I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, I can understand being angry that my name would be printed in the paper without my consent; there's a difference between knowing that I'm in a database that is in theory accessible, and having said database splashed all over the local newsprint. On the other hand, the database is, after all, public property.

Printing the reporter's home address in the comments as retribution is pretty infantile, though.

Oh, please, how disingenuous can you get. The writer's goal was to invade the privacy of legal gun owners as a disincentive to others applying for gun permits. "See what happens when you own a gun -- your name will be printed in the newspaper whether you like it or not!"

Public record means public record, folks. You can print my name in the paper all you want if it will stop the junk mail from Larry, Moe, and Curly wanting to save me money on my mortgage! Don`t want to submit to the permit and record keeping process? Carry your gun openly.

Than be carried by 6. Marc how many folks with concealed weapons permits in VA have used the gun to commit any crime and how many folks with concealed weapons were convicted? I am sure the liberal media and card carrying leg shavers columnists like yourself would blast it all over the MSM if one did.

Smart move by the columnist letting criminals know who had guns etc.

How many neighbors of concealed weapons holders in VA were victims of crimes by these concealed weapons holders?

I have no problems with the database being public I do have problems with the papers and columnist publishing the info for their own agenda!

The point of Sunshine Week is to shine light on GOVERNMENT actions, not those of private citizens. The reporter just as easily could have chosen to publish information related to the functioning of government that is not easily accessible. Instead, the reporter chose to publish the personal information of private citizens. His only purpose, revealed by his choice of words to describe the gun owners, was to cause the legal gun owners embarassment.

What is the problem with owning guns?They have been a part of american history since before we became a unified nation.Why do you northern liberal believe that the gov't/police will protect you from all crimes?Have you ever conceived of protecting yourself and not being such a limp wristed sissy?

Printing the list just lets the criminals know where the guns are. And the reporter, despite claims to the contrary, was just trying to harass gun-owners. I doubt people owning guns is that big of a deal in Roanoke; it is only in liberal bastions like NoVA and DC where they are demonized. You should be permitted drugs or an abortion but not the means to protect yourself.

Show me a case in VA where a concealed carry permit holder has committed a crime. I'm waiting. I'll be dead in 80 years, and still waiting for you to bring a case. I can find 10 cases in VA right now where people, women too, were mugged or robbed, raped or beaten to death. I bet they wish they had the ability to defend themselves. Your line of -if your neighbor is prepared to shoot someone who attempts, say, to mug him, you'd certainly want to know about it.- Why? You're kowtowing to the left, and making FUD out of a non FUD issue. Since when does a guaranteed right become something to fear? Only because the media makes it so for those that are so inclined to believe the prattle.

Show me a case in VA where a concealed carry permit holder has committed a crime. I'm waiting. I'll be dead in 80 years, and still waiting for you to bring a case. I can find 10 cases in VA right now where people, women too, were mugged or robbed, raped or beaten to death. I bet they wish they had the ability to defend themselves. Your line of -if your neighbor is prepared to shoot someone who attempts, say, to mug him, you'd certainly want to know about it.- Why? You're kowtowing to the left, and making FUD out of a non FUD issue. Since when does a guaranteed right become something to fear? Only because the media makes it so for those that are so inclined to believe the prattle.

Just another of Marc anti-gun screeds. Only liberals like him (if you are anti-gun, you ARE a Liberal) are scared of guns and demonize their owners.

This article is NOT about the Second Amendment. You people with an agenda need to stop making this into something that it is not. The list of people with these permits was public property. Publishing it violated NO laws, no standards of ethics, NOTHING!
We need MORE transparancy in government, not less.
Oh, and by the way, my name's on the list.

Oh, and Permit Man - Giuliani is pro gun control, and no one has EVER accused him of not being a Republican.

I would want to know who of my neighbors was carrying a concealed weapon. I appreciate the paper for demonstrating that that information is publicly available. And why shouldn't it be? I do think that people who own guns are more likely to use them than people who don't own guns... find fault with that logic, folks.

To use a line created by the press because it does not exist in the US Constitution:

"The people have the right to know".

Since the government issues press passes to selected individuals for entrance into limited accessability events, I feel, as a citizen who has a right to know, that the names and addresses of the individuals receiving those press passes should be published in the local paper and online for all of us to see.

I would also like to have the names and addresses of people receiving learners permits to drive. I don't want my kids playing in the front yard when the neighbors' 16 year old kid comes blasting down the road. Since we are averaging over 3000 people killed every month because of motor vehicle accidents this knowledge would come in handy. Interesting that more people die EVERY MONTH in motor vehicle accidents than we have lost in FOUR YEARS during the war on terror and yet nobody is marching for vehicle safety.

Or, we could maintain a little privacy and restrict access to records such as press passes, learners permits, and weapons permits, etc.

I guess it all depends on what type of country you want to have. Does anybody have the right to infringe on other people's rights? All for the sake of "The people have the right to know"?

Is there anyway the Post could publish the list of ccw permit holders in Arlington? I'd like to know who the concealed weapon carriers are on my block and in my neighborhood. It would help me make decisions about who my kids play with and temper my interactions with ccw holders. I think these licensees react so stridently because deep down it is shameful for them to have these permits. If it weren't, why the fuss?

Read Warren vs DC if you believe police are liable in not protecting you from private crime. You'll realize that you're on your own. The police being obligated to protect you from crime is a myth. CHP do more to protect the populace as a whole. If VA has so many (140000) permit holders, where is the wave or murder and violence? It's in DC. Funny how that works. I'm glad my neighbors are packing - there were more than 600 in my zip code alone!

Printing that list was a remarkably ill-conceived action. Let's go through and get a list of all the people in Alexandria that own expensive sports cars and put that in the paper, too. Highlight where criminals can find these things and we'll just hope that some enterprising young thug doesn't get a list and watch the house for the owners to leave. I learned a long time ago that we don't have an expectation of privacy anymore (especially where media & busybodies are concerned), but let's at least TRY to not make it so easy for the malicious. It's called the law of unintended consequences.

Bob in Nova, you clearly didn't understand the purpose of the original article. You can do what the reporter did and request the records yourself if you want them, not wait for the Post to publish them. The article wasn't about harassing CCW holders, remember?

Bob in Arlington: You prob bump into them in Metro and they're the ones who politely say "Excuse Me, sorry." The thugs are the ones to worry about - how about getting a list of their names published? How about the 15 yr olds who are carjacking and committing felonies? They're the REAL threat. They're the PROBLEM. You think they act like its shameful. Perhaps it's the wife of an ex-husband that was beating her. She left him, keeps a low profile and wants to protect herself instead of relying on some late to the party police force. DO you think she's shameful? Do you think we should publish her address? Think again if it was your daughter. Stop thinking about yourself so much and just for a moment put yourself in other people's shoes. Prob difficult for you.

Hey lets take this to its logical conclusion and publish:

Driving records (I want to know if that nut in the green Honda is as dangerous as he looks)

Tax records (Someone might not be paying their fair share)

Magazine subscriptions (Is that weird looking guy down the street reding Hustler?)

Criminal records (I just know my neighbors have done time for jay walking)

Lets start by having the Washington Post publish all the above records for their reporters. After all if we have no privacy rights; why should they?

"Is there anyway the Post could publish the list of ccw permit holders in Arlington?"

Seems to me anyone could get the database from the courthouse (probably an electronic text file or Excel spreadsheet) and post it on a website himself.

In fact, I think I might do it myself.

Sounds like fun.

And! I can do it without revealing my name!

So why doesn't the paper print the names of alleged rape victims?

Or of juveniles charged with a crime?

Or the names of physicians who've been sued for malpractice?

Or the social security numbers of elected officials?

All are public records and available.

Your claim of merely making the available data more easily available is disingenuous at best and mendanacious at worst.

Re CT: Nobody suggested that Guiliani isn't Republican. He isn't, however, conservative. He can call himself anything he wants, but his record is what counts.

Why wouldn't you be happy that your name was printed? It's a deterrant for criminals. They'll go rob someone else's home.

There's nothing wrong with owning a gun, and nothing to be ashamed of. Why would you be unhappy that your name was in the newspaper showing that you were exercising your second amendment right? Newspapers publish the names of people that exercise their first amendment right and contribute money to political campaigns. How is this different?

Wow, some of you really ARE that paranoid! Public records are public records. Many localities already have their public records on the internet, so publishing them in the paper doesn't really make all that much difference. If you are so inclined, you can look up the political contributions of your neighbors.

Woodbridge, criminal records are also public records. You can go down to the courthouse (or, in Virginia, look it up online) to see who is a criminal. For all those people who want to know whether a concealed carrier has committed a crime, you could probably even cross-reference both PUBLIC lists and figure it out yourself!

So, "Rather Face A Jury of 12", what do "card carrying leg shavers columnists" have to do with outing concealed carry permit holders? I shave my legs, and I'll bet most of the female readers here do too. Is that supposed to be some sort of right-wing-attack-machine insult?

I think this is case of the newsmedia creating news rather than reporting. Thus I think the paper crossed a line that it should not have.
I have limited knowledge of the laws regarding handgun regulation. However, it seems clear that the state recognizes that citizens have a desire to carry handguns secretly. But what is the point to getting a permit to do something secretly, if the permit is public? It seems to me that the reason this system works is because the bureaucratic red tape makes something that is nominally public in effect rather private. The newspaper's actions upset this practical balance.
Of course, it is a legitamate issue to be raised that goverment inefficiency (or if intended, secrecy) makes this system work. This is an issue that is clearly relevant and appropriate to address during Sunshine Week. The editorial however could have simply and effectively made this point through good writing without actually acting to destroy the balance in place.

I am a strong defender of the Second Ammendment. While I do not have a concealed carry permit - Maryland is not a right to carry state - I would if I could. I strongly disagree with you that permit holders should be regarded as dangerous. It is simply a matter of personal safety. The criminals are the ones that should be regarded as dangerous! Those who would fear being shot by me (in my home, as I do not have a permit) could avoid this fate by simply not threatening me with deadly force.

This information is a matter of public record and I see no problem with publicizing it. That said, I'd be pretty pissed if I saw my name in the newspaper without my consent too. Their anger is understandable. Their actions are not. Once their anger has cooled, it is easy to see that this is a matter of public record and should remain so.

Isn't it more likely that crooks will avoid the houses where they know people have permits to carry concealed weapons? Seems like it would be good for people to advertise that fact.

For me, I'd be happy to know who on my block has a concealed weapon permit. Those are the houses my kids don't get to play in.

If you're not embarrassed for people to know you have a CWP, why do you care if it's published? How is that any different from publishing, say, the price you paid for your home?

Lyria, You gave your consent to have your name published in the newspaper when you signed up for a permit (well, you personally didn't, but the Virginians who have them did), just as you consented to have your name published when you purchased your home, or got married, or got a driver's license, or registered to vote, or any number of other actions we take with the government. You can philosophically disagree with the publication of that information, but this country has always been built on the principle that it is better to have such things (interactions with the government) as public knowledge.

I think it would be a public safety service for the Post to publish the names of people who have ccw permits in Arlington. Just as a ccw permit holder feels safer walking around with a gun, I'd feel safer knowing who is walking around with a gun. I stand by my contention that ccw permit holders are ashamed of having these permits and don't want the public to know. And Rob, I'd be willing to be that over 90% of ccw holders are men, not women.

I think the reflexive anger by the gun-toting crowd comes from being inundated by the NRA's fundraising literature about the leg-shaving liberal government coming to get your guns. So gun-owners have become very possessive and secretive about their ownership.

The weird twist to this story is that it's not the government that's finding out you have guns -- the government already knew you owned a gun because it licensed you to conceal it! -- so why the secretiveness? I think mainly it's just reflexive. But frankly, I would want everyone to know I had a weapon -- they'd be more likely to decide not to rob my house, right? (Assuming all those terrible thugs are perusing the op-ed page of the Roanoke Times during Sunshine Week.)

I just don't see where the harm is. It should be like wearing those "I VOTED" stickers on election day -- if you support the 2d Amendment so strongly, be proud you're exercising your rights as a citizen!

That's my point, OD, though I probably wasn't clear about it. I'd be pissed because I didn't know it was coming - I didn't give my consent to that *specific action*. However, once cooler head prevail, it becomes obvious that since it is (and should be) a matter of public record, there is no problem with printing it. I would have, in fact, given a general sort of consent when I got the permit.

**Why do you northern liberal believe that the gov't/police will protect you from all crimes?Have you ever conceived of protecting yourself and not being such a limp wristed sissy?**
-------------------------------------------FYI, Fred, just about any self-respecting 19-year-old street thug can take your gun away from you and make a "sissy" out of YOU! Don't believe me? Try packing your gun and going for a casual stroll in SE DC. or Capitol Heights.

Why not buy a dog? It guards the house when you're absent, guards it while you're asleep, guards your family while you're out with your gun, will take a bullet for you/bite out of any intruder, and is nearly as intimidating to the thug (sic) community as whatever you're packing.
And walking it helps reduce your fat ass.

The only thing that bothered me is the notion that "you'll keep your kids away from a house with a firearm". Look at the numbers people, your child is more at risk at a home with a swimming pool than at a home with a gun. And let's not even throw in the risk of driving your children around. What the paper did wasn't wrong; but I understand people feeling slighted that they made the news. And for all you creative types, worry more about people carrying unlicensed firearms...

As a supporter of the entire Bill of Rights, I welcome the list. I think it's the only way to ensure that conceal carry permits are issued fairly and evenly. Since I live in Maryland and I'm not a business owner, doctor, lawyer or politician I have no right to defend myself.

Having a list would give me an idea of the people I could count on when I can't count on the government. Heck, dialing 911 is a crap shoot anyway, think if a terror attack, major storm (Kirtania) or even a prolonged power outage where to happen. Who do you call when the police are overwhelmed and a pack of looters are coming down the block? Call that CCW holder!

Having a CCW should be a badge of honor, it means your record is spotless, you have (some) training in firearms safety and understand your rights. Then again, my name was not on the list.

Sure, I'll stick a Rottweiler in my waistband when I'm going to the bank. Great thinking. :P

The lead-in to this story is extremely misleading. When you read the actual piece in the Roanoke Times, the author sets his condescending tone early and even likens gun owners to sex offenders. The article was not objective and seemed to be intentionally inflammatory. There is also a failure to mention that ccw permits are universally accepted as public record. 18 states don't agree, 17 do believe it's public record, and 15 have no definitive stance. Having lived in VA my entire life(growing up in SW VA, now living in NOVA), the stark contrast in firearms is particularly fascinating. How many of the irrational anti-gun crowd have first hand experience with firearms I wonder?

The concept for this story is not unusual. Mr. Fisher may recall that in fall 1995, the Connection Newspapers here in Northern Virginia compiled and published a similar list - and got the same reactions, both positive and negative.

I don't know if I fall into the irrational anti-gun crowd or the irrational pro-gun crowd, but I have extensive experience with guns, although I do not have a permit.

And I have NO problem with this list being published, regardless of the tone.

The yuppies don't want their kids near a home that may have a firearm in it but as soon as junior turns 16, mommy and daddy is buying them a new car to run all over the roads (and with little to no driving experience).

You know, with that database Christian Trejbal could have done a good story on the fairness of the CCW permit process. Remarking on racial, religious, or social standing of permit holders.

He could have done a story on CCW permit holders and the rate of crime, how many permit holders have been the victim of crime, or even how many have committed a violent crime. He could have reported on the number of accidental discharges of the weapons in public. Or the number of children killed by firearms in homes where a CCW permit holder lived.

But, instead he assumed that a law abiding person, that is willing to pay the fees, submit to the background check, be fingerprinted, and jump through what ever other hoops Virginia requires of a permit holder is somehow a danger, and that the public should be warned of there presence.

Publishing the list was fine, but the failed to qualify that information with any facts was just piss poor journalism.

Does anyone who argees with Trejbal think the concealed weapon law makes sense?

why does he have to "qualify" the list? the list is public info and he published it... I'm failing to find the "p*** poor"-ness of it.

He did not provide a context for the information. The tone of the story implied that the list would allow people to know who was a danger, or a nut worried that the king of England might try to get into there house.

The fact of the matter is that the story provided a list of the people that are the least danger. Anyone you see on the street could have a concealed firearm. Most homes in the United States have a firearm. The people listed where the ones that took the extra steps, the safest ones.

The disingenuous anti-gun-owner crowd whines that Trejbal's outing of VA CCW holders somehow performs a public good. From the comments here, the good they FEEL happens is that they will be able to confirm their pre-existing bigotry against certain neighbors they already dislike. Too bad for them that they will actually find out that quiet, *normal* people who they actually like and get along with also believe in the Second Amendment, causing said anti-gun-owners to seek therapy for their cognitive dissonance.

So I took your advice, Mike, and read the piece. No condescension, no intentional inflammation. The "likening" of those with ccw permits to sex offenders was only an illustration of how government made decisions to distribute its resources and just how "open" it really was.

After reading it, I am even more supportive of the article. It is instructive of how ordinary citizens can access public information: sometimes it's free on the internet (complete with interactive maps), sometimes it takes a trip to the courthouse, sometimes it requires a fee, sometimes it requires years of legal wrangling over a FOIA request.

This is what good journalism does: shines the light on how the government is operating and gives citizens the tools they need to be responsible and active. I think the specifics about ccw permits is only incidental.

But then, I have no ideological axe to grind in this fight.

I too would like to see the names of all minors in my neighborhood that have been arrested for anything. That would allow me to make sure that my kids don't get involved with that kid. I would also like to see the driving records of my neighbors too so I can make sure that my kids never get in their cars.

Deacon, don't be so sensitive, I'm pretty sure the "King George" comment was a joke. Perhaps it was an ideological tipping of the hand, but it is true REGARDLESS of what you think of the current usefulness of the 2d Am that its impetus is in protecting oneself from the Crown. therefore, a decent joke (for a newspaper column). it was NOT the only reason he said one would own a gun.

Mr. Fisher misrepresents the scope of the database in order to make the reporter's actions seem benign. Specifically, the posted was not limited to a "complete list of all the[] neighbors" of "readers of his newspaper", nor was it just a "listing [of]all of those who lived in his paper's area." Instead the database contained the name and addresses for every CCW holder in the entire state. Thus, the purpose could not have been just to inform the local populace of whether their "neighbor" had a permit. Thus, this is an example of a reporter publishing something just because he can, made all the better because the information may dissuade people from availing themselves of a legal right of which the reporter and Mr. Fisher disapproves.

While the database is public record, the Roanoke times made it more easily accesible to criminals. The other problem with what Trejbal wrote is that he basically compared gun owners to sex offender in his column, saying that how easy is to know where sex offenders live in your neighborhood, it should be just as easy to know where gun owners are. Well, by definition, gun owners are NOT felons! And, show me where any concealed carry permit holders are committing crimes - you can't.

Anyone who thinks Trejbal*s article was neither inflammatory nor unfair, and didn*t comprehend his insinuation that CCW holders were in the same public danger category as sex offenders (why else would he frame it that way?), only does so because they share his same anti-gun-owner bias.

The newspaper had every right to reprint or link to the database. It's a public record. It is a public record for very good reasons. As Christian Trejbal pointed out, government employees make mistakes from time to time. It also doesn't meet the standards for an exemption (personnel matters, land purchases, security reasons, etc.). It is a shame the paper bowed to pressure to remove it.

However, denying that the Trejbal had no idea that his writing cast a negative light on gun owners or that that was not his secondary intent is disingenuous and hypocritical. Please. He knew when he hit the keyboard that his statements would be inflammatory and that they carried the implication that gun ownership and concealed carry permits were bad ideas.

Let's look at some of his piece and how he words it. Do the words he chooses carry positive or negative connotations? What images does he deliberately invoke?

"There are good reasons the records are open to public scrutiny. People might like to know if their neighbors carry. Parents might like to know if a member of the car pool has a pistol in the glove box. Employers might like to know if employees are bringing weapons to the office."

The implications of those statements: If you go to your neighbors house, you might get shot. If you make your car pool buddy angry, he might shoot your kid. If you go to work, one of your co-workers could go postal and kill you. All because they own guns and have concealed carry permits.

Combining parents, kids and guns is absolutely a negative tactic. Parents want to know if their carpool member has a gun? Tell me that was meant to imply that parents could depend on a gun owner protecting their children. Now do it and believe it yourself. Employees bringing guns to work? That wasn't meant to allude to the cases of workplace violence that make the news? I have this bridge in Brooklyn I'm selling.

"Might like to know" is a convenient phrase most commonly used when conveying alarming or negative information. You might like to know your lover has herpes. You might like to know the dog you are adopting hates cats. You might like to know there is a sex offender living in your neighborhood.

When was the last time someone said "You might like to know you won the lottery." No, they say "DUDE! You won the lottery!!!! (Can I borrow $10,000?)"

How about this paragraph?

"Local celebrities generally don't carry, but at least a half dozen elected officials do. I'll leave it to readers to figure out which ones so you can avoid annoying them at meetings."

Implication: Not only should you mistrust your government, you should fear your elected officials too. They might just shoot you. Trejbal completely ignores that elected officials are routinely threatened with harm--even on the local level.

Overall, there are eight obviously negative sentences about concealed carry permits and the people who have them. There is ONE sentence that provides a positive viewpoint.

Writers are not oblivious to the impact their words have. To the contrary, it is why most people go into journalism. They want to have an impact on society. I'll give them credit for wanting to improve society. (It's why I went into journalism and ultimately why I left.) Writers know that by simply choosing to word a sentence one way or another, they can put a positive or negative spin on an idea.

Trejbal could have very easily used less inflammatory imagery and writing and actually accomplished his stated goal--to celebrate Sunshine laws. Instead, he chose to use Sunshine laws to cause fear and intimidate citizens who *legally* carry weapons.

He was right about two things. Sunshine laws are good for democracy and whether or not a concealed carry law is a good thing is another debate entirely.

Why is information bad? If you have a valid legal right, why is it bad that people know you're exercising it? Al, you say publishing this information will dissuade people from applying for the permit. But K-Romulus says that publishing the information may lead the anti-gun crowd to realize that most gun owners actually are responsible law-abiding citizens?

Why not just publish the already-public information and let the chips fall where they may? If it can support one side, surely there's information out there that will support the opposite (i.e., that permit-holders do not commit crimes).

(Incidentally, if the individual counties maintained their own lists, he wouldn't have had to go to the state police to find the information. Again, supporting my argument that this is more about testing open government than specifically about the merits of concealed gun ownership. Stop seeing conspiracies around every corner.)

As I said in my first post, I would welcome the list. I wish I could get one for Maryland! Freedom on Information is a wonderful thing!

If he would have changed a couple of things...
Take this paragraph.

There are good reasons the records are open to public scrutiny. People might like to know if their neighbors able carry. Parents might like to know if a member of the car pool has a pistol in the glove box in case of a car jacking. Employers might like to know if employees are bringing weapons to the office in case some nut decides to go on a rampage.

Many of the posts on this board demonstrate why the term "gun nuts" became so commonplace.

"I do think that people who own guns are more likely to use them than people who don't own guns... find fault with that logic, folks." I got another one for you genius, people who ride motorcycles are more likely to get into motorcycle accidents than people who don't ride motorcycles! What does that prove?

disillusioned journalist,

So is this an argument over the publication of the list itself, the right to own a gun (or carry it concealed), or is it just the same old tripe about how the mainstream media is so obviously liberally biased and every time they write something we have to nit-pick over each individual phrase to find fault?

It's the Roanoke Times, for crying out loud, how good do you expect their columnists to be? 90% of the paper is just AP stories.

Just because you can publish this list doesn't mean you should. This is journalism at its worst. Trejbal is just another left wing, anti-gun, nut-job reporter we can lump into the pile.

Trying to show that there isn't any discrimination on who gets a CCW, would have been newsworthy. His article was an attempt to injure CCW permit holders.

I trust my fellow CCW holder far more than I trust the average citizen.

OD,
Isn't there some harm to publishing the list? If the specifics of ccw permits are only incidental to the point of the editorial, then it is not really good journalism to include the information.

Gee Marc -- Why don't we also use Motor Vehicle Records to publish a list of everyone who owns a luxury car so that criminals will know who to rob. Since you love public databases so much how about posting you home address, license plate number, etc. on your blog. Oh, but that would be an invasion of your privacy.

Ah, I love the FOIA process!

Maybe I should post Marc's home address here? And the make, model and license plate #'s of the 3 Mercedes he owns?

The moron who said get a dog doesnt understand not all dogs are protection oriented and they must be trained or they they might attack friends and families.

The real issue here is the likelihood that such a list will be interpreted as, or used for, a means of focusing community disaproval on people who are doing somthing that is perfectly legal and within their rights. It also carries at least the implication that these individuals are a treat to public safety.

Would we be equally comfortable with a newspaper posting the names of everyone who attends political protest? If not, why not? Attending a protest is a public act - anyone who cares to go down and observe it can see all of the attendees.

List of non-confidential information can carry implications of their own - particularly when associated with hot-button issues such as guns.

Hey Marc why not publish alist of machine gun owners? Do a FOIA request to BATF and you could list everyone in the Metro area who paid the fee and underwent the checks to legally possess an automatic weapon. Your SO's stilettos are more dangerous the a CCW!

"I do think that people who own guns are more likely to use them than people who don't own guns... find fault with that logic, folks."

It's fine, as far as it goes. But use them for what? We're talking about law-abiding citizens who've gone to the trouble to go through the permitting process; not some gang-member or small-time thug who bought a Saturday night special off of the street corner.

Are they more likely to use a gun to shoot a carjacker? Or intruders into their homes? Or someone robbing a local business?

The real nub of this debate is whether or not citizens who apply for, and are approved for, a concealed carry license will use those weapons for appropriate and socially useful purposes. Do we have any evidence that they will not? As Mark says, crime rates provide some support for the idea that the weapons will be used appropriately. (And yes, some crime rates are higher - which may be the impetus behind the legislation. Hard to prove either way - research on this kind of "natural experiment" is notoriously tricky.)

Wow, what a great idea. I think I'll do the same thing for DC now that their allowing guns in homes.

I have a computer science and GIS background, so I have the means to so something pretty slick; Perhaps a Google Map with the pinpoint locations of everyone who's been granted a permit. :)

No, there is absolutely no harm to publishing this list. There is no specific harm anyone can cite to. Everything so far has been conjecture. You could never prove any of these harms in a court of law.

And further, it's already public information. If it's already public, there can be no harm in making it public in another forum. I don't care if you say that the bureaucratic redtape or effort required "effectively" makes it non-public. It is public and newspapers have the right (and that right is ordered before the right to own a gun, if you're counting at home) to publish it.

Besides, if he couldn't illustrate his point without publishing the list, then it's not very responsible journalism, either.

Certainly, what Trejbal did was legal, and that's the problem. Fisher would think it was outrageous for the Government to keep a list of people who have exercised their First Amendment rights in some way (e.g., by keeping a public list of the names of anti-war protestors). Such a burden on the exercise of Second Amendment rights should not be any more permissible.

There may be parts of the Constitution that Fisher would like to change, but we shouldn't get to pick and choose, and it's therefore regrettable that the local governments in Virginia are permitted to do so.

OD,

The information is bad because it undermines a legitimately enacted law.
If the valid legal right is to do something secretly as is the case here, then information about who is exercising the right defeats the right, no?

Note to non-gun owners: Assume that everyone you don't know owns a gun and carries it.

Note those carrying concealed: Your gun is not a deterrent if no one can see it. Therefore, as someone else also pointed out, you should carry it openly. Also, the ability to launch lethal projectiles at super sonic speed means that a few pieces of paper down at the local courthouse shouldn't really be much to worry about.

I think there's a difference between public access to records and publicizing them. Seems that gov'ts are, or should be getting some idea that while certain records should be publicly available you should have to do something more than look online to access them. With ease of acess you get increased "velocity" of information, and with that you get problems. Applying for a CC license in VA requires a public application. There should be a record of who makes those applications, just as there should be a record of who is convicted of violent crimes. Should I be able to access that record by going to the county courthouse and looking it up? Yes. Should it be published for all to see if a paper in an effort to show "gee look what I found?", or available online at a mouse click? Probably not.

Not only that, but I agree with those who point out this was in facet personal information of individuals, not information on the public functioning of our gov't. There's a difference.

Not only that, but I agree with those who point out this was in feect personal information of individuals, not information on the public functioning of our gov't. There's a difference.

K-Romulus, I agree Trejbal likely had an anti-gun bias when he wrote that column. Is this particularly shocking? Most of the media does, sadly. Wether he had a bias or not, it is still public information. Get angry about his bias and the appropriateness of said bias in journalism, not about publishing public records.

DC, you wrote "I do think that people who own guns are more likely to use them than people who don't own guns... find fault with that logic, folks." There is no fault with the logic. The fault lies in the fact that using guns is not illegal and is frequently not harmful (such as at a target range). Using guns *in the commission of a crime* is illegal. That is where you will find a division between legal gun owners (like CCW permit holders) and illegal gun owners, who are committing the vast majority of crimes using guns.

Here's why you don't publish lists of CCW holders - often they have been victims of crime and don't want to be found by the criminal again:

1. Comment from Trejbal's article: "I've moved twice to get away from a violent ex. Now I have to move again. Gee thanks."
2. Another comment from Trejbal's article: "Thanks for telling my rapist where I live now. Did I mention that he told me he would kill me when he got out? Did I mention that he's out now?"

In addition, publishing a CCW list is a double benefit for criminals: not only do they know which houses likely contain guns to steal, they also know who is likely to NOT be armed. Publishing CCW lists make the criminals' life easier and safer.

CCW holders are among the most law-abiding of all citizens. Texas, Florida, and Michigan keep detailed statistics on the arrests of CCW holders. They showed that CCW holders are 20 times less likely to be arrested for any crime whatsoever.

A boycott of the Roanoke Times's advertisers is ongoing and gaining momentum, and will not be called off until Trejbal is fired or the advertiser stops doing business with the Roanoke Times.

There is harm to publishing the list. Some people conceal guns that they carry because they don't want other people to know they are carrying a gun. One harm to publishing the list is that it makes harder for these people to do this.

There is harm in making public information more easily accessible. More people will access it and use it for bad purposes. This is generally outweighed by more people accessing information for good purposes.

Yes, the paper had the right to publish this information. That doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Trejbal's article was a smear on the citizens of VA who carry conealed weapons legally. As far as publishing a searchable database of known gun-owners on the Internet, why is that a good idea? Sure the public might like to know if their kids are playing at a gun-owner's house. Another part of the public might like to know who has a gun so that they can wait for the residents to leave and then burglarize the place. The abusive partner demographic would like yet another set of public records so that it's easier for them to track down their exes. I can think of only one reason to publish the list: the public might want to know. It isn't hard to think of many good reasons not to.

I am not a concealed permit carrier because I live in DC with its incredibly stupid gun laws that makes sure only the criminals have guns. But, if I lived in Virginia, I would be ticked as all get out that my name -- as a private citizen -- was published in the paper. It has nothing to do with shame. It has to do with being a private citizen in this society. Those who think that CCW permit holders are ashamed are projecting their own beliefs on those of gun owners -- who obviously have different views. Because your neighbor has a gun -- your kids are probably safer, than if all your neighbors depended on the police being in the right place at the right time to protect your kid. Trust me, if those CCW permit holders see your kid being kidnapped, they will act. And they won't care that you don't want guns around your kids.

Marc,

As usual, you get it wrong when it comes to firearms. It's known that you are anti-gun, so what I state here is probably going to fall on deaf ears, but I will write anyway in the hopes that you understand why some information should not be publicly accessible.

Mr. Trejbal and the editorial staff at the Roanoke Times took the occasion of this article to reveal the full names and HOME addresses of 135,789 Virginians who legally possess Concealed Handgun Permits (CHPs)while sanctimoniously equating these CHP licensees to sex offenders in regard to the level of danger they pose to the public.

Just in case you aren't aware, in order to get a CHP in VA, one must undergo safety training and provide proof of it, undergo an FBI and VA State background check, and in some jurisdictions be fingerprinted. CHP holders are probably the safest, most responsible people in VA. CHPs are acquired by retired police officers, active duty military, judges, prosecutors, civilians in hiding from abusive ex-spouses/ex-lovers, newly elected US Senators, and those Virginians wishing to carry a firearm for no other reason than general self-protection. The purpose of having a CHP is so that one can carry a handgun safely and discretely so one can effectively defend oneself against society's predators.

The Roanoke Times blew that out of the water by providing, on its website, a searchable database of ALL Virginia CHP licensees without regard to the licensees' safety or the safety of their families. The discretion promised by the permit is now completely blown. This list also establishes a "weapons shopping list" for criminals across the commonwealth and endangers public safety.

Mr. Trejbal's "Sunshine Week" article was sucessful in at least one way: it shed some light on how easy it is to abuse public information and what irresponsible, yellow journalism truly is.

Thank you

"So is this an argument over the publication of the list itself, the right to own a gun (or carry it concealed), or is it just the same old tripe about how the mainstream media is so obviously liberally biased and every time they write something we have to nit-pick over each individual phrase to find fault?

It's the Roanoke Times, for crying out loud, how good do you expect their columnists to be? 90% of the paper is just AP stories."

OD,

It is none of those, simply an analysis of the piece. It is biased. It is allowed to be--it's an opinion piece, not a "factual news story." I was simply pointing out that denying its bias is pretty willfully ignorant and why it was willfully ignorant. Besides, I clearly stated that the newspaper has every right under the law as it exists to publish the list and should not have backed down by removing the database.

The media is biased because it is staffed with PEOPLE and people have biases. Most make an effort to conceal their biases, but increasingly, the lines between news and opinions are blurred, but that is moreso in the broadcast media than in print. Some journalists are biased in favor of the Democratic slant; some journalists are biased in favor of the Republican slant. However, even newspaper reporters acknowledge that the majority of journalists lean Democratic.

That is neither here nor there as far as this piece goes. Simply, Trebjal accomplished two things with this piece: to show the Sunshine laws in action and to paint in a negative light people with concealed carry permits.

What would you think if the story was about releasing the names of dog owners with permits and likening it to the easily accessible sex offender registry? After all, permits to own dogs are public record, just like concealed carry permits. Would it then be offensive lumping dog owners in with sex offenders? How much less negative would comparing the public nature of concealed carry permits to dog permits be?

By the way, where do you think The AP gets a fair chunk of their stories? The Associated Press has a staff of their own reporters, but it is a group of *associated* news organizations who submit locally generated stories to the wire service for distribution. Part of being a member of The Associated Press means not only do you use content from them, but you also submit content to them. The Roanoke Times is a member of The Associated Press, not a client. It uses content from and submits content to the service, so yes, I do expect the same quality as The AP. Besides, I don't know of a single daily newspaper in the US that doesn't use The AP Stylebook as its writing bible and supplements it with "house" rules.

If you do not get Trejbal's real intent while publishing the list - you are just not that bright, or just not that accomplished a reader - he is a flaming anti-gun nut, and was using his journalistic bully-pulpit to spout out a not-so-subtle attack on permit holders. Apparently this hypocrite didn't like HIS public info out there, even though (or because?) he is NOT armed. While I too believe gun owners deserve to be quite proud they are self-responsible about their own security, I also see the real possibility of criminals using the info published to target houses they know would have a good chance of containing firearms; not a big deal to observe an owner leaving his residence before acting. That aside, I would rather a BG know I am armed, then not - he will in most cases leave you the hell alone. The myth that CEEAF posted is amusing; I would also much rather be able to show ANY criminal how much harder it is to take on an armed citizen, then it is to take on an unarmed victim - very good chance it would be the last lesson he will ever get. We already know this is not a direct 2nd amendment issue, the indivdual right to keep/bear arms was not affected by this low-brow stunt. It may however further benefit gun-owners because of possibility of new laws being passed protecting the state's and holder's interests in keeping handgun carry concealed - atleast until the need & duty for/of gun possession and carry are more widely understood again. Until that time, too many will go right on thinking themselves inept, and so keep counting on government agencies to protect them. Good luck to them. In the mean time - you want to know if your neighbor's armed? Just ask them. Then go shooting with them - its a blast!

"Trejbal made no effort in his original piece to criticize the carrying concealed weapons law or permitting process."

That is nonsense. Trejbal's column was condescending and suggestive that gun owners are paranoid and violent, including such thinly-veiled opinion as "This is not about being for or against guns. There are plenty of reasons people choose to carry weapons...worry that the king of England might try to get into your house," and "I'll leave it to readers to figure out which [elected officials have permits] so you can avoid annoying them at meetings."

And the not so thinly-veiled: "There are plenty of reasons to question the wisdom of widespread gun ownership, too."

Finally, his rationale doesn't even add up well. He justifies himself by saying, "I can hear the shocked indignation of gun-toters already: It's nobody's business but mine if I want to pack heat.
Au contraire. Because the government handles the permitting, it is everyone's business."

Government handles a lot of things. Imagine the outcry if he had written, "I can hear the shocked indignation of rape victims already: It's nobody's business but mine if I was a victim. Au contraire. Because the government handles the investigation and prosecution of rape, it is everyone's business." How about the county-operated free clinic patient's medical records? How about our 1040s? SSNs? Federal employee personnel records? The government "handles" those things, too.

Well all the gun-lovers got their chance to howl about their need for a concealed weapon permit to defend themselves, though I would guess that about 0.1% actually face any exigent need. What's wrong with the rest of us being armed with knowledge about which of you morons is packing heat? I might need that information to defend myself against you.

Does having a carry permit mean that someone is packing? No it does not yet that is the implication. I have a carry permit because I was a security guard. I do not own nor need a gun at home. Why should I be singled out because I need to carry a gun at work? Were all cops listed? Of course not. What about the special permits for lawyers and lawmakers? I bet they were also not listed.

This was an attack on gun owners plain and simple. As usual it was cloaked in 'free speech.'

Why don't we have such Second Amendment rights?

For the people upset about the King of England line in Trejbal's column, I think he was actually alluding to a Simpsons episode in which Homer Simpson explains that he needs to own a gun in case the King of England tries to get into his house.

