Honorable Steve Harrelson,

Thanks to you and the people at KUAR for participating in the forum.

I have a question about the recent exemption that the House voted to give to people that get concealed gun permits. Why do you feel that this exemption is warrented? I know many people who have permits for concealed guns including some that are members of the legislature and they are quite open about the fact that they have permits and often carry a concealed gun on their person.

I do not see any difference between a gun license or a marriage license in terms of the public having access to public information. The public has right to this information. Oversight by a watchful public and open government is essential.

Thank You,


Carl Frank
Traskwood, AR

Thanks for writing, Mr. Frank. I voted alongside 97 others in the House to keep the identities of concealed carry licensees private. I'm in total agreement that virtually all government documents and processes remain transparent and out in the open. However, I do believe that the release of identities of some licensees poses a safety risk. For instance, victims of domestic abuse should be able to obtain a license without fear of being tracked down by their aggressor. On the other hand, I was also persuaded by Arkansas Times Publisher Alan Leveritt on a point he made that the identities of licensees could be found virtually anywhere (voter registration, etc).

I do not take exemptions to the state’s Freedom of Information Act lightly, as I believe that generally, people have a right to know what we’re up to. However, I believe there to be a legitimate basis to keep the identities of those with a concealed carry license private and different from other licenses the state administers. One of the more valid (yet narrow) reasons to keep this information public is to scour the names for felons who may be licensees illegally. However, I believe the privacy concerns of some licensees outweigh these arguments. Therefore, I decided to support HB1623 on those grounds.

I see where you voted for HB 1237. Do you really think we will be a safer society if MORE people are walking around armed, including at church? I'd suggest you look at crime rates in nations where there isn't a gun in every other purse or pocket.

Are politicians in rural Arkansas so fearful of the NRA that they can't see the common sense on an issue like this?

Thanks for listening.

I find some serious constitutional concerns with distinguishing places of worship from other types of private property in this legislation. It's the same concern raised by UALR Law School Dean John DiPippa, columnist John Brummett, and the Arkansas ACLU.

Further, this bill gives each church the right to decide for themselves whether or not to allow concealed carry licensees from carrying on their premises. While my church doctrine (United Methodist Church) discourages firearms at church events, who am I to tell other churches that they can't decide for themselves on this issue? I know this is a hot button issue. While I've never considered carrying a firearm into my sanctuary, and while my church will not be allowing firearms in church if this were to pass, I feel that I shouldn't prohibit a rural church from allowing congregants to carry in their churchif that's their prerogative.

Considering the recent attack in a church that was more a sancuary for the criminal than the victims, would you please bring back to the Senate the bill to allow licensed CCW in churches? My church leadership recently took the CCW class and wishes to have the Elders able to allow the members who are licensed (and trained, background checked and fingerprinted) to legally protect our church body during services?
Thank you,
Brad.

Thanks for writing, Brad. It's the sponsor's call to present the bill to the Committee on Senate Judiciary. You're afforded "two bites at the apple," and since the bill has already failed there once, she only has one more opportunity to present it for passage.

I do not agree that the public should have access to information such as my full name and address that comes with the fact that I carry a weapon for my personal defense.

The publication that did this, did not do it to make a point about "flaws" with the list.

That editor and publication has an axe to grind with gun owners and was done in a spirit of meaness. There were people on that list who needed to remain secret, like undercover officers, women who have orders of protection, security guards etc.

Where does the public's, "right to know" stop? I think it stops where my right to privacy begins. We do not publish names of people who have DUI's, or people who have HIV. They are more of a threat to me and my safety than CHL holders are.

I am glad that Rep. Harrelson chose to support my right to privacy. So Thank you Mr. Harrelson for standing up to a publication that thought the Tennesee issue warranted teasing law abiding gun owners in Arkansas. We'll probably never know how many people pulled the list and gave it to others and whose hands it ended up in.

Thanks. I'm sympathetic to Max and other members of the press who are willing to keep the governmental process open. From time to time, I understand if they push the envelope on issues of sunshine, because doing so keeps the issue of openness in government at the forefront. I disagreed with him on this specific issue, but more often than not, I'm in the camp that believes that the public is better served by a strong Freedom of Information Act.

Would HB2176 be an encroachment of state will on a locality?
I see no reason for HB2176 when domestic partnerships registries do not confer any rights to the people who choose to register.
In this time of economic downtown, why would the state want to take away something that is a source of revenue from cities?
Attorney General McDaniel has even said that domestic partnership registries do not violate state law so I see no need for HB2176. It is just a bill that further sends the message to gays and lesbians in the state that they are not welcomed.

My take: this is a local issue and not the state's business to further intrude on cities/counties to run their communities. It ought to be decided by locale. Further, domestic partnership registries don't confer legal rights, so therefore, I find no real reason to prohibit them if a city finds the need to create a registry.