Never enough for ultra-liberal Dayton Daily News editors

Handgun secrecy is a cynical joke

Dayton Daily News Editorial
December 26, 2003

A MEMORABLE SCENE IN A CLASSIC MOVIE SET in the old West has comic legend W.C. Fields holding forth in the back of a moving passenger train that's clacking past desert cactus and sagebrush.

He regales fellow travelers with a tale of personal bravery. The exchange goes something like this:

"I was surrounded by 20,000 Indians," he said. "And all I had was a knife and a revolver."

A small man, eyes narrowing, interrupted: "Why, they didn't have revolvers in those days."

Mr. Fields was taken aback, but only for half a beat. "I knew that," he said. "But the Indians didn't know it."

And, so, Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder tries to justify keeping Ohioans in the dark about who receives licenses to carry concealed handguns under legislation now before Gov. Bob Taft.

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

He says, the "true intent of concealed carry ... is that criminals do not know who is carrying, and, so, when you go out and do full disclosure, you really are breaking the intent of the bill."

Gov. Taft threatened to veto the bill because of this nonsense. But now he appears to be waffling on a pledge of transparency and accountability for any concealed-weapons program.

Those who push for laws allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns point to similar laws elsewhere. But most states that allow concealed carry don't administer their laws in secrecy. Applications and permits are treated like any other public record.

Some states even publish applicants' names. This puts the public on notice and enables people to come forward and show cause why a permit should be denied.

Gun lobbyists don't like that one bit. So they've come to Ohio with a bunch of bunk about how street criminals may make public record requests and find out who's packing.

In truth, open public records enable law-abiding citizens to ensure government conducts business above board--and that a sensitive, concealed-weapons program is administered competently.

Privacy isn't an issue when the government hands out special permits and certifies the trustworthiness of those who would carry handguns. And even the gun lobby has agreed to disclosure of a permit holder's identity, but only on special request of the press.

Gov. Taft is said to be negotiating behind closed doors with legislative leaders. He's said to be willing to accept a proposal that expands what's disclosed but still limits access to records to the media.

It's a terrible precedent that makes the general public second-class citizens. Women who have suffered domestic violence will have to call a reporter to find out whether their abuser received a permit.

Mr. Taft's spokesmen calls it a "compromise." But if the governor accepts such a deal, he'll be selling out the public's right to know.

Commentary:
The Dayton Daily News editorialists' faux concern for victims of domestic abuse is, at best, disingenuous, and at worst, very embarrasing (for the editors).

While touting open records as a means for which "to ensure the concealed-weapons program is administered competently" by law enforcement, the editors ignore the fact that records regarding any license-holders who commit crimes are required under HB12 to be made public on an annual basis.

Further, while at the same time complaining about a law which would stop short of allowing her to obtain her abuser's status as a CCW license-holder, the DDN is disingenuous in ignoring the bevy of provisions in HB12, and in current law, which would make it illegal for a convicted abuser to even possess a firearm, let alone get a CCW license.

But what should really embarrass the editors is that while expressing supposed concern for the victim being able to know if her abuser has a CCW license, they continue to oppose attempts by the legislature and OFCC to allow her the right to bear arms for defense and security - a right which was recognized in the Ohio Constitution two hundred years ago (unlike the "right to know" referred to by the DDN and the gun abolition lobby, which doesn't appear ANYWHERE in the Constitution).

The Dayton Daily News has refused to print stories about area 'Defense' Walks in advance, since editors did not want to encourage participation. Editors have also refused to make DDN readers aware of the Tony Gordon Memorial Fund. Apparently, the editors don't wish to help raise money for a family who believes son/father/husband would have been better off if he could have defended himself.

It appears one USA Today reporter seems to understand why it is that Ohioans are leery of allowing the gun abolition lobby and biased media entities like the Dayton Daily News have access to their private records:

We just don't trust them.

And as the DDN editors have shown yet again, they've most definitely earned our distrust.