The Roanoke Times: The Wild Life

Comments

# 1

[March 16, 2007 9:58 AM]

Joe

I have a couple of comments on the whole "gun-list" issue. Let me start by saying my name is on the list and I was able to locate it rather easily using your website while it was posted online.

I appreciate the more balanced approach the the RT has taken in the last couple of days as opposed to the clearly inflamatory approach originally taken.

I think it is disingenuous that not all comments were posted on your web site. I attempted to post 3 times and none of mine were added to the list. I do not believe that my comments were inflamatory or abusive in any way.

And, I have a question. If, Mr. Trejbal's original article and list were really part of a week-long expose on "sunshine", then where are the others? I've been waiting anxiously all week to see what else you had up your sleeves and here it is Friday and I'm greatly disappointed that no other aspects of Virginia government have been sunshined. It leads me to believe that Mr. Trejbal as lying and that the real issue was guns, not sunshine.

Regards, Joe

# 2

[March 16, 2007 10:40 AM]

Larry

I believe there will be changes in access to concealed carry lists. The gun forums on the internet are picking up on this event, check out the BerettaForum.net. I personally have made contributions to the NRA and VCDL on behalf of Mr.Trejbal. I would think the newspaper would consider if they can afford to have this character on the payroll.

# 3

[March 16, 2007 1:48 PM]

David Armstrong : →http://darmymanworld.blogspot.com/

Trejbal is a pro at using the Freedom of Information Act as his personal weapon of mass destruction. The idiot savant publisher and editorial page putz used copious high brow intellectual arguments as the basis for their doing such a stupid act as as would be expected of them.

I would like to see their names and home addresses posted in the paper so they would have the same potential of receiving unwanted visitors as those that were contained in the database they created. I believe the public would like to know where these three dangers to the public reside.

Why did Trejbal do this? This was fundamentally a hit piece against not only those who have concealed carry permits, but any gun owner. Trejbal's original essay justified posting the database because, "There are plenty of reasons to question the wisdom of widespread gun ownership." Trejbal, Meade and Radmacher are all apparent gunophobics who believe normal law abiding citizens should not have the ability to own a legal firearm.

Why I wonder as by conservative estimates, handguns are used more than 1.3 million times each year in self-defense. They must not know that convicted violent felons tell researchers that they choose victims they believe are least able to defend themselves, avoiding those likely to have a gun. Or are they simply trying to use any method whatsoever to increase their readership? Are their intellectual justifications just good old fashioned greed to assure they have subscribers of the Roanoke Times and hence have jobs?

# 4

[March 16, 2007 2:11 PM]

Rod

I've contacted my elected officials asking them to support closing the concealed handgun permit records to the public. I've also submitted a letter to the editor of my local papar here in Fredericksburg urging others to support the closing of the records. I ask that everyone who reads this column, please do the same. Thanks.

# 5

[March 16, 2007 3:09 PM]

P Williams

Mr. Taylor, It is apparent that some at your organization actually are trying to be objective in the reporting of the events in this situation. To you and them I say thank you.

I can only presume that when you say above "what kind of action could be taken to keep potentially sensitive information ... from getting into the wrong hands.", that you realize at least in this case the Roanoke Times WAS the wrong hands.

The situation is exacerbated by the very situation mentioned by "Joe" in the first posting in this list. By allowing the same reporter who caused this uproar, to determine which postings will appear in the opinions that follow, your organization is censoring people who have a right to be heard.

While some of the opinions expressed are energetic, I KNOW that they are not obscene or threatening because I have seen what people have tried to post placed on other forums.

I too have been waiting for the "Series of articles" on sunshine in Virginia. There are many issues occurring right now that are the very kind of "dirt" that we all would have expected to be in such a series, and yet no "series" has been published.

Even as I write this, a person filed a FOIA request, and was denied the request because he is not a resident of Virginia. This is illegal, and the case law on the matter is settled in this area. Where is the article about that.

No, this was not about FOIA, this was about firearms as subsequent articles from other reports on your staff have said. It was about Mr. Trejbal's personal opinions on gun owners and his view that their lives and the lives of Virginians in general are worth less than his opinions. This was done with the full knowledge that people could be injured or killed, but because those people were gun owners their lives are meaningless to him. He has said as much in his writings for two years. He hates Virginia's history, it's heritage, and is people and has never made any secret about that fact.

Mr. Trejbal is wrong when he says "we missed the point". In fact we got the point, he is just amazed that we saw this act for what it was. Bigotry pure and simple.

Any reading of his article could easily be transposed into an article written about the peoples right to know who and where all the Jews were in 1939 europe. Or just as easily be seen to be characteristic of similar trash concerning the peoples right to know who and where all people of African decent were in the days of Jim Crow. That kind of bigotry, no matter who it is aimed at is not acceptable in a civilized society at large, and it is not welcome in Virginia.

