PDA

View Full Version : Reno newspaper makes CCW info public!


gunsmith
08-01-2010, 7:39 AM
http://www.rgj.com/article/20100801/OPED01/8010333

NV ccw policy is kind of strange, if you qualify on a .22 revolver you can carry a .357 mag revolver but if you qualify on a .357 sig Glock you can't carry a 40.sw Glock.

It should be uniform ( like FL/AZ carry any concealed weapon ) but the weirdly written law has been used by the RGJ to go after the Republican gov

we need a list/phone numbers of ppl who work there and advertisers - we have to make that public- whats good for the goose is good for the gander

EOD Guy
08-01-2010, 8:01 AM
http://www.rgj.com/article/20100801/OPED01/8010333

NV ccw policy is kind of strange, if you qualify on a .22 revolver you can carry a .357 mag revolver but if you qualify on a .357 sig Glock you can't carry a 40.sw Glock.

It should be uniform ( like FL/AZ carry any concealed weapon ) but the weirdly written law has been used by the RGJ to go after the Republican gov

The Nevada law recognizes that all revolvers ae basically alike while there are wide variations in semi-auto pistol safeties and other operating controls.

That's not the reason the paper challenged the law. They challenged the privacy portion and what personal information was protected and at what point.

Pixs
08-01-2010, 11:35 AM
Hi Folks,
I read the article and thought that the papers position was a good one. What we now have here in CA is the wink and nod system of issuing CCW ot cronies. Have any of you seen support from a news purveyor that wants to see the playing field leveled to make sure that fairness prevails?
Best to all,
Pixs

press1280
08-01-2010, 1:25 PM
Hi Folks,
I read the article and thought that the papers position was a good one. What we now have here in CA is the wink and nod system of issuing CCW ot cronies. Have any of you seen support from a news purveyor that wants to see the playing field leveled to make sure that fairness prevails?
Best to all,
Pixs

I'm not understanding what the newspaper wants. There shouldn't be a wink and a nod system in NV since its shall issue. Public info on CCW is a better tool to expose corruption in CA,NY,NJ,MD. You know there's some winking and nodding there.

gunsmith
08-01-2010, 3:21 PM
publicizing the names of ccw holders gets ppl killed, gets them fired from their jobs and denied employment.

OleCuss
08-01-2010, 3:28 PM
Hi Folks,
I read the article and thought that the papers position was a good one. What we now have here in CA is the wink and nod system of issuing CCW ot cronies. Have any of you seen support from a news purveyor that wants to see the playing field leveled to make sure that fairness prevails?
Best to all,
Pixs

Actually, the Modesto Bee did that a few months ago. They published only a few of the involved names.

I'm not in favor of making the names of all those with CCW public. But if a paper wants to examine those records without publishing the names or addresses of the CCW holders (unless those names are already newsworthy as public figures or maybe some significant violation of law).

gunsmith
08-01-2010, 3:39 PM
ccw only works when criminals do not know who's packing and have to wonder if the little old lady they plan on mugging can take them out.

this is a matter of life and death.

Crom
08-01-2010, 3:42 PM
I don't know if you guys know or not but in California all CCW applications, denials, renewals are all PUBLIC DOCUMENTS. This evolved out of 1986 court case.

CBS Inc. v. Block (http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/CBS_Inc._v._Block) (1986) - CCW Applications are public documents, therefore anyone may view them.

CalNRA
08-01-2010, 4:02 PM
that's why a lot of us want no-license carry.

