UPCOMING SHOWS:
RECENT SHOWS:
TAGS:
2010 election
books
business
climate change
college
economy
education
employment
environment
forest
health
high school
homeless
jobs
law
legislature
measure 67
mental health
military
noplace
northwest passages
obama
parenting
poetry
police
politics
portland
race
rural economy
rx
school
special session
see all tags >>
Packing Heat Privately
AIR DATE: Thursday, December 11th 2008
- LATEST COMMENTS
- The apebrains break into a LOT more houses of unarmed ... - I love crater lake
- Isn't it sad that we need "school police" because ... - I love crater lake
- regardless of the law or the owner's permission, I ... - I love crater lake
Should information about people who have permits to carry concealed guns be publicly available?
It all started with a South Medford High School teacher who has a permit to carry a concealed gun. Last year, Shirley Katz filed suit against the school district where she works, challenging the district ban on bringing concealed weapons on campus.
Katz is one of thousands of Oregonians who hold permits to carry concealed weapons. To get one, applicants must be 21 years old, an Oregon citizen or legal resident, and demonstrate competence with a handgun, usually by completing a course. You can't get a permit if you have felony or drug use convictions or a record of mental illness that would deny you the right to have a firearm.
Until recently, license applications noted -- just above the applicant's signature -- that Oregon law considers the application public information. As part of its reporting on Katz's lawsuit, the Medford Mail Tribune asked the Jackson County Sheriff for a list of everyone who has a concealed weapons permit. Sheriff Michael Winters said no, citing an exception in the public records law that protects security measures taken to protect an individual. The paper sued and won, and the case is now on appeal.
Meanwhile, other sheriffs around the state have rallied behind Sheriff Winter. Washington County sent out a letter to the 10,000 people who hold concealed weapons permits there, asking if they got the permit as a personal safety measure and whether they want the information on their application to be kept confidential. Columbia, Tillamook, Morrow and Gilliam have followed suit. Other counties put the questions on the applications. They have been accused by some of going beyond their authority to interpret the law -- and praised by others for protecting personal information.
Should the names, addresses, or other information about people who have permits to carry concealed guns be publicly available? Why would you want to know? If you have a permit, why should that be a secret?
Photo credit: amanky / Flickr / Creative Commons
COMMENTS: (116 total)
-
I fail to see how obtaining the concealed handgun license information for an entire county is relevant to a story where someone in that county has made their information public voluntarily in a publicized lawsuit. Guns in schools is one issue, having private information revealed to the public is another. There must be some mischeif afoot if the media wants all that information. Perhaps it is to embarrass people or do away with CHL's...but you'd have to ask the media. Whatever it is I doubt it is for the public good. I obtained a CHL in Washington County, and my application (of which I am looking at a copy of right now) does not mention my information is public. So naturally I would feel somewhat betrayed if my information was given to the public. The Sheriff of Washington County recently sent out a newsletter that states that 7000 people responded to their letter and none of them wants their information public, and their CHL was obtained as a personal safety measure. It is beyond me why anyone would obtain a CHL for any other reason other than a personal safety measure, and I'm convinced that the vast majority of them are responsible members of society. Personally, I have a CHL for reasons that I cannot expect members of the media, or others who want my information public, to understand. I am not ashamed I have a CHL, nor am I ashamed that I have a weapon, as the US Constitution affords. There may be as many reasons not to divulge CHL holders information as there are licensees, but I can give you two for myself: First, it would dilvulge information to those who want to do me harm. Second, it would be an advertisement to criminals who are in the market for stealing my weapon. This could potentially do harm to others other than myself. Don't believe me? Ask law enforcement what their experience has been.
-
The entire point of publishing the list is spite. They hope that by revealing the names of CHL owners, they can wreak havoc to offend and harm their political enemies (law abiding Americans who don't want to be part of the disarmed neutered new Mexicanadian United Soviet States).
-
My ex-husband carries concealed. He has been hospitalized twice for mental problems and was discharged from the military as being unsafe for service. For years he was sure the Vietcong were after him for atrocities in Viet Nam (he never left the basic training center, spent 4 month in the hospital and was discharged, all in the US).
We finally divorced after he refused to take medication to control his paranoia and our counselor told me he was so out of touch with reality that she feared for my safety.
This has never stopped him from getting a license to carry concealed. Every time I hear of a murder-suicide, road rage or someone found dead, I worry it might involve him. -
You should contact the police and a lawyer. If he really is that mentally instable and you are afraid for your own safety, you could file a restraining order on him. If he really has such dificulties and is dangerous, his license may be revoked. This is within your rights.
I think the CHL owning public would agree if he is dangerous, he should not have the license.
-
All CHL holders go through a complete criminal background check and must provide evidence of having had gun safety training. Criminal sorts do not bother to get permits. Although it may well have happened you do not hear about CHL holders committing crimes using guns. That would be a story the media would surely cover.
CHL holders go to the trouble to get permits so that they can protect themselves or others if the need arises. Police can only do so much to protect a community. They cannot be everywhere at once.
I don't want my CHL information made public for several reasons.
1) I wouldn't advertise that I had a million dollars sitting on my
kitchen table. I do not want people to be aware that there is a gun
to be stolen.
2) I don't want people I know or work with to be worried about the
presence of a gun. Out of respect for others, I do not take my weapon
into people's homes without their knowledge.
3) I don't want special interest groups on either side of the gun control
issue to have the ability to contact me.
4) I don't want marketers to put me on their lists.
5) I am somewhat concerned that lawyer/political types could involve CHL
holders in who knows what kind of legal/political shenanigans.
I see no reason why the NUMBER of active permits should not be a matter of public record and available for any one asks. I cannot come up with any valid reason why anyone would need to know WHO has a permit. I very much appreciate the Sheriffs departments making a united effort to protect our privacy.
Bottom line, I consider the ability to carry conceled to be a right as well as a privilage that can be taken from me for various reasons that are made clear in the permit application process. I choose to carry for personal reasons and the fact that I do so is my business and no one elses. I found it to be absolutely amazing that the court determined that there was no evidence that people get permits for personal protection. Well, we sure don't get them so we can go hunting and surprise the critters!!! -
No, this should not be of public record because it makes permit holders susceptible to become potential targets from extremist groups.
