Shooting Down the Privacy of VA Gun Owners

March 13, 2007 12:36 AM

So Much for Privacy (Part II) In another Sunshine Week "exposé" columnist Christian Trebjal of the Roanoke (Va.) Times decided that everyone needed to know the full names and addresses of every Concealed Handgun Permit holder in Virginia. So he got a list from the VA state police and had the newspaper put it in a handy searchable database. In the ensuing blog post regarding the column and database comments quickly got heated and comments were closed for several hours for unknown and unstated reasons (though perhaps due to the publication of Trebjal's home address). Of course, Virginian CHP holders were completely and wholly unamused. Following the outcry, the newspaper has removed the database, with a self-serving statement about concern for public safety but there was no concern for public safety guiding their actions before the objections. Overall, a question is raised: if Sunshine Week is supposed to be about open government why are newspapers aggregating and publishing information about private citizens at all?
posted by Dreama (42 comments total)

While the newspaper's stunt smacks of sensationalism and a certain agenda, this information is a matter of public record. It is not a privacy issue.
posted by moonbiter at 12:58 AM on March 13, 2007

It gets worse - some governments actually keep records detailing when you are born and how you die. Scary but true.
posted by trondant at 1:03 AM on March 13, 2007 [3 favorites]

Response from another Roanoke Times columnist.
posted by Tenuki at 1:42 AM on March 13, 2007

[insert "I LOL'd" owl]

Can we get a mirror of the list?
posted by jeffburdges at 2:02 AM on March 13, 2007

Looking to steal some guns jeffburdges?

From the linked column:
"Today is the start of Sunshine Week, the annual week in which we reflect on the importance of open government and public records. To mark the occasion, I want to take you on an excursion into freedom of information land. We're going to find out who in the New River Valley has a concealed handgun permit."

I think he was looking for "Snooping on your Neighbors Week"

From Sunshineweek.org:
"Though spearheaded by journalists, Sunshine Week is about the public's right to know what its government is doing, and why. Sunshine Week seeks to enlighten and empower people to play an active role in their government at all levels, and to give them access to information that makes their lives better and their communities stronger."

Yeah, I really don't think his column fits the spirit of Sunshine Week.

Again from the column:
“Open government laws arose from distrust of government.”

But can conveniently be used to dig up information on your community members.
posted by Tenuki at 2:21 AM on March 13, 2007

It's definately a privacy issue moonbiter. There exists a vastly different scope of publicity between being able to look up a specific name in a government records office, and having it splashed across a newspaper. What if they printed a list of every citizen in their city who had ever filed for bankruptcy, or the names of every woman who was a witness in a rape prosecution?

These idiot newspaper editors who are misusing the "Sunshine Week" idea to pull tabloid-style bullshit like this don't deserve their jobs.
posted by Spacelegoman at 2:24 AM on March 13, 2007

Tenuki, et al, I think you are missing the point.

These are government records. What is the government doing, and why?

and as moonbiter says, they are a matter of public record. in most of the USA you can go down to your county courthouse and look at these records, at least legally you can. whether or not you actually can is largely the interest of Sunshine Week.

spacelegoman: these records are explicitly not splashed across any newspaper. RTFA.
posted by headless at 2:53 AM on March 13, 2007

and of course what I said is equally pertinent to the matter of school children's records. These are public documents that have been available to the public for decades. that the polity is unaware of the services provided to them by their government (and these types of records really are a service - this is what government transparency is about) is a shame and a result of the disinterest of their governors and their bureaucracy.
posted by headless at 3:01 AM on March 13, 2007

The Free-Lance Star in Fredericksburg, VA has been publishing the home addresses of CCP holders for years and years now.
posted by smoothvirus at 3:33 AM on March 13, 2007

These idiot newspaper editors who are misusing the "Sunshine Week" idea to pull tabloid-style bullshit like this don't deserve their jobs.

I'm not quite sure. I can see the obvious hazards of listing where handguns may available for theft. I can also see how people may feel their privacy is violated. But then I can also see how it could be pretty informative to find out who is allowed by the government to walk the streets with hidden hand guns.

