THE ISSUE:Indiana lawmakers are considering four bills that would restrict access to gun permit records.
OUR VIEW:Proponents of the restrictions are using exaggerations to make their case.
Those seeking to cut off access to information about gun permits are using misinformation to make their case.
They have suggested that two newspapers published the names and addresses of gun permit holders. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Indianapolis Star and the Bloomington Herald-Times used the information to create searchable databases on their Web sites.
Organizations such as the National Rifle Association claim the databases violated the privacy of gun owners. One lawmaker suggested that the Herald-Times database represented a virtual catalog for people in the market to steal guns.
That’s a bit of an overstatement.
The Star’s database allowed readers to learn the number of gun permits in a given ZIP code. The Herald-Times allowed them to find out the number of gun permits on a particular street.
Neither identified specific gun owners.
Having access to such information does more than just satisfy a reader’s curiosity about how many neighbors have gun permits. It might also show a trend about where state police are issuing gun permits and where they aren’t.
Are residents of some neighborhoods being denied permits unfairly? The only way to find out is to make the addresses of permit holders public.
But why should the public be entitled to know the names of permit holders?
Here’s one reason.
The Indianapolis Star used that information to show that more than 100 people had been issued gun permits even though local police had recommended against it.
These were people police considered likely to violate the law and yet they had been granted gun permits.
Shouldn’t the public know that?
And what about the employer who recently fired a disgruntled employee? Shouldn’t that employer be able to discover the former worker now has a permit to carry a gun?
Public access supporters point out that gun rights advocates might be working against their own interests by shutting down access to these records.
How, for example, will they be able to prove that law-abiding citizens are wrongly being denied these permits if they cut off access to the information?
It’s certainly worth debating whether this information should be accessible to the public. Opponents might be able to put together a compelling case, but they should not rely on distortions to do so.
Both sides should make their best arguments. But they should stick to the facts.
— Logansport Pharos-Tribune, Kokomo Tribune
