House Bill 1068 would seal a public record, an act that almost never serves the public. The bill would make permits to carry handguns a private record, no longer open to the public. These are not “gun permits”; these are licenses that specifically allow people to carry handguns in public. Such permits are not necessary to carry rifles or shotguns, nor are they needed to have a handgun in your home.
The move comes after the Indianapolis Star and the Bloomington Herald-Times published information about gun permits. Notably, neither paper published the names and addresses of permit holders – the information the gun lobby says should be secret. The Star’s story, in fact, illustrated exactly why the permits should be a public record: It found numerous instances where the carry permits were wrongly issued to convicted felons or unwisely issued over the recommendations of local police chiefs and sheriffs.
Did you notice this part? "Notably, neither paper published the names and addresses of permit holders." I've yet to read a single instance of a pro gun blogger admitting he was wrong about this when so many of them copied the same misinformation from each other a few weeks ago and reported that indeed names and addresses were published.
I brought it up here and got 0 comments.
House Bill 1065 would require businesses to allow their employees to leave guns in their cars in employee parking lots. Consider that the same conservatives supporting this bill generally reject new regulations on business. Consider, too, that businesses have long had the right to control what kind of personal belongings employees are and are not allowed to bring to business property.
What could possibly be the rationale for something as obviously detrimental as this? Do these Indiana gun owners think they're driving through Mogadishu on the way to work? Are they being attacked at the red lights along the way? Is it a war zone?
Wouldn't the possibility of cars containing guns in the parking lot being broken into or stolen, far outweigh any benefit to the individual gun owners?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Oh my, are you saying that employers should allow concealed carry at work to prevent firearm theft?
ReplyDeleteI didn't think so, but it was funny to look at it that way, no?
If the newspapers in question left things well enough alone there wouldn't have been a problem.
But I'm sure you understand that concealed carry is supposed to be discreet, right? Or would that destroy the old "compensating He-man" stereotype to think that gun owners dont flaunt their "power"?
Indiana law is odd--A license is required to take a handgun just about anywhere except home and a dealer or gunsmith. You need a license to carry one to the gun range. There was no difference in the criteria to issue, and the cost difference was $9 back when I had one. Most people got a carry license even if they had no intention of carrying, because it gave more options in transport.
ReplyDelete"Notably, neither paper published the names and addresses of permit holders."
It is notable that the Star didn't publish names and addresses--Most of the time when this comes up it is because a news organization did publish. Once a journalist has the data, the first amendment would more than likely prohibit a law barring them from publication. Ina sense Indiana is lucky--they get a chance to fix this before their names get published, not after the fact.
Defacto there is little control of parking lots--business don't actually prohibit much in the way of legal items. A ban on handguns is an unenforceable exception to this, yet another rule that affects only the ones least likely to abuse it. My former work was a prime example--Hour and a half round trip commute, and I would often run errands on the way to and from work, and occasionally I'd have to stop for gas in what passes for a dangerous neighborhood around here.
Kevin - the most secure place for those firearms holstered on the owners.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny how many anti-gun laws directly help those looking to steal guns.....and then they complain that we should be responsible when those guns are stolen.
Kevin's comment is so much baloney.
ReplyDeleteThe sole purpose behind this bill is to prevent identification of CCW holders who commit crimes.
As for being "discreet," every gunloon with a blog cannot devote enough posts as to their CCW permit and how many firearms they own. So, when I hear the gunloons go into full hissy mode about a newspaper having a database where one must know a name to find a CCW holder and it doesn't provide any more info than what city that permit holder may live when the same gunloons are using the bullhorn of the internets to proclaim how manly they are with their CCW permit---it makes me laugh.
---JadeGold
"As for being "discreet," every gunloon with a blog cannot devote enough posts as to their CCW permit and how many firearms they own."
