Letters to Dayton Daily News Editor favor privacy

In the wake of a Round Table discussion of whether or not CHL-holders' records should be kept private, Dayton Daily News readers were just as overwhelmingly supportive of privacy in their letters to the editor as they were at the forum. But are news editors listening? More importantly, are legislators?

May 13, 2005
Dayton Daily News

Publishing names just a childish act

In following the debate on media access to conceal-carry records, it is hard to take the Dayton Daily News' position seriously, given the behavior of the Ohio media.

At this time, the only use of the media access rule I am aware of is for some papers to publish lists of all permit holders for an area. These actions are nothing more than childish tantrums of editors who are outraged that the Legislature gave more weight to the view of the peasants than they did to the enlightened pronouncements of editorial writers.

These were also blatant acts of intimidation, attempts to discourage people concerned for their privacy from applying for concealed carry handgun licenses.

If the DDN is so concerned about the access to these records, then why doesn't it use that access as it was intended?

In the past several months, there have been numerous articles in the DDN about shootings in the area. I do not recall the DDN mentioning the CHL status of any of the suspects named in these incidents.

I assume they don't possess licenses. If they did, I'm positive it would have been printed on the front page, using large headlines. Of course, highlighting the fact that CHL holders are not committing these crimes would undermine the ddn's stated editorial position.

Randy Allen
Moraine

State's list would be incomplete

Even if concealed-carry permit holders' names were made public, the list would be invalid. Ohio residents can obtain permits from other states, even if they never leave Ohio.

There are hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of permit holders living in Ohio whose names are not submitted here.

Thus, fighting for the list of permit holders is a exercise in futility. It is somewhat widely known, especially to law enforcement personnel, that some states only require a copy of an honorable discharge, a check and a copy of the applicant's fingerprints. The permit will come by mail, and show the issuing state on the top, followed by the applicant's name, address and city of residence in Ohio. Of course, this is 100 percent legal.

I, and others, are surprised about all the arguments and debates about revealing the names of the state's permit holders, since this information, if revealed, is almost useless, and most certainly incomplete.

David J. Leahy
Centerville

Interest in CCW law absurd

I find all the renewed interest in the concealed-carry law a bit absurd.

Of all the people who have completed the necessary requirements for obtaining this permit, how many have misused their right?

Furthermore, publishing the names of these people, who have done nothing wrong, seems, at best, a waste of time, and, at worst, harmful to the gun owner. Why should anyone looking to do a "home invasion" be given any more help? Knowing that a person has a gun, and watching his home, and keeping track of when he comes and goes, does the legal owner a disservice.

What have you, as a neighbor, learned? That a person who has completed classes and spent range time to both understand the law and his or her weapon, is allowed to carry it.

The guy who robs a convenience store or shoves a gun in your back when you're at an ATM is unlikely to have completed the necessary steps to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

The Dayton Daily News has a fair amount of trouble getting the obituary column accurate. I question its ability to be any more accurate in posting the names of people who have the legal right to carry a concealed weapon.

Dennis Gannon
Dayton

Why are people so afraid?

After reading the article, "Conceal-carry law sparks debate over information access," May 6, all I can ask is "Why?" Why are some people so afraid of conceal-carry? Why are they worried about something that, even if they had the information they seek, would make them no safer? Why do some people think they have the "right" to know everything? Stories like this stir up more debate.

Conceal-carry in Ohio became law, effective April 8, 2004. Although the current law has some flaws (the biggest one being giving anyone access to the records), I am certain they will be ironed out eventually. I assume those who want access to the records also opposed CCW in the first place.

I doubt this person ever served in the military, or is fully aware of the sacrifices our armed forces personnel face defending this great country of ours. And guess what? They use guns, rifles, tanks, jets and everything else in their arsenal to defend us from the bad guys. Do they want to know their names, too?

What we need are more good citizens to take up the call, get the proper training and apply for a conceal-carry license. If the bad guys don't know who is armed, maybe they will think twice before committing a crime.

Mike Newman
Kettering

Common sense lacking

Re "Fight rages on gun disclosure," May 1: In this article, a person is quoted as saying, "I think I have the right to know if my kids go in a car with somebody whether that person is carrying. I think I have a right to know if I hire somebody to come in and paint my house whether that person is carrying."

I guess it never occurred to her to simply ask the person.

If the person is carrying legally, he or she will probably respond truthfully. The person whom she has to worry about is the person who is carrying illegally and lies to her.

Common sense seems to be something that is lacking in those who don't approve of firearms.

Clyde Spencer
Fairborn

Related Stories:
AP/DDN CHL records roundtable: Another Perspective

OFCC participates in roundtable on concealed carry and privacy