Well … the low percentages (~0.2%) were implied by the original article itself, were they not?

What a lot of people are taking issue with are what the article does with the numbers – implying that even this very low percentage represents some sort of significant problem (otherwise why an article at all), and that the “potential matches” sounds very suspicious. You don’t hear that often in most reporting, for good reason. Was the information about Joe the plumber, e.g., reported as “potentially” about Joe the plumber?

One of ten thousand in the same town who own Glock 40s?

One of three hundred people in the same store that day?

One of twenty thousand in the county who drive a Honda?

Actually a “potential” match can be defined as a “non match” until such time as it is determined to be a “match”. Isn’t that how it’s supposed to work?

And if those are records of *present* CCW holders, you could be virtually sure that they weren’t matches. (1) If a person is wanted for murder or rape, and the State has his picture and exact address, it’d stand to reason he’d already have been arrested and (2) that his permit would have been revoked. And beyond this, what criminal records did the station run? Police don’t keep and issue lists of mere suspects. Odds are the station got arrest records, which would I suspect rule out the possibility that a holder of a presently valid CCW is the person named in the arrest.

Every. Stinking. Election.

What a nightmare.

So yeah, I’m leery of “potential matches,” too.

I’d like to see how many of those 500 are actually felons. My guess is, not very many.

What a complete red herring…so roughly 500 CCW permit holder’s names bear a striking resemblance to the names of about 500 persons allegedly committing crimes; Whoopty doo–the account is so vague it doesn’t specify if these are *convicted* felon names or merely suspects, and it doesn’t confirm any matches, just insinuates them without providing any solid proof. PSH, QED.

Felony conviction should mean revocation in all states. In Texas, as part of the application process, you have to submit fingerprints to both the Texas Department of Public Safety and to the FBI, who runs a background check and reports any findings back to DPS.

Not sure about felony indictments still pending that could go either way; If the person is acquitted by a jury of their peers, then their permits *should* be renewed. If the case is still ongoing when the renewal comes up, then probably that renewal should be placed on hold until the case is concluded with either the charges dropped, an acquittal, or a guilty verdict.

TWEEEEET! Flag on the play.

Misleading through use of weasel words. 15 yard penalty. Loss of down.

What, exactly, is a “potential match”? Does that mean that someone with a permit happens to have the same name as someone who was convicted of a violent crime?

Hardly compelling evidence if you ask me. It shouldn’t be that hard for an enterprising investigative journalist to track down both sets of (public in most cases) records and compare them.

Of course, doing so would not only require them to leave their comfy desk chair to actually do some “investigating”, but may very well completely disprove their entire point.

Can’t have that, now can we?

“Their behavior records is better than our uniformed police,”

Apparently they need to start restricting where their uniformed police can go. If only for the children.