Because of these scum news people who hide behind the first amendment. This happened a while back when a newspaper(I think in California) published the names of all the CCW holders in that county.

wildhawker
08-01-2010, 4:32 PM
The guarantees of the California constitution cut both ways as applied to CCW licensing here in California. While, in time, securing full privacy for license holders should be a priority of the people, until California is a shall-issue state “[t]he interest of society in ensuring accountability is particularly strong where the discretion invested in a government official is unfettered, and only a select few are granted the special privilege. Moreover, the degree of subjectivity involved in exercising the discretion cries out for public scrutiny.” (CBS, Inc. v. Block (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646, 655 [230 Cal. Rptr. 362, 725 P.2d 470]). Indeed, “there is a clear and legislatively articulated justification for disclosure — the right of the public and the press to review the government's conduct of its business. Public inspection of the names of license holders and the reasons the licenses were requested enables the press and the public to ensure that public officials are acting properly in issuing licenses for legitimate reasons”. Id at 654.

The road to freedom is not without some exposure and discomfort. Know that these concerns are acknowledged and their remedy of paramount importance, and that a strategy has been formed to address this at the appropriate juncture.

crackerman
08-01-2010, 5:53 PM
Actually, the Modesto Bee did that a few months ago. They published only a few of the involved names.

I'm not in favor of making the names of all those with CCW public. But if a paper wants to examine those records without publishing the names or addresses of the CCW holders (unless those names are already newsworthy as public figures or maybe some significant violation of law).

Ole' Cuss so by that reasoning the paper should be ble to review everyone's driving records to determine if they have had DUI's just because some public figures have had them? Drivers liscences after all are shall issue.

Not trying to call you out specifically cuss but that is the same thinking. All you need is some cranky ex employee or "crusading" reporter to publish the list. Then you could lose a job, be denied credit, lose friends, because after all you are a crazy guntoter dangerous driving felon.

OleCuss
08-01-2010, 6:42 PM
Ole' Cuss so by that reasoning the paper should be ble to review everyone's driving records to determine if they have had DUI's just because some public figures have had them? Drivers liscences after all are shall issue.

Not trying to call you out specifically cuss but that is the same thinking. All you need is some cranky ex employee or "crusading" reporter to publish the list. Then you could lose a job, be denied credit, lose friends, because after all you are a crazy guntoter dangerous driving felon.

Your point is a very good one. But I wonder if there couldn't be redactions to insulate us from abuse? So if, say, the chief of police has only issued a total of 7 CCW permits and 2 of them were to City Council members (that was the case locally) the media can call him on it?

OleCuss
08-01-2010, 6:44 PM
that's why a lot of us want no-license carry.
.
.

This!

kcbrown
08-01-2010, 8:01 PM
publicizing the names of ccw holders gets ppl killed, gets them fired from their jobs and denied employment.

But...but...employers are private entities and therefore they don't have to respect your right to keep and bear arms, right?

Look, you can't have it both ways. Either private entities get to deny you the right to keep and bear arms while on their property and to decide whether or not to hire you based on whether or not you have a CCW (or like guns at all, for that matter), or they don't. There is no in between that isn't entirely arbitrary.

Don't b*tch about private entities knowing about your CCW and discriminating against you on that basis unless you are willing to go up against the notion that private entities have the right to deny you the right to bear arms while on their property.

YubaRiver
08-01-2010, 8:02 PM
Imagine some poor women, being stalked by her violent spouse, who
suddenly has her name printed in the paper showing her ex which city
she lives in and that she has a gun.

hnoppenberger
08-01-2010, 8:17 PM
this is all silly.
carrying a loaded weapon = a human right.

Window_Seat
08-01-2010, 8:29 PM
that's why a lot of us want no-license carry.

Because of these scum news people who hide behind the first amendment. This happened a while back when a newspaper(I think in California) published the names of all the CCW holders in that county.

+10,000!!!

Edit (again) to change my post. It's not good for our image what I stated earlier, and will do nothing for our cause.

Erik.

Window_Seat
08-01-2010, 9:31 PM
I edited my posts above to leave out the junk I put forth because it serves no good purpose for our cause. I need to calm down. I'm going to watch Ice Road Truckers now... :eek:

Erik.

dantodd
08-01-2010, 9:31 PM
To put it another way. Look at how this exact issue is treated by the media. When an anti-abortion group puts names and addresses of abortion providers on their website it's reported as a "hit list" and a bunch of nut jobs. When a gay rights group puts the names and addresses of people and businesses who supported prop. 8 it's heralded and the subsequent law suits are fully supported by the press.

