Jump to content

HCP holder records to be sealed.


Recommended Posts

Unclear whether this will actually forbid the CA online database lookup as it now exists or not, though.

 

- OS

Accordingly it would be closed to public search,to bad for the Commercial Appeal.When the Appeal originally posted a search area on their web site I e-mailed them with my dislike of said practice,now it will have to be closed.

Edited by krunchnik
Link to comment

Accordingly it would be closed to public search,to bad for the Commercial Appeal.When the Appeal originally posted a search area on their web site I e-mailed them with my dislike of said practice,now it will have to be closed.

 

I can't find actual bill for wording, anyone got number or link?

 

I don't trust these "synopsis" news stories a whit. For example, story says CA's record "does not include street addresses or birthdates.". Well, sorta -- it show year of birth.

 

So maybe it would cause it to be closed, but would like to see actual bill before undue jubilation.

 

- OS

Link to comment

I can't find actual bill for wording, anyone got number or link?

 

I don't trust these "synopsis" news stories a whit. For example, story says CA's record "does not include street addresses or birthdates.". Well, sorta -- it show year of birth.

 

So maybe it would cause it to be closed, but would like to see actual bill before undue jubilation.

 

- OS

 

The information you seek is here http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HB0009, including the complete bill.

Edited by Garufa
Link to comment

The information you seek is here http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HB0009, including the complete bill.

 
Thakee kindly, I haven't kept up with this.
 
Ummm, seems to me this still has the glaring loophole:
 
"Nothing in this subsection (o) shall prohibit release of the handgun carry permit statistical reports authorized by § 39-17-1351(s)."

Which says, in part:

 

"(s)  (1) The department shall make available, on request and payment of a reasonable fee to cover the costs of copying, a statistical report that includes the number of permits issued, denied, revoked, or suspended by the department during the preceding month, listed by age, gender and zip code of the applicant or permit holder and the reason for any permit revocation or suspension. The report shall also include the cost of the program, the revenues derived from fees, the number of violations of the provisions of the handgun carry permit law, and the average time for issuance of a handgun carry permit. By January 1 of each year, a copy of the statistical reports for the preceding calendar year shall be provided to each member of the general assembly."

 

Isn't this likely the section that allows the CA purchase of the database in the first place?

 

- OS

Edited by Oh Shoot
Link to comment

 
Thakee kindly, I haven't kept up with this.
 
Ummm, seems to me this still has the glaring loophole:
 
"Nothing in this subsection (o) shall prohibit release of the handgun carry permit statistical reports authorized by § 39-17-1351(s)."

Which says, in part:

 

"(s)  (1) The department shall make available, on request and payment of a reasonable fee to cover the costs of copying, a statistical report that includes the number of permits issued, denied, revoked, or suspended by the department during the preceding month, listed by age, gender and zip code of the applicant or permit holder and the reason for any permit revocation or suspension. The report shall also include the cost of the program, the revenues derived from fees, the number of violations of the provisions of the handgun carry permit law, and the average time for issuance of a handgun carry permit. By January 1 of each year, a copy of the statistical reports for the preceding calendar year shall be provided to each member of the general assembly."

 

Isn't this likely the section that allows the CA purchase of the database in the first place?

 

- OS

 

 

No it's basically deidentified statistical data with zip code/age/sex as the most unique identifiers. This is very commonly released even within the medical community for use in research and reporting.

 

This new legislation allows-

 

37027- 6 permits issued last month, 23,44,56,75,81,21,,M,M,M,F,M,F,, 1 permit denied 55, M, Reason "Invalid finger print submission."