I don't know the laws in Roanoke (and don't really care to) but I would really be surprised if there were not people on the list of permitted handgun carriers who have no business making the list. Without the information being open there is no way to check if the officials are playing fast and loose and either sliding gun permits to their buddies or being negligent and letting baddies have them.
posted by srboisvert at 3:36 AM on March 13, 2007

So... I can go online and find out where all the pedophiles live in my neighborhood, complete with Web 2.0 mashups with Google Maps to pinpoint their exact position. But I can't find out where all the gun owners are unless I physically go down to city hall. What's good for the goose...
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:51 AM on March 13, 2007 [1 favorite]

“I would really be surprised if there were not people on the list of permitted handgun carriers who have no business making the list.”

Well Trejbal could have checked the list against convicted felons rather than “Local celebrities” and “elected officials” or looked into VA’s procedure for granting permits, but that might have strayed too close to journalism.
posted by Tenuki at 3:59 AM on March 13, 2007

If the records were examined and even made available as part of an investigation into the issue of CHPs to individuals who should not have them, or outside of the boundaries of the law, then it might be understood. But there is no denying the agenda related to choosing this particular information and making it available just because they could. And there is also no denying that in publishing this information, they've put people at risk -- not just those who have stalkers or became targets after testifying at trial, but all gun owners whose homes are now known as a convenient place to get a free weapon which will not end up in the hands of someone who could pass the background checks to be licensed, let alone carry concealed.

Perhaps our local newspapers should print the full names and addresses of every individual receiving any form of government assistance. Maybe we all need to know how the government is working to value homes above $750,000 or to register luxury automobiles or pleasure watercraft. Perhaps a searchable database of all personal data of everyone who has been registered with the department of health as carrier of an STD is in order? If openness is always appropriate, it's always appropriate.
posted by Dreama at 4:14 AM on March 13, 2007

Unlike with the kids in schools, there's no FERPA to allow gun owners to opt out of having their name and address available in the public record. But I don't see why there's some need for newspapers to publish this information. Moreover, if it can be proven that a criminal used this information gotten directly from a newspaper in a theft or other crime, I could envision the newspaper getting sued in civil court even if they're not criminally liable.

On preview: Dreama, yeah, I'd like to know whether Jenna Bush really had an abortion on the sly and how much blow her daddy used to do back in the day.
posted by pax digita at 4:16 AM on March 13, 2007

there's no such thing as something being a little bit public ... if it's public information then it's public

funny how ARMED people are worried about it ... i thought they felt protected with a gun

and dreama ... if everything you've cited as examples is public information, then yes, the newspaper could print it ... if not, then not
posted by pyramid termite at 4:38 AM on March 13, 2007

I don't mind knowing which of my neighbors is covertly armed, actually. I think it should be a matter of public record, just like driver's licenses and property ownership. Especially because the sort of people likely to have concealed carry permits are usually the same ones who would like to destroy everyone else's right to privacy. LOL gun nuts.
posted by fourcheesemac at 5:27 AM on March 13, 2007

What if they printed a list of every citizen in their city who had ever filed for bankruptcy

There's almost certainly a local or regional business paper in your area that does exactly that, and has for decades.
posted by gimonca at 5:52 AM on March 13, 2007

I don't mind knowing which of my neighbors is covertly armed, actually.

The information IS public, fourcheesemac.
As far as the neighbors, what's the difficulty with asking them yourself?
posted by c13 at 5:58 AM on March 13, 2007

The point is that the newspapers pulling these stupid, counterproductive stunts to "honor" Sunshine Week are not responding to any compelling journalistic need; they're simply fishing for something provocative and easy to publish (in print or online, headless, it doesn't matter) to cause a stink. It's lazy and inflammatory, and does nothing to bring to light public officials who abuse secrecy in their positions - which is the problem, as Dreama notes, that sunshine laws are really meant to address. And, you know, if you're going to do something as invasive as this, publishing lists of folks who'd committed violent crimes or DUIs would have been a smarter way to go. Not that I like that, either, but going after concealed carriers is just so obviously designed to garner attention for the newspaper in return for very little social value.

