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.
One of the best is:
December 13,14 2008
Harrisburg, PA
Farm Show Complex & Expo Center
Bring on the judge. My attorney has probably been seeing his wife and daughters while the Court is in session. He knows who holds the Power Club in the family.
This is why I never bothered with a permit.
The whole nation should go to Vermont or Alaska-style carry: ZERO government intrusion. Zero Government records to be made public. Zero interference in the exercise of a NATURAL RIGHT.
Ahh a UT grad. That explains a lot.
Lotsa liberal lawyers come outta UT. I know a few.
I don’t believe in permits and I don’t plan on getting one anytime soon. Especially when the existence of one can potentially invite peril.
The second amendment is my permit.
But apparently not this tin horn sherrif...
This "tin horn sherrif" agrees with you
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.It's the circus court who says the names have to be released unless there is a statement on record from the CCW holder saying "HELL NO!"
The sheriff has to comply with the court. He is sending out the letters so he can exempt people from having their names released.
You are surely correct about that... I see NO NEED to get government permission to exercise a RIGHT! Not ever!
Women who have escaped abusive spouses tend to want to be able to defend themselves when that abusive ex comes looking for them. One way of defending yourself is getting a Concealed Carry permit. Making the entire list available to the public would make things a lot easier for those abusive exes to find the women.
We had this problem in VA a year ago:
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/trejbal/wb/108160
An opinion columnist named Christian Trejbal posted a searchable online database of all 130,000+ of us with CCW permits. He basically gave the name and address of anyone with a CCW to anyone who wanted to find them. This included women in hiding, parole officers, police officers, anyone with a CCW. The Roanoke Times eventually pulled the database after people started writing in the comment section things like Christian’s home address, home phone and cell phone numbers, Google Earth satellite images of his house, etc etc etc all of which is technically available to the public and was obtained legally. The point is: just because something can be available to the public, doesnt mean that you should publicize it.
I remember that...it caused a lot of hubub.
Wasn’t there a group that had filed class action suit against the Times over it? Never heard what happened.
Even better, send out a letter asking if they want to have their names released with an additional explanation that no response, or a response "no" checked would indicate a desire for privacy on the part of the CCW holder.
AND put the question on the form, so people can opt-out pre-emptively.
Nope - I stand corrected.
The sherrif is one of the good guys on this one.
Sorry; that only applies to Democrats, socialists, communists, anarchists, Blacks, Hispanics, illegal aliens, homosexuals, ecoterrorists, members of Chinese Tongs and Triads, radical feminists, members of youth gangs, drug dealers, and those in the mafia.
Conservatives, Republicans, and gun owners are exempted.
What am I missing here? If something is implied, you shouldn't have to do anything.
I guess things must be slow in the public information officer's office. Can't be bothered with revealing the identities of criminals and such. Might hurt their self esteeem.
This is one reason I never applied for a CCW “permit”.
IMO, the United States Constitution already gave me that right, and we know what it is, and what it says.
This is why I think that in the comming civil war the media will be a legitimate target
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.