Intro

Gun Owner Privacy Rights:An Analysis of the Gun Owner Privacy Debate

Blake JohnsonApril 16, 2014

Introduction- The Day that Started it AllDecember 14, 2012, was a tragic day that resulted in the deaths of 27 innocent men, women, and children[footnoteRef:1] at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The tragedy sparked new debate on issues such as gun control, video games, mental health, and many other issues related to the massacre. [1: Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting]

Just over a week after the shooting The Journal News, a newspaper servicing the Westchester, Rockland, and Putnam counties in lower New York, published an article and an on-line interactive map displaying a Google map of the area and then signified with little blue dots, the name, address, and permit information for all handgun permit holders in those counties[footnoteRef:2]. [2: Newspaper sparks outrage for publishing names, addresses of gun permit holders. KC Maas, and Josh Levs, CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/]

The map sparked outrage among many conservative media outlets as well as commentators across the board. The Journal News doubled down on its publication saying that many of its readers had expressed appreciation for the information, while even those most staunchly opposed to guns, such as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, conceded that the publication was probably not a great idea[footnoteRef:3]. Amidst the debate surrounding all the issues connected with the Newtown massacre, one more had entered the arena: Gun-owners privacy rights vs. the right to disseminate information and know who might own firearms in your neighborhood. The debate boils down to privacy rights vs. safety concerns. [3: Bloomberg uncertain about papers gun map. Dylan Byers, Politico.com, http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/01/bloomberg-uncertain-about-papers-gun-map-153370.html]

The Newtown shooting and the aftermath have spurred a lot of debate and a myriad of responses. Many states have enacted new gun laws aimed at restricting magazine capacity, and other gun measures[footnoteRef:4]. Other states have responded to the permit disclosure by the Journal News by enacting laws designed to specifically protect gun owner information[footnoteRef:5]. Many changes have already occurred regarding these issues, and many will still come. The purpose of this paper is to inform about the debate between gun owners privacy and the interest to disclose gun owner information. [4: Gun Owners Privacy. Eva Gutierrez, Epic.org. http://epic.org/privacy/firearms/] [5: NY State Senator: Gun Bill Passed In Middle Of Night Turns Law-abiding Citizens Into Criminals. Steve Watson, Infowars.com. http://www.infowars.com/ny-state-senator-gun-bill-passed-in-middle-of-night-turns-law-abiding-citizens-into-criminals/]

Background- The Journal News Strikes FirstJust nine days after the Newtown massacre, the Journal News published the name and addresses of gun-owners[footnoteRef:6]. The newspaper itself has already taken incredible criticism for the move. Online bloggers figured that what was good for the goose was good for the gander and published the names and addresses of the editor and other employees[footnoteRef:7] at the Journal News. In what some characterized as a hypocritical move, the Journal News hired armed security officers to protect its employees at work[footnoteRef:8]. The outrage has probably resulted in both cancellations, and also subscriptions to the paper. And, although unconfirmed that its related to the gun map, 17 journalists and 26 total staffers have been fired from the Journal News[footnoteRef:9]. This is just the aftermath relating to the Journal News. The publication prompted many other moves across the nation. [6: Newspaper sparks outrage for publishing names, addresses of gun permit holders. KC Maas, and Josh Levs, CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/] [7: Blogger Creates Interactive Map of Employees of Paper Which Published Names and Addresses of Pistol Permit Holders. Tom Blumer, Newsbusters.org. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2012/12/26/blogger-creates-interactive-map-employees-paper-which-published-names-an] [8: Newspaper That Put Gun Permit Map Online Hires Armed Guards. J. David Goodman, The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/nyregion/putnam-officials-keep-gun-permit-records-from-journal-news.html] [9: Bang! Editor Fired After Publishing Gun-Owner Map. WND.com. http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/bang-editor-fired-after-publishing-gun-owner-map/]

Amidst the ethical debate of whether the paper should have exposed such information, one thing is clear, it was perfectly within its legal right to obtain such information and publish the information[footnoteRef:10]. Another thing is also clear, the move has prompted privacy advocates and gun-supporters to get involved and defend their perceived rights as well. [10: Publishing Gun-Owner Names: Can Public Information Be Too Public? Cormac Foster, Readwrite.com. http://readwrite.com/2013/01/05/publishing-gun-owner-names-can-public-information-be-too-public#awesm=~oAYci4Te5Qpkd8]

