tinygnat219
Member
This time though, they are whining about the VA FOIA Council's decision to back legislation making CHP information at the VA State Police Level exempt.
Let's remind 'em why it's NOT a good idea to have this info open to the public! Let's keep it on The High Road here and be polite but firm.
Send a Letter to the Editor!
[email protected]
[email protected]
Editorial Department
The Roanoke Times
(540) 981-3257
1-800-346-1234, ext. 257
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/142224
Editorial: Gun data belongs in public view
The state should make concealed-carry information hard to get only where there is a legitimate need.
It's almost inevitable that Virginia lawmakers will allow the public less access to records on who has a state permit to carry concealed handguns.
The hullabaloo this newspaper stirred up in March, when a Roanoke Times editorial writer produced a column that included a link to the online database, pretty much assures a legislative reaction.
What thoughtful Virginians, including gun-rights advocates, should oppose vigorously is legislative overreaction. And that is what came out of the State Freedom of Information Advisory Council on Monday in the form of draft legislation the council is backing.
The draft would prohibit public access to the state police database of concealed-carry permit holders. The information would remain part of the public record in circuit courts, which issue the permits, but available only on a locality-by-locality basis.
In April, Attorney General Bob McDonnell advised state police to shut off public access to its database. The draft legislation would make that restriction the law. But why?
House Majority Leader Morgan Griffith explained: "I think the real concern here was that there were a lot of people on that list who were victims of crime, who had been stalked or who had been in abusive situations."
That's a reasonable fear -- and precisely what prompted the newspaper to reconsider and, after fielding hundreds of complaints, to remove its online link to the database. Rather than put all of that data out of the public's easy reach, though, the state should address the "real concern" and redact only the information that might reasonably be thought to put someone in harm's way.
Anyone with a concealed-carry permit who has obtained a restraining order against someone, for example, could be entered into the database, but removed from the list available to the public.
People need access -- not to satisfy idle curiosity about who of their acquaintances might be carrying, though public records can be used that way. Rather, public access acts as an important check on government.
If the state's concealed-carry law should fail in some way in its intent to protect public safety, the public has a need to know and a right to know. It should have the means to know.
Let's remind 'em why it's NOT a good idea to have this info open to the public! Let's keep it on The High Road here and be polite but firm.
Send a Letter to the Editor!
[email protected]
[email protected]
Editorial Department
The Roanoke Times
(540) 981-3257
1-800-346-1234, ext. 257
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/142224
Editorial: Gun data belongs in public view
The state should make concealed-carry information hard to get only where there is a legitimate need.
It's almost inevitable that Virginia lawmakers will allow the public less access to records on who has a state permit to carry concealed handguns.
The hullabaloo this newspaper stirred up in March, when a Roanoke Times editorial writer produced a column that included a link to the online database, pretty much assures a legislative reaction.
What thoughtful Virginians, including gun-rights advocates, should oppose vigorously is legislative overreaction. And that is what came out of the State Freedom of Information Advisory Council on Monday in the form of draft legislation the council is backing.
The draft would prohibit public access to the state police database of concealed-carry permit holders. The information would remain part of the public record in circuit courts, which issue the permits, but available only on a locality-by-locality basis.
In April, Attorney General Bob McDonnell advised state police to shut off public access to its database. The draft legislation would make that restriction the law. But why?
House Majority Leader Morgan Griffith explained: "I think the real concern here was that there were a lot of people on that list who were victims of crime, who had been stalked or who had been in abusive situations."
That's a reasonable fear -- and precisely what prompted the newspaper to reconsider and, after fielding hundreds of complaints, to remove its online link to the database. Rather than put all of that data out of the public's easy reach, though, the state should address the "real concern" and redact only the information that might reasonably be thought to put someone in harm's way.
Anyone with a concealed-carry permit who has obtained a restraining order against someone, for example, could be entered into the database, but removed from the list available to the public.
People need access -- not to satisfy idle curiosity about who of their acquaintances might be carrying, though public records can be used that way. Rather, public access acts as an important check on government.
If the state's concealed-carry law should fail in some way in its intent to protect public safety, the public has a need to know and a right to know. It should have the means to know.