Do I think this will produce changes in the law? Yes I do. That process has already begin. I do not think reporters will like the direction it will go. Even people diametrically opposed on the issue of firearms ownership are in agreement on this issue. Hopefully the process of change will be thoughtful and not another knee jerk reaction.

What is of concern to me is that it seems increasing unlikely that there will be changes at the Roanoke Times. You have there an "editorialist" who using your publication as both a sword and a shield, intentionally endangered lives, spread words of hatred and bigotry, and abuses the rights of others while hiding behind the first amendment. Along with him you have an editor that refuses to take responsibility, supports his activities and continues to do so.

While I feel certain that the Roanoke Times lawyers have told your editor not to apologize for this nightmare because it might expose you legally, this is really poor advice so long as they keep Mr. Trejbal on the payroll.

Regards

# 6

[March 16, 2007 3:24 PM]

Jesse

Like many others in the state my name and address to where posted on the web. I am a law abiding citizen of the state of VA and have obtained all of my guns legally. I also have the right to carry my fire arm on my person. By going through the proper legal channels I have recieved my concealed weapons permit. How many Quote bad guys have done that. Maybe the journalist doesn't understand the meaning concealed weapons permit. Concealed no one knows I carry and no one should know i carry, much less to know where I live. This is my right as an honest citizen.

# 7

[March 16, 2007 7:48 PM]

Va Ham

I for one certainly hope our Virginia lawmakers will exempt information retained by government regarding CHP holders from the freedom of information act as certain other types of information is already. (http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/about/foia.cfm) This need for protection, from irresponsible stewards of the information, has vividly come to surface by the actions of the Roanoke Times (RT).

Not only was the RT irresponsible but, has since the event, displayed an elitist attitude toward the matter. The RT’s comments after the fact have admitted no guilt or remorse, for their actions and instead attempt to point the finger at the Virginia State Police (VSP). In my opinion the VSP had no choice but to produce the list under current law. There are no provisions in the law for redacting certain persons from the list and even if there were it would place an extreme burden on the VSP to have to do so.

RT articles have stated that the RT publisher, editor and author had met and discussed the pros and cons of publishing the list in advance of the publication. The public indignation and questioning of ethics by their peers certainly should be clear evidence of the fact that the decision to publish the list was irresponsible. Not just the CHP holders but probably most of the 80 million or so gun owners in America and even those who do not own guns but reap the benefits of the criminals not knowing which ones do should be outraged. I recall the case of the buglers a few years ago who lived in Virginia but went to Maryland to commit their crimes. When asked after their capture why they traveled so far. Their answer was that too many people in Virginia owned guns.

The RT staff involved in making these decisions should never be allowed to make these kind of irresponsible decisions again. Since the publisher herself was a party to this action I do not expect personnel actions will be taken to remove this liability at the RT. I am not even sure that boycotts of all advertisers in the RT would bring enough pressure to effect a positive change in the paper. Perhaps economic pressure of the papers owner Landmark (also owner of the Weather Channel) might bring about the kind of change necessary.

I suspect that the individuals responsible at the RT by now have realized how much damage, not only potential physical damage but also emotional damage, they may have caused to tens of thousands of certified law abiding citizens by publishing their names and home addresses. I can say this with some certainty since I attempted on multiple occasions to post the names and home addresses of the editor and publisher in addition to that of the author, which had previously been posted, and all attempts to do so were censored. This demonstrates the elitist double standard in place in the chain of command at the RT. They have no problem with publishing the same publicly available information of tens of thousands of others but censor the posting of their own.

Mr. Trejbal words belayed his true motive for publishing the list “There are plenty of reasons people choose to carry weapons: fear of a violent ex-lover, concern about criminals or worry that the king of England might try to get into your house. There are plenty of reasons to question the wisdom of widespread gun ownership, too.”. He suggests that fears may be irrational as in the “king of England” remark. Yet as DHL delivers some innocuous package to his home following the publishing of his own home address he calls the bomb squad. The RT action placed law enforcement officers, judges, victims of crime in real danger from real criminals. Mr. Trejbal is apparently afraid of the least likely group of folks to commit a crime I can imagine. I won’t rehash the thousands of others who have pointed out the many other reasons this was an irresponsible action.

His statement “There are plenty of reasons to question the wisdom of widespread gun ownership” really brings out his and one must assume the RT’s real agenda. Guns, in the hands of law abiding citizens, are used to stop over 1.3 million crimes per year in the U. S. So does the RT address the real problem of crime or how guns get into the hands of criminals.? No the RT instead chooses to select a law abiding group of gun owners and place them in real not irrational jeopardy.

While weeding out irresponsible journalists, editors and publishers will help to improve the situation; it appears the only way to protect innocent citizens is to enact legislation to remove the possibility of the information getting into the hands those who will use it irresponsibly.

