trying for more justification

Another day, another rationalization by the Commercial Appeal to defend their privacy-invading database of handgun carry permit holders.

Kiandre Sims was well armed the night he kicked in a back door and sexually assaulted his ex-girlfriend.

Carrying an assault rifle and a handgun, Sims forced the woman into a car at gunpoint and took her to his house where, court records show, he told her he “didn’t want to hear no.”

At the time of the 2005 incident, for which Sims was later convicted, he had a permit to carry a handgun. The state of Tennessee renewed his permit in 2004 despite two prior arrests and a judge’s 2001 order requiring him to stay away from another woman.

And let me guess – the staff of the Commercial Appeal would have you believe that if Sims did not have a handgun carry permit, he would not have done all those things. Well, guess what? Carrying a loaded rifle when not hunting (with a certain capacity magazine, I believe) is illegal in Tennessee. Threatening people with firearms is illegal in Tennessee. Kidnapping people is illegal in Tennessee. Breaking and entering is illegal in Tennessee. And sexually assaulting someone is illegal in Tennessee. So if Sims was already willing and ready to break all of those laws (and possibly more than I missed), do you seriously think that he would have given up at the thought of breaking another law by carrying a handgun without a permit?
What about the rest of the criminals in question? They all were career criminals, or committed multiple crimes after they received their permits. Do you really think that the permit honestly made a single bit of difference to them when they were executing their crimes? Do you seriously think that not having a permit would have deterred them from executing those crimes? Hell, I am flat-out floored that they went to the time, effort, and cost of actually procuring a permit!
Furthermore, Marc Perrusquia is absolutely wrong, and absolutely right. He is wrong that arrest records should factor into whether or not someone can have a handgun carry permit – simply being arrested does not mean you actually committed the crime in question. That is why courts have these things called “convictions”. However, if the judicial system is sufficiently screwed up that it cannot even get a conviction on someone with a comprehensive rap sheet, then I would suggest that you take it up with the state’s courts, rather than invading over 218,000 law-abiding citizens’ privacy. He is right, however, that Sims should not have had the handgun carry permit after having a protective order issued on him, but, again, this is a problem with the Tennessee government, should be addressed to the Tennesse government, and does not give anyone the right to invade the privacy of a significant portion of our state’s residents.

Sims is among dozens of Shelby Countians with violent histories who have received permits to carry handguns in Tennessee, according to an investigation by The Commercial Appeal.

The newspaper identified as many as 70 county residents who were issued permits despite arrest histories, some with charges that include robbery, assault, domestic violence and other serious offenses.

Seventy residents who possibly are ineligible for a handgun carry permit… out of over 32,000 residents in Shelby County who do have handgun carry permits. That comes out to be a failure rate of approximately 0.22%, which is effectively statistically insignificant by any honest measuring standard. We are, after all, dealing with error-prone humans, and, worse, error-prone humans who work for the government. I fully agree that systems should be 100% effective 100% of the time, but I also think everyone should be healthy all the time, people should be able to levitate at will, and ammunition should be ten times cheaper. If wishes were horses, we’d all be eatin’ steak.
And, again, I will point out that neither arrests nor charges equate to convictions, and only convictions matter when it comes to issuing handgun carry permits. It is unfortunate that the judicial system could not convict those people who actually did commit a crime, but that is a shortcoming of our state’s courts, and is no reflection on the over 218,000 law-abiding handgun carry permit holders in our state. Publishing the privacy-invading database, as the Commercial Appeal has, and then using these criminals as a justification for doing so either holds the entire handgun carry permit population accountable, or is a ham-handed attempt at painting all HCP holders as criminals. Either way, the database is unnecessary and completely unwarranted, even as this information concerning the criminals is being publicized.

One man had 25 arrests on his record when he was licensed. He is now charged with a series of bank robberies in federal court, where he’s pleading insanity.

Another, booked 11 times before getting licensed, held on to his gun permit after three new drug arrests and guilty pleas on two felony cocaine-dealing charges. His permit was revoked this month — 10 months after his last conviction — when a reporter asked about his status.

