The Muncie Star thinks you're a sex offender

There is absolutely zero hyperbole in the title of this post.  From an editorial in today’s Muncie paper about the bills that would close access to the handgun permit database comes the following excerpt, word for word:

A bill authored by Rep. Peggy Welch, a Democrat from the Brown County area, removes from public inspection information about people carrying gun permits.

This is not a good idea. This bill needs to be severely amended or allowed to die in committee.

Here’s why:

Say, for example, you want to find out whether there are any convicted child molesters living in your neighborhood. You have young children, and like any good parent, you look up the information on available Web sites. Your research uncovers several living in your neighborhood. If you want to know whether they have permits to carry a gun, you can get that information. This bill, however, would prohibit that information from being made known.

I wish I was making this up, I really do. However, the Muncie paper apparently thinks that you and I as handgun carry permit holders are just as dangerous as sex offenders. However, it gets better, as the Muncie paper shows that they think the Indiana State Police is a racist organization:

It also will be nearly impossible to find out whether police or other members are denying permits to legitimate applicants, maybe because of race or names that might denote a Muslim background, for example.

It actually says that they think that ISP is denying permits to legitimate applications because of their race and religion.  That’s pretty low, even for a paper.

You can contact the editors of the Muncie paper here. Their phone number is 1-800-783-2472. Please contact them and be courteous and polite while expressing you distaste for the comparison of law abiding gun owners to sex offenders.


  1. you know, you’re right. I misread the sentence earlier. So, instead they think that the State Police might be racist. Whoops.

  2. Yeah, they want to prevent discrimination. But they’re idiots anyway for not realizing felons cant own guns and comparing gun owners to sex offenders.

    You should revise the post to make it clear.

  3. Why is it bad to want to make sure a government entity isn’t discrimination based on race? It’s not low, the government doesn’t have feelings that we need to avoid hurting, and keeping an eye on the government is the point of newspapers.

    Not only that, but using race as a factor is a problem at least one discretionary licensing state may very well have…

    A searchable a database of license holders is still bad. There are other ways of preventing racist abuse.

  4. The post has been revised to clarify what I said initially was incorrect – the paper was saying that the cops are racist, not being racist themselves.

  5. It would help if you posted the email addresses and phone numbers of the representatives in charge of the bill so we can give them our support and forward them a copy of this article for their reading.

    1. Stevey – the names and email address are posted above this post. The committee is getting a lot of heat from the media to gut the bill, so contact them now!

  6. I don’t agree with your first premise either.

    The way I read it, they’re saying that IF you find you have a sex offender in your area, THEN you should be able to check to find out of they have a CHP as well.

    Ostensibly, they aren’t implying that CHP holders are bad, just that sex offenders with CHP’s are bad.

    It is a very weak rationalization considering that it would be a felony for a convicted sex offender to even touch a firearm, let alone own or carry one, but I’m not reading their statement the way you are.

    I fully support closing the CHP lists to the public because of the opportunities for abuse by the media and others, but I think we need to be careful not to raise objections that are not firmly grounded and that could be used to dismiss our position out of hand.

  7. Their concern that people might be denied a permit based on race or whatever is also specious and grounded in ignorance, since a permit can only be denied based on status as a legally prohibited person.

  8. Why do they list Peggy as Brown County? I’m on the South side of Bloomington and she’s my rep. Looking at the map, she’s got a LOT of Monroe county and nearly non (any?) of Brown.

    Oh well, what do I expect? A newspaper to actually, you know, get the facts right?

    I”ve got a bit of warm & fuzzies going as I contacted her office when the HTO published the database asking her to close access to it. Its as if this whole representative scheme actually works sometimes, at least on a local level.

  9. The article insinuates that IN gives gun permits to convicted child molesters, not that all gun permit holders are convicted child molesters.

    I’m fairly sure IN does NOT give handgun permits to convicted child molsesters. The whole idea is ludicrous, but is just goes to show that the hoplophobe writing the article mentally associates anyone with a gun a violent criminal. To a lot of sheep, the only reason to have a gun is because you’re a mass murderer just waiting for his/her opportunity.

    To more rational readers, this newspaper is – unintentionally I’m sure – actually making the case for going armed to protect their children: there is no such thing as a safe place. Violent criminals can be found almost everywhere except the gun permit database.

  10. It’s kind of a weird connection. Bottom line … if both the State DB of sex offenders and the state DB of CCW holders has anyone the same … there’s a BIG problem there. The problem with the state needs to be fixed. Period.

    But if there’s a child predator in your neighborhood, in any case … does a gun make them more dangerous to your child? or is the fact they’re an adult and your child is a child enough danger?

    The fact that there are child predators ANYWHERE is not reason to have an online CCW DB, but rather a reason why ever parent should get a CCW license for themselves.

Comments are closed.