Reporter admits he'd submit phone book to check for licensees

In the past few days, the same sorry cast of newspaper editors who helped Taft tote open records water in the first place, and who were given access to the concealed carry license database in the HB12 Conference Report, have issued editorials complaining that it's still not enough.

They want the public to have access, saying no criminal would be smart enough to use the database to assess their ability to defend themselves. But a stalker did just that to actress Rebecca Shaefer in the early 90's, prompting Federal legislation privatizing driver's license and license plate info.

We've often used the analogy that open records would allow a reporter to harass a sheriff's office with gargantuan jobs like researching every name in a phone book to find out who has CCW licenses (and guns). Some have thought us silly. But this reporter has just admitted he would do just that if the bill had been written to Taft's liking.

Gun bill shot down by an unlikely bullet

Dec. 14, 2003
By Jim Siegel

Hard to believe that after years of debate over training, trigger locks, affirmative defense, fingerprinting, vehicle and building restrictions, and gun permits for fugitives, the issue that may bring down the gun bill -- public records -- wasn't even brought up until November.

Gov. Bob Taft plans to veto the concealed handgun bill because it does not do enough to open permitting records to the public. Lawmakers agreed only to allow journalists -- a loosely defined term -- to obtain those records, if they ask for specific names.

Those opposed to making those records completely public say that illegal firearms dealers could get a ready-made list of gun owners, allowing them to break into those homes and steal guns.

But not only does this elevate these criminals to a level of sophistication they very likely do not possess, it also assumes they would be willing to risk breaking into homes to steal one gun at a time.

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

Another argument, used more often, was expressed by Speaker Larry Householder: "If you look at the intent of concealed carry, it's that the criminals don't know who is carrying. When you do full disclosure, it goes against the intent of the bill."

But this argument doesn't mesh with the types of situations where advocates argue carrying a gun is necessary: a carjacking, an assault, an attempted rape, or an armed robbery. There are often crimes committed against random people, so it's difficult to understand how, if permit records are public, a criminal would know whether or not they are about to carjack someone who is carrying a gun under their coat.

Of course, as a reporter, I'm admittedly biased when it comes to public records.

County sheriffs, who are responsible for holding permitting records, really should have been concerned about how the public records issue was ultimately written. Lawmakers crafted scenarios where journalists could check if people involved in specific crimes had a concealed-carry permit. This certainly would happen.

But here's my scenario: I want to get the most accurate figure possible on the number of residents in my county who have concealed-carry permits so I can cross-check the names with court records to ensure no criminals are getting guns (as was happening in Florida). So I write up a two-sentence cover letter, staple it to the phone book, and hand it to my local sheriff, who, under the bill, has no choice but to check every single name.

Sound ridiculous? Maybe. Sound like a lot of work for my local sheriff's office? You bet. But if permitting records are open, I simply ask for the full county list and a sheriff's office staffer prints the entire database -- a five-minute process.

Of course, none of this will matter unless the Senate decides it wants to override the governor's veto. Householder already has said his chamber will do it.

Maybe it was the late hour, but after the gun vote last week the often-smiling Senate President Doug White became noticeably more irritated with the situation the longer he talked about it with reporters.

His caucus passed a gun bill in June that Taft was willing to sign, but the House wouldn't go along. Then, after Taft came up with a new public records requirement, White's caucus was ready to approve that too. Again, the House said no.

White took a beating this year from gun advocates for refusing to name members to a joint committee that would out a compromise. Then suddenly in late October, White suddenly named himself and two others to the committee.

But even this was done under some duress. Reportedly Householder was refusing to name House members to a committee dealing with an MR/DD bill that was a top priority to the Senate until White named his members to the gun bill committee.

The legislature will have to the end of 2004 to decide on a veto override. A year is a long time, and it's possible that override could be traded for a favor at some point. But for now, White doesn't appear to be in any mood to fix a situation the Senate already had worked out -- twice.

Jim Siegel is the Gannett Columbus Bureau Chief.