 

 

 

Where currently they would get something more like-

 

6 Permits Issued-

Jay Galbreath, 38,M, Street Address, Brentwood TN

Mark Gorman, 45,M,Street Address, Brentwood TN

Rhea Little III,51,M, Street Address,Brentwood TN

Jason Richardson, 40,M,Street Address, Brentwood TN

Paul Webb,60,M,Street Address, Brentwood TN

Regina Smithson, 69,F,Street Address, Brentwood TN

 

1 Permit Denied

David E. Miller, 61, M, Street Address, Brentwood, TN Reason- "Background results- convicted of 2x aggravated identity theft"

 

 

 

Disclaimer: The aprooved example names above were printed in this morning's paper as they are all running for office in Brentwood, I put all 6 candidates in to fairly represent the group of them and I have no idea if they actually hold TCPs. The "denied" example was chosen randomly from a google search of Brentwood residents convicted of crimes in a court of law.

Edited by 2.ooohhh
  • Like 1
Link to comment

Where currently they would get something more like-

 

Jay Galbreath, 38,M, Street Address, Brentwood TN

 

You sure? I did a search on the CA website for myself, and it came back with my:

 

- First, middle & last name

- Year of birth

- City, county, and ZIP of residence

- Issue date & expiration date of permit

 

There was no mention of my address or gender.

Link to comment

You sure? I did a search on the CA website for myself, and it came back with my:

 

- First, middle & last name

- Year of birth

- City, county, and ZIP of residence

- Issue date & expiration date of permit

 

There was no mention of my address or gender.

 

I believe 2.ooooh was just giving an example of the types of detail in the field involved in the two types of reporting.

 

However, the CA does have your street address in their database. They showed them when they first fired it up in '08, then after a while decided to hide that field.

 

- OS

Edited by Oh Shoot
Link to comment

I believe 2.ooooh was just giving an example of the types of detail in the field involved in the two types of reporting.

 

However, the CA does have your street address in their database. They showed them when they first fired it up in '08, then after a while decided to hide that field.

 

- OS

 

 

Yes, my example was to point out the difference in de-identified data used in general statistical reporting vs the over share that is what the state currently releases, and YES there are fields released currently by the state that are not published by the CA.

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

CA database still functional.

 

Reading the bill, I don't see where information already out there is necessarily prohibited from display. Meaning, does the prohibition only hold for release forward from the enactment?

 

- OS

Edited by Oh Shoot
Link to comment

CA database still functional.
 
Reading the bill, I don't see where information already out there is necessarily prohibited from display. Meaning, does the prohibition only hold for release forward from the enactment?
 
- OS


I have a feeling that any attempts to prevent publishing of already disclosed data would run afoul of the first amendment.

Good news though.
Link to comment

CA database still functional.

 

Reading the bill, I don't see where information already out there is necessarily prohibited from display. Meaning, does the prohibition only hold for release forward from the enactment?

 

 

I would agree. The only thing that I see that might help us is that it doesn't say "from this day forward" this info shall be confidential. They had to put a date for preemption laws (july 1st, 1986 I think), so I would think they would have to do the same thing here if it wasn't retroactive. It would be kinda fun for the Commercial Appeal to fight to keep it and have the NRA sue and win!

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

TRADING POST NOTICE

Before engaging in any transaction of goods or services on TGO, all parties involved must know and follow the local, state and Federal laws regarding those transactions.

TGO makes no claims, guarantees or assurances regarding any such transactions.

THE FINE PRINT

Tennessee Gun Owners (TNGunOwners.com) is the premier Community and Discussion Forum for gun owners, firearm enthusiasts, sportsmen and Second Amendment proponents in the state of Tennessee and surrounding region.

TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is a presentation of Enthusiast Productions. The TGO state flag logo and the TGO tri-hole "icon" logo are trademarks of Tennessee Gun Owners. The TGO logos and all content presented on this site may not be reproduced in any form without express written permission. The opinions expressed on TGO are those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the site's owners or staff.

TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is not a lobbying organization and has no affiliation with any lobbying organizations.  Beware of scammers using the Tennessee Gun Owners name, purporting to be Pro-2A lobbying organizations!

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to the following.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines
 
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.