Permitting a standard of secrecy

Maine’s Legislature is set to consider emergency legislation to “ensure the confidentiality of concealed weapons permit holder information.”

Or, in plain language, the draft bill is seeking to conceal the identities of anyone who holds a state-issued concealed weapon permit.

The legislation, presented by Rep. Corey Wilson, R-Augusta, is co-sponsored by 57 Republican lawmakers and four Democrats.

That’s a whole lot of support for this knee-jerk bill, knee-jerk as in the Webster's definition: “reacting in a readily predictable way.”

It is pre-emptive legislation prompted, as the leading sponsor has admitted, by a controversial move by The Journal News of New York in December to publish all handgun permit holders in two New York counties following the mass shooting in Newtown, Conn.

So, because a New York suburban newspaper published a list of names under that state’s public access allowances Maine is going to ding public access here?

That is, apparently, the idea.

Rep. Wilson told the press that he can’t think of any reason why law-abiding citizens, who have had to pass background checks as part of the permit application process, should have their permits made public.

Does he believe the same confidentiality protections should apply to law-abiding licensed contractors in Maine, many of whom must undergo background checks to work in sensitive industries?

Does he believe the same for law-abiding teachers who must undergo background checks to work in our schools?

What about police officers, who are law-abiders certified to enforce our laws?

There are dozens of law-abiding permit, license and certificate applicants required to undergo background checks across the state. And, so what?

The results of a permit applicant’s background check does not appear on the permit; the public doesn’t have access to those details. We must assume, based on the issuance of the permit, that the holder is a lawful, upstanding citizen.

Isn’t that a good thing?

The public has an absolute right to know who is holding a special state-issued permit and what the holders are permitted to do.

We should know, for basic accountability, who is permitted by various state departments to spread certain toxins for pest control. And who is licensed to design and build our schools. And who is permitted to provide home care to our disabled. Who is licensed to perform surgeries, who is licensed to represent us in court and who is licensed to calculate our taxes.

There's some interesting irony worth noting, too.

The bill was submitted at the request of the Sportsman's Alliance of  Maine, a respected nonprofit that promotes gun rights and responsible conservation of Maine's natural resources.

It's also an entity that has fought hard to keep the names and addresses of hunting license holders in the public domain so it can find new potential members, and now it wants to conceal weapon permits? Isn't that a double standard?

There's one more thing.

A reading of the bill indicates that its primary purpose is to protect against identity theft.

The real curiosity in the proposed legislation is that some of the very same personal information that more than 60 lawmakers are attempting to shield with this bill is public in accident reports, in court records, and tens of thousands of other public documents, so is this the first step in a journey toward total secrecy?

We hope not.

But, never mind that the bill tilts toward government secrecy, it is also poorly written.

The proposal suggests that personal information about a concealed weapon permit holder, such as "name, full current address and date of birth," should be confidential for the "well-being of the permit holder and the holder’s family."

Under current law, though, permits don’t contain dates of birth. The only required information is name, address, physical description of the permit holder, signature, and dates of issuance and expiration.

Other than a physical description, that information is as benign as what appears on an open burn permit for backyard cleanup, which is, rightfully, a public document.

The more detailed information of a concealed permit holder’s identity that might draw the attention of an identity thief is already protected under a heavy shield of confidentiality applied to the permit application, including date of birth, nonconviction and juvenile criminal history, a person’s history of drug use and mental disorders.

So, what we really have here is a heavily co-sponsored bill that employs the frightening threat of identity theft just because a New York paper published information obtained from public documents.

It’s knee jerk and, while sometimes a healthy jerk of the knee can feel really good, this is not good legislation.

This is merely feel good legislation.

That’s no way to implement public policy.

The opinions expressed in this column reflect the views of the ownership and the editorial board.

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.



Mark Elliott's picture

Topic aside for a minute. It

Topic aside for a minute. It amazes me at how we get "knee jerk reaction" from a bill being submitted even before it goes to committee for discussion.......

As with any bill, the initial submission is simply an "idea" usually prompted by a citizen and sponsored by at least one rep. If it is a great idea, it will sail through unresisted. If it isn't quite good enough, it will be sent to committee for more discussion and tweeking. Many bills have been written or re-written in the hall outside committee chambers............

It only takes ONE state representative to submit a bill and start this process...I see panic every session concerning bills submitted. so far, VERY few have been assigned to committee as of yet.

Mark Elliott's picture

They talk about OUR "knee

They talk about OUR "knee jerk reacation" in wanting to protect our privacy but could care less of the knee jerk reaction, by the left, to strip us of our 2nd amendment rights after Newtown.

Don't compare us to other groups permitting process.....if they want their permits kept private, then it is THIER responsibility to DO something about we are.

