'Mail Tribune' Sues Sheriff for Concealed-Handgun License List

[gunsmith]

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/departments/newsroom/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003659418

'Mail Tribune' Sues Sheriff for Concealed-Handgun License List

By E&P Staff

Published: October 17, 2007 2:08 PM ET

NEW YORK The Mail Tribune in Medford, Ore., filed suit Oct. 12 against Sheriff Mike Winters to obtain a list of Jackson County's approximately 6,500 holders of concealed handgun licenses. The paper is trying to learn how many teachers hold such licenses.

The issue arose out of other another suit, in which a high school teacher challenged the Medford School District's ban on employees bringing guns on school property. The Mail Tribune has looked into the matter as a school security issue.

Responsible for the handgun license list, Sheriff Winters denied a request, first made over a month ago, for the list, citing reasons of privacy and safety, according to an account in yesterday's Mail Tribune. Calling the list a public record, the newspaper maintains that refusal to disclose it is illegal, adding that other sheriffs' offices have turned over such documents.

Reporter Paris Achen quoted Editor Bob Hunter as saying, "This is information bought and paid for by the public, and the public has a right to it."

Hunter said the Mail Tribune said has no plan to publish license holders' names, seeking the information only to understand the reach a ruling on the Katz lawsuit could have.

Among other things, licensees are required to sign and application that states that the license is public record. The paper noted that Multnomah County has released license holders' names, birth dates and license numbers to The Oregonian and Willamette Week in Portland. The Sheriff's office there handed over its list reluctantly, fearing the information would be used for identity theft or credit card fraud.

The paper further noted that the director of the Oregon Firearms Education Foundation, which is financing Katz's suit, recognized that the licenses are public records, even though he would prefer to see the licensees' privacy protected.

 

[lamazza]

Kudos to that sheriff!

 

[tfltackdriver]

I'm not going to win a popularity contest here with my first post on the high road.

As a journalist, I see this issue differently -- one of a public official bucking a law he doesn't like. Think of all the slippery slope arguments that could be introduced. I could say, for instance, that sheriffs like this also tend to be the kind of guys who don't comply with public information/disclosure laws when one of their deputies screws up and does something dumb/illegal.

They're public records. The chief law enforcement officer of the county/city isn't in a position to be deciding which ones he is or isn't going to recognize. He'll lose and the locality will be out $$$ defending him.

That's a lot of effort that could be redirected at changing the law to make the records exempt if that's what the sheriff desires.

Personally, I don't think CCL records should be public, and I think publishing them is a dumb idea. It's like publishing a shopping list for gun thieves.
There seems to be some sound journalism behind this newspaper's plans, though.

 

[Sage of Seattle]

Welcome to THR, tackdriver!

I think that the sheriff is rightfully denying access to the list. After the Roanoke Times (IIRC) published the list in Virginia claiming the very same thing (public information) and people came forward who were on that list and could show a very legitimate concern for their own safety suddenly coming into play based solely on that publication of their information and all of the repercussions of that, I think that the sheriff has firm ground to deny access to that information.

 

[tfltackdriver]

It may not surprise you to learn that I live in Roanoke. I don't work for the Times or agree with their decision to publish.

The sheriff has a good reason to reject the request. He does not have the right. The LAW says they're public documents he MUST release.

1. I don't like the idea of public elected law enforcement officials picking which laws they want to follow.
2. It's a waste of taxpayer dollars to fight the request and suit when he has zero chance of winning it.

Is it a fight worth fighting? Sure. He's not fighting it properly. If he wants to make a difference, he should do it by lobbying his state legislators to make the records exempt.

 

[oneshooter]

CHL info

Here in Texas the law will not allow the release of CHL information. That is the law that y'all need to pass.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

 

[craig]

tfltackdriver.. first, welcome to thr. second, i DO NOT agree with you.

our local paper published such a list last year. my wife and i were on it. my wife has a restraining/no contact order on her abusive
ex. now, thanks to some idiot reporter/editor he now knows where we live and that she's licensed to carry.

the law here has been changed so such lists cannot be published.

not including you per se, but the media's reputation on fair, accurate, and balanced reporting sucks especially where guns are concerned.

the only group worse than reporters on gun issues are politicians because it seems common sense is sorely lacking in both camps.

if this paper gets the list i can almost guarantee that it'll be a sensational "horror" piece because some people actually CARRY GUNS FOR PROTECTION instead of relying on the police to protect them.

it'll be the typical scare report filled with fear and loathing over an inanimate object with little or no actual facts or research.

 

[S&Wfan]

Folks,

Put yourself in the shoes of one of our fine teachers in that area who happen to have a CCW permit.

Their names, "leaked" by someone of the anti-gun agenda could ruin a life . . . cause someone to be fired, or passed over for promotion, etc. . . . all because some gun hater wanted to "out" all the CCW folks.

Heck, I've had a CCW for years here in Georgia. However, my employer has a "no guns on company property" rule which I CHOOSE to obey. I'm sure this holds true for many teachers too on school properties where guns are not allowed.

Having a CCW does NOT make a teacher "guilty" of toting on campus in violation of rules. Leaking the CCW list serves NO ONE any good . . . and causes lots of potential harm to our fellow brothers and sisters who have concealed licenses.

Kudos to a courageous sheriff. Sometimes it takes lawsuits to get the laws interpreted or changed for the better. It looks like that area has a decent sheriff with more common sense than many.

Screw the newspaper. Lots of reporters looking to advance their career . . . who don't care if it destroys the careers of innocent others in the process of printing the "truth" . . . the WHOLE "truth" and NOTHING but the "truth."

The "truth" my azzzz . . .

T.

 

[Outlaws]

If this reporter obtains the information I will personally host this persons address and phone number, along with every single bit of information I can obtain, on my website, along with any other reporters who have or will attempt this. That way this game isn't one sided.

 

[kermit315]

and I will do the same. I agree, the no access to licenses law needs to be passed their.

 

[elrod]

There is a difference in what is LEGAL and what is RIGHT.

'Nuf said.

 

[FieroCDSP]

Tfltackdriver is likely correct in that the wording of the law is that the sheriff is required to release that information. The sheriff in question will likely end up doing it eventually due to the court ruling.

That does not mean the media will use that information responsibly. We've seen in many areas the lack of journalistic integrity that exists. The idea of printing the story outweighs the consequences of doing so. The places that have printed the names and addresses have put those people at risk for the sake of a "complete" news story, while showing an incredible bias on many issues. I find this appalling, as I'm sure Tfltackdriver does.

Now, for this situation specificly we should ask one question: Why the lawsuit if there is a shred of integrity or decency in the reporter?

You can argue that it'd be the only way to bring the law breaking to light. Maybe.
But why not ask the sheriff for the list with a promise to only use it for the number? The article was about how many teachers have a carry permit or along those lines, right? No names need be printed if this were not simply to out those people, right? Or even ask the sheriff if one of his people could be assigned to cross reference and give the number to the writer.

My point is that if this were simply a story about the number, there were ways to do it without any need to have the full lists, or release that list to the press. This is likely an outing story, and people can and likely would lose jobs over it. This is what the sheriff is trying to prevent, and what the media does not care about.

It's a shame this suit will likely go through, and that the Sheriff could be the first to lose his job over it.

 

[Autolycus]

I actually agree with you tfltackdriver. But I would suggest getting the law changed in regards to the sheriff being forced to publish the list.

The law is the law and should be changed. Just because we disagree with it does not mean that it should not be followed.

I am not saying I necessarily trust the papers but I do feel that the sheriff should be forced to follow the law. When a sheriff does not follow the law in a manner in which we like we critisize him very much. However this guy is following the law and we condone him. Perhaps it is better to change the law than argue against it.

 

[Desertdog]

I wonder if the sheriff could release the list with the names and addresses redacted?