ReplyDeleteJadeGold, an important distinction that you are missing is that the owner's of these blogs CHOOSE to publish this information. And it is usually not accompanied by information that would-be thieves and/or stalkers could use.
RR:
ReplyDeleteA typical record looks like this:
Joseph Q. Public
East Pitchfork, TN
Date Issued
Date Expired
Permit No.
Not much info for a stalker or thief to go on.
I'd suggest a stalker or thief would have much better success seeing a CCW holder, in public, and following him back home.
--JadeGold
OTOH, our gunloon bloggers often publish a lot of info about themselves--and their guns.
JadeGold:
ReplyDeleteNot just the posts, but the photos showing them, their friends and families.
Licensing for autos, businesses and professionals are all matters of public record.
It appears to me to be a case of the CCW community wanting to be able to hide both their weapons and their identities.
Democommie:
ReplyDeleteActually I don't have a problem with the concealed carry permits being public records. My main beef is with the editors who have an agenda to push publishing these records in the crime section. What purpose does this serve? If the editors want to run an expose on CCW holders who also commit crimes, then I'm totally fine with that. But why drag good honest people through the mud? Maybe the editors are too lazy to research the story. Maybe there isn't much of a story there.
JadeGold:
While it's true that in the Indiana paper the personal details were left out, that is not the case for several other papers who tried this experiment. The paper here also included home address, which directly led to the introducing of legislature in our state senate to make sure this didn't happen again. Did the legislature overcompensate in not making this info available to anyone anymore? Probably. But I guess that's what happens when some moron publishes this info in the first place.
Thanks, Jade. I make a couple little jokes and you go pouring the haterade on me.
ReplyDeleteDo you do anything but insult others?
Ruff Rider:
ReplyDeleteIf the beef is with the newspapers then perhaps a law banning newspapers from publishing those lists without prior approval of the state is--oh, wait, that would violate the first amendment. Never mind, just make sure it's impossible to publish the records under any circumstances--problem solved.
Demmocommie: I never proposed such a law. I propose the editors of these papers exercise a little common sense. Leave your agendas at the door and report on real crimes and real criminals.
ReplyDeleteRuff Rider:
ReplyDeleteReal crime and real laws, concerning guns? Aren't they committed by folks with real guns? If the purpose of the article is to endanger anyone than it is wrong. If the purpose of the article is to highlight ONE of the problems that results from having MORE guns in our midst, rather than less, than it's just what it looks like, news and opinion.
News organizations are required to leave their "agendas" at the door, so to speak, when writing news, not when they are publishing opinion pieces or commenting. If the piece is factually incorrect, or violates a current law, they are doing something wrong. FOXNotNews does such things, as a matter of corporate policy, on a daily basis. The NRA and other gun rights org's have exactly jack-shit to say about that.
News organizations leave their agendas at the door? I don't think so. Maybe up until the 60's or so, but not so much after that, and almost never today.
ReplyDeleteAside from that, I have to wonder why some individuals are concerned that their fellow citizens are carrying guns in a lawful manner, as is their constitutional right. In reading the contemporaneous documents available (Federalist Papers, individual correspondence, pre-existing state constitutions), it is quite clear that the second amendment was intended to apply to all citizens, and was very important to the framers.
My personal opinion is that those esteemed individuals, as a group, were correct, and that they would be shocked that any individual or government entity would want to infringe that natural right.
The best way to control crime is to arrest, prosecute, and punish criminals. The implements of their crime are varied, and if denied one, they will merely find another. The Brady Campaign, and Mayor Helmke are fighting the wrong battle, and we are all much diminished from their error.
Anonymous said, "it is quite clear that the second amendment was intended to apply to all citizens, and was very important to the framers."
ReplyDeleteI'm glad to hear that that's clear to you. I think that proves your biased and that you had a pre-determined opinion.
My own bias and pre-determined opinion leads me to read the "framers," those slave-owning deniers of equality for women, completely differently.
Sevesteen, thanks for coming by.