Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: A right to permit privacy?

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Scappoose, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    394

    Post imported post

    I found this on another site.

    http://www.co.washington.or.us/sheri...ce/ccw_not.htm

    Notice to All Concealed Handgun License Holders


    November 14, 2008

    Dear Concealed Handgun License Holder,

    There is currently a statewide issue regarding the disclosure of the names, addresses and other identifying information of people who have concealed handgun licenses that affects you. Essentially, the media and other groups are asking for lists of information about all the people who hold concealed handgun licenses.

    As your sheriff, I refused to disclose that information because I believe many people obtain a concealed handgun license for personal security and would not want that information made public. I also resist disclosing personal information because of the continuing identity theft risks.

    Despite my belief (shared by sheriffs across Oregon), an Oregon court recently decided that there is no evidence that people obtain concealed handgun licenses for security measures. The court ordered the Jackson County Sheriff to disclose a list of all the concealed handgun license holders in his county to the local newspaper. The case is now before the Oregon Court of Appeals.

    While I believe you obtained your concealed handgun license as a security measure and that you do not want that information disclosed with your name, address and other personal information, I need to hear from you on this issue to help me defend your privacy in this matter.

    Please answer the two questions at the bottom of this letter as soon as possible. If you want your name and other information to remain confidential, simply answer YES to both questions. Thank you for your cooperation.

    Sincerely,
    Rob Gordon
    Rob Gordon
    Washington County Sheriff


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    736

    Post imported post

    A Sherrif, protecting an unwritten (in fact, nonexistant, CHLs are explicity labeled as public) right of his populace?

    I am humbled, indeed. There may be hope for them yet.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    Is anyone else bothered by a letter allegedly written on a date that is still a week away? I'm in Sherif Gordon's county and would personally take him to lunch if this is true. HEY - I guess I'll get that letter if its true...

    ETA - It does appear to be on the Washington County Web Site...

    -adamsesq


  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Portland/Beaverton/Hillsboro, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    Yea, I googled the Washington County website and went from there, so it's legitimately on their website.

  5. #5
    Regular Member thebastidge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    2519 E Fourth Plain Blvd, Vancouver Washington, USA
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    (Mailed to: sheriff@co.washington.or.us)

    Sheriff Gordon,

    I applaud your stand on privacy for concealed weapons permit holders. I am a Washington State Concealed Handgun Licensee who is also a resident of Clark County in Washington State, and I applied a few years ago for a concealed carry permit in Multnomah county. I intend to apply again as soon as I return from Iraq early next year.

    I absolutely did apply for my Washington and Oregon permits for reasons of personal safety. I firmly believe that efforts to publish personal information related to firearm ownership and permits are a deliberatePOLITICAL tactic to intimidate gun owners into surrendering their civil rights. There is no compelling public interest for a permit holder's information to be published. If it were the case that a permit holder were to come under suspicion of a crime in which a handgun were involved, it would absolutely be fair game to subpoena such information and use it in a court of law for purposes of establishing guilt. However, the publishing of lists of individuals with personally-identifying information is inviting crime against them: personal attacks, robbery, intimidation and threats, and identity theft. It is pure extortion with the intent of chilling a citizen's intent to exercise their rights.

    Please continue to resist this politicized effort to deprive people of their rights. I for one, will publicly support you inasmuch as one individual is able.
    (redacted),
    Vancouver, WA
    Be prepared. Be very prepared.

    http://swwsurplus.com/ *** 2519 E Fourth Plain Blvd Vancouver WA 98661 *** 360.314.6687
    http://www.facebook.com/SouthWestWashingtonSurplus *** https://twitter.com/SWWSurplus

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    Would everyone please write/call there respective county sheriffs here in Oregon, and ask them to support the idea of privacy on this issue.

    I do not agree with the idea that one needs permission to carry a weapon from any government agency, but that is oursituation as it now stands. The implication from the judge (He's an idiot)in Jackson County, that evidence does not show that people get permits for security reasons is ridiculous and has little relevance on privacy ofindividuals. Does this moron think weapons are afashion statement? The whole idea behind CC, is that no one knows you haveone except those that hold the publics trust, even though that is questionable at times.

    For somebody in the information business (media), that can help or hinder elected officials campaigns with their own agendas, this information is definitely none of their business. This may be one reason some of those in law enforcement at the administration levels may not concern themselves with this issue.

    I for one am proud of Sheriff Rob Gordon, for having the guts to stand up for this issue.

    I hope he will understand if this issue fails in the court of appeals, that I might as well carry OPENLY 100% of the time, due to the fact I no longer have the security of privacy anyway.



  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1

    Post imported post

    Just heard about this today on Lars Larson's show.

    What the heck kind of judge would order the release of a list of CHL holders to a newspaper???? He might as well have shouted:

    "Hey crooks, here's a list of where to get guns."


    I went to the Washington County Sheriff's website and filled out the short form that says: "NO WAY." This is to build a case that we carry for reasons of personal security, which we certainly do.