Legislative Measures- The Battle on the HillMany states have responded to the publication by pushing for more protection of what they consider to be sensitive information. On March 4, 2013, Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant signed into law House Bill 485, which protects personal information collected from applicants for concealed carry permits[footnoteRef:11]. The bill removes the personal information of concealed carry applicants from the public record requirements. The justification behind the bill was that gun-owners information is entitled to privacy protections, just like medical records, tax documents, and personnel files. [11: Governor Bryant Signs Gun Owner Protection Bills. GovernorBryant.com. http://www.governorbryant.com/governor-bryant-signs-gun-owner-protection-bills/]

From the same state during the same month, Senator Thad Cochran introduced[footnoteRef:12] federal legislation known as the Gun-owner Registration Information Protection Act (GRIP Act) which doesnt address any current federal programs or laws regarding registration (because none currently exist) but states that no federal funding could be used to contribute to nonfederal gun registries. Senator Cochran stated, The federal government should not play any role in misguided gun control initiatives that involve the storage or public distribution of personal information of law-abiding people who own or purchase firearms legally. His rationale is that gun registries lead to confiscation. The legislation did not include any restrictions or limitations on states rights to keep records, permitting laws, or lost or stolen firearms. [12: Cochran Introduced Gun-Owner Registration Information Protection Act. Cochran.Senate.Gov. http://www.cochran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ID=9362a084-a49b-42f6-b3a2-0dcf4a9b0d45]

Closer to home, in February of 2013, Representative Jacob Anderegg of Lehi, Utah introduced House Bill 317[footnoteRef:13], Protection of Concealed Firearm Permit, to the legislature. The bill made it a felony to disclose any information about concealed carry permit holders to any office, department, division, or agency of the federal government, unless the information was required for a background check. The bill passed and was signed into law during May of 2013[footnoteRef:14]. [13: Utah house passes bill to protect concealed firearm permit information. Mary Mellor, Deseret News, March 8, 2013. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865575234/Utah-House-passes-bill-to-protect-concealed-firearm-permit-information.html?pg=all] [14: Utah State Legislature Bill Tracker. http://le.utah.gov/~2013/bills/static/HB0317.html]

This very month Representative Dana Layton of Orem, Utah, proposed House Bill 397[footnoteRef:15] after learning of a smartphone application that maps out gun owners in a neighborhood based on the user-provided information. The bill bans school officials from asking students if their parents own firearms. Her rationale was that while they couldnt control the information people turn in on their neighbors, they would prevent the schools from doing it. The bill was not passed during this years legislative session[footnoteRef:16]. [15: House passes bill blocking schools from asking about gun ownership. Benjamin Wood, Deseret News. March 10, 2014. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865598352/House-passes-bill-blocking-schools-from-asking-about-gun-ownership.html?pg=all] [16: Utah State Legislature Bill Tracker. http://le.utah.gov/~2014/bills/static/HB0397.html]

These bills and laws illustrate the bigger picture battle going on resulting from the Journal News publication. At least nine other states are currently debating bills that would change the access to firearm owner information[footnoteRef:17]. In the world of politics, the response has been lightning fast to protect privacy. [17: Gun permit data accessibility. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-law/news-media-and-law-winter-2013/chart-gun-permit-data-acces]

The Current Legal Lay of the land[footnoteRef:18]. [18: Chart data from: Gun permit data accessibility. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-law/news-media-and-law-winter-2013/chart-gun-permit-data-acces]

The political and legal landscape changes almost daily on these proposed laws, and the future is far from certain. Below is the current lay of the legal landscape regarding the availability of gun permit data. Varying degrees of access are represented by the following categories: Public, Presumed Open, Access Threatened, Limited Access, and No public access. PublicNevada issued concealed gun permits and their status are public records, but the applications for permits are not.Presumed OpenNew Hampshire requires local officials to administer a handgun licensing program and to collect personal information from individuals. There is no prohibition on disclosing the data, nor are there statutes or court decisions affirming the records are public.Access ThreatenedIn California, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia, different information has been available about gun permits, and gun owners. All of these states currently have bills in the legislature that would restrict or limit the availability of the information. All of these bills have been introduced as a response to the Journal News map.Limited AccessAlabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, and Virginia all keep and maintain differing levels of information on concealed carry permits and gun owners, but restrict the access to it, allowing only unidentifiable information to the public. Interestingly enough, the state that started this whole battle, New York, passed a sweeping law in January 2013[footnoteRef:19] that restricted the access to the information and allowed permit applicants to request their information not be made available for public record. The move by NY Senator Greg Ball was swift and was enacted rapidly. [19: NY SAFE Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NY_SAFE_Act]

No Public AccessThe following states prohibit public access to gun permit records, including application data: Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Colombia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. Vermont and Wyoming do not require individuals to be licensed to either own a handgun or to carry one concealed and consequently do not maintain gun permit records. The landscape varies greatly, but the immediate consequences of the Journal News publication has been a sharp backlash against the dissemination of gun owner information. Battles are still being fought, but if the immediate reaction of the nation is any indicator, support for disclosing the information is low. Despite the legislative moves, the question remains the same, should gun permit and concealed carry permit information be public record? Now equipped with background information, a more informed debate can ensue.

Policy Arguments for Disclosing Information.Immediately after the publication, as the backlash continued against the paper, the Journal News defended its actions citing that many of its readers were grateful for the information[footnoteRef:20]. Below is the policy argument for why they were grateful and why such information should be public. [20: The gun owner next door: What you dont know about the weapons in your neighborhood. Dwight R Worley, Journal News. http://www.lohud.com/article/20121223/NEWS04/312230056]

It is certainly established that nothing illegal occurred. The Journal News had every right to access the data and publish it under New Yorks then-existing laws. The argument in favor of publishing the information starts with information should be available and for public safety.Information should be free.Journalists make an argument that information should be free and that all the Journal News did was free the information, allowing the information to be accessed and then placing the responsibility of what is done with the information in the publics hands[footnoteRef:21]. Many critiques of the Journal News publication are rooted in the question of journalistic ethics and responsibility. Many have criticized that the publication was nothing more than disclosing the information and did not have a purpose except to out gun permit holders with no actual news to report on[footnoteRef:22]. The outing created a myriad of potential problems that will be discussed further. Whether the right choice or not, the Journal News certainly liberated this data. [21: The gun owner next door: What you dont know about the weapons in your neighborhood. Dwight R Worley, Journal News. http://www.lohud.com/article/20121223/NEWS04/312230056] [22: Where the Journal News Went Wrong in Mapping Gun Owners. Kathleen Bartzen Culver, PBS.org. http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2013/02/where-the-journal-news-went-wrong-in-mapping-gun-owners053/]

The information should be free argument is a valid argument. However, ethical implications should also be considered. While information can be free, releasing information has implications and consequences that raise the ethical dilemma of should the information be free. The myriad of potential negatives (as discussed below) that stem from the publication probably do not outweigh the good it has done.Public SafetyMany newspapers, organizations, and other agencies map out and disclose criminal records, drunk driving records, arrest records, professional licensing information, and of course, the famous sex-offender registry. Advocates for publishing gun owner information argue that just as it is important for the public safety to know where these convicted criminals are located, it is equally important that a parent know which households might have firearms. There are many reasons why this information might be relevant to the average citizen. Parents can know which homes might have firearms in them and either discuss the issue with the parents or simply forbid their kids from playing at that particular house[footnoteRef:23]. Parents might also look at how many potential gun owners live in a particular area before purchasing a home in the neighborhood. The possibilities are vast, but ultimately it all boils down to a public safety argument. By allowing access to the information, citizens can become informed citizens and decide how or whether they will live their lives in that neighborhood. [23: Newspaper publishes names, addresses of gun owners. Julie Moos, Poynter.org. http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/199148/newspaper-publishes-names-addresses-of-gun-owners/]

Although the numbers of accidental deaths are relatively miniscule (a swimming pool owner registry[footnoteRef:24] would probably save more children every year than a gun owner registry) the fact remains that accidental deaths related to firearms are a very real and tragic thing. There is certainly a public interest in knowing who and where guns are licensed to be. The question then becomes who is in the best position to accomplish the goal of informing the citizens? A public database or an inquisitive parent? The current database would be plagued with inaccuracies (see below). For that reason a database is not likely to accomplish a concerned parents goals. However, a parent can ask about their kids friends and talk with the parents, which would be far more informative as to other concerns other than just guns. A concerned parent could discover drug use, or other issues simply by getting to know the parents of their kids friends. [24: Op-ed piece on swimming pools vs. guns as the most dangerous weapon. Steven D. Levitt, University of Chicago. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2001/07/27/levittpoolsvsguns/]