# 8

[March 16, 2007 8:27 PM]

Debbie

I do not think Roanoke Times and the reporter did anything wrong at all. You can access all court records in the State of Virginia and see what people have done or have been charged with...so why be so "secret" about having a concealed gun license? You can find that info on the court site.

# 9

[March 17, 2007 12:58 AM]

P Williams

Debbie,

Your comments show that you have never been beaten to near death by an abusive domestic partner. You have never been raped, or been a witness in court against violent criminals who have subsequently threatened the lives of you and your family. You have never heard the sound of your own bones breaking as a drunken attacker beats you relentlessly into unconsciousness.

It is equally obviously you have never had to console such victims, or assist them by moving them in the middle of the night to a safe house at a new location to protect them from being found by their tormentor. You also have never had to explain to them that you can't be there to protect them all day every day and all night every night, and had to advise them to get, training, and a permit for a weapon so they can have it with them to protect their lives when they need it.

I could not be happier for you, in this regard you are truly fortunate. But you are also very naive.

Yes, court records are open to public access. But beyond the things I have outlined that are obvious about you, it is also obvious you have never tried to get a look at these records in the court. Go try it. In most jurisdictions they are kept in paper files, NOT electronic files. In some cases it takes days or weeks to view just a few. They are mixed in with all the other activities of the court. Moreover, most criminals will not go to a court house to look at them because someone will remember they were there and they have to pay to access them.

If you reread the original article that started all this you will see that this condition of the records is the reason Mr. Trejbal HAD to go to the Virginia state police to get the records, and he paid $100 dollars to get them. Out of pocket by the way. That way there would be no notice that the press was asking for them. There is a record of that transaction in the police records, so if someone wants to look it up later they can.

I assume you can see the difference between what I have just described to you and the subsequent placement of those records on the internet in an anonymously accessible data base where no records of the access are kept. Also just to be nice Mr. Trejbal set THESE records up so that they were searchable by name and city, and they were FREE. The he posted them on the internet so they would be available to anyone in the world. If you read the posts from people attached to the original article you will find more than a few from women who were forced out into the night by this internet data base. But those are just the ones Mr. Trejbal allowed to be posted. You see he controls which ones make it to the list. While that IS censorship, some of the posts did not fit HIS view of what people should be allowed to say. Those are real people by the way, with real reasons to be scared and real reasons to be heard.

Now while I can tell you have never done any of the things I have described above, I will tell you that I have. I have held a battered woman as she cried and bled on my shoulder, I have helped herd her frightened, sleepy, hungary, children dressed in sleepers through the system in the middle of the night. I have taken them to the shelters, with nothing but the cloths on their back and to my everlasting shame, I have had to tell them that I cannot guard them all the time and had to leave them to fend for themselves with the instruction that they will have to obtain the means to defend themselves. This is the real world. It may not be your world or Mr. Trejbal's, but it is real.

Your "hero" Mr. Trejbal here at the Times, just published those victims new secret addresses on the internet so that they can now be found at the connivence of their tormentor in the dark of night. Your Mr. Trejbal committed this travesty in a way where no one would ever suspect the bad guy of accessing the information. Yes Debbie there really are bad guys. There actually is evil in the world, and until you stare it in the eyes, and feel the tingle in your spine you will not be able to recognize it. I have seen that evil Debbie, and I can tell you with this cold calculated act Mr. Trejbal has place himself in that light. This is the "sunshine" he has brought to Virginia.

So now with Mr. Trejbal's help the bad guy can deny he had anything to do with killing his victims. There is no record that he found their address. If he was really smart he could use the same database to locate and steal a weapon to use, because all the addresses listed likely have firearms for the taking. Unlikely you say! The guy is a criminal! By definition he commits crimes for a living. How hard do you really think it will be for him to steal what he needs to commit more crimes, when he knows right where to look. To be fair there is enough blame here for it to pour over the legislature that has refused to seal the records for reasons of their own.

Your Mr. Trejbal did all of this knowing full well the effects what he was doing. He knew what the results would be. That is specifically why he did it. He did not care that he was putting these women and children in real fear for their lives. He did not care that he was putting undercover law enforcement officers, or witnesses in harms way. Read his writing in the past. He does not care if these people are subsequently found and killed, they are the Virginians he holds in contempt in every story he writes. He couldn't care or he would never have done what he did. He like you has never done any of the things I have described to you, and he never will because these things are done by real people, outside public view every day and every night. They are done by people who really care, even when no one is looking, and that is just not Mr. Trejbal's style.

Debbie, this is not television. The players do not all go home alive after the show. This is not reality TV which is all staged. This is not an episode of Law & order where the good guy always wins, and the police arrive just in time. This in not an academic exercise in civics class. These are real people and they can really be harmed and killed. Why will they be beaten maimed and killed? Why would Mr. Trejbal knowingly do this. So he and the Times can push his personal agenda down the throats of Virginians, sell a few news papers, and increase Mr. Trejbal's fame among his friends.

