Reply #9: The links to the actual concealed weapons list don't work ...

[spin]

Fortunately!!!

The paper argues that the concealed firearms list should be available.

Lawmakers have not given any credible reasons why they think permit holders should be treated as a special class of citizens, and why it's in the state's interest to keep the information secret.

Strickland said it was a privacy issue. If Ohioans accept that explanation, what other government information should be kept private? The names of donors to political campaigns? Don't donors have a right to privacy?

Should marriage licenses be private? Divorce records? Land transactions? Salary information for public officials? Don't all of the individuals with government transactions in these areas deserve privacy?

And if privacy is the issue, why did lawmakers make the information available to journalists? They've given no credible reasons why they created a second special class of Ohioans when they decided only journalists would be allowed to know who has a permit to carry a hidden gun.

This is a very slippery slope.

Allowing government to arbitrarily decide what it will make public -- and what it will not make public -- is a dangerous precedent. Redfern and Strickland should be leading the charge to correct the mistake that was written into the concealed-carry law and make this information subject to disclosure just as most publicly generated information is made available to anyone who requests it.

In its present form, the conceal-carry law provides no public checks and balances to assure the gun program is being carried out responsibly. If a sheriff's office accidentally approves a permit for someone unfit to have a gun, the public will never know that because Redfern and a majority of lawmakers have decided the information should be kept secret.

This isn't about a newspaper's right to know, Mr. Redfern.

It's not about privacy, Gov. Strickland

It's about the public's right to know. It's about open government. It's about what is right.

We know you're both too bright not to understand this, and we're very disappointed you don't have the courage to stand up and do the right thing.
http://www.sanduskyregister.com/register-viewpoint/2007/jun/10/taking-aim-public-record

Obviously there is a counter argument.

Two and a half years ago, when readers of the Sandusky Register in Ohio opened the paper on June 25, 2007, many were shocked to find their name, age and county of residence published alongside those of nearly 2,700 other law-abiding private citizens. At the top of the page read only the title, “Sandusky County Concealed Carry List“, accompanied by a menacing graphic with the words “Conceal Carry: Who Needs to Know?” cunningly framed around a gun’s scope. While the page offered no other content or context whatsoever, the lack of such more than set the tone. It may as well have been headlined, “Hey – Fear These Scary Gun-Toting People.”

***snip***

In Ohio, such information is considered confidential and not generally meant to be of the public record. The statute reads in part that “no person shall release or otherwise disseminate records that are confidential under this division unless required to do so pursuant to a court order.” That would otherwise imply that it is against the law to publish it in your newspaper. But in Ohio, language now known as the “media access loophole”, found in Ohio Code 29, Chapter 2923.129 Immunity under section (B)(2)(a), was ambiguous enough to provide the newspaper with a way around the law. That portion of the statute provides that a journalist is permitted to make a written request to a sheriff to view the information, and indicates that the request shall state that disclosure of the information sought would be in the public interest. It further states that “the journalist shall not copy the name, county of residence, or date of birth of each person…”

The provision was intended for instances where a single record might be pertinent to review as check and balance, such as in the aftermath of an actual shooting occurrence, or to verify that training is being properly conducted. As it turned out, the words “shall not copy” apparently aren’t clear or strong enough to exclude a journalist from writing down every one of the records in his notes, or from speaking them into a recording device.

And with that, Mr. Westerhold seized upon that last bit of the language to justify publishing all 2,600 plus records. In the name of public interest and government transparency, of course.

In a follow-up editorial he published only two days later, “It’s about the secrets, not about the gun owners“, Westerhold insisted the newspaper was “taking a stand against government secrecy.” Somehow, the editor felt that the local government trying to protect the privacy, security and Second Amendment rights of its citizens was being secretive.

Many local residents, citizen activists, associations and business owners were outraged and wrote letters to the editor. Others spoke out and tried to convey to Westerhold the dangerous consequences of his actions. As National Rifle Association spokeswoman Ashley Varner explained, newspapers that publish this information are putting innocent people at unnecessary risk.

There are women who are hiding from abusive husbands or boyfriends. These are single women who may be afraid of stalkers, people who have been attacked previously and are threatened with repeat attacks…People with licenses are the most law-abiding citizens in our country. Less than 2 percent are involved in criminal activity. Criminals do not go through background checks to obtain guns.

And even Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, a Democrat, explained at the time,

Knowledge of who possesses a concealed carry permit may put permit holders at risk of theft attempts,” according to a reply from Strickland’s office to questions about the secrecy provision…(It) may also put those who are not permit holders in greater danger because criminals could know they are not carrying a weapon to defend themselves.

***snip***

This issue raises very rational objections. Aside from the obvious – these are law abiding citizens who have a Second Amendment right to carry a gun and have gone through the proper registration process to carry it on their persons and in their homes – there are other reasons for privacy concerns. Victims of crime and domestic violence take extra precautions to protect their privacy, and some are likely to be carrying a gun. It’s dangerous to publish any information that would tip off abusers to their victims’ locations, much less their armed status. Others, such as crime witnesses and law enforcement officers are also put at risk when their information is exposed. And citizens of course are put at risk of being burglarized by those seeking to steal guns.emphasis added
http://bigjournalism.com/libertychick/2010/03/02/are-you-packing-heat-your-local-newspaper-may-be-planning-to-out-you/