1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Bad News from Southern Oregon (Medford area)

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by TylerDurden, Apr 25, 2008.

  1. TylerDurden

    TylerDurden Well-Known Member

  2. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    We'll be watching, Bob.
  3. Jim K

    Jim K Well-Known Member

    The paper won't publish the list? Nonsense. No paper will refrain from publishing anything it can get its hands on, regardless of privacy rights, individual safety, national security, or any other "impediment to freedom of the press."

    (Except of course, anything that makes the paper look bad.)

  4. searcher451

    searcher451 Well-Known Member

    This bit of business was carried in this morning's USA TODAY and applies here:

    States act to shield gun holders
    By Ron Barnett, USA TODAY

    South Carolina last week became the latest in a growing number of states to make the names of people who have a license to carry a concealed weapon a state secret.
    Five other states might not be far behind in a battle that pits a public policy of open government against the right of people to keep their gun ownership records private.
    Bills that would make concealed gun permit records confidential have been introduced in eight other states this year — Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia — according to Janna Goodwin of the National Conference of State Legislatures.
    The Tennessee bill was defeated, in a House subcommittee vote earlier this month. West Virginia's bill was tabled, and Virginia's legislative session ended before a bill could be considered, Goodwin said. Action is pending in the five other states, she said.
    Concealed-weapon records always have been confidential in many states, said Colin Weaver, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Prior to South Carolina's action, the Brady Campaign counted 26 states where the records are confidential.
    The trend of states closing records intensified last year, partly in response to media outlets in Virginia, Florida and elsewhere posting those records online, said South Carolina state Rep. Michael Pitts, a Republican. "People think this one is absolutely a Second Amendment issue, but it's not," said Pitts, a former police officer who introduced his state's bill to close gun permit records. "It's as much an issue of where does the sunshine on government stop and the protection on individual privacy begin."
    The degree to which these records are open or closed varies from state to state, according to an analysis done by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. For example:
    •In Texas, the database is closed, but a person can pay a fee and find out whether a specific individual is a licensed gun owner.
    •In Ohio, records are confidential but journalists may request to view the name, county of residence and date of birth of each person to whom the sheriff has issued a license to carry a concealed handgun.
    Gene Policinski, vice president and executive director of the First Amendment Center, a non-partisan center at Vanderbilt University that studies free-expression issues, said he sees the move to close concealed-weapons permit records as part of a larger trend of government citing safety and security reasons for closing a variety of records.
    "In general, the public seems very well served when public records are public," he said. "And I think the rationale for closing these records has more to do with political considerations regarding gun regulation than it does a necessity for secrecy or the public good of keeping public records public."
    National Rifle Association spokesman Ashley Varner said that states have realized that "if they don't protect the permit holders' privacy, they can't count on the newspapers to do so."
    G. Edward White, a professor of law and history at the University of Virginia, said that states that close their gun permit records could have a tough time proving the constitutionality of the action. "We're not talking about national security or the security of the state," he said. "What we're talking about is whether the disclosure of this information might somehow increase the risk that people with the weapons would be endangered, or make it more difficult for them to use them to protect themselves. I think that's a pretty weak argument."
    Tennessee state Sen. Mark Norris, a Republican who introduced a bill to close his state's concealed-gun permits records, said the main concern is keeping addresses of permit holders private — particularly of women who have left abusive relationshipsand don't want the perpetrator to know where they live.
    Ron McIsaac, a concealed-weapons permit holder in South Carolina who uses a wheelchair, said he doesn't like the idea of his address being made public, partly because he thinks burglars might target his home to steal guns. And he feels he needs a gun for protection because of his handicap.
    "All anybody has to do now is come by and knock me off the chair, and I'm like a turtle who's been tossed over on his back," he said. "So it's important for me to have the ability to defend myself in a situation like that."
    Weaver, of the Brady Campaign, said there's no evidence to show that open records put people who carry concealed weapons in greater danger.
    "We feel that the greater danger is putting concealed-weapons permits in the hands of convicted felons and people that should not be allowed to have them," he said.
    Mark Bilicki, a firearms instructor in Greenville, S.C., said he can understand why some people might not want their name and address published, and he tells his students not to put an NRA sticker on their vehicle because it's an advertisement for burglars.
    He said that for many people, though, letting everyone know they may be carrying a gun is a point in their favor for safety.
    "Quite frankly, I want everybody to know I own a gun," he said.