Hell, I'm sure public officials who have something to hide are *loving* these obnoxious stunts from stupid newspaper editors. They're *perfect* for destroying sympathy for sunshine laws. Neither of these stories has shown up at Romenesko yet, but I'll bet the debate there is furious.
posted by mediareport at 6:34 AM on March 13, 2007

I'm a journalist by trade. I would not have published a database such as this for Sunshine week. I also would not have published a list of addresses of sex offenders.

I think it would have been better to just note the kinds of records that were available. I'd rather tell interested people where to go if they wanted to find out who had concealed carry permits or who had molested people or where exactly the boundary was placed between two properties.

Publishing a database just because you can is really stupid. It's important to take into account why personal information is public when deciding whether to republish it.

In the case of molesters, the information is public because legislative bodies have decided that citizens have a compelling need to know who has been convicted of such crimes, and whether a judge thinks they'd be likely to offend again. That information is not intended for public humiliation of offenders just because you can. (How do you expect someone to rehabilitate himself if you ostracise him?)

In the case of concealed carry permit records, the information is public because of open government laws. I don't think that indicates a need for a newspaper to republish a whole database.

(If my readers said they wanted it, I'd support publication of new concealed carry permits granted each week, without addresses, since the addresses themselves are irrelevant. They'd note the municipality of residence of the permit holder, though.)
posted by bugmuncher at 6:54 AM on March 13, 2007

Title should be "Shooting down the privacy of VA gun owners that carry guns legally". Wouldn't it be more useful to have a list of people who have committed gun crimes?
posted by 445supermag at 7:05 AM on March 13, 2007

You know, part of the problem is the perception that the government's gone after gun owners in the past.

Publishing the names and home addresses of Black drivers, registered gay partners or abortionists would raise people's hackles the same way, while a big exposé-style list of White drivers, straight partners or dentists would seem odd and harmless. It's the expectation that someone — government or private citizen — might want to harm people on the list that makes it scary.
posted by nebulawindphone at 7:26 AM on March 13, 2007

Governments accumulate information about citizens all of the time. I think that any law-abiding citizen has a right to know what data the government is collecting about them. I think The People have a right to know what the government is hoarding in a collective way. But I surely don't see how you could argue that one person should be able to use the government to poke around in the private life of another citizen. The government knows a LOT about me: they know about my family, my home, my health, my income, my debts, etc. Not all of that needs to be made public.
posted by popechunk at 7:51 AM on March 13, 2007

If they have concealed carry permits, one would assume they are carrying the guns, rather than leaving them at home to be stolen.

They should have published a list of the names, and left out the addresses, as bugmuncher is mentioning. Of course, then people would be screaming about their addresses being accessible in the phone book or online lookup.

What's funny is I bet these concealed carry holders would approve almost to the person of publishing lists of known sexual offenders.

I'm not equating gun ownership to a crime. I'm just comparing the expectation of privacy. Both are public, openly accessible, government records. Don't want to be identified as a concealed carry permit holder? Then don't apply for a concealed carry permit. Easy.

So really, all we're talking about is ease of access. Some people above are saying the access should be purposefully made more difficult for this particular set of information.

Personally, I think all public records should be digitized and made searchable via the internet. That's what it means.

Another way of thinking about this is, if you believe something shouldn't be easily accessible via online database, then what you're really saying is that this information shouldn't be public.

That may in fact be a valid discussion, but the method of delivery of this information, be it an online database or a dusty book at the courthouse, is entirely moot.
posted by Ynoxas at 9:18 AM on March 13, 2007

If they have concealed carry permits, one would assume they are carrying the guns, rather than leaving them at home to be stolen.

You don't carry everywhere you go. And sometimes you're at home, so your guns are too. But I suppose it's okay if someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night when you're there, so long as you own guns, because then you can just shoot 'em, right?

I'm not equating gun ownership to a crime.

Well yes, you are. But more importantly, you're ignoring the purpose of the aggregation of the information, unless you're suggesting that the public needs to fear concealed permit holders as much as sex offenders.

I have no problem with public information. But far better to have to put your face in front of a member of the state police to get it. If your need for the information is benign, then there should be no problem in doing so.
posted by Dreama at 10:06 AM on March 13, 2007

I'm not sure what community good is provided by the accessibility of these records.

the community good that such permits are not given according to political connections or personal ones ... before the law changed in michigan, there were counties in which a person who belonged to the "wrong" party would not get a concealed carry permit, period ... the criteria were arbitrary and impossible to meet

without public records of this, the press and the public wouldn't have been able to make their case that the system needed changing as easily

public records are the only way to ensure that the government is doing this job fairly
posted by pyramid termite at 11:00 AM on March 13, 2007

The whole point of "concealed" weapons laws is that is causes criminals to question wether the person they are about to attack is armed or not.

People on the list shouldn't be upset. People not on the list should be upset. They are the one who just had it publicly announced that they are easy pickings because they leave the house unarmed!!
posted by Megafly at 11:04 AM on March 13, 2007

I am one of a very small number of people on this site on the list. It's easy to point fingers and categorize a group of people when one of them isn't among you or is viewed as somehow in the minority.

I'm not especially pleased about this at all. I see no reason to publish my name and address in conjunction with some sensationalist link to firearms paranoia.

It is not a truism that because I have a permit that I'm always carrying. The whole point of this is that you shouldn't know I am, and it shouldn't ever be an issue.

(Every time I am pulled over, the record comes up with my license, and I am asked if I am carrying. Yes, this is appropriate, and yes, I always tell the officer. There's no reason for you to be asking)

This kind of shit forces it to become one.
posted by avriette at 5:15 PM on March 13, 2007 [2 favorites]

I see no reason to publish my name and address in conjunction with some sensationalist link to firearms paranoia.

While I agree that the sensationalism is unwarranted, the fact is that the records are public anyway.

There's no reason for you to be asking.

Hogwash. You endanger the lives of others simply by possessing a loaded firearm on your person in public. If someone in my office were on the list, I'd want to know if they carry their weapon to work with them, and I don't think I'd be alone.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:20 PM on March 13, 2007

And Civil_Disobedient, you endanger the lives of others every time you get behind the wheel of your car. Would you propose that car registration and driver's license information be published in this manner so that we can know who in our lives and communities have access to deadly equipment that will be used around us and our children and what kind of equipment they have?
posted by Dreama at 7:22 PM on March 13, 2007

If someone in my office were on the list

In North Carolina, your permit does NOT allow you to carry a gun into "Any premises where the carrying of a concealed handgun is prohibited by the posting of a statement by the controller of the premises." [see appendix, p. 37 of this pdf] If you don't want your officemates to carry in the building, just get the business owner to post a sign saying no guns allowed inside. I imagine something similar is true in other states with concealed carry laws.
posted by mediareport at 7:28 PM on March 13, 2007

You endanger the lives of others simply by possessing a loaded firearm on your person in public

That is ridiculous. The huge majority of people who carry a gun day to day have been trained in the safe methods of doing so.

the fact is that the records are public anyway.

My argument is that they should not be. It's none of your business if I have a fishing license or a gun license. You should have no right to snoop into my private life.

I'd want to know if they carry their weapon to work with them.

Have a policy in your workplace of no guns on the premises. Problem solved. If your employer has even a rudimentary HR department, I'm sure you already do.
posted by popechunk at 7:28 PM on March 13, 2007

I'd argue that the records should be public, but that there *is* a difference between making them available via a face-to-face in a county office and making them available anonymously in an online database. There's just no compelling reason for the latter at all, except newspaper gimmickry.
posted by mediareport at 7:34 PM on March 13, 2007

you endanger the lives of others every time you get behind the wheel of your car.

Strawman. You endanger the lives of others every time you walk down the street with a screwdriver in your hand. You endanger the lives of others every time you have a cold and go out in public. Etc., etc., ad. nauseum.

The huge majority of people who carry a gun day to day have been trained in the safe methods of doing so.