Which way do you think they would treat THEIR names and addresses being published by a bunch of "gun nuts?"

Billy Jack
08-02-2010, 9:05 AM
I don't know if you guys know or not but in California all CCW applications, denials, renewals are all PUBLIC DOCUMENTS. This evolved out of 1986 court case.

CBS Inc. v. Block (http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/CBS_Inc._v._Block) (1986) - CCW Applications are public documents, therefore anyone may view them.

I realize it would negatively impact this thread but if any of you will read the actual text of CBS v Block (1986) you would find personal identifiers are exempt under California Government Code, Section 6250. Better known as the Public Records Act. You will find the actual ruling, not a summary, on our site below.

If you make an appointment to view them, they will show you redacted copies of most of the file and the actual license. If you want to purchase copies the same will apply. 'Due Diligence' gentlemen. will make for much better threads. FYI, many of the CCW cases currently in Federal court are a direct result of the PRA. As to poster to #15 above, there are provisions so that is simply not going to happen. Please read the decision before you make false claims!

Billy Jack
'The Force is strong with this one'


www.califroniaconcealedcarry.com

gunsmith
08-02-2010, 9:53 AM
But...but...employers are private entities and therefore they don't have to respect your right to keep and bear arms, right?

Look, you can't have it both ways. Either private entities get to deny you the right to keep and bear arms while on their property and to decide whether or not to hire you based on whether or not you have a CCW (or like guns at all, for that matter), or they don't. There is no in between that isn't entirely arbitrary.

Don't b*tch about private entities knowing about your CCW and discriminating against you on that basis unless you are willing to go up against the notion that private entities have the right to deny you the right to bear arms while on their property.

the little old lady who lives all alone-perfect victim? now that the thug knows she has a ccw he'll bash her head in from behind instead of kicking in the door or something similar.

ppl have been killed, I can't remember the exact details but a ccw in Ohio was bashed in the back of his head and killed-his gun taken- the day after his name appeared in the paper as a ccw.

Private entities have rights to do whatever but if they can find a right to privacy to protect abortion they can certainly find it for enumerated rights!

gunsmith
08-02-2010, 9:55 AM
I realize it would negatively impact this thread but if any of you will read the actual text of CBS v Block (1986) you would find personal identifiers are exempt under California Government Code, Section 6250. Better known as the Public Records Act. You will find the actual ruling, not a summary, on our site below.

If you make an appointment to view them, they will show you redacted copies of most of the file and the actual license. If you want to purchase copies the same will apply. 'Due Diligence' gentlemen. will make for much better threads. FYI, many of the CCW cases currently in Federal court are a direct result of the PRA. As to poster to #15 above, there are provisions so that is simply not going to happen. Please read the decision before you make false claims!

Billy Jack
'The Force is strong with this one'


www.califroniaconcealedcarry.com

good to know, how does this impact all the Californians who have out of state NV ccw's?

YubaRiver
08-02-2010, 10:07 AM
I realize it would negatively impact this thread but if any of you will read the actual text of CBS v Block (1986) you would find personal identifiers are exempt under California Government Code, Section 6250. Better known as the Public Records Act. You will find the actual ruling, not a summary, on our site below.

If you make an appointment to view them, they will show you redacted copies of most of the file and the actual license. If you want to purchase copies the same will apply. 'Due Diligence' gentlemen. will make for much better threads. FYI, many of the CCW cases currently in Federal court are a direct result of the PRA. As to poster to #15 above, there are provisions so that is simply not going to happen. Please read the decision before you make false claims!

Billy Jack
'The Force is strong with this one'


www.califroniaconcealedcarry.com

So a spouse in Reno doesn't have to worry about her ex looking her up
via a CCW permit?

