Previous Post
Next Post

MikeB30200 wants to know: what do gunloons (a.k.a. responsible gun owners with a concealed carry weapons permit) have to hide? In anticipation of a Rhode Island law making that information private, our favorite gun grabber wonders “Why do gun owners want this type of privacy? Don’t they claim that owning a gun is just like owning any other type of property? What makes the concealed carry permit different from other types of licenses?” Personally, obviously, I’m not worried about disclosing the fact that I carry (nowadays). More globally, I think privacy died a lot time ago. All that’s left is security theater. But I undertand the worry that thieves looking for weapons to steal could troll the database. What are your concerns, if any?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. It’s no ones damn business if I have a CCW permit. Just like it’s none of my business if MikeB30200 a$$ hammers sheep.

  2. The last thing these lowlife thieves want to do is confront a person who carries a gun on a regular basis. These fools are cowards.

  3. Wouldn’t making that info public make it easy for criminals to know what houses to steal from if they want guns? I thought the anti-rights people don’t like guns being stolen and then used on the street? Sounds like this would give criminals a shopping list.

    Also, if an argument for concealed carry is that with concealed “criminals don’t know who is armed and who is not,” this helps them out a bit in that respect, too.

    Is the registration for my car public? I honestly don’t know since I’ve never looked.

    I’m trying to see the value in making such info public, and there’s not a whole lot.

  4. Hey, Mikeb, when you publish your eternally boring blog under your full name and address, then I’ll go along with Massachusetts publishing mine. Until then, go away. It’s called CONCEALED carry for a reason.

  5. A couple of years back the Arkansas Times (leftest) newspaper did publish the names and addresses of CC license holders in our state. Chief among the reasons for that list’s privacy were A) Thank you for giving bad guys (at least those who bother to read the crap that is the AT) a hit list of gun hotspots and B) So that’s where that beeyatch is living now! And she got a gun!

  6. Once a database is public, it’s open to all sorts of searches.

    So, I want to be a parent volunteer at the local school. I sign up, give some personal info (driver’s license, etc.) and they do a back ground check. And then, cause they can do it, also search the CCW list. Up pops my name. The anti-gun principal takes my application straight to file 13.

    I apply for a job, same back ground check. The anti-gun hiring agency deep-sixes my application since I’m a gun-toting yahoo.

    Note that in both the above cases, I would not carry on-premises (based on legality) and any other gun ownership issues are irrelevant to the issue. But leaving the database open to search allows this backdoor discrimination.

  7. The first rule of CCW is, you do not talk about CCW. The second rule of CCW is, you DO NOT talk about CCW. The other 6 Fight Club rules may or may not apply.

  8. It’s kind of committing the fallacy of complex-question. There should be no CCW permits issued at all as their only purpose is to control and collect revenue. Nada for your safety or the “safety of the officers” as anyone who is violent obviously won’t get a license. Disclosing who has a permit stigmatizes, kind of like a gold star, a basic human right.

    • In my state it was the CCW Permit that eventually paved the way for Constitutional Carry… But yes, you are pretty much right.

  9. Hypocrisy reigns supreme. I tend to look at the motives of the person asking such a question first before I answer. Thanks to the provided link to MikeB302000’s blog, I did a quick search on the site for “ALCU.” The next search was going to be “Patriot Act,” but I found exactly what I was looking for.

    “Personally, I’m more concerned with the government’s over-reaching policies than I am about another terrorist attack. Of course we need reasonable policies in place to protect people, but it seems to me that since 9/11, the federal government has gone too far.”

    He(?) seems to be just as concerned about being on a list as those that carry, therefore, the question is moot. Right or left, we’re all concerned about the same problem of “government’s over-reaching policies.” MikeB302000 just happens to be more selective with his concerns.

  10. Several years ago, this became a huge dust-up between the “freedom of information” argument by the anti-gun guys and the “privacy rights” for the conceal carry crowd. Turns out, the biggest reason you don’t want to make the registry public is for people (usually women) that are trying to get away from abusive spouses and have armed themselves. The second biggest reason is the increased chance of burglaries of unsecured weapons.

    Interestingly, the DMV records, at one time, were more-or-less public in every state. That changed when obsessive nut jobs started to use this info to stalk and kill the objects of their obsessions (i.e.: Rebecca Schaeffer ). Since then most states have locked down DMV info and treat it as classified data. Why should handgun data be treated any differently?

    Oh, and for the record, Ralph has a point, MikeB. Robert and I both use our real names and our real email addresses here on the site. Both of us are easy to find online. Google either of our names and you’ll find a host of links. We have nothing to hide. And while I respect your desire to keep your identity a secret, throwing stones when you live in a glass house is kinda hypocritical, dontcha think?

    • C’mon Brad, what stones? I didn’t even express much of an opinion one way or another. I only posted it because I saw Rhode Island and thought of that witty title for the post.

      Of all the issues we discuss, this freedom-of-information bit on the CCW guys in RI is about as interesting to me as restricting suppressors or magazine size, which is to say, compared to background checks on private sales, not very.

  11. As cited, there have been real consequences from publishing the lists of CCW holders.

    In Virginia, The Roanoake Times published the list of CCW holders, and one permit holder, a former parole officer, was accosted in his front yard by some of his former “clients” who got his address off the list.

    In several states, women who fled abusive ex-husbands and ex-boyfriends, and who got their CCW permits to help protect themselves against their former abusers, had their new addresses exposed to all, including the vengeful ex.

    There are real reasons to not publish a list of names and addresses of those with carry permits.

    • The exact same thing happened to a friend who is a retired probation officer. She has a pistol but wasn’t carrying at the time. An alert neighbor summoned the police. Scary.

