* Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s recent ruling that names of FOID card holders must be made public might’ve been calculated as a compromise, of sorts. Just the names would be released, not addresses. The Associated Press likely demanded the list to find out if the cards were being given to people who shouldn’t have them, which is not unreasonable considering reporting in other states…

An investigation by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel published in 2007 found that 1,400 people who were given concealed-carry licenses in the first half of 2006 had earlier pleaded guilty or no contest to felonies but qualified for guns because of a loophole in the law.

In Memphis, Tenn., The Commercial Appeal found at least 70 people in the Memphis area who had concealed-carry permits despite violent histories including robbery, assault and domestic violence. A firestorm erupted after the newspaper posted an online database in 2008 of names of all concealed-carry permit holders in Tennessee.

Legislatures in Florida and Tennessee have since voted to make information on permit holders private.

The Indianapolis Star found hundreds of people convicted of felonies or other “questionable” cases in which people were subsequently granted concealed-carry permits, often over protests cases from local law enforcement officials and in some instances where it appeared the state police had a legal obligation to deny them.

* And the AG’s office believed that the public interest outweighed minor privacy concerns…

Assistant Public Access Counselor Matthew Rogina, citing federal court decisions as well as Illinois law, wrote in a letter to the state police attorney that disclosing the names “cannot be characterized as highly personal or objectionable.” He wrote that there is a “public interest” in releasing the information, citing the example of an individual who may have become ineligible to carry.

“Therefore, even if disclosure of the names and expiration of the (Firearm Owner’s Identification Card) card owners did constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, this fact is outweighed by the public interest that exists in ensuring the integrity of the (police) database,” he wrote.

* The Sun-Times agrees…

Gun advocates would like to keep secret the identity of those who hold the FOID cards, which are supposed to keep people with criminal records or mental illness from buying guns. Anti-gun activists, on the other hand, argue that making the names public is one way to ensure the FOID system is working.

Licensed gun dealers and gun shows are not supposed to sell a gun to anyone who lacks a valid FOID, but who can say the system is working if all records are kept private?

We can’t see how releasing just the names of the state’s 1.3 million FOID holders poses much of a privacy risk, except perhaps for folks with truly unusual names. In a state as big as Illinois, a lot of people share the same name.

* But as we saw yesterday in comments, the backlash is intense…

“The Attorney General’s recent statements place every citizen in Illinois at risk,” contended [Rep. David Reis]. “Citizens without a FOID card could be subject to crimes because criminals will now have a road map to each house in rural communities and neighborhoods unarmed and vulnerable to attack.

“This is a dangerous and short-sighted decision which flies in the face of common sense.”

And…

“Gangbangers and others that want to know where to go to get firearms, they get that Firearm Owner’s ID list and say, ‘OK, this home here in the 13th ward probably has guns, let’s break in this one,’” [Sen. Kirk Dillard] said.

And…

[State Representative John Cavaletto] believes otherwise and says the issue is simple - Privacy is paramount. “It should be a no-no… we shouldn’t do this,” he says. “I’m going to try and help co-sponsor the bill to stop it.”

* An attempt yesterday to nullify Madigan’s ruling failed in the Illinois House…

[Rep. Ron Stephens] is trying to short-circuit the disagreement with legislation. Though he claims Illinois law already bars the police from making the gun permit registry public, he’s pushing a bill that would clearly prohibit that information from being released except in connection with a criminal investigation.

Stephens’ bill narrowly failed in committee on a 5-5 vote Wednesday, but under state law, the committee can reconsider it. Stephens said he’ll bring it back for a do-over in the next couple weeks.

“This is an important issue about freedom. … We will persist,” Stephens said.

* Sensing an opportunity, the Illinois GOP is trying to make hay out of the volatile issue…

Illinois Republicans are organizing a petition drive to block the release of information about people authorized to have guns. […]

[GOP Party Chairman Pat Brady] says taxpayers should not depend on majority Democrats in the Legislature to “shout down this Madigan attempt to take away our right to privacy.” He says they should sign the petition in favor of legislation keeping the records confidential.

* Reporters look at this issue as government refusing to make information public. It’s not all that different from, say, the Chicago Police Department’s refusal to release its files on David Koschman’s death…

Cook County prosecutors say they relied heavily on two “unbiased witnesses” in deciding they couldn’t charge anyone in the death of David Koschman following a 2004 confrontation in the Rush Street area that involved Mayor Daley’s nephew and three friends.

Now, one of those witnesses says prosecutors’ conclusion that Koschman “was the aggressor and had initiated the physical confrontation” is a “flat-out lie.”

The witness — Michael Connolly, an information-technology manager who previously had been interviewed by the Chicago Police Department — came forward Wednesday after reading a statement from prosecutors in Monday’s Chicago Sun-Times.

“The state’s attorney said all the witnesses involved said that David was the aggressor. That was a flat-out lie,” said Connolly, 36, who was drinking on Rush Street with a co-worker, Phillip Kohler.

* Gun owners and their supporters, on the other hand, view the AG’s order as a potentially dangerous government intrusion on their own personal privacy rights…

This would mean the release of your name, as a FOID holder. If you have a unique name, and an anti-gun employer, your job will be at risk.

Perhaps you are a collector, will you be targeted for your firearms collection? Will violent criminals be able to determine which households don’t have firearms for protection?

Lisa Madigan is no friend to firearms owners, she thinks that you need to have your name published to punish you for being a law-abiding gun owner.

I just don’t see how these two completely different world views can be reconciled. Do you?