February 18, 2013

Legislators face fallout following gun-permit flap

By Steve Mistler smistler@pressherald.com
State House Bureau

The Legislature on Tuesday is likely to begin dealing with the blowback from a Bangor newspaper's decision last week to request personal identifying information of concealed-weapons permit holders.

Can state lawmakers effectively, thoughtfully handle the pressure?

After enduring about 24 hours of fierce and relentless opposition, the Bangor Daily News on Friday withdrew its Freedom of Access Act request for the records and vowed to destroy any information already received. The paper says it never intended to publish the information, but that didn't matter, so swift and effective was the mobilization by gun rights activists.

That would seem to end the controversy, but it didn't. On Friday a new, curiously timed and motivated anonymous FOAA request surfaced, providing justification for two pro-gun Democratic leaders, Sen. Troy Jackson and Rep. Jeff McCabe, and Gov. Paul LePage to submit an emergency bill that would suspend inspection and dissemination of concealed-weapons permit data.

The bill, L.D. 576, could pass Tuesday without a public hearing. It would put a moratorium on public information for about four months, or until the passage of Rep. Corey Wilson's bill, which makes the data private permanently.

The emotional energy and urgency assigned to the issue by gun rights advocates has some worried that lawmakers will be pressured to ram through the two proposals without adequate consideration of the ramifications on public safety and the state's right-to-know law.

Additionally, there's some concern that the outcry has conflated two issues: Privacy and the constitutional right to own guns.

Public inspection of concealed-weapons permits appears to have been around since 1985. A section of the law was amended in 2011, when Gov. Paul LePage signed a bill that included a slight wording change affecting public inspection of permits, while affirming that the issuing authority "must" keep them in the public record.

Here's how the law was amended:

"The issuing authority shall make a permanent record of each permit to carry concealed handguns [originally: firearms] in a suitable book or file kept for that purpose. The record must [originally: shall] include the information contained in the permit itself and shall must be available for public inspection."

Mal Leary, president of the Maine Freedom of Information Coalition (MFOIC), told the Portland Press Herald on Friday that public access to information on permit holders acts as a check to ensure that officials who award the permits have been diligent in screening applicants. In some cases, he said, town governing boards are reviewing applications and granting permits, not law enforcement.

As it stands, Leary said, Wilson's bill is so broad that it would shield not just personal information but also general statistics on permit holders. Even a narrowly-tailored bill, Leary said, begs consideration of a simple question: Do gun owners deserve confidentiality protections not afforded to other law-abiding citizens?

Last week, Judy Meyer, vice president of MFIOC, asked that same question. In an editorial for the Sun Journal in Lewiston that some legislators blasted while fanning the controversy, Meyer noted that Wilson's justification for the bill is that concealed-weapons permit holders have to undergo background checks, therefore their information shouldn't be subject to public inspection.

If that's the case, Meyer asked, should teachers, contractors working in sensitive industries, police and other permit holders who undergo background checks also be shielded?

It's a question that now confronts lawmakers, who will undoubtedly be lobbied as vigorously as the Bangor Daily News was before it yanked its public records request.

(Continued on page 2)

Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form

Send question/comment to the editors




Further Discussion

Here at PressHerald.com we value our readers and are committed to growing our community by encouraging you to add to the discussion. To ensure conscientious dialogue we have implemented a strict no-bullying policy. To participate, you must follow our Terms of Use.

Questions about the article? Add them below and we’ll try to answer them or do a follow-up post as soon as we can. Technical problems? Email them to us with an exact description of the problem. Make sure to include:
  • Type of computer or mobile device your are using
  • Exact operating system and browser you are viewing the site on (TIP: You can easily determine your operating system here.)