Mark Elliott's picture

The comparisons used in this

The comparisons used in this editorial are absurd! Comparing the background checks of hired public employees to that of a private citizen's CCW?? Really??

 's picture

Excellent editorial

But I am troubled by the lack of privacy and the hypocrisy and inconsistency in how privacy is defined. Given the huge amount of government data that is publicly available for the moment I propably fall on the side of not exempting CWP information. But I would love to see a wide ranging public discussion of why some data is confidential and some is public.

RONALD RIML's picture

When the State grants a Permit - it must be Public knowledge.

Anything less is secrecy beneath the law.

Jim Cyr's picture

The State GRANTS ?

The 2nd amendment grants the permit and God given at that !

 's picture

Demonstrates the lack of substance in support of this.

God? You jest! Not one word of the constitution gives every citizen the right to carry any weapon of their personal choice. And God for certain has not spoken on the issue of Maine CWP's.

Mark Elliott's picture

john....we are BORN with all

john....we are BORN with all our rights, hence "god given". Our constitution merely protects the few that have come under scrutiny by those that wish to take them away in the past.

 's picture

First, there is no God, thus they can't be god given

Nothing in the Constitution says those rights are God given. The Constitution protects those few rights that the British abridged in the runup to the Revolution. 9th Amendment agrees that those are a few rights.
Our rights are derived from our conciousness a property that up to now seems unique to human beings. We may soon find that that is arrogance.
But I have to agree that we were born with our rights they are not derived from government.

Mark Elliott's picture

There may not be a god in

There may not be a god in your world and you are welcomed to believe that but i never claimed the constitution said "god given". I merely said we are born with our rights, which you agree to, HENCE, meaning "this is why WE use", the term "god given". You however, are welcome to say "birth rights" if you like. Same thing.....

 's picture

I agree to you comment

You didn't say the constitution said god given. I use natural rights. But no big difference.

Zack Lenhert's picture

OMG! They published a list of people that own guns!..with a map even! YOU may be on this list! Are they coming for your gun?

Mark Elliott's picture

If moose hunters choose not

If moose hunters choose not to stand up and push back, that is their right to do so.....

 's picture

My point

The current CWP debate is hysteria not policy.

RONALD RIML's picture

Coming for your Gun??? No - the Moose make you

bring it out to them.

Dave Ricker's picture

Permitting a Standard of Secrecy

This editorial has nothing to do with government secrecy and everything to do with gun control. It is the anti-gun left who want's government secrecy to the end of public domain. The words secracy and knee-jerk feel good are intended for no other reason than to disparage concealed carry permit holders and the Republican law makers who are trying to protect their identities.

After The Journal News published the names of permit holders; 2-3 of the residences were targeted by burgelers for the very reason they new where to find fireasrms. However when approached the paper's editors would not agree to post signs in their front yards identifying them as non-gun owners. I ask; are the editors of The Sun Journal willing to put signs in their front yards thereby outing them as anti-firearm advocates?

Not only does The Journal News have a 1st Amendment right, but more importantly by the time one gets to be an editor one is suppose to understand the potential effects and ramifications of making certain data public. Neither The Journal News, The Sun Journal or any other news paper has the right to publish data tantamount to crying fire in a crowded theater.

Outing permit holders is just one weapen being used by the left to wage war on the 2nd Amendment. The 4th Amendment gives citizens; "the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects ..." Publicly outing permit holders feloniously takes on a right that even the U. S. Government doesn't have.

If editors want to help secure our society; why not take a stand for reasonable restrictions on violent video games? Why not publish a map indicating homes where violent video games can be found? Why not out parents who allow their children to spend untold hours killing innocent bystanders and law enforcement?


 's picture


"After The Journal News published the names of permit holders; 2-3 of the residences were targeted by burgelers for the very reason they new where to find fireasrms." This totally meaningless. How many burglaries could be expected in that area had the list not been published. We don't know. The author of the comment does not know. Perhaps 2-3 burglaries, which came from blog comments not research by the newpaper, is fewer burglaries than could reasonable expected. Perhaps its more. Nothing except the hysteria of survivalists suggests this is a problem.
Why should editors take a stand against violent video games? What evidence is there that video games contribute in anyway to violent crimes? Its a long way from killing a make-believe monster or man and killing a real one.
What we have here is a rant based not on reasoned argument but finger pointing at anyone or thing other than what the author has an emotional attachment to.

Dave Ricker's picture


That 2-3 burglaries took place because this map locating homes with firearms was published in the J. N. is TOTALLY MEANINGFUL as that very point was made by the burglars after arrest.

