Legislators should ask themselves if current concealed weapons bill fills a real need

It will be interesting to see whether tempers have cooled when the legislative moratorium on public release of concealed weapons permits expires April 30. Unlikely, but it could happen if people are willing to think this through.

The extravaganza began when a northern Maine police chief let it be known, via Facebook, that he’d received a request from the Bangor Daily News for concealed weapons permit holders. Allies of the National Rifle Association went into action, with the eager assistance of House Republicans.

The outrage they tried to stir was traceable directly to the peculiar decision by a suburban New York newspaper, just weeks after the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn., to “publish” names and addresses of concealed weapons permit holders.

It was odd because the Journal News never clearly identified a reason for online release, which never appeared in print. It wasn’t genuine reporting but a data dump, and a dubious proceeding for an organization that’s supposed to provide focus and context.

The BDN request was different. As its editor struggled to explain, it wanted statistical information related to domestic violence, and concealed weapons permits are one public source. There’s no statewide database because permit applications remain with the issuing municipality.

The newspaper said it wouldn’t have released any names and addresses, and there’s no reason to doubt this. The request was filed earlier than anticipated because Rep. Corey Wilson (R-Augusta) introduced a bill that would seal permit documents.

The supposed “firestorm” that prompted rapid legislative action had all the hallmarks of a counter-offensive against the dread prospect that some sensible restrictions on firearms may finally be enacted in the wake of Newtown.

For decades, the NRA has beaten back legislative proposals that had overwhelming public support. Lately, polls show 90 percent of the public – yes, 90 percent -- supporting universal background checks for firearms purchases. People understand that allowing mentally unstable individuals to buy guns that are later used in mass shootings isn’t a vindication of the Second Amendment but a violation of basic public safety. The NRA remains unmoved.

So the BDN request may seem like a godsend to certain politicians and lobbyists set back on their heels. It is no such thing. Other than the outrage supposedly felt by concealed weapons permit holders, no one has advanced a plausible reason for sealing these records.

There are dozens of public records that would cause discomfort if someone published them en masse. Most Mainers have a speeding violation, and would be embarrassed if someone published it. Business bankruptcies, divorces, court proceedings – all contain information some would like to remain private.

Government employees would doubtless prefer that their salaries not be available on the Maine Heritage Policy Center’s website. They won’t be reassured by its proclaimed commitment to “tracking every penny of wasteful spending and fiscal mismanagement,” as if a list of salaries and benefits showed that. But no one’s suggesting these records be sealed.

What’s different about concealed weapons permits? Hard to say. For every theory that allowing public access could convince someone to burglarize a home, there’s the equally convincing argument that such knowledge is a deterrent.

One particularly delicious piece of hypocrisy comes from the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, whose executive director, former state Sen. David Trahan, leaped into the fray. Trahan accused newspapers of trying to “label permit holders … with a scarlet letter,” and said newspapers “have failed to police their ranks.” To the contrary, the overwhelming majority of newspapers commenting on the posting of permit holder names condemned it. That’s all the power newspapers have.

But what about SAM? The same organization decrying public access to concealed weapons permits makes extensive use of the state’s list of resident and out-of-state hunting permits to recruit members.

Here’s the problem – holders of hunting permits are even more likely to have firearms at home than concealed weapons permit holders, who may just want them on occasion. If it’s OK to access, and possibly publish, hunting licenses, what’s so different about concealed weapons? I don’t believe SAM can persuasively answer that question.

SAM is well known as a lobbyist for sporting interests. Who’s it defending in the concealed weapons debate? Sportsmen or the NRA?

Legislators were buffaloed into enacting the moratorium by an intense but illogical show of outrage. It won’t get any easier when the Judiciary Committee hears the bill for a permanent shutdown. But before wilting again, legislators should ask: Is there a convincing reason for this bill? Or is it just a well-crafted theatrical performance?

Douglas Rooks is a former daily and weekly newspaper editor who has covered the State House for 28 years. He can be reached at drooks@tds.net.

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 SunJournal.com, 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 SunJournal.com 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.

Advertisement

Comments

Dan Beggs's picture

Typical liberal rag material

How about some real news instead of this slanted editorial of an obviously misinformed liberal antigun reporter... and you wonder why circulation is down..

Jason Theriault's picture

How is the writer misinformed?

I'm all for a debate on the issue, but when your response is "nuh uh", it leaves very little room for anything other than "Uh huh."

How is it slanted, and why do you think this information should be kept under wraps?

Jason Theriault's picture

Is BDN was showing exactly why this should be out there.

Is BDN was showing exactly why this should be out there. They were double checking on the Government.

I've replied here a few times about this. What it comes down to is you should have a really good reason to keep information secret. But, since my words seem to lack weight, I will let others do the speaking for me:

“The basic purpose of FOIA is to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed.”
United States Supreme Court in NLRB v. Robbins Tire Co., 437 U.S. 214, 242 (1978)

“Let the people know the facts, and the country will be safe.”
Abraham Lincoln

“Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their government, for whenever things go so far wrong as to attract their notice, they can be relied on to set thing right.”
Thomas Jefferson

“When information which properly belongs to the public is systematically withheld by those in power, the people soon become ignorant of their own affairs, distrustful of those who manage them, and — eventually — incapable of determining their own destinies.”
Richard M. Nixon

The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
John F. Kennedy

ERNEST LABBE's picture

What does a

What does a concealed weapons permit have to do with Newtown? He didn't have a concealed weapons permit.

The perppatrator had mental defect ( who in their right mind would do something like that) and had stolen a AR 15 that was legally purchased.

We have laws for everything you can imagine including weapon owning, do any of those laws stop people from doing things against the law?

No I do not have a concealed weapons permit, nor have I ever wanted one. However if you want one thats your business, none of my concern.

RONALD RIML's picture

So there's no statewide 'Master List' of CCW Permits

for Law Enforcement to reference???

Yet there is for Divers' Licenses........

Scary.... You bet this needs to be revisited by the Legislature......

RONALD RIML's picture

Correction - "Driver's Licenses"

.

ERNEST LABBE's picture

How many

people are caught every day driving without a license? How many concealed weapons holders are arrested a year for shooting someone? Thats the difference.

RONALD RIML's picture

Earnest - You obviously don't have a Clue if that's all you have

Much more involved to it than simply " concealed weapons holders are arrested a year for shooting someone?"

And we should trust you with a gun??

RONALD RIML's picture

Earnest -

I looked at your profile, and noticed no Law Enforcement experience.

You obviously don't have the knowledge as to why as to why LEO's might want to cross-check CCW's via a master computer list. Numerous reasons.

Dan Beggs's picture

no respect for constitutional rights

maybe the govt should approve speech too! NOT TO BE INFRINGED does not mean it you approve of it. the words mean OFF LIMITS dont tread on it. the government does not allow you your rights hey are your rights.

RONALD RIML's picture

Maybe you should study constitutional law, Dan

Instead of shooting from the hip......

Advertisement

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

I'm interested in ...