search
top

Just Providing a Public Service?

This is what Commerical Appeal is claiming.  In Pennsylvania, LTC information is restricted by law, fortunately, but that is not the case in all states.  If this were done to me, my primary concern would be employers looking up to see how many of their employees have concealed weapons licenses, and then summarily dismissing all that do.

Yes, people have been fired just for being license holders, when their employers who did not understand have found out.  Most people don’t understand why anyone would seek a concealed weapons license.  Particularly where I am.  Our HR person?  From New Jersey.  Along with about 1/3rd of my coworkers.  If they found out I had an LTC, would they assume I was carrying at work?  Would think they think I’m being stalked by ninjas assassins?  Would they think I have paranoid delusions about the same?  There would no doubt be a lot of misunderstanding about the law, and about why someone would have one.

And that is why they should be private, and why Commercial Appeal are shits for publishing this information.  If they are truly concerned about exposing felons, which I’m sure the background checks do a pretty good job with, they don’t have to publish the names of every other permit holder, most of whom are normal people, who just want to get along in their lives without being harassed by pricks with media credentials.

5 Responses to “Just Providing a Public Service?”

  1. N.U.G.U.N. says:

    Maybe readers would like to access the small database posted in this blog and share their opinions directly with the staff of Commercial Appeal.

    http://nugun.wordpress.com/2009/02/16/522/

    ;-)

  2. Linoge says:

    I claim bullshit.

    I have already fisked both their rationalizing editorials, reciprocally shared their contact information (after all, it is public information), and contacted their advertisers to let them know how I view the paper they are supporting. Furthermore, I have contacted my local senate and house representatives to prompt their support for the bills that would make this kind of privacy-invasion illegal.

    And, believe you me, I am not alone in all of this.

    Unfortunately, at this point, I am fairly certain the Commercial Appeal is going to leave up the database until it either becomes illegal, or starts monetarily costing them. I can only hope one or both happens soon.

  3. mobo215 says:

    It’s funny how the people who want to keep the names and addresses of section 8 housing recipients confidential, are the same people who want to publish lists of ccw holders. “Transparency” cuts both ways……

  4. geekWithA.45 says:

    >>Yes, people have been fired just for being license holders, when their employers who did not understand have found out.

    Interesting case in point.

    In addition to the character witnesses you list on your LTCF application, the Delaware county sheriff will call your employer, ask to speak to your supervisor, and pose the 5 or 6 “is he a habitual drunkard/user of narcotics/plans to overthrow the government” questions that also appear on the application.

    My boss got a chuckle out of it. My wife, who is a teacher, on the other hand, got a borderline hysterical letter from the HR department, warning her that guns are against school district policy, grounds for dismissal, etc, etc etc, and that a copy of this letter would be kept in her file.

  5. Sebastian says:

    I would sue the sheriff over that. Seriously. The law does not authorize him to call employers. If you didn’t put the employer down as a reference, he has no business calling them.

top