Nevada sheriffs group wants CCW permit names kept secret

[shadowrider]

A law enforcement group wants the Legislature to make secret the names of Nevadans who hold concealed weapons permits.

Frank Adams, executive director of the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, said Thursday that the group supports exempting the names of people who hold concealed carry weapons permits from Nevada's open records law. He said the association will back a bill to do that in the 2011 Legislature.

"We're working on making everything in CCW confidential," Adams said at a concealed weapons forum in Carson City that drew about 200 people and was linked to meetings in Elko and Las Vegas. "I advise (permit holders) to get hold of your lawmakers and support that."

The Nevada Supreme Court ruled in June that while individual applications for permits are confidential, the names of permit holders are public record.

http://www.rgj.com/article/20101001/NEWS10/10010414/1321/NEWS

[old mark]

1. The names of CCW holders are confidential in many states, including PA

where our local sheriff was sued for using the list to mail campaign material. He lost. I have had a License to Carry a Forearm in the state of PA for over 15 years, and I strongly believe the list should remain confidential. It is no one's business but mine, and I want to be protected from harassment by anti-gun fools and I don't want my home targeted by potential gun thieves who get my name and address from public records.


Why does anyone think it is a good idea to make this public?

mark

[zipplewrath]

2. Why isn't it?

All manner of records about us are public. Why would this one get a pass?

[ValhallaChaser]

4. Not True

would you want your medical record made public? I, for one, wouldn't. How about your insurance record made available to the general public? What about your voting record? Some things are just better kept private.

[zipplewrath]

5. Drivers license

My property taxes, not to mention a boat load of info on my land is public record. My mortgage is public record. My utility usage is public record. An awful lot of my dealings with the government are public record. My medical records aren't kept by the government, nor are my insurance records, other than flood insurance that is provided by the goverment. Whether I voted at all is public record, and my voter registration is public record. Why would a CCW permit be a nonpublic record? Is there particularly personally identifying information on it I can't get from other public records?

[oneshooter]

9. Would you willingly make your SS# public?

Would you want your CCL, if you had one, public if you were female who had a RO against a violent SO? How about a stalker, a thief (he would have your home address, and in many cases the type and serial# of your weapon)? There have been cases where a newspaper has published the names and addresses of CCL holders. Would you care for that info to get out?

In Texas all CHL information is available to LEO's only.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[zipplewrath]

11. No

What information in a CCW is comparable to a SS#? How could the information in one be particularly used against someone with a restraining order? You realize that a restraining order is a public document right? How would a thief use it? Is he going to go make a public records request, and then go looking in your house for that particular gun? I still am not hearing what information is available in one that is of particular use against you.

[Euromutt]

40. Your driver's license information isn't public

There's a little something called the Drivers' Privacy Protection Act (18 U.S.C. § 2721-2725), which was passed in 1994 after actress Rebecca Shaeffer was murdered by a stalker who got her address from the California DMV.

[zipplewrath]

64. But your driving record is

Well, at least in most states. These are actually hard discussions to have since most privacy laws are state based and it varies widely across the country. Some states sell the information.

[Euromutt]

78. No, it's not

I quote 18 U.S.C. § 2721(a) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002721----000-.html):

In General.— A State department of motor vehicles, and any officer, employee, or contractor thereof, shall not knowingly disclose or otherwise make available to any person or entity:
(1) personal information, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2725 (3), about any individual obtained by the department in connection with a motor vehicle record, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section; or
(2) highly restricted personal information, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2725 (4), about any individual obtained by the department in connection with a motor vehicle record, without the express consent of the person to whom such information applies, except uses permitted in subsections (b)(1), (b)(4), (b)(6), and (b)(9): Provided, That subsection (a)(2) shall not in any way affect the use of organ donation information on an individual’s driver’s license or affect the administration of organ donation initiatives in the States.

Italics mine. Subsection (b) lays out permissible uses for which information may be released. The list fairly extensive, but what it comes down to is that not every Tom, Dick or Harry can walk into the DMV, give them your name or license plate, and walk out with your home address, date of birth, etc.

Yes, state DMVs have continued to sell information in violation of the DPPA, and they have been successfully sued over it (http://epic.org/privacy/drivers/), as have the buyers of such information. Florida, I understand, has a particularly egregious record of violating federal law in this regard.

[zipplewrath]

84. The list is fairly extensive

That's an understatement. Auto insurance companies always seem to be able to find out.

[Euromutt]

128. Yeah, bottom line is...

...neither the information contained on your driver's license, not that in your driving record, are available to the general public, in spite of your claims to the contrary.

[slackmaster]

6. Some people obtain concealed-weapons permits because they have been threatened or stalked

Why make available to the public information that could be misused by criminals?

[zipplewrath]

7. How would that be misused?

I"m trying to understand the nefarious criminal that is going to take time making a public information request prior to acting. What act are they contemplating and how will they use that information to modify their behavior? Got any examples of this behavior in the public record?

[DonP]

13. Women being stalked by ex's is one of the big reasons

In most states that have addressed this. one of the major tipping points has been the inability of the police to provide any kind of real security to go along with a "piece of paper" restraining order. As a result some women that choose to get a CCW, often an expedited one, do not want a mentally and physically dangerous ex knowing that they are armed and where they live now.

In short is it worth the risk to indulge some anti gun idle curiosity at the risk of a woman's life?

A year or two ago we had a rush of self important newspapers that started to publish the names and addresses of CCW holders as "a public service".

Then two things happened. A woman was tracked by her ex and killed (can't recall where right now - but somebody will remember) and people started to publish the home addresses, phone numbers etc. of the newspaper publishers, editorial boards and editors. That really pissed them off. How dare anybody do to them what they were doing to private citizens.

Pretty much ever state that has had this issue come up has passed legislation banning public access to the information. Any cop can get it, but not the "just curious" types. Since there is absolutely zero evidence that CCW people are any kind of public threat in fact, quite the contrary, nobody seems to have a problem with it.

[zipplewrath]

16. Where they live now

They know where they "live now" if they are staying at a place public enough to get a CCW permit. The restraining order is very clear about "where they live now" and it is a reason some women don't pursue one, because they have to expose where they live in order to do it. If they are at a shelter, or some other temporary location (a relatives, etc.) that wouldn't be on the CCW permit, it would contain their "legal" address.