Policy Arguments Against Disclosing the Information.Given that the widespread dissemination of gun owner information had not happened on such an accessible platform before (interactive map), the effects of the disclosure are not yet known or established. The vast majority of concerns are just that, concerns or theories about what the Journal News map will precede. While there is anecdotal evidence to support some of the proposed theories, it is far too early to establish any actual connections with the map. Below are outlined the concerns and arguments against disclosing the information.Public SafetyJust as there is a strong interest in knowing who and where guns might be, there is the flip-side of that argument. Privacy advocates offer public safety arguments as well. The safety discussion is divided into two main concerns: 1) Publishing the gun owners information and address creates a map for criminals to target/burglarize when looking for guns, and 2) the map shows which homes are not gun owners and consequently they are identifiable as defenseless homes[footnoteRef:25]. [25: Publishing Gun-Owner Names: Can Public Information Be Too Public? Cormac Foster, Readwrite.com. http://readwrite.com/2013/01/05/publishing-gun-owner-names-can-public-information-be-too-public#awesm=~oAYci4Te5Qpkd8]

The idea is that now that a criminal can look up who has/had a gun permit and can then target those homes and scout them out, waiting for them to leave and then to break into the house and steal the guns that they expect to be inside. While this is certainly a potential problem with publishing the information, it is still too early to see if this will actually happen.There have been several anecdotal instances of this theory. Several homes have been broken into with apparently nothing else stolen or disturbed except the gun owners gun safes[footnoteRef:26]. Police have not been able to verify an infallible connection of these crimes with the map the Journal News published, but the home owners say they are confident both instances occurred because the criminals knew their homes contained guns. [26: Burglars hit home of gun owner IDd by Newspaper. Todd Starnes, Fox News Radio. http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/gun-owners-home-outed-by-newspaper-is-burglarized.htmlBurglars target home of gun owner outed by NY newspaper. Anthony Martin, Examiner.comhttp://www.examiner.com/article/burglars-target-home-of-gun-owner-outed-by-n-y-newspaper]

The other argument that publishing the information is a public safety issue is the exact opposite. Criminals can look on the map and decipher homes that are likely to have firearms and of course, homes that probably dont contain firearms. Criminals then are able to target the homes where they are unlikely to encounter any deadly resistance with a firearm. This essentially leaves the unarmed homes as sitting ducks and criminals can target these defenseless homes with more confidence. Of course establishing such a connection would be very difficult because you would need to identify the subjective intents and motives of each criminal. Again, no connection has been verified with regard to this theory. The final public safety concern is that the information was indiscriminate. It published the information of all citizens that had gun permits. This included judges, prison guards, former law enforcement and FBI agents[footnoteRef:27]. In one instance prisoners were telling the prison guards their addresses in an attempt to intimidate them[footnoteRef:28]. This also created a potential problem of disclosing the location of individuals who have escaped abusive or dangerous relationships and purchased firearms for protection. Disclosing the information created the potential for many public safety problems for both gun owners and non-owners. [27: The gun owner next door: What you dont know about the weapons in your neighborhood. Dwight R Worley, Journal News. http://www.lohud.com/article/20121223/NEWS04/312230056] [28: Inmates using newspapers gun owner map to threaten guards, sheriff says. FoxNews.com http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/04/law-enforcement-latest-critics-on-public-display-gun-owner-data-officers/]

These are the public safety arguments against the disclosure of gun owner information. They are certainly valid concern, however, at such an early stage after the publication, no reliable data or connections have been verified, but it is an area that is likely to receive substantial attention and investigation after the Journal News move. Accuracy and IncompletenessAside from public safety, advocates for gun owner privacy cite the fact that such information is highly inaccurate and not reliable. Many factors draw attention to the gaping issues of accuracy. The Journal News requested the public records from the County Clerks office and only received information for handgun permit information[footnoteRef:29]. The information did not include permits or information for shotguns, rifles, or assault weapons[footnoteRef:30]. Providing information for just handguns gives a small part of the picture, but does not provide an accurate complete picture of the actual firearm situation in any neighborhood. The primary weapon Adam Lanza used in his massacre would not have been known about anyway, because it was not a handgun. Providing a part of the picture can be helpful regarding handguns, but does not accomplish much for other weapons that could be in the area. [29: The gun owner next door: What you dont know about the weapons in your neighborhood. Dwight R Worley, Journal News. http://www.lohud.com/article/20121223/NEWS04/312230056] [30: Where the Journal News Went Wrong in Mapping Gun Owners. Kathleen Bartzen Culver, PBS.org. http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2013/02/where-the-journal-news-went-wrong-in-mapping-gun-owners053/]

