State passes law hiding the identity of South Carolina's more than 61,300 concealed-weapons permit holdersCONCEALED The Post and Courier
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Alan Hawes Concealed-weapons State Rep. Chip Limehouse rarely takes his 9 mm pistol on public outings, but he likes having the option of packing heat for protection, particularly after controversial votes. "I've had threats over the years because of some votes. Video poker was one," the Charleston Republican said. Limehouse doesn't care if people know he has a concealed weapons permit. But he knows plenty of others who don't want to advertise that fact, and they shouldn't have to, he said. "I don't believe it's anyone's right to know because it's concealed." Similar sentiments led to the recent passage of a law barring the public from finding out who can carry a concealed weapon in South Carolina. The measure, signed into law last week, exempts the names of more than 61,300 permit holders from release through the state's Freedom of Information Act. Access to that list is now limited to law enforcement or through court orders. Gun-rights activists argue that publishing permit holders' names violates their privacy and subjects them to increased risk of violence or break-ins. Opponents to the measure maintain that those threats are largely illusory and that it is improper for government to issue licenses in secret. "If government grants a privilege and creates a licensing scheme, then it's in the public interest to make sure that licensing scheme is being run properly," said Lucy Daglish, executive director of the Virginia-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. The law, which took effect immediately, also contains a provision that requires anyone who already has a copy of the permit holders' list to destroy it, although the law contains no penalties for failing to feed the list through the shredder. It's not like the list was that popular an item to begin with. Over the past five years, the State Law Enforcement Division has received just 27 requests for the list. State officials largely are depending on the honor system to ensure that those lists are destroyed. Daglish called the requirement "just plain ludicrous and unconstitutional." John Simpkins, an assistant professor at the Charleston School of Law, said there is very little the state can do to stop someone from using the list once it has entered the public domain. "To now close the door and say you cannot use what you rightfully requested I think is unenforceable." Despite questions about enforceability, the measure garnered firm support in the state Legislature, where plenty of people are armed and ready: One in five lawmakers holds a concealed-weapons permit. They are in good company. A host of prominent leaders, business magnates and others also are packing heat. They range from state Supreme Court Justice John Henry Waller and Treasurer Converse Chellis to U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint and Charleston City Councilman Robert Mitchell. 'Fair game for thugs' The Rev. Jimmy Gallant, a police chaplain and Charleston City Council member, obtained a concealed-weapons permit a few years ago after attending a law enforcement conference where some suggested that chaplains should carry guns. It was in response to two unarmed chaplains being killed in California. "You are out there and fair game for thugs," he said. "They think you are unarmed." Gallant got the permit but has yet to carry a weapon with him or in his unmarked police car. He said he keeps a small semiautomatic weapon in his home. Republican state Rep. Wallace Scarborough has had a concealed-weapons permit for eight years. His strong belief in the second amendment has not wavered, even in the face of his 2006 arrest for firing his pistol near utility workers who had ventured onto his parents' James Island property at night. Those charges were later dropped, and Scarborough continues to be a proud gun owner. Scarborough said keeping the list of permit holders secret protects gun owners and the public at large. Before, thieves and burglars could get hold of the list and know which homes were protected by guns and which were not. "I think this serves as a general deterrent," he said. "This way potential thieves and bad guys don't know who has a gun and who doesn't." State Rep. Jim Merrill, a public relations executive who lives on Daniel Island, also is on the list. He took the training course last year. He said he does not carry a weapon, but "wants the bad guys to think I am." Chellis, who carries a 9 mm and a .38 caliber revolver, said he sees nothing to be gained by telling people who's packing. "I don't know why the public needs that information. SLED is our watchdog on crime. They're the only ones who need to know." A right to know In adopting the measure, South Carolina joined 27 other states that protect the confidentiality of concealed-weapons permit holders. Similar legislation is pending in Alabama, Missouri and New York. Ashley Varner, media liaison for the National Rifle Association, said such laws have become increasingly necessary to keep permit holders from "being abused in the public arena" by those who would publish their identities. These people already have been deemed trustworthy by the state to carry a gun, she said. Brian Malte, state legislative director for the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence, said newspapers in Florida, Texas and other states have uncovered instances in which the concealed-weapons permits were improperly issued to felons and others who had no business carrying a gun. Barring the public from looking at the list of permit holders only increases the chance for mistakes, as most states don't routinely audit their records, he said. "These people are getting permits to carry loaded handguns into public places," he said. "The public has a right to know how well the system is working for their own public safety." Reach Glenn Smith at 937-5556 or gsmith@postandcourier.com. Reach Ron Menchaca at 937-5724 or rmenchaca@postandcourier.com. |
Article tools
| |||
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 33 comment(s)
Posted by Goondar on April 27, 2008 at 3:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh yes, lets publish everyone that has a weapon so we know just who and what houses to hit tomorrow night. Thats what makes permits successful. Its that the criminals don't know who has what, and therefore don't know who could be shooting back.