Quite honestly, stalkers and the like don't really rely upon public records to do their work, and if they did, it would help build the case against them. It can even be the case that they are ordered to not seek this information. As you suggest, it is "just a piece of paper" and they are counseled frequently with "safety plans" about how to avoid danger. They aren't particularly advised to obtain a weapon, and it can actually be a detriment to them if they do.

But if they choose to anyway, the respondent isn't going to be looking into public records of CCW. He's going to read the restraining order, because it's going to tell him to stay away some distance from that address, along with where she works, and schools where children go.....

[slackmaster]

20. You seem to know a lot about what's going on in the minds of stalkers

:hide:

[zipplewrath]

22. Wife works in domestic abuse shelter

She actually works at the court house where people come to submit requests for injunctions. Believe it or not, ALOT of people petition in both directions simultaneously. She talks to ALOT of people who are petitioning, but it's fairly obvious they are the core problem. And she works with the abused to develop "safety plans" to help protect themselves "because it's just a piece of paper" (and the police aren't really good about enforcing them). There are the odd abusers that chase these women across the state and country. But they work with records like phone records, utility records, the post office, etc. to find them. I'm dubious any of them are using CCW to hunt them down. And in a "cross petition" you'd likely be ordered to surrender your weapons for the duration of the restraining order.

[shadowrider]

23. So you'd add the CCW list to the available tools they already have?

To track down and harm the victim? Utility, phone, post office, etc., right?

[zipplewrath]

25. It would be of little use to them

By the time they were served, they'd know exactly where they lived. That's locking the door after the horse is out. And many of the already available sources don't leave any trail of their search. Making a public records request leaves a trail. In the Texas law that was quoted here, you actually get notified if someone requests your public info.

[shadowrider]

26. ok, so why are you saying it should be public if it's no use? n/t

[zipplewrath]

28. Thought you weren't talking to me?

I said it was of little to no use to the stalker/abuser. I'm trying to find out what information is of use to anyone that is detrimental. The closest I understand is a listing of weapons potentially at a particular address. Other than that the only purpose I can think of is for people who want to know if a person is legally carrying, without calling the cops.

[spin]

34. Assume that you are not a nice guy and have a serious grudge against someone ...

and you decide to beat the ever loving shit out of him, or for that matter kill him.

So you check to find out if he has a license to "pack heat".

1) He doesn't. Great!!! You can walk up to him, smile, smack him in the head and break his knee caps with a billie, throw him in the back of your car and take him to a nice isolated area and slice and dice him at your pleasure.

2) He does have a carry permit. You walk up behind him and shoot him in the back of his head and carefully dispose of the firearm.

[zipplewrath]

42. And this nut went down to the office of public records

and found out this information prior to his illegal act. By the way, in doing so he established a trail leading back to him. Oh, and someone developed this grudge without knowing enough about the target to believe it to begin with.

This is the scenario that worries you?

[Euromutt]

44. How about burglars?

Making CCW permit information publicly accessible provides a list to prospective burglars of addresses likely to contain one or more handguns.

[safeinOhio]

56. I would think having a CCW would

increase the odds that the weapon is not in the home to be broke into. It would be with the owner. So, if you break in when the holder is home you get shot. If the holder is not home, chances are the gun won't be either.

I'm neither for or against this. On the one side, I am for privacy. On the other, I'm for open government records. Anyone can pay ten bucks on the internet and find out about anything about some one else. Hell for a hundred bucks there are sites that'll even find out your password for your email account. I'd be more worried about that than anyone knowing if I had a permit.

[X_Digger]

48. google "Rebecca Shaeffer" n/t

[lawodevolution]

52. I wouldn't want an employer who may be a

brady bunch member to be able to find out if I have a CCW because you could be denied a job and never even know why.

[old mark]

10. Why are you so anxious to know who has a concealed carry license?

My reasons are simple - I don't want potential gun thieves to know my name and address, and I don't want anti-gun paranoids to know where I live and harass me.


Really, why do you think you have a right to this information and what do you want to do with it?

mark

ADDED: here in PA, the list of licensed persons is protectred...it is against the law to make this information available to the public. Also, FYI. last I heard - about 5 years ago - there were over 25 thousand persons licensed to carry firearms in this county alone (Berks County, PA)...are you planning to harass all of us?

[zipplewrath]

12. I'm not planning on harrassing anyone

How is the information potentially used against you? It is a public record and typically before we go making public records restricted we explain why the information should be publicly available. There is a huge amount of information already publicly available on each one of us, predominately anything having to do with your dealings with the government. We protect some, but not all, finacial records. But virtually all court records end up as public records. Professional licenses are public records. Inspection documents are public record. I'm curious what is in this public record that is particularly worth of protection.

[shadowrider]

14. Your request has been answered. It's obvious you're not willing to listen.n/t

[old mark]

15. First, the security from theft of my guns---you are certainly against stolen guns.

second, my privacy. I carry a concealed handgun every time I leave my home, and have for over 15 years. You would never know it is there - it is, after all, concealed.

Anti gun people are as bad as RW republicans in wanting control over the lives of others...
and you never answered my question - why do you feel such a need for this information? What is your intention?


mark

[zipplewrath]

18. It's public information

It is by definition, public information. As such, the public has generally been allowed to know. Of course if there is a compelling reason to restrict the information, it can be protected. But there is currently alot of information which is not protected, and I'm wondering what makes this information unique.

I'm only partially understanding the gun theft angle. I presume there is on requirement to list all your guns, at least not the ones that you couldn't carry. Is there any real evidence that thieves are using public records to case their targets? We list the value of homes in public records. We list mortgage values in public records. If any thieves were going to work from public records, that'd be probably where they'd start. For one thing, the request for public records is often, well, public information so it would be a bit of "trail leaving" to the thief. But honestly, I don't really suspect that theives are quite this industrious. I suppose the lone exception would be for a particular gun.

[spin]

36. There is no requirement to list all your firearms in Florida ...

nor are you limited to what firearm you can carry with a concealed weapons permit.