AMERICA, tha Greatest Nation Evah, has a 2nd Amendment for a reason. The Founding Fathers knew the new government they had just created could decline, as many others have, into tyranny. Tyrants have down through history especially since the founding of AMERICA and going all the way back to antiquity have disarmed their citizens. The U. S. CONSTITUTION is tha Most Sacred Document Evah conceived by the mind of man. Hence the desire to protect the 2nd Amendment is PATRIOTISM and the anti-gun crowd are the ones fueled by hysteria.

There can be no good come from violating the rights of law abiding citizens by publishing their names for doing what is legal. Only when a citizen breaks the law should his name be published. This name publishing is just another attack on law abiding citizens by the bullies on the left that have to bully because they are on the tyrannical side of this issue.

Guns do not cause citizens to kill other citizens. Citizens cause guns to kill. Therefore is it not citizens that are the problem? At 60 years of age I can remember items in the news in the late 60's how violence on the screen was contributing to violence in society. As that was so then; how much more so is it today with violent video games where the participant no longer merely views, but actively participates in for hours on end?

Last year Chicago collected over 1,700 firearms through arrests and search warrants, yet prosecuted less than 96% of firearms violations and this from a mayor who wants to sue or deny opporating capital to firearms manufacturers. Chicago refuses to initiate new laws which have a proven track record of reducing crime; such as the stop and frisk law put into place by a Republican mayor in N. Y. city. Why is the mayor of Chicago not mandating that the Distract Attorney's office prosecute more firearms violations?

I would like to invite Mr. Albreceht to put aside the emotionalistic arguments of the left and look only at the facts as he will then see that gun control is less about controlling crime and more about controlling the citizenry. This is tyranny!!!

Tyranny: Man's attempted usurpation of GOD's Sovereignty.


 's picture

Mr. Ricker, you tried too hard

The burglars are meaningless. That a few people use a published list to committ crimes is not a significant problem. If they would have committed the crimes without the list. Which I suspect they would have. Second there is no evidence any of this happenned. All of this comes from stories told in a blog i.e. rumors. Unreliable in the extreme. When we see charges and convictions. then maybe.
Paragraph 2. Simple nonsense. The Founders doubted the Constitution would be adopted, not that once adopted it woud decline. They were more concerned that the South would split from the North and align itself with a foreign power or that Vermont or Rhode Island would. Which would have produced waring nations on the North American continent. Madison solved the problem of Republics declining and that was built into the Constitution. As our existence today after civil war, depressions, grave foreign wars proves.
The US is not the most sacred document. Nothing sacred about it. But it is the most unique, successful, brilliant Constitution produced by the mind of man. Too bad you don't appreciate it for what it really is. You merely put it on a pedastal because you think you must. If you don't undestand the 2nd Amendment for what it really is how can you protect it. You obviously have not read the Heller decision by the most conservative court since the Taney court before the Civil War. While I disagree with some of Scalia's decision its one of the best expositions of the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment ever done (I would rate the 5th Circuit Court's decision higher but Scalia's is right up there).
Paragraph 3. You obviously don't know the laws of Maine. FOAA makes almost everything public. I'm waiting on information from my state representative to make certain that I am accurately reflecting Mane law. But any license, permit, or other action of goverment should be public.
I saw the same things about violent TV. I don't know that I have seem anything that is scientifically definitive. An association may exist and it should be pursued. Even if it does. That's not a silver bullet. Its not the only answer. Our job is to find ways that will prevent a man standing in a school room with multiple guns committed to taking his own life and the lives of others present. If we can't prevent him from getting in then we must make certain that no matter what he does the damage is minimized. That the time people have to flee, resist, fight back is maximized.
Your last paragraph. If your figures are right and vitually all the figures that have come from the NRA are wrong. I'll leave it to law enforcement folks to comment except to say that have you ever heard of plea bargaining. The prosecutor gets the guy on the really bad charge and drops the charges that less significant. Or they drop state charges so that Federal charges for the same crime can be prosecuted. The guy still goes to jail. Also gun charges are often very vague to the point that they can't successful be prosecuted. This was the problem with Fast and Furious. The Federal straw puchaser law required proof of intent. So the law was unenforceable except as back of a wide ranging investigation where you could document crimal organizations "ordering" a straw purchaser to buy specific weapons. That doesn't happen to often.
It isn't tryanny at all. God is not sovereign. You are. I am. We delegate powers not rights to government. We participate in that government through voting, donations, participation in governmental actions. And we must abide by the decisions of that goverment even if we disagree and I do often. But that is our obligation under this most unique Constitution. That is our first patriotic duty.
I appreciate your comments.

Dave Ricker's picture

Mr. Albrecht, You tried too hard to misconstru

The fact that the burglars targeted the homes they did was made as plain as the nose on your face on the news. You have to watch FOX if you want anything more than koolaid.