Yes you are fortunate Debbie. Sleep well tonight because you can. Sleep under the blanket of protection that armed citizens and police provide for you. Don't worry about Mr. Trejbal, he has his own personal armed guard standing watch at his home. But don't forget that others do not have that luxury. They have to live with a new night mare. Their nightmares now have a new main character. Mr. Christian Trejbal. Yes Debbie he is real and he is the bad guy here. Don't put yourself in his class, you are better than that.

Regards

# 10

[March 17, 2007 7:18 AM]

Joe

Debbie,

The problem with your rationale and that of the entire "posting of the list" is that the people on that list have done nothing wrong. We've been charged with nothing and done nothing illegal (by definition!). The only things we've done are; take a firearm safety course, pass a background investigation to ensure we've never done anything wrong, and apply for the privilege of wearing our firearms concealled as opposed to having to carry it openly which is the right, under Virginia law, of every law abiding person over the age of 18 who is within the borders of the Commonwealth.

For some reason you, Mr. Trejbal, and others keep trying to imply that we're guilty of something and therefore deserve to have our names and addresses posted on the internet or listed in the newspaper. If you are so curious about your fellow citizens of Virginia then why aren't the names and addresses of all those who apply for fishing licenses posted? Or recipients of new driver's licenses?

I'm a military veteran with an honorable discharge, I work for the federal government, I have a security clearance and work with classified information regularly, and the only run in with the law I've ever had is a speeding ticket yet Mr. Trejbal compares me to a sex offender and you are suggesting that I be "charged with" something.

Quite frankly, I'm much more likely to trust someone I know has a concealed handgun permit than I am to trust the typical person on the street. I think that many law enforcement officials feel the same way.

Regards, Joe

# 11

[March 17, 2007 7:40 AM]

Al Milton

In answer to Debbie regarding public information, does she realize that any one can get the following information about her or anyone else?

Full Name, Home Address, SSN, Phone Number, Real estate holdings, Personal Property Taxes Paid, How many Divorces he or she has had, how many judgments he or she has had and for how much money was involved. The list gets rather long. Anyone can find that information about anyone under the FOIA. They can then make it public knowledge.

I bet Debbie would be very upset to see her personal and what she thinks may be private information on a bill board along I-581 or on Williamson Road.

By the way my name was on the list. I cancelled my subscription to The Roanoke Times. I now read it on line.

I also am proud to be a Life Member of the NRA.

# 12

[March 17, 2007 8:18 AM]

Jeffrey Ross

To Debbi, who stated "You can access all court records in the State of Virginia and see what people have done or have been charged with...so why be so "secret" about having a concealed gun license? You can find that info on the court site."

Yes Debbie you maybe can do that, but convicted felons have done something wrong, by the laws of the land. Now they are held responsible for what they have done. They lost their right to privacy on those matters in court.

On the other hand, somewhere, personal information on you, me, all of us, is also available, if we wanted to pry hard enough. Information that does not have anything to do with a conviction, or breaking a law. Should I be able to get selected information on you, and other people, just because I can, just because I want to, and then publish it for all to see? Under the banner of a newspaper and freedom of speech? Just to make a point? Without asking you? When you are following the law?

And then Debbie, as you said, "see what people have done?" What do you mean by that? Are you talking about illegal activities, or legal activities. What if the state had information on "what we have done"? Don't you think you should have a vote on legal "things you have done" being released to others? Like where you live, what you do, where you have been? Where you bank, personal habits, etc. You get the point I hope. Should I be able to get information on anybody I want, compile a list, and publish it? And as atributed to Mr.Houck: "This is one of those classic issues where you've got personal privacy rights bumping up against the public's right to know."

I respectfully object to this statement. Just because I may have a right, as a citizen, to know certain things, does not mean I should have these things published by others, allegedly on my behalf. Publishing this CCW list is quite a bit different, in my mind, than publishing Dave's Top 10 List, or Grandma's apple pie recipe. I should ask Grandma first, don't you think? If I had a real need and desire to get that CCW information (why, I do not know), I could have done so. For me, for my purposes, research perhaps. And I'd pay my fee to do so. But not to publish openly. "The Public" did not ask or need that guy just putting it out there under the guise of Sunshine Day, open governance, or whatever. The CCW holders never asked for this list to be published. They are the "Public" too, right?

Just think of all the lists we "could" obtain and publish. By using the data from the CCW list, I could come up with a non-CCW list of names and addresses. Do I have the right to do that as well? Why do that? What good can come from it? As responsible people and citizens, we should put limits on our actions. Just because we can do something, does not mean we should do it. I am just very sad this was done. Now, due to all the publicity, there will be an equal and opposite reaction. In the future, should I really need the information on this or other matters, for a valid reason, it may be harder. So how has this guy helped us in the long run?

