Lawmakers get new shot to close gun permit records (TN)

[davepc]

Tennessee lawmakers are ready again to try to muzzle state records that list who has a permit to carry a concealed handgun, and this time they are considering making it a crime to publish information about gun ownership.

The measure sponsored by Rep. Eddie Bass, a Democrat from Prospect, would make information on gun permit holders confidential and exempt from the state's open records law. The bill is scheduled for a hearing Wednesday by the House Criminal Practice Subcommittee.

For 12 years, similar legislation has failed to make it to a floor vote, but this year's version has a new twist and a better chance of passage now that Democrats who previously blocked the bill, including former Speaker Jimmy Naifeh, no longer control the House.

The new bill would make unauthorized publication of the information a misdemeanor that could be punished with a maximum fine of $2,500.

Bass said letting the public see the gun permit database is an invasion of privacy and empowers criminals, making permit holders easy targets for burglaries and endangering women protecting themselves from their abusers.

http://timesfreepress.com/news/2009/feb/24/lawmakers-get-new-shot-close-gun-permit-records/?breakingnews

[iverglas]

1. so, let me be the first to say

I'd be open to hearing argument to the contrary showing some justification for disclosing these records, but I'm as gobsmacked that they're publicly accessible as I am that so much other personal information is publicly accessible in the US.

The kind of lack of protection of personal data you guys live with would outrage anybody in Canada or Europe, for instance.

I had a friend doing 3.5 to life in NY state for possession of cocaine a few years ago (you guys really are nuts down there in so many ways; he would have got probation where I'm at). I was able to look up him and his roommates on a state govt website that told me where they were, when they would be / had been released, etc. etc.

!!!

Incomprehensible to an outsider, like so many other things.

Now, I'm not sure that if information like that and so much more is publicly accessible, concealed weapon permits shouldn't be.

Anybody could advance good reasons why various of his/her personal info that is now accessible shouldn't be. What would make gun-carriers special?

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

2. Right on iverglas!

did I just say that?? lol, just kidding

But seriously, a list of who has firearms, most likely pistols nonetheless?!?
A) It ruins the whole spirit of concealed carry as it should be a personal and private choice.
B) It provides potential thiefs where to go to get guns and what businesses to NOT rob while employees are there.

Keeping a list, while I disagree with gun-lists, might just maybe be OK for certain authorities and courts.
Disseminating lists of CHL holders as public knowlegde and even publishing them is an outrage. :(

[iverglas]

3. well, not quite

I need to know what other personal info is publicly accessible under those openness laws.

And if that openness covers other personal info that some people whose info it is likely don't think should be accessible by the public, I'd want to know what makes concealed weapons permit holders special.

So if anybody does know what other personal info is disclosed to the public ...

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

4. I know of an Ohio newspaper that publishes names of new CHL holders. (n/t)

[Raskolnik]

5. You've got it exactly backwards.

And if that openness covers other personal info that some people whose info it is likely don't think should be accessible by the public, I'd want to know what makes concealed weapons permit holders special.

If you are truly interested in people's privacy (rather than, say, simply being opposed to anything having to do with firearms) you would want justification for disclosing private information.

After all, as gobsmacked as you are about how much private information is disclosed in the U.S. compared to the enlightened bastions of Europe and Canada, I would think that the onus should be on those who wish to disclose such personal information, no? Unless, of course, your position somehow reverses itself when it comes to firearms...

[iverglas]

6. no, I got it quite right

I am gobsmacked by the personal info that is disclosed willy-nilly by public authorities in the US.

I would want justification for disclosing ALL of that public information.

Do Tennessee's open access laws allow access to driver and vehicle information? If so, there's a car theft waiting to happen, I'd say. Birth, marriage and death information for recent years? Identity theft waiting to happen. Also, just plain failure to protect privacy in all such cases, if that's the case.

(Canadian provinces generally don't allow access to vital statistics info like that for 100 years in the case of birth, 75 for marriages and 50 for deaths, more or less. I do a lot of genealogy research, and I'm equally gobsmacked by the fact that all of that information is accessible, and in fact searchable on line, for England and Wales, right up to this century. In the UK, electoral roll lists are also available on line, via a private company that sells the info. In Canada, it's a criminal offence to disclose voters' personal info from a voter's list. Etc.)

The appropriate response would be to call for protection of *all* such personal info. Not special treatment for gun owners.

