Oregon Newspaper Sues for List of Handgun Permit Owners

[Lady Di]

Here's a story about a newspaper that is suing the local sheriff for a list of handgun permit owners. So is this how the liberal media is going to go after gun owners? What useful purpose would this have other than give the bad guys a list of homes to stay away from? Would you want your names listed in the local newspaper notifying everyone that you might be carrying a gun? As a woman, I certainly wouldn't want every BG in town knowing that kind of information. Am I just being paranoid? :shock:

http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-21/1192550991120170.xml&storylist=orlocal

[Stubob]

Where is the ACLU protecting the Gun owners rights to privacy? They will protect every one else......

[Lady Di]

The ACLU is too busy hassling organizations like the Boy Scouts and suing people who like to pray and express their faith in public to bother with something so trivial as privacy rights of evil gun owners. :roll:

BTW, here's the ACLU's official statement on the 2nd amendment from their website:

IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

[Lady Di]

Here's a good read on the ACLU and the 2nd amendment:

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=307

[Bill of Rights]

Sad to say, this is nowhere near the first time a newspaper has tried or succeeded in publishing this information. The most notable in recent memory was by the Roanoke (VA) Times, which, for "Sunshine Week" (read: arbitrary non-reason used to allow an excuse for such things) allowed "reporter" Christian Trejbal to publish a "story" not only listing every CCW holder in the state of VA, but commenting that the state had the technology to list every convicted sex offender, but just couldn't see it's way clear to map CCW permit holders in a like manner. His justification was the tired old saw that "reporters" like him love to use: "the public has a right to know!", further suggesting that we should know this about our neighbors, coworkers, and carpool-partners, etc.

Please do note that I use quotes around "reporter" in this context; I refuse to use this idiot's name and the word "journalist" in the same sentence, but I need some word to describe his occupation. "Reporter" isn't quite correct, as it still carries some semblence of honor, but there is no closer (polite) word that comes to mind.

Note that in his "story", he also listed several former victims of domestic violence. One was quoted in a follow-up story as saying something to the effect of "I've had to move five times to get away from my abuser, and now you publish my name and full address, so I have to move again. Thanks a lot."

I'll grant them that under current law, it's public information, and all they're doing is making it easier to access something that is available anyway... but this truly is no one's business. The laws need to be changed to forbid these intrusions into personal privacy.

Of course, several people have gotten the bright idea to use other public records and publish the "news"paper publisher or editor, or the "reporter"'s home address, type(s) of vehicle(s) owned, license plates, etc. in public forums as well. (and if the publisher/editor/"reporter" is not listed in the CCW roster that they themselves published, the criminals already know that they probably will be unarmed: "Easy pickin's, boys!") I cannot argue that sauce for the goose is equally sauce for the gander, and no matter it's gender, I agree that this form of protest should drive home the point that publishing the names and addresses of CCW holders should mean that one's proverbial goose is cooked.

Cogito, ergo porto.

Blessings,
M

[Lady Di]

Unfortunately, these are the types of problems that will continue to arise. Nowhere in the Second Amendment do I see a provision for the states to grant "permission slips" for us to exercise our RKBA. Nowhere in the Constitution do I read where we should have to pay money to exercise that right. The 2nd Amendment was written with no strings attached. The blatant disregard of the 2nd Amendment as originally wirtten and intended has created a bureaucratic nightmare and these are the types of consequences that we will continue to suffer. The fact that I may or may not be carrying a gun should not be a matter of public record in the first place. As far as I'm concerned it's not even the sheriff's business. :roll:

[Bill of Rights]

You are indeed correct, Lady Di. There is no Constitutional provision for, and indeed there is a specific prohibition against any infringement upon that right. There is also the oft-heard suggestion that we do not want to have ex-cons armed, as they've already shown a propensity toward violence against law-abiding citizens, and I suppose the thinking is "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." I will admit that the permit system does a wonderful job of preventing known felons from purchasing guns in retail stores or at gun shows, not that this prevents them from being armed whenever they choose with whatever they choose. Further, however, the permit system gives us the possibility of saying that, for example, since I hold a License To Carry a firearm on my person, having voluntarily been fingerprinted, submitted myself for background checks for prior criminal behavior and mental instability, and in many states, taken a course to train in the use of and proven my ability with my firearm, I should be able to carry it anywhere, specifically including schools, commercial aircraft, etc., for all the reasons we've discussed so many times.

