Editorial View: Conceal and Carry Permits
Courts don't exist to cover for chickens
By Cox News Service

When issues are put off for a day — or a year — eventually the clock runs out.

So it is with the business of how much information sheriffs can keep secret about who has permits to carry concealed weapons. A new law — a dumb, patently unconstitutional law — takes effect Sept. 29.

Its history is thus: Last year the Legislature decided to put even more limits on what the public can know about permit-holders. The current law says only journalists can learn the names of those who can hide a gun in their car or under their coat. And they only are told names, ages and what county a person lives in. Reporters, for instance, can't learn home addresses or information about the kinds of guns a holder has.

The new law piles on, adding that journalists may not copy these records. Some lawmakers say that means official documents can't be put in a copying machine, but journalists can take notes about information on sheriffs' records. Others say journalists can't write anything down, but can tell whatever they can recall from memory.

Not shockingly, there's also disagreement about who's a journalist. Do you have to work for a newspaper or magazine? What if you write for a Web site or an organization that has a newsletter?

The National Rifle Association wants information about permit-holders to be kept private. Good government advocates and journalists, however, argue that it's important to be able to review permit information if only to determine whether sheriffs are doing a good job of vetting applicants.

...

Gov. Ted Strickland is basically supporting the NRA because he wants to stay on its good side.

But a law is the problem, and it needs to be fixed. Punting to the courts — when the statute is indefensible — is using judges for political cover. That's an abuse of institutions that have better things to do than bail out cowardly politicians.

Gun editorial was Misleading

The recent editorial concerning "Conceal and Carry Permits" disturbs and frustrates me. I am concerned about the overall theme, incompleteness and inaccuracies. Do the headline and last two paragraphs imply that you think Governor Strickland's position is because he is afraid ("chicken") of the NRA and is therefore "punting to the courts" for political "cover?" I disagree, but you're entitled to your opinion. Courts and judges are an essential part of our protection against poorly crafted laws. This is perhaps a better use of them, com¬pared to individual criminal prosecutions or frivolous liability lawsuits? I have my reservations about the competency of "good government advocates" and journalists to objectively evaluate the sheriff's. proper vetting of license applicants.

Media Bias on the issues surrounding guns is well documented. I'm sure that you are aware of the actions of your colleague at the Sandusky Register, who chose to "out" every license holder in his area. Irresponsible actions such as his are largely responsible for the current furor. The First Amendment does not protect yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater, nor should it allow biased media to publish, en masse, the names of law-abiding citizens who have gone to considerable lengths and background checks to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Several inaccuracies deserve clarification. It is an "Ohio License to Carry a Concealed Handgun", not a "concealed weapon permit," etc.' With respect to any other "weapon" a license holder is subject to the same Ohio laws as anyone else.

Reporters, or anyone else, can not learn home addresses for very good and obvious reasons. Sheriff's records do not contain information about the kinds of guns a license holder has, nor should they.

Thanks for hearing me out. I hope my input will cause future editorials on this, or related subjects, to be better balanced and more accurate.

John Bailey
Springfield, OH