[gorfle]

7. You need to watch this series:

Unfortunately it is broken up into many parts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vsxxsrn2Tfs

When I watch it I can't figure out whether to be depressed, resigned, or liberated.

[X_Digger]

8. Dang, there went 2 hours of my life!

Great link, though!!

[Indy Lurker]

9. I'm not saying it's right...

...but in the US, it's not "your" data.

Just because the data is about you doesn't make it yours.

Not unlike how a photographer retains rights to pictures of you. The photo (data) is about you, but you do not own the data.

Phone call records, which are created by the phone company, are owned by the phone company, even though it is information about you.

Likewise gun or prison records which are produced by the government, are government records. Since government records are available to the public via the freedom of information act, anyone can see government records, even if they are about an individual.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm just explaining the "logic"

[iverglas]

10. there ya go

Just because the data is about you doesn't make it yours.

And with the stroke of a legislative pen, it can be made yours.

And no, government records pertaining to an individual really aren't the same as photographs of the individual. Nobody compels anybody to be in a place where their photo may be taken; governments have information about people because people are compelled to provide it in the course of their lives or their dealings with government in matters over which the government has jurisdiction. Just because I give the government my address in order to be able to drive a car, that really doesn't mean that anyone else needs to know or is entitled to know my address.

Actually, I think there is quite a bit of personal information in the US that is protected.


Likewise gun or prison records which are produced by the government, are government records. Since government records are available to the public via the freedom of information act, anyone can see government records, even if they are about an individual.

Come now. We all know that there are many government records that are not accessible by the public in the US.

We have access to information legislation in Canada. Quite stringent in its requirements for disclosure.

We also have the Privacy Act, and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, for instance.

And an Information Commissioner to investigate access to information complaints, and a Privacy Commissioner to investigate privacy complaints.



http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/p-21/whole.html

Disclosure of personal information

8. (1) Personal information under the control of a government institution shall not, without the consent of the individual to whom it relates, be disclosed by the institution except in accordance with this section.

Where personal information may be disclosed

(2) Subject to any other Act of Parliament, personal information under the control of a government institution may be disclosed

(a) for the purpose for which the information was obtained or compiled by the institution or for a use consistent with that purpose;

(b) for any purpose in accordance with any Act of Parliament or any regulation made thereunder that authorizes its disclosure;

(c) for the purpose of complying with a subpoena or warrant issued or order made by a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information or for the purpose of complying with rules of court relating to the production of information;

(d) to the Attorney General of Canada for use in legal proceedings involving the Crown in right of Canada or the Government of Canada;

(e) to an investigative body specified in the regulations, on the written request of the body, for the purpose of enforcing any law of Canada or a province or carrying out a lawful investigation, if the request specifies the purpose and describes the information to be disclosed;

(f) under an agreement or arrangement between the Government of Canada or an institution thereof and the government of a province, the council of the Westbank First Nation, the council of a participating First Nation — as defined in subsection 2(1) of the First Nations Jurisdiction over Education in British Columbia Act —, the government of a foreign state, an international organization of states or an international organization established by the governments of states, or any institution of any such government or organization, for the purpose of administering or enforcing any law or carrying out a lawful investigation;

(g) to a member of Parliament for the purpose of assisting the individual to whom the information relates in resolving a problem;

(h) to officers or employees of the institution for internal audit purposes, or to the office of the Comptroller General or any other person or body specified in the regulations for audit purposes;

(i) to the Library and Archives of Canada for archival purposes;

(j) to any person or body for research or statistical purposes if the head of the government institution

(i) is satisfied that the purpose for which the information is disclosed cannot reasonably be accomplished unless the information is provided in a form that would identify the individual to whom it relates, and

(ii) obtains from the person or body a written undertaking that no subsequent disclosure of the information will be made in a form that could reasonably be expected to identify the individual to whom it relates;

(k) to any aboriginal government, association of aboriginal people, Indian band, government institution or part thereof, or to any person acting on behalf of such government, association, band, institution or part thereof, for the purpose of researching or validating the claims, disputes or grievances of any of the aboriginal peoples of Canada;

(l) to any government institution for the purpose of locating an individual in order to collect a debt owing to Her Majesty in right of Canada by that individual or make a payment owing to that individual by Her Majesty in right of Canada; and

(m) for any purpose where, in the opinion of the head of the institution,

(i) the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs any invasion of privacy that could result from the disclosure, or

(ii) disclosure would clearly benefit the individual to whom the information relates.

...

Federally, at least, you have some of that stuff yourselves:

http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/privstat.htm