The insidious part, however, is that old saying you've seen me quote: "When you sit down to negotiate something you already have, you've already lost." The 2A does not say that the RKBA shall not be infringed "by Congress", nor "by the states", nor "by the cities", nor by anyone. It simply reads that the right shall not be infringed. Period. Moving up to the present day and following the Founders' logic, I don't have to prove that I'm a peaceable, law-abiding citizen to exercise my rights. Do I have to prove that I'm an American to not be required to quarter troops in my home? Do I have to prove I have no contraband to be allowed to exercise my right against unreasonable search and seizure? Must I meet some unspoken criterion to not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment? Our Founders logic seems to indicate that since one is innocent until proven guilty, we may all exercise all of our rights until we are proven guilty of a crime for which one of our rights may be restricted or denied for a time. (Liberty, in the case of incarceration, for example) Further, when the precept of double jeopardy is examined, in which one cannot twice be placed in jeopardy for the same crime, it would seem that once the sentence imposed by the judge and/or a jury of one's peers is served, the crime and the punishment of it are considered forgiven, and thus, the now-ex-con should be in full possession of all of his rights. Note that I said, "forgiven", not forgotten; To my way of thinking, maintain the record of the crime, but use it only if another crime is committed by the same person, much as a parent might ground his or her child for sneaking out once, but the second offense will result in a grounding and a bit of instruction, specifically by applying the Board of Education to the seat of the problem.

VegasGeorge, you're our legal scholar here. Do you, perchance, know what the penalties were in the mid-to-late 1700s for what we today think of as violent felonies, ie murder/manslaughter, rape, robbery/burglary, assault/battery? If you do not, would you possibly know where I might seek such information?

Perhaps returning to our Founders' actions as well as their thinking will provide us a solution to this quandry.

Cogito, ergo porto.

Blessings,
M

[Bill of Rights]

I have just posted a commendation to Sheriff Winters on the Jackson County Sheriff's page. It's "attaboys" like that that will let him know that he has the support of the people, not only in his own community but across the nation.

My next stop is the newspaper's website.

The newspaper does not plan to publish the names of license holders, said Mail Tribune Editor Bob Hunter. It wants the information for research about how far-reaching a ruling on the Katz lawsuit could be.

There are about 6,500 license holders in Jackson County, according to the sheriff's office.

"We feel Sheriff Winters is allowing his personal feelings to interfere with his duty to enforce the law," Hunter said. "This is information bought and paid for by the public, and the public has a right to it."

You want to know how many teachers have permits? How many people are there in the county? What percentage of that number is 6500? How many teachers are there in the county? How many make up that percentage of the teachers? There's your answer, and you don't even have to infringe on anyone's privacy to get it. Neat, huh?

My question is, if the private citizen pays for his or her permit, pays for any training he or she must have to qualify for the permit, and pays for any weapon he or she may choose to carry, just exactly HOW is this "information bought and paid for by the public"????

Cogito, ergo porto.

Blessings,
M

[Lady Di]

I have just posted a commendation to Sheriff Winters on the Jackson County Sheriff's page. It's "attaboys" like that that will let him know that he has the support of the people, not only in his own community but across the nation.

My next stop is the newspaper's website.



Thanks for taking the time to commend Sheriff Winters. I'm sure he'll appreciate the support.

[VegasGeorge]

[quote="St.Michael"]My question is, if the private citizen pays for his or her permit, pays for any training he or she must have to qualify for the permit, and pays for any weapon he or she may choose to carry, just exactly HOW is this "information bought and paid for by the public"????/quote]

Well, consider drivers licenses and the information held by the Department of Motor Vehicles. We pay the license fee, we pay for out own drivers training (or, at least a lot of drivers I see out there ought to!), and we pay for our own cars. Yet, the Department's records, subject to specific statutory exceptions in most States, are public records subject to request and disclosure under the freedom of information act.

The basic question is; who is generating, and keeping the records? The answer is; the State. So, they are public records.

[Lady Di]

The basic question is; who is generating, and keeping the records? The answer is; the State. So, they are public records.

The same could be said about police reports, and yet in Indiana, some of the information listed on police reports is not required to be released to the public. I'm wondering if information on a carrying permit could be exempt for similar reasons?