Hitler started a registration program so he would know who to eliminate first. Knowledge is power.
Besides who cares if you neighbor has a permit. It has zero effect of how you live your life.
The police do an extensive background check, we should trust them. By wanting these records to be public clearly states that we the public do not trust the police. This is wrong.
People, who have permits, have them for two reasons, to protect themselves from confrontational crimes and to support the permit system.
People who want this information have personal issues that they need to work through themselves instead of blaming others for their problems. -
By wanting this information to be public clearly shows that one does not trust the police.
But these are the same people who say we don?t need guns the police will protect us.
There is something wrong with this logic. -
Private property should not be public knowledge. I don't want some crackhead to have access to a shopping list of who has a gun or a plasma TV or a Lexus. All of this information should be kept private.
-
Luke T,
That's an interesting encapsulation of the issue, but you can own 100 guns (or 100 plasma TVs) without public knowledge. You only need a permit if you want to conceal them. And your ownership is only public if you have that permit. That's the state's logic, as far as I can tell. Does that distinction sway you?
David Miller — Thu Dec. 11th 10:58a.m.
-
I cannot think of any public interest that would be served by making such information public.
If a person carries a concealed weapon onto a school campus in violation of the concealed weapons law, then their permit should be revoked.
And you just read KayakDawn's five reasons post on the air and attributed it to me. Oops! -
Oh man, I did. Sorry to both of you! David Miller — Thu Dec. 11th 12:27p.m.
-
Persons with concealed handgun licenses are not prohibited from being in schools or on school grounds with a concealed firearm.
-
Why do you have a problem with someone owning 100 guns? May be they are a collector.
Besides a person like that would never do anything illegal. They would want to lose their guns. -
Thieves would love to know where all the guns are. That's one good reason to keep the CHL holders info private.
-
I am waiting to receive my permit in the mail as I write this. I made the choose to pursue this permit after a considerable amount of thought and deliberation. I chose to do this for a variety of reasons and took the training required to apply for this permit very seriously.
I absolutely do not want anyone other than the people I choose to know about what firearms I own or carry.
Posting personal information in the public domain regarding a person?s firearms is a highly dangerous thing. It exposes me (anyone with the permit) to potential attack, both personally and professionally.
We have mechanisms in place to guard our personal information (HIPPA, Privacy Act of 1971 etc.), why can't we use the same common sense about something as potentially deadly as defending ones home against a burglary that wouldn't have happened had the perpetrator not known there was a weapon present?
KayakDawn listed some very valid reasons below that none of us should have to contend with for exercising our rights under the 2nd amendment.
Leave this private matter private! -
This information should be private. If you have passed the backround check and taken the course to recieve this permit, folks should not have to worry about you. You don't have to worry about the person with the CCP standing behind you with the concealed gun - it's the crackhead outside your bedroom window you should be worried about. How many crimes with guns have been commited by folks with concealed carry permits? You can bet we'd be hearing about it loud and long from our 'unbiased' free press is there was anything going on there.
-
I have had a concealed handgun license since 2005 and it doesn?t matter if the record is public and accessible to all. The whole point of the license is that it should be CONCEALED. You may know I have the right to carry a handgun with me but nobody else is supposed to know where it is and if I am carrying but myself.
-
Marijuana permits are private, too. And if you have one, you can assume the growing permits of as many as 7 other card-holders (number needs confirmed), and grow up to 99 plants without the FBI taking interest (number also needs verified). That's about $100,000 worth or illegal drugs next door. Wouldn't that be a bigger concern?
-
There seems to be a consensus among listeners. Who wants this information to be public, and why?
-
I think the idea of gun registration, constitutionally, is a slippery one, and concealed permits are pretty close in practice to gun registration. Making this information public doubles the problem, including privacy into the equation.
-
Should have mentioned this before. I used to work on the coast - swing shift - with a commute between Newport and Lincoln City (the return trip after midnight). Had a flat tire one rainy night and a guy literally came our of some bushes near a subdivision to help me change it. All I had was my heavy duty flashlight. Scared the heck outta me. Turned out ok, but I talked to my boss about it and he allowed me to take a firearm to work as long as it stayed locked in my locker during my shift and only came out when I went home. I never applied for the CCP because it WAS subject to public knowledge. I didn't think it was anyones business. So when I carried, I did it openly (with the gun either on the dash or seat next to me) for those late night commutes. There are many cases where this would not be possible. I was lucky.
-
Seems oddly ironic doesn't it? Making a concealed weapons permit public means that it is no longer concealed. So shouldn't it be called a revealed weapons permit?
I wonder how Switzerland does it. As I understand it they have pretty reasonable gun laws. -
The argument of someone trying to steal your gun is a poor point. If someone knows you have a concealed handgun license and breaks into your house to try and steel your firearm they should be defeated by the simple fact that guns should be kept in a LOCKED SAFE making it inaccessible to anyone but yourself.
-
Of course I keep all my guns locked in a safe, but how long do you think that will work when the criminal is in an empty house with lots of power tools lying around? Should I keep all my grinders, crowbars, etc. in a safe also? What would prevent them from bringing their own tools? Why wouldn't they just steal the whole safe and open it up later? The best thing that can happen by revealing CHL holder's personal information is tension between that CHL holder and the community. The worst thing that can happen is the death of someone who breaks into a CHL holder's home looking for free guns. CHL information should be kept private.
By the way, why all the fear? Look at the statistics for Florida where an issued license was revoked for a crime committed with a firearm: less than 0.02% of license holders were bad. Compare that with numbers from the CDC for other ways to lose your life and one might realize that worrying about CHL holders is truly unwarranted. -
bowerman61028 are your KIDS and WIFE in a locked safe too? You have to leave the house sometime. That would be the mentality of the gun thief who has found the gun list in his favorite newspaper.
