Despite excellent letters, Cleveland Plain Dealer editors no closer to reality

Even the title of this section proves the editors at the Cleveland Plain Dealer just don't get it.

They say readers are "upset by the lists that aren't published." But as you can see from reading, it's not the lists they aren't publishing that has Plain Dealer readers seeing red. Rather, it's the hypocracy revealed in which lists the paper is so vehemently committed to publishing.

01/15/04
Readers upset by the lists that aren't published

I read with interest the recent editorial staunchly defending the newspaper's First Amendment right to publish the names of those exercising their Second Amendment rights by legally carrying concealed weapons in public, in full conformance with the recently passed Ohio law.

Tell me, is The Plain Dealer also going to publish the names of those illegally carrying concealed weapons in public?

Thomas J. Finn
Chagrin Falls

I've looked in the paper the last couple of days for the lists of sex offenders and drunken drivers. I haven't been able to find them. Why, then, do the powers that be think it's a good idea to list the names of the law-abiding citizens who get concealed-weapons permits?

How does not listing people who have broken the law but listing the ones who follow it make me or anyone else safer? What is The Plain Dealer's real reason for wanting to do this?

Mark Ratcliff
Parma

Click on the "Read More..." link below for more letters.

The Jan. 8 editorial "Very well concealed" contains the absurd statement: "You as a member of the public will not be entitled to information on who is purchasing permits, even though this information is rightly yours: You will pay for the collection and storage of the data, as well as the salaries of those who do the work."

I was unable to find the page in The Plain Dealer where the names of all those who receive state assistance in the form of food stamps, medical care at public hospitals, welfare or stu dent financial aid are listed. The Plain Dealer also doesn't seem to publish the names of those who are known by the Department of Health to be infected with serious communicable diseases. I am certain that the newspaper will soon be publishing this information, since it could certainly be useful, and, of course, the taxpayers pay for the collection and storage of all the data.

If The Plain Dealer decides to go forward with such a foolhardy and obviously political stunt, its editors really should be sure they know what it is they hope to accomplish. In Texas, a concealed- handgun license holder is seven times less likely than the general population (and three times less likely than a police officer) to commit a violent crime.

Editors need to consider how they would feel if the result of their list were to encourage burglary attempts against law-abiding members of the community. What if one of these attempted burglaries results in a homeowner protecting himself and his family with deadly force? This is playing political games with people's lives and safety.

Ben Setnick
Dallas, Texas

The Plain Dealer's intention to publish the names of concealed-weapon permit holders is obviously an attempt to vilify them, but anyone who is intellectually honest will realize that the people listed are "card- carrying good guys."

Permitees who privately carry firearms will be engaging in a legal activity that does not threaten the safety of the public. They will all have fingerprints on file with the government; they will all have completed a state- sanctioned training course; they will all have passed a criminal background check.

I plan on getting a permit as soon as possible and will be proud to have my name listed in the newspaper along with other good citizens who take responsibility for their own safety within the limits of the law.

David Miller
Akron

Gun-permit-holders have right to privacy (Columbus Dispatch)

January 16, 2004

On the same page as Lee Leonard’s Jan. 5 Forum column, "Public’s right to know vs. concealed-carry permits: No clear answer," was the answer. It lies in Robyn Blumner’s column, "It’s time for Americans to speak out on the right to remain anonymous."

That says it all. As an American, I have a basic right to privacy as to what I do or don’t do in our country. Social Security numbers are no longer required on driver’s licenses. Nor can the public gain access to my driver’s license information.

This is how it should be with the concealed-carry law. My right of privacy supersedes anyone else’s right to know until I break the law. If and when I break a law, then publish that I was a holder of a concealed-carry permit. But not until then.

There are safeguards already in the new law that allow for the tracking of permit-holders and what they have done if they fall foul of the law.

DENNIS WALKER
Columbus

And there's one in every crowd...

Whether or not the unqualified right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment is debatable. The public's right to know is not.

Given the excessive amount of secrecy surrounding so much of our government's activities these days, bravo to The Plain Dealer for its intention to obtain and publish the names of those who receive permits to carry concealed weapons.

Lois deLeon
Beachwood

Related Stories:
Rotten Apples and Sour Grapes

CAN WE TRUST REPORTERS?

Cleveland Plain Dealer's past vs. present on firearms highlighted in obituary