Can You Believe This?!?!
- Thread starter mxwelch
- Start date
Mike Irwin
Staff
"One possible irony is that Trejbal’s stated intent to trumpet open records could result in their being slammed shut."
You know, I spent 18 months as a newspaper reporter for a small paper in central Pennsylvania back in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
I often jousted with local officials over FOIA information.
But, I still contend that a LOT of the "open" information that is currently available by law simply should not be. There is NO compelling reason for much of this information to be printed in a newspaper other than to titilate arguments about "First Amendment Rights."
Yes, this information is generated by the actions of a governmental entity, but it's MY information. It's not the government's. That I provide them with that information doesn't mean that I freely surrender my right to have a say in how it's being used.
The Roanoke Times is now discovering that as part of their exercise in "unintended consequences," and that their publishing this list will could well have the opposite effect of what was originally intended is simply delicious.
You know, I spent 18 months as a newspaper reporter for a small paper in central Pennsylvania back in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
I often jousted with local officials over FOIA information.
But, I still contend that a LOT of the "open" information that is currently available by law simply should not be. There is NO compelling reason for much of this information to be printed in a newspaper other than to titilate arguments about "First Amendment Rights."
Yes, this information is generated by the actions of a governmental entity, but it's MY information. It's not the government's. That I provide them with that information doesn't mean that I freely surrender my right to have a say in how it's being used.
The Roanoke Times is now discovering that as part of their exercise in "unintended consequences," and that their publishing this list will could well have the opposite effect of what was originally intended is simply delicious.
invention_45
New member
Mike Irwin:
I am not trying to argue that his publishing the list doesn't matter because it isn't the gun owners on the list who will be targeted.
What I am saying is that he is helping ruin the shell game that concealing a weapon attempts to implement. It is putting the non-gun-concealing public at more danger than it is putting the gun-concealing public at.
Now the criminals know where NOT to do a home invasion, because they know specifically where they are the most likely to be greeted by lead.
If this "journalist" is a non-gun-owner, has no CCWL, and is not on the list, he has shot himself and other innocent citizens in the foot.
I am, of course, a gun owner with a CCWL. My neighbors generally know it, and that probably means the general neighborhood, including the criminal parts, know it too. They also know I'm on alert beause of a stalking situation.
Conclusion they are likely to make: When I'm home, my gun is there and perhaps selecting a different victim would make sense. When I'm not, no point in burgling for it; it isn't there, because I'm carrying it.
I happen to know a criminal quite well. He's a defendant in two cases in which I'm the victim. He reads the papers every Sunday at least. He doesn't do internet. I, on the other hand, don't.
---
It's not the effect the idiot journalist will cause by publishing the names and addresses that is bothersome to me. It's the clearly malicious intent, analogous to publishing the names and addresses of all HIV infectees, or the names and addresses of all mentally retarded individuals who are unlikely to be able to defend themselves, or the names and addresses of every individual in a band of income/asset level that would entice a lawyer to sue but would not be enough to put up a legal fight. It's unethical and mean-spirited, and if he worked for me and that was the best he could do to carry out his duties, I'd fire him.
I am not trying to argue that his publishing the list doesn't matter because it isn't the gun owners on the list who will be targeted.
What I am saying is that he is helping ruin the shell game that concealing a weapon attempts to implement. It is putting the non-gun-concealing public at more danger than it is putting the gun-concealing public at.
Now the criminals know where NOT to do a home invasion, because they know specifically where they are the most likely to be greeted by lead.
If this "journalist" is a non-gun-owner, has no CCWL, and is not on the list, he has shot himself and other innocent citizens in the foot.
I am, of course, a gun owner with a CCWL. My neighbors generally know it, and that probably means the general neighborhood, including the criminal parts, know it too. They also know I'm on alert beause of a stalking situation.
Conclusion they are likely to make: When I'm home, my gun is there and perhaps selecting a different victim would make sense. When I'm not, no point in burgling for it; it isn't there, because I'm carrying it.
I happen to know a criminal quite well. He's a defendant in two cases in which I'm the victim. He reads the papers every Sunday at least. He doesn't do internet. I, on the other hand, don't.
