Op-Ed: Shootings add new dimension to issue of privacy vs. gun rights

Aside from the fact that the "fix" proposed by Toby Hoover and the Brady Bunch (reporting mental records from Ohio courts to the federal government) would not have prevented the Ohio sniper from purchasing his firearms, Leonard's piece gives the most objective look of this issue you'll read in the Ohio media. Whether or not he could have gotten a concealed carry license matters none. The Ohio sniper didn't wait until April 8 to begin his sickening crime spree.

Hoover seems eager to wrestle the power to decide who is "mentally ill" away from Ohio's judges. Since she is also eager to ensure that no one obtains CHLs, we suspect there might be few people that would be considered sane in Hoover's world. After all, according to a recent Zogby poll, 79% of Americans support right-to-carry laws like Ohio's.

March 22, 2004
Lee Leonard
Columbus Dispatch

Seems like it won’t go away; we’re back to the old debate over personal privacy vs. public safety.

Now we have the case of a highway sniper. The suspect, who is called paranoid-schizophrenic by his family, is said to have purchased a handgun shortly before his capture. And he would have been eligible for a permit to carry the weapon concealed on his person, had Ohio’s new law been in effect.

How many people like him are out there, and how many will get permits after April 8, when the county sheriffs begin to issue them?

Not many, says Ohioans for Concealed Carry, the group based in suburban Cleveland that fought for the law. Spokesman Jim Irvine says the number of mentally ill folks is a minuscule percentage of the population, and the number of them who are violent is even smaller.

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

Still, it takes only one gun owner to cause a a big problem.

Most of the debate over the background checks required by House Bill 12 centered on the sheriffs’ ability to obtain the criminal history of each person applying for a permit to carry a concealed handgun. Mental competency was a murkier issue. Opponents were far from satisfied that the bill would screen out people with mental problems. Now, they have reason to be even more nervous.

Charles A. McCoy Jr., the suspect arrested in the central Ohio shootings, easily would have qualified for a permit before he was a fugitive. He never was sent to a mental institution by a court and, as far as the public knows, he never received treatment. He might have denied having any illness.

Under the law, the state database for background checks will include only individuals committed to a mental institution through a court, not the ones who were treated voluntarily. The only other sanity check is on the permit application, where individuals must answer four questions, yes or no, about their mental health.

The penalty for falsifying information is six to 18 months in prison. Is that worth the gamble for a mentally ill person who really wants to carry a concealed weapon? Or would he forget about even applying for a permit?

Mental-health advocates zealously guarded privacy in the drafting of House Bill 12. It was a fight even to make public the probate court documents after April 8, let alone go back to prior years.

Gun-rights advocates say denying a concealed-carry permit to someone who sought treatment for a nervous breakdown isn’t fair. Even less fair, they say, is to deny a permit to a woman who was counseled after spousal abuse and who wants a weapon for protection against further battering.

Police officers traumatized by an on-the-job shooting may undergo counseling and still be put back on patrol. To deny permits to people who seek treatment is silly, the gun advocates say.

And there’s something to be said for privacy. Mental illness carries a stigma. So does being a sex offender.

The right to privacy is being reshaped these days in the name of combating terrorism. The scrum over the names of the mentally ill is part of the debate over privacy vs. the welfare of the community.

The attorney general’s office keeps records on fingerprints and DNA for use by local law-enforcement officials in solving crimes. Now, the state is requiring a database of sex offenders. Should the public know the names of individuals who were booked for crimes? Should it know who is a sex offender?

In the latter case, state lawmakers have answered yes. Major sex offenders are required to register in their counties of residence after they complete their sentences. Their right to privacy has been lost.

The new gun law puts the burden on county sheriffs to find out whether a permit applicant is mentally competent, and it gives them very little to work from. Court commitments prior to April 8 are sealed. So the sheriffs have to rely on the answers to the four questions on the application.

A person who is mentally ill but who has never been treated could answer those questions honestly, get a permit and go out and shoot at people. Or maybe not even bother to get a permit.

Corey Schaal of the Ohio Judicial Conference points out that once people are entered into the attorney general’s database for the mentally defective, they never get out. On the other hand, anyone with a history of mental illness before April 8 may never get into the database.

Related Stories:
Profiling people who dare to seek help

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