search
top

Privatizing Permit Records Stirring Controversy

Two states now are in the mix with this issue, the first is Virginia, where the push began after the Roanoke Times published a list of all the permit holders in the state. Now that the legislature and Governor’s office are more friendly, we can finally get this done. Indiana has been in the mix for the past two months, and also is now floating a bill that would close public access to carry permits. This has to be one of the lamest defenses I’ve seen of the databases.

And what about the employer who recently fired a disgruntled employee? Shouldn’t that employer be able to discover the former worker now has a permit to carry a gun?

Public access supporters point out that gun rights advocates might be working against their own interests by shutting down access to these records.

How, for example, will they be able to prove that law-abiding citizens are wrongly being denied these permits if they cut off access to the information?

Because we know the law? Look, this isn’t a discretionary process. If you meet the qualifications, you get the permit. It’s abundantly clear if people are being denied permits unjustly. Plus, if they are denied, they aren’t going to appear in the database now are they? And why does an employer need to know whether someone has a permit to carry? Do people routinely get permits before coming in and shooting up the workplace? I mean, we can’t be carrying illegally on the way to murder people, can we?

7 Responses to “Privatizing Permit Records Stirring Controversy”

  1. surprisingly, it’s NJ law that firearms id’s/CCW’s be private.

    i wonder why bryan miller isn’t trying to over turn this?

  2. mobo says:

    There are plenty of examples where government records are kept from public view for the protection of individuals. You cannot view a list with the names and addresses of all those who receive section 8 housing assistance or food stamps, for example. I’m fairly certain that even a foia request will be denied, for the protection of their dignity.

    I wouldn’t want any potential employer to know that I have a carry permit. It might be enough to cost me employment opportunities in the future.

  3. Ian Argent says:

    The answer for the employer-in-danger is to assume *everyone* has a firearm in that case, permitted or not. The cost of a false assumption is a little less time in Condition White…

  4. Carl in Chicago says:

    In general, the reasons argued FOR this information being public are very, very poor. It’s almost like they are just throwing ideas against the wall, hoping some stick.

  5. Rob K says:

    All of these papers have not done their research at all. The all parrot the “what if people are denied wrongly” and I keep pointing them to Schubert v. DeBard, 398 N.E.2d 1339 (Ind. App. 1980) which settled that exact issue.

  6. bombloader says:

    “How, for example, will they be able to prove that law-abiding citizens are wrongly being denied these permits if they cut off access to the information?”

    Actually, I agree in a way with this. Any state that has the liberty-denying may issue system should have the permit list public. That way we can show how many of these permits are held by rich and famous people and how few are held by ordinary Joe’s. Shall issue states, it should be private.

  7. Carl from Chicago says:

    bombloader Said,
    January 21st, 2010 at 6:24 pm
    Any state that has the liberty-denying may issue system should have the permit list public. That way we can show how many of these permits are held by rich and famous people and how few are held by ordinary Joe’s. Shall issue states, it should be private.

    I disagree. There is plenty enough basis already to challenge distriminatory issue carry licensing.

    I’d be more inclined to offer the carry antagonists this deal … licensees shall be given the choice whether their information is to be public or private.

top