The hotel project is not connected to the Oxford Casino. Mr. Casalinova is developing an independent hotel across the street from the casino, but there is no cross-over in ownership or investment.
And, while the "sample" report on the maine.gov site shows the street address and DOB struck out, it is not on a paid report.
Here's what comes back:
Date of birth
Whether ever convicted of OUI
Whether ever identified as a habitual offender
Organ donor status
Medical certified status
Self certified status
Points on license
Notation on whether you've ever been involved in an accident (as driver or vehicle owner)
Notation on whether you have any moving violations
There's more, but you get the gist.
Maine contracts with the for-profit informe.org to sell this information to anyone willing to pay $7.
The information you can obtain through this link does indeed carry your license information (in addition to your driving record), including name, street address, date of birth, your organ donor status, and whether you are convicted as a habitual offender, which is more information than is printed on the face of your CCW permit.
I'm still not aware of any newspaper that is seeking the list for publication. The Bangor paper, at least as of today, is seeking the list for background reporting and its news director has said emphatically that there is no plan to publish the list.
We made no mention in our editorial of wanting to publish this information, only to preserve its current status as public information. Please don't suppose what Maine's press might do based on the actions of a NY paper.
And, if you search our archives, we have taken a stand against violent video games, even though buying/playing them is a lawful activity, just like applying/qualifying for a concealed permit.
The bill says nothing about preventing newspaper publication, none of the sponsors has even hinted at preventing publication as their intended purpose for supporting the thing, nor has any newspaper in Maine (that I'm aware) seeking lists for publication. So, I do believe — with all due respect — that argument simply stirs the pot.
The bill simply deals with the status of CWP as public record, or not.
As we said in the editorial, permits, licenses and certificates should all be public as a matter of accountability because the people who hold these license are permitted to do special things — by state action — that the lot of us are not.
As an aside, hunting licenses are public record and anyone who holds one, we could safely assume, owns or had access to a gun. So, how do supporters of this bill reconcile the need to shield CWP holders to safeguard against robberies, but not do the same for hunters? Or how about wealthy doctors and lawyers? Or people who may store toxins in their barns and are licensed to spray, which may anger ag-terrorists? The list goes on ....
The list of CWP holders is already public. Has been for years, without so much as a complaint from the permit holders. What this bill proposes to do is make these permits confidential. Why? Especially since the rationale being used to sell the idea is that the records' accessibility creates an identity theft danger. The language in the bill says nothing at all about "thieves looking for firearms instead of jewelry or electronics."
Mrs. Burnham: We agree that retired workers are not moochers. The editorial notes the post-election Republican message regarding the so-called moocher theory may be convenient, but it's simply not true. In fact, the red/blue states positively disprove the moocher theory (which is not our theory). We also pointed out that many of the people in the Republicans' so-called moocher class are retired workers, such as yourself, living on earned Social Security benefits, which does not a moocher make. So, if I read your message correctly, we're of the same mind in that regard.
SJ Editorial Board
We are planning to attend and cover the caucus, now that it has been opened to the public. And I would never consider upholding the public's right to know writing "about nonsense." Never.
We have often criticized the governor for actions to shut the public out. Here's one example from March 2011: http://www.sunjournal.com/our-view/story/997677
However, in all fairness, it has been our experience that the LePage administration has been more responsive to the SJ's public access requests than the previous administration. I don't know whether the public would agree, but I can say that's been the case with requests made by our office.
SJ editorial board