| Newspaper Access to CHL Info Riddled with Hypocrisy |
|
|
|
| Written by Mike Kinsey | |
| Wednesday, 04 October 2006 | |
|
The Columbus Dispatch is reporting that the state of Ohio has denied The Cincinnati Enquirer’s request for a list of names and locations of those licensed to be foster parents. Barbara Riley, Director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, has said that making such a list public could allow threatened foster children to be located. Ohioans For Concealed Carry agrees with the logic behind this decision. People that become licensed in order to protect children from dangerous circumstances should not have their personal information made available to those that can cause harm. Thankfully, Director Riley recognizes this. It is a shame that this common-sense protection is not granted uniformly throughout the state. Those that receive Concealed Handgun Licenses are endangered every day by major newspapers in Ohio, most notoriously The Cleveland Plain Dealer, by publishing lists divulging the name, age, and location of every CHL holder in their area. There are many reasons why this information should not be made public. First, it’s a basic and blatant infringement on the privacy of law-abiding citizens. Second, it provides a shopping list for criminals that desperately want to obtain firearms. Those who oppose closing this access say that the lists would never be used in this way due to fear of confrontation. Unfortunately, burglars are known to research their targets. They will study a home’s routine and plan their invasion when occupants are vulnerable. A third reason is that publishing this private information would allow threatened license holders to be located. Does this last reason sound familiar? It is identical to the argument given by Director Riley for prohibiting newspaper access to foster parent information. Allow me to propose a scenario that is a textbook case for the need for concealed carry. Imagine a woman in an abusive relationship decides to leave her violent spouse for fear of her children’s safety. She bravely runs to a safer location and obtains a Concealed Handgun License in order to protect her family. Should The Plain Dealer regularly publish and update a constant list that tells the abusive spouse her location and the fact that she may be armed? This information completely nullifies the defensive advantage of having a concealed firearm. The attacker now knows that he should arm himself and preemptively finish a confrontation before it can begin. Why does the logical argument given for safeguarding the private information of those protecting foster children not apply for safeguarding the private information of a brave mother protecting her own children? |