Jeff Ross

# 13

[March 17, 2007 8:59 AM]

Mike

When your name is in a phone book it is just public information. If your name is on the list of Virginia CC made public by RT this past week then the reporter and the editor irresponsibly made you a target. Their agenda was achieved. Was it malicious? Yes, I believe it was a political statement and a persoinal jab at the CC community. As clear thinking and responsible adults the majority of us would never have committed such a foolish act like that. I am not hunkering down waiting for the hobgoblins to come to my door, I am ready for that. My worry always has and always will be irresponsible journalism. It carries the most insidous harm we all fear daily. An apology is not enough, please step down and seek other employment.

# 14

[March 17, 2007 9:05 AM]

Marc : →http://www.SaveTheGuns.com

Did anyone consider that an abused woman who has moved away from an abusive ex-spouse or ex-boyfriend and has had to obtain a firearm permit to carry is now exposed to possible violent criminal acts?

The fact that this list ran in your paper is simply thoughtless and outrageous. I cannot bring myself to believe the sheer stupidity and audacity on the part of Trejbal or the Times in this matter.

# 15

[March 17, 2007 9:15 AM]

Cliff

To get those records you would have to show your face at the court house, fill out paperwork, and give them your information. Not just go to the internet and search an easy to use database. If you were going to commit a crime which would you most likely use? You are not thinking Debbie!

# 16

[March 17, 2007 9:51 PM]

Larry2

Debbie

When he compared us to sex offenders that need to be watched, have an interactive map showing where we live, there is nothig wrong with that?

We passed a background check o prove we are vey responsible citizens, we went through a class to ensure we are trained to be safe.

And we need to be monitored and feared?

# 17

[March 17, 2007 10:46 PM]

Jen

I think Mr.Trejbel and Ms. Mead should both be fired. Posting people's addresses was irresponsible. If all 135,000 people cancelled their newspaper subscription the RT would feel the effects . And then maybe they will do somthing

# 18

[March 18, 2007 2:07 AM]

James

I don't think you quite get it Debbie. The records should not be accessible, as they contain private information about citizens, not about the Government. Openess in Government I'm all for; openess of citizens personal information, I'm not.

Perhaps as a show of good faith, you might reveal to us your full name and address.

After all, why be so "secret"?

# 19

[March 18, 2007 4:18 AM]

Richard

In response to Debbie's post, I must explain a few salient points.

Just like Mr. Trejbal, she equates gun owners with CRIMINALS. Debbie, gun owners are not criminals. We have commited no crime. Court records for crime commited are available for a real reason. Once you have been convicted of a crime, you lose some of your right to privacy. Gun owners have commited no crime and should no be exposed the way a criminal can be. I can't believe you don't see the difference Debbie.

# 20

[March 18, 2007 5:15 AM]

Va Ham

Debbie "I do not think Roanoke Times and the reporter did anything wrong at all. You can access all court records in the State of Virginia and see what people have done or have been charged with...so why be so "secret" about having a concealed gun license? You can find that info on the court site."

First of all Debbie the CHP holders have not "done or been charged with" anything. In fact if they had they would not be able to obtain a CHP.

So if you have no problem with posting the names and home addresses of innocent law abiding citizen's; how about posting your own for us. Mine already has been.

I am sure you would feel much differently about it if yours had been made so easily available.

# 21

[March 18, 2007 11:05 AM]

Mark Taylor

I had a feeling Debbie's comment would generate some responses.

Sorry it took me so long to approve this latest round of comments. No conspiracy, I promise! I just decided to take Saturday "off" to watch basketball and take care of some work at one of the places I hunt.

Thanks for the comments, and thanks for reading.

MT

# 22

[March 18, 2007 12:45 PM]

P Williams

Mr. Taylor,

No one would blame you for taking some time away from all this. Thank you for your objectivity, honesty, and understanding on this important issue. You should pass that sentiment on to a select few of your fellow reporters who have also demonstrated these attributes of TRUE journalists.

We could only hope that reasonable people like yourself could rise to more decisive positions at the Roanoke Times.

Best regards

# 23

[March 18, 2007 2:41 PM]

Larry2

P Williams makes good points

Also, replace permit holders with Blacks, Jews or hispanics in that article. We have done nothing wrong to be monitored. Actually we proved to be responsible.

Second: As the RT sent security to his house and a bomb squad shows up. Gun owners will not do something like that because we would lose our right to own a gun.

We love keeping our rights and do not do things that will end it.

So the RT decided that those "evil" gun owners who passed background checks are too violent and security must be hired.

We need security from reporters like Mr trejbal.

# 24

[March 18, 2007 5:48 PM]

E. R.

I probably would be considered a "liberal" by many of the responders to the column on firearms permit column. In the past, I have generally agreed with most positions of your paper.