-
Isn't part of the reason to carry a concealed gun deterrence? Deterrence from the standpoint that bad apples might think twice before accosting people or property because they don't know who is defending themselves and who isn't. The bad guys don't register their weapons or apply for concealed gun permits generally so why should the good apples be penalized for playing by the rules? It's my business whether I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The public doesn't need to know this. No publicizing concealed weapons licenses. Our privacy is being eroded too much in general.
-
Of course that the records should be public. In fact, they shouldn't be concealed. If a would-be attacker can see a gun, certainly he would be deterred from making an attack. I think concealed weapons are pure cowardice and have no place in a civilized society.
-
it would provide a criminal a shopping list of where to get guns by theft.
-
C'mon. How many people with permits have been robbed? How many people with guns in their homes have accidents that have either injured themselves (the legislator who accidentally shot himself) and kids who've been killed by playing with them is far more likely to happen.
Get real! -
A lot of assumptions here. I wish there were a little icon for "this post useless without solid statistics." ;)
-
Don?t try to impose your personal feelings towards and inanimate object on others.
Guns exists in our society, they have since day one and they will until there is no longer a United States of America. Most CHL holders use education to maintain safety. Accusations that accident will happen are not valid. Millions of gun owner never have an accident. Why do you criminalize all? -
A civilized society? As soon as there is no danger that I will be a victim of violent crime in this "civilized society" that we live in, I will feel no need to use a tool that gives me an advantage or puts me on equal footing with some of my less-than-law-abiding fellow citizens.
I think it is "pure cowardice" to shirk your civic duty by not doing your part to protect our civil society against criminals. Do you rely on the police to protect you? There is a Supreme Court ruling that the police have no duty to protect any individual person. The police are good people and do a good job tracking down criminals and bringing them to justice, but they cannot protect you and your family from that particular criminal invading your home. -
Thanks Dave in Beaverton. Good points. I was wondering how far I had to read before someone brought of the fact that police have no duty to protect.....Supreme Court says so!
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html -
My best friend was robbed of a rifle and ammunition from his locked home. The criminals waited till he was at work. He has had his permit a long time.
" C'mon. How many people with permits have been robbed? How many people with guns in their homes have accidents that have either injured themselves (the legislator who accidentally shot himself) and kids who've been killed by playing with them is far more likely to happen.
Get real!DKSand — Thu Dec. 11th 12:33p.m. -
People who live in households that contain guns are far more likely to be victims of gun-implemented violence (than people who do not). I want concealed-weapon licenses to be part of the public record so that insurance companies can look up this information and adjust their prices accordingly. If guns in the home are really, statistically safer, this will be to the gun-owner's advantage. However, I am fairly confident they are not.
In general principle, I support sunshine laws. Publicly-issued licenses should be part of the public record. If the state has a duty to license (in the cause of public safety), the public has a right to know.
-Mark in Portland -
Making CHL records public would have no effect. There are many, many more households with guns in them than there are households with CHL holders in them. There is no extensive background check and no training required for someone to simply purchase a gun. Singling out CHL holders discriminates against them for no reason. I would say that households with CHL holders living in them experience a far lower rate of gun violence than households in general.
-
Why don't i have the right to know that my neighbor walking down the street might have a gun? Why is my right to choose to keep my children away from that neighbor less protected than their privacy? Why is owning and packing a gun "private?" Absoulutely, who has a concealed weapon permit is public information. Knowing this fact doesn't tell us that the person has a weapon NOW, just that they might.
Guns are used to fire bullets. When the bullet leaves the gun it is no longer a privacy issue, it isn't personal. It strikes an object, a target, or in some cases a person. A gun isn't a thought, a private action, a belief. It is a weapon. Weapons are designed to be used against something.
How many of these "privacy" advocates are anti-choice? Privacy is the basis for that right. -
ANYONE that you see walking down the street may be carrying a gun. You are focused too much on the gun. What you should be assessing is the character of the person. Keep your kids away from people of low character, and they will be fine, gun or no gun.
As you so eloquently point out, a gun is a weapon, a thing. Guns don't cause violence. Weapons are tools that equalize people. It doesn't matter if you are young or old, weak or strong, male or female, handicapped or able-bodied, all are capable of effectively using a firearm to defend themselves against anyone else. -
Anything can be a weapon. Baseball bat, knife, your hands. Knowing who has a permit does nothing for anyone. Criminals are unlikely to have permits, so because they don't have a permit are you more comfortable walking past them on the street?
-
There are PLENTY of laws about discharging weapons and CHL courses make it VERY CLEAR that a person is liable for hitting a third person even if shooting at a criminal in justified lethal force. Stop being an idiot! Weapons are designed to be used against the monsters that libtards unleash on the public and coddle when they get caught. (Jesse Jackass comes to mind immediately.)
-
I do have a concealed carry permit. I do not want my information made public. The only reason I have a permit is for self defense. In self defense, the element of surprise is key. If my information were made public, it could take that advantage away.
Additionally, there are people in our society who do not believe in the right to own firearms. I believe that having my name made public could make me a victim of harassment and could possibly cause employers, companies and/or neighbors to discriminate against me.
I am a very private person and really feel like this is a private, personal decision. I don't want my information made public. -
I have a neighbor who walks down the street muttering to himself and seems a bit loony. He also appears to wear a holster under his jacket. I should be able to know who may be armed in my neighborhood, especially this guy. As a parent I want to know who has weapons in their home, and who to tell my son to stay away from.
If you have a weapons to serve as a deterrent, then wouldn't it serve you to have that information available? -
"He also appears to wear a holster under his jacket."
Why not not call and tell the sheriff and let them do what they're paid to do, check things out and enforce the law. If the guy carries concealed and has no permit the sheriff can deal with him properly.
And any one acting loony who appears to have any weapon at all ought to be checked out for their own and the publics' safety. -
I second Tom's assessment. Call law enforcement and have them deal with him.
-
The possibility that a person has a concealed handgun is the deterrent, not the certainty. That possibility protects you just as well as it protects the person who actually carries a concealed handgun.
