Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Forum at

Why should YOU join our forums?

  • Reason #1
  • Reason #2
  • Reason #3

Site Description

Newport News DAILY PRESS CCW Call for Responses

Discussion in 'Glockers of the Old Dominion' started by Auburn, Mar 27, 2007.

  1. Auburn

    Auburn WAR EAGLE!

    Apr 24, 2005
    Knoxville, TN
    The Newport Nws newspaper is asking for public comment on the CCW issue. Here is their article:

    link to story

    What do you think?
    Should names of concealed-weapons holders be shielded?
    March 27, 2007
    There's a move underfoot to deny the public access to some information that is now open: the identity of those who have permits to carry concealed weapons.

    That information is available on request to the public, from the state police or maybe a local court, but there's no handy registry you can check online.

    Some gun-rights advocates don't think the public has a right to the information, and they have been successful in getting it secreted in other states. The latest flare-up is in Virginia, precipitated when The Roanoke Times posted on its Web site a list of the names and addresses of permit holders statewide. The controversy got so ugly that an editorial writer was threatened, and the newspaper took down the list (citing questions about accuracy). Now there's a state group looking at the issue and a push for the legislature to lock up the records.

    Should that be public information? What do you think?

    Under what circumstances would someone want to know who - among their neighbors or workmates - might be armed? Does publicizing permit holders' identity put them at risk? Does keeping it secret put the public at risk?

    Because permitting is a governmental process, should there be a presumption in favor of open government? Should information on gun permits be as available as that on other government-issued permits, like marriage and medical licenses? Does the fact that guns are involved make these government records any different, and does that argue for or against public access?

    It's now easy to find out (online) if someone has been involved in a case at a local court; should it be as easy to find out if they have been issued a concealed-carry permit by the court?

    How much information should be available (full addresses, just street names, just city or county)? In what form - an easily searchable online database, or information released by request? Should it be published in newspapers, as it is in some Virginia communities?

    Is there a right to privacy here? If there is, is it trumped by the public's right to know?

    What do you think?

    As you consider, remember this: A permit isn't required to carry a weapon. Except for a few excluded groups, such as convicted felons, and odd exceptions, anyone can carry a loaded gun just about anywhere except schools, courthouses, churches, airports and restaurants that serve alcohol.

    A permit is required only to carry a weapon that's hidden rather than in the open. And concealed-carry permits aren't hard to get. All you have to do is file an application, pay a fee, provide minimal documentation of competence with a gun and submit to a criminal history check.

    There's a list of people who can't get them; some of the conditions could be verified (like certain kinds of convictions), some a court would be hard-pressed to know about (like using marijuana). Would public scrutiny offer a check on those folks who shouldn't get permits, but got past the screening process?

    So what do you think?

    Let us know, following the instructions in the accompanying box. We'll consider readers' opinions as we prepare an editorial on the subject, and print as many as we can.

    NOTE: Their email address is
  2. Wolfgang

    Wolfgang Millennium Member

    Oct 6, 1999
    I'd rather see a list of those who carry a weapon with no other words carry illegally.

  3. stooxie

    stooxie NRA Life Member

    Apr 10, 2005
    Northern Virginia
    Here's my response: