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