As a set-up for a roundtable forum the Dayton Daily News is sponsoring this Thursday, May 5, the newspaper has published a story which attempts to examine both sides of the debate. As most readers have come to expect from the DDN, however, their story leans heavily towards the position the writers and editors themselves hold personally.

From the story:

Kettering resident Patt Duffy figures she has every right to know who has a permit to carry a concealed handgun.

"I can't understand why they want the records closed unless they're trying to hide something," said Duffy, 67, a retiree. "I think if the guy next door has a permit, I have a right to know. There are so many guns out there now, if we're going to add more, we might as well know about those."

But under Ohio law, Duffy does not have the right to know who the 45,500 permit holders are. Those records are closed to the public and only journalists are allowed access.

Patrick Offenberger, a truck driver from Dayton, doesn't think journalists or anyone else should be given access — and he's even a little leery about police keeping records.

"If it was open to the public, that would go ahead and target people. Criminals could look at (the permit holder list) and say, 'They have a gun, I don't want to mess with them. This person doesn't have a gun, I can mess with them,' " said Offenberger, 50. "Criminals might look dumb, but it's a clever disguise. Some of these guys are pretty slick."

Like many Ohioans, Offenberger and Duffy are sharply divided over the right to privacy versus the right to know when it comes to concealed weapons.

Writer Laura Bischoff offers no evidence to back up her editorial claim that Ohioans are divided on this issue. Although it was provided to her in preparation for this story, she failed to mention that a recent Columbus Dispatch poll found that 66% said they believe too much personal information is available to the public. Nor did she mention the results of a national poll, released just last week, in which two-thirds of those polled said journalists invade people's privacy too often.

Again, from the story:

According to Packing.org, a pro-gun rights Web site, about two-thirds of states keep concealed weapons records private and one-third open them to the public.

Ohio is the only state that closes the records but then allows journalists to obtain permit holders' names, counties of residence and dates of birth, according to Ohioans for Concealed Carry, a pro-gun rights group.

Gov. Bob Taft had threatened to veto the gun bill if the records were closed to the general public, but he later signed legislation that included the compromise of letting reporters see who has permits.

Although it was provided to her, there is no mention of the irony of Gov. Taft having acted to remove former prisoners' private information from the Internet out of a concern that it might be an embarrassment to them.

Rep. Jim Aslanides told the DDN he is upset that some media outlets have published lists of license-holders, which he believes puts those gun owners at risk of being targeted by criminals seeking guns.

"They are not using discretion. They're simply doing it to harass, and it's drawing attention to the issue," Aslanides told the DDN.

The article then quickly shifted gears to providing quotes from open records advocates who discounted the need for privacy by CHL-holders.

"There is something about keeping people accountable when it's public," said Toby Hoover, head of Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence. "I'd be for having this as public record, period, not just for journalists. I think I have the right to know if my kids go in a car with somebody whether that person is carrying. I think I have a right to know if I hire somebody to come in and paint my house whether that person is carrying."

Ohioans for Concealed Carry spokesman Chad Baus said Hoover should "wake up" to the fact that criminals carry guns every day. (Hoover's first husband was shot to death in 1973 during a hardware store robbery.)

Gun owners who submit to 12 hours of training and a criminal background check shouldn't be treated like sex offenders or people with deadly diseases, Baus said.

"There is no reason for this irrational fear," he said.

(Editor's Note: Although I told her, there is no mention by Bischoff of the fact that I too am in this fight because I had a family member become a victim of violence, nor that he still is alive because he had a gun and fought back! Nor does the writer bother to mention the rest of my quote -that Hoover is completely naïve if she believes she can know she is in the presence of someone with a firearm simply because this list is public.)

The article starts and finishes with quotes from a woman who "laughs heartily" at the suggestion that CHL-holders are put at risk by having their names published.

An accompanying story in the Sunday DDN is entitled: Many former officers carry concealed weapons , and "outs" a number of former public officials or law enforcement officers who have obtained CHLs or who carry concealed. Is this why they said they needed the media access loophole?

Once again, these articles were published as a set-up for a roundtable discussion on this issue, set to be held Wednesday, May 5. Can we expect the forum to be any less tilted? From the invitation OFCC received:

Who should have access to concealed-carry permits — the public at large, law enforcement only, the media? And what’s the responsibility of the media if it has access to that information — to report it to the public or not? Our roundtable discussion May 5 will look at these issues as well as the larger topics of open government and media coverage of the concealed-carry issue. The roundtable is part of a national effort sponsored by the Associated Press Managing Editors. The Dayton Daily News is the first newspaper in the country to present a roundtable under this program, and we anticipate a lively, thoughtful and civil discussion.

The session will be facilitated by Dr. Richard Stock, a University of Dayton researcher. About 15 people will be on the panel; their names and affiliations are attached. We expect about 30 people in the audience.

OFCC's Senate District 10 Coordinator Larry S. Moore will be on the panel. Although not a final list, the names and positions of panelists suggest a heavy tilt to the side of open records.

To read comments provided to DDN reporter in advance of today's story, click on the "Read More..." link below.