Publishing CCW holdlers..Brilliant revelation of the obvious?

[News Shooter]

So, I'm reading on other boards about states that have CCW people listed as public record and all the trouble that causes with the newspapers publishing names and addresses And I'm thinking why did the most anti-gun state in the union decide not to do that?

Why would they want to do anything to protect us??

Then it occurred to me, It's not about us, it's about them.

The fat hypocrite, bastard guttersnipes don't want the public knowing THEY carry while at the same time posturing on the evils of gun ownership.

Excuse me for being simple and not catching on as quickly as the rest of you, but I'm kind of slow.

 

[Chris]

Also, in most CCW states you only need the license (and thus be on the record) ONLY if you have a permit to carry. Here, you need the permit just to own the gun. So such a list would not be all the people who carry, but every household that owns a gun. (and thus known all households that do not - at least not legally)

 

[Firetarr]

You all KNOW Teddy carries: a fifth of scotch and it's(he's) always loaded!!




S P L A S H !!!!!!!!!

 

[RKG]

Here is the story (at least in short form):

About 10 years ago (maybe longer, I don't really recall, but the motion came up in the old Equity Motion Session, on Floor #2 of the Old Suffolk Courthouse, which is some indication of how long ago it was), the Boston Globe submitted an FOIA request for list of LTC holders (don't recall if Boston only or statewide).

MSP declined to provide.

Globe appealed to SecState who ordered MSP to provide; MSP appealed to Superior Court. As is the SOP in FOIA cases, motion for summary judgment was filed.

By some quirk, motion was assiged to a particular justice of the Superior Court who happened to carry, everywhere.

Motion taken under advisement.

While motion under advisement, issue somehow came to the attention of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House. They agreed (i) that if the judge applied the law as written, Globe would have to win (as at that time, no exemption for LTC holders), but (ii) this would not be a good result for the public peace.

As a result, G.L. ch. 4, sec. 7, cl. 26th, sub-clause j was quickly enacted. This exempts from the definition of "public records:" "the names and addresses of any persons contained in, or referred to in, any applications for any licenses to carry or possess firearms issued pursuant to chapter one hundred and forty or any firearms identification cards issued pursuant to said chapter one hundred and forty and the names and addresses on sales or transfers of any firearms, rifles, shotguns, or machine guns or ammunition therefor, as defined in said chapter one hundred and forty and the names and addresses on said licenses or cards".

Shortly thereafter, the justice of the Superior Court denied Globe's motion and entered judgment for the MSP.

 

[drgrant]

The short story is almost none of the "old guard CCW" states do it
at all... eg, the states that had some form of legal CCW prior to the
huge bursts in shall-issue licensing in the mid 80s or so.

I think the main difference is the when the old guard states passed
their laws allowing/prohibiting whatever gun practices they wanted
to, there was a lot less scrutiny over the whole issue. "Gun licensing"
was simply not a big deal, period.

And as others mentioned- most certainly in some of the
'may issue" places like MA, assloads of permits were issued to "beautiful
people" who would not want to be exposed by such a public
disclosure.

Course then you have places like VT where nearly anyone can
carry, without a bleeping "permit". Despite the high taxes
and the like, that is one thing that the rest of the country
should learn from Vermont. It's not as if their permissive system
has "caused" violence or anything like that. It's virtually a living
testament to the fact that gun control does nothing useful.

-Mike

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The downside of a non-disclosure policy is that it makes it difficult, if not impossible, for legal counsel handling an LTC denial to raise the issue of "arbitrary and capricious" by comparing the qualifications of the applicant to those of similarly qualified individuals who have been approved.

 

[Pilgrim]

There was a newspaper that released the names of CCW license holders somewhere in the mid west a cuppla years ago. The reporter who did the story was buried with phone calls, mail and email. Then the reporters name, address, telephone number, google aerial maps of his house and a lot of other personal info started appearing on the internet, with comments like, "How do you like it?"

The practice stopped real quick and I think a law was passed to prevent it.

I wish I could find a link to it.

 

[dwarven1]

Wow... a Mass law that I agree with. What a concept.

Dennis, that bit of stupidity has been done in Ohio and Virginia... and yes, the editor AND the reporter had their home addresses published REAL quick.