If passed, the legislation would bar cities and towns from revealing the name, address and date of birth of anyone who applies for a license to carry a concealed pistol or revolver. Current state law bars municipalities from disclosing the identities of people who have ever been granted such permits either by the attorney general's office or cities or towns. This would close what advocates say is a loophole in public records law.Why do gun owners want this type of privacy? Don't they claim that owning a gun is just like owning any other type of property? What makes the concealed carry permit different from other types of licenses?
Please leave a comment.
"Why do gun owners want this type of privacy? "
ReplyDeleteTo safeguard us from the never ending evils of the anti-gun bigots and the various thugs and thieves who would like to steal our guns.
AztecRed nailed it.
ReplyDeleteLook at it this way. If you were an employer, and that information were available to you, do you think you might see if your employees and potential employees had applied for a carry permit? If you found out they had, would you treat them any differently?
Even if you would not behave so dishonorably, can you at least imagine some employers doing so?
Imagine this question being asked of ANY other demographic. Why do gays want privacy? WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO HIDE???
ReplyDelete"Imagine this question being asked of ANY other demographic."
ReplyDeleteAre you seriously equating being gay to being a gunloon?
In reality, such info is recorded for everything else: when you purchase a car or a home. When you make an investment or other bank transaction. When you apply for a job or virtually any kind of license or registration. When you make a political donation or donation to charity.
The real question is why gunloons feel they ought to be excluded?
It seems like it should be a basic part of the self storage laws that you advocate. Anything to keep them from falling into the wrong hands, right?
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteI'd like to know what prescriptions you get from your doctor and where you have them filled? You have nothing to hide, right?
Oh, and while you're at it, how much do you have in your bank accounts?
Now, does that answer your question?
1. It provides a "shopping list" for burglars.
ReplyDelete2. It puts women at risk, say you moved and don't want your crazy ex, stalker, rapist etc. to know where you live and you buy a gun to protect yourself. Then your name and address gets published in the newspaper for all to see.
3. It's none of anybody's business
"The real question is why gunloons feel they ought to be excluded?"
ReplyDeleteThe real question is what good reason is there to give our enemies information?
"
ReplyDeleteAre you seriously equating being gay to being a gunloon?"
Ever hear of the Pink Pistols? They are gay and they love guns.
Making CCW license public doesn't only endanger those who are listed - it endangers those are not listed. A homophobe for example could find out if a gay person carries a weapon, and if not target them. The same applies to everyone else.
About the employer consulting the list thing, which you guys are now presenting as something to be avoided, how does that reconcile with all your other remarks about your being the majority? According to your claims, wouldn't a prospective employer be more likely to hire you for the very reason that you have a gun permit?
ReplyDeleteso the "employer thing" is the only argument you choose to attempt to refute?
ReplyDeleteMikeB: “About the employer consulting the list thing, which you guys are now presenting as something to be avoided, how does that reconcile with all your other remarks about your being the majority?”
ReplyDeleteBecause even if it is a small minority of employers who are anti-gun enough to do this, no one deserves to be excluded from any percentage of perspective jobs (especially in today’s economy). Would you hire someone who carries?
I propose we do away with licensing concealed carry altogether and just allow anyone who wants to carry concealed to do so. That way there's no "lists" that can be abused.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure some will cry, "oh but think of all those un-trained citizens carrying guns!" So let's make "gun ed" mandatory training in public schools, and some good self-defense education for graduating seniors right along with "personal finance" class.
...Orygunner...
I wouldn't hire someone who carries a gun. I guess we could argue about whether that constitutes discrimination or not, I really don't think it's the same as not hiring blacks or gays, but I'm sure you guys who love being the oppressed, misunderstood good guys would argue that.
ReplyDeleteBut it doesn't answer my question. According to all your bravado and claims about the normalcy of "the gun life," wouldn't you expect employers to be more likely to hire you if they knew?
"I wouldn't hire someone who carries a gun."
ReplyDeleteit's the other way around here. I'm the only one in my office with a HCP, & all the other employees are glad to know I have it.
@Mikeb, as an employer, I believe you are fully within your rights to discriminate for basically any reason you choose.
ReplyDeleteWe ALL discriminate ALL the time - what we choose to eat for dinner, where we choose to shop, who we choose to date (or try to, or even marry), and as an employer, who you hire.
Now is it FAIR to refuse to hire someone because they carry a gun? No, but it's within your right, just as it's within your right to discriminate against a potential employee because they have piercings, or tattoos, or because they drive a Prius.
...Orygunner...
About the employer consulting the list thing, which you guys are now presenting as something to be avoided, how does that reconcile with all your other remarks about your being the majority?
ReplyDeleteI don't remember making such a claim. With, supposedly, about 80 million gun owners, in a country of something like 312 million people, I couldn't make such a claim, with any reasonable expectation of being taken seriously.
The open carry movement, for example, is about establishing the normality of being armed in public. If it were already widely accepted as "normal," there would be little incentive to pursue that endeavor.
In the end, though, Orygunner has the obvious solution. Constitutional carry, rendering the whole "license" issue moot.
What could be simpler?
Orygunner:
ReplyDeleteI propose we do away with licensing concealed carry altogether and just allow anyone who wants to carry concealed to do so. That way there's no "lists" that can be abused.
As I said earlier, I wholeheartedly agree, and it pleases me immensely to report that Wyoming is now, absent a highly unlikely veto, about to become the 4th great, progressive, enlightened state to enact Constitutional carry.
The people of one more state strike off their chains.
Orygunner and Zorroy, You guys are certainly consistent. I liked the way you, Orygunner, told me it would be within my right as an employer to discriminate for any reason.
ReplyDeleteWhat I can't believe is that you guys think the so-called Constitutional Carry is a good thing. What about the bad guys, what about the nuts? Are you guys so committed to your cause that you've lost sight of all else.
What I can't believe is that you guys think the so-called Constitutional Carry is a good thing. What about the bad guys, what about the nuts?
ReplyDeleteThe guys who would give nary a fuck about carrying without a permit, even if one were required, because being "bad guys" and/or "nuts," they'll not abide by the rule of law?
Good question--what about them?
Zorroy, I was talking about the bad guys and the nuts among you guys, you know the ones who haven't been caught yet, the ones posing as law-abiding. We need more screening to block them, not less which will just increase their numbers.
ReplyDelete