On the TFA and permit holder confidentiality…

This story was brought to my attention by my co-blogger and host linoge. What seems to have happened here is that a TV reporter in Nashville logged on to the TFA’s web forum and cherry-picked a quote to make it sound like the TFA was lobbying for an exemption to the permit holder database confidentiality bill which will be taken up by the Senate very shortly. That was then picked up by the AP, which Michael Silence then commented on.
Here’s the relevant portion of the original article, but go read it yourself. Don’t forget to see the report that aired on the Nashville newscasts.

On the Tennessee Firearms Association’s online forum, the group’s lobbyist writes that “there are several organizations that want the database to remain available because they want it for purposes of contacting permit holders directly.”
He notes, “Next year is an election year.”
But, one gun owner asked, if those organizations are worth their salt, why couldn’t they just let permit holders contact them?
To that, the lobbyist replied: “There are a lot of lazy and misinformed gun owners in Tennessee. Sometimes, you have to push the information to them.”
He also wrote that the new idea is to find a way to keep the data open, while prohibiting news organizations from posting it on the web.
Which means Republicans would still have access to an incredible mailing list next year as they try to take the governor’s office — and keep control of the the legislature.

Sounds bad, right? Well, yeah, it kinda does! That hypocrite! I’m cancelling my membership!
But then I found the thread he said it on. Here is the entire post:

Senator Norris has it.
I think there is an effort pending to get it pushed through before year end but its going to be close. There are several organizations that want the database to remain available because they want it for purposes of contacting permit holders directly (next year is an election year….) although they do agree that the database should be prohibited from public publishing. The problem that they are trying to figure out is can it be made available but prohibit its public printing? What they are looking at is the privacy issues of getting voter rolls (which you can do) to see if it can be applied to the permit holder database.

Emphasis added.
Hmm…..well that doesn’t sound anything like what the article says. That sounds like he’s giving information in response to a question about where the bill is in regards to the legislative process, and that the Republican Party, the American Federation of Police and Concerned Citizens, and other legislators who are up for re-election are lobbying Senator Norris so they can keep sending people junkmail.
Could it be that Phil Williams is deliberately trying to misrepresent the TFA’s stance in order to weaken support?
UPDATE:
Today the Commercial Appeal published a story which seemed to directly contradict what was said last night. I asked John about the discrepancy, and this was his response:

He reported what he wanted to hear. I told him the same thing I said at the meeting. TFA wants to stop the public printing of names and information. Closing it accomplishes that. Some organizations and legislators want to be able to get the names for the purpose of a) contacting the people directly and/or b) doing demographics and I have not heard significant objection from TFA members to that limited use. I have told the legislators who asked me about private access and direct contact that as long as we stop the news people from printing names publicly, I was not as concerned about getting the information for direct contact purposes.

It seems that Richard Locker and Phil Williams are kindred spirits.