You might not have noticed, but this is Sunshine Week, where news outlets across the country focus on the importance of open government and public records.

This is a good idea, since an Associated Press survey of all 50 states found that open meetings and records laws are "sporadically enforced," and that "penalties for failure to comply are mild and violators almost always walk away with nothing more than a reprimand."

This writer and many of my co-workers over the years have dealt with this situation at one time or another. Secret meetings and the refusal to release documents are still encountered in this business, although not as frequently as in the past.

But a Virginia paper used this occasion not to expose wrongdoings or to call for accountability in their local governments. Instead, the Roanoke Times used Sunshine Week to justify publishing the names and addresses on their website of over 135,000 people in the New River Valley who has a concealed handgun permit.

To those who would say that it is none of the public's business if someone is packing heat, the paper's editorial writer, Christian Trejbal, disagreed by saying "the government handles the permitting, it is everyone's business."

"There are good reasons the records are open to public scrutiny. People might like to know if their neighbors carry. Parents might like to know if a member of the carpool has a pistol in the glove box. Employers might like to know if employees are bringing weapons to the office."

Trejbal even admitted that some of the data was probably inaccurate, but they published it anyway. One part of the editorial really stuck out though: "A state that eagerly puts sex offender data online complete with an interactive map could easily do the same with gun permits, but it does not."

Well, Mr. Trejbal, that's because sex offenders are convicted criminals, where as citizens who have applied for a handgun permit are not. What is disturbing is that Mr. Trejbal appears to be equating law-abiding gun owners with perverts, which says a lot about his mind-set.

Why not post everyone's name and address on welfare and food stamps, or post the medical records, names and addresses of everyone who uses Medicaid? Should we post how much each taxpayer pays or owes? How about we post everyone's driver's license numbers, Social Security information and the names and addresses of everyone who ...

You see where this is going ... I'm sure identity thieves would love those types of stories. It is obvious that the only reason Mr. Trejbal wanted this information published is his anti-gun bias, because his column also included this:

"This is not about being for or against guns. There are plenty of reasons people choose to carry weapons: fear of a violent ex-lover, concern about criminals or worry that the king of England might try to get into your house."

Ho, Ho.

Actually, this could save the lives of area criminals since the paper might as well have titled the gun permit list "People You Should Not Mess With." They could have been even more helpful had they published a map of places to avoid ... and homes less likely to be dangerous to break into. Perhaps they should print maps of people with expensive jewelry, rare coin collections, and valuable artwork as well.

To say there was an outcry from the public over the paper's move would be an understatement. On the newspaper's Internet message board, there were complaints from law enforcement officials who have concealed-carry permits for when they are off-duty. It would appear they are not too happy about having their names and addresses published so that anyone with a grudge can find them and their families.

One message came from a women who claimed that her ex-husband had used the list to track her down and had already contacted her. "I've moved twice to get away from a violent ex. Now I have to move again. I really appreciate you publishing my address. Gee, thanks."

On Monday afternoon, the paper pulled the database from its site. The president and publisher of the Roanoke Times, Debbie Meade, said that she was "concerned enough about complaints from readers to act out of an abundance of caution."

"Our concern is that if the information should have been protected, and it wasn't, then we don't want to run it," Meade said.

But the damage has already been done. If even one person is harmed due to the actions of this writer and the editors, it wouldn't be too difficult to imagine a class action suit being filed over such an invasion of privacy.

The fact is, there's a big difference between using your job as a journalist to uncover the truth and to harass citizens whose choices you disagree with by publishing their addresses for the world to see. The Sunshine Laws are there so we can have transparent government, not so a reporter can "out" those he or she ideologically opposes.

What Mr. Trejbal did may have been legal ... but that doesn't make it right. Instead, it was very, very wrong.