2007.03.20
Some gun owners somehow missed database controversy
Given how much attention this concealed handgun carry permit database thing has generated, I figured anyone in Virginia who has a permit had to know by now what had happened.
I was wrong.
Yesterday evening I was talking to a friend who is an avid hunter and shooter. I said, "I'm guessing you were on the list."
He replied, "What list?"
He's a smart guy. But he doesn't read The Roanoke Times, in print or on-line, doesn't pay much attention to local TV news, and doesn't see many of us sportsmen types at work. So he was clueless. And, yes, he was on the list even though he didn't realize it.
While plenty of folks are still pretty hot over this, things are quieting down. Our last two news stories haven't gotten near the Web views that our stories on the subject were getting last week. But the stories are still getting attention. Yesterday I talked with reporter Laurence Hammack, who's been covering this as a news story for us, and he said that this is the first time he's ever had his voicemail box fill up, that's how much feedback he's been getting.
Our two most recent stories have been really interesting.
In a large article Sunday, Laurence looked into how Virginia compares to other states in terms of how much concealed carry info is public. If you didn't see it, you can read the story HERE. With the story there's a link to an informative graphic.
Interestingly, he found that the Argus Leader newspaper in South Dakota maintains that state's concealed carry permit database on its Web site, but the list includes only the names and the city, town or county of residence, without specific addresses. You can see the entire package the paper did on concealed carry permits HERE.
The South Dakota database has generated some complaints, but not to the level we saw here. I have kin in South Dakota and I was not surprised to spot one of my relatives on the list. In an e-mail exchange yesterday he gave no indication that he has a problem with the database as it is.
Today, our Richmond reporter Mike Sluss reported that the controversy has prompted the state's Freedom of Information Act Advisory Council to study how much of the permit list data should be available to the public. His story is HERE.
There's no certainty the council will find anything wrong with the current system. But it might. Plenty of folks have taken great pleasure pointing out the irony that the paper's decision to make the database public to kick off Sunshine Week could end up prompting tighter protection of that information.
Same thing happens to hunters and fishers - the lists ARE PUBLIC!
Comment by Mike Stollenwerk — March 20, 2007 @ 11:59 am
It is true that a lot of Permit holders are only now discovering that this list was published on the internet. While the issue may seem to be dying down on the Roanoke Times web site and in responses to the paper itself, that is by no means the case elsewhere.
Rather than continue to try to illicit a reasonable response from the paper itself, people are now taking their concerns directly to the people who might listen.
That would be Landmark Communications, and the advertisers for both Landmark and The Times. Many people feel that they can no longer support any business that supports an organization, that would allow this sort of travesty to go unpunished.
People are currently exploring legal options, changes for the FOIA, changes in the Permit requirements, and a host of other things. Part of the reason this has diminished from the point of view of the paper, is because people felt the paper was adding insult to injury by ignoring the issue and the harm it has caused. After all this is just another form of terrorism, used to sell news papers.
Also, while a lot of Times advertisers may be injured by lost income, people are going to vote with their dollars on this until the Times accepts responsibility for and makes adjustments, by helping Mr. Trebal locate employment suited to his abilities elsewhere.
So a lot of peoples writing skills are being applied to contacting those advertisers rather than contacting the Times. I can't say I blame them. Even the Washington Post, which is hardly objective on any issue, is professional enough to admit when they have made mistakes and adjust their personnel accordingly. When a post writer fabricates a story or openly lies (s)he gets fired. But then Perhaps that is the point. The Post is professional, and the Roanoke Times is well ... The Roanoke Times. You guys are setting the new standard for the lowest in your industry.
Speaking of low standards, someone should really talk to Mr Trejbal about using the ideas of others. Plagiarism is not a good thing. This list posting thing was really been done a lot (but without the addresses), Ohio, Fredricksburg, Danville, North Dakota and others. And the clothesline article for this last Sunday was already used by someone on your own paper earlier in the week. But I think he knew that. Perhaps one of you could help him find some ideas of his own for next week. Perhaps something on selecting shoe laces.
Lets see, "editorialistic" bigot, with inclination to lie in print seeking employment with any propaganda organization. Ability to plagiarize the legitimate ideas of others, and to sarcastically and arrogantly dismiss the legitimate concerns of others when they are raised. Dislikes crime victims, their children, undercover police, lawful citizens, court witnesses, local cultural values if different from his own, able to creatively force personal agenda onto others if supported and sheltered by senior editors. Requires personal information to be held from public release, and requires an armed guard to function freely in society at large.
