Much ado about nothing
Since when is the public served by making public records private?
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan stirred up a political hornet's nest recently when her office asserted that law enforcement cannot use the state's freedom of information act to block disclosure of the names of licensed gun owners.
The Illinois State Police, whose upper management is notorious for refusing to comply with the requirements of the FOIA, asserted that releasing only names, not addresses, of licensed firearms owners would violate gun owners' privacy. That's an amazing assertion in a state where people's marriages, divorces, property taxes, tax liens, property ownership and other personal information are public record.
Nonetheless, gun owners and their advocates – usually a fearless, outspoken bunch – immediately started whining that thugs would invade their homes and steal their guns if this information is released. Or, in the alternative, they speculated that thugs would invade the homes of non-gun owners and steal whatever they liked.
That cowering self-portrayal is wildly at odds with usual "go ahead, make my day" bravado of gun lobbyists. They routinely brag in rhyming highway signs, bumper stickers and T-shirts that anyone who messes with them is asking for hot lead.
Ever seen one of those house window stickers that reads, "Security provided by Smith & Wesson"? Who knew that was an open invitation to come in and pillage the place?
Nonetheless, the gun owners' demands that their FOID card requests be put off limits to inspection spurred a round of hand-wringing by pandering public officials, including newly appointed state Rep. Jason Barickman of Champaign. They immediately proposed carving out another exception to the state's open records law to protect the latest victim class – licensed gun owners.
The Associated Press hasn't disclosed why it sought those public records. But in Florida, news organizations compared the names of licensed gun owners with convicted felons and discovered that more than 1,000 felons had gun licenses.
To their credit, Florida prosecutors took immediate steps to revoke those licenses and confiscate the weapons. Then, to their everlasting shame, Florida legislators took steps to make such information unavailable in the future, setting the stage for future felons to become licensed gun owners there.
Firearms advocates routinely and accurately contend that protecting the Second Amendment rights of honest citizens to bear arms is of paramount importance. So why stand in the way of identifying citizens with criminal records – or perhaps suffering from mental illness – who may be licensed to own a gun?
If we're going to go down this road, drivers license records including any tickets, DUIs, etc should be public record in the same way a doctor's license and malpractice violations are public. I'm not opposed one way or the other to the release or non-release of FOID info (although having to obtain a permit for a federally-guaranteed right seems odd - should I have to obtain a permit before I could plead the 5th in court?), but I think the law should be applied uniformly.
The News Gazette couldn't be more wrong on this one. You're defending a bad decision by Lisa Madigan to protect the Freedom of Information Act.
It's the job of the State Police to cross check the information against criminal databases, not the job of the News Gazette.
The only good that can come out of this editorial is that all the posters who drone on about the News Gazette being a right wing newspaper get to see what it looks like when it gets it wrong, and takes the left-wing side of an issue.
The authors of the article neglect to mention that the gun owners in Florida were in fact concealed-carry permit holders, not just owners of firearms. At the moment the state of Illinois does not permit the concealed carry of firearms.
What is absent from this opinion piece is what serves the public interest by making public the list of FOID card holders. If it's the suggestion of the authors that the state police may have issued a FOID card illegitimately to a criminal, ask yourself how many criminals still commit crimes with firearms with the absence of valid FOID card?
As far as 'that cowering self-portrayal is wildly at odds with usual "go ahead, make my day" bravado of gun lobbyists' goes, there is nothing to be ashamed of when you defend your right to privacy.
This editorial fairly drips with hostility towards gun owners -- see for example the disdain for the "Guns Save Lives" road signs -- and suggests that the authors' position on the FOIA request has less to do with freedom of information than with harassing those with whom the authors disagree. As such, it is doubtful that that this piece will persuade anyone in either camp.
Nevertheless, one rhetorical jab deserves specific rebuttal. The authors write: "Ever seen one of those house window stickers that reads, 'Security provided by Smith & Wesson?' Who knew that was an open invitation to come in and pillage the place?"
Actually, almost every firearms and self-defense training program I have ever participated in has specifically discouraged such signs precisely because of the risk that they will attract criminals looking for guns. Agree or disagree that guns in the home can deter criminals, it goes without saying that a gun in an obviously unoccupied home ceases to be an item of defense, and instead becomes an inviting target for thieves. Advertising to the world at large that you have valuable weapons in your home makes no more sense than making an itemized list of your jewelry and home theater equipment and nailing it to your front door.