The Journal News took down the interactive map within a month of the initial publication[footnoteRef:31]. It cited the fact that the information was not being constantly updated and changes are likely to occur frequently as the primary reason for taking it down[footnoteRef:32]. This is also another issue with accuracy. The gun owner information obtained is not particularly reliable because people move, die, or change their gun ownership status constantly. The method that the Journal News used does not address these issues. The permit information they requested could be completely outdated and not reliable. If a person has moved then publishing the information accomplishes nothing but target the new owner as a gun owner, even if that is not true at all. [31: Journal News Removes gun map. http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/201195/journal-news-removes-gun-map/] [32: Journal News Removes Gun Map. Dylan Byers, Politico.com. http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/01/journal-news-removes-gun-map-citing-new-yorks-new-154606.html]

The last gaping problem with accuracy is that disseminating permit information only discloses information about legal firearms, it does nothing to address illegal firearms. Advocates of privacy are quick to cite statistics showing that the vast majority of crime is done with illegal firearms and not with legal firearms[footnoteRef:33]. [33: Publishing Gun-Owner Names: Can Public Information Be Too Public? Cormac Foster, Readwrite.com. http://readwrite.com/2013/01/05/publishing-gun-owner-names-can-public-information-be-too-public#awesm=~oAYci4Te5Qpkd8]

These issues with accuracy and what it included in the information create significant barriers to the reliability and usefulness of said information. Steps would certainly need to be taken to ensure higher reliability and usefulness of information to overcome privacy advocates concerns. It is likely that over time a more reliable database could be created and eventually become a useful tool for disclosure, however to create such a database, even more information about gun owners would have to be exposed.Stigmatizing Gun OwnersMuch has been made of the fact that when information is a public record, it is open to being disclosed. Privacy advocates argue that while legal, publishing such information causes a problem and puts a target or stigmatizes gun owners in a negative light. Privacy advocates are quick to point out that other groups that are publicly outed include sex offenders, and other criminals. By publishing gun owner information, it serves to either subconsciously or consciously put gun owners in the same category as other criminals[footnoteRef:34]. [34: Where the Journal News Went Wrong in Mapping Gun Owners. Kathleen Bartzen Culver, PBS.org. http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2013/02/where-the-journal-news-went-wrong-in-mapping-gun-owners053/]

Publishing gun owner information is different from these other groups because gun permit holders have done nothing wrong. They have actually taken considerable steps to remain law-abiding citizens and to ensure they can own/keep a firearm legally. Many privacy advocates see the publishing of their information as punitive toward law-abiding citizens. This strikes many as unjust because they have done nothing wrong but are still being outed. Being placed on a list of any kind creates a stigma that many people would shy away from. Privacy advocates argue that creating such a stigma is unfair and should not be done. Anyone being thrown into the same company as sex offenders would agree, it is not good company to be associated with.It is arguable that the Journal News was at least in part attempting to shame gun owners. To publish gun owner information so quickly after the tragedy at Newtown served to enrage people and was done partly as a way to point the fingers at gun owners while saying, Those people are also responsible for tragedies such as Newtown. Had the paper publish the information before the massacre, it would not have had the same appeal.Potential Future RegistryA final argument that privacy advocates present is that having gun owner information public encourages and moves toward the creation of a national gun registry. While there is an argument to be made, there are already many blocks in the way of a registry being created. The GRIP Act only weakened the possible creation of a national database. It must also be noted, however, that the federal government confiscated all privately-owned, legal firearms from law-abiding citizens during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina[footnoteRef:35]. There is no guarantee that this information would not aid a future confiscation effort. [35: Gun Owners Have a Right to Privacy. John Stossel, Creators.com. https://www.creators.com/opinion/john-stossel/gun-owners-have-a-right-to-privacy.html]

