If you own a gun in Illinois, take precautions. The state attorney general, Lisa Madigan, wants to release the names of gun owners in response to an Associated Press request. Publication of that list would tell the criminal class where the guns are, which could be useful to two different sorts of lawbreakers: gun thieves who want to know where the guns are and burglars who want to know where they are not.
New York City released its list recently at The New York Times' request. It included "dozens of boldface names and public figures: prominent business leaders, elected officials, celebrities, journalists, judges and lawyers," the Times reported. It then named names.
People who want the lists made public say the disclosure is necessary to assure that government doesn't issue permits to felons. They point to an AP report that gun permits were given to hundreds of felons in Florida, Tennessee and Indiana. So because government is not competent enough to obey its own rules, the rest of us must have our privacy compromised? I don't buy it.
As Richard Pearson of the Illinois State Rifle Association says: "There is no legitimate reason for anyone to have access to the information. The safety of real people is at stake here. Once this information is released, it will be distributed to street gangs and gun-control groups, who will use the data to target gun owners for crime and harassment."
Good point. One nice thing about concealed weapons is that even people who don't carry guns are safer because the muggers can't tell who is armed and who isn't. Releasing the list of permit-holders undermines that benefit. It's not unusual for a woman who has been threatened by an ex-husband or boyfriend to obtain a gun and a carry permit for self-protection. Why should the threatening male get to find out if the woman is armed?
The anti-gun lobby downplays this danger as though it were inconceivable that someone would get names off a list in order to commit violence. However, we know of cases where people named on sex-offender registries were murdered.
We also know that lawful gun owners in New Orleans had their guns confiscated by government authorities after Hurricane Katrina.
No one should be soothed by assurances that publication of those lists poses no threat to law-abiding gun owners.
Let's take this a step further. This issue is presented as one of those balancing acts: The privacy of lawful gun owners, we're told, must be balanced by the people's "right to know" and the need to hold government accountable. But the only reason that governments have lists of gun owners is that they require licenses or concealed-carry permits. The right to self-defense, and therefore the right to buy and carry a handgun (the most effective means of self-defense), should require no one's permission. It is a natural right. The Second Amendment didn't invent the right to own guns. It merely recognizes it: "(T)he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It doesn't say, "The people shall have the right to keep and bear arms."
Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming and Vermont recognize this right and require no permits to carry guns. (Montana also has this policy in all but a few urban areas.)
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court, while striking down outright bans on handguns, left room for permits. But it's hard to see how that is consistent with the natural right of self-defense.
I leave aside whether a felon who has served his sentence should be deprived of the means of self-defense because there's a more practical point: Gun laws have no effect on people who plan to break other, more serious laws. Guns are the tools of the criminal trade. If people in that business can't get them legally, they'll get them in the black market. And where there is prohibition, there will always been a black market.
The law of supply and demand is as reliable as the law of gravity.
I say we reject the premise that the state can legitimately exercise this power at all. What would Thomas Jefferson have said about gun permits?
John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at <a href="http://www.johnstossel.com" <http://www.johnstossel.com>>johnstossel.com</a>. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

|
 |
Comments
|
17 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
I've hesitated to get a conceal/carry permit just because I don't want it public knowledge that I have a gun - or to have the government of the current state I live in to know. I bought the gun legally at a gun show almost 20 years ago in a different state. I've lived in 3 other states since. I doubt anyone has kept track of my purchase. Will I get a cc permit? I don't know. Want one, but I don't trust our government not to someday soon come to take it away.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Pam
Wed Apr 6, 2011 11:15 AM
|
|
|
|
I believe that if you do the research it is ILLEGAL under Federal Law (1986 McClure-Volkmer Act) for ANY ONE - including local and state governments to retain a list of gun owners.
So how could there be a list of gun owners.
If such a thing exists I would assume that it could be a cause of action the party having the list in Federal Court.
In the state where I live the state police collect a document during a handgun purchase called something like - Request to Purchase/Record of Purchase - these documents are supposed to be used during the background check period and be destroyed after 90 days. Instead, they are simply moved to another file cabinet (these are the words of an ex- state police member) and retained. This is similar to what the state police were found to be doing with other records (particularly driver's license records) that courts ordered to be expunged. I cannot see how we can retain a lot of respect for governmental agencies that flaunt the law simply because individuals are too powerless to confront them about it.