    Barnett reports for The Greenville (S.C.) News. Contributing: Theo Emery of The (Nashville) Tennessean
  5. searcher451

    searcher451 Well-Known Member

  6. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    And to the OP: Do you have an activism call to action, or should this really be moved to General Gun Discussion?
  7. mbt2001

    mbt2001 Well-Known Member

    Idiots... Licensed CHL permit holder maybe, but there isn't a gun reg in Texas.
  8. transformerguru

    transformerguru Well-Known Member

    scares the hell outta me... why WOULD they want it other wise, EXCEPT to print it. Where is the NRA when we need 'em.
  9. TylerDurden

    TylerDurden Well-Known Member


    I guess it boils down to passing laws or public propositions in order to get absolute protection. Then, have that one tied up in courts, even though that's what the people want.

    I am losing faith more and more in "the system".
  10. Soybomb

    Soybomb Well-Known Member

    I think its possible a newspaper could seek out such a list and use it to check violent criminal stories against the list to see if they were issued carry permits. That seems fairly legitimate. As you pointed out though most don't do that. The papers description of their motives for obtaining it regard the teacher wanting a permit make it sound like they had something else in mind.
  11. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Well-Known Member

    Oregon's open records laws are good in some ways, but bad in others. The legislature needs to fix this gap and exempt the list from state laws requiring public access to government documents.
  12. DoubleTapDrew

    DoubleTapDrew Well-Known Member

    From OFF (Oregon Firearms Federation):

  13. El Tejon

    El Tejon Well-Known Member

    Is Jackson County where the city of Lakeview is located?:uhoh:
  14. XDKingslayer

    XDKingslayer member

    So when there is a shooting crime they can mention that the state issued this person a concealed weapon permit.

    They will not, however, mention if a person DID NOT have one and was carrying illegally.

    You can pretty much carve that in stone.
  15. PPGMD

    PPGMD Well-Known Member

    Concealed carry permits records in Shall Issue states should be closed, the only thing that should be released would be number of applications, and other anonymous statistics.

    In May Issue states the records should available for public audit (to prevent permits from only being issued to political donors and such), but there should be some limit to prevent the database from being abused.
  16. cpaspr

    cpaspr Well-Known Member

    No. Lakeview is the county seat of Lake county. Two counties to the east of Jackson county, bottom (geographically) of the state. Smack dab in the center.

    Jackson county is the southernmost county in the state that straddles I-5.

    Medford is probably the 5th or 6th biggest city in the state. About 30 miles north of California.
  17. El Tejon

    El Tejon Well-Known Member

    Right, right! I flew into Jackson County and then drove.

    I'm new to your state. Give me time. I don't want to say how long it took me to find my way around the Texas Hill Country.:D
  18. pbearperry

    pbearperry Well-Known Member

    The NRA is busy fighting for your right to bear arms.Those things are not done outside where you can see them.If it wasn't for them you wouldn't own guns now.
  19. Poper

    Poper Well-Known Member

    You're in good company, El T.!

    Someone asked Jim Bridger if he had ever been lost and he is reputed to have answered: "No, but I've been mighty confused for a month or so." :D:D

  20. Zoogster

    Zoogster Well-Known Member

    I know how most feel here about this issue for personal reasons. However state records are state records.
    They should be public.

    What should not exist is a requirement to have a license. The problem would not exist in Vermont, which means the information on who is legaly carrying a concealed firearm is private.

    A driver's license is public record.
    An addition or modification to your home or property done to code is public record.
    Lawsuits or court schedules are public record.

    When everything is public record it allows people to gather that information and use it for various malicious purposes.
    It also means all documented records are all permanent because private entities will always retain that information even if the government is told to close them or stop publishing them.
    It however also allows government discrimination to be public record.

    The government's actions as they relate to it's own citizens should be transparent. Usualy that is a good thing. On some issues such as this it is less desirable, but still important.
    Is allowing some things to be concealed from the public a good precedent?
    In some areas of CA for example it is widely known that some citizens who are members of an elite special class get permits for the same reasons that are not valid for common people.

Share This Page