Invasion of Privacy: Taft's latest attempt to block your right to self-defense

Ohio Newspaper Association toting hidden agenda, concealing the details

Gun owner identity privacy a matter of common sense and personal safety,
not secrecy

by Jeff Garvas

Bob Taft and the editors of some Ohio newspapers have opposed concealed carry legislation since first proposed. The tireless opposition is always based on some illogical pre-conception or emotional rhetoric previously defeated in the process of passing such reforms in forty-five other states.

Clearly, no amount of historical evidence is enough to change the minds of those whose decisions are driven by anti-gun bias instead of rational thought and reasonable consideration.

Recently, opponents of concealed carry legislation and the Ohio Newspaper Association have orchestrated a media ripple effect over a provision that has existed in every proposal for at least the past six years. This language makes the name, address, and other private information of applicants just that: private and exempt from public records laws.

Opponents argue that this would prevent the public from knowing the statistical impact of the law. In an eleventh hour attempt to derail the legislation, these opponents are crying foul over a non-existant issue that has never been exploited in such a coordinated effort of news reports and editorials. They've had years to raise these concerns.

The importance of protecting this identifying information far exceeds any imaginary benefits that could be gained by making it publicly available.

Gun control extremists often complain of "loopholes" in firearms legislation; yet they now laud Taft for endorsing a loophole which would provide a list of who has one or more in their home. Making the identity of every applicant available publicly isn't just a defacto gun owner registration, it's the equivalent of telling every criminal looking for a gun which house to rob when the occupants are away. Why not just give criminals the keys to the gun store?

Some would argue it's unlikely criminals would know how to get the information. In addition to supplying proof that concealed carry reform laws are safe and beneficial to society, one can also look to other states for precedent on this so-called open records issue.

In states where this information was made publicly available, newspapers have acquired the records and printed every personal detail. Some have even been guilty of putting personal information online, in a searchable database. Could this be why Ohio editors, historically opposed to the legislation, are so eager to see the information made a public record?

Even if we could trust every Ohio newspaper not to do this, any single person would have the ability to make the data available online, including anti-gun extremists who want to antagonize applicants by making their names public.

Ironically, reports and editorials admonishing lawmakers for taking this approach have concealed the details themselves. The less-than-honest coverage of this issue fails to point out that the legislation requires law enforcement officials to report the statistical details, without identifying any specific individual, on an annual basis. That detailed information will in fact be public record, and we agree it should be.

Furthermore, if an individual is convicted of a crime or involved in a shooting, nothing prevents law enforcement officials from telling the media if that individual was licensed to carry a concealed firearm. The details of a trial would make it public record for that individual as well.

The current effort is nothing less than an intimidation tactic that should be
avoided at all costs. A single mother who chooses to carry a firearm for self-defense should not be forced to defend her decision to employers, friends or family members opposed to the concept of self-defense.

Elected officials, popular professionals, and celebrities would all be labeled as "gun toters" by the media, simply for applying for a license.

Choosing to bear arms for self-defense is a personal decision. As with social security numbers, medical records, and other private information, there is no legitimate reason to reveal identifying details that would subject innocent people to harassment.

The conference committee debating the legislation is bound by rules that limit changes to the differences between the House and Senate versions. Based on these rules, the provision can't be changed in House Bill 12.

Over a period of one week nearly every major paper in Ohio has written a
story, editorial or both about this issue. Is it any surprise that Governor Bob Taft has signaled the finale by writing a letter to the legislature demanding this provision be amended in the committee under yet another veto threat?

On the verge of losing, the Governor has once again moved the goal line, and is demanding that lawmakers violate established rules in the final minutes of play.

The only viable option is to pass a proper bill and override the veto of a Governor who has failed to keep his promise to pass concealed carry reform.

Jeff Garvas is the President and founder of Ohioans For Concealed Carry, the state's largest grassroots organization focused solely on restoring the right to bear arms for self-defense.