Posted on 12/11/2005 10:57:09 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist
Without public access to the names of people who would be allowed to carry concealed weapons, it would be nearly impossible to tell whether the law is working as intended and make sure the permits wind up solely in the hands of upstanding citizens, officials of government watchdog groups said Friday. The Wisconsin Legislature is on the brink of passing a bill that would allow people to carry concealed weapons and, if it becomes law, the names of permit holders would be kept secret to the general public. "We know who is licensed to drive cars. We know who is licensed to drive school buses and we know who is licensed to cut our hair," said Lucy Dalglish, the executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. "It is impossible for the public to engage in any meaningful oversight when the records are off the books." Holding government accountable for the law would be impossible if the records aren't open, added Douglas E. Lee, a legal correspondent with the national First Amendment Center. There would be no need for public records laws "if we could rely on public officials to do the right thing," said Lee, an attorney in Dixon, Ill. "The whole idea of democracy is to allow that public check . . . to confirm people are doing what they are supposed to be doing and that legislation has its desired effect." Wisconsin's move to keep permit holder records secret is "one more in a number of legislative efforts increasing the amount of confidentiality" across the nation as the "pendulum slowly swings" away from greater openness in government, he added.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Already Debunked-"Violence Policy Center" automatically makes any statement a lie.
Seriously-the study they quote found that the rate for permit holders was lower than the general populace.
The media trumpeted the fact that permit holders were invovled in Criminal Activity such as DWI, Criminal Trespass, etc. They couldn't find too many violent crimes to trumpet. Everything was at a lower rate than the general populace
The purpose of a concealed carry permit isn't to stop crime, it's for self protection. Kristen is a moron.
Perhaps they should just publish a list of all the people who won't be carrying, a voluntary list of course.
That would seem to meet all of their objections and be a much more usefull tool for ..... well ... you know who.
No, it isn't.
I would imagine that if just one CHL holder had committed a crime, it would be all over the news for several days--The TX news media is just like all the rest--liberal.
City: Retired cops can't carry concealed guns
December 12, 2005
Chicago Sun-Times
BY FRANK MAIN AND FRAN SPIELMAN Staff Reporters
Retired Chicago Police officers will be getting letters in the mail soon saying the city won't certify them to carry guns -- a move that angers the head of the local Fraternal Order of Police.
Congress passed the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 to allow retired and off-duty officers across the country to carry concealed weapons.
But the city is worried about the liability of allowing retired cops to carry guns when they haven't gone through refresher training or undergone mental and physical fitness evaluations. The city also is concerned about the lack of a national database of retired officers authorized to carry guns.
'A responsibility,' not a luxury
Sheri Mecklenburg, general counsel to police Supt. Phil Cline, said the federal law does not define how a department should determine an officer had retired "in good standing."
"We would want some federal legislation to protect us from liability and some national database of people authorized to carry a gun," she said.
Mecklenburg said she did not know how many of the city's 9,000 retired cops have asked to be certified to carry a gun.
The letter to retired Chicago cops says "until these areas of concern are addressed by federal legislation, the Department has declined to adopt new procedures for qualifying retired officers to carry a firearm."
"They have no right to do this," responded Mark Donahue, president of the Chicago Fraternal Order of Police.
Donahue said the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act was a priority of the national FOP.
"The ability to carry a firearm, as expressed by the city, is a luxury," he said. "From the perspective of law enforcement, it is a responsibility."
The Chicago FOP's Web site said its attorneys have advised against legal action so far. Instead, the lodge is "addressing the agencies responsible for ensuring the proper enabling procedures."
Under the city's interpretation of the federal law, the city can't bar out-of-town retired officers from carrying guns if they have been certified by agencies outside Chicago.
But the city believes the federal government can't force the city to certify retired officers here if it chooses not to.
Ok, Bus drivers, hair cutters must post their licenses in plain view in most places. Just how does this woman know who is licensed to drive cars?
The license plate does not specify that the driver is licensed, only that the owner of the car has paid the annual road tribute to the state.
I despise liars.
In GOVERNMENT? We're talking about private citizens here.
If they don't like their government, VOTE 'EM OUT!
"Shortly after the study was published, Rand said, Texas cut off public access to permit holder information."
A straight up liar.
GC §411.192. CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDS. The department
shall disclose to a criminal justice agency information contained in its
files and records regarding whether a named individual or any individual
named in a specified list is licensed under this subchapter. The depart-
ment shall, on written request and payment of a reasonable fee to covercosts of copying, disclose to any other individual whether a named indi-
vidual or any individual whose full name is listed on a specified written
list is licensed under this subchapter. Information on an individual
subject to disclosure under this section includes the individual's name,
date of birth, gender, race, and zip code. Except as otherwise provided
by this section and by Section 411.193, all other records maintained
under this subchapter are confidential and are not subject to mandatory
disclosure under the open records law, Chapter 552, except that the
applicant or license holder may be furnished a copy of disclosable
records on request and the payment of a reasonable fee. The depart-
ment shall notify a license holder of any request that is made for infor-
mation relating to the license holder under this section and provide the
name of the person or agency making the request. This section does
not prohibit the department from making public and distributing to the
public at no cost lists of individuals who are certified as qualified
handgun instructors by the department.
Im going to have to agree here. It is the responsibility of the public to oversee the governments records. Im also aware that the government having arms records defeats the purpose of the Second Amendment.
I say we honor her wish and fight for Vermont carry...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.