Right to privacy: Not just for abortions anymore
What some are calling a matter of privacy, others are calling a dangerous idea. At issue is whether or not applications for gun-carry permits should be kept confidential.
Getting a permit isn’t only about learning the rules; a lot of personal information must be given up.
“You have to answer a lot of questions,” said John Harris, executive director of the Tennessee Firearms Association. “Like, for example, ‘How were you discharged from the military?’ ‘Have you ever been addicted to any kind of alcohol or other substances?’ ‘Have you ever had any psychiatric problems?’ A lot of information is disclosed on the forms that really shouldn’t be public.”
That’s information that many permit owners don’t want out there along with their addresses and what kind of guns they own.
A few years ago, all of that information was published by the Tennessean, infuriating many of the private citizens on that list.
Well, here’s hoping. Also, Kent Williams did say before he wanted to fix some gun issues in the state. This looks like one of them:
In addition, new House Speaker Kent Williams has said he will break ties in the case of some Second Amendment issues.
February 4th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Since you have to answer no, anyway, those aren’t what worries me. It’s the name, address, presence of guns, and some jerkoff with a customized Google Maps.
February 4th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
I asked this over my way, but I will repeat it here for increased exposure: I cannot seem to find an electronic copy of the application for a Tennessee Handgun Carry Permit, and I cannot remember the one I filled out, but does anyone recall if we had to provide our social security numbers on the application? If so, why is the form, and all the data on it, not protected by the Privacy Act of 1974?
February 5th, 2009 at 9:07 am
If you’re worried about this just wait til your medical records get digitized in the stimulus and some 600,000 entities get access to them. Then ask yourself WHO those 600,000 are.
Government should have NO information on your if you expect any bit of privacy or security.
February 6th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Well, now, wait a second. Let’s look at the general principle of whether or not applications should be available to the public.
What if I lived in one of those places where they seem to only issue permits to well-connected people? I’m just an average Joe and my application gets denied. What recourse do I have? Can I prove that they have given permits to people less qualified than myself, or do I just have to take their word for the fact that they haven’t?
How can someone see if there is a racial/age/gender/wealth/whatever bias in the granting of permits if you can’t see who did and did not get one?
What’s needed is not to make records available. It’s having a “shall issue” policy (or no permits required at all, obviously) so that there’s no legitimate need to see why someone did or did not get their permit.
If someplace insists on making records available, then I say let’s require all governors, legislators, law enforcement officers, and judges be required to have a permit. After all, if they are not of sufficient character to justify giving them a CW permit, why on earth should they be writing or enforcing or adjudicating the law? Then let’s see how much support there is for having the records be made public.
It’s similar to having property tax records being public. How do you know that your property has been properly appraised if you don’t what value they placed on your neighbors?
And, just to be clear, for the record I am vehemently opposed to any permit requirements. Period.