---
It's not the effect the idiot journalist will cause by publishing the names and addresses that is bothersome to me. It's the clearly malicious intent, analogous to publishing the names and addresses of all HIV infectees, or the names and addresses of all mentally retarded individuals who are unlikely to be able to defend themselves, or the names and addresses of every individual in a band of income/asset level that would entice a lawyer to sue but would not be enough to put up a legal fight. It's unethical and mean-spirited, and if he worked for me and that was the best he could do to carry out his duties, I'd fire him.
JuanCarlos
New member
Obviously it isn't just Republicans or conservatives (or the subset where the two overlap) who are upset about this; you're talking to a liberal Democrat who things this is a load of crap, too.
But when the person I was replying to (and quoted) starts throwing out all the buzzwords like "liberal elitist journalist" (guess he couldn't get "leftist" in there), I felt the need to suggest, possibly with some level or sarcasm (because not all us "liberals" are okay with this either) that his anger might be misplaced.
In the first 17 comments of this thread, the idea that perhaps the state shouldn't be releasing this info was mentioned only once as far as I'm seeing. The idea that perhaps the state bears a large portion of the responsibility for this mishap wasn't brought up until post 18, by me. And still a majority of posts seem focused on the one jerkoff journalist who named names rather than the great state of Virginia that helped him do it.
To me it seems like a lot of people aren't seeing the forest for the liberal elitist trees.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Well I reckon I am dumber than...
WildratherthanapocryphalstoriesfromgrandmamystatementisbasedoninformalresearchbutheyimjustadummythatswhatyagetwhenyabuckthehueandcryAlaska
From the Times website:
My guess is that there were more than 36 cancelled subscriptions. And that it wasn't "caution and concern for the public" that forced the removal of the list, but the threat of some serious litigation. I suspect that a lawsuit will be forthcoming as at least one instance of a violent encounter can be traced to this list.
The list is public information by law, which may be an oversight. If the state restricted the level of information available, that might be permissible (such as aggregate data like permit holders by age, race, gender, geographic area, etc).
Without a legal restriction against releasing the data, government agencies are generally duty bound to release it in response to a FOIA request.
And rightfully so. A careful review of the information and what should be available needs to be done. You DO want the ability to ensure that permits are not being denied unfairly (such as in NYC, CA, etc.) which is where aggregate information is useful.
Because you CAN get information from the government doesn't mean you SHOULD publish it. The impact to some people can be tremendous, such as those who have relocated to avoid abusive or threatening persons.
What a crock. According to an earlier article, Trejbal arrived at home, was seen opening the box before calling police. If the $&#^@ thing was full of DHL address labels and mailing envelopes, what was the point of calling the police? (Except to play up the "poor little me..all these violent gun people are dissin' me" aspect?) Maybe someone at DHL figured he'd have to be sending out plenty of resumes soon.
My guess is that there were more than 36 cancelled subscriptions. And that it wasn't "caution and concern for the public" that forced the removal of the list, but the threat of some serious litigation. I suspect that a lawsuit will be forthcoming as at least one instance of a violent encounter can be traced to this list.
The list is public information by law, which may be an oversight. If the state restricted the level of information available, that might be permissible (such as aggregate data like permit holders by age, race, gender, geographic area, etc).
Without a legal restriction against releasing the data, government agencies are generally duty bound to release it in response to a FOIA request.
And rightfully so. A careful review of the information and what should be available needs to be done. You DO want the ability to ensure that permits are not being denied unfairly (such as in NYC, CA, etc.) which is where aggregate information is useful.
Because you CAN get information from the government doesn't mean you SHOULD publish it. The impact to some people can be tremendous, such as those who have relocated to avoid abusive or threatening persons.
What a crock. According to an earlier article, Trejbal arrived at home, was seen opening the box before calling police. If the $&#^@ thing was full of DHL address labels and mailing envelopes, what was the point of calling the police? (Except to play up the "poor little me..all these violent gun people are dissin' me" aspect?) Maybe someone at DHL figured he'd have to be sending out plenty of resumes soon.
Let it Bleed
New member
Disagreement is good for spirited debate.
My only point is that just because something is a public record, I don't think it wise or prudent for it to be published. The fourth estate has responsibilities far beyond the letter of the law.
I want my government to be as open as possible to public scrutiny. I realize this was ostensibly an editorial, but the reality is that it was an attack on concealed carry laws and those who choose to exercise a personal decision.