  12. Why you ask? Because there are many bigots out there that will discriminate against a person simply because they carry a gun. Of chief concern would be employers and co-workers. It would be the same thing as publishing a list of who is gay, or a list of who takes anti-depressents, or Viagra. These are private matters, and like it or not, there will always be those who will judge people based on things that have no bearing on the “Content of Their Character”.

  13. I guess my question is what benefit would a public CCW (or any other gun registry) offer? There are obvious cons, but what are the pros?

  14. Of all the reasons given so far, I think Patrick’s is the best. I will add this though: because it would cost taxpayers money to publish the names. Even if the information already exists it would still cost money to collect and publish it. I can’t imagine someone with MikeB’s world view would hesitate to spend other people’s money, but as a taxpayer I am opposed to spending money on something with no purpose (like the BATFE&RBF).

  15. I am totally against the records being public. If someone is going to stalk me, or break into my home – I prefer they not know I am armed (or could be). I would prefer they think I’m “harmless.”

  16. Well here’s one reason no one mentioned. In shall issue states, or in those real gun-paradise places like Arizona, some people are carrying concealed who shouldn’t even be allowed to own guns. The tiny percentage of irresponsible people who carry guns legally in places like New York where they had to jump through lots of hoops would be seriously increased in the looser gun states. Maybe some of the rest of us don’t like that. Maybe we’d like to know who’s carrying so as to avoid them. You see, we don’t believe what you guys keep saying that you make us safer. We believe the opposite. Don’t we have the same right you have to protect ourselves and our families from a perceived threat?

    • So how is a CCW (or any) database going to help you stay away from gun-touting-AZ-cowboys if the database excludes those who may be carrying illegally anyway?

    • Standing next to somebody in a grocery store – you’d rather be by the guy that doesn’t have a CCW? The one that may or may not pass a background check?

      He’d make you feel safer???

    • Are you going to carry the list around with you and check off every stranger you meet? “Hi. I’m mikeb. Please tell me your name so I can tell if you have a CCW.” C’mon, mikey, make sense.

    • “Maybe we’d like to know who’s carrying so as to avoid them.”

      What about our civil liberties? Or do you believe in the ALCU only when it benefits your ideals?

    • Sorry mikeb, I hate to bust your bubble (though not really) but I’m not trying to make you safer, I’m trying to make me safer. If it makes others safer as well that’s simply a spill over effect. As for my information being released in a public data base because I hold a CCL, that is slightly unsettling. Where does the line get drawn about what databases are made public? Do I get to see your health records next?

  17. Um, because newspapers like to print the whole list with names and addresses of gun owners. I’m still waiting for the list of all women who have had an abortion (a civil right) to be printed up.

    What more could a criminal want than a list of all houses with guns in them? Just wait until the owners are gone!

    Also, I would imagine a lot of people would have a not so happy employer upset with their personal choice to carry. I know at least in my field at the time (liberal university world) that it would be frowned upon and perhaps even used to fire people

    Oh and MikeB, I’m open carrying now so you don’t have to worry about taking a guess as to whether or not I’m carrying.

    • “I’m open carrying now”

      Good for you. If I could, I would. Unfortunately, I can only carry concealed.

  18. I’m also waiting on the published list that includes the names and physical addresses of all employees, executives, producers, on-air personalities, and anyone else under contract of any terms with MSNBC.

    Oh wait. Publishing the names and addresses of all the MSNBC folks would be a horrible invasion of their privacy. I mean they’re just engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment.

    Publishing the names and physical addresses of CCW permit holders is, of course, entirely different, and even a public service.

  19. Why does everyone pay so much attention to what Mikeb has to say? If we ignore him we can still keep up the good fight.

    He is an attention whore.

  20. In Georgia, automobile license info is not for public consumption. Boat registration, public. autos, not available.

    There are some things we can safely keep secret, it seems.

  21. I agree with Mike (never thought I would say that…), but only on one point –
    “Owning a gun is just like owning any other type of property”

    It is! And nobody has the right to publish a list of whats in my tool boxes, or my dresser drawers, my wife’s jewelery box, or any of my safes, how many TVs I own – or that I even own tools, expensive clothes, jewelery, silver, gold, TVs, computers…. NOBODY!

    Trying to make me a target for the undesirables! Why I oughtta’…

  22. Sorry to break it to you all, the list of permit holders in RI is already kept private and has withstood a challenge in the courts.
    The pending Bill this blog is about would afford permit “applicants” the same protections, and deny publishing a list of their names as well.

  23. Mike, bubble-busting time. I don’t carry to make you safer and I really don’t care about your personal preference – your predilection to default to “victim” state and demand we all do, too, is what insures violent criminals (from greenhorns to seasoned pros) can operate with relative impunity.

    Shall-issue and Constitutional carry laws do not increase the likelihood of bloodbath – this is a specious argument we (and you) now have 6+ years of factual, anecdotal, and reported information to refute. Violent crime rates have not skyrocketed, incidence of civilian casualty during legally armed encounters are not being recorded in the media, and the highest concentration of crime still appears to be focused in urban areas and so-claimed “gun free zones.”

    Your comfort level should never dictate a man or woman’s right to self-defense. The number of gun owners is going up but, along with that number, is the population of gun owners who are also finding solid training, joining public and private ranges, and insuring they will be counted solidly as assets and not liabilities when the probability engine finally spins triple 7s and one of us is facing the blade or barrel of a person bound on inflicting harm on us or ours.

  24. mikeb302000 wrote:
    Maybe we’d like to know who’s carrying so as to avoid them.

    If I may make a suggestion then. Perhaps if you were to publish your full legal name, address, phone number as well as a DMV photograph, I’m sure we can convince most if not all CCW permit holders to avoid you.

    If you think that’s a ridicolous idea… well, now you know how I feel.

Comments are closed.