I said nothing of existing Maine law. I did say that CWP holders should have their identities kept confidential so as to protect their privacy. Let's face it the only reason that anyone would want this info would be to harass and bully law abiding citizens who are obeying our laws. The leftists just want to bully and intimidate people with guns, as the left is scared to death of an armed citizenry because the left is anti-AMERICAN.

If you go back and read the Congressional Record for the Constitutional debates; you will find a great many daily prayers recorded there. These prayers were offered because the vast majority of delegates were devote Christians. Not all, but most. Divine counsel was sought and the Most Sacred Document Evah resulted. So as a devote Christian I love and appreciate my Constitution for just what it is. Our Glorious, Almighty, Creator GOD gave AMERICA, tha Greatest Nation Evah, to the Founding Fathers as an inheritance for religious freedom. The Constitution is their last will and Testament.

Tigm to tend my stove. Stay warm my friend.


 's picture

Religion in Early America

I've been studying religion in Dixfield Maine from 1800-1860 for the past several years. I've transcibed the Congregational Church records from 1806 - 1868 and The Universalist Church Records from 1837 - 1846, read the First Baptist Church records from 1793 -1860. Read the diaries of early ministers like Perrigine Sessions (LDS) covering his missions to Maine, the diary of Daniel Storer of Carthage, and others. I have much more to do.
The conclusions are obvious. Between 1800-1825 there is minimal religious activity in rural Maine. Services are held in School buildings and homes. Services are very general. Often people of all denominations attend the same service. Denominations share meeting houses. The Congregationalists and Presbyterians have a Union agreement from 1801 to 1837. A few devote citizens are very active most are not (prior to 1825 less than 10% of heads of households attend any meeting. The Second Great Awakening changes all that. The ministry of Charles Grandison Finney radically changes religion in Northern States. That comes to Maine with the LDS Church 1833-1843, Church of Christ, Millerites (1840-1843), Chochanites in the Saco River Valley, and other groups. The emphasis changes from a God centered religion to a Christ centered religion.

Dave Ricker's picture

Obvious Conclusions?

Mr. Albrecht, my friend:

Please excuse my tardiness but had a computer problem and could not access this site and respond.
GOD and CHRIST centered seems elusively vague.

I read in the words of the Founding Fathers a strong Biblical world view. This includes a focus on GOD the Father, the SON and HOLY SPIRIT. Just exactly how LDS views religion in rural Maine as compared to urban Maine and the rest of AMERICA, tha Greatest Nation Evah, may vary a bit from the mainline.

I personally disagree with LDS on a small few points, but do agree with far more. However, when one reads such books as "America's GOD and Country" by William J. Federer and The "Making of AMERICA" by the National Center for Constitutional Studies, and "Faith of Our Founding Fathers by Tim LaHaye; we find that at the founding of AMERCA and for at least the next 30 years AMERICA, tha Greatest Natio Evah, had a strong Christian Consensus. This was a byproduct of the 1st Great Awakening which took place from the 1730s-60s and is well documented by Tocqueville. No such consensus could possibly be built without a minimum fundamental understanding of the whole scriptures.

Alas; how did we ever deviate from making CWP holders? With the advent of The Journal News debacle we can safely assume that the political left will embark on a vast campaign to out CWP holders in it's war on the 2nd Amend ment.

Therefore, all who love AMERICA, tha Greatest Nation Evah, must love the Constitution, must love the 2nd Amendment and fight for the right of all citizens to the weapon of choice for personal protection as government has no idea what self protection situation in which a citizen will find himself.

The problem here is not firearms, but criminals and the mentally ill and even more importantly an extreme left wing president that has said he doesn't believe anyone should be able to own a gun.

Tigm ta tend tha stove & get out shovel.

Be well my fried.


 's picture

Sometimes its how you come at things.