If a journalist found permits were issued to those who were prohibited from even possessing a firearm, that's news.
Obeying the law is the minimum of personal responsibility. There are activities, which while legal, are morally or ethically wrong. What these activities may be, and the role of civil disobedience, is obviously open to debate.
My only point is that just because something is a public record, I don't think it wise or prudent for it to be published. The fourth estate has responsibilities far beyond the letter of the law.
I want my government to be as open as possible to public scrutiny. I realize this was ostensibly an editorial, but the reality is that it was an attack on concealed carry laws and those who choose to exercise a personal decision.
If a journalist found permits were issued to those who were prohibited from even possessing a firearm, that's news.
Obeying the law is the minimum of personal responsibility. There are activities, which while legal, are morally or ethically wrong. What these activities may be, and the role of civil disobedience, is obviously open to debate.
Average bad guys aren't fans of going to government buildings to request information, especially if they are required to provide their ID (and/or pay a fee) to access the information. But if someone does the work for them, they'll certainly take advantage of the information.
Very possibly correct. However, some of these abusive types won't think of using the CCW permit process to locate their ex-spouses. And we've seen that even the knowledge that they have a gun won't dissuade some of these jerks from coming around to harrass and threaten their victims.
Yes and no. The legislature can determine there is a public interest in not restricting access to information it collects. Not too many years ago, you could request the registration info on any California vehicle to find out who owned it. CA first changed it to notify the owner of who had made the request and then removed the access altogether after stalkers used it to locate their victims. The original reasoning was to allow accident parties to get contact info for other vehicles.
I'm afraid this is an ignorant statement. I know a couple of people who did, in fact, get a restraining order and then had to relocate to avoid threatening individuals. Restraining orders are a cruel joke in many cases. In one case I know of, even though there was an R.O. against the threatening party, police refused to arrest or cite him for repeated violations. The neighbors got tired of it before the cops did and managed to get him charged.
Changing names is not an option for some people. Some folks have built careers and/or businesses based on their names. Additionally, government records often include a referral to a name-change that can accessed.
Wildalaska
Moderator
No, they dont...their responsibility is to sell newspapers and make money.
What a great sales technique...get the crowd riled up over nothing, get threatening letters, editorialize about evil gun owners sell papers papers papers.
WildbeatingadeadhorseAlaska
JuanCarlos
New member
Good point.
Yes, the legislature can determine this. I'm saying the Virginia legislature made a huge mistake when they made their determination in this case.
See, and here I see another failing on the part of the government that needs to be rectified.
True, though again I believe in many states such records can't be accessed in certain situations, such as victims of domestic violence. But I do agree that somebody shouldn't have to go through the trouble. I'm just saying that living and doing business under the same name isn't exactly deep cover. If this is somebody's idea of "in hiding," I hope whoever they're hiding from is either incredibly unmotivated or incredibly stupid.
Without doubt. There may well also be activities that, while illegal, are morally (and maybe ethically...but probably not) right. You'll have no problem getting me to say what this reported did was morally wrong. But I still think the bulk of the legal responsibility lies with the state.
Let it Bleed
New member
Is this based on cynism or objectivism?
Damn horse just won't die!
JuanCarlos
New member
Hit it harder!
criminals are already disucssing
the criminals are already discussing this
the following was edited for foul lang. not content
THEN GET THE f*** OUT OF BAD IDEAS, C****S*****.
You hold a CCW, you care about your RKBA rights. Good for you, have a cookie! You also have zero f***ing business in this forum, unless you're going to pull a "I'm interested in all the criminal activity stuff EXCEPT that which might interfere with my personal ideologies" which is basically a way of saying "I am unable to deal with anything without heavily rationalizing it because I am a weakminded pussy."
Edited to add: You are a g** d***** mouth breathing inbred moron if you somehow think that anyone here speaks for "those fighting for their 2nd amendment rights." My g**, that whole sentence from you was so retarded that it made my brain try to gnaw it's way to freedom in the scant second I spent skimming it. We're criminals, b***h! We're NOT on your side! If you don't like it, go back to the gunny websites. This isn't a f*****g gunny website and just because some of us are skilled with guns (hell, I've taken classes with Suarez since 02 but only because he's the only good non-square range trainer that doesn't do a background check) doesn't mean we're goody goody types who care about the 2nd. I'll always have guns, no matter what laws are passed, and I'll use them to further my own ends. F*** everyone else.
