Is our state's CHP List safe from journalists?

[The Rat]

http://www.civitasmedia.com/article/...ME02/140129999

Statement from the CEO

1 hours ago | | | |


Civitas Media never had any plans or intentions of publishing in print or online lists of holders of “conceal and carry” permits. Nor will Civitas Media develop databases of permit holders. A poorly crafted internal memo meant to highlight editorial discussions and planning incorrectly indicated that such a database was being planned; it has been considered and rejected.

[rbeau30]

I guarantee you there is records of some kind.

When I met with Sherriff Robinson o ask for my permit back, he had a rather thick file from CBI on me.

[roberth]

Did you fill out forms to obtain your CHP?

Do public officials lie to the public as standard policy and procedure?

Are journalists pals with public officials?

If you answered NO to these three questions then I want to know what the color the sky is in your world.

[james_bond_007]

Meaning that concealed carry is not guaranteed as a Constitutional concern, however CRS18-12-203 states that the Sheriff Shall Issue a permit to people that meet the following criteria:

So, that's a pretty broad list they're gonna have to make...

...but having a CCW permit is not a right (at least in the manner I understand the term "right").

It is more of a privilege.
If the criteria is met, the sheriff is bound, by law, to issue; however, the sheriff has the authority to deny issuing or revoke the CCW permit, under certain conditions.

There is a subtle difference between rights and privileges.
I'm sure there are many interpretations, but the way I know it :
A right is typically bestowed unconditionally upon birth. One inherits certain rights at the time of being created at birth, that can't be denied.
A privilege is grated after birth by the state (legal system) and is typically conditional. That is, certain criteria must be met in order for one to obtain the privilege, and upon failure to meet that criteria, the privilege can be revoked.

The example that always comes to mind is that a driver's license is a privilege, not a right, even though almost everyone can get one.

...but all this is just my understanding/interpretation.

As far as the article, I think we might be debating the "quality, or lack of quality" of the writing, grammar and usage.

To me, by my interpretation, the "list", as stated, would contain "0" names, as no one has a "right" to have a CCW permit.

From the context, the statement should have read something like "...a list of those people that hold a CCW permit..." (only those permit holders on record)

The very LARGE/BROAD list would be "...a list of those people that can qualify or have qualified to hold a CCW permit..." (practically everyone)

[james_bond_007]

I would wonder if your CCW application is considered a public record or not ?

Although there is no statewide "list", I would consider the file cabinet in your local sheriff's office containing the CCW applications a "list" or "database" of CCW permit holders residing in that county.

At the point you submit the application, the application becomes property of the county.
Is it/can it be considered a public record ?
Can they do what they want with it (i.e., publish some info from it ) ?

After all, the arrest reports are published and "name names" , often appearing in the "Police Beat" section.

[Big E3]

I talked to a sheriff don't remember what county and his explanation of a list of CCW holders was like this. We don't maintain a computer list of just CCW holders, if you enter a specific name in the system there would be record of that person having a permit. He said it would be like how your driver license says corrective lenses required, but there is not a list of everyone who wears glasses. Now maybe he just wanted me stop concerning myself, I don't know.

[merl]

I talked to a sheriff don't remember what county and his explanation of a list of CCW holders was like this. We don't maintain a computer list of just CCW holders, if you enter a specific name in the system there would be record of that person having a permit. He said it would be like how your driver license says corrective lenses required, but there is not a list of everyone who wears glasses. Now maybe he just wanted me stop concerning myself, I don't know.

ha! "there is a database but there isn't a search defined to just dump it." (but one could be coded in minutes) Thats just like the ATF "We don't have a database of gun owners, we have a database that can search serial numbers."

Back to the OP the real concern is not being outed in the media, it is the situation for the FL resident in MD. If a cop in IL can ask about CCW info along with DL info (call up CO and say "is this DL valid and do they have a valid CCW?") then having a CCW makes you an instant suspect in other states.

[newracer]

I talked to a sheriff don't remember what county and his explanation of a list of CCW holders was like this. We don't maintain a computer list of just CCW holders, if you enter a specific name in the system there would be record of that person having a permit. He said it would be like how your driver license says corrective lenses required, but there is not a list of everyone who wears glasses. Now maybe he just wanted me stop concerning myself, I don't know.

That is not true any longer. Before 2011 a CHP would come up on the CBI database when they ran you for warrants.