Mr. Ricker,

I've read "Faith of Our Founding Fathers by Tim LaHaye". Its not a history book. Mr. LaHaye is not a historian. I can point out any number of huge leaps of logic that Mr. LaHaye makes that are not supported by any facts even his own. Almost always questions of prespective need to be answered. Someone might say that the community fully supported idea 1. But if you check only 10% of the community did. This is the situation with early American religion. For example during Colonial times 1770's less than 10% of Virginian males ages 21+ attended Sunday services (Anglican) altough every on of them was enrolled in the church. Contrary to Mr. LaHaye you can count on one hand the members of the Constitutional Convention who were Christian in the sense of today's Christians. I did using Mr. LaHaye's book and info - 4. Or you could read Lyman Beecher's autobiography and look at the sermons he wrote or mentioned that were from the New Testament, almost none, yet he was a critical, leading Congregationalist, Calvinist preacher from 1798 - 1863 and probably the leading figure in the 2nd Great Awakening. Or my Dixfield research at most 100 families out of 437 attended services with any frequency before 1830. Under Calvinism, salvation was by grace not by works (I have an entry in Daniel Storer's diary of Cartage that uses exactly those terms). Calvinism was well designed to appeal to aristocratic societies for it confirmed social position was by God's will and static. After the revolution, the 2nd Great Awakening was a democratic revolution against Calvinism. Now you could be saved by your own works; revival was possible, perfecting the human being was possible (The center piece of the Finney revivalism which later created within Methodism a perfection movement and that lead to all the 19th century social movements - anti-slavery, temperance, women's rigts, etc.Calvinism as practiced in Amerca was God centered; revivalism Christ Centered.
The same can be said for the Journal News "debacle" as you put it. The facts are that it was no debacle. Claims that robbers were found with the list have no more reliability than rumors on internet. I read the story. The claim of robbers using the list was only in comments.
You are right that firearms are not the problem and wrong that criminals are. Most shootings are committed by perfectly law abiding citizens. But if you have read my comments you know that I oppose the assault weapons ban. First because is silly. Second because it focuses exclusively on the gun. I prefer that semi-automatic firearms be regulated under te NFA of 1934 which has been ruled constitutional and which licenses owners of regulated firearms and registers those firearms. So it first verifies that the gun owner is who and what he says he is. And then controls the gun. The NFA bans nothing.
While we disagree on much; that does not stop me from saying my best wishes to you.
And you may need the shovel Wednesday.

Dave Ricker's picture

Do not twist things

I never said that the burglars using info from The Journal News were found with the list. What I said was I saw on the news that the robbers used info from the list to locate homes where firearms could be found.

To say they were not found with the list is a slight misquoting which greatly changes the slant on the facts. In the future would you please refrain from such underhanded tactics.

If you believe more murders are committed by law abiding citizens something is wrong. One is not abiding by the law when they murder. Most murders are committed by criminals against other criminals and law abiding citizens. Far more often than law abiding citizens murdering in a fit of rage is a murder by a criminal; then there's also the mentally ill.

A federal gun registry is nothing but a list for the government to take firearms away from citizens.

President Obama said as a senator that he did not believe anyone should be able to own a gun.


 's picture

They aren't underhanded

Paragraph 1. I agree. I said that they had been reported to be found with the list. Others had reported same in these blogs but again the reports were rumors, comments in blogs, not verified. There is a slight difference in what you said but again there has been no verification that either of these reports are true. Can you imagine a burglar picking houses where they know that there are guns, people trained to use those guns, and having a willingness to use them. In fact, pro-gun folks have been arguing for decades that having guns is a deterent to robbers and home invasions because robbers won't target homes with guns. Now I think that's an over-generalization; but so is "robbers will target homes with guns".
Paragraph 3. Timing. 11000 suicides committed with guns as has been noted by several other commentors. By and large law-abiding citizens up to the minute they pulled the trigger. They aren't criminals and they weren't criminals before they committed a criminal act (Is suicide still a criminal act?). Certainly not part of a "criminal class" or career criminals. 19000 other murders with guns. Many the result of anger, jealousy, etc of perfectly law-abding citizens who lose it for just a few minutes in domestic disputes. Maine in a typical year has between 40 and 50% of its murders with guns committed this way. There is an excellent paper by a Maine student done a few years ago that details precisely that good citizens kill their loved ones as a result of a temporary domestic dispute.
Paragraph 4. Has the federal government taken any machine gun under the NFA of 1934 in the last 79 years. NO! Every machine gun legally owned is registered. None have ever been confiscated. And they can't be. No court would permit it because it violates the 2nd, and maybe the 4th and 5th amendments to the constitution.. The NRA in making this claim never refers to the US. They talk about Germany, or Russia, or some other foreign country in order to create fear. Their claim also states that it is a preclude to a despotic takeover of the government. Only such threats in Amercan history was 1934 the Businessmen's Coup in which 500,000 former WWI soldiers were to be recruited to overthrow the government. No prior gun confiscation. And Richard Nixon in 1974 I believe when Alexander Haig issued orders to US military commanders to ignore Presidential orders because Nixon wanted to retain the Presidency. Again no prior confiscation of firearms. There is no rational basis for this claim.
Now Government can by court action take a machine gun when the person owning them commits a crime. But that's true whether they are registered or not.
The point of this claim is that if you keep your guns secret the government wouldn't be able to find them. Well that hasn't been proved true anywhere. We have a very recent example. I believe it was a Mr. Schwarz in Cleveland. Arrested for selling counterfeit NFL clothing. He kept his guns secret for certain. Searches found 18 semi-automatic firearms and many extended magazines with a stockpile of thousands of rounds of ammunition. Also found plans for a mass shooting in Detroit and lots of neo-nazi literature. Oh by the way he is a convicted felon with a murder rap and should be the poster child for why the background check system doesn't work.
Or take the fictional "Red Dawn". Cuban troops invading middle America (so much for reality).The commander orders his subordinate to go to the gun store get the Federal gun puchase forms and then go to each home and confiscate their arms and arrest the people. Well whats wrong with this. First, no registration list; assumes the guns aren't registered so its no argument against registration. Second, assumes every gun in town was purchased in town. That's obviously false. Third, it assumes the gun store survives an invasion with its files intact. No invading force does anything other then immediately going house to house searching for weapons, radioes & TV's, and combatants. They don't check out the stores.
Paragraph 5. Please provide a source. I read in the NRA's Rifleman that he had which may be your source. Found out they were misquoting him. In fact, its difficult to find anything the NRA writes or says that can be verified. But I'll grant you President Obama is no friend of the criminal misuse of firearms.