[This message has been edited by CmereYou (edited 03-12-2007).]
the above was to a response from a CCW holder about laws.
this is kind of scary.
See my signature
the criminals are already discussing this
the following was edited for foul lang. not content
THEN GET THE f*** OUT OF BAD IDEAS, C****S*****.
You hold a CCW, you care about your RKBA rights. Good for you, have a cookie! You also have zero f***ing business in this forum, unless you're going to pull a "I'm interested in all the criminal activity stuff EXCEPT that which might interfere with my personal ideologies" which is basically a way of saying "I am unable to deal with anything without heavily rationalizing it because I am a weakminded pussy."
Edited to add: You are a g** d***** mouth breathing inbred moron if you somehow think that anyone here speaks for "those fighting for their 2nd amendment rights." My g**, that whole sentence from you was so retarded that it made my brain try to gnaw it's way to freedom in the scant second I spent skimming it. We're criminals, b***h! We're NOT on your side! If you don't like it, go back to the gunny websites. This isn't a f*****g gunny website and just because some of us are skilled with guns (hell, I've taken classes with Suarez since 02 but only because he's the only good non-square range trainer that doesn't do a background check) doesn't mean we're goody goody types who care about the 2nd. I'll always have guns, no matter what laws are passed, and I'll use them to further my own ends. F*** everyone else.
[This message has been edited by CmereYou (edited 03-12-2007).]
the above was to a response from a CCW holder about laws.
this is kind of scary.
See my signature
Posted on THR forum, just passing the word:http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=261555&page=12
badbob
badbob
http://www.thehawkeye.com/features/FOI/foi3.html
Nothing new here in Iowa.
Created quite a stink a few years back when the Cedar Rapids Gazette started printing the names of CCW holders in Linn and the 8 surrounding counties, but unfourtunately it is covered under FOIA. Your CCW is a matter of public record. It can be veiwed by anyone at any time.
Nothing new here in Iowa.
Created quite a stink a few years back when the Cedar Rapids Gazette started printing the names of CCW holders in Linn and the 8 surrounding counties, but unfourtunately it is covered under FOIA. Your CCW is a matter of public record. It can be veiwed by anyone at any time.paramedic70002
New member
New article in the Roanoke times
I have highlighted the sections that we should pay particular attention to.
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/108899
Officials to consider closing records on gun permits
The panel is expected to form a work group to examine whether the General Assembly should restrict public access to concealed handgun information.
By Laurence Hammack
A state senator who heads an open records council is calling for a study of whether the identities of Virginians who have permits to carry concealed handguns should remain public.
Sen. Edd Houck, a Spotsylvania County Democrat who chairs the state's Freedom of Information Council, made the request in the wake of controversy generated by The Roanoke Times.
Earlier this week, the newspaper published and then pulled from its Web site a database containing the names and addresses of about 135,000 state residents who have obtained court permission to carry concealed handguns.
Although the information is public record, hundreds of readers and permit holders have complained that making the data so easily accessible on the Internet invaded their privacy and could make them targets of crime.
House Majority Leader Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, who is the vice chairman of the FOI council, said other people -- himself included -- who don't carry concealed handguns could also be put at risk.
"Maybe I need to be on that list," Griffith said. "I'm such a strong gun advocate that I thought I was safe because people just assumed that I had one. Now they know that I don't."
The council is expected to form a work group when it meets Monday in Richmond. After researching the issue and holding public hearings, the group will make recommendations that could lead next year's General Assembly to restrict or eliminate access to concealed handgun information.
"We're going to try to make sure that we protect folks," Griffith said.
One proposal is that Virginia follow the lead of Vermont, the only state that does not require its residents to obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun. "There are people advocating that," Griffith said, adding that he was not sure how far that idea might go.
The issue hit a flash point Sunday, when the database was posted on roanoke.com to supplement an opinion piece about open government by editorial writer Christian Trejbal.
As angry reaction flooded the newspaper's phone lines and Web site, president and publisher Debbie Meade announced Monday that the database was being taken down out of concerns that Virginia State Police, who released the information at the paper's request, might have included the names of crime victims in violation of state law.