Some people prefer to maintain privacy when it comes to firearms, others do not. I fall in the category of those who advertise the fact that I and my family are armed and that all the adult members of my household have concealed weapons permits.

But I can see value in not wanting to reveal that info.

[shadowrider]

19. Nothing you tell this obvious anti-gun person is going to be good enough, I'm afraid. n/t

[Glassunion]

21. "I'm curious what is in this public record that is particularly worth of protection."

1. It is not a public record.
2. How about Privacy?

I don't think that a lot of "personal" information should be made available to the public.

I don't care if Bob up the street might have a tax lien on his house
I don't care how many points Bob has on his DL if any
I don't care if Bob up the street has had a divorce recently or not
I don't care if Bob up the street has been in court or not
I don't care if Bob may have filed for unemployment or not
I don't care if Bob might newborn or not
I don't care if Bob has maybe passed away or not
I don't care if Bob maybe sold his house or not
I don't care if Bob maybe bought a new house or not
I don't care if Bob maybe has a CCW or not
All of that is Bob's business, not mine, and I don't feel that I have a "right" to any of that information. Where would I get off thinking that I somehow have any claim on that information.

One of the main reasons I am a Democrat, is that I thought that our party believes strongly in an individual "Right" to privacy.

[zipplewrath]

24. To some extent I agree with you

I was shocked, and some what concerned when I bought my first house and found out how much information was out there about us. It bugs me regularly when I get advertising that makes it plain that this information has been used to "target" me. The guy across the street built his house, and there were public plans of his whole layout, including a room labeled "wine cellar" with 8 inch poured conrete walls in the basement with a large steel door.

But as I say, that's pretty much the "system" and considering all that is out there, I'm not sure what would make this particular record worthy of an exception.

[oneshooter]

27. Having them public record leaves out the "surprise" factor

of when and if a spouse finds his abused SO and attacks her again.


SURPRISE!!!! BANG!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[zipplewrath]

30. Which presumes they'll "check"

A very unlikely scenario. They don't really advise that such people arm themselves by the way. But that's another debate.

[shadowrider]

33. It's also unlikely a CCW holder will just open fire on unsuspecting victims

but that doesn't stop anti's from posting ANY and ALL articles regarding ONE ISOLATED incident, to prove ALL guns should be outlawed.

All it takes is ONE TIME for a stalker to use the list, however unlikely, to prove it should be kept secret.

[zipplewrath]

46. Well, okay

But I guess I'm not one of the people who make that kind of argument. And I guess I thought you wouldn't either.

[X_Digger]

49. Newspapers have been publishing this information.. no 'public records check' has to be done..

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/trejbal/wb/108160

No 'paper trail' for criminals / stalkers / angry ex'es in Virginia.

[shadowrider]

29. It's worthy of exception because it's no one's damn business

Whether or not I have a CCW and whether or not I carry.

PERSONAL PRIVACY regarding guns, ok?

[zipplewrath]

31. Why is that superior to other information

I guess that's the core of it. How does this elevate above all the other public information that is available?

[spin]

38. Suppose that you are applying for a job ...

you have a concealed weapons permit.

Your possible employer decides not to hire you based on that fact.

You personally might think that was great based on your own personal feelings toward guns. However In Florida the law can be summarized as:

The statute provides that an “employer”—that is, a business with at least one worker who has a concealed carry permit—may not: (1) prohibit a worker with a concealed-carry permit from securing a gun in a vehicle in a parking lot; (2) prohibit a customer—whether or not he or she has a concealed-carry permit—from securing a gun in a vehicle in a parking lot; (3) ask a worker with a concealed carry permit or a customer whether he or she has a gun in a vehicle in a parking lot, take any action against such a worker or against a customer based on a statement about whether the worker or customer has a gun in a vehicle in a parking lot for lawful purposes, or search a vehicle in a parking lot for a gun; (4) condition employment on whether a person has a concealed-carry permit; (5) terminate a worker with a concealed-carry permit, or otherwise discriminate against such a worker, or expel a customer, for having a gun in a vehicle on the business’s property, unless the gun is exhibited on the property. A business that does not have at least one worker with a concealed-carry permit is not subject to any of these provisions.
http://www.flemploymentlawblog.com/articles/workplace-violence/

If a list of people with concealed carry permits was available, a potential employer could easily check it and reject employees who were honest law abiding citizens with spotless records based solely on his prejudice towards people with firearms.

[zipplewrath]

41. Yes he could

Along with discrimination about alot of other factors which he could determine through public records.

[PavePusher]

54. So let's start from the other direction...

All personal info records should be confidential, unless an overwhelming case can be made to the contrary.

I'm good with that. If they're not a nosy busy-body, why would anyone object?

[zipplewrath]

59. I tend to agree

I'd go a tad further and say that the government really ought to have to justify their collection of much of this data to begin with. Even further, they ought to have to justify maintaining it in a database.

[SteveM]

72. Vermont comes to mind: No laws at all regulating CCW. Is this OK?

[zipplewrath]

80. If there is no public record

There is no public availability to it.

[rrneck]

62. Information regarding the personal

security arrangements should be private. It is unreasonable to require people to make available any inventory of items in their homes to the public, especially when there is no need for the public to have that information.

I think there should be a compelling need to reveal information about the particulars of people's private lives.

[Glassunion]

35. I see it as fuel on the fire...

Here is the way it works as I see it.

If you give the power to the government it is almost impossible to get it back. And if you do get it back, it was a time consuming expensive process.
If you fight it from the beginning it makes it harder for them to take it in the first place.

Look at HIPAA. How much did that cost privacy groups, tax payers and our elected officials in time and money. How many changes had to go into place with government run programs and departments once HIPAA went into effect? U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Medicare, Medicaid, COBRA, CHIP programs, etc... All to keep information that should have been private in the first place, well... Private.

You say; "that's pretty much the "system" and considering all that is out there, I'm not sure what would make this particular record worthy of an exception." From that comment it seems to me that you have no vested interest in the making public of the information. Basically, it does not effect you. So to you, it would be no big deal. But the information that was put out there when you register to vote, bought your home, get married, etc... Does bother you.