Have a great day. I appreciate your comments. They force me to consider mine and I believe greatly improve their accuracy.

Dave Ricker's picture

Obama and firearms

Fact 1. Senator Obama said he didn't think anyone should be able to on a gun. That should scare the socialism right out of anyone.

Fact 2. Criminals, mentally ill or law abiding citizens? File suicides under mentally ill not law abiding citizens.

Fact: 3. Fox news, the fast growing news organization and now the largest as they are the only ones you can count on to get things right, reported burglars used map as they were there for the express purpose of firearms.

Fact 4. President Obama; despot.

Fact 5. I know of no one who believes if you keep firearms secret the government will not be able to find them. Schwarz's were found through search not registry which would just make it easier for Tyrant Obama.

If Tyrant Obama is no friend of the criminal misuse of firearms; then why does his lack of administration not prosecute more. Could the tyrant want more firearms crimes for his nefarious agenda?

Fact 6. Tyranny: Man's attempted usurpation of GOD's Sovereignty.

Fact 7. Tigm to get something to eat and lug wood. Have a nice day my friend.


 's picture

Dave, think

Fact 1: Source. Or don't you have one. As for Socialism, Obama continued more than 90% of George Bush's policies for which he has been roundly criticized by liberals and moderates for 5 years. Can't be a socialist, if the left calls him a center moderate. And he has never proposed as socialist policy. For example, the one most often sited, the Auto bailout, was first negiotiated by Paulsen under George Bush. Obama did make changes primarily by bringing in the unions and getting concessions on wages and benefits. But Paulsen proposed goverment stock ownership which is not socialism its a child of worker cooperatives and other systems where workers own part of the enterprises they work for. Ideas like 401K's fit into these kinds of systems.
Fact 2: most suicides are not mentally ill; they are people under acute stress or physical problems like cancer. Suicides are rarely mentally ill because mental illness is a system to reconcile the person to an irrational situation and therefore live. Menniger found three components to suicides - the need to kill, the need to be killed, and rage (not certain of that been a lot of years). Only the second is likely to involve mental illness. But it also doen't matter because it again is after the fact. Most suicides are surprises to the people around the person who commits suicide. They think the person was quite normal.
Fact 3. Fox news viewship has been declining for the last year. Again nothing on it is fact. Books have been written about how it is propaganda using precisely the techniques I have mentioned. One of their techniques is the recent Ted Cruz of asking a question that they know is not true but leave a completely false impression.
Fact 4: You Can't name a specific action or proposal that Obama has himself committed to is in any way contray to the US Consitution or his oath of office. Therefore by definition he is not a despot.
Fact 5: No a registry does make it any easier. Only government secrecy would and the registry is the opposite of secrecy. I did note that you couldn't answer anything I wrote. You offer me your unfounded speculation - what you think other people think to my what people have actually done.
Fact 6: You have every right to believe that, but of course all of human history and current political thought disagree with you. Nothing Obama has done in any way usurps God's sovereignty even if God is anything other than a projection of man's need to be in charge.

Take care lugging wood presents risks; I get my opportunity after 5 PM.

Dave Ricker's picture

Obama - socialist

Bush policies irrelevant, my friend.

Obama policies only relevant.

1. Obamacare.
2. Redistribution of wealth.
3. Big government.
4.Crony capitalism > Solyndra.
5. Cazrs > unanswerable to Congress.
6. Class warfare > tax the rich.
Equals rank socialism.


 's picture

Fox News?? That's an oxymoron.

