Jayson Jacoby
The Baker City Herald

Oregon Attorney General John Kroger has emphasized during his tenure his goal of ensuring that people can keep track of what their government is up to.

It is a noble objective, and one we share.

We are troubled, then, when state lawmakers favor secrecy over transparency.

A current example is House Bill 2787, which the House approved last week by a 42-18 vote.

We hope that's as far as the bill goes.

HB 2787 would exempt from the state's public records law the list of

Oregonians who have received a permit to carry a concealed handgun.

Those records are available to the public now, in common with a host of

others such as marriage licenses, divorce decrees and voter

registration cards.

Proponents of the bill argue, among other things, that allowing the

public to see permit records would violate permit holders' privacy and,

potentially, their safety.

Burglars and other criminals, the bill's supporters say, could plunder permit records to assemble a list of potential victims.

This is a peculiar, and implausible, claim.

We can't think of many groups of people who make less attractive

targets for criminals than those who not only carry a handgun, but who

have demonstrated a certain level of proficiency with it, as required

to get the license.

A more logical and legitimate complaint is that making records public

could endanger people who obtained a concealed handgun permit because

they've been targeted by a stalker or abused by a husband or boyfriend.

But a solution to that potential problem is already available through

an Oregon Administrative Rule. That rule allows people to petition to

have their addresses, phone numbers and emails blocked from public

perusal if there's a definite connection - such as the situations we

mentioned above - between their privacy and their safety.

The bottom line here is that when the government requires a person to

obtain a license to be afforded some privilege, whether it's driving a

car, building a shed or carrying a concealed handgun, that's an

implicit acknowledgment that regulating that activity is done for the

public good.

The government issues drivers licenses, for instance, because society

doesn't want just anyone to be allowed to operate a 4,000-pound

automobile at 65 mph.

The public should be allowed, in such cases, to know who the government

has granted such a privilege to. And with good reason - when the

government messes up - by giving a license to a person who's already

killed somebody while driving drunk, say - the public deserves to know

about it so we can hold accountable the responsible officials.

That's not the best analogy to the matter of concealed handgun permits, to be sure.

We're confident that county sheriffs, who dispense the permits, by and

large do a good job of ensuring that only competent and worthy people

receive one.

Yet as government-controlled privileges go, this is a serious one, with

potential ramifications for people other than the permit holder.

If your neighbor builds a shoddy shed, the roof is more likely to hurt his lawnmower than your head.

But if a sheriff makes a careless decision in approving a concealed

handgun permit, and that decision is secret, then the public airing of

the mistake isn't likely to happen until it's too late and somebody's

been hurt, or worse.

Any permitting or licensing process should remain in public view as part of citizens' rights to keep track of their government.