The way I look at it, it all bothers me, even if it does not effect me. I have never been in a court room with the exception of jury duty. But I don't think that every little thing that goes on in a court room should be public information. I am not effected by it, however it still bothers me, because I feel that "we the people" are infringing on what I see as a right to privacy. Divorce, custody, civil matters, etc... are all very personal matters that I don't feel should be public information.

CCW lists being public are just one of the many things that bother me.

[zipplewrath]

45. Well, I'm fairly sympathetic to your point of view

The government demands a fair amount of information from you, and then as an result, it becomes a public record. It escapes me why they need to know how much I borrowed to buy my home, other than on my income tax records. And really there they only need to know how much interest I paid. THEY determine the tax value of my home. It doesn't really have anything to do with what I paid for it.

However, that is the system within which we all live and I guess I was a bit surprised that people think that some how a public record like a CCW permit would be exempt.

[oneshooter]

51. See my post #9......

Would you like your name and address posted in the newspaper as one who has a CCL? Remember this is name AND address.
There are some newspapers that have done it, just to "out" CCL holders. They did it because it was "public information", and there was no law against it.
I would conceder it a loss of my personal identity, and a violation of my personnel security.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[zipplewrath]

57. I'm a bad person to ask

For a variety of reasons, a fair amount of my personal information is basically public record. I understand that is a tad unusual, but I also know that it has come to no particular consequence. The concerns expressed here, although technically possible, are a tad far fetched. One would be hard pressed to document any actual instance of this information being used in the manner expressed.

[PavePusher]

55. Note that there is a difference...

at least in principal, of select government officials having access to your records for limited purposes, and throwing them open to any curious or nefarious Tom, Dick or Ms. Grundy.

[spin]

32. The info could be interesting to someone who is planning a robbery ...

he might, for example, avoid homes with owners who had concealed weapons licenses. They obviously own firearms and unusually have some training in their use.

He might, therefore, target you if you didn't have a CCW.

[old mark]

37. They might also target your home specifically to steal guns - that is THE

greatest source of guns used in crime, and is also pretty lucrative.All you have to do is make sure no one is home.

marl

[spin]

39. Very true ...

and a professional thief can defeat the best gun safe given a little time.

[zipplewrath]

43. And this is the concern

That thieves are casing their targets through public records searches that are traceable back to them.

That is the scenario that is of concern?

[X_Digger]

50. No public records searches required..

Editor 'Jones' gets a wild hare up his ass and publishes the list in the local rag..

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/trejbal/wb/108160

[gravity556]

68. re:And this is the concern

No public record search needed if a newspaper decides that publishing all of the CCW permitees names and current addresses. And even then, it doesn't have to be done currently-plenty of libraries keep copies of old newspapers on microfiche(or at least they used to-now it's probably all scanned in and on computers, but I digress), so even if you stop a paper from publishing that info AGAIN, a little research online for say, gun owners on a gun website to bitch about a certain paper publishing such a list. They can work backwards from there.

And the amount of info that the government should have be able to store should be reduced. For instance, when you buy a gun at a shop, you fill out a 4473. The clerk calls in your info to NICS, they either clear, deny or delay. When the NICS system first came up, it was discovered that instead of deleting the info after 24 hours, as the law REQUIRED, they were building a database. Since they got their peepees slapped over that, now when they do an inspection at a shop, they bring a scanner and scan all of the 4473s. Again, using the data do build a de-facto registry at a national level, which is again, ILLEGAL.

Proponents of gun control, registration and confiscation, of course, see no problem with the government breaking laws to gather that information, because it suits their purposes. Of course, if they started collecting receipts at headshops or bookstores (oops, they can already do that at a book store-thank the Patriot act-one of the worst pieces of crap legislation in recent memory) or if the DEA went to MJ dispensaries in CA, compiled a list of credit card reciepts or other customer lists and then posted the info of every individial-name and current address-in a newspaper, those same folks that approve of the government breaking laws and acting in an unlawful fashion toward gun owners would, and let's be realistic now, shit purple kittens.

Some smart guy, a long time ago, said something to the effect of "Government, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." Every citizen-left or right, should do everything they can to keep it tightly controlled rather than allowing it to control us.

[zipplewrath]

69. And do we have an example?

I'm curious who these nefarious people are who are searching old records, public, private, or library data bases in order to case their victims. Do we have examples? The only ones I know of are stalkers who use things like phone books, credit cards, and utility bills. I'm really curious who has found examples of criminals using obsure databases like CCW permits, or for that matter property tax records.

I mean, by all means make the case because it could be a solid foundation for more vastly limiting the government databases. Especially in this day and age of identity theft, it should be an easy case to make if the examples were out there.

[Glassunion]

70. I have a question for you...

Do you consider the steps an individual takes to improve the security of their homes and family to be a personal matter?

I.E. If I have alarms installed in my home and I keep and carry firearms? Were these decisions a personal matter or are they matters open to public scrutiny?

[zipplewrath]

76. I consider a CCW is a public document

And I think it should be evaluated like all other public documents. So far, I haven't seen anything that elevates it above most of the other public information available on to people, especially in states where it is traceable that the information has been requested.

[Glassunion]

77. Not an answer to my question. I do understand how you see the "CCW(piece of paper)", but my question

Do you consider the steps an individual takes to improve the security of their homes and family to be a personal matter?

I.E. If I have alarms installed in my home and I keep and carry firearms? Were these decisions a personal matter or are they matters open to public scrutiny?

[zipplewrath]

79. Depends

As a guy complained once, and a bit like the guy I spoke of across the street, some aspects are matters of public record, they're called building records and permits. A friend of mine had a business that called for a safe. Not some heavy thing in a corner, but an interal structure to the building that called for modification of the foundation. The end result was that many of the details of his construction were a matter of public record.

I've also noticed that a large number of people find it so "personal" that they festoon their yards with signs indicating which companies they have hired to monitor their houses. And if you install cameras or other features, you can be required to post information about that too. If you connect your system to a phone line which will notify the police, many of cities will require you to make prior notification to them.

So no, I don't find all steps to be purely a personal matter in the sense of raising the CCW permit, which is a public record, to some elevated status that no other similar document holds without justification.