I'm having my State Representative check Maine law. As far as I currently know there is no reason at all to exempt CWP from the FOAA. As for their privacy, conservatives are very selective on who has or hasn't got a right to privacy.
Excuse me. Benj. Franklin asked for a pray during the debates in the Constitutional Convention. Benj. Franklin was at best a deist at worst in your eyes a radical atheist, womanizer, and most likely a child abuser (in modern terms). He didn't believe in any god at all. Most Americans and founding fathers were nominal "Christians". But nothing like today's Christians . For example most "Christian" Churches did not believe Christ was divine. Christians then were God centered not christ centered. You need to read real history not Dave Barton's fictional history. You can believe all this stuff, but there is no truth to it.By the way the Convention never acted on Franklin's motion.

This morning at least it was please stay on the road.

JUDY MEYER's picture

We made no mention in our

We made no mention in our editorial of wanting to publish this information, only to preserve its current status as public information. Please don't suppose what Maine's press might do based on the actions of a NY paper.
And, if you search our archives, we have taken a stand against violent video games, even though buying/playing them is a lawful activity, just like applying/qualifying for a concealed permit.

FRANK EARLEY's picture

I only have one problem with this...

I could care less who knows or doesn't know who has a gun, what I would like to know is why is it that when ever there is an issue such as this, "Emergency" legislation is used to solve the problem immediately. When something comes up to help a majority of the population or the less fortunate, it drags on for ever, then gets tabled do to no one being able make a decision. If it's something potentially uncomfortable for that certain group(gun owners), it's done. If its for anyone else it takes for ever, if ever.
Everyone knows I have a car, that record is available and cars kill far more people than guns. I don't see anyone trying to block those records. I've had my gun for years, people know I have it, and I'm not sure where it's recorded. If anyone is shopping for fire arms from the list of gun owners so they can burglarize their home, they should stop and reconsider. Do they really want to break into a home with the armed owner waiting? Right now my car is in the shop, My home looks empty, if someone were to break in, well you figure out the rest. I just wish everyone would focus their energy on something that will benefit everyone for a change, and stop making mountains out of "paranoia"...

GARY SAVARD's picture

The only problem that I have

The only problem that I have with making the list of CWP holders public is that it can then be used as a shopping list for thieves that are looking for firearms instead of jewelry or electronics, etc. To compare licensing information from the State to CWPs is like apples to oranges. I have a professional license from the State, and that can be accessed on the website of the department that issues the license, but that is not the same thing at all, as I am charging for professional services, and the public should be able to verify that I am competant to do so. A CWP holder isn't charging for services related to the permit or otherwise rendering services related to same in any capacity, so why the need to make it public? I think that making this list available to anyone that wants to publicize it would have about the same usefulness as publishing a list with the names and adresses of people that have prescriptions for narcotic painkillers.

 's picture

The Heritage Foundation list of state salaries is a much

better shopping list. It ID's people who have good salaries and probably lots of toys that are easily sold. Much better target than some someone with a gun which is probably on his person ready to be used to defend his property. The shopping list idea is paranoia.

JUDY MEYER's picture

The list of CWP holders is

The list of CWP holders is already public. Has been for years, without so much as a complaint from the permit holders. What this bill proposes to do is make these permits confidential. Why? Especially since the rationale being used to sell the idea is that the records' accessibility creates an identity theft danger. The language in the bill says nothing at all about "thieves looking for firearms instead of jewelry or electronics."

GARY SAVARD's picture

I agree, identity theft is a

I agree, identity theft is a poor excuse for the bill. My concern is more about possible robbery. Public information is one thing, but publishing that information for no apparent good reason except to use up newsprint is another, and I think that this bill actually is intended to insure against that. Many things are public information if you know where to look. A person's mortgage information, liens for back taxes, etc. are public information for example, but would it serve any public interest to publish that in a newspaper? To me, there is a fine line between what is public information and what should be publicized. Just because I may need to know something to do what I do doesn't mean it should be published in print for everyone that can read to see. To say that publishing a list of CWP holders in Androscoggin County or wherever would serve any public interest is a stretch, as far as I'm concerned. If a person commits a crime, then the fact that they are a CWP holder is relevant news, but to make public the fact the the banker or accountant living up the street is a CWP holder is ...What?

JUDY MEYER's picture

The bill says nothing about

The bill says nothing about preventing newspaper publication, none of the sponsors has even hinted at preventing publication as their intended purpose for supporting the thing, nor has any newspaper in Maine (that I'm aware) seeking lists for publication. So, I do believe — with all due respect — that argument simply stirs the pot.
The bill simply deals with the status of CWP as public record, or not.
As we said in the editorial, permits, licenses and certificates should all be public as a matter of accountability because the people who hold these license are permitted to do special things — by state action — that the lot of us are not.
As an aside, hunting licenses are public record and anyone who holds one, we could safely assume, owns or had access to a gun. So, how do supporters of this bill reconcile the need to shield CWP holders to safeguard against robberies, but not do the same for hunters? Or how about wealthy doctors and lawyers? Or people who may store toxins in their barns and are licensed to spray, which may anger ag-terrorists? The list goes on ....

