Don’t tell anyone!
The Virginia General Assembly on Thursday passed legislation that would seal the records of all concealed handgun permits, handing a victory to gun owners who said the measure would ensure their privacy and perhaps their safety from criminals who might use such information to target them.
“We’ve been wanting this for years,” said Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. “It wasn’t as much about guns as it was about privacy.”
The bill – which began in the evenly divided Senate as a measure that would shield only the identities of permit holders who also had protective orders – was later amended in the GOP-led House to prohibit disclosure of information on anyone with a concealed handgun permit.
The House’s version carried by a 76 to 23 vote. On Thursday, the Senate passed the amended bill by a vote of 31 to 9. It now heads to the governor’s desk.
Colin Goddard’s father, Andrew, who is president of the Virginia Center for Public Safety, feels that the move is to prevent embarrassment to gun rights supporters when they break the law. Goddard’s son Colin was shot 4 times during the Virginia Tech Massacre.
Goddard cited the case of Christopher B. Speight, who held a court-issued concealed weapons permit. Speight, 42, killed eight people at his home in Appomattox in January 2010, including his sister, her husband, and the couple’s two children and four neighbors, authorities said. He is still awaiting trial.
“The real reason they want this is because when somebody does something – like Speight in Virginia – that’s a smack in the eye for the concealed carry movement,” Goddard said Thursday.
Others argued that such government-regulated permits should be open to public scrutiny. The Virginia Coalition for Open Government supported the original bill but spoke out against enacting a blanket prohibition on disclosure for all permit holders.
Why is the government issuing permits for people to carry a weapon that can kill me? Don’t I have a right to know that the person I am allowing into my home or who sits next to me on the bus or who is dining across the table from me might be carrying a concealed weapon?
These same people who voted for this bill are the same people who want to deny me and mine the right to have an abortion and who want to keep gays from marrying. Dear God, what’s next? We truly have become a redneck state. Sealed gun permit laws should be unconstitutional. Unless it deals with national security, I don’t think the Government should be in the business of issing any permits that aren’t open to public scrutiny.
Virginia just washed its hands of any personal responsibility it sounds like. Once the person has the permit, I guess its a done deal, regardless of what w permit holder does in the future.
For those who want to join the ranks of the Virginia big and bold, here’s a website: http://virginiaconcealed.com/
Heretofore, I wouldn’t have cared who had a permit. If I needed to know, I know the route to take to find out. Now I can’t find out, I am just one more step into the camp of the dreaded gun control camp. Now I care very much because the government is issuing an shield of invisibility for someone to not just possess but conceal a weapon that can kill me. Maybe I would want to know that.
Would police be able to determine who had a permit? As I read the laws about who cannot have a concealed weapon permit, I wonder would be entitled to that information.
” feels that the move is to prevent embarrassment to gun rights supporters when they break the law.”
BS. If they break the law, their permit is revoked and that becomes part of the court proceedings.
“Don’t I have a right to know that the person I am allowing into my home or who sits next to me on the bus or who is dining across the table from me might be carrying a concealed weapon?”
How is having this in public records going to let you know which stranger is carrying?
Why do you need to know? Did you support the action of the newspapers that revealed all the gun owners in New York, or the concealed permit carriers, placing people at risk? THAT is why this bill became important.
Police know who has a permit when they run the plates of your car or you ID. A permit holder must surrender it upon request. And must state whether they are carrying or have a gun in the car.
“These same people who voted for this bill are the same people who want to deny me and mine the right to have an abortion and who want to keep gays from marrying.” Are you saying that if these people that voted for this also supported abortion rights and gay marriage, then it would be ok with you? Because a lot of 2nd amendment supporters are libertarians that support both.
If you are a gun owner it shouldn’t be a secret. Why? You own something that can take someone else’s life.
I think it is too early to tell how its going to work if someone who has a concealed weapon permit commits a crime. The thing just passed today.
Who said that person is a stranger? I never mentioned the word stranger. Why would I be letting strangers in or sitting with them in a restaurant?
That is a totally stupid question, Cargo. Noooooooooo…it wouldn’t be alright with me. However, they wouldn’t be quite as big of a hypocrit. I am rather amazed that the right to privacy wouldn’t at least be part of the question on both.
I have known very few gun people who support reproductive rights by your definition. Until very recently I considered myself a gun person since I am a gun owner. Now I realize I am not pure enough. I guess its like being a Gino…gunperson in name only.
