Posted on 11/12/2008 9:14:43 AM PST by bamahead
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.
Both counties are considering Washington County's idea and plan to discuss whether they will implement something similar.
License holders in Washington County can answer the privacy questions on the sheriff's office Web site, at http://washtech.co.washington.or.us/handgunholder/
The Jackson County Civil Court case stems from the news that broke in 2007 about a Medford teacher with a concealed handgun license who wanted to bring a handgun onto school property for personal security reasons.
After a re-read on this I think you’re right.
The sherrif appears to be resisting, but how hard? The headline is somewhat misleading.
It looks like the sherrif is fighting it to appeal.
The bottom line is that this judge decides you must now ‘opt-out’ for your own privacy’s sake rather than it being presumed as your first choice.
It’s applying the same rule used for email spam and mass mailings to CCW permits.
If Oregon is so hell bent on following every law to the letter, how about asking for obama’s birth certificate?
It's all foresight toward your sheriff's allocation of the Civilian National Security Force (CNSF) assets. Volunteers go the ones who seemed not to care, SWAT team to the one who wanted to be kept secret
In telephonic marketing, some calls are made mechanically, only to record that a human has picked up at such-and-such hour of the day. So-and-so never picked up the phone at 4pm after 40 calls over 5 months. Hmmm. Thieves might find that kind of information interesting; so would CNSF "volunteers" with blanket search warrants of all CCW and FOID card holders.
Click WHATEVER to unsubscribe. Get there, type in your email address, and blammo, even more emails from the very same outfit! Now that they have confirmation you're one to read the fine print on junk email, are they ever interested in you, bub!
HF
As someone in Georgia who just moments ago received my CC license in the mail, this is disturbing.
The only places where records of CC holders should be made public is in states where “may issue” is the law. And, as you might suspect, the only people in those areas with a CC permit are those with political connections.
If I were the Sherif, I think I’d be having an ‘accidental’ office fire in which several records were accidentally burned, and perhaps a couple of hard drives destroyed.
The Court wants to release the names NOT the Sheriff!
It appears this Sheriff is on the side of the folks in this case. We I him, I’d send the letters out with them pre-checked for this purpose. I would also send a note with them explaining why and asking for their prompt signature and return.
“We I him” should be “Were I him”
“We’re from the government, and we’re here to help you.”
Second Amendment, baby. It’s not negotiable.
Those of us who tend to read the fine print also have telephones that announce who is calling before we lift the receiver. I hope they don’t think the blanket search warrants gives them permission to walk in without knocking. A simple mistake such as that could result in needing to be carried out.
The newspaper WANTED TO PUBLISH THE RECORDS OF ALL CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMIT CARRIERS. The Sheriff is trying to prevent this. Also take note: If you have a concealed carry permit, do not disclose it publicly!
BWAHAHAHAHAA!!! Just the ones they approve of. And the courts have a funny way of getting rid of the others. We're gettin' ready for GPS units on vehicles...so we can pay our fair share in gas taxes, don'tcha know. Oh...and it'll be a sliding scale. Drive in congested areas at peak traffic and you'll pay a premium. And don't get me started on the "rain tax."
Make it simple, just tell em everybody has one, now go play in the street.
The problem is an out of control judge. The question is, when is this judge up for election again? The 2nd ammendent supporters need to start finding judges who believe in the constitution and getting them elected to the circuit court and start replacing these activist POS liberals.
Remember, in Oregon, judges are elected. Get rid of this one and watch the others develop strange new respect for the citizen-voters and the constitution.
This is the judge in question. He is up for re-election in 2010. Jackson County residents should start looking for a replacement to run against him NOW!
G. Philip (Phil)Arnold
Nonpartisan
Occupation: Circuit Court Judge since 1997
Occupational Background: Twenty-five years practicing attorney; Executive Director Jackson County Legal Services; United States Peace Corps Volunteer and Associate Director in Nepal
Educational Background: B.A. Degree Lambuth College; Doctor of Jurisprudence University of Tennessee
Prior Governmental Experience: Circuit Court Judge Pro Tem Jackson County, Oregon; Ashland City Council 9 years; Ashland Budget Committee; United States Peace Corps Volunteer/Nepal; United States Peace Corps Associate Director/Nepal
Polly and I have been married 40 years. Our adult daughters, Shanti, Jackie and Belle are Ashland High School and U of O graduates. Our grandchildren, Lillie, Mathilde and Roman provide us great joy and occupy most of our spare time.
I have tried to perform my duties as Circuit Court Judge with impartiality, courtesy and a knowledge of the law. Every person appearing in court deserves to have his/her case decided strictly on the law and facts of his/her case. The law is an important cornerstone of a civilized society. I ask for the chance to serve the citizens of Jackson County for another term.
(This information furnished by G. Philip Arnold.)
It seems odd to me that the sheriff of this gun hating county is proactively giving folks an opportunity to assert their option for privacy. But sheriffs are elected here. If there's no ulterior motive then great.
Oregon “public records” laws are very broad as to what must be made public. They became so as a reactionary legislative answer to some controversial thing that happened years ago (in my time but I don't remember exactly what it was).
But it was intended to require public bodies and agencies to make public details about their actions, meetings, contracts, etc. - NOT to make public lists of personal information about large groups of private citizens.
It bothers me enough that the state regularly sells its database of licensed drivers and vehicle owners to anybody for any reason, and that this law supposedly requires them to do it. The only people protected are certain government employees of police departments, jails, courts, etc. Even then their names are revealed but under their employment address, so opportunities to abuse still exist.
IMO the laws regarding these things need to be tightened up.
Oh yeah that was for an Oregon PING.
There is an attorney behind this no doubt (respond with favorite lawyer joke if you wish).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.