News chain plans a data base for CCW permits
Fox News reports that a national chain of newspapers is planning to build a broad database of concealed carry permit holders as if that means something. Maybe if they wanted to do something useful, they’d build a state-by-state database of people who have CCW permits and have committed a crime. It’d be a pretty short list because the whole point is to only have honest law-abiding people with a sanction by the states to carry concealed weapons in public.
The plan, laid out in an email from a top editor at North Carolina-based Civitas Media, could be similar to a controversial project a New York state newspaper carried out in 2012 which included an online map that identified gun owners in two counties by name and address. Civitas’ database project was detailed in a Jan. 19 e-mail to newsrooms across the chain, which has papers in 11 states, including Ohio, Illinois and Pennsylvania.
The newest project “examines the explosion of ‘conceal and carry’ gun permits across the U.S.,” wrote Jim Lawitz, Civitas’ director of content, in an e-mail first obtained by the Buckeye Firearms Association. “Through public records act requests, we will attempt to build state-by-state databases that list those who have the right to carry a concealed weapon.”
The legislators and the courts have already determined that there is no “right” to carry a concealed weapon – hence, the licensing requirements. Like driving a car isn’t a “right” If it was a “right” we wouldn’t need permission. Obviously, Jim Lawitz isn’t a scholar, and I’m guessing that he thinks “rights” come from the government. This is what happens when utter morons inject themselves into discussions they don’t understand.
If I wanted to find out who in my neighborhood has a CCW, I’d file my own FOIA, but then, I’m not a lazy, stank-ass hippie hand-wringer who doesn’t know how to file a FOIA and I don’t demand that I be spoon-fed the ingredients for my nightmares by a compliant left-leaning media. I’d prefer that all of my neighbors have CCW permits, that way I’d know that I’m surrounded by law-abiding citizens who have cleared a rigorous background check and handgun training for whatever weapons they might own.
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists
Well, a couple of things on this. First, I don’t care whether they publish the names and addresses or not. It may be that a few burglars read the stuff and, “No way I’m hitting that house!” In other words, it may prove to be a useful tool of the criminal, in which case people who don’t have a permit may acquire one for no other purpose than hoping to avoid victimization by having their vitals published. Second, states can enact laws shielding the info from public disclosure. In some states it’s called a Public Information Act; in others, it’s a Freedom of Info Act. The point is, the potential release can be stopped. Third, um–third, I forgot. Shit. I hate it when that happens. Trust me. It was probably the best of the three I meant to list.
Scumbags playing a dangerous game.
In an age where people are liable for everything, this is somehow legal and legit?
I guess they think that publishing the names of those with CCWs will shame them into giving up their license and weapons somehow. Whatever. More pointless leftist histrionics. But at least they will feeeeeeeel better, having done something and all.
@1 Louisiana is one of the states which have made it illegal to disclose who has a CCW; not sure of the others.
Wow! A data base of law-abiding citizens. What a concept!
These folks seriously need to get lives. They obviously have too much time on their hands.
So, let’s see. That will give us three lists: there is already a data base of all criminals in the country, they are adding a list of (presumably armed) law abiding citizens, which will leave all the rest as a list of victims. Yep. Sounds about right.
“Everybody line up now. Be sure you get on the correct plantation. Citizens over here. Subjects over there.”
@2. Yes and yes. If it’s government-generated information–and it is–then unless it is excluded by law from disclosure, it can be published. Statutorily unrestricted information that is requested can also be denied by a gov’t, but the denial can be appealed and the burden is on the gov’t to establish that the info ought not be disclosed for any one of a number of reasons. But it’s all very legal.
“The legislators and the courts have already determined that there is no “right” to carry a concealed weapon – hence, the licensing requirements.”
The problem with this reasoning is that the “legislators and courts” don’t determine what’s a “right.” According to our founding documents, rights are God-given. And according to the US Constitution, you do have a “right” to “bear arms.” Not “own,” not “possess.” It’s a right to “bear.” To the extent that you can be arrested for exercising that right – you’ve been screwed, dude.
I’m not justifying what the courts and legislatures have done, I’m just clarifying the language. There is no “reasoning” involved, just a statement of facts as they currently exist. My point is that if it was indeed a “right” we wouldn’t have regulations, and the courts have supported what legislatures have written.
I have an idea……let’s find out the addresses of the reporters, editors, and sundry other employees of this organization and publish their info in magazine ads nationwide with a large, bold-face disclaimer informing those less than law abiding citizens among us that these people have no ready means of defending themselves. I’m done trying to take the high road with these assholes. Let’s play it their way and put their lives and the lives of THEIR loved ones at risk. See how far they want to take it. MOLON LABE!
@4- Arkansas has also. We had a “journalist”- and I use that term loosely- decide that she had a “moral obligation” to post a copy of the list on her paper’s website the day before the law passed. She didn’t like the reaction she got- something about her home address being published in the comments on that post
Jonn,
I would respectfully disagree and believe that we have an absolute right to carry concealed. That legislatures and courts have ruled otherwise simply means that the correct argument hasn’t been made before them, along with the requisite political pressure.
The 2nd amendment clearly states: “shall not be infringed.” That is as clear as a sunny day in meaning as well as intent. My right, and every other citizen’s right, to keep and bear arms is sacrosanct, and above infringement by ANY government.
That includes licenses, permits, background checks, etc. The ONLY hold on any of that which I could see and support, is the right of the individual property owner to restrict arms from his property, business, etc. That is absolutely in keeping with the concept of personal liberty and responsibility.