[Bill of Rights]

VegasGeorge,

I was afraid that would happen. I posted privately to let you know about the thread, then I posted again, and you didn't see the question I wanted answered. Restating it:
VegasGeorge, you're our legal scholar here. Do you, perchance, know what the penalties were in the mid-to-late 1700s for what we today think of as violent felonies, ie murder/manslaughter, rape, robbery/burglary, assault/battery? If you do not, would you possibly know where I might seek such information?

Sorry about the confusion.

Blessings,
M

[Bill of Rights]

The basic question is; who is generating, and keeping the records? The answer is; the State. So, they are public records.

The same could be said about police reports, and yet in Indiana, some of the information listed on police reports is not required to be released to the public. I'm wondering if information on a carrying permit could be exempt for similar reasons?

I called ISP Firearms Licensing on this. I was told that while someone could call and confirm a permit for a particular person, ISP would not release the entire list to anyone who called or came in to get it. This is good and bad. It means that we don't have to worry about one of our papers publishing the whole list, but conversely, if someone had a personal gripe with either you or me, they could conceivably request a no-contact order and we would have to "not possess" our guns until the order could be fought and lifted. Think I'll drop my rep and state senator a note to request that those records be sealed except to LEOs involved in the actual investigation of a crime.

Blessings,
M

[VegasGeorge]

Various State statutes exempt certain information from becoming a public record in order to protect the identity of minors, or to protect witnesses, or to protect undercover police officers, etc. But generally, all civil information about ordinary adults is public record information.

I think people tend to have an exaggerated expectation of privacy these days. Face it, we have met the information age, and it is us.

In our case, I don't see any need to keep the fact of our carry permits confidential. In fact, my thinking runs just the opposite. I'm happy to let people know I have a carry permit. Think about it. If we hide the fact we have the permit, it almost seems as if we're ashamed of it, or that somethings not right about it. The general public needs to know that good, upstanding citizens are interested in carrying a gun, and have permits. The more we let people know about our permits, and our support of the 2nd Amendment, the stronger our movement will become. Don't hide your light under a basket.

[Lady Di]

I called ISP Firearms Licensing on this. I was told that while someone could call and confirm a permit for a particular person, ISP would not release the entire list to anyone who called or came in to get it. This is good and bad. It means that we don't have to worry about one of our papers publishing the whole list, but conversely, if someone had a personal gripe with either you or me, they could conceivably request a no-contact order and we would have to "not possess" our guns until the order could be fought and lifted. Think I'll drop my rep and state senator a note to request that those records be sealed except to LEOs involved in the actual investigation of a crime.

Blessings,
M

You concerns are valid; however, most judges are hopefully reluctant to issue no-contact orders without at least giving a person a fair hearing.

[Lady Di]

If we hide the fact we have the permit, it almost seems as if we're ashamed of it, or that somethings not right about it. The general public needs to know that good, upstanding citizens are interested in carrying a gun, and have permits. The more we let people know about our permits, and our support of the 2nd Amendment, the stronger our movement will become. Don't hide your light under a basket.

Your argument makes sense, VG; but wouldn't it be a disadvantage for a bad guy to know that I was carrying? It might give him time to prepare a strategy to eliminate any opposition if you know what I mean.

[Bill of Rights]

George,

In general, I concur; the general public, AKA sheep, need to know that honest people carry and are ready to move to defend themselves and others in time of need. I have no issue with them being told that 6500 people, more or less, have CCW permits in Jackson County OR. I have no issue with them knowing that three of every hundred people are armed. I have an issue, however, with them knowing which three. My house becomes a target for burglary if it's known that I have guns and I'm then seen leaving the house. My non-gun-owning neighbor's house becomes a target for a robbery/rape/home invasion if her house is the only one on the block that does not have a lawful carrier of firearms living there. Part of the security comes in the question, much as someone said recently-Raccoon, I think- "My house is protected by Smith and Wesson five nights a week. You guess which five."

Blessings,
M

[VegasGeorge]

Well, Lady Di, I suppose that you are correct if you become the specific target of the criminal. Say, someone paid to have you assassinated. Any assassin worth his salt would check the records to see if you have a CCW permit. Of course, any assassin worth his salt would probably assume you were armed anyway. I think your concern is too remote to worry about.

