Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Targeting CCW Holders in Oregon

  1. #1
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-18-06
    Location
    Near the Rockies
    Posts
    311

    Targeting CCW Holders in Oregon

    TARGETING LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNERS AGAIN
    By Michelle Malkin • November 11, 2008
    Link: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/11...-owners-again/

    Washington County’s sheriff is asking 10,000 people who hold concealed handgun licenses whether they want their names made public if it is requested as an Oregon public record. Sheriff Rob Gordon said he believes that people obtain these licenses as a security measure, which would exempt the release of their names. But a circuit court in Jackson County ruled in April that people have to document that the license is for security reasons in order to be exempt from public records law.

    On Friday, license holders will be mailed letters asking them to say whether they obtained the license for security reasons, and whether they want their information kept confidential. “Instead of going through the process of saying that it’s implied, we’re going though the process of getting the documentation that says that it is,” said Sgt. Vance Stimler, public information officer at the Washington County Sheriff’s Office. When The Mail Tribune in Medford requested names of concealed handgun license holders as a public record in 2007, the Jackson County Sheriff refused the request based on Oregon law that states records are not public if they could reveal a person’s security measures or weaknesses.

    But Jackson County’s Circuit Court ruled that each individual must specify that he or she doesn’t want any personal information released. If not, their names are public record. The ruling is now in front of the Oregon Court of Appeals. No court date is set. If each applicant requests to keep their information private, then Oregon law will allow the Washington County Sheriff’s Office to reject a request for names of license holders, Stimler said. “Essentially we follow the law and the law stated that people had personal protection reasons for getting them,” Stimler said. “We’re just trying to follow the interpretation.”

    The Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office will confirm that a person has a concealed handgun license if someone calls with a name, said Deputy Paul McRedmond, public information officer. They approve public record requests for general release of names on a case-by-case basis. In Clackamas County, the sheriff’s office will release the information for properly made requests, said Det. Jim Strovink, public information officer.

  2. #2
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    03-01-08
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    877
    Good on the Sheriff for making the right decision. There is a substantial risk involved in publishing the names of CCW holders, particularly to those who are armed due to a threat to their person. He made the right decision.

    Personally, I am totally, completely opposed to ever publishing CCW holders' identities without their permission. That is a gross violation of the right to privacy. What do these newspapers and the like have to gain by publishing these lists? Do they really want harm to come to these people in order to satisfy their liberal fascism?

    It's absurd that such a thing could happen in this country. Let's hope everyone replies that they want privacy and this thing is settled right.
    NRA Life Member, October 2009.
    SAF Defender Club Member, January 2011.
    NRA Endowment Member, January 2011.

  3. #3
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    02-21-08
    Posts
    705
    I think my reply would be:
    "Fine, as long as I can carry concealed, then when I take my jacket off, can carry openly, until I put my jacket back on. Since you are going to publish my information, I should have NO restriction on transitioning from concealed carry to open carry, and back."

    Boulder Colorado tried publishing like that several years back. While the people on the list got a lot of flack, the paper that published it got even more, since several of those with CCWs were "rather influential". Funny how the policy changed - rapidly.

  4. #4
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    12-24-02
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    25,516
    ...Jackson County’s Circuit Court ruled that each individual must specify that he or she doesn’t want any personal information released. If not, their names are public record.
    Government always defaults to the worst possible option.
    No tyrant should ever be allowed to die a natural death.

  5. #5
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    03-06-07
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    1,386
    if the names of those who have Concealed permits are Opened--likely with addresses and contact information; conceptually, concealed is no longer a reality. thus a new position would be open carry, which would also in part eliminate brandishing for merely exposing a firearm. if the basic rules are to be changed than i would advocate for no license necessary for open carry.
    some type of purchase permit would be necessary so as to keep guns out of the hands of those who are a danger to themselves or others.
    in the end. what really has changed?

  6. #6
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    04-01-08
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    1,925
    Personally, I am totally, completely opposed to ever publishing CCW holders' identities without their permission.
    Isn't it interesting that government uses a notion that allegedly protects citizens against government abuse (the notion that government records and transactions and communications should be public) to attack citizens? Can there be any better proof that, as Harry Browne said in his book, government does not work?

    The mistake was first made, way back when, when it was decided that government permission needed to be asked for protecting oneself and one's family. It may have seemed a good compromise at the time, to make CC move forward (and in its defense, it seems to have helped that); but it is still a mistake to compromise a principle.

    I don't think I need to ask government permission to defend my life. Hell with them.

  7. #7
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    08-28-08
    Location
    Northern, OH
    Posts
    670
    Cleveland Plain Dealer pulled the same stunt and actually published several months worth of licensee info. By month, by county; name and date of birth of each license holder.

    They even went so far as to put the info. on their WEB site.

    Simple matter to find most of those licensees home address using people finder or other internet locator.

    Funny thing happened ... the names and addresses of the Plain Dealer management and "reporters" started getting posted all over the place along with the name and address of local "hack politicians" that "applauded the PD's journalistic quest".

    Guess what ... the PD stopped. And since then the law has been changed somewhat to block similar, future acts.

    1A is GOOD ... 2A is BAD ... ask most any media type and that's their answer.

    Guess that means the "Press" is free and the "People" are not.
    The ONLY thing certain in life is DEATH. Live each day to its' FULLEST!

  8. #8
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    05-27-06
    Posts
    7,775
    Oh, if I only had my way with "reasonable restrictions" on the press....

  9. #9
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-22-06
    Location
    Montmorency Co, MI
    Posts
    896
    Freedom of the press-WE are FREE to print what we want!! and not print if we dont want to.

  10. #10
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-02-05
    Posts
    103
    people who get permits may find that information made public.

    that's a pretty good argument against permits.

    open carry doesn't have that potential consequence.

  11. #11
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    05-04-08
    Location
    REPUBLIC OF TEXAS, DISTRICT OF ROUND ROCK
    Posts
    1,527
    glad I live in Texas. License registration information is closed to the public. By Law, not just common sense.
    "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
    --George Washington

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •