VA: An attack by the press (Virginia Pilot publishes CCW list)
Date: Mar 25, 2007 6:20 PM
Here is every reason to avoid concealed carry weapon (CCW) permit laws.
Not only do they place honest citizen through a series of hurdles and
expense, while not impede criminals in the least. The CCW permits
create a data base for misuse and infringing the privacy of the law-abiding.

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/110193

Sunday, March 25, 2007
Email storyPrint storyShare story RSS feeds
An attack by the press

Bradford B. Wiles

Wiles, of Craig County, is a graduate student in human development at Virginia Tech and a Virginia Citizens Defense League member.

I would like to congratulate Christian Trejbal on his ability to not only obtain public information from the government, but also publish it online. As a proud, published concealed handgun permit (CHP) holder, I had no issue with my name being in the list. Most everyone I know is well aware of my exercising my right to keep and bear arms.

I was not “outed” by the list published by The Roanoke Times, but there were others who were.

These individuals needed to obtain a CHP for the specific purpose of being able to defend themselves against a known attacker, usually an estranged ex-spouse or ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend. Many of these people have gone to great lengths to protect themselves from discovery by these people, yet Trejbal has the lack of foresight to post their names and addresses for all to see.

While I realize that the information contained in a CHP application is public record, there is a difference between having to go through the effort to find the information and having it readily available at your fingertips.

Regardless, this is public information and if he really wants to, he can publish it. I have to question the wisdom of someone intentionally angering those people known to be armed, but the flip side is that those are the people he needs to worry about the least.

CHP holders are far less likely to engage in any crime than the general public, and far less likely to engage in violent crime with a gun than the general population.

In short, CHP holders are generally the good guys — they have gone through the background check, provided their information to the government and have taken the time to get training on safe firearm practices.

Regardless of his flagrant abuse of the First Amendment by publishing the names of all Virginia CHP holders, Trejbal’s likening CHP holders to sex offenders is unconscionable. “A state that eagerly puts sex offender data online complete with an interactive map could easily do the same with gun permits, but it does not.”

To clarify, there is at least one good reason to provide sex offender data, namely sex offenders have committed a crime deemed especially heinous. CHP holders are the antithesis of this: They are law-abiding citizens. Do we need a list of people who exercise the rights afforded them by the U.S. Constitution?

Maybe we need a database of all people who use the First Amendment. I think I would rather have my children surrounded by a community of CHP holders than surrounded by a community of reporters, especially those reporters with questionable integrity (i.e. those who might “out” law-abiding citizens’ CHP status).

I find it painful that the author pleads that this was all in the name of open government. If it weren’t so conniving and hurtful to those whose confidentiality is of paramount importance, this would be laughable.

If he wants to expose the government, then expose it, but exposing government records of the public is not open government. It’s more like snooping into private citizens’ lives.

If he had wanted to publish all of the holders of public office with CHPs then that might be closer to the credo of open government. As it stands, it’s just plain rude.

The author’s opinion is that people have a right to know. If, as the author puts it, “Parents might like to know if a member of the car pool has a pistol in the glove box,” what’s the harm in just asking them?

In addition, the statement, “Employers might like to know if employees are bringing weapons to the office” is a false assertion. Just because one has a CHP does not mean that he or she violates company or school policies by carrying a gun. Again, if you want to find out if someone is armed, the polite and civil thing to do is ask.

Finally, I take issue with the author’s assertion, “There are plenty of reasons to question the wisdom of widespread gun ownership, too.” Yes, I am sure that the Founding Fathers’ wisdom needs to be questioned, particularly when they made a specific provision for gun ownership.

The Washington, D.C., Circuit Court of Appeals recently questioned the wisdom of widespread gun prohibition, and struck down the 1976 D.C. gun ban. However, since we are in the mood for questioning, then I have to question the wisdom of widespread authoring and publication of articles that are clearly inflammatory.

The Second Amendment IS Homeland Security !