Sunday, February 05, 2006

Packin'

Do you have your concealed carry permit? Do you care if journalist have access to the names of CCW permit holders? According to the Cincinnati Enquirer:

A proposed state law says concealed-carry license holders who fear a criminal attack can limit access to their names by journalists.

House Bill 347 also would allow people to shoot from cars or boats in self-defense, repeal a requirement that weapons be in plain sight in cars, reduce penalties for placing a weapon under a car seat and strike any local laws restricting the sale and possession of firearms.

During a House hearing on the bill last week, the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police, in written testimony from its legislative counsel, John Gilchrist, questioned the proposed elimination of access to gun license details by news organizations. Gilchrist argued for broader public access.

"The association believes that instead of denying access to journalists, the legislature should make CCW (concealed-carry weapon) licensee records open to the public," Gilchrist said. "Open records would allow citizens to review a gun incident and then determine if a licensee was involved. In this way, we can determine statistically if the CCW law has indeed made Ohio a safer place as proponents contend."

Without such information, he said, the public and press are unable to check how well the law is working.

Proponents of House Bill 347 argue some newspapers have been reckless in reporting permitholder names and that publishing details invites the theft of weapons from homes or cars.
(
source)

I've been meaning to get my permit, but haven't set aside time to do so. I'm going to do it this week. I'll blog all about the process. It should be fun. Oh, I don't care if journalists have access to the fact that I've received a permit. These records should be public. Hell, voting records are public, why not these?

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Oh boy. I've heard stories about the little woman getting a handgun for Xmas, but this photo really brings it home. Live by the sword, die by the sword: public access to the names should be readily available. If you fear retribution, then you've probably done something you shouldn't, even if it's just appearing to be threatening, based on FEELING threatened.

I've been in an armed robbery, bound and gagged, and momentarily convinced that I was going to be shot in the back of the head. Accordingly, I:

1) prayed for my soul and said if this is my time, I'll be ready.
2) prayed that someone would be available for my elderly parents,
3) saw that the robber was about 18-19, and if caught would probably be sentenced to death or life in prison and he was SO young.
4) in a flash, saw that my lifelong politics were correct and they hardened in my heart: we are a violent, nasty culture settled by rejects, oddballs, and criminals from other countries, and that includes the people on the Mayflower who just couldn't fit in. Oh sure, we romanticize it and talk about independent spirits, etc. but it's not that pretty. In what I thought were my last moments, I fervently wanted all guns banned; oh sure, I could be stabbed to death, but the killer would have blood on his hands, literally - a more personal connection at least and it might spark remorse in someone.

But doesn't she look Ford model type cute and dangerous? Little black wrist bands and the "I dare you" posture. I could sit on her and do her in (yes, I am a largish woman......).

My final comment is that, if you see Charlton Heston talk about this stuff (Michael Moore's movie) or address the NRA, you just know that he's anticipating a race war type show down even though he won't say it and regrets that it might be. He's just sure of it since he lived in LA all those years and feared the invastion of the little brown people. Wacka, wacka - wonder if there was a Heston on the Mayflower?

the delegate with the white fist said...

Yes, those records need to be made public, especially for the protection of criminals or would-be criminals.

You see, if a criminal/would-be-criminal knew that a person is a licencee of conceal and carry, there is a greater chance that the criminal/would-be will deter from committing crime on that person so easily.

Speaking of guns, has anyone asked Mayor Mark Mallory about his school grade from the NRA, being that Cincinnati is a city of conceal and carry? Did whites have their right minds on the day that they voted for Mallory for mayor of Cincinnati? Nope!

You see, Mallory is an arch-enemy of the NRA, and that's why they gave him a grade ''f'' while he was the Ohio State Rep (Nothing's changed, they know he hasn't changed just because he's mayor, so the ''f'' remains.).

Now look at this next irony. Since whites possess more firearms than blacks (Whites love to exercise their 2nd amendment right. Remember Northside's gun march September 28, 2003?), what idiots they were to vote for a black man who is an enemy of the NRA and thus, an enemy of the 2nd amendment, and thus, an enemy of whites who conceal and carry. And whites have the nerve to talk about blacks voting or not voting, when they voted against their own freedom. Typical of whites. Typical, so typical of them.

But then again, as they tell blacks who don't/didn't vote, ''...don't complain, you have no right to complain.'', now they have to digest thoroughly their own words. I hope they puke up Mallory's name, so that they will see what fools they are for talking about blacks!

I mean, if whites are for conceal and carry, the right to bear arms, and the right to feel secure about their persons, homes, and etc..., they should have voted for Pepper. At least David Pepper believed in burning the flag and was and is a friend of the NRA.

Reginald Van Gleason IV said...

To Terry Summers,

Please please, in the name of god please, take an adult education writing course before you publish another long winded,confused, rambling,incoherent disjointed diatribe.

-Reginald Van Gleason IV

Anonymous said...

Whats with the CONCEAL AND CARRY, why not just carry exposed. Let the old west prevail. Walk down the street with your piece exposed and let crimminals know exacly what you are wearing. Concealment is cowardice. So you are a brave with your concealed weapon to spring out on the crimminals at any moment, big man. Most folks who want to conceal are cowards with or without a gun.

Anonymous said...

Gee this will probably never get read but here it goes:

The reason why people oppose publishing the names of CCW applicants is many but here are a few:

Domestic violence....you think that piece of paper is going to do you any good? Apply for a temporary permit after going into hiding and then bam!! Hubby finds your name and address in the paper.

Criminals...currently Canada requires all gun owners to register their firearms, there list is supposed to be for "official use" only. Guess what, criminals are paying government employees for the names and are robbing their homes of firearms (safes or no safes" Chances are if you have one gun, you might have another.

Why don't we publish in the paper the names/addresses of sex offenders, drunk drivers, felons, etc.? Makes more sense....these people are actually criminals. CCW holders are not criminals.

Ohio has always had a open carry law....if you want to strap a gun on your hip be my guest. Try walking down the street and after being arrested for one of the following:

"Brandishing" "Public nuisance" and "Inducing Panic"....my personal favorite.

The deterrence factor of carrying concealed is thus:

You don't know if the person you are about to rob, rape, or murder is carrying a firearm....and have to take your chances accordingly.

Open carry invites someone to walk up behind you and shoot you in the back of the head....end of story.

But I digress....just keep on believing that the tooth fairy or the police will protect you. As for me I applied, went thru the training (redundant as I am former military), and got my permit. I carry not because I am looking for trouble, but because trouble may be looking for me.