Actually, I see a happy medium here. I think newspapers should be prohibited from publishing a list of concealed permit holders AND their addresses. However, if I want the information for my own use, I should be able to go to the court house and access the information. I wouldn’t even mind a state law that forbid me from contacting that person over anything politically motivated to that person and his/her gun rights. (In other words, I couldn’t lobby them with my anti gun propoganda.)
But to say that the state can issue private hidden permits to any individual to carry a weapon that could kill me? I don’t think so.
I really dislike issues when posed in binary terms.
I think this addresses the issue highlighted by a New York newspaper publishing a list of names and addresses of people who held gun permits. I don’t have a problem with protecting that information. But let’s get back to the real solution: Require open carry. Abolish concealed carry except for law enforcement officials. The Concealed Weapon permit program is pretty much a joke anyway (you can go online and find places offering to qualify you with an on-line course). If everyone has to keep a weapon in view in a day-glo orange holster, we get all the deterrence that people claim being armed provides, but the citizens can evaluate for themselves whether they want to be in a public space with people who feel their lives are constantly at risk while going about their daily business.
Day-glo orange holsters, indeed. Too funny, Scout.
I don’t want to be in a public place with strangers carrying weapons. I am afraid in this day and age, I would have to become a recluse.
A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don’t have one or someone else around you that has one, you’ll probably never need one again.
Owning a gun is a private matter. Carrying a gun under a concealed permit is a private matter, one that serves to reduce the tensions many on this blog would assert in an open carry environment. Whether you support abortion or not, it too is a private matter. Who are you to invade my privacy? Until you are willing to release the names of all those who have had an abortion, lets stop the hypocrisy.
I don’t believe for one minute that carrying a gun under a concealed permit is a private matter. Why should the government be in covert dealings with private individuals?
Once you have a permit, it is no longer a private matter.
I don’t mind people I know having guns around me. My objection is being in public with strangers packing heat. I don’t know their intent. Marin or Cargo or Elena don’t bother me at all.
Blue, I do agree that abortion is a private matter because it falls under patient privacy. To date, though, no permit is needed. I suppose someone could argue that having to get an ultrasound is a permit of sorts. There is a huge difference between having a medical procedure and having a permit to do anything. Surely you see that?
I see gun ownership as a limited constitutional right. I don’t really think it much to do with privacy.
Blue, most people on this blog are not against gun ownership. We just aren’t the wild west types. We don’t feel our right is unlimited. Most of us are gun owners.
Blue, Why should I be less worried about a gun carried concealed than one carried openly? By concealing the exercise of this right, citizens are deprived of a means of assessing risk in any given public space.
By the logic of the first sentence in your comment, everyone would carry a gun all the time.
Make that your first graph. Sorry.
@Scout
How do you know today? A friend of mine and I took our kids to the movies. He is FBI, but it never occurred to me that he was carrying until he crossed his legs.
The difference Scout is that concealed requires a permit. Open does not. The issue here was related to publishing the names of those who have such permits. That is Bat$&!# crazy. Allowing a store owner to ask to see the permit make sense, if otherwise noticed.
Until he crossed his legs? I am trying to envision this one…..
I don’t like newspapers publishing a lot of things they publish. I disliked the News and Messenger publishing county employee salaries by name. I had no problem with the grade salary being published. It just didn’t need anyone’s name next to it.
Same thing with the conceal permit. If you want to say that 6 people on Lafayette St. have a conceal permit, fine. That makes it a crap shoot whose house you want to break in to. But to say that Alice Jones has a concealed weapon permit…I don’t see why that needs to be said.
@Moon-howler
Ankle holster– no need to work it up Moon.
No, it is a private decision. You have no right to inquire as to why any person feels the need or desire – and that analysis can vary from job to job, history to history and location to location. It is a protected right. Its none of your business. No slippery slope about who in the neighborhood, how many live in a neighborhood, no whispering campaigns. Would neighborhoods with no concealed permits be more likely to not have guns and thus be more prone to robbery or worse? Interestign question, but it is nothing even close to being like a public employee and having salaries available to the public. Its true for Feds, state and local employees.
If the government is issuing permits, it is someone’s business. I could care less why but…I am not so sure it isn’t everyone’s business if someone has a permit to carry a weapon that can kill me in secret. In most towns, once some busy body at the court house processes the paper work, it has become everyone’s business.
You have stated your opinion like it is fact, it is not fact. What kind of world do you live in where people have whisper campaigns about who has a concealed permit?