The next day, state police said that was not the case. In fact, the state Freedom of Information Advisory Council issued an opinion in 2001 that found police are within their legal rights to release such data.
But the information remains off line as the debate continues.
Houck said he decided to ask for the study after citizens called his office to complain about the newspaper. While it was not a great number of calls, "the intensity was pretty strong," he said.
"This is one of those classic issues where you've got personal privacy rights bumping up against the public's right to know."
I have highlighted the sections that we should pay particular attention to.
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/108899
Officials to consider closing records on gun permits
The panel is expected to form a work group to examine whether the General Assembly should restrict public access to concealed handgun information.
By Laurence Hammack
A state senator who heads an open records council is calling for a study of whether the identities of Virginians who have permits to carry concealed handguns should remain public.
Sen. Edd Houck, a Spotsylvania County Democrat who chairs the state's Freedom of Information Council, made the request in the wake of controversy generated by The Roanoke Times.
Earlier this week, the newspaper published and then pulled from its Web site a database containing the names and addresses of about 135,000 state residents who have obtained court permission to carry concealed handguns.
Although the information is public record, hundreds of readers and permit holders have complained that making the data so easily accessible on the Internet invaded their privacy and could make them targets of crime.
House Majority Leader Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, who is the vice chairman of the FOI council, said other people -- himself included -- who don't carry concealed handguns could also be put at risk.
"Maybe I need to be on that list," Griffith said. "I'm such a strong gun advocate that I thought I was safe because people just assumed that I had one. Now they know that I don't."
The council is expected to form a work group when it meets Monday in Richmond. After researching the issue and holding public hearings, the group will make recommendations that could lead next year's General Assembly to restrict or eliminate access to concealed handgun information.
"We're going to try to make sure that we protect folks," Griffith said.
One proposal is that Virginia follow the lead of Vermont, the only state that does not require its residents to obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun. "There are people advocating that," Griffith said, adding that he was not sure how far that idea might go.
The issue hit a flash point Sunday, when the database was posted on roanoke.com to supplement an opinion piece about open government by editorial writer Christian Trejbal.
As angry reaction flooded the newspaper's phone lines and Web site, president and publisher Debbie Meade announced Monday that the database was being taken down out of concerns that Virginia State Police, who released the information at the paper's request, might have included the names of crime victims in violation of state law.
The next day, state police said that was not the case. In fact, the state Freedom of Information Advisory Council issued an opinion in 2001 that found police are within their legal rights to release such data.
But the information remains off line as the debate continues.
Houck said he decided to ask for the study after citizens called his office to complain about the newspaper. While it was not a great number of calls, "the intensity was pretty strong," he said.
"This is one of those classic issues where you've got personal privacy rights bumping up against the public's right to know."
paramedic70002
New member
House Majority Leader Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, who is the vice chairman of the FOI council, said other people -- himself included -- who don't carry concealed handguns could also be put at risk.
"Maybe I need to be on that list," Griffith said. "I'm such a strong gun advocate that I thought I was safe because people just assumed that I had one. Now they know that I don't."
Wow. He admits to not having a gun? Well good for him to realize he needs one!
"We're going to try to make sure that we protect folks," Griffith said.
This is one statement to remember when feet need to be held to the fire.
My latest letter to the editor:
I was glad to see that the Roanoke Times took down the gun permit database, out of a concern for safety and caution. But then I learned that a guard was hired for Mr. Trejbal's home.
Exactly who's safety was important in making this decision? Mr. Trejbal, or the countless thousands of Virginians affected by the article?
I've been waiting for my armed guard to show up. You have my address.
xxxx xxxx
"Maybe I need to be on that list," Griffith said. "I'm such a strong gun advocate that I thought I was safe because people just assumed that I had one. Now they know that I don't."
Wow. He admits to not having a gun? Well good for him to realize he needs one!
"We're going to try to make sure that we protect folks," Griffith said.
This is one statement to remember when feet need to be held to the fire.
My latest letter to the editor:
I was glad to see that the Roanoke Times took down the gun permit database, out of a concern for safety and caution. But then I learned that a guard was hired for Mr. Trejbal's home.
Exactly who's safety was important in making this decision? Mr. Trejbal, or the countless thousands of Virginians affected by the article?
I've been waiting for my armed guard to show up. You have my address.
xxxx xxxx
