Some background: Last fall our StarWatch investigative team spent weeks analyzing gun permit records. We learned that more than 100 people were issued permits even though local police were opposed; these were people prone to criminal activity who should not have been given gun permits.Along with our story we ran, as part of our growing catalogue of community databases, a feature that allowed our online readers to learn how many gun permits have been issued in each of the state's zip codes and information about the race, gender and average age of gun permit holders as a group.
We did not and have no intention of giving out names of legal permit holders or addresses of permit holders.
Now that's a little different from what I've been hearing. Sebastian said, "newspapers decided to be bozos and publish lists of permit holders," which is a mild version of what I've read on numerous pro-gun blogs.
Are they talking about a different Indiana newspaper, do you think? Or could they have been mistaken in their understanding of what actually the Indy Star was doing?
Or do the pro-gun bloggers feel like the NRA, that even this is unacceptable and the State records should be secret?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
There are papers that published ccw permit holders.
ReplyDeleteThat said, Sebastian is the bozo. After all, what is so secret about public records? The only reason a mouthbreather like Sebastian opposes ccw permit info made public is that he doesn't want a record of ccw holders involved in crimes or accidents.
--JadeGold
I'm not from Indiana, and I'm not familiar with the details of this particular incident.
ReplyDeleteIf the Star isn't giving out the names of permit holders, it is more responsible than most newspapers who have gone in this direction. There have been a number of states (including mine) where media has published lists or databases of permit holders--almost always media that has editorialized against concealed carry. In most of these states, this prompts a law protecting the privacy of license holders.
How much of the data that the government keeps on us should be available to anyone? Driver's licenses? Tax records?
I like the law that Ohio passed--you can check anyone's license status, but you can't copy the list.
"more than 100 people were issued permits even though local police were opposed; these were people prone to criminal activity who should not have been given gun permits."
I can't think of any objective criteria that won't have edge cases. "should not have been given" here is based on opinion, not law. I'm guessing that these people have several misdemeanor convictions that aren't quite to the point of disqualifying them.
I would be sympathetic to the idea that media should be able to see how many licenses were issued erroneously if that is what they did.
Should Indiana residents wait until someone publishes the whole list before they react?
Again, all the data that is provided is the name of the ccw holder, their birth year, city, state, zip, issue date and expiration date.
ReplyDeleteThat's it. Pretending it contains tax info or addresses or SSNs or phone numbers is ludicrous.
BTW, I hate to break it to the gunloons but the internets contain far more data. For instance, give me a name and I can find out your street address, phone number, immediate relatives and associates, your place of employment or business, the value of your home (if you're a homeowner), what you paid for it, when you bought it, etc.
A ccw permit is a matter of public record.
--JadeGold
The CCW database also points out a pretty telling fact: many CCW holders do not have family members who are CCW holders.
ReplyDeleteIOW, either the wife never leaves the house without her packing hubby or she just doesn't see the urgent need to be carrying a gun everywhere. In the latter instance, we see the gunloon's immediate family doesn't sign up to the myth that they're in danger at all times.
--JadeGold
Let me summarize that argument, if I understand it:
ReplyDelete"Indiana law does not give great discretion about who can and can't be issued permits, so because of that, the right thing to do is publicly release the entire database, so you can say for yourself whether you think your neighbor should have a permit or not."
The problem is, who can or can't have a permit, for the most part in shall-issue states, is a matter of statute, not on the whims or discretion of local officiants. In other words, either you've done something to disqualify yourself from having a permit, or you haven't. Now as it is, Indiana gives the authorities a bit of discretion. Common in many licensing statute is a requirement that the person be of "good character and reputation." That can mean a lot of different things depending on the state, in Pennsylvania it can mean you have had a series of arrests, but no convictions, etc. But it has to be articulable, and based in fact. So the Indy Star found 100 people who they think don't meet the definition of "good character." Take the case to the police. Get their licenses revoked. How does treating every other license holder like a sex offender, most of whom are qualified, make the world any safer?
P.S. - I see Jade is once again in high form. Must be cold and wet under the bridge this time of year.
From the blog entry:
ReplyDelete" We learned that more than 100 people were issued permits even though local police were opposed; these were people prone to criminal activity who should not have been given gun permits."
If the above is from the Star's "clarification" it indicates that the police both knew about and were opposed to the licencing of 100 people. In other words, local public safety officials were unable to stop the licencing of individuals that they deemed unfit--not the newspaper.
Sebastian's comment makes no sense; of course, do we expect more? No.
ReplyDeleteLet's remember Sebastian's logic: we should issue ccw's to anyone and then hide the records. Of course, Sebastian believes he's an electrical engineer.
Public info databases hold other info than just sex offenders--although Sebastian's comparison is closer than he'd like. For example, there are public databases for all manner of licensed professionals, for zoning of real estate, for liquor licenses and the like.
--JadeGold
"Again, all the data that is provided is the name of the ccw holder, their birth year, city, state, zip, issue date and expiration date."
ReplyDeleteMaybe we ought to start publishing the name, birth year, city, state, and zip of those who get abortions.
"BTW, I hate to break it to the gunloons but the internets contain far more data. For instance, give me a name and I can find out your street address, phone number, immediate relatives and associates, your place of employment or business, the value of your home (if you're a homeowner), what you paid for it, when you bought it, etc."
ReplyDeleteVery well, how about my neighbor, John Smith.
.....I'm waiting.
JadeGold said, "The only reason a mouthbreather like Sebastian opposes ccw permit info made public is that he doesn't want a record of ccw holders involved in crimes or accidents."
ReplyDeleteFirst, I ask JD to please avoid the namecalling.
Second, I ask if there is truth in this idea. Is the reason the pro-gun guys are upset about this because it'll help illuminate those instances of abuse by the CCW permit holders?
When people who are getting abortions--in other words, women--have the ability to accidentally cause someone else to have an abortion in a public place or any of the other minor faux pas that occur on a too frequent basis to folks who carry guns around in public I'll be all for some sort of registration list--with public access.
ReplyDeleteBirths and deaths are public record and they don't accidentally cause someone else to give birth or die in a public place. So why should abortions be exempt? If we're going to start making peoples choices public record, let's not have a double standard.
ReplyDeleteAztecRed, Are you a big anti-abortion guy? Is that why you keep using abortion as an example?
ReplyDeleteI'm still waiting Jade. Or was that just more of your typical nonsense.
ReplyDeleteWhen abortions are legally defined as a "birth" or "death" then they will be
ReplyDeletea.) Most certainly made public, if there are any records kept, by the Religious Wrong
or
b.) They will be homicides, at least, and will be on the police blotter.
Since, however, abortion is viewed, legally, as a medical procedure, those records are not made public unless they are leaked, in violation of medical privacy laws.