However, I seriously question the judgement of you and your editorial staff in the approach taken to Mr. Trejbal's column. After all, those persons who have gone to the trouble and borne the expense to obtain a weapons permit are complying with the law. It seems obvious to me that there are a majority of gun carriers among the public who do not have permits, and are the real threat to honest citizens and merchants. Further, your paper has served notice on the criminal element where certain law-abiding citizens (the permit holders) live, and where they might find firearms to support their criminal activities. (Although there is implied risk to the criminal in entering the home of a permit holder, if the permittee is not home, the criminal might see this as a logical place to steal a firearm.)

Permit holders have followed the law, but the Roanoke Times has compromised our privacy, and possibly compromised our personal safety. I will not be able to view you paper again with quite the same respect that I previously did! I hope that you will not re-post the names/addresses of permit holders!

# 25

[March 18, 2007 6:22 PM]

P Williams

Strange.

This morning Christian Trejbal's customary Sunday opinion column had the traditional comments form at the bottom of the page, and there was even a single comment already posted. Later there was no comment form and the single comment was gone.

I thought the Times was insisting that people had a right to know things. I thought they were insisting that they had a responsibility to inform the public on this issue. Is not what people have to say about Mr. Trejbal's column within the area of "things" people have a right to know, and should be informed about? Most news organizations have trouble finding people that have been effected by events in the news to interview. Here we have people volunteering to comment, and the Times chooses to just dismiss them out of hand.

By the Times own proclamation, the most significant outpouring of reader response in the history of the Roanoke Times, and somehow it is not worth an open discussion and an airing on these pages. Is not the fact that the controversy continues, in the least bit newsworthy? Is the fact that there has been complete silence from the editorial staff not somehow significant?

Many of us out here in the hinterlands have been awaiting the Times editors to explain to us, the details of the decision making process that lead up to the publication of the list on the internet last week. I would think that a detailed and honest description of that process would be educational to journalism students from Maine to California, and Washington to Florida. What an opportunity to describe how the editorial staff of a news paper actually works.

Kind of strange really. I took some journalism courses in college. (yes Mr. Trejbal some of us "bumpkins" actually have degrees too) My professor told all his classes that good journalism was like good acting. When done correctly it tells a clear, complete story that interests the observer. But, he cautioned, a good actor should never be caught acting, and a good journalist should never be caught writing. If you do you owe your readers an explanation of why that happened. Many news organizations in the recent past have made this fatal error. But in most of those cases the persons involved have had the personal integrity to step down.

Your paper demands excellence of public officials. Your paper holds people accountable for graft, corruption, innocent mistakes, criminal activity, poor decisions, taxation decisions, poor budget planning, and a host of other things. Why should you expect the public to do less when you overtly abuse your public trust, and then fail to take responsible actions to explain and correct the problem? Any reasonable person would have to conclude that we should NOT hold you to a different standard than you hold up for us. In the law this is know as equal protection. It too is mentioned in the "Bill of Rights", we both hold dear, but you have to read farther than the first one to find it. (yes Mr. Trejbal there is more than one) While you are at it you might take a passing note of the second one and the recent decision in the Federal Circuit Court in the District of Columbia. It seems the second amendment is in fact an INDIVIDUAL right just like all the other ones that mention "The People".

Someone please tell Ms. Meade and Mr. Trejbal that inquiring minds want to know. The longer this goes on, the louder and more deafening your silence becomes. Deafening not to the ear but to the intellect, and the forgiving nature of most Virginians. There are now more than the original 135,000 offended people who are wondering if it is not in fact the editors of the Roanoke Times that are the only real "Haters" in Virginia

# 26

[March 18, 2007 6:28 PM]

Debbie

Four little sentences and this much outrage from people. Amazing. To P. Williams...I love your fantasy you wrote about my life. I wish it was true. You have NO idea how wrong you are on all accounts. Oh..and thanks for letting me know this is not TV...I really thought it was the Wonderful World of Disney I was watching. The reporter is not my hero. I do not even know him at all. Wrong again. So glad you think I'm fortunate...you are dead wrong on that one and I'm not even talking gun issues here to you.

To Joe...I haven't charged anyone with anything at all. All I said was that I didn't think Roanoke Times did anything wrong and you can access things on the Court Site online. Whether they did or didn't do whatever doesn't matter to me. To Al Milton..yes I know you can find anything you want about me..go for it if you wish. I will look for the billboard. To Jeff Ross...I'm glad you said convicted felons have done wrong. I'm sure they will go by the book now. To Larry2...I never compared you to a sex offender that needs to be watched. To James....The records are online. Do you really want my address? Is that a threat? To the rest of you that I have gotten so upset...I am SO sorry. I never meant to upset you this much over a mere statement...how dare me voice MY opinion, right? BTW..is my name on that list...I never got to see it.

# 27

[March 18, 2007 9:05 PM]

Rodrick Adams

Make not mistake about it, my personal information, to include specific location of residence, is private.

Certain organizations recently overstepped their collective bounds by making available to the public specific personnal information about me without my explicit concent.

Unless someone can convince me why it would be in the publics best interest to know my specific residential location, and I'm open to discussions, I will maintain my current stance on this matter.