Let's start by getting government to behave constitutionally at all levels.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Mike
Wed Apr 6, 2011 1:46 PM
|
|
|
|
I lived in a small liberal college town where the newspaper printed the names and addresses of everyone who got a pistol permit. After receiving my permit I got numerous (all anonymous) harassing calls and when I complained to the paper, they said they printed this information because it was of "public interest."
Ironically, when the same town legalized "domestic partnerships" (which I am not opposed to in any way) the town refused to release the names of people signing up for these partnerships because they feared that the people involved would be harassed. The local newspaper supported withholding this information. The double-standard in American life goes on ....
Comment: #3
Posted by: Raphael
Thu Apr 7, 2011 7:56 AM
|
|
|
|
Let them have my name. I live in Texas where we have a law nicknamed the "Castle Doctrine". Senate Bill 378 allows me to use deadly force in the defense of my home and property including my vehicle without a duty to warn or retreat. I have a sign in the front yard - Texas Castle Doctrine and 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution enforced here. I would prefer the low lifes of our society know they will have to make an extraordinary effort to take from me, so they will rethink their target and perhaps choose to prey on one of my more liberal neighbors. If Texas allowed open carry I would be even happier.
A criminal has to be desperate to car jack or assault a uniformed police officer. Why, because they are obviously armed and willing to use deadly force to defend themselves. I say let the average citizen openly wear their firearm and watch crime plummet.
The UN Office on Drugs and Crime did a study on firearm related deaths in 60 countries. The results included 15.22 deaths per 100,000 in the USA. The results also included 6.2 deaths per 100,000 in Switzerland and 3.0 per 100,000 in Israel. Odd results considering that both Switzerland and Israel provide every able bodied (and competent) male and most females with the opportunity to receive a government issued fully automatic assault rifle with high capacity magazines, extensive training in its use, and a supply of ammunition to actively participate in a fire fight.
The obvious conclusion is - a well armed and trained citizen (militia) is a safer citizen.
Comment: #4
Posted by: OldArmy81
Thu Apr 7, 2011 8:07 AM
|
|
|
|
"So how could there be a list of gun owners."
It's not a list of gun owners, it's a list of concealed carry permit holders - not prohibited by 1986 McClure Volkmer Act.
Comment: #5
Posted by: bytejockey
Thu Apr 7, 2011 8:08 AM
|
|
|
|
I hesitated for years to apply for a concealed carry permit, but finally did after an ex-policeman assured me the information held by the county that issued the permit would only be that I have a permit; it would not reveal what the weapon was. So...do as the police do, and have a back-up.
The records of gun dealers on individual gun purchases supposedly remain with the dealers and are not given to the state. If you ever hear of a proposed law requiring these records be turned over, THEN be worried. Be very worried.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Roger
Thu Apr 7, 2011 8:52 AM
|
|
|
|
I live in California, probably one of the least gun-friendly states. I really don't care about obtaining a permit, or the right to carry - I carry one anyway. I've always felt it was better to ask for forgiveness rather than permission.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Richard C. Lawe
Thu Apr 7, 2011 10:49 AM
|
|
|
|
Just to clarify. Their is no concealed carry in Illinois (sadly criminals do carry). The list is of FOID Card recipients (firearm owners identification card). Interestingly a child 9 and above can have a FOID card and many do. Are they going to release these childrens names to? Who will protect them? The police?
Comment: #8
Posted by: David Rios
Thu Apr 7, 2011 11:28 PM
|
|
|
|
I've applied for a C C , will I ever carry a pistol with me ,for now probably not, but I'm looking in the furture, there are getting more drugs,more unemployment,high gas price,goverment is letting more of our jobs overseas,without
any consideration for the American people,there are more robbies then ever before ect. People are getting more desperate .And for a State to allow people to look threw file and find out who has gun permits, should not be allowed, I do believe for those who do carry a concealed weapon,should keep in practice, or take some kind of training coarse,on a regular basic.
