In a target=_BLANK>recent editorial, the Sandusky Register argued that ALL government information should be public and appears to support the idea that government shouldn’t be able to keep some information private. This argument is a red herring, designed to mask an anti-gun political agenda that involves targeting citizens who have a legal concealed handgun license (CHL) by publishing their name, age, and county of residence.

Government makes decisions all the time to keep government information private if there is a chance that publishing that information could harm citizens. For example, a Social Security Number is government information, but it is kept private to avoid identity theft. Those who have obtained a restraining order from a government entity, such as a court, are not subjected to having a new address or phone number published in order to protect the victim.

The argument for open government records is the public’s “need to know.” But the public has no need to know when it comes to legally concealed weapons by law abiding citizens. And since there is a precedent for protecting citizens by keeping certain information private, there is no reason to publish this information in a newspaper.

But since the Sandusky Register argues that ALL government information should be public, and that this information is fair game for publication, it is time to put this theory to the test.

Late last week, the Associated Press reported that police had found a loaded gun in the car of a man accused of threatening a woman on the Shawnee State University campus in Portsmouth, Ohio.

What the AP did NOT note is that this was yet another example of how impotent gun ban laws are at stopping violent criminals.

Click 'Read More' for the story.