[Glassunion]

85. A few things...

A CCW is not necessarily a public record. So it is not being elevated to some sort of special status.

Almost half the states specify that this information is not open at all to public access. And there are many more where access is strongly restricted similar to your drivers license information. Euromutt explained it quite well in post #78. The CCW license is very similar in nature to the driver's license in regards to the information that it contains. The reason most of us here have a problem with it, is that it is quite the opposite in some states in regards to the information that is publicly available for the CCW where the same information is protected on other licenses, like a driver's license.

States where CCW(or similar) lists where access to the public is prohibited either from a direct law or by proxy due to the nature of the license:
Alaska
Arizona
Connecticut
D.C.(No CCW)
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois(No CCW for the public, but for Aldermen and the like)
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Nevada
New Mexico
New Jersey
Oklahoma
South Dakota
Utah
Virginia(Only at state level, local level can be requested)
Washington
Wisconsin (No CCW)
Wyoming

Here is where the problem is for the states that do not specify the availability of the information. Let's say for example a newspaper wanted to put up an article on their website where they(the newspaper) were able to request a list of all people who have driver's licenses from motor vehicle. And any person could easily access this database of information from the newspaper's website by searching for names, or sorting the list by county, city, sex, race or age to obtain information of the driver's licenses of whoever the search for. This of course is not allowed, as this personal information is protected by law and it would be impossible for the newspaper to legally obtain this information. However, the same information in the majority of states is available for a newspaper to obtain for CCW permits, and all of the same information that is protected on a driver's license would now be easily available to anyone with internet access.

You cannot get someone's address by requesting it from motor vehicle. In most states you can get it by requesting it from the CCW issuing authority.

So your claim that we are trying to elevate this license above all others to some sort of "special" status is a misguided opinion. We are just trying to elevate it to the same status of other similar licenses that contain the exact same information. Our information should not be more readily available to the public because we choose to make a personal decision to elevate the security of ourselves and families.

[zipplewrath]

87. It is a public record

As you suggest, not all public records are necessarily available to the public. But alot are, and in those records I can get your name and address. The question becomes then, why should this public record be treated in a manner that others are not? The reason that many records aren't particularly publicly available is connected to the "completeness" of those data bases. Basically DMV is a database of every single adult in the state (with a few notible exceptions). There aren't alot of databases like that in a state. Utility databases aren't like that. Tax rolls, flood insurance databases, etc. really don't have that kind of "penetration" into the population. One of the smallest would be the CCW database. In some states I suspect that this information is stored at a county level.

One can still make the case, but it really should be in the context of a database of that size and functionality. There just isn't that much info in such a database. Basically the desire to protect this comes from the same reason alot of people would prefer that public information not be publicly available. They basically don't want people to know who they are unless they personally release that information. And some of us would like to control it even after it is released.

That said, we do have a larger problem of newspapers taking it upon themselves to publish lists of all manner. We had the LA Times doing that whole teacher thing a while back. There is a vague tradition of newspapers being limited in their ability to publish information about people who are not in the public eye. This would seem to fall into that category. If I'm a public figure, it would seem appropriate that we be allowed to determine if they have a CCW permit. There is a difference between that and merely publishing all the names and addresses of people in a neighborhood that have them.

[Glassunion]

91. That is not what I said.

1. The information found on a Driver's License is incredibly similar to the information found on a CCW.
2. I stated that "We are just trying to elevate it to the same status of other similar licenses that contain the exact same information."
3. I NEVER stated that the information should be "treated in a manner that others are not".

To recap:
A Driver's License and a CCW License contain almost identical personally identifying information.
I feel that they should be treated EXACTLY the same.
I DO NOT feel that a CCW should be elevated above other public records.
The personal information contained in a CCW License should be protected EXACTLY the same as the personal information on a Drivers License.

[zipplewrath]

92. So do the property tax rolls

And those have even more information on them. I can get virtually the same information from utilities as well (presuming they are public utilities). I am going to have to figure out what municipality you live in to do it however. Truth is, I can get much of that information from a phone book.

[Glassunion]

94. But what is the problem with treating it exactly like a driver's license?

[zipplewrath]

95. There is no cause

And one can imagine situations in which the public would have valid reasons for knowing about specific individuals.

[Glassunion]

96. So in regards to CCW, what would be valid reasons for the public to know

about specific individuals, pertaining to personally identifying information that cannot be obtained legally from a driver's license?

[zipplewrath]

97. My personal favorite

That politician, or public personality out advocating for all manner of gun control and restrictions, and they themselves have a CCW permit.

How about the restraunteur that prohibits CC in his places of business, and has a permit himself.

[Glassunion]

98. I don't feel that is justification...

Not against the law to be a hypocrite. Not an excuse to invade the privacy of all CCW license holders to find a couple of hypocrites.

Personally I cannot think of a valid reason to have these records publicly available.

[zipplewrath]

99. Chicken and egg

I can't think of a reason to treat them differently that other similar public documents. I do think there is too much information that the government has, and it can be distributed too freely. But I certainly wouldn't start with CCW permits in making these changes. They'd be some of the last. We're talking about a very small slice of the population.

[X_Digger]

100. 'other similar documents' -- like driver's licenses?

That works for me.

We're talking about a very small slice of the population.

Then it's easier to nip these in the bud, rather than having to shut the barn door after the horse.

[zipplewrath]

104. Like utility bills

which affect a far larger portion of the population.

[X_Digger]

105. Interesting dodge, there. n/t

[Glassunion]

121. I agree...

I would accept that a CCW be treated exactly like utility bills are treated in the majority of the states in regards to Personally Identifyable Information that can be disclosed from both types(Utilities and CCW) of data stores.

[zipplewrath]

129. The utility bills bothers me

Law enforcement uses them to find pot growers. Yet. CCW permit holders are concerned about nongovernment actors doing things I have never seen reported. It seems as silly as people being worried about CCW holders at all. They are the least likely to be a problem . In fact I struggle to remember the last one that WAS a problem. I am far less concerned about private citezens knowing this, than the government databasing it.

[Glassunion]

133. After doing some research

The majority of states do not have open utility records. If you want to know specific personal information from a utility company on a speciic customer, you would not be able to obtain it without a warrant.

