Newspaper publishes names, home addresses of CCW holders

[Foreign Devil]

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200406\CUL20040611a.html

Release of Home Addresses Angers Concealed-Carry Licensees
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
June 11, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - A Second Amendment group says the sheriff in Shelby County, Ohio, had no right to release the home addresses of 87 people licensed to carry concealed pistols.

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) has asked Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro to investigate the release of the personal information to the Sidney (Ohio) Daily News, which published the home addresses in its June 8 edition.

"Release of this information is not merely a gross invasion of privacy; it might also be a violation of the Ohio concealed carry statute," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb.

"Under the law, only the name, county of residence and date of birth may be released by a sheriff to a bona fide journalist, and it requires a written request. There is no provision for releasing street addresses of licensees.

"Attorney General Petro should immediately launch a criminal investigation to determine if the law was violated, and then prosecute the violator," Gottlieb said in a press release.

According to CCRKBA, the "willful and deliberate" release of confidential information by a sheriff or any other public officer or employee is a fifth-degree felony that can bring a civil fine of $1,000

"The newspaper printed the home addresses of all 87 citizens, for any burglar or other criminal to read," Gottlieb said. "If any of these law-abiding gun owners is victimized in any way as a result of this outrageous release of personal information, the newspaper and Sheriff O'Leary should be held legally responsible."

CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron noted that Sheriff O'Leary opposed concealed carry. "But the debate is over, Waldron said. "It is now the law, and he needs to follow the law, to the letter.

"If he cannot do that, then perhaps he should turn in his badge and gun, and find some other line of work. He has betrayed the trust of every person whose address he released."

 

[Average Guy]

"If he cannot do that, then perhaps he should turn in his badge and gun, and find some other line of work. He has betrayed the trust of every person whose address he released."

And at the same time, endangered all the sheeple--uh, citizens who DIDN'T appear on that list.

 

[Dave R]

Sounds like Waldron has a pretty strong "case". It appears the Sheriff's office released more info that they had a right to release, even if they received a written request from the paper.

I wonder if the paper has any liability for publishing data it obtained "illegally". Although the paper will certainly argue that it thought it obtained the info legally.

Two-edged sword, though. Sure, the burglars now know which homes are likely to have guns in them. OTOH, the burglars know those homeowners may be armed!

 

[JohnKSa]

According to CCRKBA, the "willful and deliberate" release of confidential information by a sheriff or any other public officer or employee is a fifth-degree felony that can bring a civil fine of $1,000

I hope that fine is for EACH offense.

 

[krusty311]

I agree with Johnska on this one a single fine of $1000 he could probably handle,$87,000 might be a little harder to come up with.


krusty

 

[PATH]

Let the lawsuits begin!

 

[MICHAEL T]

Ah Ohio the Cailf. of the east I was lucky I escaped from there 40 years ago when I turned 18 There are people there who will do anything to stop the CCW. I called a friend of mine and he won t even get a permit He belives law will be repealed with in a year.and I can t change his mind:banghead:

 

[GunGeek]

"The newspaper printed the home addresses of all 87 citizens, for any burglar or other criminal to read,"

Anyone see the irony that robbers would want to rob people who carry loaded weapons?

No really, if this happened to me not only would I be pissed that criminals now knew a home were they could possibly aquire guns, but that there might be other repricussions in my job if my boss was an anti. Working for a public school I am VERY carefull who knows I have guns and a permit, no I don't carry at work but imagine some parent freaks out over the idea.

 

[Zundfolge]

According to CCRKBA, the "willful and deliberate" release of confidential information by a sheriff or any other public officer or employee is a fifth-degree felony that can bring a civil fine of $1,000

I don't care if he pays $1,000 or $87,000 ... if he's convicted of a felon that he is no longer a police officer or a gun owner and the world is a better place on both counts.


So maybe someone should print up fliers with the names and addresses of this Sheriff, and the good folk down at the newspaper and plaster the local Secton 8 housing with them.

 

[Jayman]

That was about to happen around here 'till the VCDL threatened to publish the names and addresses of all of the employees of the newspaper. Guess who didn't publish the names/addresses of the CCW holders? Apparently what is good for the goose IS NOT good for the gander. Go figure.

 

[Farnham]

If I could advertise in my local paper that if you invade my home, you will be shot first and questioned later, I'd do it. Maybe that could be a section of the personals, MWGDCWLYG... Unfortunately, most boneheads that specialize in home invasion don't read the paper. Maybe I should just post a sign?

Still, that sherriff oughtta be canned for violating all those people's privacy, I can see GunGeeks point, what if the anti boss found out? Or the anti kid's teacher, or the anti neighbor?

 

[CrudeGT]

i would interested to read the article that posted that info, minus the names and addresses, I don't need to know that, and neither do the sheeple, it's called concealed for a REASON. But still, why was the paper so interested in the names?

 

[Zundfolge]

But still, why was the paper so interested in the names?

Because they (both the Sheriff and the editorial staff at the newspaper) are sore losers ... they opposed CCW and now that they lost they want to make life difficult for those who supported CCW and went out and got one.

I think they also on some level want some sort of bad things to happen as a result which either gets a CCW holder killed or gets them to kill in self defense so they can further criticize CCW.

They are petty evil people.