Great. And the reporter could have inquired about the man’s permit without his newspaper violating the privacy of over 218,000 law-abiding citizens. There is still no reason to publish the database just to try and catch a statistically insignificant number of criminals who somehow get or retain permits. Sure, keep a copy of the list in the newsroom, or on the local network at the paper, and refer to it when the situation seems to indicate something strange happened, but putting it online remains unncessary.
And, again, if the first man in question was never convicted, in the eyes of the law, he never committed those crimes he was arrested for. Furthermore, the fact that our various branches of government are inefficient at sharing data amongst themselves is no fault of mine, and my personal life should not be rudely exposed to the world simply because some civil servant forgot to do something. If you have a problem with the way court cases are handled, how information is shared, and how criminals can get off from their charges without even a slap on the wrist, I suggest you take it up with the Tennessee Judiciary, rather than exposing your bias, feeding public fears, and invading private citizens’ privacy.

Statistically, such cases are anomalies. More than 32,000 Shelby County residents have permits, licenses that allow them to travel or walk about with a handgun.

(Emphasis added.) Well, at least they are willing to admit that… but then they go and screw it all up in the next section…

Yet the newspaper found that mistakes, a state law that gives authorities little flexibility to weed out questionable applicants and limited government resources combine to allow a collection of rogues to go legally armed.

Nonsense. The full list of seventeen qualifying requirements is found here, and when the system is working perfectly, but the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation and the Federal Bureau of Investigation perform background checks on the individual applying for a permit. If that is an insufficient amount of background checking for you, I am not entirely sure what else you want, considering there is no one higher. If you are concerned with communication between local and federal agencies, there was a year-long hiccup a few years back (in which only nine criminals received permits), but no significant problems since. If you are concerned about government officials doing their jobs, again, I will suggest that you take it up with them, and not use their potential incompetence as a rationalization for invading people’s privacy.
Furthermore, I am not entirely sure “legally armed” is the correct description of the situation. Yes, they have permits. But those permits are technically invalid given that some of those seventy people were rendered ineligible for the permits. Sure, they were issued mistakenly, but a mistake does not necessarily make them legal.
Also, considering the grammatical failure of the above blockquote, I really am starting to wonder about the editor at the Commercial Appeal.

The newspaper uncovered these findings through an examination of public documents — records that would be sealed from public inspection under a bill now making its way through the legislature.

Let me repeat something I said a few days back – you brought this down on your own gorramed heads. If you had simply uncovered those findings, published those speific findings, and not gone out of your way to invade the privacy of over 218,000 law-abiding, private citizens, then I seriously doubt very many people would have complained very loudly. But thanks to your abuse of the system, your demonstrable lack of integrity when handling personal information, and the general purpose childishness exhibited by some of the staff of the Commercial Appeal, your hands are getting royally slapped, and something tells me that us handgun carry permit holders are the better for it.

In the spirited debate surrounding the bill, advocates for gun control and open records say the public would suffer if permit files are sealed because no one could examine the actions of regulators.

“There needs to be public scrutiny over the permitting system … by the media and others to ensure the system is working,” said gun-control advocate Brian Malte, state legislative director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Again, there could have been a “public scrutiny over the permitting system” if newspapers had demonstrated that they could be trusted with the information, and not go on some bigoted crusade to invade hundreds of thousands of people’s privacy. Unfortunately, newspapers (and the Commercial Appeal, specifically) have more than demonstrated that they cannot be trusted with that data, and it should be taken away from them as soon as possible before they cause any further damage with it.
If you want the privilege (and it is a privilege) of accessing and checking my personal information, you are bloody well going to have to behave with it. If you do not / cannot, then you just lose.

Gun-rights activists argue that identifying permit holders threatens their safety.

“People need to protect themselves and their families,” said Chris Cox, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association.

I find it interesting that the folks from the Brady Bunch are called “advocates” and the folks from the NRA are called “activists” – ultimately, both individuals are representatives of their respective organizations, but the choice of alternate words is interesting.
In any case, Mr. Cox is spot on with his statement, and in both directions, no less. I procured my handgun carry permit for the purpose of defending myself and my family from whatever physical threats I can. Additionally, I would protect and defend my personal information for the sake of preserving my and my family’s privacy, to the farthest extent possible. I hardly need a reason for either of those decisions, though, given that self-defense and personal privacy are both inherent rights, bestowed by simply being human.

