Not surprisingly, the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the question of whether people who sign initiative and referendum petitions are entitled to a cloak of secrecy. Until the robed ones rule, though, we underlings still have time to discuss the matter. So I ask the following:
Do those who favor secrecy, because it would protect signers from the potential of harrassment and intimidation, also favor reasonable gun control, because it would protect citizens from the potential of being shot by armed hoodlums?
Conversely, do those who believe that guns don't kill people, people kill people, also believe that open records don't harrass and intimidate people, people do.
In short, isn't it consistent with pro-2nd Amendment reasoning to believe that if access to signatures on petitions results in retribution against signers, the solution is not to withhold public documents but to prosecute those individuals who do the harm?
(No wonder my home to-do list never gets any shorter. Hope you're enjoying your holiday weekend.)