Irrelevant. Regardless of the training, the simple presence of a weapon means the risks are elevated.

You should have no right to snoop into my private life.

Then you should be out lobbying against required registration of firearms (or fishing licenses, for that matter). The simple fact is that currently the law says registration is not only mandatory, but is a matter of public record. You have allowed this part of your private life to be open to public scrutiny. Or at least, a majority of voters have.

In North Carolina, your permit does NOT allow you to carry a gun into "Any premises where the carrying of a concealed handgun is prohibited by the posting of a statement by the controller of the premises."

Ah! A voice of reason. That makes sense.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:47 PM on March 13, 2007

there is a difference between making them available via a face-to-face in a county office and making them available anonymously in an online database

I was going to make the same distinction, but I don't think that the future holds much hope for this antiquated practice, in reality. I think everything will be on the net soon. And I'm not necessarily against it.

Maybe if it could be set up such that you left permanent "footprints" on a record when you examined it. In other words, my fishing license is public record, and so is your query about my fishing license.
posted by popechunk at 7:48 PM on March 13, 2007

Then you should be out lobbying against required registration of firearms (or fishing licenses, for that matter). The simple fact is that currently the law says registration is not only mandatory, but is a matter of public record. You have allowed this part of your private life to be open to public scrutiny. Or at least, a majority of voters have.

I'm not against having to be licensed by the state to possess a gun, drive a car, etc. I also understand that this information must of course be provided to law enforcement officials from time to time as a necessary part of doing their jobs. I'm not even really against you going down to the courthouse, as mediareport suggested, and finding out that I have a gun.

All I mean to suggest is that I don't want the governments that I deal with to make my entire life internet-searchable.

I really don't want to argue the gun thing with you (in this thread), because I think it's a red herring. I think that this is about privacy in general. I understand that the gun thing is a hot button issue, and that in your community it may seem extremely strange that someone would want to have a gun, never mind carry it around near people in public, but where I live, it's 100% normal.
posted by popechunk at 7:56 PM on March 13, 2007

From the Roanoke Times article about the removal of the list:

Another poster wrote: "I've moved twice to get away from a violent ex. Now I have to move again. I really appreciate you publishing my address. Gee, thanks."

What a colossally stupid thing for a newspaper to do.
posted by mediareport at 8:09 PM on March 13, 2007

link
posted by mediareport at 8:09 PM on March 13, 2007

This isn't about gun owners. There is no gun registry in Virginia. This is about the privacy of citizens who have applied for and been issued a Concealed Handgun Permit. In Virginia, open carry is lawful and concealed carry requires a state-issued permit.

The database contained the full legal name, home address (as required by law when applying for a CHP), date of issue, and date of expiration. It was searchable by last name and by city/county. If the last name field was omitted, all people to whom a CHP was issued within the selected city or county were listed.
posted by jmdodd at 9:22 PM on March 13, 2007

there is a difference between making them available via a face-to-face in a county office and making them available anonymously in an online database

I do not see the distinction. The method of delivery of this information is entirely irrelevant.

What, you think the only people who deserve to know if you carry a gun or not are people who can make it to the courthouse weekdays between 9am and 4pm, not counting the hour closed for lunch?

What you are REALLY saying is you want restricted access to public records, which is a complete oxymoron. Make 'em public, just not TOO public.

And the person above talking about having to move is likely full of shit. Real estate records have always been open everywhere, and many home town newspapers routinely publish real estate transactions.

What a colossally stupid thing for a newspaper to do.

I don't agree with this at all. It's "colossally stupid" for a newspaper to print public information? I do not like where that argument heads. No good can come of that viewpoint.
posted by Ynoxas at 7:34 AM on March 14, 2007

Another poster wrote: "I've moved twice to get away from a violent ex. Now I have to move again. I really appreciate you publishing my address. Gee, thanks."

Well, that does suck. Probably the reason for the concealed-carry.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:43 PM on March 14, 2007

The debate made it to CNN.
posted by Tenuki at 2:32 PM on April 3, 2007