So overall you have been trying to make a comparison to things that are not alike. Driver licenses on the whole and utility bills in the majority have protections in place for personal information. Why not CCW? Why do you have a problem with protecting the personal information on a CCW that is protected in other places?

[Euromutt]

134. You did RESEARCH?!

Dammit, don't you know that this is an emotion-governed subject, and bringing in actual facts is well out of order?

Restraining my jerking knee there, I can't say I'm overly surprised that our friend Zipplewrath turns out to be incorrect on yet another piece of government-held information. After all, he already claimed that the information contained in one's driving license and driving record was publicly accessible, both of which turned out to be wrong.

In short, if anybody in the peanut gallery might be inclined to think Zipplewrath's full of shit and making shit up as he goes along, you'd be entirely correct.

[shadowrider]

135. But, but, but, but, he FEELS they're publicly accessible, therefore, they are

and should be used as a guide to publishing CCW information.

:crazy:

[shadowrider]

101. I'm simply not understanding you

On one hand you say the government has too much public info that should be private

On the other hand you say because the gov't has too much, let's give them more

The right to privacy must begin somewhere, and a refusal to allow this information to be made public would be a first step toward
reclaiming personal privacy. Wouldn't you agree?

You've asked for reasons why CCW lists should not be made public, yet you refuse to accept these as valid reasons.

Let me ask you, and please be specific, what is the benefit, as you see it, to making these lists public?

[zipplewrath]

106. Consistency

Considering all the public information out there on all of us, the kerfluffle over CCW permits seems a bit silly. I'm more than willing to concurr that the government collects and maitains too much info, and protects poorly the information that they do keep. But this small example is hardly one of much import. If all that other info is out there, I can't really see the outrage over this.

[shadowrider]

109. In your mind it may be a bit silly. To those of us that have them, it's very, very serious n/t

[zipplewrath]

111. But have trouble establishing why

I understand you are very serious. I just think your concern is misplaced and poorly grounded.

The database isn't that large. Similar information can be found in much more available resources. And there is little evidence that anyone is particularly using these resources for the intents you imagine.

[Glassunion]

102. You stated my point in your first statement...

"I can't think of a reason to treat them differently that other similar public documents."

Great. Treat them exactly like Driver's Licenses. How hard is that?

[zipplewrath]

103. Utility bills

How about like utility bills?

[shadowrider]

107. He said driver licenses, NOT utility bills. Your back must be sore from moving those goalposts

and you didn't answer MY question.

What is the benefit, as you see it, to publishing a CCW list? (Since it'd be public info and all).

[zipplewrath]

110. He said potato

I said potatoe

One asks why we don't treat them like Drivers licenses. I responded by suggesting they are a bit more like utility bills.

[shadowrider]

112. You said earlier to treat them like "similar documents"

Are you now refining your position on what consitutes a "similar document" when a "similar document" that CAN'T be published is proposed?

and you STILL haven't answered my question.

What benefit do you see in publishing a list of CCW holders?

[zipplewrath]

114. Stronger similarities

I'm suggesting that there are stronger similarities to a CCW database than drivers licenses.

Actually, I answered that for someone. It has to do with identifying various public personalities who are taking a public position on related subjects. If I were a lawyer, I could probably imagine better. As I repeatedly have stated, I am sympathetic to the desire to limit public databases in both content and availability. CCW databases are way down on my list of ones needing to be protected.

[Glassunion]

124. A few things on your comments...

I disagree. A DL and a CCW have striking similarities.

DL: Full Name, Full Address, Sex, Height, Weight, Eye Color, DOB, Organ Donor Status, Medical Conditions. Purpose: To operate a motor vehicle. Kept in my wallet on a 5.5cm X 8.5cm card.
CCW: Full Name, Full Address, Sex, Height, Weight, Eye Color, DOB, Race, Citizenship, Reason to Carry, . Purpose: To carry a firearm. Kept in my wallet on a 5.5cm X 8.5cm card.
Utilities: Name(not full name), Full Address. (In fact I did not even give my first name, only initial). Purpose: To receive a service(gas, electric, cable, water, etc) Kept in my office until paid, then shredded.

You say that you are not creative enough to find a good reason as to why they should be a public document because you are not a lawyer. So you fail to bring to light the reasoning for your opinion. You feel that the information should be available to the public yet you are completely unable to give reasoning for it. However, you have been shown in this very thread the damage that can be caused by having this information available to the public. In fact the information has been nothing but abused.

I have yet to see one instance where this information was put to good use.

1. Because of the large amount of personal information that is retained with a CCW, identity theft is a cause for real concern.
2. It can be easily used to identify homes where specific items popular in the black market are housed and now open to theft.
3. Framing of individuals in a false light. In this very thread you were shown where a newspaper, that painted those who carry firearms as dangers to society just by the mere fact that they had a CCW. So you have a newspaper, telling people to be wary of a group of people, as they may be dangerous or a concern to the public, and published freely and completely untraceable all of the personally identifiable information, including: Full Name, Address and Telephone numbers of almost 136,000 people. Up until recently, the state of NY had a website up where you could quickly and easily browse the personal information on any CCW holder.
4. Stalkers, who have internet access can go to websites where these names are published freely who can then obtain a full name and address of any individual who is listed virtually untraceable.
5. Employers who do not agree with CCW can prevent or terminate the employment of those who have the permits, and in right to work states, they don't even have to tell you why they fired you. How would you like your employer to know exactly how you exercise all of your civil rights? I sure would not.
6. You do not think that Pro Gun-Control groups would ever use this information in any way in which to attempt to humiliate or attempt to publicly berate those who have a CCW?
7. Do you honestly feel that you have a right to know exactly how your neighbors exercise their civil-rights, and what they might be carrying on their person or items that they keep in their home?