Posted by Neponset on April 27, 2008 at 4:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thomas1776
I agree that info about us, especially the little guy, is too available and should be restricted.
As for tax records, I think it is important that tax payers can find out what their neighbors pay, so that we can be sure that everyone is paying their fair share and that there is no funny business going on.
Posted by Slick50 on April 27, 2008 at 6:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"He likes having the option of packing heat for protection."
PACKING HEAT??? Is it necessary for the P&C to continually lower the standards of journalism?
Posted by ForPnC on April 27, 2008 at 6:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"This way potential thieves and bad guys don't know who has a gun and who doesn't."
You don't have to have a CWP to have a weapon in your home. So the bad guys still don't know.
Posted by abitskeptical on April 27, 2008 at 7:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Neponset-exactly what is a "fair share?"
I've never been able to figure that out.
By "funny business", do you mean something like since one neighbor pays half the property taxes as another they get half of the services-garbage & trash picked up half as much, use of half of the roads only half of the time, can send only half of their kids to the public schools, etc...?
Posted by Neponset on April 27, 2008 at 8:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
abitskeptical
There is a lot of breach of trust etc. going on at this time and property taxes is a problem for a lot of folks - suppose you have a friend in the tax office who can change the numbers and reduce your property tax bill - you get my drift.
Posted by RTC on April 27, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think that this is a fair law, as the general public does not need to know everyone's personal business.
For an example: we have an extremely troublesome and nosy neighbor that has the local police department on speed dial.
If she knew that anyone in my family possessed a CWP, she would very easily call and report that we had threatened her with a gun. She would do this, simply because she could have looked up this information to use against us or anyone else that she wished to cause grief.
Sure, you can still own a gun without the CWP, but if it is a matter of public record then everybody and their brother would know this.
Hence, the "I know they have a gun" can be used to falsely accuse a person of brandishing said weapon, simply because the possession of one has been made known to the public.
Posted by Neponset on April 27, 2008 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Looks like I am under attack. I simply said that tax record should be available for public scrutiny. I just want to be sure that my neighbors who live in a house of similar value are being taxed equitibly. I am in favor of privicy and have no problems with this bill about concealed wepons. As a matter of fact, my daughter and son in law just went to classes to get same this saturday.
Posted by moonpie on April 27, 2008 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"I've had threats over the years because of some votes. Video poker was one,"
And probably should have! Especially if you voted for the lottery. Can't regulate morality, hasn't that been tried? Look at the tax dollars that wiped off the books! Could have bought a lot of school buses!
But this is good legislation unless your gonna pass a law that requires a crook to wear a sign designating themselves as a crook? I bet that was argued in the state chambers.
Posted by ForPnC on April 27, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Raregar - What did the police say when they showed up?
My friends and I used to have "gun cleaning" parties years ago. About a dozen of us would get together with all of our weapons and give them a good cleaning. The only rounds around were the ones that the owner of the house had. None of us ever brought rounds with us. It was actually quite fun. A couple of hours spent with like-minded people and weapons were being properly taken care of. Folks showing off their latest and greatest. Everyone saying oh... and ah... Once every single weapon was cleaned and stowed away then the BBQ and party began.
Drinking and guns don't mix. Always remember that everyone!
Posted by RTC on April 27, 2008 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
raregar, my husband suggested the same thing this morning.
Thomas, you are right. She can accuse of us of anything she likes, but she better have proof. I think animal control and the police are sick of this woman.
It's a beautiful day for a gun cleaning party.
Posted by Neponset on April 27, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ForPnC
Talk about gun cleaning - I have a replica of a Remington 44 cal. revolver (black powder) - you best clean it after each use.