On the other hand, if a gun is left in the home, it cannot defend itself. Criminals who know where CHL holders live can wait for them to leave their home undefended, and burglarize it in the hopes of finding guns. -
So why don't you walk up to Looney Tunes and ask him, "hey mister, you got a gun under your coat?" in a loud and stern voice. See what he does.
Maybe he's talking on a bluetooth. What if he's a private eye? Wow you are dumb. If you are really worried about it, call the police and report suspicious behavior. They probably won't do anything, but they'll run his background and maybe observe him or right him for infractions.
-
Knowing who has a weapons permit allows checking how safely they are stored so that my small children cannot get to them. I would certainly talk to folks before sending my children for a play date.
-
You should be asking about things like that anyway. You might assume, though, that parents with firearms are responsible enough to store them where their own children can't get to them. I would advise you to use your judgement. Responsible, trustworthy people are still responsible and trustworthy if they have firearms in the house.
-
I remember being down in Salem and running into Randy Leonard when he was in the legislator with his concealed weapon. He never needed the gun with all the trained professional law enforcement in Salem.
He would often be seen packing a gun. My fellow female friends always made the comment when we noticed the hidden gun that he put far more time into trying to be a bully and violent then he did into trying to watch over his fiscal decisions.
Nothing changes with all the latest news on his bad recent decision lacking any lay offs for his excessive City staff and his bad idea of a law suit against the Ford Motor Company.
Very few people need to have a concealed weapon and definitely not Randy Leonard. Take his license away until he stops wasting tax payers money. -
It clearly should be public, there is no good reason for it to be kept private, except the unreasonable paranoia of gun owners. There is no danger in a permit being public record. It is funny reading many of these comments and how hysterical they seem.
I suppose it doesn't bode well for the angry future of so much of American culture. Bad ass cowboys---nobody's gonna tell me what to do... . So sad. -
I think Scott that people are coming from a point of respecting privacy, concealed weapons as a deterrence, and the right to self protection. I'm not reading any hysterics in these posts.
Firearms are an incindiary issue generally, but characterizing these posts as "hysterical" is not forwarding the conversation. -
Oh, yes, they are indeed hysterical, suggesting that it is an egregious offense of your privacy because it is public record that you have a concealed firearms permit. Give me a break!
This isn't about privacy, or some crusade by 'folks' to protect the rights of the poor disenfranchised and exposed American public. This is about gun owners not wanting to be told what to do, so they can perpetuate some ridiculous wannabe swagger, and a cliched crusade of constant victimization---that this is just another infringement by liberals to hinder their rights of gun ownership. -
I think Scott's tone speaks for itself. It's always interesting to note when a discussion devolves into name-calling.
-
Does it? What exactly does it say? Do tell!
There was also no "name-calling" in my post or not of the manner you imply. -
The phrase "ridiculous wannabe swagger" qualifies as name-calling.
That you used the phrase to characterize gun owners as a group, in an otherwise civil and polite discussion, indicates that you are bringing strong emotions and unfavorable stereotypes to that discussion. I will not call you "hysterical," but perhaps you can see a connection? -
Ridiculous wannabe swagger---suggests a type of behavior, motivation and personality, which is not name calling. Anymore then suggesting pacifists are peaceful turtles. I know it is easy to mistake fully-flavored writing as name calling. But it isn't. Unfortunately many people can't make this distinction. And they often run to the cliche: that you are allegedly stereotyping people when you make any statement about a collective in an attempt to explain their behavior. It's like there is a mandatory sentence imposed on any statement referring to more then one person, without evaluating the statement itself. What a boring way to live our lives. Thankfully, the brain makes generalizations all the time in order for the human to function to full effect.
If you wanna call me hysterical---great! -
LOL You're lecturing a published academic literary critic and writer.
I'd say you've found your medium! :) -
I'm not sure I get your drift... . You are a published academic literary critic and writer?
-
It seems your preference for "fully-flavored writing" clouds your ability to understand [b]plain[/b] writing!
-
Gosh, I'm all kinds of sorry. I guess I did get your drift, I hoped perhaps it wasn't so literal----because the literal interpretation seemed embarrassing. Well, if you had said upfront that you were published and an esteemed academic, you could have saved me from thinking---because then I could have taken all your words as fact. If credentials are your standard for assessing correctness---to that good luck!
-
Scott
Why, should this info be public, please give me a valid reason? -
I agree with my friend who says anti-gunners should move to strict places like NY or Shitcago, where they can experience all the hippy love and diversity with no legal guns to threaten them, or defend them from all the rap gangster "badass cowboys" "swaggering" around.
"Oh, yes, they are indeed hysterical, suggesting that it is an egregious offense of your privacy because it is public record that you have a concealed firearms permit. Give me a break!
This isn't about privacy, or some crusade by 'folks' to protect the rights of the poor disenfranchised and exposed American public. This is about gun owners not wanting to be told what to do, so they can perpetuate some ridiculous wannabe swagger, and a cliched crusade of constant victimization---that this is just another infringement by liberals to hinder their rights of gun ownership. scottmil -
I am not a Constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that other protections in the constitution do not require one to register on public record. An obvious example is religious preference.
At the margin, privacy should be the priority. -
Oh yes, religious preference is commensurate with having a concealed firearm!!!
-
Both are protected by the constitution. PS - I am not a gun owner
-
Having an ideological preference or set of beliefs---is really miles away from having a functional deadly object on your person. Having a gun in general already requires a permit because of public safety. You don't need a permit to have a religious preference. It is an absurd comparison.
-
There is no permit required to own a firearm. Restricting firearms ownership by law-abiding citizens does nothing to increase public safety.
This line of reasoning is absurd. A gun is not a deadly object. It is not inherently dangerous, like enriched uranium or ebola virus. A gun must be used by a person in order to cause harm. -
Given that both of these natural freedoms are protected by the Bill of Rights, it would seem that they are!
