Publishing names of carry permit holders

Say Uncle reports that yet another newspaper publishes names of permit holders. While potentially harmful to people on the list, it’s more harmful to people not on the list. A stalker can now check on his victim’s probable lack of defensive ability.

This entry was posted in civil rights, self-defense and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Publishing names of carry permit holders

  1. And two cheers* for Indiana when another Newspaper did this for passing legislation to make the lists no longer publicly accessible.

    *Only two cheers because it was ever publicly accessible in the first place.

  2. Kristopher says:

    I think there is some dangerous use of the first amendment going on here.

    The names of all the folks at that newspaper should be published.

    • Andrew says:

      They usually are. It’s called the masthead. It’s also easy to cross reference the names with the CCW list and write emails to the author of the article and all the senior staff noting their conspicuous absence from the list, indicating they DO NOT carry a gun.

  3. staghounds says:

    I know I’m in the minority here, but why should this list of permit holders be sacred? It’s my government, I’m paying for it. House sales, criminal records, building permits, subpoenas, driving licenses, lawsuits, car registrations, all are public. What is the difference?

    • Oleg Volk says:

      By your analogy, how about a list of people who buy cameras or radio receivers…especially in a state with the history of persecution against owners of such items?

    • Anon says:

      Permits shouldn’t be required to exercise that right in the first place.

    • Steelheart says:

      Most States charge a bit for a permit so your tax dollars aren’t doing much to pay for a person’s permit.

      Publishing lists of permit holders does a few things that aren’t good for those same people.
      It gives criminals a list of houses that contain handguns (and most likely other guns).
      If a person’s employer is anti-gun it could cause someone to be fired. Now any employer with a brain will find some other “valid” reason for the termination but the root cause would be the same.
      Say someone has filed for divorce and there is as custody battle over the children. The other parent uses the fact of the permit in court to attempt to demonize the permit holder.

      There are many other possibilities if you think about it.

    • Lyle says:

      stagehounds; consider the publishing of a list of all AIDS or other STD carriers and everyone they’ve had sex with, culled from campus health clinics, then maybe you’ll get it.

      The main point of course is that the exercise of an enumerated right is no one’s business, but showing who carries guns and who probably doesn’t is truly useful only to criminals or to those hostile to gun owners.

      We have certain tax exemptions for religious organizations, so by your logic it’s everyone’s business and we should be publishing lists of people of Jewish decent also. How about a list of all practicing Muslims in the U.S.? Might you get a little suspicious of that in any way? How about a list of any and all welfare recipients?

      Voting is a “public” exercise too. How about we publish lists of who voted a certain way? Would that get your attention? Don’t we have the “right to know” what or who our neighbors are supporting? It could be our tax money, our economy or our rights at risk after all. What could be more important?

      Once you go down that road, and we did that long ago, there is nothing that’s purely your own business. This has a name. Do you know what it’s called?

  4. jeff says:

    The publisher:

    8404 BARNHAM DR
    JOHNSTON, IA 50131-8754

    Can do what he wants with public information I guess. Until they make it private, he is doing nothing illegal. Wrong, maybe.

  5. This is one of the reasons I got my reciprocal CCW out of state.

  6. staghounds says:

    I agree there shouldn’t be a permit required. There isn’t for radios or cameras, that’s why they are straw men.

    And of course there are disadvantages, as there are with all the other public records I mentioned.

    But since there is a permit, and my employees issue them, don’t I have a right to know who is getting them? Especially in a place where the permits are discretionary, as I gather Iowa still is somewhat. How will I know, for example, if the Sheriff’s burglar brother has a permit, or his cousin who is my sister’s new stalker? Suppose he ONLY issues them to newspaper reporters and politicians? Suppose he’s selling them to felons? Suppose he doesn’t think anyone with a Jewish or Moslem or woman’s or Amglo name is fit?

    I remember many years ago when someone forced the New York authorities to release the names of NYC CCW licensees. Interesting to see the many anti gun people on the list, as well as more than a few criminals. The Indianapolis rag recently discovered some “mistakes” after getting a look at the local list, didn’t it?

    My default outlook is that if some minion of the State gets to exercise discretion, then the citizens have a right to see how he does it. As much for gun permits as for building permits. I’m willing to be convinced that gun permits should be more secret than wills and divorces, but I’m not yet.

  7. Matthew Carberry says:


    Note the “forced” in your NY example, IIRC it was a FOIA request. If information on misuse of discretionary licensing is required a court order or FOIA request can be made with non-essential private information redacted (I believe that’s how Jim March got his data). Like the Tiarht Amendment, restricting access to permit holder’s names in no way impacts legitimate requests for the information made through the proper channels.

    While I sympathize with your family example, if there is a stalking problem the restraining order should (in most places) result in the permit getting yanked by the court. Regardless, whether a person has a permit or not does nothing to tell you if they are armed. Prudence and logic demand you take the same precautions.

  8. Weston says:

    I’ve never understood the logic behind these kinds of actions. Who could possibly stand to benefit? 100% pure grain politically motived

Comments are closed.