DaytonDailyNews.com

When issues are put off for a day — or a year — eventually the clock runs out.

So it is with the business of how much information sheriffs can keep secret about who has permits to carry concealed weapons. A new law — a dumb, patently unconstitutional law — takes effect Sept. 29.

Its history is thus: Last year the Legislature decided to put even more limits on what the public can know about permit-holders. The current law says only journalists can learn the names of those who can hide a gun in their car or under their coat. And they only are told names, ages and what county a person lives in. Reporters, for instance, can't learn home addresses or information about the kinds of guns a holder has.

The new law piles on, adding that journalists may not copy these records.

Some lawmakers say that means official documents can't be put in a copying machine, but journalists can take notes about information on sheriffs' records. Others say journalists can't write anything down, but can tell whatever they can recall from memory.

Not shockingly, there's also disagreement about who's a journalist. Do you have to work for a newspaper or magazine? What if you write for a Web site or an organization that has a newsletter?

The National Rifle Association wants information about permit-holders to be kept private. Good government advocates and journalists, however, argue that it's important to be able to review permit information if only to determine whether sheriffs are doing a good job of vetting applicants.

Public officials can always think of reasons why information they keep — at public expense — should be secret. What often is downplayed is that government can't possibly be held accountable if citizens — and the media — can't look over their shoulder.

The new law didn't make sense when it was passed, and anyone who thought about it at the time had to see the constitutional red flags. If people read information, and then they print or broadcast it because they can remember it, are they violating the law? If so, isn't that a violation of their First Amendment rights?

And this precedent of giving just journalists rights that the public doesn't have is supremely dangerous. The First Amendment wasn't created for journalists, but for citizens.

Of course, journalists benefit mightily from the right, but setting the media above everyone else makes a distinction that isn't in the Constitution.

At the end of the month, sheriffs aren't going to know what to do. They could get sued whichever way they turn — and lawsuits ultimately cost the public money.

Gov. Ted Strickland is basically supporting the NRA because he wants to stay on its good side.

But a law is the problem, and it needs to be fixed. Punting to the courts — when the statute is indefensible — is using judges for political cover. That's an abuse of institutions that have better things to do than bail out cowardly politicians.