More importantly, though, the authors ignore the fact that those who post the "Security by Smith & Wesson" signs are making their own choice to advertise the presence of guns int he home. The News Gazette would take that choice from citizens and give that choice to Lisa Madigan. It is bad enough that Illinois requires gun owners to have a FOID card in the first place. We're one of only two states that has anything like it, and it provides no more security against guns falling into the wrong hands than the federal instant check already does. Still, but not only requiring citizens to alert the government that they've chosen to exercise their Second Amendment rights, but by also requiring us to alert the Associated Press, as well as any other n'er-do-well who might be curious, Illinois is going way too far.
NG missed the boat on this one.
Shortly after I moved a number years ago, I met three of my new neighbors while getting my mail. Of course, they had questions since I was the new neighbor. One of them asked me the absurd question: "Do you have a gun?" I was taken back for a second. I asked him: "If I have a gun, why would I tell people that I have a gun?" I am a registered fire arms owner; but that should be my business, and not the business of everyone. Law enforcement officers know who have FOID cards. They have the right to know. The state police do a good job of screening applicants for a FOID card. I have seen people rejected. I do wish that FOID card owners would be required to complete a training program prior to card approval. I feel the same way regarding hunters. I, also, have concerns about how many guns are enough for an owner to possess. If the list was made public, would the News Gazette publish it on a website?
Sid - In Illinois anyone born after January 1st, 1980 needs to complete a 10 hour hunter safety class before they can obtain a hunting license. I think a kid can hunt for one year before they're forced to take the class to get the license. This was put into law about 15 years ago.
What do you mean you have concerns about how many guns are enough for an owner to possess?
Thanks for the update. What I meant by "how many guns are enough" is that a gun is just a piece of dangerous equipment. If some one wants to go hunting; they get a shotgun, or rifle. If they want personal protection; they get a pistol, or shotgun. When some one has an armory of guns, I have concerns. I have met "gun collectors" who have several automatic pistols, combat shotguns, and semi automatic rifles. The last car salesman I met had a carton of 9 mm. ammo under his desk. He was proud of it. He felt that there was an imminent threat to our country from within. That is what I meant.
Oh Sid Saltfork, you started off strong, and finished like Illinois against Michigan.
You may be concerned with the number of guns other people own, but it is not a concern of mine. So what if someone has a carton of 9mm ammo? It's not illegal to own ammunition. You might think that car salesman was crazy, but societal breakdown can happen anywhere. Just look at New Orleans a few years ago, or Japan, or the Middle East. Natural or man-made disasters can cause a breakdown in the rule of law very quickly, and when it happens people usually don't have time to run down to Dick's and pick up a few things.
So what if someone has combat shot guns and semi-automatic rifles? They're not illegal. You said your buddy an 'automatic pistol,' which one would need a special license for, so he either had the license or he had it illegally. Either that or it was a semi-automatic pistol. Who are you to say what type of guns people need for personal protection? You're concerned that people have an armory. I'm curious, how many guns does it take to make an armory? 4, 10, 20, 100, 400?
You hope my neighbors the best of luck? Not sure exactly what that means, but it sounds like a dig.
You think you're middle grounder, but consider this. I've read many of the posts on this site and you proudly admit you're a union member. That's fine, I'm not here to knock it. Some of my best friends in the world are union members. But how much of all those union dues paid over the years go to the democratic party? As far as I can tell, democrats are exactly the people on the anti-gun side of almost every gun issue. I don't know this to be fact, but my guess is that you vote for mostly democrats too. In any case, the union money going to elect democrats is immeasurably more important than your one single vote. So really, even though you say you don't have a problem with gun haters, through your union dues you give them money to get elected and re-elected at almost every level of government in every election.
Interesting how a judge goes without punishment or removal from the bench after setting free convicts that re-offend while many felon convicts which do not re-offend are denied rights to bear arms. I see no means the public can benefit from publicizing FOID cards though it doesn't matter either way which means I'm not seeing the full picture of why they push to publicize the records. Needing more information. Thanks.
Comments
News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.