# 28

[March 18, 2007 9:52 PM]

Behind the Badge

Debbi, When you get around to living in my shoes..then tell me about what RT did right and wrong. I personally do not have a permit, and probably never will. My husband does, and also openly carries his weapon as a Law Enforcement Officer. As stated earlier, you are equating gun owners as criminals. Think about this...if by chance my husband arrested someone, who wished to seek revenge..put 2 and 2 together. Cops and Guns, yep, Said criminal can much easier look up our address on the Roanoke Times website for Conceal Carry Permit Holders, and track us down very easily. Now, if that same criminal had to go to the courthouse and search, it wouldn't be so easy and probably not worth his time. We strive so hard to keep our information private, and then this happens. Granted, there isn't alot of that type of crime going on in Roanoke, but do you see my point? It is the priciple of the matter. I could go on and on... The real beauty is the quote from some lady today...she said something to the effect of not knowing what was up with us gun people, and that we thought we were owed all these rights, and some BS like that. Well I guess we can say the same about reporters as well. The only right I want is to keep my private stuff PRIVATE! Also, I honestly think that Mr. Trejbal did this, out of pure desire to stir up controversy. The biggest scoop, etc. He doesn't like guns, so he stirred up the biggest pile he could. He is gloating in all the attention he is getting now. No TRUE reporter is like that. He is no better than an ambulance chasing lawyer. Yoy know the type, the lawyers that go for every sneaky little possible case, even lying..that is Mr. Trejbal. Before anyone puts me down, I will say one thing..if this was about 1st ammendment rights, and it affected me just as much, I would be just as angry and upset. Maybe that helps you put my thoughts and perception into perspective. (wish I could see all this at one time so I could make it all sound a little better!) I will get off my soapbox now..and go hug my cop one more time! Just remember, it is HIS gun that keeps people like you, Debbi, that keeps you safe. Wouldn't it be nice if he was off duty and the bad guy down the road would be caught, because of the shock of not realizing that a cop was nearby? With a pretty common name, and a database, that would be harder.

# 29

[March 19, 2007 7:29 AM]

Mike

We're not going to get an apology from the Roanoke Times, not because its attorneys have counseled it accordingly, but because the newspaper doesn't believe its done anything wrong. So, let's play by their rules.

I strongly encourage the VCDL's members to research the top executives of the newspaper and locate every piece of personal info on them and their immediate families that can be obtained through legal means--and I do mean everything. After all, the precedent has been set--if the info is in the public realm, the public has the right to see it.

With this info in hand, I encourage the VCDL to buy a one-page ad in the Roanoke Times and publish it--all of it. If the paper refuses to publish it, simply post it on the web where the newspaper's readership can view it. Again, the newspaper has stated in writing that info available to the public should be made available to the public.

We CCW permit holders have taken the high ground so far on this issue, but it's time to play in the dirt with the owners, editors and reporters.

# 30

[March 19, 2007 4:23 PM]

DHard3006

It appears the gun owners are mad because they support a law that allows people to see what they own. The fact that the gun owners defend concealed carry laws demonstrates they defend infringements on the right to bear arms. Public records means just that, the public being they law abiding citizens or criminals have a right to view public records. These gun owners should be complaining about the gun haters that passed the asinine law requiring a permit to exercise a right.

# 31

[March 19, 2007 11:11 PM]

Rodrick Adams

Concealed Handgun Permit - $50.00 New personal protection pistol and ammo - $717.52 Roanoke Police protesting over pay - Priceless

# 32

[March 19, 2007 11:33 PM]

P Williams

NOTE: This was written in response to a question by Frank on Mr. Trejbal's most recent article posting thread. Frank wants to know why Mr. Trejbal refuses to discuss the posing of the Concealed Permits listing last week.

Since I have no real expectation it will actually be posted where Mr Trejbal is the last word on postings, I added it here as well. To answer Franks question - *************************************** You have to realize that while some are long on excuses and rhetorical pronouncements when they do things for political purposes, they are frequently short on research, logic, compassion, apologies, and intellect in responding to criticism. Particularly if they have no respect for the rights of those they have harmed and offended. Many have come to realize that it is impossible to engage Mr. Trejbal in intelligent discourse on any subject of significance because he is completely blinded by his bigotry and lies. Since I know that Mr. Trejbal will disagree with that view here are two definitions of "Bigotry", read his articles, observe his behavior toward his critics and decide for your self-

"The Oxford Dictionary defines a bigot as a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others. It’s noteworthy that this definition doesn’t go so far as to explicitly define those views or opinions. It is their views and others opinions. Ownership is all that matters."

Wikipedia defines Bigot in the following way-

"A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his own. The origin of the word bigot in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of "religious hypocrite", especially a woman. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to their prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false."

