Today we look at a piece from the Buckeye Firearms Association, noting a troubling pattern starting to emerge.
Over the past year, there have been a few lists printed in newspapers showing the names and counties or cities of residence of people who, going the legal route, applied for and received a concealed carry permit for the state of Ohio.
These Americans have done nothing wrong, yet their names and locations were made public information, against their will, by journalists who are against the idea of gun rights or concealed carry programs.
In their crusade to ensure that only police and criminals have firearms (screaming "Police State!" and seeking to prosecute officers who tase people resisting arrest.), they have published private information about the permit holders.
Now keep in mind, while your average permit holder is a person just wanting to provide for their own self-defense in an emergency, many have been the victims of crimes. Rape, Muggings, brutal attacks, domestic violence.... victims of these crimes often choose to gain a concealed carry permit to protect themselves in the future. (Those who fight concealed carry permits are almost never the victims of a rape. No rape victim I've ever talked to suggested that in a rape, one shouldn't defend themselves.)
In a few cases, people have needed to move. One woman identified on such a list wrote to the paper, sarcastically thanking them. They were hiding from an abusive but obsessed ex, and now that it was published where she lived, she needed to move. That journalist's work made it easy for an abusive and violent ex to track down his former victim.
Here are some other examples, listed in the article:
Buckeye Firearms Association previously brought you the story of a prison guard who was tracked down by a former inmate by using a concealed carry license list published in the local paper. And when asked by the Dispatch for examples of when criminals in Ohio have used public records to go after police officers, Drum mentioned two: an Akron detective who received a bomb in the mail, and a Dayton police officer was threatened by a man who got out of prison and called his house.
"First Amendment Rights!" the journalists claim. What about this Right to Privacy that the left is all up in arms about? We have a right to privacy so that a cell phone conversation we loudly have in a restaurant or on a bus is supposedly private (Despite all of the annoyed people who can't tune out the annoyingly loud voice of the person talking on the cell phone), but a list of people who've applied for a permit to defend themselves doesn't qualify as 'privacy' ?
What names are not allowed to be published?
Well, according to the article, the names of some public employees in the state of Ohio are not allowed to be published. Also, people who've been found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol.
Break the law and drive drunk, and you're protected from shame. Get a concealed carry permit to protect yourself, and you ought to be put on a list like sex offenders. (Oddly enough, many on the left are also against lists of sex offenders.... apparently even they are held in higher esteem than firearms owners.)
There you have it. Legal gun owners, responsible enough to apply for, and receive, a concealed carry permit, to protect themselves as the Constitution grants a CLEAR right to the individual (Keep and bear) are treated as lower class than mass rapists and drunk drivers.
Is there a time when those on the left have had policies that stood for the good of America and America's responsible citizens?
At least smokers can feel better.... they're just chastised in public... their private information isn't published in newspapers.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Break the law and drive drunk, and you're protected from shame.
While they don't get their name published in the newspaper, they do get a fun, bright yellow license plate for a few years.
On a more serious note, yeah, that's not right. In fact, that's downright scary. We get postcards once in a while that show a "sex offender in your area." I'm not sure off hand if it lists their address, but it's one of those things that's good to know. It's possible that it was some idiot who screwed up or took the blame for someone else and won't do it again, but at the same time, it's possible he might do it again and it's good to at least be aware of the fact that there are people with that history around.
CCW holders, though? No. Just no. They didn't break any laws, and a number of them, like you said, have done it for their direct personal safety because they have someone that may very well want to kill them (and of course, the law won't do anything to the person until the deed is done).
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
In some states, they don't even give special plates to DUI people.
In other states, they give special plates, but they look identical to normal places, except that instead of the random letters, there are specific ones, so that they're not publically embarrassed.
Don't worry though, those journalists will make sure that you know who all the gun owners are!
I mean.... drunk drivers and child rapists... they're just misunderstood... but a legal gun owner with a special permit showing they passed enough background checks and training sessions to be allowed to carry concealed.... they are dangerous loonies!
Oh of course. *eye roll*
And I made the comment regarding the plates since your blog regarded things done in Ohio and...well...I live there....
I'm starting to question whether or not I want to get a CCW after I turn 21...
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
well, I don't know about the ohio process, but I generally suggest that it is better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
That said, it is always a personal choice.
Indeed, but I'd rather not have my personal information on display for the entire state to see, just because I got my permit and a firearm to go with it, you know? I don't have enemies like some of the people you've mentioned, but still.
Then again, it may be to my advantage, because I don't have enemies (though I still sympathize with those that do), since it would serve as a warning that if you trespass with the intent of hurting me or my family, I will do what is necessary to protect myself.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
it is a double edged sword, in many ways.
They know that you'd be armed... but they don't know who you are when walking down the street. heh.
I don't have anything on my home letting people know I'm armed. They'll find out if they ever try to break in.