-
Tom from WElches, Or
I think the only people who benefit from knowing if someone has a concealed weapons permit are the criminals. They can decide which house to rob by seeing if they have a weapon or not. They can decide to go for the easy target. As your speaker said if it is weapons they are looking for they can go for the people on the list and come hard shooting right away knowing that you have one. I am a former Army Ranger and I carry a pistol most he time with a permit. I have had to show it twice since I have had it in three years. I think that people who have these permits need to ready to use it if they brandish it at someone. We wouldnt want the criminal to take it from a person and use it one them. -
Just a quick note about your last guests comment about a women scaring a man away with a gun, and how those statistics are unknow. Why would this women (or any other crime victim) not call / report this to the police. Wouldn't this woman or anyone else want the police to try and find this person so it wouldn't happen again?
I have nothing against guns or gun owners other than the ones that think there should be no restrictions, or tend to only look at half the statistics... -
The woman responding to a criminal attack was acting consistent with statistics. It's well-known among law enforcement officials and CHL holders that 1. Police statistically respond too late to respond to a crime in progress and 2. The US supreme court ruled that the police are NOT responsible for one's personal protection and security. The woman who used her firearm to protect her self probably didn't have time to call the police and even if she did, it is doubtful that the police would have responded in time.
-
Why do we feel the need that we have to protect ourselves? Can our society be fixed such that owning guns for personal security becomes irrelevant?
-
Because, our society can be fixed, but it hasn't been fixed yet.
-
Walk in a CD store downtown and look whats on the shelves, and who's shopping them. "Donate" some money to a few of the violent bums who think you "owe them" something. Smell the change.
"
Why do we feel the need that we have to protect ourselves? Can our society be fixed such that owning guns for personal security becomes irrelevant?trurl9 -
I don't get it. Why should there be a right to privacy when it comes to a permit for carrying a concealed weapon? They already have the right to conceal the weapon.
What is the argument in favor of the public interest in providing privacy? -
My wife also has a former soldier who is a little crazy and perseverating on her and writing about she should be his partenr. We don't know if he carries a weapon or not, but I think potential stalking victims should be able to know if their stalkers are armed.
-
This stalker might be packing without a permit. So if he doesn't have a permit are you going to consider him unarmed????
-
I don't care to know who has a permit, I'd just like to know that there are competent and responsible people like sheriffs who continually check up with the people who do have permits. And it sounds like mental health records ought to be available to the sheriffs.
-
Extensive background investigations are made before a Concealed Handgun License is issued. They also have to be renewed every four years.
-
Date: November 12, 2008
To: Multnomah County CHL Holders
Re: Multnomah Concealed Handgun License Holders Privacy
This email is in response to your recent inquiry regarding Multnomah County Sheriff?s Office position on the resent ruling from Jackson County on the lease of CHL holder?s personal information, under the public records act.
Multnomah County Sheriff?s Office, along with many other Sheriff?s Offices in the state, have been closely monitoring this case, and awaiting its ruling.
AT THIS TIME Multnomah County Sheriff?s Office WILL NOT be releasing CHL holder?s personal information.
This issue has transitioned to the Multnomah County Attorney?s Office, where we will continue to work closely with them to understand the Sheriff?s Office position on sustaining the privacy of holders. We anticipate a decision by the end of the year, and will be notifying holders of the county ruling shortly there after.
We will also post any additional information on our website www.mcso.us/public/concealed_handgun) as it changes.
Regards,
Kimberly -
Unfortunately, it is the case that gun owners can be the victims of discrimination by those who disagree with the law of the land. To have their concealed weapon permit status be public knowledge could lead to problems with employment, with volunteer positions, even with access to places otherwise open to the public. Until "gun owners" become a protected class, such discrimination would be perfectly legal, so the information should be private as they are exercising a constitutional right in a wholly lawful manner.
-
While I have been a gun owner, without a concealed weapons permit (shotgun and rifles) I am concerned about unknown guns in three different circumstances:
I am a mental health professional. If a client were to have a manic/psychotic episode or stalk me, I would like to know the likelihood that they would have a gun. It is true that they could have an illegal weapon, but many people have obtained guns legally -- it is not difficult. As a clinician, I would probably know if my client engaged in criminal activities, and hence might surmise that the client would perhaps carry an illegal gun. I would not make this assumption with more law-abiding folks, and it would be good to know the degree of risk. Fortunately, this has not been a problem for me yet - even my psychotic or formerly criminal clients are wonderful.
I have, however, worked with clients, and known women who have been victims of domestic violence. The most dangerous time is right after they have left the abuse. Domestic violence is the most likely way for a woman to be violently killed -- not the feared mugger with with illegal handgun. (It is ironic that the guns possessed to defend ourselves against such attacks are far more likely to harm a family member, through anger or accident.) Wives and girlfriends do not always know if their partner has a gun. Being able to find out quickly if an estranged partner has a permit could be helpful.
The third question, and this involves homes more than hidden guns on a person, is if children have access. I would want to know if there were guns in the house, and if they were adequately locked away (rather than left in a jacket over the couch), if I were to allow children to play there.
- Katja Biesanz -
Katja, you raise vitally important concerns, and I am utterly sympathetic to your concerns. However, I must argue that the oft-repeated claim that guns in the home are more likely to cause unwanted harm than to be used in self-defense has very dubious origins in the misinterpretation of a methodologically indefensible study. The prize-winning criminological work of Gary Kleck, a sociologist unconnected with any gun-rights groups, has cast an entirely different light on this question among professional academic sociologists.
-
There is more that one issue here and the most important one I beleave is that the Sherif, and sherif is to uphold all laws. Onece they start deciding to choose which laws are relvent and which ons are not based on their personal discression, we the people have a major problem. There is a way to change the law. Thats why america is great.
-
I work at a call center. There are 300-400 people in the building that I work in. This is a very boring and tedious minimum wage job in a high cost of living town. There is no drug testing for employment and the folks employed here are very diverse. The idea that any one of them is carrying a concealed weapon to work, a thought that had not occurred to me until listening to this program, is very disturbing. Because of the boredom and economic conditions, there are people here who are depressed, discouraged and sometimes reactive to small things. I am just now forming the idea in my head that my employer checking this population to see if someone has a permit to carry a concealed weapon and announcing that noone is allowed to carry on the premises would be a very reassuring move. I am not sure this is legal, but, if not, it should be an option for an employer.