    On Lars, Asst. Deputy Pat Garrett (yep, that's his real name) said that they had received over 500 e-mails supporting the sheriff's non-disclosure action. He said there were no e-mails to the contrary. That's encouraging.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Scappoose, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    394

    Post imported post

    http://www.oregonlive.com/washington..._informat.html

    Sheriff seeks privacy information on 10,000 concealed weapons owners
    by David Holley, The Oregonian
    Monday November 10, 2008, 6:28 PM

    Rob GordonWashington County's sheriff is asking 10,000 people who hold concealed handgun licenses whether they want their names made public if it is requested as an Oregon public record.

    Sheriff Rob Gordon said he believes that people obtain these licenses as a security measure, which would exempt the release of their names. But a circuit court in Jackson County ruled in April that people have to document that the license is for security reasons in order to be exempt from public records law.


    On Friday, license holders will be mailed letters asking them to say whether they obtained the license for security reasons, and whether they want their information kept confidential.

    "Instead of going through the process of saying that it's implied, we're going though the process of getting the documentation that says that it is," said Sgt. Vance Stimler, public information officer at the Washington County Sheriff's Office.

    When The Mail Tribune in Medford requested names of concealed handgun license holders as a public record in 2007, the Jackson County Sheriff refused the request based on Oregon law that states records are not public if they could reveal a person's security measures or weaknesses. But Jackson County's Circuit Court ruled that each individual must specify that he or she doesn't want any personal information released. If not, their names are public record.

    The ruling is now in front of the Oregon Court of Appeals. No court date is set.

    If each applicant requests to keep their information private, then Oregon law will allow the Washington County Sheriff's Office to reject a request for names of license holders, Stimler said.

    "Essentially we follow the law and the law stated that people had personal protection reasons for getting them," Stimler said. "We're just trying to follow the interpretation."

    The Multnomah County Sheriff's Office will confirm that a person has a concealed handgun license if someone calls with a name, said Deputy Paul McRedmond, public information officer. They approve public record requests for general release of names on a case-by-case basis.

    In Clackamas County, the sheriff's office will release the information for properly made requests, said Det. Jim Strovink, public information officer.

    Both counties are considering Washington County's idea and plan to discuss whether they will implement something similar.

    License holders in Washington County can answer the privacy questions on the sheriff's office Web site, at http://washtech.co.washington.or.us/handgunholder/

    The Jackson County Civil Court case stems from the news that broke in 2007 about a Medford teacher with a concealed handgun license who wanted to bring a handgun onto school property for personal security reasons.

    -- David Holley; davidholley@news.oregonian.com

    edit: bad copy/paste




  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Albany, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    83

    Post imported post

    Why Dp they wanna Make it known to the public??? It doesn't really make since.. But I guess the government will do anything to make peoples lives less Private..

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    Glockguy wrote:
    Why Dp they wanna Make it known to the public??? It doesn't really make since.. But I guess the government will do anything to make peoples lives less Private..
    Lots of "they"s in this. The press wants it public because they believe everything should be public and because they are generally anti-2A and want to make life difficult.

    The judge might be anti 2a, he might be strong 1a, or he might have wanted to find one way but felt he had no choice with no evidence to support his desire.

    The sheriffs could fall into any of the above.

    -adamsesq

  11. #11
    Regular Member thebastidge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    2519 E Fourth Plain Blvd, Vancouver Washington, USA
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    It's unfortunate that (AFAIK) the Privacy act of 1974 doesn't apply to States, merely to the Feds. Because this would be clearly against the Privacy act (http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/privstat.htm) inasmuch as it is not a routine use:

    "the term "routine use" means, with respect to the disclosure of a record, the use of such record for a purpose which is compatible with the purpose for which it was collected"

    Nor is it a:

    "showing of compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of an individual"
    Be prepared. Be very prepared.

    http://swwsurplus.com/ *** 2519 E Fourth Plain Blvd Vancouver WA 98661 *** 360.314.6687
    http://www.facebook.com/SouthWestWashingtonSurplus *** https://twitter.com/SWWSurplus

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Tampa, Florida, USA
    Posts
    51

    Post imported post

    Back in '06, IIRC, we had that same problem here in Florida. News agencies kept asking for permit holders' information. One of the news channels even posted a list of holders' names and addresses in central Fl on their websites! Finally the state passed a law saying enough and that the info for permit holders was confidential and you had to have express, written permission from the holder, a court order, or a cop running a lawful check to disclose the info. Before the law was passed, you could only be exempt from the public records law if you were, or family of, a judge, prosecutor, cop, corrections officer and the like. I can't get the link to post, but just google "FL 790.0601" if you wanna see it. I don't know who has to be lobbied or what was done to get this passed, but maybe its something you guys can try up there. I hate when the press meddles in the affairs of gun owners.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    Sheriff Tim Mueller of Linn County is also suporting this stance. I will be contacting my Rep also. We just received our letter and answered it. The letter read like the posted one at the top. My hats off to Tim Mueller of Linn County.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •