Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Holders of concealed weapons permits deserve privacy

Re: Shading business, gun owners, editorial, April 3.

The Gun Owners Privacy Bill (H.B. 687) makes lots of sense by protecting the personal information of those with a concealed-weapons license (CWL) from public scrutiny. A CWL is not truly a license but rather a formal acknowledgement of a right.

The purpose of concealed-carry permits is defeated by publicly disclosing the names of those who choose to legally carry a weapon for self-defense. A criminal predator can't distinguish between those citizens who carry and those who don't, and that's the idea. Why should criminals be able to find out who may be armed and who is not, or who likely owns a firearm and who may not?

Women in fear of a stalker, or who are under a protective court order, who move for safety reasons, and who choose to obtain a CWL can be easily located under the current system. Women are now discouraged from obtaining the means of self-defense, because to do so would disclose all personal information.

A person bent on a criminal act does not bother to apply for a CWL, whether a stalker, a burglar, a hijacker or a disgruntled employee. Criminals do not obey the law.

The right to keep and bear arms is found in both the Bill of Rights and the Florida Constitution. The news media and Internet entities have no legitimate reason to publicize those who exercise that right. All such disclosures serve no benefit to society and intrude upon the law-abiding citizen's right to privacy and personal security.

Permit holders follow the law

Re: Shading business, gun owners, editorial.

What is the concern of your staff in keeping the names of Floridians with concealed-carry permits a matter of public record? The folks who obtain these permits are trying to comply with the law. The felons, the mentally disturbed and others do not care about permits. They will get a weapon and rob, steal and murder without regard to permits.

So why should the law-abiding permit holders be forced to be on public record as wanting to defend themselves? And since people kill with steak knives and baseball bats, should everyone who buys one of these be forced to register them? I want to know whose safety you are worried about. If this puts me in league with the NRA, then it puts you in league with those who wish their fellow man all the harm they can wreak.

Committed to Second Amendment

Re: Shading business, gun owners, editorial.

What else can one expect from your paper but a knee-jerk rejection of anything the NRA proposes? Putting the NRA and "big business" together in the same sentence is crafty but deceptive. Actually the NRA represents the interests of individual members who are diverse but committed to the Second Amendment.

Also, allowing the easy disclosure of concealed- weapons-permit holders might have the opposite effect from what you might desire. Many people would be more reluctant to get a permit if they knew their identities would be disclosed.

This leads to my third point: You don't need a permit to own a gun. A person intent on a criminal act is hardly concerned about permits. As far as "spouse abuse" is concerned, it is more likely that the one who would be disadvantaged would be the threatened spouse who applies for a permit. After all, you don't need a gun to kill somebody, especially if you are far bigger and stronger than the intended victim.

NRA needs to be reined in

Long ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the First Amendment did not guarantee freedom of speech to the extent that one can cry "fire" in a crowded theater. If we ordinary citizens accept life-saving curbs on free speech, why does the National Rifle Association preach against curbs on guns that can be more deadly than free speech? The NRA simply has gotten "too big for its pants." It needs to be out-gunned by common sense and respect for life.

Our eroding privacy

Re: Push for drug registry renewed, April 3.

The recent article about a proposed drug database touches on the eroding privacy facing the citizens of the United States. What is not mentioned is personal responsibility. To say that saving lives is more important than an individual's privacy ignores the idea of personal responsibility. Anything can be misused: a kitchen knife, a car, a bottle of oven cleaner. We have lost many forms of privacy along with rights, and this must be curtailed. People must be secure in their right to privacy. If it can be abused, it will be.

Hijacker story is no big deal

Re: 9/11 hijackers practiced here, March 31.

This article is much ado about nothing, and did not merit front-page, above-the-fold status.

Why would Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi land at Clearwater Airpark? Because it's there, it's centrally located, and it's easy to find. It is also far enough from Venice to count as "cross country" time, which is important in flight training. Why after hours? Because they did not exercise due diligence in their flight planning.

When I was an employee of the airpark, I would see this happen a couple of times a month. Someone would fly to the airpark at night without reading its entry in the Airport Facility Directory, so they would not be aware of the airpark's night flying restrictions.

Why, you ask, didn't the FAA do anything about it? Most likely nobody reported it to the FAA, and even if they did, the FAA does not consider enforcing local rules to be its job.

How is this an example of how closer scrutiny might have averted the 9/11 attacks? Were people supposed to look into some kind of crystal ball and say "those people buzzing around are terrorists?" How were we to tell them from the hundreds of others, most of them U.S. citizens, who are also buzzing around? The only thing they did wrong on that night was to use Clearwater Airpark after hours, which is nothing unusual.

This story, while it does merit mention in the Times, certainly does not merit the front page.

An author's origins

Re: Innovation requires both science and art.

Thomas L. Friedman is one of my favorite columnists and his March 27 column on the merging of the sciences and the arts in the global society was very informing and entertaining.

However, there was one little mistake. He refered to the Nobel laureates V.S. Naipaul and Amartya Sen as the Indian author and the Indian economist. Naipaul is not an Indian native although he is of East Indian descent. He was born in Chaguanas, Trinidad, on Aug. 17, 1932, and now lives in Britain.

[Last modified April 5, 2006, 00:37:15]