Gail Hall -
You don't need to "check the population." Owners of private property (like a company) are fully within their rights to disallow weapons on the premises. Company policies disallowing concealed weapons are perfectly legal and enforceable.
-
Absolutely right. That's a property-rights issue, and employees are contractually obligated to obey their employers' policies (or get a different job).
That said, these policies are driven by liability concerns and do nothing to increase one's safety at work. Someone disturbed enough to commit murder will hardly be constrained by a paragraph in an employee handbook. -
It is legal for an employer to have a no gun policy. if someone brought a handgun to work, that person would be breaking work policy but not breaking the law (as long as it wasn't a place prohibited by law to bring a handgun.
-
regardless of the law or the owner's permission, I bet you there are 10% of the people in there carrying a gun at least 1x.
-
Not long ago in Washington County, the sheriff's office released the location of medical marijuana card holders.
I find it hypocritical that the sheriff's office doesn't mind releasing the location of marijuana farms but is fighting tooth and nail to keep concealed weapons permits secret. -
I think it should be on public record because knowing if someone is carrying a weapon affects everyone. I would like to know if I live next to a person who has a weapon (handgun, I should say); whether or not they have a clean record. To me, it is like giving an illegal substance to someone who is not considered an addict, and then not requiring them to notify the community that they have an illegal substance. Perhaps I don't want to live next to someone who has an illegal substance, who has a handgun.
Thanks, Brooke. -
I haven't heard any discussion about the rights of non gun owners. I have never owned a gun, nor do I want anyone carrying a gun to come into my home or (ideally) my workplace. It seems to me that if you are carrying a deadly weapon I have a right to know, so that I can ensure my own safety as I see fit. In my case this means not being near a gun!
-
I respect your choice not to be around a gun Lottie, but in the case where you may be the victim of a crime of any kind, you don't have a choice. You can be in your workplace, or in your home and not have the benefit of that choice. You are within your rights of course to exercise this choice, but saying you don't want law-abiding citizens to not carry guns doesn't mitigate your issue/concern
-
I have my permit mostly to protect myself from a police officers personal opinion of what is concealed and what is not. I would not like my information made public the same as anyone would not like a public record of who they voted for, if they gave money to Greenpeace, Naral, the Red Cross, Salvation Army, a church etc. I get enough crap in the mail and don't need any more from the NRA iether. They could make a list of people who don't have them so it would be easier for the home invaders and meth heads to get by safely??
-
I guess if you're not on the list then you 'allegedly' don't have one, so no need for a list of 'don't haves'---the current list already accomplishes that.
-
I'm a 61 year old teacher and I have a CHL issued in Washington County. My reason for securing the permit was so that I can legally defend my life and property. We live in a potentially dangerous society and we can seldom count on the police to be there at the moment we need them. Secondly, illegal guns are far too easy for criminals to come by, so i want at least a fighting chance. Home invasions out here in Washington County, random "bouncings" in Downtown Portland, and the dangers on the MAX, gangs, etc. etc. Nuff Said.
As to the issue of public access to that info. I would pose this concern:
IF my permit is made public, I have no real concern EXCEPT that any potential theif will then KNOW that there are guns in my home. THAT information makes me and my family potential targets, thereby endangering, not only me, my family and my property, but risking providing criminals with access to guns, AND running the very real risk of a deadly confrontation in my home. If that occurs because some newspaper demands to know if I have a CHP, then the newspaper can live with the knowledge and the potential liability of the moral, if not legal responsibility for any crimes or deaths that are facilitated by their publication of that information.
I think a free press is every bit as important in America as my second amendment rights, but if we CHP holders can be responsible enough citizens to assist in our own protection by securing a LEGAL right to carry, then journalists need to be at least as responsible when considering the potential consequences of what THEY do. Information can be just as deadly in the wrong hands as any concealed weapon.
And finally, the case in Roseburg has nothing to DO with concealment. The legal issue there is simply that is against the law to bring ANY weapon - permitted or not - into a public school. I'm not sure why she thought she NEEDED one, but if its because of the kids she either needs to find a new line of work, or Roseburg needs more school police.
FYI, I'm a lifelong democrat and I voted for Barak. I belong to the NRA, the Sierra Club and the ACLU and I beleive that the gun-ban folks are the Liberal's equivalent of the Right's bible pounders - a noisy, unconstitutional irrelevance. -
Great comparison---gun control versus evangelicals. People of faith (obviously, no factual evidence) who try to tell others and entire countries how to live their lives----versus, people who want to control guns allegedly for the safety of everyone. Even if you can prove gun control doesn't make for a safer country, it's not at all similar to being a religious evangelical. Hopefully that was a joke!
You (rather ironically) mention that by criminals knowing you have a gun it makes you more of a target---because criminals apparently wanna get your gun. So...you are apparently only safe when criminals don't know you have a gun? But I thought you had a gun to be safe, so if they do come to get it, because they see your name on the list, you will at least have your gun to protect you. So why worry, if you know the gun makes you safe? Couldn't it also be possible that your home would not be targeted because they are afraid of your gun ownership?
I guess if your name on the list allegedly makes you 'less' safe, then this means it should make non-gun owners 'more' safe. Because if they target your hood, with list in hand, they would pass by the non-gun owners and go to your home. Thanks for making the world a safer place for the unarmed! -
Scottmil, your sarcasm is not adding anything to the conversation, and makes you look like a fool.
CHL holders are a subset of gun owners conscientious enough to take a safety class, submit to a rigorous background check, and have their fingerprints recorded by the sheriff, not to mention paying a decent sum for the privilege. They do so acting within the law as well as their rights.
I find it amazing that hysterical anti-gun nuts want to penalize them for following the letter of the law in an effort to help protect themselves. -
Are you referring to this comment or my comments at large? This comment was not particularly sarcastic. Unless you think pointing out the irony and absurdity of slipshod logic is sarcastic and foolish.
