rolls in Texas are available online. (No, I won't post the URL; lazy stalkers will have to find another source.) Unless someone uses a corporation to purchase their home, all you need is a last name and county to start narrowing the search.

I even tested the theory by checking one of our forum members. He happens to have an unlisted phone number, but his address (along with property value and taxes) are right there online, for free. (And again, I'm not telling.)

Just an FYI for anyone who might have concerns with being "found".

Kevin

[stevie_d_64]

While I do agree that CHL info should be private, I hope everyone is aware that there are many ways to look up addresses, even if someone has an unlisted phone number.

Just an FYI for anyone who might have concerns with being "found".

Kevin

You betcha...My point was why make it easier...But you know that...

BTW, whats that brown patch of grass in your yard over on the S.E. side near that Hybiscus bush???

The satellite image is just about able make that out...And ohhh, you dropped your keys out by the mailbox...

scary huh???

[jimlongley]

While I do agree that CHL info should be private, I hope everyone is aware that there are many ways to look up addresses, even if someone has an unlisted phone number.

Property tax rolls in Texas are available online. (No, I won't post the URL; lazy stalkers will have to find another source.) Unless someone uses a corporation to purchase their home, all you need is a last name and county to start narrowing the search.

I even tested the theory by checking one of our forum members. He happens to have an unlisted phone number, but his address (along with property value and taxes) are right there online, for free. (And again, I'm not telling.)

Just an FYI for anyone who might have concerns with being "found".

Kevin

Even non-published phone numbers are not necessarily safe (there is actually no such thing as "unlisted" but it's a subtle distinction.) If you have a NP number and you provide it to someone who sells it to one of the online directory outfits, it WILL be posted on their database. You have to pay to have access, but it's there nonetheless.

Edited to add:

About fifteen years ago there was an online database that was cross referenced by SSN and birthdate. I used it once or twice and then it disappeared.

[NcongruNt]

Austin is filled with too many people who picked the wrong state to live in. Then again, they picked the wrong country to live in but that's just me.

Way to win people over.

[Geister]

Way to win people over.

Well, Austin's not winning anyone over by being the only county (Travis) to vote for Kerry in 2004.

I really like the far west side of Austin and I think it's a good place to work, but I don't care for the local politics and liberal attitudes present in Austin.

[NcongruNt]

Way to win people over.

Well, Austin's not winning anyone over by being the only county (Travis) to vote for Kerry in 2004.

I really like the far west side of Austin and I think it's a good place to work, but I don't care for the local politics and liberal attitudes present in Austin.

If you're going to lump people into a group like that, all you're doing for them is alienating them. All you're doing for yourself is reinforcing your belief that they are the "other". I'm not going to even approach the subject of what you consider "liberal" because it's nothing but a label and life isn't that simple. I live in central Austin, and I like it here. You may not care for my politics, but nonetheless here I am - a proponent of the 2nd Amendment and a soon-to-be CHLer, but you just labeled me as an "other". The blanket statements you and others make about my city only serve to alienate newcomers who you may have one day counted as an ally in the fight to maintain our Right To Keep And Bear Arms. I know more people than I can count in this city that you would almost certainly mark as "liberals" who are proponents of the 2nd Amendment.

I voted for Kerry in the last presidential election. I didn't do it because I'm a Republican or Democrat - in fact, I'm registered as a Republican. I voted for him because he was more likely out of the only two viable candidates (and very poor candidates at that) available to bring a balance of power in the mess that is politics in Washington. I probably wouldn't vote for him again if he ran, for the very same reasons.

You can not care for me or my beliefs, that is fine. I urge you to reconsider the way you view people and represent yourself to others, because it hurts how you are perceived by other people. I also urge you to consider the possibility that life and even politics are not as simple as Red/Blue, Republican/Democrat, Liberal/Conservative. Rights are not subjective to a political affiliation. They belong to everyone, and everyone has a responsibility in maintaining those rights. The people who live in Austin have just as much a right to be here as you do. We are citizens of the United States and of Texas. Just as we don't have the right to tell you to get out, neither do you. That kind of attitude serves only to push people further away, not closer together. When you stop pushing people away with statements like the one you made above, you may begin to find that you have a lot more in common with some people you thought.

[nitrogen]

If you're going to lump people into a group like that, all you're doing for them is alienating them. All you're doing for yourself is reinforcing your belief that they are the "other". I'm not going to even approach the subject of what you consider "liberal" because it's nothing but a label and life isn't that simple.

+1,000.
This is my #1 pet peeve with many RKBA Activists. There ARE plenty of "liberal" minded, "democrats" that agree with RKBA. Unfortunately, most of them are voters, not politicians.

Debates are never won by insulting or dismissing the people on the opposite side.

[stevie_d_64]

Debates are never won by insulting or dismissing the people on the opposite side.

Interesting...

Not that I am stirring the pot here, but that viewpoint seems to be prevalent to the anti's side of the aisle when they refer to us...

Our arguments based upon fact, and are meant to solve issues...They easily dismiss us, insult our side, and in some cases outright ignored...

I believe everyone here is on the same side, that goes without question...

I think we're in pretty good shape this time to counter this stuff this time...

[nitrogen]

Pardon me while I put on my liberal hippie hat for a second.

Any of you folks ever read Sun Tsu's "The Art of War"?
There are lots of good points in that document not just about war, but about any type of opposition that might apply to our cause:

Hence the saying: If you know the enemy
and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a
hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy,
for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.
If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will
succumb in every battle.

You've got to take the Anti's seriously; understand and respect them, as they are our opponents.