CalNRA
08-02-2010, 11:32 AM
I realize it would negatively impact this thread but if any of you will read the actual text of CBS v Block (1986) you would find personal identifiers are exempt under California Government Code, Section 6250. Better known as the Public Records Act.

Mr Billy Jack:

I do recall that decision (albeit very vaguely).

So did the sheriff of Humbolt county violate the law here?

http://www.calccw.com/Forums/general-ccw-discussion/6259-newspaper-got-hold-list-names-humboldt-county-ccw-permit-holders.html

and that in turn was discussed here:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=123530


That kind of **** would bother me since unlike many people, my name is uncommon and there are only a half dozen of us in the entire US and I'm the only one within 400 mile radius of my residence.

wildhawker
08-02-2010, 12:44 PM
Cal. Government Code 6254(u):

(1) Information contained in applications for licenses to carry firearms issued pursuant to Section 12050 of the Penal Code by the sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a municipal police department that indicates when or where the applicant is vulnerable to attack or that concerns the applicant's medical or psychological history or that of members of his or her family.
(2) The home address and telephone number of peace officers, judges, court commissioners, and magistrates that are set forth in applications for licenses to carry firearms issued pursuant to Section 12050 of the Penal Code by the sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a municipal police department.
(3) The home address and telephone number of peace officers, judges, court commissioners, and magistrates that are set forth in licenses to carry firearms issued pursuant to Section 12050 of the Penal Code by the sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a municipal police department.

kcbrown
08-02-2010, 1:12 PM
Private entities have rights to do whatever but if they can find a right to privacy to protect abortion they can certainly find it for enumerated rights!

Oh, I most certainly agree with you. I was coming at that from the standpoint of employers discriminating on that basis, not from the standpoint of how they might find out. They could find out that you like guns, for instance, simply by examining these forums (if they can somehow find your real identity, which might not be that hard).

The problem of being explicitly targeted by bad guys is an entirely different kettle of fish and one I didn't intend to address at all.

Crom
08-02-2010, 1:14 PM
I realize it would negatively impact this thread but if any of you will read the actual text of CBS v Block (1986) you would find personal identifiers are exempt under California Government Code, Section 6250. Better known as the Public Records Act. You will find the actual ruling, not a summary, on our site below.

If you make an appointment to view them, they will show you redacted copies of most of the file and the actual license. If you want to purchase copies the same will apply. 'Due Diligence' gentlemen. will make for much better threads. FYI, many of the CCW cases currently in Federal court are a direct result of the PRA. As to poster to #15 above, there are provisions so that is simply not going to happen. Please read the decision before you make false claims!

Billy Jack
'The Force is strong with this one'


www.califroniaconcealedcarry.com (http://www.califroniaconcealedcarry.com)

Can you be more specific? Because I read the whole case and some other supplemental information on an external wiki. I understand the following parts of the CCW application to be public information:names,
cities of residence,
dates of issuance and renewal,
"good cause"

Public inspection of the names of license holders and the reasons the licenses were requested enables the press and the public to ensure that public officials are acting properly in issuing licenses for legitimate reasons.http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw/cbsvblock.html (http://www.ninehundred.net/%7Eequalccw/cbsvblock.html)

Billy Jack
08-02-2010, 1:58 PM
good to know, how does this impact all the Californians who have out of state NV ccw's?

Only applies to CA CCW. Under the PRA, you can not obtain addresses period! In cases with TRO's a newspaper is not going to hang itself out to dry civilly, by publishing personal data. I am still waiting for someone to post a story where a person was harmed or attacked after their name was published. I betcha, that is the same person who was thrown free in a traffic collision whose friends went on to perpetuate that urban legend as well.

When people post these unsupported 'opinions' based on a source they are unable to identify, you hand the Brady people a gift.

