« Oral argument in US v. Hayes | Main | Debate: do guns keep you safe? »
Interesting approach by OR sheriff
A newspaper (Mail-Tribune of Medford OR) sued Sheriff Mike Winters to obtain the names of CCW permit holders. He opposed on the ground that State law exempts from disclosure info that is related to personal security. The Circuit Court ruled that CCW permits aren't automatically related to security; that must be proven.
Sheriff Rob Gordon came up with a novel idea to deal with the ruling (and the probability that someone would make a similar request of him), and polling CCW holders by mail to ask their reasons for obtaining a permit, and whether they want their data kept private. He also set up a webpage where people can enter their reason and whether they want their records held private.
[Story updated and corrected in light of reader Gordon R. Durand's comment].
Update: as I recall, when another paper tried this sort of story, local firearm rights groups researched and put online all publicly-available data on its editorial staff. Home addresses and phone numbers (obtained from voting registration forms), house size and valuations (from the county assessor's office), etc., etc, etc.. I seem to recall that the paper gained a newfound respect for privacy.
10 Comments | Leave a comment
I might agree to have my personal information disclosed like this - if, and only if, the same disclosure also indicated the names of every single employee of the newpaper in question, their addresses, and a statement that they did not own a firearm.
We're going to be needing a lot of creative, simpatico public officials in the near future.
A little confusion here. The Mail-Tribune is the newspaper of Medford, not Bedford, and Mike Winters is the Jackson County sheriff who defended the privacy of the CCW list.
Rob Gordon is sheriff of Washington County, at the other (liberal) end of the state.
As far as I know the town of Bedford, Oregon does not exist.
This is the problem with "state sanctioned" use of rights and one of the reasons why a government "permit" to do anything is a slippery slope.
Our government is anything but a champion of our right to bear arms, and obviously, in addition to that not concerned about our right to privacy either.
The issue will be addressed in Oregon's next meeting of the state's congress critters. I submitted the following to my and other state reps:
Several times in the past, personal information about concealed handgun license (CHL) holders has been requested by the press and other non-law enforcement agencies. Just as driver’s license information is restricted by ORS 802.177, so should CHL holder information. I submit the following addition to ORS 166.291:
(5) Prohibition on release of personal information from CHL records. No law enforcement agency, nor any officer, employee or contractor of a law enforcement agency nor any other State agency may knowingly disclose or otherwise make available to any person personal information about an individual that is obtained by the agency in connection with a concealed handgun license. Said release of CHL personal information shall be considered a violation of ORS 162.415: Official misconduct in the first degree.
Want all the cops on your side, not just the principled few?
Simple, publish their names, affiliation, phone numbers and residence addresses.
It would amaze how quickly they would ALL be in favor of privacy, even the unprincipled many.
Straightarrow, the problem is that in many locations, there are actual laws against publishing the personal information of a police officer.
I know that. Which is in and of itself unconstitutional. We are all equal under the law. When a law repudiates that the law is void, under the constitution.
Do I expect anyone in the publishing business to have the balls to challenge this? No!
But, the next best thing would be to get a sympathetic legislator to introduce just such a bill to repeal that restriction. The crying and whining and cowering we would then see from our policing forces would be quite revealing. And the only, only, claim they could make to validate their opposition to such a bill would be to swear they believe in privacy and the security of persons it serves.
Damn, do I have to do all thinking?
You know, this is getting monotonous. How many times now do we hear alleged rights advocates say "That's not right and we're not going to stand for it."?
"But there's a law that says you must stand for it."
"Oh well, that's different. I guess we have no choice, just forget the whole damn thing."
Do I need to mention how contemptible that shit is?
What lengths people will go to, in order to infringe another's rights.
I am pleased when I hear of folks like Rob Gordon.