I never said a carry permit was like being a public employee. I was speaking of things newspapers have been known to publish. They also publish graduation lists and who has died. Are you now going to accuse me of saying getting a conceal permit is like graduating from high school?
🙄
I thought maybe you have been listening to Alannis Morrisette.
If I have a conceal permit then it has been given to me by the government. Our government isn’t in the business of secret arrangements with individuals, that I am aware of. You can go dig up a license on someone being married or at least acertain that someone was born or died. Why should a gun permit be any different?
It’s a matter of government transparency…not the gun owner.
@blue,
what does that mean? no need to work it up moon?
@ Moon
I keep hearing you argue for every busy body transparancy and that just does not cut it. Any notion that this information is or should be open to public review is dangerous. It is a compromise that concealed requires a permit at all — vice open., and that is more about protecting the owner and the police officer who engage each oher at – say a traffic stop. It saves time and worry for everybody who needs to know. Release of the information needs to carry a stiff penalty too.
My point, Blue, was that we could dispense with the permit system and slice through this whole privacy thing (and hence the need or practice of the state keeping records, hence the danger of names being broadcast by newspapers) by simply outlawing concealed carry. Open carry without a permit is permitted now. I cannot think of any good reason for permitting concealed carry other than sensitivities of the bearer, who, in most cases realizes that he/she is a bit odd for thinking that his life is constantly in danger.
Here’s a solution.
Constitutional carry. No permit needed. Many states already do it.
Cargo, which states?
Cargo – Constitutionally, I think the states (or cities) could impose safety, training, and other requirements to permit one to carry,even openly. But if your proposal is premised on mandatory open carry, I think it would be preferable to the system we have now, where the concealed carry standards are not particularlyl stringent. Your approach would meet my concern that all weapons be visible, thus enabling citizens to avoid gun carriers if they chose to do so. Of course the worst possible world would be no permitting AND concealed carry. I assume you didn’t mean that. If I were a cop, I’d go nuts with that.
To clarify – when I say “mandatory open carry” I mean a prohibition on concealed carry for those who choose to go about armed. I do not mean that we require everyone to carry a firearm. I think that’s clear, but I realize that some people have advocated mandatory gun ownership.
@Cargosquid
Vermont has had Constitutional Carry since the nation’s founding in 1791–
they never enacted any law banning the right to discreetly bear arms.
Montana enacted Constitutional Carry in 1991, for all areas
outside city limits (99.4% of the state), and is working on the rest.
Alaska enacted Constitutional Carry in 2003.
Texas enacted Constitutional Carry “light” in 2007
as the “Motorist Protection Act,” freeing people to carry in their vehicles,
and to and from their vehicles and their homes, land or business.
The funny part…Texas doesn’t allow open carry.
Arizona got full Constitutional Carry in 2010,
Wyoming enacted Constitutional Carry for residents in 2011.
And what do all those states except one have in common? (raising an eyebrow)
@Scout
Oops..that is what I meant and that is already passed in many places.
Why would a cop go crazy? They have to assume everyone is armed anyway? I do, and I’m not even a cop.
Fair point, CS. I guess when you’re in police work, assumptions are always potentially hazardous.
I maintain, however, that requiring those who carry to carry openly is preferable to a rickety permit system that permits some civilians to conceal weapons. We shouldn’t be shy about our constitutional rights.
@Scout
You have a good point…. I disagree, but you have a valid point. I like being able to conceal.
@Cargo
Why?
@Moon-howler
For a variety of reasons.
One… you aren’t the automatic target of the criminal that WILL be concealing.
Two…. lack of drama from those that find guns objectionable when visible.
Three…. sometimes you just want to.
four… at least in VirgInia, since open carry is allowed… you can carry “casual.” If your concealed weapon is revealed…it doesn’t matter. So, you “kinda open carry.” Since you ar not limited to one extreme or another…you have more comfortable carry options. Sticking a small pistol is more comfortable than having to find a holster that fits a definition of open carry.
1, 2, 4 I somewhat understand.
Sticking a small pistol in a jacket pocket is more comfortable
Edit THEN submit.
