Alphecca

Curious...

I seem to remember that my state (Michigan) made it harder for citizens to pull info on other citizens' drivers licenses/car licenses many years back.

It seems that stalkers would be able to follow a victim to their car/home, note the tag number/address, and fill out a form to get all the "public information" about that person.

Anti-stalking laws made it much harder for a person to do that, by restricting access to the "public information" that is on a drivers license.

I wonder how such privacy concerns relates to the "public information" in the CCW-list.

(Although I've never heard of any stalker harassing a woman who was known carry concealed....)

I've always thought that the media's demands for unfettered access to lists of concealed permit holders was more driven by a dislike of concealed carry permits than any real use for the information.

Here in Texas the law states that anyone can ask the DPS if you have a CHL through a formal written request. However, DPS is required to notify the CHL-holder with a letter stating the name and address of the person who requested the information.

This prevents reporters from getting lists of all CHL-holders and prevents stalkers from finding out if someone has a CHL without that person's knowledge.

I live in Stratford, CT.
I did NOT vote for Miron, nor do I overly care for him, so it pains me a bit to defend him.
I don't think he is actively seeking the media about this as much as the liberal-leaning media keeps making a big deal about the issue. The story mentioned today was on the front page of one of the largest papers in the state. The same paper felt that a letter to the editor complaining about Miron last week was worthy of front-page status. The highest ranked radio morning show (which generally leans slightly to the right) has been running a bit almost daily where Miron is a gun-toting cowboy shooting up the town. They had him on the air this morning and I thought he did a fair job of defending his right to carry.
I also don't see the "fine for me but not for thee" syndrome. CT is a "may issue" state where you must first obtain a local carry permit from your town before you may apply for a state-wide permit. I haven't heard of any legitimate applications being denied in Stratford like they often are in MA. If you have a clean record and pass the NRA basic pistol class you will get your carry permit in Stratford. Also, it's been pointed out (at least locally) that about half the town council members also have a carry permit.

I don't like the guy as my mayor, but I'm REALLY getting tired of the media hoplophobes trying to create "news" where none exists.

He is a "fine for me, but not for me" type or he would be saying something entirely different about others' rights as opposed to what he is saying about them needing "his" "permission".

SA,

+1 to your comments. How much clearer could the mayor have been on the topic?

Quote: "As to how he might react if other Stratford town employees — with gun permits — brought their weapons to work, Miron said he was unsure.

"We have a policy in Stratford that in order to do that they would have to get permission from the top law enforcement officer in the town, which is me,"

Seems pretty clear to me, he says if he carry’s to work, and he says if you do too.

I was born in CT, lived there for 30 years, and had my CCW there. I know how the process works. While it is nominally a shall issue state, it is may issue in practice. Not gun friendly, but FAR better that MA where I live now.

"thee",I screwed it up but it appears 1894C understood it anyway.