Billy Jack
'The Force is strong with this one'


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

Billy Jack
08-02-2010, 2:07 PM
Can you be more specific? Because I read the whole case and some other supplemental information on an external wiki. I understand the following parts of the CCW application to be public information:names,
cities of residence,
dates of issuance and renewal,
"good cause"
http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw/cbsvblock.html (http://www.ninehundred.net/%7Eequalccw/cbsvblock.html)

If you folks would do a PRAR you would find that no department will release DOB's, home addresses, SS# and so forth. If you find a department that did so, they were not supposed to. I have done hundreds of PRAR's and never been provided those identifiers. When done so in Discovery it is under a Protective Order.

Gee, I seem to be having a Deja Vu, Vuja De experience as this has been beaten to death before and will be beaten to death again. Just goes with the territory where people will not read or retain information that does not serve their purposes.

Billy Jack
'The Force is strong with this one'


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

TempleKnight
08-02-2010, 3:10 PM
good to know, how does this impact all the Californians who have out of state NV ccw's?

I just got a letter from the Washoe County Sheriff -a Notice of Release of Public Records. The Sheriff initially denied the request to release the info based Nevada law NRS 202.3662. The court decided that the APPLICATION for the CCW is confidential, but the CCW is not. The result is that my name, but not my address have been released to newspapers, identifying me as a Nevada CCW holder.

More info at www.nevadajudiciary.us/index.php/advanceopinions

wildhawker
08-02-2010, 3:35 PM
Billy Jack,

Permissible exemptions not explicitly outlined in 6254(u) are not mandatory.

I am having a similar feeling of dj vu, inasmuch your assertions are unsupported by law and contradictory to first-person experience.

Maybe they [licensing authorities] don't like your hat?


If you folks would do a PRAR you would find that no department will release DOB's, home addresses, SS# and so forth. If you find a department that did so, they were not supposed to. I have done hundreds of PRAR's and never been provided those identifiers. When done so in Discovery it is under a Protective Order.

Gee, I seem to be having a Deja Vu, Vuja De experience as this has been beaten to death before and will be beaten to death again. Just goes with the territory where people will not read or retain information that does not serve their purposes.

Billy Jack
'The Force is strong with this one'


www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

Gray Peterson
08-02-2010, 3:38 PM
Billy Jack,

Permissible exemptions not explicitly outlined in 6254(u) are not mandatory.


Only thing (and this is outside of GC 6254(u)) that is mandatory in terms of "must blank out" is social security numbers. Everything else is optional insofar as 6254(u) is concerned.

gunsmith
08-02-2010, 3:47 PM
I am still waiting for someone to post a story where a person was harmed or attacked after their name was published. I betcha, that is the same person who was thrown free in a traffic collision whose friends went on to perpetuate that urban legend as well.

When people post these unsupported 'opinions' based on a source they are unable to identify, you hand the Brady people a gift.

A few years old, but I remembered it. ( from thr.us )

Days after Plain Dealer ''outing''; CHL-holder Bill Singleton is dead
Posted on Wednesday, August 04 @ 09:49:29 EDT by chad



Compiled from news reports at Cleveland.com, NewsNet5.com, and WKYC.com.

August 4, 2004

Less than a week after the Cleveland Plain Dealer published Bill Singleton's name among a list of people who have chosen to obtain a license to bear arms for self-defense, Mr. Singleton is dead.

When three robbers came to Singleton's business Tuesday morning - they allegedly shot before Singleton had time to react to their demands.

In an exchange of gunfire, Singleton and a 17-year-old assailant were shot in the parking lot outside the United Check Cashing store on Lake Shore Boulevard near East 156th Street. Both later died at Huron Hospital.

“As I was outside I had seen a person stumbling,” Perry Roberts said. “He had his pistol in his hand and he was saying ‘somebody help me, somebody help me’ and he fell down on the ground.”

Cleveland police said Singleton was shot once in the chest, and he shot 17-year-old Rhyan Ikner once in the head. The two accomplices that witnesses saw with Ikner have not been found, said police Lt. Wayne Drummond. It was unclear Tuesday whether Singleton was shot by Ikner or one of the other robbers, Drummond said.