Greg Poliquin's picture

No newspaper in Maine would do such a thing?

"nor has any newspaper in Maine (that I'm aware) seeking lists for publication"

The statement below was posted at 1:31pm by the Bangor Daily News.

"On Wednesday, the Bangor Daily News requested data from Maine police agencies regarding concealed weapons permits in Maine"

Wake up Judith!

JUDY MEYER's picture

I'm awake.

I'm still not aware of any newspaper that is seeking the list for publication. The Bangor paper, at least as of today, is seeking the list for background reporting and its news director has said emphatically that there is no plan to publish the list.

Greg Poliquin's picture

Stop hitting the snooze button

They also state: The BDN requested the records of concealed weapons permits as part of long-term reporting projects on domestic violence, sexual assault and drug abuse.

Fact: If anyone applying for a concealed carry permit has ever been convicted ( or likely suspected) of domestic violence, sexual assault and drug abuse, they will not receive a permit. So, the BDNs main reason is phony!

If they were seriously concerned about "domestic violence, sexual assault and drug abuse" they should get the names of everyone on welfare in the state. They would actually find a correlation there!

But that wouldn't fit the lame-stream media's templet, would it?

 's picture

Completely silly

The author's fact has nothing to do with the BDN's research plans which we don't know in any case. They did not say that they wanted to know if CWP holders had been convicted of anything. They may need the information for basic statistical analysis. But the author's real views are found in the next sentence and they are disgusting.

Dave Ricker's picture

The bill says nothing about

True, but the editorial makes the point that the bill is aimed at preventing the outing of concealed carry permit holders as was done by The Journal News. This paper even went as far as to publish a map of firearms owners homes which led to 2-3 burgeleries which probably would not have happened otherwise. This of course brings us to the bottom line of gun control. It is for nbothing, but confiscation. Does Judith Meyer think that burgelers are going to volentarily turn in their firearms? Of corse not, but they will used published info to purpertrate crime; hence in the case of The Journal News they were complicit in the burgeleries as they supplied the info to the criminal element.

To publish this info concerning a certain class of citizens is mere bigotry. Anti-gun instead of anti-crime. Why can't we get down to fighting crime instead of fighting over social issues? Violent video games have far more to do with violent crime than the holders of legal concealed carry permits. Fight crime not innocent people!!!!!!


Steve  Dosh's picture

Permitting a standard of secrecy

Ed., Ash Weds evening in Hawai'i •
Right • " The public has an absolute right to know who is holding a special state-issued permit and what the holders are permitted to do, " and if they are bonded and insured . . ( just a joke )
. .We were talking about secrecy in church earlier today , Ash Weds . St. Paul said something about it in the Gospel . The whole concept just rubs me wrong in a democracy . btw - the Catholic Church is not necessarily a democracy :)
In our US Federal Govt. we had something like 6 - 7 levels of state secrets : Eyes Only , HUMINT ( human intelligence : regardoing sources and methods ) Top Secret ( TS ) , Confidential , Limited Official Use ( LOU ) , Routine & Unclassified . i forget the exact classsifications of cables ( telegrams ) and such .
btw - These ^^ classifications themselves ^^ are not a secret . It's FOIA 4.11
The whole system just struck me as a convenient way to bury mistakes and blunders , e.g., waterboarding . The kind of stuff that was " secret " was weird and the only way i could justify slapping a classification on anything was if it contain information pertaining to HUMINT where lives might be at stake or highly time sensitive information like " We just bombed Ghadafi " was the issue at hand . It's all creepy and spooky and although i worked with the C I A , i didn't work for them . i was only shot at once in anger in Guatemala . They missed
On your state level , " Or, in plain language, the draft bill is seeking to conceal the identities of anyone who holds a state-issued concealed weapon permit , " seems like a non starter to us . Who has the AK - 47s ? This is a definate , " need to know ," item on your Governor and local constable's checklist in order that they are not out gunned ? They need to know information at the very least . Right to know is the other argument here
We wanna' know what sexual offenders are moving in to or out of our neighborhood and can , right now . Maine SOR site . We'd also like to know if Mr. Exterminator has a cannon , a bomb , or was that just an M- 80 that went off , possibly ?
The 2nd amendment may call for private militias but only those that are under control of the civilian government and not just Ms. Pyro-Mainiac. Central and South America have private armies , mercenaries , and miltias
How do you think they control the cocaine and crystal meth - ice drug trade ?
Ayuh •  That's how . h t h ?  /s , Steve , Happy Valentine's Day


Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...