Weighing the good and bad.A great analogy explains the conundrum of the current issue. The situation is analogous to a doctor who must decide whether to perform surgery. The doctor knows that they would have to cut through good healthy tissue to get to a tumor. The damage to the skin is greatly outweighed by the good that comes from removing the tumor, but the surgeon has gone through years of training to cause only damage that is justifiable. Herein lays the conundrum of the present issue.Does a journalist/entity have the required training to disclose only the information that is justifiable and still creates a positive net result? Or does the journalist actual cause more problems like a surgeon cutting off an entire foot to take care of an ingrown toenail? These are the questions that cant currently be answered. Gun owner information has not before been disseminated in the same way the Journal News has done. It was easy to access and use, and consequently, easy to misuse as well. There is certainly some utility to disclosing gun owner information. It does provide a tool that parents can use to become informed and take certain precautions with their families. The question is whether the utility outweighs the damage is does. Without solid data it is impossible to determine what effects the disclosure of gun owner information will have on society. However, privacy advocates have outlined several potential problems that may be happening or we may discover in the future that has already happened. Ten years from now, we may have more data to determine whether we have expertly removed a tumor with minimal damage to the rest of the body, or if we have amputated a foot to alleviate an ingrown toenail. Given the reliability (or lack thereof) of the gun owner information, along with the fact that most states dont keep such information as public records anyway, in its current state, an effective and working database of gun owner information is not likely to emerge and be a particularly useful tool. Of course there are always ways to improve and make the product better, but currently it appears that the potential negatives outweigh the potential positives. The country and legislators would appear to agree and for that reason have taken steps to protect gun owner information. One solution is that if a parent is truly concerned about having his/her kids playing in house that is also a home to firearms, the parent can ask their neighbors whether they are gun owners as well as inquire as to how they are locked up, what kinds, etc. The concerned parent has the ability to discover the information and protect their kids. The gun owner whose information is published without his/her consent has no control over the situation. It becomes a no-win situation if the gun owner would like to own guns, but must subject themselves to public disclosure if they choose to buy one. The very thought of being outed might deter a significant portion of the population from purchasing a firearm. Not only does the dissemination of gun owner information infringe on the privacy of already-gun owners, but it acts a deterrent mechanism against those who might be on the bubble about owning a gun. If gun owner information is freely disclosed then it becomes a situation where a citizen must give up certain privacy rights to own a firearm. That is not a fair request on an issue for which the Supreme Court has stated an individual has a constitutional right (see Heller v. D.C.)[footnoteRef:36]. [36: District of Columbia v.Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller]

Overall, no one can be certain of anything until we actually witness the effects of disclosing gun owner information. And truthfully, the sample size is probably too small anyway to extrapolate any solid causal relationships, but on their faces, the potential negatives outweigh any positives. If none of the side-effects occur, then yes a database could be helpful and further public safety interests. On the other hand, if privacy advocates are correct and some of their concerns occur, we may have a much larger mess on our hands than we currently do. The Journal News has provided a test case. Although the map is already down, it was available for about a month, and from it we may come across trends/effects that would indicate whether there is any validity to either sides position. Time will tell, but if the inaccuracy of the information and anecdotal evidence already occurring is any sign, this may be an issue where privacy should be paramount.Does a Gun Owner Have a Right to Privacy?The 2nd Amendment does not include an express right to privacy, and currently a battle is waging in West Virginia to determine whether the 2nd Amendment trumps the 1st Amendment[footnoteRef:37]. The Sheriff has refused to disclose the gun-permit records and the newspaper that made the request is now suing. [37: Does the Second Amendment trump the First? Eugene Volokh, WashingtonPost.comhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/25/does-the-second-amendment-trump-the-first/]

This issue is currently centered around the Freedom of Information Act and then the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment does not guarantee an individuals right to access government records, what it protects is the right to disclose and publish the information they receive through requests. Whether the news agencies can obtain the records in the first place depends on whether the particular state statute provides that the information is a public record and whether the information is private. Many states privatize certain citizen records, and so lays the current situation of a gun owners right to privacy, it is dependent on whether the individual state has protected the information. It is clear that the 1st Amendment grants the right to publish whatever information the press is entitled to obtain. The better question is, should gun owners have a right to privacy?There is no clear-cut answer to this question. Advocates of disclosure argue that their right to know where guns are is akin to knowing where hazardous materials are kept[footnoteRef:38]. They have an interest in keeping their families safe and away from any dangerous situations. [38: Even this bleeding-heart liberal believes gun owners have a right to privacy. Mary Elizabeth Williams, Salon.comhttp://www.salon.com/2012/12/28/even_this_bleeding_heart_liberal_believes_gun_owners_have_a_right_to_privacy/]