Attacker had criminal past

Ikner was arrested in March on aggravated robbery charges after police said he held up two men with a handgun.

The victims failed to appear in court for trial, and the charges were dropped on June 17. Ikner was released that day from the Cuyahoga County Jail.

Ikner also was found delinquent six times in Juvenile Court since 2001 on charges of drug possession, drug trafficking and assault, court records show.

Victim Was Caring, Respected Citizen

Friends described Singleton, 59, of Solon, as a kind man who was active in the neighborhood merchants association, and who sought to help lift up the nascent retail district surrounding his business, which opened last year.

"He treated everybody so decently," said Ward 11 City Councilman Mike Polensek, who was supposed to meet Singleton on Thursday to talk about the neighborhood.

"[He was a] good man who cared about his family, who cared about his neighborhood [and] made an investment in here," Councilman Mike Polensek said. "Here's another, decent black businessman, an African-American businessman gunned down, for what, because he made an investment in our city. We are being preyed upon by predators and we have got to send a message to the predators that it's over. You can't continue to do this.

It is not yet known Polensek has a history if support for the right of citizens to bear arms for self-defense.

The Need to Bear Arms For Self-Defense

But Singleton also worried that his business would attract thieves. He said he was robbed at least twice, and he was planning to buy surveillance cameras to mount outside the store, said Brian Friedman, head of the Northeast Shores Development Corp.

Records show Singleton received a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

"He was scared," Friedman said. "He had a sneaking suspicion this would happen."

Ray Beverly, who manages the video store across the street, says he could have easily been killed like Singleton because he was just robbed at gunpoint Monday afternoon.

"He took me into the back room, wanted to know where the safe was, cracked me with his gun, broke my fillings," said Beverly. "He took me back to the adult room and told me to stay in there ... that if I came out, he was going to shoot me."

"It became a war zone in two days," said Beverly.

People in the neighborhood are scared and angry.

"It's not safe for any color, any race. It's not safe for nobody any more," said area resident Carolyn Johnson. "I got robbed on East 156th myself."

This isn't the first time Singleton's life was in danger. One morning in June, Bill Singleton was opening his Collinwood check-cashing store when he had to fend off a would-be robber in a skeleton mask. Though the man had a gun, Singleton managed to hold the door shut and lock it before calling police.

Questions which deserve answers

Why did Cleveland Plain Dealer editor Doug Clifton decide that these innocent, law-abiding citizens, desperate to protect themselves from violent criminals that no gun control law or background check can stop, are the ones needing to be treated like persons of suspicion?

Why did Doug Clifton act to put people like Bill Singleton at so much risk by revealing to potential attackers that they are armed, and why do they promise to continue to do so?

Initial accounts say the robbers shot first, ambush-style. Did they know Singleton was armed? Did Bill Singleton die upon Doug Clifton's altar of open records?

If they're really interested in public safety, why doesn't the Plain Dealer spend its precious page space printing names of persons like these attackers, with violent criminal histories?

The questions above may yield answers with time. But this one can never be answered:

How many other would-be victims of Rhyan Ikner will live out their lives because of the heroic actions of Bill Singleton?

Billy Jack
08-02-2010, 3:56 PM
Billy Jack,

Permissible exemptions not explicitly outlined in 6254(u) are not mandatory.

I am having a similar feeling of dj vu, inasmuch your assertions are unsupported by law and contradictory to first-person experience.

Maybe they [licensing authorities] don't like your hat?

Grasshopper, when someone posts the name of the California department that released addresses, DOB's and SS# I will post an apology. By the way, how many departments have you done PRAR's on?

'Brave who does not like the message, likes to attack messenger' Billy Jack

I shall watch for your response between my PRARS. Looks like you have stepped on your Johnson friend!

