OpEd: Don’t hide gun permit list from public inspection

Status
Not open for further replies.
The article:

Don’t hide gun permit list from public inspection

IF YOU GET MARRIED or divorced, it’s public record. If you buy or sell a house, renovate it or build an addition, it’s public record; your neighbors can even find out what your property tax bill is.

We tend to think of these as private matters, but they can only be accomplished through the assistance of government — the government that enforces contract law and assigns tax and other advantages to married couples and homeowners. And a bedrock principle of our society is that government works best when any one of us can take a close look at what it is doing, at whether it is granting special favors to special people or withholding rights from others or just operating competently.

This principle requires a good reason to hide information about government actions and interactions with the public from the public. No such reason has been given for the latest attempt to hide state action.

In South Carolina, as in most states, citizens must have a permit to carry a concealed weapon in public places. They must pass a background check and a training course to receive a permit, and they must abide by a set of rules that balance public safety and the interests of those who want to carry weapons. And like all people who hold government permits of any sort in South Carolina, the names of concealed weapons permit holders are public record.

The House has passed, and the Senate Judiciary Committee today is scheduled to consider, legislation to hide the identities of weapons permit holders. Rep. Mike Pitts argues that this is necessary because a newspaper in another state published the list of that state’s concealed weapons permit holders, apparently (in his mind) inviting nefarious types to victimize them.

That doesn’t even begin to sound like a good reason to hide information about whom the government chooses to permit and not. We doubt that many robbers will peruse a list of concealed weapons permit holders — even if someone did post it online — in order to come up with a hit list. If they were to look at such a list, it seems more likely that it would be to find homes to avoid. Why break into a house where the owner is armed and trained to shoot?

We see no particularly good reason to post the list of permit holders online, and in fact one compromise proposal would have prohibited posting the list, instead of hiding the names (that idea was rejected by the bill’s supporters). But there’s a great deal to be gained by having public access to the list. We can assess whether state officials are properly enforcing the law by, say, checking the list of permit holders against a list of felons, who aren’t supposed to be eligible. We can judge whether the law is working fine or endangering public safety by checking the names of people who shoot other people, to see whether they’re on the list.

This legislation makes all that impossible. It is the latest attempt to chip away at a smart set of protections we put into the law when the Legislature agreed to allow South Carolinians to carry concealed weapons in public, and is yet another attempt to shield government officials from accountability for their actions. As such, it should be rejected.

**********************************************************

Gee, what about the media's beloved right to privacy???
 
I don't worry about anyone stealing my house or my marriage license, but I can reasonably expect a publish list with my name and address staing I own at least one firearm, to be put on a criminal intent list, and be burglarized. For a newspaper to co-operate in that effort is to actively participate in a criminal action, i.e., the providing of firearms to prohibited possessors, AKA criminals.
 
I agree with gc70. The argument presented supports doing away with the requirement of a license to exercise a fundamental, expressly protected right. A more accurate parallel, rather than marriage or real estate, would be what consenting adults do in their bedrooms, what happens in your doctor's office, who goes to what church, etc.
 
I wonder how the author feels about motor vehicle records?

In South Carolina, as in most states, citizens must have licence and register their vehicle to drive in public places. They must pass a written and practical exam to receive a licence, and they must abide by a set of rules that balance public safety and the interests of those who want to drive. And like all people who hold government permits of any sort in South Carolina, the names of drivers and vehicle licence holders should be public record.

The House has passed, and the Senate Judiciary Committee today is scheduled to consider, legislation to hide the identities of vehicle permit holders. Rep. Mike Pitts argues that this is necessary because a newspaper in another state published the list of that state’s vehicle licence holders, apparently (in his mind) inviting nefarious types to victimize them.

That doesn’t even begin to sound like a good reason to hide information about whom the government chooses to licence and not. We doubt that many robbers will peruse a list of late model luxury vehicles — even if someone did post it online — in order to come up with a hit list. If they were to look at such a list, it seems more likely that it would be to find homes to avoid. Why break into a vehicle where the owner is rich and has alarmed premisis?