About me looking like a fool---I'm not concerned. I don't mind being embarrassed in public, if that is what you suggest is happening, I can withstand the shame.
While you are at it, you might indicate the flaws of the logic in my comment, so I can feel more foolish. -
GUNS IN SCHOOLS
Please note what was touched on here that started this debate - a gun in a school. Hmm... a gun in a school. There's a can of worms. How do we keep our children safe when there might be a gun in the school ?
I have had my permit for almost 20 years and was trained about gun safety from a young age, being a child in a home that had guns. Not as today where many people, myself included have pistols & permits to carry - but with rifles & shotguns. My father was a hunter, and was always very responsible with his weapons. He kept them locked up. He also was proactive to educate me about gun safety.
In most states it is against the law for someone with a CHP to carry in a Government-State building or school. It is also common to have a gun free zone around the school.
We can't afford to have armed security at all of our schools. I don't want a school employee to carry in the school. Yes that "could" help stop a school shooting - but even as a gun owner, I would rather prevent the possibility of a gun getting into a child's hands. The chance of a school shooting happening compared to a teachers firearm being used by a child in the school are obvious. Again as a gun owner, I realize a gun in the home creates the potential for disaster, just as it could in a school.
The safety class required in Oregon needed as a component to gain a CHP is a classroom environment that is very limited. There isn't any mandatory method to prove proficiency at a range as you would expect. There are some classes available to do this, but most people opt for the prior. I was always surprised that wasn't a requirement, just as a police officer has to be tested regularly at the range.
The topic we need to spend more time on is safety. Better training, better storage of all firearms. Render them inoperable when not being used - especially if they aren't locked up. Keep ammo separate. Be smart, keep everyone safe. Don't park your car on a hill in neutral with the e-brake off. Why would you ?
Please teach your kids to always assume a gun is loaded, don't touch, tell an adult.
Now back to the main debate -
I don't want my name & CHP information to be available to the public for many reasons. I also don't want my drivers license or medical information available.
As a CHP holder, I choose to give the County - State & Feds all my information & my fingerprints.
They have it for eternity if they need to "keep track" of me & by the way they can revoke this privilege if you abuse it. Keep it private. -
Isn't it sad that we need "school police" because teenagers are attacking teachers. Something is wrong with the system. But laws preventing guns on campuses and criminalising owners who lose thier guns to teenage theives have successfully prevented ALL attempts of rampaging criminal students to shoot a teacher with a gun. (sarcasm, catch up).
-
The apebrains break into a LOT more houses of unarmed people than armed, but they can get a lot of crack for a gun.
""I guess if your name on the list allegedly makes you 'less' safe, then this means it should make non-gun owners 'more' safe. Because if they target your hood, with list in hand, they would pass by the non-gun owners and go to your home. Thanks for making the world a safer place for the unarmed!
scottmil -
To those of you who are concerned about your kids being around guns: I believe that knowing who has a permit won't help you much. You do not need to have a permit to have a gun. Truthfully, knowing who has a permit won't tell you who is packing heat. Unfortunately, most folks with bad intentions don't bother applying for permits.
Here are two important things you can do for your kids:
1. Teach them what to do if they see a gun. They need to be told more than "don't touch". They need to be told what to do. Teach them to, as Eddie the Eagle says, "stop, don't touch, leave the area, tell an adult". Should they ever come to you and tell you they saw a gun, don't flip out, instead, let them know they did the right thing first. Then do what you need to do to take care of the situation. You can also do some role playing with them about what to do if they are at a friend's house and the friend wants to show them a gun. Be proactive and educate your kids about guns.
2. When you are sending your kids over to another person's house, ask the adult in charge if they have firearms and how they are secured.
There are a couple clubs in the area that offer gun safety in the home. If you have kids and guns, take a class! Or even if you don't have kids, learn how to store your guns properly and safely. Check out the Clackamas Public Safety Training Center: http://www.clackamas.us/sheriff/pstc.jsp -
Thank you Ponytail! Excellent points. I am sure some of my neighbors have guns. I figure there are some in the area with Concealed Carry permits. It is MY responsibility to make sure that my children only visit homes that I approve of. It is MY responsibility to ask the questions of the responsible adults in that home. Checking lists of permit holders is not going to help.
If people are worried about the mentally unstable, they need to be worried about what that individual has access to - not whether or not they have a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
As for criminals, I don't think meth heads would take the initiative or time to do this kind of research into who has a permit to carry concealed. If someone is going to do this kind of research before breaking into your home - I would imagine that this would be a pretty successful criminal. -
As is often the case, those with the fewest facts speak the loudest. State crime statistics show that concealed carry permit holders are overwhelmingly law bidding. See http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp If I were a bad guy intent on doing violence, how wonderful for me to be able to determine ahead of time that my intended victim is defenseless. Not knowing is a deterrent to aggression. Also, I think being prepared and willing to defend others is good citizenship. If my neighbor's house catches fire, I'm not going to stand by waiting for the "professionals" to arrive. I'll grab the garden hose and do my best. If passivity in the face of violent aggression is your philosophy, good for you. I hope help is there if you ever need it. If I see an old man on the Max train being attacked with a baseball bat, I'm both willing and able to do something about it.
-
If privacy is the issue, look at what is public. through public records i can find out if you own any property and what you payed for it, if there are leans agenst it, what your taxes are etc. why should the privacy rights of gun owners be any more important than property owners, or holders of any other state lisences including medical or drivers lisences? all should be treated equally
-
I would argue that differing levels of consequence to public safety make a difference. If the law enforcement community, for instance, has reason to believe that make CHL info public might increase the probability of breaking and entering of homes containing firearms, with the potential for increased related crime, that's a legitimate argument for keeping that info private. This kind of public safety concern doesn't enter into the question of property values online.
It's always a cost/benefit analysis, of course. I just don't see the analysis in this case coming down on the side of making this info public. -
Is there some kind of evidence to suggest, public CHL records, are used as a neighborhood guidebook for burglars?