[gravity556]

126. re:Stronger similarities

If the information contained on the permit is identical to that contained on your DL, why not treat it the same? If newspapers were *genuinely* concerned about publishing information "for the safety of the public", they'd post the personal information and physical address of released criminals. Not just the basic stuff, but gang affiliations, behavior in prison (John Doe, convicted of assault with a frozen herring, 123 Elm Street, affiliated with the Crips, assaulted prison staff on 7 occasions, stabbed 2 other inmates, prior arrests for rape, arson, puppy kicking, breaking and entering, possession of methamphetamines for distribution, etc...) and number of convictions, as well as if a plea deal was taken (arrested for beating a nun with a baseball bat, plead out to jaywalking), place of employment. All of that is genuine information that, if you're going to publish personal data in the Sunday paper next to the comics anyway, would serve to alert the community to a genuine threat.

CCW permitees are not criminals. They are not threats to the community. No matter how much the anti-carry side wants to equate gun ownership with murderous intent, it simply isn't true. And publishing lists in a newspaper like that can and has resulted in thefts-and we don't want to make it easier for the actual bad guys to get guns, so why tell them, in exact detail, where they're likely to be located?

[shadowrider]

108. Maybe, just maybe

In my next box of Cracker Jacks there will be a little booklet entitled, "How to move goalposts in 10 words or less".

[zipplewrath]

113. It's just a different basis of comparison

People want to compare this database to drivers licenses. It's not particularly a credible comparison. It's vastly smaller. And the CCW information is of much small use since it isn't nearly as valuable as a drivers license for things such as identity theft. Actually, utility bills would be more useful since these often will be accepted for identification of residence in some situations. It's not a case of moving goal posts, it is a case of pointing out that CCW permits do not favorably compare to driver license databases.

[shadowrider]

115. In other words, you were given a document to compare to you didn't like

So you moved the goalposts.

How very typical.

[zipplewrath]

116. Actually I offered a more apt comparison

That's what one does in a discussion. If they had compared the CCW to the magna carte I would have done the same, and that ain't moving any goal posts.

[shadowrider]

117. Apt comparison in your mind. n/t

[zipplewrath]

118. Yes, that's why I presented it

And I also defended that comparison. There are many differences between drivers licenses and the CCW database. The utility bill is closer, even while still being way more comprehensive. The desire to use drivers licenses is based upon a desire to obtain that level of protection, not upon their similarities. The fundamental question I'm asking is why should the CCW database be protected at the drivers license level, instead of the utility bill level?

[shadowrider]

119. Movement of goalposts from "Similar document" to "Not similar document"

Your back tired yet?

[zipplewrath]

125. Your getting too terse to understand

I understand that you find them to be similar. And I also agree that have similar information. But as compared to a utility bill, I'd suggest it is more like the utility bill than the drivers license.

[X_Digger]

120. Let's see..

One is a license to operate a complex machine consisting of metal and plastic in public..

and the other one is a driver's license.

*snort*

Or..

One is a license to pull something* out of your pocket and use that to propel a hunk of metal at high speed among the public..

and the other one is a license to carry a concealed weapon.

(*keys)

[kwikrnu]

137. The reason it should be public record

is because of nepotism. Everyone should have the right to a handgun carry permit if they meet the requirements. All too often shall issue States and may issue states only issue permits as political favors. Also in Tennessee newspapers have discovered that felons have been issued permits to carry guns. Discoveries of this type would not have been made if there was no public oversight.

[oneshooter]

93. You forgot Texas, see post #17. n/t

[safeinOhio]

60. A few years ago the police busted

a couple that stole guns and gun safes. They were very good at it and could get in a house and out with the safe in minutes. How did they figure out who had guns. They drove around out in the country and looked for houses that had those real looking deer targets in the back yard. Figured they'd have lots of hunting stuff. A NRA bumper sticker is also a dead give away.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zipplewrath]

58. Or that I don't find the reasoning convincing

I'm willing to entertain justifications, but the scenarios are rather far fetched. There is precious little in these documents that are particularly unique in the public record. I'm more than willing to agree that "public record" includes way more information than the government, or the public, can really justify in any public interest sense. But in the context of the current condition, the concerns here seem to be based upon a desire to elevate this information to a level of import that it doesn't really contain.

[PavePusher]

61. My apologies for the terse, probably outright rude comment.

Been a busy day at work, I'm recovering from some medical issues, and dealing with some stupid on another website.

Your reply was much politer than I deserved. :toast: And I think we agree much more than disagree on the subject of public records.

[X_Digger]

47. I can't waltz down to my DMV and get your driver's license information or driving record..

.. why should you be able to to go to the licensing authority and get my CHL information?

[SteveM]

71. Same reason they did away with public access to car license plates...

in Texas. At one time I and many others could merely phone the Department of Public Safety and tell a live operator the license plate of a car, and they would tell me who it was and where they lived.

Do you like the idea of someone you don't know (or worse, someone you do know) having your name and address?

Similarly, the thug can take the state's list of CCW owners and decide whether to:
(1) avoid that house when doing a home invasion; or
(2) attack that house when the owner is not around to get his/her arms.

If you have any questions, please feel free to respond.

[zipplewrath]

81. They do have my name and address

The utility company has it, and it is a public record (public utility). The property tax system lists my name, address, original mortgage value, sale value, and assessed value. The phone company publishes my name, address, and phone number in very public documents called a "phone book". Dentists in my state are required to publish their HOME phone numbers. And lexis-nexus sells more information about me than I can keep track of.

In that context, I am wondering what is so special about a CCW permit, as a public document, that elavates it above other public documents. People keep suggesting that there are nefarious elements that will do searches of these public documents as part of a "casing" methodology for some sort of crime. I'm wondering if anyone has documented such activity at all. It seems a fairly far fetched scenario.

[SteveM]

136. There is a difference between these public records and plate #s...

If a thug sees a potential victim (a woman of his "liking," a trunk full of new stuff after leaving a department store, etc.), the "utility company," "property tax system," "phone company," "Dentists," etc., won't be of much help.

That license plate # (under the old system) would be.

[shadowrider]

3. I give up n/t

[Glassunion]

8. You have to have a license for one of these!!?!!?

Shit! Neither of mine are licensed.

[oneshooter]

17. The Texas law.

GC §411.192. CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDS.

The department shall disclose to a criminal justice agency information contained in its files and records regarding whether a named individual or any individual named in a specified list is licensed under this subchapter. The department shall, on written request and payment of a reasonable fee to cover costs of copying, disclose to any other individual whether a named individual or any individual whose full name is listed on a specified written list is licensed under this subchapter. Information on an individual subject to disclosure under this section includes the individual's name, date of birth, gender, race, and zip code. Except as otherwise provided by this section and by Section 411.193, all other records maintained under this subchapter are confidential and are not subject to mandatory disclosure under the open records law, Chapter 552, except that the applicant or license holder may be furnished a copy of disclosable records on request and the payment of a reasonable fee. The department shall notify a license holder of any request that is made for information relating to the license holder under this section and provide the name of the person or agency making the request. This section does not prohibit the department from making public and distributing to the public at no cost lists of individuals who are certified as qualified handgun instructors by the department.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[mvccd1000]

63. Fix the root cause:

If you didn't need a government permission slip to exercise a civil right, you wouldn't need to worry about the government storing or releasing the contents of that slip.

No CCW equals no worry about CCW records.


(See Alaska, Vermont, and Arizona for examples.)

[zipplewrath]

65. And even in a larger sense

I'm fairly on board with the concept of limiting the information that the government can demand, and beyond that, the information they can store. Part and partial to that is then the information that therefor becomes "public record". It's one thing for the DMV to want/need to establish that you are a citizen. But once that has been legally established, I'm not sure their need to store copies of your passport number or other documentation. Make a legal declaration that the requirement was met, and expunge the underlying documentation. Same way for a CCW. Establish that you are "permitted", and they can even store that indentifying information. But at that point, regardless of what information was demanded to GET it, only store the information required to verify that you are in fact the permitted person. That's a fairly narrow set of identifying information. They may want to know who your instructor was (if you had one) as part of the application, but there is no need to store that information after the fact.

And really, then we need to have the larger discussion about who, how and why individuals and organizations can then get access to the information. I'd feel a whole lot better if each state had some variation of a "state archive" that stored the information and tracked which departments were making requests for what information and why. And part of that process would be to try to detect inappropriate access. It could also then restrict publication of that information.

[oneshooter]

66. But if it is "public information" then what would prevent another

newspaper from printing and complete list of CCL owners, including names and addresses, in the name of "public safety"?

I like the Texas system, full information only available to LEO's, Individual information restricted.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[zipplewrath]

67. Read all the way down

"And really, then we need to have the larger discussion about who, how and why individuals and organizations can then get access to the information. I'd feel a whole lot better if each state had some variation of a "state archive" that stored the information and tracked which departments were making requests for what information and why. And part of that process would be to try to detect inappropriate access. It could also then restrict publication of that information."

We need to revist the larger subjects of what information they can have, what they can keep, what is truly "public" and even beyond that, what publication or dissemination of that information is permissible.

[SteveM]

75. Agreed. But I won't wait for a general revisit.

[SteveM]

74. I think most of the push by the media to reveal records is culture war...

The Roanoke reporter and his "gun toter" subjects want in some way to "get at" those who wish to carry-concealed. This is especially aggravated by attempts to graft on a "sexual predator" model to the gun-control debate; something like, you ought to see who's living in your neighborhood.

I see so very little public good out of revealing this record. It should be out of public view just like license plates, SS numbers, tax records, etc. If law enforcement has a need, they can pursue these records in accordance with the 4th Amendment.

[zipplewrath]

82. I come to a similar conclusion from a different perspective

I'm not sure that one can make a compelling case for the government to maintain much of database on this topic (and many others actually). You apply for the permit, and reveal a fair amount of information to them to obtain it. That information is verified and the permit issued. Now the permit in and of itself establishes that the information was supplied and verified (otherwise the permit would not be issued). After that, all they need to maintain is enough information to verify that it is you that is the holder of the permit. We could argue about what identifying information would be appropriate, but "home address" seems like the least valuable parameter to maintain. Passport number, drivers license number, thumb print, retina scan, etc. would all seem vastly more appropriate and secure. The only value of home address is if these permits are granted through a regional authority such that it could change with home address. But even that then isn't controlled through the databasing of a home address. It is more like a voter registration where the permit can be challenged by the government (or private entity) as no longer valid. But that would then require a reverification of eligibility, and a database would not serve that function.

[Glassunion]

73. Could you imagine if the Brady Campaign had money and time?

Thank goodness they don't, but what if they have a couple 100 thousand lying around where they could request all of the information and publish it?

Scary...

[zipplewrath]

83. Why?

I'm not sure of the "scary" part. The vast majority of the world wouldn't care. There is much more "scary" information out there about each one of us that, if published, would be embarrassing or potentially dangerous. God, please don't publish my records from high school (which I suspect don't exist anymore)

[Glassunion]

86. So you would not mind

if your full name, address, sex, weight, height, birth date, eye color, hair color were posted freely on a website?

[zipplewrath]

88. Much of that already is.

I regularly check on what is out there about me, and much of that is there, some of it for a fee.

[Glassunion]

89. Much, not all?

How would you feel if your full name, address, sex, weight, height, birth date, eye color, hair color were posted freely on a website?

[zipplewrath]

90. Much of it is

I'm not sure about eye color, and if they have hair color, it's wrong. Basically ya have to HAVE hair first. And as I've stated before in this thread, I'm a bad person to ask because there is an inordinate amount of information about me out there. But I can't speak to hair or eye color.

[friendly_iconoclast]

122. Circa 120 posts, and no one has given a reason why the information should be public n/t

[shadowrider]

123. I've asked, 4 times, no response. n/t

[oneshooter]

127. Could it be because he is skeered? n/t

[Euromutt]

130. Well, strictly speaking, you've received a response...

...but it was, in so many words "why not? there's so much other stuff that's publicly accessible" which may be true, but it's not what you'd call a positive reason. To my mind, that is, if anything, an argument for increasing privacy controls on government-held information.

[Katya Mullethov]

131. It's just one more cut

And it takes a thousand , or so I'm told . The technical term is "petty harassment" .

[Euromutt]

132. Or "salami tactics"

Just a little slice at a time, each slice too thin to justify getting worked up over by itself, but the next thing you know, almost the whole sausage is gone, and the party who's been taking it from you slice by slice says "why fight over the last inch, when you let me have all the inches I already took?"