Posted by svilleswampfox on April 27, 2008 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thomas - you with all the government conspiracy theories, at every level, call this law one that is based on paranoia?
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean everyone else is. There IS a difference in wanting privacy and paranoia. Privacy means not showing your (fill in the blank), paranoia is fearing others are trying to see your (fill in the blank).
Your constant whining show what an idiot you are. Between your conspiracy paranoia and RareGar's hatred of the South - you two dips$hits should move elsewhere.
Posted by Neponset on April 27, 2008 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Looks like we have a hot topic here. What do you think about the city ordanence (sp?) in Chickasaw,Ga.(sp?) that required all folk to pack? I have mixed feeling about it.
Posted by zekemire on April 27, 2008 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To trust these groups to destroy the lists they have on the honor system is absolutely absurd! None of these radical groups including the media has any hint of honor! The right to know crap is no guaranteed right granted by GOD or the Constitution, and, is a method used by media and radical groups only to advance their ridiculous leftist socialist agendas!
The Constitution guarantees that I may own, carry, use a gun for sport or protection with no hindrance, if I am a law abiding citizen! PERIOD! It is no business of newspapers, tv, radio, radical groups such as the aclu, the sierra club, the brady bunch or anyone else whether or not I own a gun, or, if I have a concealed carry permit!!!
Posted by RTC on April 27, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Neponset, where did you read about that?
Posted by Neponset on April 27, 2008 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
RTC
In the news paper a while back - it is true as strange as it sounds.
Posted by ReasonSpeaks on April 27, 2008 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Does anyone out there really think that criminals are requesting this list, receiving it, reviewing it, and mapping out their burglaries based on who's got a registered concealed weapon and who doesn't?
I have no problem with the law, but the availability of the registry to criminals seems like a very weak defense.
Posted by johnreames on April 27, 2008 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I thought it was ironic that as a part of the registering process to post a comment, this newspaper requires my e-mail address. They say that they will not spam me or give my e-mail address to anyone. But!.. What if one of their snooping reporters decides that there could be a story about who reads and comments on their postings? I can hear the editor's guffawing now.... silly? You think?
What if I start getting anonymous e-mails in the middle of the night? Scary!!!
Well, I personally think it is just plain stupid for anyone to post a sign in the window of your home or a business that says to the potential criminal: "Hey! Come on in! We don't allow concealed weapons in here. Come beat me up and rob me, rape me, shoot me. There are no weapons here!"
Take a look at your neighborhood Sherwin-Williams store whose corporate leaders have issued a directive that requires the stores to post "No Concealed Weapons Allowed" signs on either side of the stores main entrance. This action causes me to wonder how many of the employees of their stores "carry"? mmmmmm.... I smell a story here.
Posted by jbaker314 on April 27, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It doesn't take a lot of requests, nor do the requests have to come from criminals.
Actually, it was the press in Virginia (Roanoke Times) who acted so irresponsibly and in doing so made the case for closing access to the list of CWP holders.
I was at the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee meeting when the South Carolina Press Association tried to make the case that the list should be open so that the SCPA can ensure that people who should not have CWPs do not get them.
I have rarely been present for such a demonstration of profound and unapologetic arrogance.
Posted by RTC on April 27, 2008 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"These people are getting permits to carry loaded handguns into public places," he said. "The public has a right to know how well the system is working for their own public safety."
Places that do not allow concealed weapons have signs posted stating that fact. From what I have seen there are very few places where concealed weapons are allowed, so I don't see where that is a problem. If a person has criminal intent, whether they have a CWP or not is not going to make any difference.
How many people have committed a crime while possessing a CWP? I wonder if they have the stats on that?
Posted by ForPnC on April 27, 2008 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
For Neponset and RTC -
I remember all of that happening in Georgia but it was around 1982 or so. It's recently hit the news again because all of the statisticians are going crazy over it. Now, over twenty years later, things didn't turn out quite as people had guessed! Here's the link but there's plenty of others available using google. I picked this link because it seemed to have a little of everything in it.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...
Morton Grove, IL banned guns (except for law enforcement.) The population of the town shrank and the crime shot up by over 15%.
In response to Morton Grove, the town of Kennesaw, GA required all residents carry a gun. The size of the town has more than quadrupled and the crime rate plummeted.
Posted by RTC on April 27, 2008 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ForPnC, thanks for posting that link. Very interesting stuff.
Posted by DontSpamMeBro on April 27, 2008 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Note the tone of the headline. "Hiding the identity" of those with CWP's. I guess we don't have to guess about the Post & Courier's stance on the issue. Sheesh!
Posted by skyguy51 on April 27, 2008 at 4:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
From 1996 to 2007 a total of 310 SC CWP permits were "revoked" out of a total of 78,195 issued. A permit is revoked upon being charged with a crime, not convicted. The public disclosure was included in the 1996 law when SC became a "shall issue" state as a means to allow the press to intimidate permit holders and to placate the anti gun crowd. As far as the Brady Campaign saying some newspapers have discovered that permits have been issued to "convicted felons" it is a Federal Offense of 5 years hard time for a convicted felon to have possession of a firearm. I doubt that the Post and Courier will discover many felons that the local Sheriff, SLED and the FBI missed.
People who have CWPs are 5.7 times "less" likely to be arrested for violent offenses as the general public and 13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses as the general public.
I feel safer around a SC CWP permit holder than I would a couple of newspaper or TV reporters. And if you want a laugh write to Sherwin-Williams corporate HQ and listen to their reason for posting against permit holders.
Posted by RTC on April 27, 2008 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
skyguy, thanks for posting some stats. It is a shame that the P&C couldn't have added those figures to this article.
Posted by jbaker314 on April 27, 2008 at 5:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The comment from Lucy Daglish in respect to the government creating a privilege demonstrates the contrived manipulation of the facts by anti-gun zealots.
There is enumerated in the constitution a "right" to keep and bear arms.
This is again a "right" as opposed to a "privilege", such as that afforded to operators of vehicles on public highways.
The press, as exemplified in people like Lucy Daglish, are of the opnion that they occupy a privileged position, and that the privacy of citizens takes a back seat to their desire to peer into every aspect of society.
To my mind, they are not that different from the proverbial "peeping tom".
Posted by Neponset on April 27, 2008 at 5:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Correction - the correct name is Kennesaw, Ga. and the year it was passed was 1982.
Posted by BillMan on April 27, 2008 at 5:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think this is a good move, no one should know who has these permits, that would seem to go counter to having one to begin with!
Posted by luvmydogs59 on April 27, 2008 at 7:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ForPnC is talking about places that allow their residents to carry guns and the crime rate has gone down. I, too, have read quite a few articles about various places that allow this and have also shown that the crime rate decreases. I'm in full agreement with this kind of idea. I keep a gun in my home for protection, and I'm also going to start keeping it in my car when I'm out, because of all the carjackings, etc. going on. My dogs are also a deterrent, but that only goes so far. I am planning on getting my CWP, and I'm glad that I waited a bit...now I can rest comfortably knowing that every Tom, Jane and Harry won't have a clue that I'm carrying. You just never know what us women have in our pocketbooks...in my case it's a 9mm semi-automatic!! :)
Posted by SCPDBLUE on April 27, 2008 at 10:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My mother did not believe in having a gun in the house.Until she had an attempted B&E at her home.My mother now carries a KEL-TEC P32 and loves to go shoot with me at my gun club.She is now a firm believer in the right to bear arms.It just took one time for her to fear for her life to become a believer. To the anti gun crowd,wait till it happens to you,and the scumbag disables you alarm or by passes your communties security gate and you come face to face with a scumbag.You will find out as my mother did the police cant be with you 24/7.The choice is yours, Be a victim or be a witness.My mother would rather be telling detectives how she shot the scumbag rather than the detective telling the press how she was murdered and or raped in her own home and the suspect is still on the loose.
Posted by svilleswampfox on April 28, 2008 at 6:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thomas - that goofy response shows me there is only your constant whiny conspiracy paranoia instead of intelligence behind your posts. Dork. If you want to expand the argument with that crap, say it to my face. You should be well aware how to get my email address. I will be glad to adjust your whiny attitude.
Posted by bigwhip on April 28, 2008 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Our reps in Columbia want to preserve your privacy in this all important legislation. What irony!!! They have given insurance companies total access to your driving record, personal credit, and your social security #. They struggle, on the other hand, to protect us from illegal immigration. Buffoons all.