Gun in the hands of a citizen saves lives,and property, and yes, gun control laws affects only Law -Biding Citizens
Comment: #9
Posted by: Ray Moquin
Sun Apr 10, 2011 4:54 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: bytejockey
The story begins about the release in the state of I'LL where I reside, which does not even allow for CC. There is no permit you can apply for--unless you are off-duty law enforecement, it stays at home. They are talking about releasing lists of those who have firearms, especially pistols which require an FOID.
Comment: #10
Posted by: tom
Sun Apr 10, 2011 6:54 AM
|
|
|
|
Ok, Cops carry guns, too. Are they gonna post their addresses too? I'm just as afraid of the trigger-happy cops as I am of the Felons.
Comment: #11
Posted by: Jeff
Wed Apr 13, 2011 12:09 PM
|
|
|
|
John,
In Texas NO state gun registration is required for handguns or long guns.
So NO public records exist.
If a resident of Texas has a Concealed Handgun License the names of those are NOT made public to anyone.
There are close to 400, 000 CHL holders in the state.
You are NOT even required to let law enforcement see your CHL if you are NOT carrying a weapon.
It is totally LEGAL to carry a weapon in your vehicle as long as it is concealed, whether you have a CHL or not.
You DO have to tell the officer if you do have a weapon if you are pulled over for a traffic stop.
Having a CHL is a privilege and a big responsibility.
It entails CHL class, knowledge of laws, gun proficiency, photo, federal background check, fingerprinting. etc.
Comment: #12
Posted by: Sir Godfrey B.
Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:52 PM
|
|
|
|
Just watched this segment on Stossel's show on Fox Business. Charles N. Davis, the University of Missouri Journalism professor's response to Stossel's question asking if Mayor Ray Nagin and the New Orleans police were infringing upon the rights of the law-abiding citizens of New Orleans by taking away all the guns from law-abiding citizens after Katrina was classic totalitarianism.
The only answer Davis could come up with was, "Gun owners, look, we have to watch those who watch us." So Davis was insinuating that all gun owners are "government agents" and they need to be watched? It became clear at that moment that all Davis is interested in is infringing upon or totally doing away with the Second Amendment Rights of all Americans.
Comment: #13
Posted by: NavyVet
Sat Apr 23, 2011 7:39 PM
|
|
|
|
If we are going to publish the names of gun owners, then let's also publish the names of everyone on parole or everyone on welfare or everyone receiving social security benefits, welfare, WIC, etc. Where will it end?
Comment: #14
Posted by: whois
Sat Apr 23, 2011 11:37 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Ray Moquin
Hey Ray, you should learn to use spell check on your computer, better yet, learn to spell and punctuate.
Comment: #15
Posted by: Joe Momma
Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:05 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Pam
1. There is never to be a permanent record of ANY gun sale under Federal Law. They can use the yellow sheet to confirm transfer to a nonfelony individual and then by law must destroy that sheet within 90 days. If you get a permit, it is not tied to your weapon specifically. IF the thugs came to unlawfully collect any gun you might have you obviously sold it several years ago and have no idea who the person was as they still have no right to infringe on your owning, bearing, or selling of personal lawfully owned property. This is the lib/socialists idea of the achilles heal in the 2nd. They are going to continue to try to infringe this unalienable right and that dog is going to bite them in the butt! 5 million gun owners (NRA/GOA) is an army twice as large as China.
Comment: #16
Posted by: lfod
Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:40 PM
|
|
|
|
I agree that it is a complete invasion of privacy forthese names to be released in such a manner. Perhaps the names of everyone purchasing jewelry, high end electronics, expensive art pieces, or even Porsche automobiles should be published as well?
Perhaps the general public would have a differnt take on the situation when that happens. Unfortunately too many people are just to busy with making a living and surviving to be concerned about things that dont directly concern them, therefore only the "sheepdogs" of society are taking the situation seriously for this!
(NOTE: There is a common saying among firearms groups that there are 3 different types of people in the world, sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. The sheep are the people who go on about their lives, ignorant of the dangers of daily life. The wolves are the ones who prey upon those sheep, because its easier to do that than to make a living honetly. Then there are the sheepdogs, who go about their daily lives quietly and unobtrusively, but are willing to step in to protect the sheep from the wolves)
Comment: #17
Posted by: BWCpl Holder
Tue May 10, 2011 10:23 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|