Interesting resume. Have you considered New York, I hear Mayor Blumberg is looking for just these traits.
Comment by P Williams — March 20, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
I claim no expertise on any subject, nor do I claim eloquence with pen or keyboard. I am just an ordinary man with opinions.
I do not read any mainstream media because of the obvious liberal bias in its reporting and editorials. However, I was made aware of Mr Trejbal's column and have been following the backlash from it. It does seem to the outside observer that the Roanoke Times has no concern or interest in its readership. They appear to have a definite agenda against gun owners and possibly against anyone conservative and Christian.
I am used to biased articles in newspapers as I grew up on the west coast of FL, and have lived in Roanoke for 3 years, and I know I will always be an outsider, never a part of the community since I was not born here. But it surprises me that so many conservative people as live here would allow such reporting and writing to continue in their own paper. It is like I hear from a particular radio talk show host, that the American people are actually "sheeple" who will blindly follow whatever the media tells them.
I appreciate your article about missing the point, but I am not sure that is entirely the case. We don't want our names and addresses on public display where just anyone can get them without being identified. I believe that anyone seeking this information should have to demonstrate valid reason for obtaining it. Arbitrary use of public information could well be providing the lead for criminal activity.
These are my opinions, I only express them because I feel strongly about them.
Comment by J Peeler — March 21, 2007 @ 10:24 am
"We the People" do indeed have the right to access those records as long as they remain public. However, I do not subscribe to the belief that the press speaks for "We the People".
I often hear the overused and misused statement from the press that "people have a right to know" throughout the journalistic world on a multitude of issues. While we indeed have that right, we do not necessarily have a need to know and sadly most will just not care because it doesn't affect them personally. Reporters and journalists are not now, nor have they ever been the keepers, custodians or guardians of the people's rights, nor do they speak on behalf of anyone other than themselves. The use of that statement is merely self-serving in the interests of "getting the story".
If an individual or other entity expresses a desire or need to gain access to a particular piece of information, for whatever reason, they have legal means to use the FOIA system as necessary and as is their right. But with that right comes responsibility. They must then be responsible custodians of that information.
When Mr. Trejbal received the list, that should have been the end of it. He could have easily written the article stating he received the list and that would have been his victory and the end of the issue. There was no need or purpose served by the wholesale publishing of the list, and doing so was nothing more than a misinformed and malicious attempt to strike out against lawful gun owners. It also may have recklessley endangered some of those CHP holders.
The statement that "the people have a right to know" does not now, nor has it ever empowered the media to act on our behalf, and most certainly not to act irresponsibly to the endangerment of others.
Comment by Bob Cavalcante — March 21, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
Mr. Trejbal can deny that he had any agenda until he is blue in the face but his slant was apparent from the very title of his article "Shedding light on concealed handguns".
Ah, the "glorious light" shining on those dirty handguns. (yes, that was sarcasm).
If Mr. Trejbal’s article had been about open government I strongly suspect it would have focused ON the government with such information as how it did or did not handle the permit process efficiently, maybe how much the program cost, and other similar facts.
However, any focus on government was almost immediately dropped in favor of a sensationalist "expose" focused on “shedding light” on private citizens who have CCW permits. Mr. Trejbal acted like his article uncovered some seamy and vile underworld within the commonwealth, going so far as to draw a comparison between law abiding citizens and sex offenders! What utter, pandering, tripe!
To repeat part of the letter I wrote previously…
The people you have "uncovered" are law abiding citizens who have been "vetted" by the state via a background check, and who have spent their own precious time and money to go through an OPTIONAL (they could just open carry) process of training and authorization that is supposed to lessen tensions for everyone concerned. That these people have gone through all this bother AND PASSED should make you consider them MORE trustworthy not less.
That you don't understand this is, at best, terrible ignorance and at worst smacks of prejudice and yellow journalism.
Comment by Dale — March 22, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
People who are not getting their comments published here at the Roanoke because of their "approval" (censorship) process are instead writing the Roanoke's advertisers.
I do not expect this comment to ever be published by the censors that oversee the Roanoke's comment section.