Privacy advocates counter that the disclosure of gun owners is to publicly shame them and that it creates real safety concerns for those outed by the disclosure[footnoteRef:39]. Publicly shaming gun owners is a real concern in that the issue of gun control and ownership has become a highly politicized issue. The mere ownership of a firearm often leads others to assume other political stereotypes about the person. To avoid this problem, privacy advocates push for total anonymity when it comes to gun ownership[footnoteRef:40]. [39: Gun Owners Have a Right to Privacy. John Stossel, Creators.com. https://www.creators.com/opinion/john-stossel/gun-owners-have-a-right-to-privacy.html] [40: Gun Owners Privacy. Eva Gutierrez, Epic.org. http://epic.org/privacy/firearms/]

Other rights rooted in the constitution have an inherent or implied right to privacy. The 1st Amendment protects the right of free association, and consequently the country does not keep records of all church-going citizens and list their respective denominations for all to see. Even under the constant threat of terrorism, publishing a list of all Muslims in the United States simply because there is a higher likelihood or perception that Muslims are more likely to commit acts of terror would infringe on their rights.This also holds true for abortion clinics. People have a variety of reasons for why they might seek an abortion, but if that information was not protected and their privacy was non-existent, that information would accomplish little more than allow those persons to be stigmatized, stereotyped, and possibly bullied for exercising a constitutional right as provided by Roe v. Wade[footnoteRef:41]. Publicizing an abortion list would certainly infringe on a persons privacy. [41: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade]

Even the staunchly liberal Mary Elizabeth Williams, a columnist for Salon website, understands the importance of maintaining gun owner privacy. Williams saw the Journal News map as a way of public shaming and argued that it did not further public discourse.[footnoteRef:42] She also mentioned the safety concerns presented for those who obtained the weapons for self-defense. She then posed the question of how would you react if a newspaper published a list of all registered Democrats, or those who had filed bankruptcy or divorced, or what about a list of doctors that perform abortions? These questions are in the same vein as the ones presented above: individuals who would expect to have a degree of privacy while exercising constitutional rights. [42: Even this bleeding-heart liberal believes gun owners have a right to privacy. Mary Elizabeth Williams, Salon.comhttp://www.salon.com/2012/12/28/even_this_bleeding_heart_liberal_believes_gun_owners_have_a_right_to_privacy/]

No bright-line right of privacy exists, and the individual states can choose for themselves whether the records will be public or not. Whether a gun owner should have a right to privacy is a subjective question that requires weighing the pros and cons. While few pros exist, many cons exist and the issue should not be determined based on the political viewpoints of an individual. Advocates for the disclosure should ask themselves if they would be ok if the shoe were on the other foot and a paper published their name as being a supporter of a controversial political issue. Just as Ms. Williams states, chances are that most people would opt for privacy. Not affording gun owners a right to privacy could potentially intimidate, shame, harm, and stereotype a large group of the population that has done nothing more than exercise a constitutional right.

Raising Other QuestionsOne certainty of this debate is that the Journal News got people talking. As already discussed, the majority of the dialogue is the pros and cons of disclosing the information against maintaining a citizens privacy. However it has also raised other questions regarding privacy. The Journal News certainly caught a lot of gun owners off-guard because they simply didnt know that their information was a public record. The experience has provided yet another dialogue in a world filling up fast with privacy issues. This particular issue has forced many people to question what other information that they assumed was private is actually an open record. It also raises questions about massive data aggregation and how that can affect average citizens. Conclusion- The Parting ShotThe Journal News started a firestorm when it published information about law-abiding citizens open for public inspection. The backlash the Journal News faced after its publication was a strong indication, and the moves that many states legislators have made in favor of maintaining and securing an individuals privacy shows that legislators understand how sensitive an individuals privacy is. The potential negatives outweigh the potential positives in this debate and securing an individuals privacy should rule the day.

1