Billy Jack
'The Force is strong with this one'

wildhawker
08-02-2010, 4:45 PM
Billy Jack,

You must not think much of my capacity to withhold sensitive information. Surely you understand that it's foolish to post such information on a public forum (often read by non-friendly forces); indeed, you regularly chastise posters for providing too much information yet you seem to imply that it would be worthwhile to divulge such information as the department(s) who have done as I suggest, simply to prove I've received such information? I can live without an apology, but make no mistake, one is in order.

As to the quantity of requests I've made under the Public Records Act, I don't feel compelled to play this game either. Needless to say, your attempt to undermine my credibility based on information you do not possess is more an indicator of your efficacy than a judgment on my experience.

If your humorous suggestion that I somehow "stepped on [my] Johnson" relates to your perception of its physical disposition, I thank you for the compliment. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you could mean - that I haven't proven myself entirely correct (by omitting facts I do not desire in the public domain) is not itself evidence that I'm wrong.

gunsmith
08-02-2010, 6:08 PM
Originally Posted by Billy Jack View Post
I am still waiting for someone to post a story where a person was harmed or attacked after their name was published. I betcha, that is the same person who was thrown free in a traffic collision whose friends went on to perpetuate that urban legend as well.

When people post these unsupported 'opinions' based on a source they are unable to identify, you hand the Brady people a gift. OK, my post #33 list one such incident - also in Roanoke VA they did the same thing and a women with a restraining order against her violent ex husband had to move three times after she had finally gotten him out of her life- she got her ccw and when the paper reported her address she had to uproot her life, I think she won a lawsuit - nearly 5 years ago so running down the old info is quite difficult- I'm trying.

YubaRiver
08-02-2010, 6:38 PM
Billy Jack, as helpful as you are being on this thread, I think you are acting
like a johnson.

dantodd
08-02-2010, 6:58 PM
Wildhawker, I immediately thought of Billy Jack's drumbeat repetition about not speaking of information unless there if an actionable reason to do so. In his words, there is no reason to divulge just to satisfy his prurient interest.

EOD Guy
08-03-2010, 6:46 AM
Did anyone actually read the article in the first post? The paper does not intend to publish any names of permit holders. Their suit was related to an investigation of the governor and how he got his permit without actually qualifying with all of the firearms on his permit.

socal2310
08-03-2010, 7:11 AM
Did anyone actually read the article in the first post? The paper does not intend to publish any names of permit holders. Their suit was related to an investigation of the governor and how he got his permit without actually qualifying with all of the firearms on his permit.

I'm embarrassed to say that I didn't follow the link at the top until I read your post. Thankfully, I didn't post anything before that and you saved me from "stepping on my johnson."

I'm one of the heretics who doesn't believe that a CCW class should be required; however, if there is such a restriction in place, the law ought to be followed by all parties, not only plebeians.

Ryan

jamesob
08-03-2010, 8:18 AM
publicizing the names of ccw holders gets ppl killed, gets them fired from their jobs and denied employment.

i wouldn't say that. people who read the newspapers are not the ones who go out and kill people because they know that john q. has his ccw. as for your other comments, every private company can hire and fire whoever and whenever they want. i say it's a right to privacy issue but wouldn't say it gets people killed.

Gray Peterson
08-03-2010, 8:46 AM
i wouldn't say that. people who read the newspapers are not the ones who go out and kill people because they know that john q. has his ccw. as for your other comments, every private company can hire and fire whoever and whenever they want. i say it's a right to privacy issue but wouldn't say it gets people killed.

It's an Unruh Act violation to fire someone for enjoying the shooting sports and exercising a state license completely outside of work and work property.

gunsmith
08-03-2010, 8:51 AM
i wouldn't say that. people who read the newspapers are not the ones who go out and kill people because they know that john q. has his ccw. as for your other comments, every private company can hire and fire whoever and whenever they want. i say it's a right to privacy issue but wouldn't say it gets people killed.