A gun is useless under the law for preventing property crimes – one can only use it to protect one’s life or the life of another. My theory about why people prefer to conceal weapons is that they know it’s bizarre that they would go about their daily business carrying deadly force on their persons and do not want the world to know that they have the mentality that would compel them to carry. I also believe that the primary reason most people carry weapons is that doing so satisfies a kind of psychological void for people who feel more meaningful or powerful knowing that, should they choose, they can exercise life and death authority over those around them. I do not believe that most people who carry guns in their daily pursuits objectively have concluded that they are at daily or hourly risk of having their lives taken by assailants. If I am wrong on that last point, then the our largely suburban world is a far scarier place than my senses, knowledge, and experience indicate.
The primary reason I’m backing a requirement that everyone who carries deadly weapons do so in the open is that I want the chance to assess whether I place myself (or my family) in an environment where one or more civilians who are not required to have any special proficiency and have not undergone any in-depth psychological screening (because neither is required for a CC permit) are carrying weapons. A secondary reason is that, because it’s bloody weird to carry a firearm around, a lot fewer people would do it if they had to acknowledge publicly that they were doing it.
I really have to agree with what Scout says. I particulary want the advantage of being able to evaluate the environment. I don’t want to be around stangers packing heat. I don’t know them. I feel that they are infringing on my rights.
I think that people like Cargo need to assess why there is such drama. Why do you think it bothers people to be around people who are armed?
It is because WE don’t know if you are friend or foe. I also question some of the people I have known who don’t leave home without a gun. Now if they have a risky job, I understand that. If they are just going around the suburbs…I think that is a little paranoid. I have just known too many people who I think have a twisted outlook.
If there were really some sort of rigorous filter on who gets concealed permits, I don’t think I would have been forced to conclude that the best way to deal with civilians carrying weapons is to require highly visible open carry. But the permitting process is superficial, at best.
I think requiring all open carry is a great idea. This way it will be easy to identify criminals who might want to shoot us. The element of surprise will be in our favor, not theirs, because we’ll always be able to see their gun before they can shoot us, and then we can react quickly to incapacitate the criminal. Then it will be against the law for any criminal to carry concealed weapons, unlike today.
This would have definitely stopped the Sandy Hook shooter, the Fort Hood shooter, the Colorado movie theater killer, and the Gabby Giffords shooter. Those guys would have been required to open carry at all times. Then we would have known right off the bat that they were crazed killers and could have neutralized them immediately. I like it!
Rather than smart ass remarks how about reading what Scout was talking about and following the flow of the conversation. He never said that would solve the problem of mass shooting sprees. It was a general conversation. Coming along with sarcasm really is unproductive. If you disagree with Scout, at least know what he said and why.
Not every reaction to how we feel about weapons has to do with mas killing sprees. We can just have general conversations, I thought.
I very much doubt that open carrying a gun overtly would attract criminal attack. But if that were a real world possibility, it could be easily de-fused by not carrying a firearm. I haven’t carried a firearm in many years, and never once have I been attacked since I stopped carrying.
PS: to be precise – Other than transporting a weapon to a range for practice, I haven’t carried a firearm since 1970 and that was not within the borders of the United States. But my general point holds water.
If you’re a criminal bent on mayhem and walk into an IHOP, a CVS or a Giant and see seven people carrying openly wearing their day-glo pink or orange mandatory open carry, Scout-designed holsters, do you decide to attack them? I doubt it. I really question whether a lot of under-trained civilians carrying concealed weapons has any deterrent effect on criminal activity, but, if it does, that effect would be just as strong if they carried openly and conspicuously.
I think that people like Cargo need to assess why there is such drama. Why do you think it bothers people to be around people who are armed?
I have no idea. But them, I assume everyone I meet is armed. I’ve been around people that open carry. Most people ignore it. However, there are some that get bothered enough to react poorly.
Open carry does point out to the conceal carry criminal, who the first target is. I haven’t been attacked in all of my years either. But, I know people that have been and successfully defended themselves.
Scout, you are right….open carry CAN deter a threat. It can also invite a preemptive attack. Neither concealed or open carry is the perfect procedure.
Just as the bank guard will get shot first….which has happened….. there are other times where a person open carrying in a bank deterred a bank robbery. Basically, a man in a mask came in… saw the person, turned around and left. Other times, because the person had it concealed, he was able to delay a response to a robber until it was tactically sound.
I’ve open carried and been fortunate. The only response I ever got was a question as to what kind of gun I was carrying. Other people have had negative reactions, such as cops being called or belligerence directed towards them.
The attitude of people who don’t carry doesn’t strike me as a compelling justification for allowing civilians to hide the fact that they are packing heat. The government shouldn’t deprive or prevent people who don’t care to be around firearms from knowing when they are present.