No one really expects a truthful response at this point either because Mr. Trejbal and the Roanoke Times have lied from the start. This was clearly NOT the "first in a series of articles on sunshine laws" as they claimed. It was the only article. It was NOT about "sunshine laws", it was about finding an excuse to publish the list of names and addresses of lawful concealed weapons permit holders to harass them. It was NOT about "finding out who in the valley is "Packing".", as he said, the list they published covered the entire state. It was NOT fair to these lawful citizens, because he suggests that they should be treated the same way we treat child molesters. It was NOT a test to see if FOIA worked. If it was, simply printing the fact that the list was provided would have sufficed. But most important, this publication was done in direct violation of the published privacy policies of both the Roanoke Times and it's parent company Landmark Communications. Don't take my word for it, look on their websites and see for your self.

A child caught lying will frequently resort to silence. Mr. Trejbal chooses to hide behind the armed guard, paid for by the Roanoke Times, and yell at HIS pleasure about the first amendment and insisting he has done nothing wrong, while ignoring the reality of the actual harm he has caused. This is the act of a child throwing a temper tantrum, not an educated adult. The situation is aggravated by his censorship of postings to lists like this one if he does not like the opinions expressed, and his failure to discuss the issue without using sarcasm and ad homonym attacks (these are facts that also prove his bigotry).

It is interesting to note that in the last article on this subject there is a quote from a Lawyer and lobbyist named Dalglish. She specializes in helping reporters defend their actions in first amendment issues. I am not certain why Mr. Trejbal would need a lawyer unless he knows he has done something wrong. It is also unclear why the Times never disclosed that Mr. Trejbal has had a long standing relationship with Ms. Dalglish prior to quoting her as supporting his publication of the list. She is clearly not an unbiased source that can judge the ethics of Mr Trejbal's actions in this matter. She is not even an ethicist, she is a lawyer. But she IS a "for hire opinion" based on her advocacy of "responsible" use of information by the press in this article http://openthegovernment.org/article/articleview/195/1/14?TopicID= on the one hand, and her support for what has been called misuses by many professional ethicists in this case. So the Times lied about this "expert" and the true nature of her preexisting relationship with Mr. Trejbal.

Many at the Times, along with Ms. Dalglish have claimed that this issue is about a "clash between the first and second amendments." Nothing could be farther from the truth. This is about publishing the names and street addresses of people in a searchable data base on the internet, where there would be NO accountability for its access or use, when the expressed privacy policy of the Times forbids such publication. While it is true that the court files are available to the public under FOIA, they are NOT kept in a searchable electronic format, they are NOT available on the internet, and when people access them at the courthouse the court knows who accessed them. Read Mr. Trejbal's article again, he admits that all these things are true.

Ask yourself this simple question, would not publishing the list of names with just the city and permit expiration date have provided readers with sufficient information without the actual house number and street address? Of course it would. Doing that would not have violated peoples privacy rights or placed anyones life or property in danger, and it follows the precedent already set by any number of other responsible newspapers. But what they did was a simple act of terrorism driven by bigotry, and hatred, under the guise of journalism. It was malicious, it was intentional, and it was a fraud against the readers and citizens of Virginia. Virginian's have fought long and hard to eliminate bigotry, and many do not like it when they see it no matter the source or the target. THAT is what the Times and Mr. Trejbal did not see, and THAT is the real issue here.

# 33

[March 20, 2007 9:52 AM]

Rusty

Take a deep breath . . .

First, just to contribute some perspective, I was among the law-abiding Virginians "outed" by the Roanoke Times' thinly veiled assault on lawful gun ownership. Or, more specifically, some unfortunate soul who now lives where I used to live has been placed in some jeopardy. I'm hundreds of miles away now.

Second, please remember that a news organization's core business is sensation, not news. That's why you see every fire, every weird crime, and 24/7 Nicolevision for weeks. Despite the sanctimonious narcissistic self congratulations of the editorial staff, a newspaper is a business. It survives by persuading advertisers that readers will encounter their ads while wading through the other muck and drivel.

Third (and I'm confident my lawful friends will agree with me) the way to influence a business is by cutting off its money supply. If you are outraged by the Times' slant, editorially and in the "news" sections, cancel your subscription, walk away from the paper boxes, and call the advertisers who are paying considerable sums to place ads in the stacks of unsold papers every day and tell them that their messages are rotting on the streets. Suggest radio, or television, or a web site, or email if they wish to reach their customers and prospects. Businesses, as a group, do not have a political agenda; they are economic machines.

Fourth: Work toward a legislative fix, but don't expect the RT to support you. They have declared their prejudice; ignore them. Like a flasher in a trenchcoat and kneesocks, they'll shrivel up and go away if nobody pays any attention. Whatever you do, don't contribute to any more sensation, like the pathetic DHL-label story. As proven by the paper's about-face about posting the list, they really don't have the testicular fortitude to accept the consequences of their decisions.. . . but it kept the "story" alive another day, right? Sensation.