But otherwise, we shouldn’t even be having this conversation. There should be NO firearms laws. Nada. Zip. Zero. I and anyone else, ought to be able to carry openly, or otherwise, any weapon we can afford.
We should also be responsible for any damage we cause through those actions, and THAT is where the law should come into play. No restrictions on access or carrying, but hold the owner responsible for any damage he causes through the use of that arm.
V/R
AW1 Tim, You’re not disagreeing with me. I just made a statement of fact. Like I said, this pinhead thinks that our “rights” come from the government. If he was thinking like you and me, he wouldn’t need a FOIA to find people with the RIGHT to carry concealed, he’d just publish the census.
they should instead compile a broad database of women who have had an abortion, because like ann coulter said, “most mothers would want to know if there is a woman in their neighborhood who has killed a baby”…
@ #13: Now there’s an idea! A very rational argument could be made to do just that. There should be no question about those who are doing so on a government dime.
These people are so silly that they are oblivious to just how hypocritical they are. Them being so much more evolved than the rest of us Neanderthals who actually believe that the law applies to all equally.
@9: I’d take it a step further.
Make it clear that if anything happens to any law-abiding citizen on that list and every single reporter at that paper is now legal to hunt. Publish their names and addresses first and give them a running start of course.
Oh, uh, never mind:
http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/24/newspaper-conglomerate-considers-building-massive-database-of-gun-owners/
UPDATE: Following the publication of this report, Civitas Media announced that it rejected its internal proposal to build a database of concealed carry permit holders. Civitas CEO Michael C. Bush, who declined to comment to The Daily Caller because he was boarding a plane this morning, later said in a statement, “A poorly crafted internal memo meant to highlight editorial discussions and planning incorrectly indicated that such a database was being planned; it has been considered and rejected.”
Translated: “Where did THAT shit-storm come from? Knock it off, guys, they found out!”
Commenters under the article had recommended the editors, managers, and reporters get their addresses posted as well, and things seem to have come to a screeching stop.
Good luck doing that in NH. Not only is divulging the name or PIO of CCW holders illegal, it’s illegal to even keep the application paperwork once the permit has been issued.
Who cares if they changed their minds…..publish the names and addreses of those bastard “journalists” anyway. If it’s war you want, then war you shall have. These fuckers need to be slapped down hard. Freedom of the press does not give these assholes the right to violate the rights of others. Besides, I don’t trust reporters or their bosses.
@1: You don’t need a CCW permit to have a firearm in your home, so publishing CCW information is a moot point when it comes to burglars and your home.
I am of the belief that it is no one’s business if I have a CCW permit and it actually takes away the advantage of having one if everyone knows it, so then you might as well open carry.
The progressives have this need to be in everyone’s business and either know what you’re doing, what you’re watching, what you’re eating and they believe they should be able to control that, also, because they think they know better what you need or want.
To those type of people, I say: Screw you and just mind your own business.
@16 VI – They did not need to announce that they were collecting the information. Announcing that they are not doing it has as much authority. They may still do it and use the information to enhance an article, “Last night Bob was arrested for DUI. Bob has a CCW …” and so forth. Or they may just decide to publish later. Or share it with someone relatively close to them in the political spectrum. If they legally harvest the information today and it becomes illegal tomorrow, they have a partial list.
Ladies and gentlemen, I get the “shall not be infringed” part. In Heller SCOTUS said that “shall not” means something but there are limits. Until the Supreme Court rules on what limits are acceptable, we will all live in this checkerboard world where X is legal here but not there and Y is legal there but not here.
In my opinion we need to collect information too. Because the battleground is lawmaking driven by public opinion and the weapon is information.
There IS such a thing as a right to privacy.
The reason ‘celebrities’ guard their home addresses and phone numbers and whatever else so intensely is that without keeping it very private, people who are stalkers can track them down and injure or kill them. This has happened more than once.
While the courts have ruled that people in the public eye have to put up with more intense attention than the rest of us because they are in the public eye, they still have some right to privacy for their own safety.
This privacy issue and violations of it by the media are the reason Piers (tears) Morgan, the snotty Brit who worked for Rupert Murchoch, no longer is an editor of any newspaper anywere. His publication hacked the phone of a teenager who had been kidnapped and murdered, and kept message on that line to make the parents think that she was still alive.
There IS such a thing as invasion of privacy. It’s the reason stalking someone, identity theft, and related crimes are just that: CRIMES. It’s the reason juveniles are not named in criminal investigations until they go for trial.
Publishing the names and addresses of CCW permit holders IS an invasion of privacy that can result in related crimes like home invasion, stalking, and murder.
Any newspaper or magazine editor who thinks it’s okay to engage in that kind of asinine behavior not only needs to experience the direct results and the related crimes of what can happen to the people he’s victimizing, but also needs to have his ass handed to him on the way out the door.
Before everyone gets their panties in a bunch:
Statement from the CEO
Civitas Media never had any plans or intentions of publishing in print or online lists of holders of “conceal and carry” permits. Nor will Civitas Media develop databases of permit holders. A poorly crafted internal memo meant to highlight editorial discussions and planning incorrectly indicated that such a database was being planned; it has been considered and rejected.
Michael C. Bush, CEO
A simple visit to their page and its right on the home screen. I bet it is there because of the resulting shitstorm.
Civitas Media should not be confused with another NC group, Civitas Institute http://www.nccivitas.org/ which is a great pro-freedom operation in Raleigh.