IT HAS GOTTEN PEOPLE KILLED!

jamesob
08-03-2010, 11:06 AM
IT HAS GOTTEN PEOPLE KILLED!

who? give me an article or something.

gunsmith
08-03-2010, 11:17 AM
who? give me an article or something.

post 33

jamesob
08-03-2010, 12:15 PM
post 33

serious, thats what you have? where is the connection between his ccw being public info and related to the crime?:confused:

gunsmith
08-03-2010, 1:14 PM
hey, its years old! I've been looking!

Crom
08-03-2010, 1:17 PM
serious, thats what you have? where is the connection between his ccw being public info and related to the crime?:confused:

It was the first line of the article.


Less than a week after the Cleveland Plain Dealer published Bill Singleton's name among a list of people who have chosen to obtain a [CCW] license to bear arms for self-defense, Mr. Singleton is dead.

jamesob
08-03-2010, 5:07 PM
It was the first line of the article.

thats proof that they are linked? thats like saying that joe blow purchased a chevy and 2 days later he is killed in a auto accident, if he would have purchased a honda it would have never happened.
show me proof that the murderer admitted that he killed because he read in the paper that victim had a ccw. your not going to because it's b.s.
also did the 17 yr. old have a ccw? he got shot and killed also.
maybe just maybe that this happened because 3 dirtbags robbed 2 people that was at a check cashing business, where they have lots of cash.

tgun
08-03-2010, 10:45 PM
I don't see how publishing it in a newspaper matters much. Anybody can put in a records request and walk out with all of your names. After that, home addresses and DOB's are usually trivial. Sooner or later some anti-gunner is going to post the whole shebang on the Internet.

When you do business with the government, the record is public. If you want to keep something private, quit asking the government for permission.

BillCA
08-04-2010, 3:12 AM
Several years ago, the Roanoke (Va) times put up a searchable database of county residents who had CCW's. The backlash to that was swift and heated. Several CCW holders pursued litigation against The Times and the initial trial court dismissed, saying the Times was legally entitled to public "public records". A second suit, alleging willful endangerment was, IIRC, settled out of court. Their point was that just because the Times can publish doesn't mean they should publish (and they failed to consider the safety implications for the CCW holders).

Any time you see a hint of a newspaper preparing such a story, immediately fire off a letter to it's board of directors and editors. Remind them that while they may have duty to report, they also have a duty not to endanger people in their expose. Failing to consider the impact on persons who have obtained a CCW as protection from abusive spouses, gang members, criminals they've testified against or based on their jobs, can and will result in litigation.

I did this when the Washoe letter showed up.

Re: CCW's & Employment:
I'd never tell my employer that I have a CCW. If he figures it out himself, then that's another thing. As a holder of a permit, if the company fires me specifically for having that permit we can argue the legalities in court. But it will most likely be for some other "cause" or reason (i.e. reorganization). If an employer's rules are no guns in the workplace, then I have to abide by those rules if I want to keep my job.

If you have a TRO against someone for threats, never tell your employer about it. Legal advice to employers is to terminate a TRO holder if there is any possibility that the restrained person might come to the workplace and cause violence. This is because lawyers will claim the company knew of a potential violent hazard and failed to take "remedial action" to prevent it.

gunsmith
08-04-2010, 6:18 PM
show me proof that the murderer admitted that he killed because he read in the paper that victim had a ccw. your not going to because it's b.s.
.

Sure, as soon as they catch the SOB and he confesses we'll have proof.

also did the 17 yr. old have a ccw? he got shot and killed also

Hey, the 17 year old was robbing the guy and got shot in the process, please at least read the article.

The fact is, soon after his name was published, he was attacked ambush style.
The proof you seek is difficult to come by when the actors are dead and his accomplices are still free.

Presuming that armed robbers do not case the place and read newspapers and get as much info as they can is pure folly. Dangerous Folly

YubaRiver
08-04-2010, 7:11 PM
Here is what Marion County, Oregon is sending to concealed carriers.

https://secure.co.marion.or.us/SO/CHL/CHLquestionnaire.asp