Skip to comments.Sheriff seeks privacy information on 10,000 concealed weapons owners
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.
And so it begins!
CW II ping
Not liking the sound of this. They need to get it together and appeal this ruling before things get out of hand.
Some government clerk pulls up a license data base and mails out 10,000 letters (no doubt all with word processed name and address labels) asking the recipients if they want their identities to be kept secret?
What's wrong with THIS picture?
Due to emanations and penumbras, we have a right in the Constitution to our privacy. 0bamma said so.
but is the request letter requesting now a public record?
this is like an expunged record. There is a record that SOMETHING was expunged.
For those in VA, here is a list of pre-inauguration gun shows:
Nov 15-16 Richmond, Richmond Raceway & Fairground Showmasters
Nov 21-23 Chantilly, Dulles Expo Center C&E Gun Show and/or Showmasters
Nov 29-30 Hampton, Convention Center, SGK, LTD 757-483-5385
Dec 6-7 Dale City, VFW Post 1503 Old Dominion Shows
Dec 13-14 Fredericksburg, Virginia Expo Center SGK, LTD 757-483-5385
Dec 13-14 Harrisonburg, Rockingham County Fairgrounds Showmaster 540-951-1424
Dec 27-28 Virginia Beach, Convention Center, 300 tbls, SGK, LTD 757-483-5385
Jan 3-4 Roanoke, Roanoke Civic Center Showmasters 540-951-1344
They’re wasting tax dollars mailing each CCW permit holder individually asking ‘Do you care if we release your info to the press?’
I think any right minded citizen would say HELL NO, and any government official dedicated to protecting citizens privacy would reject such a request and say ‘HELL NO!’ on behalf of the people.
But apparently not this tin horn sherrif...
Hey man, where can I steal a gun?
Dude. here’s a list of gunowners, that shoud be a good place to start.
Is the list any good?
Heck yeah, the sheriff vetted it himself.
They’re basically setting a precedent that, unless you EXPLICITLY and OFFICALLY request that you don’t want your personal information released, it would be released on your behalf to any anti-gun nut reporter who requests it.
Privacy would no longer be inherent or the default position in the eyes of the law, you’d have to say that you want it kept private...assuming you are even asked the question.
Wow, things are moving really fast! Yikes!
I don’t think you understand the article. The sherrif did say hell no and then was court ordered to release those that had not specifically marked their applications as being for security reasons.
So the sherrif is mailing those CCW holders to give them a chance to say they do not wish their information given to the press so he can tell the press and the judge Hell NO! one more time while remaining within the judges order.
Plus it creates a bureaucratic delay in turning the info over to the press while the matter is appealed or until they can get a higher court to issue a stay pending appeal.
This sherrif is doing everything he can to protect his constituents from the press and overweening judges.
Now that Joe the Plumber is out sight, the data junkies and the computer gestapo are looking for others to harass.
SOP for Oregon. They published all of DMV’s info on-line a few years back. It got yanked after awhile...who knows who might have downloaded it, though.
Then again, some people think legal gun owners are the problem and criminals would only use pointed sticks if not for them.
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!
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
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).
One of the best is:
December 13,14 2008
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:
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.