[Raccoon]

I am going to throw in my 2 cents worth here. I know some of you will disagree, but I dont care if someone knows I am armed. I am prepared. If they know I have a heavy duty gun safe, and alarm system at my house (with dogs), then they dont have a chance of getting the guns. If they know I carry in public, then they know I am not a soft target for them to rob. Kind of like the alarm stickers on the windows. They go find someone easier to rob. I sometimes park the Police car out front. People walking by know, ooohhhhh, I better not break in there, he is armed. I dont want to threaten anyone, but most of my close family and friends know I carry. I have only had 1 person to date that had a problem with me, and she didnt care that I was a PD officer. She did not want me to bring a gun in the car with her. So I drove myself and took others in my carpool. That was o.k. because nothing happened. She still claims it was dangerous to have a gun. Well, I hope she never gets robbed. I've said it before, if we dont need to meet violence with violence, why has society invented police? Police are just friends you call to help protect you when you are not strong enought to do it yourself. "To protect the innocent and weak with my life if need be."

[Lady Di]

I guess it depends on the situation. There are times when I think it's prudent to be discreet about carrying and other times when I think it may be wise to let others know I'm carrying. There are definitely advantages and disadvantages to both sides of the argument. Wow..I'm usually not such a fence sitter. :lol:

[DAN]

Lady Di I feel stongly both ways also.
DAN

[Bill of Rights]

Your sig says it all, re: police, Raccoon. That they are "friends you call when you aren't strong enough to do the fighting yourself" is in some ways correct, but
“We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.” - George Orwell

Too, there are things like taking into custody those who would do us harm that our police forces are empowered to do, but somewhere along the way, it became their sole province to do so... Not that I'm exactly the guy to take some 300# of solid muscle bruiser into custody myself, but I somewhat question the idea of the "hired guns" being able to legally do something that those who hired them cannot... and that doesn't even touch on the issue of wiretaps, among other things.

As for me, I'll stick with concealed carry for now. If I later have reason to OC... I like that the option's available.

Cogito, ergo porto.

Blessings,
M

[VegasGeorge]

OK, I think it's time to talk about what "concealed carry" actually means.

Does it mean you can't see the gun? Or, does it mean that you don't know the gun is there? They are not the same thing.

Suppose you carry in a fanny pack that has the word "gun" written on it? Is that concealed carry? In Nevada, the answer is "no." Nevada law requires that the gun be carried in "such a manner as not to be discernible by ordinary observation." "Discern" means to perceive, recognize, or distinguish. It does not mean to see. So, a gun that imprints on your clothing is not "concealed" by Nevada standards, and neither would a gun in a bag labeled "gun." In either case, an observer would be able to discern the presence of the gun.

By the same standard, you cannot carry concealed and tell people that you are carrying. Telling someone is the same as the bag with the word "gun" written on it. But, you could tell people that you have a CCW permit without admitting to having the gun on your person. Then, the gun remains concealed.

This is why I never tell anyone that I actually have the gun on me. I do discuss the 2nd Amendment, and my CCW permit. But, even if directly questioned, I refuse to disclose the presence of the gun.

[Bill of Rights]

OK, that's just nucking futs. It'd be legal for me to carry a gun IWB and to have the (empty) fanny pack you mentioned with the word "gun" on it, but not at the same time? :roll:

Don't take offense; "nucking futs" is pretty much my opinion of most if not all gun laws, those of my own state included. If that needs to be more politically correct, we'll just say it's having intercourse with acorns.

Cogito, ergo porto.

Blessings,
M

[packnrat]

before the paper can get this info, they should be aware if any "ANY" harm comes to these people, they can be sued.

if not law now it should be first.

[junglebob]

VagasGeorge, You mentioned that you can't have your concealed handgun in a case with the word gun on it. I find that interesting. In Illinois I could legally transport a unloaded handgun in a transparent case, when in possession of a Firearm Owners ID card. No, I don't recomment it. I'm not going to try it either, I hate to have to tell the arresting officer the firearms laws.

About a newspaper printing the names of CCW license holders. I recall reading about a guy in Ohio that was shot at his business during a robbery. His and others names were printed in the Plains Dealer, as I recall. I believe a Cleveland newspaper. It was thought that robbers may have opened fire on him because they thought he was armed. There is also the matter of battered women who would rather that an abusive ex-husband know they were carrying, or where they live since addresses are often given out as well. I remember about a woman complaining about this, moved twice to get away from an abuser and then her new address gets printed. Someone might even go to a job interview and be denied because the interviewer is an anti and has concerns about work place violence.

I think legislator in a southern state had the right idea, he got a law through that there was something like a $5000 or $10,000 fine per individual if CCW license holders names are devulged by state workers.