Ummm - your PREVIEW your comment option doesn't seem to work
Thursday, October 9, 2008
(Orange County) Sheriff begins taking away concealed weapons permits
Hundreds of letters have been sent out advising current permit holders of impending revocation.
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
Comments 94 | Recommend 150
The Sheriff's Department has begun the process of revoking hundreds of concealed weapon permits across Orange County.
This week, department officials confirmed that 146 letters have been sent out advising current license holders that their permits to carry firearms in public – called CCWs – are being revoked. There are currently 1,024 permit holders....
Locally - Recent Journal story prints the names of local CCW holders.
It was wrong. Pure and simple.
I guess we'll find out tomorrow whose fault it was. Maybe not Heidi's.
But you can't explain why it's wrong to someone whose mindset can't see it in the first place.
Finally, the voter registration roll is public information, including party registration, address, and record of ballots cast. The party affiliation of individuals is often aired in the media. In fact, this article says many permit holders are Republicans. Do you find airing voter information unacceptable and would you want that concealed too?
Did I say anything about the Republican slant, Not A Native?
That's awful goddam shortsighted to say it doesn't have to do with gun ownership. It has everything to do with it. A certain percentage of those who own guns get a legal permit so that they can put the gun in their glove box or under the seat, or in rare cases carry one in a purse or holster.
You can't go on the year to date apps, permits are good for 2 years, I think.
There're some problems with your logic Not a Native -
First of all, we're only talking about Concealed Weapons permits, not registered and unregistered numbers, people who own for protection or hunters, and people who don't carry and/or carry without a permit.
In addition you seem to be hi-balling and lo-balling your population numbers to come up with a number you like. You also have to go with the last full yr's numbers on the CWPs, not the yr to date number.
If you adjust for current populations and the most recent yr data, look at the approximate number of HOUSEHOLDS (about 51,000) v. number of permits (1.031) Not such an insignificant number.
Maybe what we ought to be printing is the names of PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT ALLOWED TO OWN, CARRY, OR EVEN TOUCH weapons, those who have been convicted of crimes. For some reason, you understand that THAT would be a violation of privacy. Why is printing the names of people who haven't done anything wrong ok?
It wasn't that long ago that everyone grew up in a house where guns were present - and knew not only how to handle them but how to act responsibly. Kids could take shotguns to school, leave them in the coatroom and go duckhunting after school, you could carry one on your lap in an airplane. If you had a pistol in your car you would put it in the glove box, so that it wouldn't roll around or get stolen. Rifles could go under the seat.
Times have changed and ever more restrictive rules have been put in place. More people live "in town" and get their food from Safeway, and no longer own guns - with that has come FEAR on the part of the NON-GUN OWNERS, robash.
Gun owners have complied with the new rules. Owning a gun is legal. A concealed weapons permit is HYPER-LEGAL. It means they have taken the time and trouble to get certified and registered.
Were it not for the rules, they would not have had to do this. Never had to in the past.
In fact, you have just slammed the most law-abiding among us.
I add my voice to this stream of voices saying - printing the names of these people was flat out wrong. It can't be taken back. There is no excuse.
All Comments »
Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.
Login to choose your subscriptions!
In Print This Week:
Aug 25, 2016
vol XXVII issue 34
Prepare for Impact
The North Coast Journal Weekly
Website powered by Foundation