Comment by jlbraun — March 22, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
This is a national news item.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/gun_owners_child_molesters_and.html
The article is worth reading
Comment by Larry2 — March 23, 2007 @ 8:53 am
Actually, we all owe Mr. Trejbal a debt of gratitude! As any good Quality Manager realizes that to get down to the core of any problem, you must conduct a "Root Cause Analysis". Through his misinformed, bigoted and irresponsible behavior, perpetuated and published by the Roanoke-Times, Mr. Trejbal, thinking he was doing some grand service to the public by publishing this list, has actually exposed weaknesses in our system!
The first problem that’s plainly obvious is that the CHP list should not be allowed to be published and should not be public information for the obvious and already overstated safety and the “greater good”.
Here’s an interesting angle that has not yet been explored. I don’t think that it should be a public document at all because I PAID for the processing of that CHP! If the taxpaying public’s money and the government’s time were used, that would be different, but the law makes if clear that I PAY for this service ABOVE AND BEYOND what my taxes pay for.
Mr. Trejbal’s taxes did not pay for any part of my CHP, I did! I paid for the time to process it, for the filing fees and for the background check. Those are services that Virginia and the county have agreed to let me pay for.
Here’s the extract from the Virginia State Police webpage http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_ResidentConcealed.shtm:
“The court shall charge a fee of $10.00 for the processing of an application or issuing of a permit. Local law enforcement agencies may charge a fee not to exceed $35.00 to cover the cost of conducting an investigation pursuant to this Code section. The State Police may charge a fee not to exceed $5.00 to cover the cost associated with processing the application. The total amount of the charges may not exceed $50.00, and payment may be made by any method accepted by the court.”
And the extract from the Fairfax County Web Site http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/courts/circuit/PDF/SP-248.pdf :
Filing Fee:
• $50.00 (including $10.00 Clerk’s fee; $5.00 State Police fee; and $35.00 Local Law Enforcement fee = $50.00).
• Payable by cash, money order, Visa or Master Card.
• Certified check payable to “Clerk, Fairfax Circuit Court.”
• Personal Checks are not accepted.
You may argue that you pay for a driver’s license also, should that be private information! ABSOLUTELY! Anything, whether processed by the government or not, that an individual pays for should NOT be in the public domain and therefore exempt from FOIA. It’s time to mature and grow this process, folks.
The next problem I see in all this is that journalists (and their publishers) need to be more responsible with their words. They need to stop thinking about recklessly throwing out stories that may have a huge negative effect on public opinion for the sake of deadlines, readership and advertising revenue. There is so much more to journalism that just that and more to America than mere capitalism. Journalism is an unlicensed public trust. The fact that the First Amendment IS the very first in our Bill of Rights speaks to the genius design of our Founding Fathers to ensure that the tongue and pen were the first choice of weapons against a tyrannous government and the armed citizenry provided for in the Second Amendment was the second choice. It is this way by design.
Too many people, in discussing this issue have made the comparison of a CHP to a driver’s license, or even a vehicle registration. I disagree. I think it’s more like a motorcycle license and a gun is more like a motorcycle itself. Before you bikers flame me, hear me out.
Most everyone has a driver’s license for motor vehicles, but not everyone has or feels the need for a motorcycle (gun). Some people may be afraid of motorcycles (guns) because they’re very powerful. Some may be afraid because they’ve have heard of many horrible motorcycle (gun) accidents. Perhaps they’ve seen motorcycles (guns) being used irresponsibly and think that’s representative of all other bikers (gun owners). Perhaps they perpetuate the stereotype that all bikers are in gangs (gun owners are criminals). See the similarities between the stereotypes of motorcycles and guns?
Now I can’t help but wonder if Mr. Trejbal would yield to me on the road if I were on an extremely fuel efficient bike?
We are not talking about public records for something such as property or a vehicle that is taxable and DOES provide taxes to the county and state. Those arguments are valid and anyone, through a proper FOIA request can at present request all the tax records they want. We are talking about responsible citizens asking for a greater measure of the public trust by proving they meet or exceed established standards of civil responsibility through criminal background checks and proven weapons training.
Through his misinformed, bigoted and irresponsible opinion and behavior, perpetuated and published by the Roanoke-Times, Mr. Trejbal has in his own contorted way, pointed out a weakness in the system that we must now repair and reinforce. Thank you Mr. Trejbal for bringing these flaws to light and allowing us good responsible Americans to be a part of the solution!
Comment by Bob Cavalcante — March 30, 2007 @ 3:25 pm