Op-Ed: Public’s right to know vs. concealed-carry permits: No clear answer

January 05, 2004
LEE LEONARD
Columbus Dispatch

Ah, the time-honored debate over what should be public record and what should be private. We’re in the middle of it.

The latest tiff concerns whether the identity of concealed-carry handgun permit-holders should be public record.

Gun-rights advocates say no, because the element of surprise would be lost. Concealed carriers need to be anonymous. Otherwise, criminals could check on who has a permit and attack only people without them.

This scenario assumes that the criminal knows his or her intended victim. If so, he or she probably knows whether the individual carries a handgun, anyway.

The gun-rights advocates also speculate that criminals would consult the lists to see who has guns, then break into homes and steal the guns. Of course, permit-holders could have their guns with them, not at home.

Gov. Bob Taft wants every county sheriff to release the complete list of permit-holders; the bill sent to him would release the names, one at a time, to certified journalists when such information is in the public interest. For example, when a crime has been committed, is suspect John Doe a permit-holder? The public is entitled to know.

Taft also maintains that the list should be made public so independent studies can be conducted to find out whether ineligible individuals are getting permits.

Also, it would be useful to know what percentage of permit-holders commit firearms-related crimes.

But Jim Irvine of Ohioans for Concealed Carry says this is unnecessary; that the proposed law requires the Ohio Peace Officer Training Council to file an annual report with statistics on the number of applicants, the number of permits granted, the reasons for denial and the number of infractions by permit-holders.

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

If any compromise is to be built around the governor’s willingness to sign the bill, it’s apparently between releasing the list only to journalists vs. making it available to everyone.

There should be a way to determine whether the law is working. Journalists certainly have no corner on independent studies or investigations. So it makes sense to make the lists available to everyone.

To keep the records closed would be to trust the law-enforcement community to keep accurate statistics and determine whether or not the law is working. In the interest of checks and balances, it makes sense to have the numbers out there, if not the names.

Is this consistent with other state licensing? The Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles does not publish lists of licensed drivers. If you call the bureau, they won’t reveal whether Jane Doe has a valid license.

We entrust law-enforcement personnel to ensure that motorists have licenses and that they are not abusing them, and motorists are in charge of lethal weapons every day.

One adventure out on the freeway will tell you that the licensing and training required of motorists has little effect on the way many of them drive on the road. Will it be any different with handguns?

Another controversy over public records has to do with tracking sex offenders after they get out of jail. They have to register with county sheriffs, who then notify area residents that a sex offender lives in the neighborhood.

Attorney General Jim Petro has a new Web site containing the photographs and personal information on more than 10,000 registered sex offenders. That seems like a good idea, but is it possible that mistakes could occur and that the published name and location of a sex offender could be wrong?

Perhaps a sex offender, rather than providing an address, would prefer to live as a homeless person, thus driving up social costs.

Maybe the identity of sex offenders should be known only to law-enforcement agencies, just as licensed drivers are. On the other hand, 10,000 is an awful lot for law enforcement to keep track of, and sex offenders already have broken the law, unlike most licensed drivers. After all, we know where the convicted murderers are, shouldn’t we know where the convicted sex offenders are?

Drivers, gun-carriers, sex offenders, murderers. Which of them should be identified to the public? Plenty of food for thought.

Lee Leonard covers the Statehouse for The Dispatch.

[email protected]

Commentary:
Aside from the fact that there is no such thing as a public "right to know", Leonard's piece gives the most objective look of this issue you'll read in Ohio media.

In response to Leonard's closing question (Drivers, gun-carriers, sex offenders, murderers. Which of them should be identified to the public?):

Ohio drivers have broken no law by purchasing a car and obtaining a license to drive it. Yet as Mr. Leonard points out, their records are kept private. Concealed carry licenseholders will be breaking no laws as they bear arms for self-defense under HB12, and thus they deserve the same protections.

It's more than appropriate for Leonard to point out that, if listed, innocent law-abiding citizens will be treated by the state the same as murderers and sex offenders.

To read the many public records arguments from the state's liberal media, one can't help but wonder whatever happened to the media's concerns for the public's "right to privacy." That used to be a favorite of theirs, but seems to drop off the list when it comes to gun owners.