We see no particularly good reason to post the list of licence holders online, and in fact one compromise proposal would have prohibited posting the list, instead of hiding the names (that idea was rejected by the bill’s supporters). But there’s a great deal to be gained by having public access to the list. We can assess whether state officials are properly enforcing the law by, say, checking the list of licence holders against a list of DUI offenders, who aren’t supposed to be driving. We can judge whether the law is working fine or endangering public safety by checking the names of people who are driving, to see whether they’re on the list.
Click to expand...
 
IF YOU GET MARRIED or divorced, it’s public record. If you buy or sell a house, renovate it or build an addition, it’s public record; your neighbors can even find out what your property tax bill is.

We tend to think of these as private matters, but they can only be accomplished through the assistance of government
Click to expand...


I cannot adequately describe my contempt for anyone who is this ignorant.

I will spare all of you further ranting.......
 
We tend to think of these as private matters, but they can only be accomplished through the assistance of government — the government that enforces contract law and assigns tax and other advantages to married couples and homeowners.
Click to expand...

Here he says we can't do anything without the help of the omnipotent State.

But there’s a great deal to be gained by having public access to the list. We can assess whether state officials are properly enforcing the law by, say, checking the list of permit holders against a list of felons, who aren’t supposed to be eligible. We can judge whether the law is working fine or endangering public safety by checking the names of people who shoot other people, to see whether they’re on the list.
Click to expand...

Yet here he says the State needs to be watched because it's incompetent.

Mmmmm Kay...
 
Write a letter to the editor, pointing out that if a name is NOT on the list, there are houses which are much safer to burglarize. If a name is NOT on the list, that person is a much safer target for mugging or robbery.

Newspaper articles are convenient for crooks: "After the wedding, there will be a reception at the home of..." The crook now knows where the wedding presents are located. "The funeral will be held at the XXX Funeral Home at 2PM" The crook now knows of an unoccupied house, and when it will be unoccupied. Not all folks think of having somebody watch over those homes.


:), Art
 
I looked and looked and for the life of me could not find the name of the author.


Len
 
I agree with gc70. The argument presented supports doing away with the requirement of a license to exercise a fundamental, expressly protected right.
Click to expand...
We have a winner.

It seems the real issue at hand is not whether such a list should be public or private, but why is there a registration of firearms to begin within the state.

It is a fundamental right expressly protected under the constitution, so there really is no confusion. If people have to be given the right anyways because it is thier consitutional right, then there really is no need to grant permission.

Arguing the wrong point.

Step one would be to argue why there is a list to begin with, and why it is legal in your state to record those who ask permission to excercise a guaranteed right.

Starting with the OP's argument is like giving one to the antis from the start. A "registration is a given, now what should we do about it" type of attitude and it is not a given.
Registration is done soley for the purpose of slowly removing the rights of law abiding gun owners, and adding additional restrictions. Has been in every society that has used it.

So the real solution here is to do away with the requirement to get a permit.
 
I agree

with gc70. The matter could be boiled down to, prove you're a citizen and you may carry a gun, barring you're not a felon or a mental case. Driving a car is a privilege given by a state. Gun ownership is a right... I try to keep things simple.
 
That doesn’t even begin to sound like a good reason to hide information about whom the government chooses to permit and not. We doubt that many robbers will peruse a list of concealed weapons permit holders — even if someone did post it online — in order to come up with a hit list. If they were to look at such a list, it seems more likely that it would be to find homes to avoid. Why break into a house where the owner is armed and trained to shoot?
Click to expand...

This is really naive. Why wouldn’t thieves surf the net to find who has firearms they might want to steal? Why don’t we put IRS information on line as well? I’m sure identity thieves would not misuse this information to steal someone’s identity. Right, and Nigerians I have never met are going to give me millions.
 
Last edited:
Okay can someone... anyone please explain to me why an activity that the government demands to remain concealed must be revealed? Seems to me to defeat the whole purpose of the thing. If there is any shred of logic here I am missing it.
 