-
Should this data be private?
Maybe we can draw a parallel with Oregon DMV records. In the past you could obtain a database of Oregon license plate numbers and the associated personal information. After someone published this information on the Internet, Oregon's Record Privacy Law was passed and went into effect on September 13th, 1997. The information is still public, but is restricted to those people authorized to receive it. I think most licensed drivers would not like their personal contact information published on the Internet.
A lot of CHL holders expect their personal information to be treated in the same way, even if it is public record. Regardless of how you personally feel about guns, hopefully you can understand how many CHL holders feel about their personal contact information being made easily accessible to anyone. -
The only reason for a newspaper to try to obtain the names and addresses of CHL holders is to publish those names and addresses in an attempt to expose those people to possible negative action from neighbors, employers and criminals. The ultimate goal of a newspaper, radio/tv station with an anti-gun agenda is to use that tool to intimidate citizens who are considering obtaining a license. Knowing that their name and address might be publicized if they have a license might prevent some from getting the license. This fits the goals of the anti-gun cult to prevent law-abiding citizens from owning guns or exercising their right to carry them for self defense. It is all political.
-
For anyone who is interested, my magazine American Gun Culture Report can be found at Powells as well as several other bookstores around town. The website, www.americangunculturereport.com contains additional information relating to self defense and firearm issues. My thanks to the TOL crew-
Ross Eliot, editor AGCR -
To those who want to make my name public as a CHL holder,
You want to know if I have a Concealed Handgun License, a CHL. You want to know so you can make decisions:
Not knowing me, personally.
Not knowing what I do for a living.
Not knowing any of my personal circumstances.
Not knowing my involvement in the community.
What you will know is that I trained for, applied for, paid for and passed a check by the authorities for the privilege of holding a CHL. Basically the only thing you will know is that I?m quite possibly a better citizen than the run-of-the-mill person on the street. Willing to train, verify who I am in all details, open my life for inspection, make a commitment and take responsibility. (Reads like a checklist for being a good citizen, actually.) That?s it ? you will know nothing else.
From the responses to the show I find that you want to make decisions about whether to be around me, where your children play, where I should work, where I should shop, where I should walk or ride my bike based only on knowing that I have a CHL.
That?s not all. You?re not only equipped to make all those decisions by knowing I have a CHL, it?s your right to know! You have a right to know that I?m a good citizen so you can restrict what I do, where I go and who is around me. You have a right to know so that businesses can plug that info into their databases for commercial gain. You have a right to know so that political action groups can use me as a whipping boy or poster child for their side of the argument. You have a right to know in the name of ?public safety,? though you can?t point to any objective data showing that knowing this makes the public any safer. Or makes you, individually, any safer. You have the right to know even though it puts me in the public eye through no fault of my own (unless, of course, you think that conscientiously following the law is a fault), and possibly will endanger my life, livelihood or both. Never mind all that, you have the right to know!
What more to say? Oh, well, one thing I can see coming from this if CHL are made public ? it?ll give impetus to changing Oregon law to match Vermont. Then everyone will know that everyone may be legally carrying a gun at any time! Problem solved, your right to know is secure! Yipee!
Best regards,
An Oregon CHL Holder -
I worry about the information being used to discriminate in a work environment.
-
One of the beauties of CHLs is that it is mutually beneficial to both CHL holders and non-CHL holders alike. In Multnomah county, roughly 10% of the population had CHLs in 2007. While relatively low, it would seem that would be criminals would have reason for pause when there's a one in ten chance of their victim is carrying a gun.
-
Ok, as a grown up, I am just going to put this topic to rest. I do this kind of thing quite a bit, so sit back and relax.
So far, the ONLY people that have been interested in getting access to this information regarding who has a concealed hand gun permit in this state has been a reporter in Medford, a few follow-up reporters locally and one or two producers looking for a story to fill some air time. That is it. Not one other social person has chimed in as interested in knowing about the subject at all.
Ok, well... NOW it is a a story.
Sure, reporters looking to verify information on whether or not a shooter in an incident might have a permit to carry concealed or not might want to have access to the database to verify their story, ok, got it. (I'll go ahead and handle this people, this one is on me.) No, You can't have access. There, done. End of discussion. Ok, yeah, got it, remember the part where I said no?
I know it stops a reporter from verifying a point in a story. Got it, I am not really interested in the problem at all. Need a solution? Try this, (again, free of charge) ASK the person you are covering to see his or her card. If you are doing a story and want to know if the person has a permit to carry concealed, ask them. If she he or she has a permit, I promise you, the permit is on them 24/7. It is the law. Carrying concealed and NOT carrying your permit is prima facia evidence that you do not have a permit and you will be in hella trouble. Every carrier of this permit knows this law cold. (It's on the test.)
So I agree with the rest on this page. It serves no public good to allow this information to be open and available to the public. The only people who seem to be interested in this topic are news reporters that rely on verifying the information they report.
Check this out.
As far as I know, the really cool lady next door to me does NOT have a concealed weapons permit. (Ok, verified, she is really cool, she does not have a concealed weapons permit, again verified, she is hella cool,) She DOES, however, have a SWEET 45 revolver that she keeps next to her bed as she is a single woman and hella cool. (Absolutely true)
Here is my point, there are people in your neighborhood that own guns and they do not have a permit to carry them concealed. They have guns, only you do not know about them. You hopefully never will. These gun-owning people are safe from exposure. They had the common sense not to go down to the Sherrif's office to get themselves finger printed. Only those people that have been verified as law abiding members of our community need to be identified and exposed. Is that what we are saying?
Ok, I think my job here is done. -
I support Vermont Carry (not Kerry!). Having a gun doesn't magically mean nothing is going to harm you, but it sure would be nice to know you could own or carry your weapon at your choice (of course laws would still exist regarding places prohibited and crimes committed with guns), without worrying about paying a stupid tax for your born right, or being arrested simply for defending yourself (like in chicago, where only devout criminals can own guns, as you become a criminal by owning the gun according to their screwed up logic).
-