Cox had harsh words for The Commercial Appeal, which touched off intense criticism and the current legislative battle when it published a searchable database on its Web site that includes the names of the state’s permit holders.

“What they’ve done is give criminals a lighted pathway to (burglarize) the homes of gun owners,” said Cox, who grew up in Jackson, Tenn., and graduated from Rhodes College.

The Commercial Appeal certainly does like self-aggrandizement, does it not? I guess with all of the increased traffic and attention they have been receiving in light of their database, the staff of the Commercial Appeal is probably feeling pretty full of themselves. Of course, when the bill protecting my privacy does pass, I will make more than certain to give the Commercial Appeal all the credit for that development that I can – I think a nice little flower basket for the editor, Chris Peck, would be about right.
And Mr. Cox pretty much said what I and others have been saying for a while now – from a certain perspective, it seems as though the Commercial Appeal is effectively aiding and abetting criminals in their illegal activities. Hardly something to be proud of.

Authorities had warning signals long before July 2005 when Sims kicked in his ex-girlfriend’s door, handcuffed her and drove her at gunpoint to his place.

Which means the government did not do its job, which means you have a complaint with the government regarding their ineffectiveness, and that complaint should be addressed towards the government, not towards the hundreds of thousands of citizens who go about their daily lives, not committing crimes, but also just happening to have an HCP in their pockets.

Sims had been arrested twice as a juvenile and, as an adult, was the subject of a 2001 judge’s protection order.

By then, he had a permit, issued a year earlier by the state Department of Safety. The woman seeking the protection order told a General Sessions judge that Sims had choked her, slapped her and threatened to kill her. He told her “he has a permit to carry a gun and does have possession of a weapon,” a court report said.

Nonetheless, Sims qualified again when his permit came up for renewal in 2004. State law doesn’t allow a permit for applicants “currently subject to any order of protection,” yet the 2001 order against Sims, capped by law to a year, had expired.

…

How Sims, 32, managed to get and keep his permit is, in part, the story of a system with limited resources trying to police its many permit holders.

And all Marc is doing at this poitnt is documenting just how screwed up our judicial system is, how mcuh communication between different offices needs to be enhanced, and how certain requirements could/should possibly be changed. Fine, that is all good and well, and what investegatory journalists should be doing with their time.
However, he has yet to indicate how violating hundreds of thousands of people’s privacy is, in any way, essential to this little expose, or why law-abiding citizens should be punished for the actions of criminals by having their personal information published online. I wonder why… Oh, right, it is probably because such actions were not required for this data mining expedition, and were nothing more than the Commercial Appeal’s bid to generate publicity and attention. Sorry. Forgot there for a second.

For a year and a half — from September 2006 to March 2008 — the state lacked the ability to run background checks when renewing permits because of a snafu involving access to a crime database. There were other obstacles, as well.

Indeed, this was a rather significant problem, and one generated entirely by the Tennessee Department of Safety. As such, that specific Dpeartment should be held accountable for any errors generated during that timeperiod (about 9 in Shelby County, unknown for the rest of the state). However, holding the state government accountable for its mistakes is entirely different from embroiling law-abiding citizens into the situation and endangering them by publishing their handgun carry permit information online. Why is this such a hard concept to understand?

“Keep in mind we do not routinely conduct background checks on handgun permit holders unless they are up for renewal or information (is) brought to our attention from the courts,” Safety Department spokesman Mike Browning said in an e-mail.

“… If we are not notified by the court(s) at the time of the arrest or conviction then we are not aware of the charges until we run new background checks on renewals or duplicates,” Browning said.

Unless courts indicate otherwise, the TNDoS would have absolutely no reason to perform continuous background checks on those individuals with handgun carry permits, especially considering how expensive the prospect of doing a yearly background check on over 218,000 people would be. If you think the wait time for a permit is long now, just wait until they start trying to do that.
And, again, this seems like a problem with a governmental system, and is no fault of the hundreds of thousands of citizens whose privacy has been invaded. Kind of missed the target, there, have we not?

State law provides regulators with little or no discretion when issuing permits, unlike some states. Tennessee regulators must issue a permit when an applicant meets certain minimum standards.

Tennessee’s “shall-issue” permit rules don’t allow discretion to root out applicants such as Sims, gun-control activists say.

“It forces officials to issue (permits) to almost anyone,” said the Brady Campaign’s Malte.

Oh bullshit. Unless “almost anyone” means “anyone who is a US citizen or lawful permanent resident, has completed the required course satisfactorally, is a resident of TN, is at least 21 years old, has never been convicted of a felony punishable with a term longer than one year, is not currently under indictment for anything punishable for more than a year, is not the subject of an order of protection, is not a fugitive from justice, is not an abuser of alcohol or controlled substances, has not been convicted of a DUI twice in the past ten years or once in the past five years, has not been adjucated as mentally defective, is not an illegal alien or unlawful resident, has not been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions, has never renounced their citizenship, has never been convicted of domestic violence, is not receiving social security disability benefits due to chemical dependence or mental disability, and has never been convicted of felony stalking”.
Yeah, that is “almost anyone”.
A more honest description of “shall issue” would be, “If you are legally eligible for a handgun carry permit (by meeting the above requirements), the state has to give you a permit.” Personal “discretion” enters into the situation nowhere, and neither should it – if you are legally eligible to have a handgun carry permit, what right does a state have to bar you from it?
If you are unhappy with those requirements to determine eligibility, then I suggest you start talking to your legislators about changing them, rather than arbitrarily and pointlessly violating hundreds of thousands of people’s privacy.
Are we sensing a pattern, yet?

In Iowa, a “may-issue” state, local sheriffs have broad discretion in issuing gun-carry permits.

Permitting standards consequently vary considerably by county, yet many believe the system provides greater protection for the public, said Sam Knowles, program services bureau chief for the Iowa Department of Safety.

“Some people feel a sheriff has a better feel for those people who reside in his or her county. A sheriff may have more resources to know more things about somebody without actually having a conviction on their record,” Knowles said.

Which basically means that if the sheriff does not like you, he does not have to give you a permit. If the sheriff does not know you, he does not have to give you a permit. If you hit on the sheriff’s daughter, he does not have to give you a permit. If the sheriff caught you speeding one time too many, he does not have to give you a permit. If the sheriff is just having a bad day, he does not have to give you a permit.
Explain to me, again, how that is a good thing?
If I am legally eligible to receive a permit, why should that permit, and its legal support of my natural right to self defense, be subject to the capricious whims of a single individual?
Again, if you want to change the laws, talk to the folks in Nashville. If you do it legally, and it does not get too extraordinarily stupid, I might just support those new laws myself. But violating people’s privacy en masse, just to make your point? That is beyond unnecessary.

However, the NRA’s Cox said “may-issue” systems are rife with bias and unfairness.

“The only way to get a permit in New York City is to be one of (the mayor’s) Hollywood buddies, one of his Wall Street rich buddies, or one of his political cronies,” Cox said.

The situation was almost identical out in San Diego – surprisingly enough, California does actually allow for concealed carry, but it is on a county-by-county basis, it is “may issue”, and the local sheriff has final and absolute say. The basic wording of the law required applicants to provide “cause” for requesting the permit, and I understand that if I lived up in one of the northern counties, that “cause” could be nothing more than wanting one. However, in San Diego, the “cause” pretty much had to be political connections (the Left Coast’s variant of “good ol’ boy networks”), owning/managing a high-risk business (such as pharmacies or pawn shops, and the permit would specify that it was only applicable in those locations), transporting large amounts of cash (in which case the permit would only be valid when you are actually doing the transporting), or a reported and documented threat on your life (and even that was not a guarantee).
Suffice to say, I never bothered trying to apply for a permit, especially since the county would not refund you your application fees if the sheriff decided to not give you the permit. And, yes, you had to get the permit from the sheriff of the county you lived in, and whether or not counties honored each others’ permits was sometimes… questionable.
*scratches noggin* So how is it that sheriffs granting permits as personal favors “provides better protection for the public”? From my seat, it looks like nothing more than another example of the abuse of governmental systems that is so very prevalent these days. So why is it that we should be encouraging a system rife with pontetial exploitations? Oh right, because some people “feel” it is better. Sorry, but “feelings” do not really matter when it comes to rights.

Reasons to disqualify a Tennessee applicant include most felony convictions, a misdemeanor conviction involving domestic assault, a judge’s ruling of mental defectiveness and willful nonpayment of child support.

Unless “willful nonpayment of child support” counts as a felony punishable for more than a year, I am not entirely sure where that clause came from, given it is not listed on the appropriate TNDoS page.

By law, Tennessee can’t reject an applicant just because he or she has a long rap sheet with numerous arrests or because the applicant pleaded down felony charges to misdemeanors. Similarly, juvenile arrests and convictions don’t disqualify an applicant.

So. Get. The. Law. Changed. If you feel so very strongly about this situation, use the time that you would have otherwise spent infringing on people’s privacy, and instead use it to lobby your legislators to infringe on people’s rights. Oh, whoops, that came out… well… right.
Because, you see, unless someone has actually been convicted of a crime, they have not legally committed a crime, and preventing them from receiving a permit would be illegal and an infringement of their rights. Sure, they might have actually done the crime, and gotten off scott-free, but in the eyes of the law, the state, and the government, they are innocent individuals. Of course, if you want to go all Judge Dredd on us, and make the police the arresters, prosecutors, and sentencers, feel free to go down that path… just try not to be surprised when you are alone, or when you reach yoru destination and find out that it is nothing like you wanted.
A more pertinent, rational, and logical question than asking why people with multiple arrests on their records are getting permits, is asking why people with multiple arrests on their records are not in jail. In both directions, this indicates a consumate failure on the part of the judicial system – a judicial system that is falling down on its job of putting criminals behind bars, and keeping them there. But until our judicial system starts keeping criminals off the street and notifying the TNDoS of who is actually a criminal, errors and mistakes are still going to be made with the handgun carry permit process.
However, in neither our current situation, nor one where the system works perfectly, there is no excuse for violating the privacy of over 218,000 law-abiding, private citizens, especially not when it is becoming more and more readily apparent that the database was only created, and continually defended, just to drive attention to the newspaper.
The article goes on to recount specific examples of individuals who have been arrested and/or charged with crimes, but never convicted, and who still have or had handgun carry permits, in addition to cases where the Tennessee Judiciary failed to notify the TNDoS to cancel criminals’ permits. I am going to go ahead and skip blockquoting all of that, and will instead reiterate my point that criminals behaving like criminals is no reason for the Commercial Appeal to post their database, nor is the judicial system purportedly failing at its job.

In all, there are 220,000 permit holders in Tennessee. The newspaper examined the backgrounds of 28 Shelby Countians whose permits were revoked last year and another 126 who appeared to have an outstanding arrest warrant as of February.

Seventy of those individuals had at least one arrest before getting a permit; 37 had two or more arrests. Thirty had pre-permit arrests involving violence, drugs or gun crimes.

Great. So based on an intentionally-biased sample body, the reporters at the Commercial Appeal found what they were looking for (and what they set up the data to show them), and used that as a basis to go ahead and invade all handgun carry permit holders’ privacy – not just the criminals’. Is it not interesting how Second-Amendment-advocates have to be responsible with their exercising the rights protected by that Amendment, but First-Amendment-activists are not so very encumbered? Funny how the world works, sometimes.
Ok, guys, I have to admit… this is getting pretty foolish right about now. In the space of a month, you all have written almost ten articles or editorials defending, rationalizing, and explaining your privacy-invading database of handgun carry permit holders. We get the points already – you are anti-self-defense, anti-Second-Amendment, anti-guns, and anti-natural-rights. Hell, we got those points back on your fourth or fifth editorial. At this point, you folks are rapidly delving into the realm of “methinks they dost protest too much”, which, granted, is not going to do too much additional damage to your already torpedoed credibility, but it is just kind of sad.
At the very least, please stop persecuting law-abiding handgun carry permit holders with your pointless database, and stop erroneously associating them with known criminals and accidental events – both of those acitivities more than lay bare the bigotry and bias evident within the editorial staff of the Commercial Appeal. Ideally, lay off the hoplophobia for a while, and get back to really reporting actual news, because something tells me that you have alienated and driven off more readers than you attracted with this new anti-gun schtick, and lord knows that newspapers still need physical readers these days…