 

[George Hill]

Luckily this guy is an elected official and can be voted out. Petition for an early election/recall what have you and cank his arse. Put in someone who understands the words "Liberty" and "Justice".
I'd also file a civil suit against him. If you can't sue the badge off him, sue for his pants. The bastard.

 

[nipprdog]

Well, since the Sidney Daily News thinks it's OK to publish people's personal information:

Jeffrey Billiel
Publisher & Executive Editor
(937)498-5962
[email protected]

Home address from AnyWho.com:
17047 Dingman Slagle Rd
SIDNEY, OH 45365
937-492-8482
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

pulled this from a similar thread on GT.

 

[Spot77]

Oh my......what should we do with this priveledged information?

Did somebody say public protest in front of his house?

 

[mindonmatter]

Hey guys. This is my first post here. I'm a regular at GlockTalk.
Sorry if I missed it, but here is the editor and Sheriff's info that was posted by another GT member. I called the Sheriff today and had a talk with him(See the details below). Please call him at his direct office # and let him know how you feel. I'm still working on getting in touch with the editor.

Sheriff:
Sheriff Kevin P O'Leary
Home address:
1367 Gearhart Road
Sidney OH 45365
Direct office phone#: 937-498-7833


Editor:
Jeffrey Billiel
Publisher & Executive Editor
(937)498-5962
[email protected]
Home address:
17047 Dingman Slagle Rd
SIDNEY, OH 45365
937-492-8482
------------------------------------
Okay guys,
I just called Sheriff O'Leary at the office # that was published in this thread. I didn't have to go through a secretary and he answered the phone himself. We had quite a heated discussion. All I can say is, "what an a-hole". This man is so obviously against gun owners that it's sickening. That was clear.

I asked him why he felt the need to publish the addresses of CCW holders. His answer was that the wordage, "county of residence" wasn't clear enough to determine whether only the county could be listed, or the addresses as well. He said that HE made the decision to interpret the wording how he saw fit, and decided to release addresses instead of just counties. He told me to look up the word "residence" in the dictionary. I told him I knew exactly what the word meant, but the word itself wasn't in question. He said he wasn't going to sit around and argue the technicalities all afternoon.

I then told him that many people are upset about this, and he may have to argue about this with a lawyer all day, instead of me. He said that doesn't scare him one bit and he's had that threat many times. I told him, "No offense Sheriff, but you've had to argue all day with lawyers on a few occasions, haven't you?". He hesitated and said, "I won't deny that one bit".

He told me over and over that he could care less how I feel about this, because I didn't vote for him and I wasn't one of the people that had their information published. What a stand up guy

I asked him why he, a LEO, wasn't on the side of law abiding gun owning citizens, and instead on the side of anti gun journalist. He said he wasn't on anyone’s side but his own, and that he wasn't picking sides. Huh? Who elected this a-hole? He's not on the side of law abiding citizens? Okay.

I also asked him if he would mind if his personal information being published for the world to see, along with his home address. He sort of stumbled, but said he wouldn't mind at all. So I informed him that it already had been published, and told him his home address so he knew I wasn't BS'ing him. He stumbled again, and said that was fine. I thanked him for his time and that was the end of it.

I suggest EVERYONE here call Sheriff O'Leary at his office and let him know how you feel about this. 937-498-7833 Don't worry if your debate skills aren't very polished, this man has no argument, and isn't very good in supporting his ridiculous excuses.

I'm still trying to get in touch with Jeffrey Billiel.

 

[UnknownSailor]

I wonder why this elected official feels the need to brew up unnecessary controversy oversomething like this, when he should be out doing his job instead?

Oh, right, he's in the government. Doing one's job is secondary, I see.

May the voting public's displeasure be harsh and unrelenting.....

 

[Waitone]

Sorta makes one wonder who is pulling on the Sheriff's leash.

No reason to publish addresses and names, just meaness.

 

[Jick42]

How WRONG, UTTERLY WRONG. He is an elected official. The people of the community need to take action and remove him! PERIOD!! This is an action that cannot be tolerated from ANY public official. What ever happed to FOR THE PEOPLE. This is an OUTCRY!

 

[CrudeGT]

MindonMatter, welcome, and I am in awe of your ability to quickly take the battle to the front line. good job on the calling the Sherriff and letting him know that this sword he tries to swing can be double edged.

 

[0007]

How 'bout a class-action lawsuit brought against both the sherrif and the publisher? Make the suit personal against the sheriff so that he can't fall back on government provided lawyers for his defense. Add their normal work hours to both their addresses...

 

[atk]

I'm thinking a deluge of phone calls and snail mail from people who dislike this decision, backed up by reasons why the decision is bad, would be somewhat effective.

Personally, I'm planning a phone call to each of the listed individuals, with only a couple questions:

1) Why is it okay to print information indicating (a) individuals with property highly valued by criminals, and (b) disarmed individuals that criminals will have an easier time harming?

2) Would it be okay for me to distribute their information, their co-workers' information, and extended family information, all of which would be of use to criminals wanting reprisals against a story/arrest conducted by the agency in question?


--
atk

 

[gunsmith]

I called

Being on the west coast I can call Ohio late at night and still get to bed early. So someone get the dumb sherrifs home phone number, ok?.

Tried to get the publisher,couldn't get through but talked to an underling by pressing zero-she said they're getting lots of calls.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Once again, any fines or civil judgements that come out of this need to be extracted from the PERSONAL ASSETS of any public officials so involved, not public funds from the good taxpayers of the county.