I, too, don't see what all the fuss is about on this. Public records mean public. Even if Trejbal does not like guns -- though based on the column I'd say the jury is still out on that -- this particular piece had nothing to do with a pro- or anti-gun agenda. It illustrated Sunshine laws and, based on the shock, also demonstrated that few people before knew that these records were actually public.

It's also interesting that according to a news story in Trejbal's paper, one of the top requesters of the concealed handgun list in the last couple of years was the Virginia Citizens Defense League, which has been leading much of the invective. Presumably is makes a handy recruiting list.

"Sure the public might like to know if their kids are playing at a gun-owner's house."

Actually, if I wanted to know this, I would ASK the homeowner, instead of doing some sneaky passive-aggressive thing like Trejbal is suggesting. In fact, I would feel quite happy if my kids were playing at a house where the adult has a CCW! CCW holders have been background checked, fingerprinted, have no history of violence or domestic abuse, and are much more law-abiding than the average citizen! In fact, I would submit that if you DON'T have a CCW, I'm going to be much more suspicious of you, because you haven't passed a background check. Do you have something to hide?

There is an easy solution to this problem: Have VA pass a Vermont style carry law. That way, anyone who doesn't have a felony conviction can carry open or concealed without a permit ("the bear arms" part of the "right to keep and bear arms")thus eliminating the need to make a permit holder's home address, phone number and license plate open to the public. No one needs to know who carrys a gun concealed anyway. Criminals don't get carry permits and so why have carry permits at all? If a felon is caught carrying a firearm its just an additional charge. People without felony convictions should not have to have the consent of the state to bear arms openly or concealed.

Many of you are encouraging permit-holders to be proud and open about it. You are attempting to call gun owners out on their claim that when people are armed, criminals are less likely to choose them as victims. You are missing the point. A society that permits gun ownership needs privacy for it to function properly. It's the uncertainty that deters criminals. The reason for this is clear - people leave the house. And criminals are in fact, smart to a certain extent. They're smart enough to know that burglary is preferable to robbery, and if they know which house contains guns, they merely have to wait for the owner to leave. Perhaps the owner has a gun with him. Chances are, he owns more than one. Therein lies the problem with the publicity. It's not about being loud and proud. Many gun owners are, just as the owner of a Ferrari with a Patek Phillippe on his wrist isn't trying to hide his wealth. But he isn't advertising his home address, either.

@Paul

"What's wrong with the rest of us being armed with knowledge about which of you morons is packing heat? I might need that information to defend myself against you."

I think that you should read the following and learn how to deal with your anger, sir. Hmph.

Raging Against Self Defense
http://www.jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

"Defense Mechanisms

Projection

About a year ago I received an e-mail from a member of a local Jewish organization. The author, who chose to remain anonymous, insisted that people have no right to carry firearms because he didn't want to be murdered if one of his neighbors had a "bad day". (I don't know that this person is a "he", but I'm assuming so for the sake of simplicity.) I responded by asking him why he thought his neighbors wanted to murder him, and, of course, got no response. The truth is that he's statistically more likely to be murdered by a neighbor who doesn't legally carry a firearm1 and more likely to be shot accidentally by a law enforcement officer.1

How does my correspondent "know" that his neighbors would murder him if they had guns? He doesn't. What he was really saying was that if he had a gun, he might murder his neighbors if he had a bad day, or if they took his parking space, or played their stereos too loud."

"Projection is a particularly insidious defense mechanism, because it not only prevents a person from dealing with his own feelings, it also creates a world where he perceives everyone else as directing his own hostile feelings back at him."

That would be a great solution, automan. But Virginia doesn't do it that way. Until they do, it remains public information.

The worst case scenario for such foolishness is the ambush killing of the CCW holders:
http://www.ohioccw.org/article2286.html
*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.***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."**

I'll post here what I posted on the Roanoke Times site:

"By putting this information in the spotlight, you've endangered the lives and property of law-abiding citizens and their loved ones.

That's all you've done.

The public at large is no safer, and you've put lives at risk.

I hope that in the future you'll consider this before you wield your pen."

It bears repaeating.

I' like to see the numbers of crimes prevented by folks who have CCWs. I bet the results would be interesting.

How come no one is biting at the wonderful idea of a database exposing annoying dogs? Certainly the most intelligent thing I've heard all day (and I just read a lot of the above comments).

"A boycott of the Roanoke Times's advertisers is ongoing and gaining momentum, and will not be called off until Trejbal is fired or the advertiser stops doing business with the Roanoke Times."

Posted by: jlbraun | March 20, 2007 12:51 PM

What the Times did was perfectly legal given the sunshine law, and if those backward southerners who need to tote a gun to prove their manhood can't realize that, it's their tough luck.

I'm going to simply re-post the letter I sent Mr. Trejbal.
------------
A number of law abiding citizens go to a good deal of trouble and expense in order to obtain a concealed carry permit. This process is, in fact, considerably more involved than getting your drivers license (and if you think firearms are more dangerous than cars you really need to do some research). We could, quite legally, forgo that time, expense, and governmental investigation and simply open carry as we please. This is perfectly legal in Virginia.

So why do we bother with all of the hoop jumping?

Because "Bill of Rights" topics seem to get people worked up (on all sides of the matter). In consideration of that, some firearms owners prefer to be much more discreet in their actions. Also you may consider CCW permits as a compromise between those who believe in the Bill of Rights (especially the 2'nd Amendment) and those who think only duly authorized agents of the state should be armed. Isn't compromise supposed to be good?

It appears that you do not feel that compromise is good since your article simply blows the lid off of any attempt at discretion. You may truly believe that "the people have the right to know" but I have to ask you WHY do they need to know?

The people you have "uncovered" are law abiding citizens who have been "vetted" by the state via a background check, and who have spent their own precious time and money to go through an OPTIONAL (they could just open carry) process of training and authorization that is supposed to lessen tensions for everyone concerned. That these people have gone through all this bother AND PASSED should make you consider them MORE trustworthy not less.

That you don't understand this is, at best, terrible ignorance and at worst smacks of prejudice and yellow journalism.

Would you post a list of names and addresses for persons known to be gay? (people might want to know.) Would you post a list of names and addresses for persons returning from military service? (people might want to know). The point is that nobody, in any of the examples, has committed any crime so I wonder again WHY you would feel the need to spotlight any of them.

Several people are taking the stand that the gun owner's names should not have been published in the newspaper without their consent. Since when did newspapers need the consent of anyone to publish their names. Your name may end up in the newsparer for any number of things and no one is going to ask your permission. This is part of having a free press and a free society.

Posted by Vince:
What the Times did was perfectly legal given the sunshine law, and if those backward southerners who need to tote a gun to prove their manhood can't realize that, it's their tough luck.

------------------------------------------

Vince,
If you aren't smart enough to realize the damage that Mr. Trejbal and the Roanoke Times did by publishing that information, I pity you. Taking aside your insulting and degrading comments, CHP holders aren't "backward southerners", they are from all walks of life from Doctors, lawyers, soldiers, judges, maids, bakers, Senators, mayors, City Councilfolk, etc. Yeah, I can see why these folks don't want to protect themselves.
Vince, you are nothing but an idiotic, reactionary blowhard. Just like Al Gore, or Anne Coulter.

I have a concealed weapons permit because I want to be in compliance with the law. If I am driving with a loaded handgun in my glove box and I am stopped for a traffic violation, I am breaking the law. An unloaded gun does me know good if I am approached by an assailant.

Posted by: dmk "I' like to see the numbers of crimes prevented by folks who have CCWs." I dont think they give each ccw holder a scorecard. However researchers have estimated that guns are used to prevent or deter crime over 1 million times a year.