Okay can someone... anyone please explain to me why an activity that the government demands to remain concealed must be revealed? Seems to me to defeat the whole purpose of the thing. If there is any shred of logic here I am missing it.
Click to expand...
Because the actions of the government are public information and supposed to be transparent. Just like many examples given by the OP are. Permits of any type are generaly public information. Building permits, wedding permits, etc Why should gun permits be any different if requiring a permit for them is a valid practice? They shouldn't if it is valid.
If a law was created that restricted First Amendment rights, and required a permit to excercise them, should the government be able to hide who is given permission to speak freely? Should they be allowed to hide who has different privelidges and rights than others? Should they be able to hide what they do from the people they are supposed to be responsible to? No, that is a dangerous precedent on numerous other issues.

However firearms are a constitutional right so it is not valid to require permission from the start. They are specificly protected by words in the constitution, and a permit should not be required. Do you need a permit to speak your mind under the First Amendment? Do you need a permit to worship as you please?
Why should you need a permit for the Second Amendment if you don't need one for any of the others in the Bill of Rights? You shouldn't, and that is the argument one should have. Not the OP's.
Starting with the OP's argument and taking a side is taking a defeat from the start.
 
Follow Ohio's example

Seems like a good time to dig up the public information on the editorial board and publisher's names, home addresses, mortgage information, family status, license plate numbers, school districts and all that other "public" information they seem to be so fond of at the State and post them if they keep this foolisheness up.

Heck, I bet some of those guys probably even own guns at home too.

After all it's all public information anyway, right?
 
If there's a "shall issue" law, there's no reason to publish names of permit holders. It's hard to think of how this can be called "accountability". "Shall issue" means that anyone with a clean record can get a permit.

However, in a "may issue" state, I'm all for publication for that very reason.

Now I can't say I buy the "burglars will know I have at least one gun" argument. First off, how many South Carolinians don't have a gun somewhere? Three? Maybe four? Second, I figure a burglar would avoid a permit holder; burglary is all about low-hanging fruit.

However, I think that permit holders in a "shall-issue" state are entitled to privacy. Employers should not, for example, be able to look up their employees. They can prohibit carry on their property if they wish, but it's simply none of their business if you carry on your own time.
 
Don't hide:

The welfare list
The abortion appointment book
The gay / lesibian membership books
The hunting license sale book

Seriously, there are all kinds of reasons to keep all kinds of things quite. Does anyone forget that PETA throws blood on people wearing fur? I mean liberal "activism" knows no shame. In some areas of the world (New England, West Coast) I could see people doing things to your property if your name was published. Vandalism and the like.

There is ONE good thing about making these roles public though, in California the RICH and FAMOUS can have CCL everyone else is lucky to own a gun. Same in New York.

So in SC, having it public or private most likely wouldn't make a big difference. In other places, I think it would.
 
Obviously The State hasn't bothered reading about what happened in VA after the Roanoke paper published the CCW list. Ex-battered wives in fear of their estranged husbands who had obtained a CCW had their new addresses published. A parole officers now found his dangerous charges armed with his home address. Celebrities worried about stalkers had their locations publicized.

And The State can't think of anything bad that could happen?
 
I see several issues here.

First, there are still many states that have permitless open carry other than Alaska/Vermont (who additionally have permitless concealed carry too) so in those states, carrying a firearm for protection is still viable. I can understand where the idea of carrying a concealed firearm is normally what criminals do, and if you want to do so, you would need permission. I UNDERSTAND the concept, I DO NOT AGREE with it (before I get flamed).

However, that being said, a "transparent government" does NOT equal lists of citizenry -- in whatever capacity. If 99 out of every 100 applicants are denied, I fail to comprehend why I would need to know their names to see that whatever government program these people are applying for, is or isn't working.
 
However, that being said, a "transparent government" does NOT equal lists of citizenry -- in whatever capacity. If 99 out of every 100 applicants are denied, I fail to comprehend why I would need to know their names to see that whatever government program these people are applying for, is or isn't working.
Click to expand...

Because here in California, in some counties, a generous contribution to the Sheriff's campaign fund, or perhaps a membership in the same country club, will buy you a CCW permit, while a woman who gets off work at 2:30AM and has to walk to her car in a dark alley 5 nights a week gets denied.

I think we SHOULD see that.

But like mbt2001 said:
There is ONE good thing about making these roles public though, in California the RICH and FAMOUS can have CCL everyone else is lucky to own a gun. Same in New York.

So in SC, having it public or private most likely wouldn't make a big difference. In other places, I think it would.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top