I'm deeply sympathetic to the plight of Illinois gun owners who are facing the publication of their names as the latest ploy by the left to discourage gun ownership.
"If the state publishes a list of gun owners," Republican Rep. Ron Stephens said, "You are by design also publishing a list of everyone who doesn't" carry a firearm.
That could be comparable to publishing a list of everyone who has, or doesn't have, a car alarm or home-security system, at least in the eyes of those who want to keep the records private. "
But I've got to tell you, since I live in a state that hasn't issued a concealed carry permit in two decades, I think I'd trade places with them.
Do you hear that governor Christie? If the price for getting a concealed carry permit also includes publishing my name as a concealed carry holder, please tell me where I can sign up.
4 comments:
Agreed.
As a related note, most people are polite to the local policeman and I don't think it's because of his little badge and uniform but because he's armed; and the police man's name is also public and published, often.
That's different. The policeman is a public employee... by choice.
Even here in relatively gun-friendly Virginia, until 2 years ago a newspaper in Roanoke would regularly file FOIA requests and then publish a searchable database of CHP holders on their web site. It only stopped when they realized that various public officials, notably the chief justice of the state supreme court and lots of LEOs, were having their home addresses published online.
Canada in the 90s spent 2 billion on a gun database that was supposed to cost 10 million. oops. Registration was mandatory. What happened was now the bad guys knew who had guns to steal. NYC's and Britain's current prohibition of gun ownership both started as 'reasonable', 'limited' registrations. This is why I support the NRA in their fight against -every- new law or regulation. It is a slippery slope and the libs are determined to disarm us all in the end.
Post a Comment