In the one million crimes statistic you stated does that include all the gang violence. Certainly, gangs having weapons keeps other gangs from committing crimes against them. And the drug dealers, certainly many of them have used weapons to prevent crimes. Really, how many actual armed robberies, rapes etc. are prevented each year by guns. And if that is compared to the statistics on gun violence who comes out ahead.

stick: "researchers have estimated that guns are used to prevent or deter crime over 1 million times a year."

stick, can you please provide a link to one of these studies? I see claims like this often, but always without support. I would honestly like to see the research.

Dale: "Would you post a list of names and addresses for persons known to be gay? (people might want to know.)"

Me: there is no government repository of "persons known to be gay." You don't need a license or permit to be gay.

Very bad example, Dale.

I wonder how the liberals would feel if he published a data base of sex offenders? No not right to publish names of persons convicted of a crime, better to publish names of those who have passed a background check and have no criminal record to "test" the sunshine laws. Sure test the sunshine laws was his intent.

In order to keep my children away from their homes, I would like the Post to publish the home address of every member of the D.C. Metro Police as those homes contain firearms, and there have been shootings and accidents too numerous to count associated with those guns. The Government has that information. I have a right to see it. The officers involved are not private citizens, but public employees and we have a right to know about them. Its about openess, right? So how about that list? Could you include in that list their social security numbers too? Anyone starting to see the issues here?

Marc and Christian's practice of ignoring the negative consequences of their actions and naively parroting "freedom of information! sunshine week!" is a rather simple minded response to this issue, don't you agree? Just because Mr. Trejbal "could" lawfuly publish such a list does not mean that it was the most responsible thing to do. Moreover, their claim that the article had nothing to do with their hatred of the right to private ownership of firearms is, frankly, laughable.

"Dale: "Would you post a list of names and addresses for persons known to be gay? (people might want to know.)"

Me: there is no government repository of "persons known to be gay." You don't need a license or permit to be gay.

Very bad example, Dale."
-------------------------
Well maybe there should be. Did you know that all homosexual assaults are committed by homosexuals? Plus, there is no constitutional amendment protecting being gay. So the gov't should regulate homosexuality--not outlaw it, but make you go through training, background check, etc., and then get a permit. After that, the list of names and addresses needs to be published. Not to offend or irritate--but as a matter of information to the public.

Here is a URL. I got it from the NRAILA website but you could also Google Gary Kleck.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=125&issue=007

Stick: thanks for the link. Here is the main problem I have with this report (the authors helpfully raise the issue themselves):

"Still worse, of course, would be an attempt to measure protective use of guns by relying upon reports to police. Where gun use prevents a crime from being completed, the crime itself is often unreported--indeed, nationally, only about half of victimizations reported to NCVS indicates there was a police report as well. And police rarely ask about, and never systematically record, protective measures taken by victims reporting crimes. Thus a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-funded study by Arthur Kellermann which reviewed some home invasion crimes reported to the Atlanta police was not worth the paper the Journal of the American Medical Association printed it on."

Now let's be realistic. Surely, if there were 2 million to 2.5 million crimes thwarted each year because of defensive gun use, there should be reports of at least several hundred thousand of those crimes. To just assume that people think, "Hey, I thwarted that crime, no need to call the cops" is just ludicrous. Permitted gun owners, being law abiding citizens, should be MORE LIKELY to report attempted crimes, not less, because they would want to help get the bad guys off the streets, not selfishly think, "Well, I thwarted that attempted crime against me, it's not my concern whether that bad guy will try it against someone else." Right?

Loudon Voter: "Permitted gun owners, being law abiding citizens, should be MORE LIKELY to report attempted crimes, not less, because they would want to help get the bad guys off the streets"

They often don't because there are are plenty of gun fearing craven cowards like Marc Fisher around who will want to punish a law-abiding citizen for using a gun in self-defense. Just look at DC where (until the Parker decision is implemented) armed self defense is strictly verboten. Many people know they could never handle the responsibility of armed self defense, but at the same time don't like the idea that others can take responsibility for their own safety where the police often fail. They embrace their irrational fears, and try to bring about a level playing field by forcing everyone else down to their level of helplessness.
Even in a relatively straight thinking place like Virginia, someone who resorts to armed self defense will end up in a civil suit even if they are 100% in the right. Every bullet has a lawyer attached.
It would be nice if this weren't the case, but the sad fact is that the legal system is infested with people who side with the criminals over the victims. The recent case of the 'Mall' mugger/robber/rapist who was given (very near) the minimum sentence is a perfect example.

Apparently Trejbal and Fisher, besides being questionable journalists, are also typical anti-gunners, in that they are quite selective and mis-leading about the information they post as facts. In 2005, Illinois, Wisconsin, Kansas, & Nebraska, were No carry states. (Brady Bunch rates an A). Several others were *may-carry*, which in actuality tend to fall either way...i.e. try getting a permit in the DC, Maryland, Hawaii, or California (Brady gives an A or B). 32 states got a Brady Bunch D or F (= shall-issue permits)). I used the 2005 Brady Bunch State ratings on Concealed carry to compare results. The FBI crime reports are easy to access, and with excel, easy to sort. What I found when comparing highest crime rates in 2005: Violent Crime - #1 DC=A+, #7 Maryland=A+, #14 Illinois=A+. Murder - #1 DC, #2 Maryland, #13 California=B+, Robbery - #1 DC, #2 Maryland, #6 NY=B, #7 Illinois, #8 California. Agg Assault #1 DC, #10 Delaware=B+, #11 Maryland. Property Crime: #5 Hawaii=A-, #6 DC. Larceny Theft #1 Hawaii, #11 Kansas=A+. MV Theft - #1 DC, #7 Hawaii, #8 California, #9 Maryland.

Rape and Burgalry are indeed catagories were shall-issue states suffer; so girls - get out there and get your permits! You deserve to protect yourselves!

Having an opinion is one thing, lying to promote it is dispicable, as a journalist it is also irresponsible and contemptable.

Way to go Vinny!

I almost got to the end of the comments before an idiot -- you -- chirped up to obscure the debate by questioning the manhood of "backward southerners."

Didja see the link on defense mechanisms?

Regardless this whole thing seems to me to be a journalism ethics experiment gone awry.

I bet there are names on that list of people who are afraid for their lives. Identifying them to their possibly homicidal antagonists is a situtation that didn't need to take place.

Molon: "Even in a relatively straight thinking place like Virginia, someone who resorts to armed self defense will end up in a civil suit even if they are 100% in the right. Every bullet has a lawyer attached."

You should read the study. The authors estimate that the gun was fired in only around 1/4 of the cases, and struck the target in far fewer than that. So we're already down to a very small percentage of the cases.

Also, as you surely know, anyone can sue anyone for anything at any time. Now, whether any particular suit is SUCCESSFUL is another story. I would definitely like to read about successful civil suits against people for defensive gun use. Do you know of any?

John said:
"I wonder how the liberals would feel if he published a data base of sex offenders? No not right to publish names of persons convicted of a crime, better to publish names of those who have passed a background check and have no criminal record to "test" the sunshine laws."

John-- take two seconds and you'd realize this already exists. http://www.mapsexoffenders.com/

I'd just like to reiterate what I said earlier today: every single instance of "harm" cited by those who oppose publishing the list is conjecture. The one instance -- in Ohio -- is unrelated to the Roanoke article and cites a broken link to an article that, even if it worked, is clearly written by impartial folks (ccw proponents in Ohio).

So, we can debate the merits and dangers of gun ownership, but I think the publication of the list in and of itself is completely harmless. And since it was already public information, completely unremarkable.

Everything made illegal was legal before it was outlawed. So the fact that publishing the list was legal doesn't mean it was right. Obviously, if publication incites an immediate uproar to end the practice, the citizens of VA through their elected representatives consider it wrong to do so; that they did not previously consider the matter illegal when only an abstract matter should not be held against them. Pushing the edge on the social fabric is one way to ensure that a legal practice will be made illegal.

RL, I assume you're responding to me. I also assume that you are saying it _should_ be illegal to publish the list. Which is a fine argument for you to make. But you should be making it to your representative rather than to the Roanoke Times. Since it was, and continues to be, legal to publish public information, then I don't see how you can complain that the Roanoke Times did anything wrong.

Again, all of this information is available to any citizen off the street for their perusal. Any motivated criminals could access it just as easily as the Roanoke Times columnist did. Any motivated, abusive ex-spouse who wants to hurt a ccw permit-holder and track them down could already do so. Publishing the list in and of itself is not harmful, because the information is already public.

For all of you advocating transparity, why not have tax records linked to Google Earth and gun permits. So while you're blogging about the evils of guns and pushing freedoms past common sense from your wealthy McLean or NW house, a criminal can find your income, get a map and aerial photo of your house, and see that you don't own a gun.

If you survive the robbery, let us know if you still feel pushing public information out to the masses is still such a good idea.

For the gun haters, I congratulate you on the stunning success in DC. Your draconian restrictions on firearms immediately stopped all homicides in the District. Those utopia years of Murder Capital US were all just a right wing conspiracy. Bravo.

Oh my beloved Commmonwealth is rife with discord fermented by meddling invaders from the North.

"John-- take two seconds and you'd realize this already exists. http://www.mapsexoffenders.com/"

John's example was poor - sex offenders have broken the law.

How would you feel about publishing a list of people who had exercised a constitutional right, but in a way that was politically charged? Specifically, what if the paper posted the pictures of everyone who attended a peace protest in the state? Or everyone who had attended a pro-choice event in the state? All they have to do is have a photographer at each event, taking pictures of the people coming and going.

Please, we all know that gun ownership is mere compensation for other "short comings"... Besides, in the Age of Litigation using that concealed weapon, even in self defense, could be extremely costly - not to mention a jury of 12 might not see your actions the way you see them.

"Please, we all know that gun ownership is mere compensation for other "short comings"..."

Interesting. How do you explain female gun owners? Surely you don't want to invoke the old " . . . envy" theory!

OD: actually, I am saying what I said. Just because it was legal doesn't mean that it was right in a broader, moral sense. Think polite society as the standard of right and wrong. I sure wish I could parens here. I think it was wrong. The list could have been redacted to protect individual privacy. If this act is made illegal, as it has been in Ohio, then that will serve as an expression by the legislature -- and by extension, the people of Virginia -- that it was wrong.

Isn't social ostracism due to bigotry a "harm?" If not, then why isn't STD info posted online? That info is reported to government health departments, is it not? Why is it not made public? Because it is private info, that's why, no matter the supposed "public record" aspect. There is a difference between having a record available to the public and publishing those records in everyone's face as an invasion of privacy.

OD,
You seem to be confusing the issue of legal permissibility with journalistic responsibility. However, since the Pentagon Papers, newspapers can publish essentially anything they want (subject to slander and libel liability for false information, or non fair use copyright issues). So there's no real question that the RT could publish the list, even if it wasn't publicly-available.
The bigger question is whether the RT should have published the list. I posit that the list was not published for any altruistic concern for the RT's readers (as Fisher idiotically asserts based solely on Trejbal's statement that people "might like to know".) I base my conclusion both on the articles tone (i.e., comparing CCW permit holders to sex offenders) and the unlimited geographic scope of the published database (which Fisher misrepresents).
If you disagree, perhaps you could answer the following questions:
1. Wasn't the original article couched in terms of a demonstration of the reach of the Virginia FOIA?

2. Why did the information need to be published if he just wanted to show the information could be obtained, albeit with some limited difficulty?

3. If meant to help the RT's readers, why published the entire database, instead of limiting it to zip codes or counties constituting the RT's primary readership area? Note the the database could be searched by zip code (I know b/c I did it) so this was not technically infeasible.

4. Is Trebjal's comparison of CCW permit holders to sex offenders a reasonable analogy? an offensive analogy? Does it demonstrate any bias of the author?

5. Lastly, should newspapers print any and all information that its readers "might like to know", e.g, names of juvenile offenders, rape victims, or HIV-positive people, everyone who's filed for a restraining order or been subject to a restraining order, everyone who filed for divorce? Would your answer be the same if the state collected information (perhaps not names)of people getting an abortion (a right which is not explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights)?

I live in Arlington and I have a gun permit but no gun. I got the permit as a matter of principle.

Nothing would make me happier than for criminals to look me up on the internet and see that I have a permit and think I have a gun.

My objection to the article is not that the reporter published a list of permit owners but that the comprehensive nature of the list means he also published a list of who doesn't have a permit.

That, to me, is reckless. It is like publishing a list of people who have big insurance policies, and no alarm systems.

Better would have been if he published a list of *some* gun permit holders and then interviewed people to discuss why they have them, etc.

"Is Trebjal's comparison of CCW permit holders to sex offenders a reasonable analogy? an offensive analogy? Does it demonstrate any bias of the author?"

Let's go one better - what possible connection is there between sex offenders and permit holders, other than the fact that FOIA can be used to identify them? That's not such a special connection - the same could be said of state employees, property owners in the state, individuals who have filed lawsuits against the state, . . .

Why the heck did he choose sex offenders, unless he was trying to suggest that both groups pose a potential threat to their communities?

And if that's what he believes, why the heck didn't he have the guts to just come out and say it? (Same goes for Fisher)

I grew up in Montgomery County, MD and at least one school, Baker Middle if I remember correctly, had an air rifle range. They taught kids how to shoot. We use to use it in the 80's when I was on the high school rifle team at Gaithersburg. I'm willing to bet that there aren't any rifle teams or school ranges in Montgomery any more.

It's taking me forever to get through these responses - but there's one other significant point I haven't seen made. Each permit holder is associated with an address - the one at which he or she resided when they got the permit. If someone is so brazen as to effect a robbery, they may find the current resident owns no guns. Not only are they defenseless, but they're at risk because they won't tell their assailant where the guns are "hidden."

"I'm willing to bet that there aren't any rifle teams or school ranges in Montgomery any more."

One thing I did when my kids were younger is tell them that if they ever wanted to learn to fire a gun, to tell me, and I'd arrange to go to a firing range and teach them - but that if they ever saw a gun to leave it alone and go tell someone immediately. Far too many accidental gun deaths occur when some kid finds a gun and is curious and starts playing around with it.

I wanted them to know that they had a safe way to satisfy any curiosity they might have, so they wouldn't be tempted to mess with any gun they might come across - and it would also be an opportunity to teach them some basic gun safety. As it turns out, neither of them took me up on it. But I think it's important for parents to prepare kids in advance - and to avoid turning guns into some sort of exciting forbidden fruit that tempts them into doing dumb things in secret.

I don't care that any of you think it was journalistically or morally "wrong" to publish the list. Or that gun ownership is or is not constitutionally protected. Or that sex offenders are or are not comparable to gun owners.

My point is the list is already published, by the Commonwealth of Virginia, accessible to anyone that wants to read it. Every single one of your concerns about potential harm may be valid, but they should be taken up with the government, not the media. There is no additional harm by the Roanoke Times re-publishing what has already been published.

All other comparisons and complaints merely cloud the issue that the Roanoke Times was re-publishing already public information.

The database has been pulled from the website. Shucks! I was eager to see my name in the paper, and now I can't.

"I don't care that any of you think it was journalistically or morally "wrong" to publish the list. Or that gun ownership is or is not constitutionally protected. Or that sex offenders are or are not comparable to gun owners."

Is that because you don't believe that anything that is legal can be immoral? Or do you simply don't care whether a private newspaper commits an immoral act?

"All other co