• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

APPEALS COURT SAYS "Release CHL holder lists"

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
imported post

The Oregon Appeals Court has ruled that Jackson County Sheriff Mike Winters must release the personal information of all holders of Concealed Handgun Licenses in the county. Sheriff Wintershas fought the issue since the Medford Mail Tribune first demanded release of the information after a Medford school teacher filed suit to carry her concealed handgun. Apparently the news paper doesn't have any problem exposing the identities of all CHL holders.

I'm not sure if this is the last step, I would assume that the Sheriff could file an writ of certori to the Oregon Supreme Court.
 

aadvark

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,597
Location
, ,
imported post

In my State, Georgia, holders of Georgia Weapons Licenses are exempt from disclosure under any Freedom of Information Request.

What is Oregon's Law as it pertains to this matter?
 

SKN

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
21
Location
, ,
imported post

Actually members of the legislature did try to create legal protections last session but the legislation didn't make it out of committee.
 

Puddin99

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2007
Messages
394
Location
Scappoose, Oregon, USA
imported post

I thought when this whole thing started, the judge stated that there was no request by the permit holders to remain private. Therefore all of the sheriff's amended their forms and sent out forms to address this by requesting that our personal information be kept private. yes/no? Did this ruling null this?
 

AL Ranger

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
238
Location
Huntsville, Alabama, USA
imported post

What you need to do is get the names, addresses, phone numbers and children's names of every working for the newspaper and release that info onto web source you can find...or maybe just threaten to do it. Or boycott/sue the paper for invasion of privacy.
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
imported post

Puddin99 wrote:
I thought when this whole thing started, the judge stated that there was no request by the permit holders to remain private. Therefore all of the sheriff's amended their forms and sent out forms to address this by requesting that our personal information be kept private. yes/no? Did this ruling null this?
Apparently this ruling nullifies all of those forms we all filled out. So....for Oregon.... the solution is to not renew the CHL and Open Carry. They won't like that either of course. SMILE
 

SKN

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
21
Location
, ,
When those confidentiality certificates first came out I consulted a practicing attorney in this state who has a lot of experience in defending armed citizens and was told that unless the public records law is changed, that certificate was not worth the paper it was printed on. The sheriff had no legal standing to protect identities outside of what is established by current statute law.
 

Teddybearfrmhell

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Messages
348
Location
Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
Of course since the Sheriff runs the jail and IS THE TOP LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER in the county....who would arrest him for ignoring the judge?


i would hope that every LEO officer with a VALID warrant would arrest him.....

i agree that the ruling sucks, and as an INDIVIDUAL, i would applaud his ignoring the ruling.....

BUT as the TOP LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER he should NEVER pick and choose which laws to enforce, he is there to enforce all of them, if he cant, he should resign.

and join us , in righteous indignation...

btw, if the judge holds him in contempt, any baliff will make the arrest WITHOUT a warrant.
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
i would hope that every LEO officer with a VALID warrant would arrest him.....

i agree that the ruling sucks, and as an INDIVIDUAL, i would applaud his ignoring the ruling.....

BUT as the TOP LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER he should NEVER pick and choose which laws to enforce, he is there to enforce all of them, if he cant, he should resign.

and join us , in righteous indignation...

btw, if the judge holds him in contempt, any baliff will make the arrest WITHOUT a warrant.


Actually, the Sheriff is THE LAW in his county. He can deny federal agents and agencies any authority, he can do the same to STATE agents and agencies, he is "THE man". He has WAY more power than most people realize. Any doubts, read Sheriff Mack's book.

IT'S THE LAW, IT'S JUST NOT USED. Kind of like open carry, forgotten until someone is audacious enough to bring the light to the subject.
 

ccwinstructor

Centurion
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
919
Location
Yuma, Arizona, USA
Enforce all laws, and violate your oath of office?

i would hope that every LEO officer with a VALID warrant would arrest him.....

i agree that the ruling sucks, and as an INDIVIDUAL, i would applaud his ignoring the ruling.....

BUT as the TOP LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER he should NEVER pick and choose which laws to enforce, he is there to enforce all of them, if he cant, he should resign.

and join us , in righteous indignation...

btw, if the judge holds him in contempt, any baliff will make the arrest WITHOUT a warrant.

The sheriff takes an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and, usually of the State. If the legislature passes an unconstitutional law, it is his duty not to enforce it.
 

Teddybearfrmhell

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Messages
348
Location
Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
Actually, the Sheriff is THE LAW in his county. He can deny federal agents and agencies any authority, he can do the same to STATE agents and agencies, he is "THE man". He has WAY more power than most people realize. Any doubts, read Sheriff Mack's book.

IT'S THE LAW, IT'S JUST NOT USED. Kind of like open carry, forgotten until someone is audacious enough to bring the light to the subject.

if that is the case, why did he originally care about the court ruling in his favor, deny the newspaper regardless of the court and go on about business.
 

Teddybearfrmhell

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Messages
348
Location
Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
The sheriff takes an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and, usually of the State. If the legislature passes an unconstitutional law, it is his duty not to enforce it.

the court is who decides if a law is unconstitutional, not the local sheriff. an unjust law is a different story.... if our contstitution allowed for the arrest and extermination of a racial minority.... a law requireing the sheriff to do just that would be constitutional, but still unjust.

the courts decide the legal terms, we decide the moral ones.... the two dont always mesh.
 

kwikrnu

Banned
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
1,956
Location
Brentwood, Tennessee
What's the problem? Why shouldn't people know to whom the government has issued permits to carry firearms?
There shouldn't be a permit process to carry arms in the first place, but since there is all the records should be public just like all the others.
 

Teddybearfrmhell

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Messages
348
Location
Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
What's the problem? Why shouldn't people know to whom the government has issued permits to carry firearms?
There shouldn't be a permit process to carry arms in the first place, but since there is all the records should be public just like all the others.

not all records are made public, anti stalking laws stopped that.... but if you are a crack head, wondering where to steal guns, wouldnt a wonderful source of info be the list of concealed license holders?.... just stake out the house, and when they leave, go steal any weapons left in the home? statisicly the household has multiple firearms and the permit holder will most likely carry only one at a time....

good enough reason?
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
What's the problem? Why shouldn't people know to whom the government has issued permits to carry firearms?
There shouldn't be a permit process to carry arms in the first place, but since there is all the records should be public just like all the others.

So should we also release all the public records from the DMV, the county mental health department, etc? How about the records that have the names of rape victims in police reports? It's a government, therefore "public" record is it not?
 

Window_Seat

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
123
Location
Vacaville, California, USA
How 'bout we find out who the reporters are for the newspapers, and then post their names & addresses, phone numbers, vehicle make/model, license plates (all public information), where their spouses work, what kind of vehicles they drive, etc. Do this on as many boards as possible, including NRA & other GR publications What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Erik.
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
Out of State...

I am very curious to how this will affect an out of state CHL holder. I live in the Seattle area and would love to be contacted by some hippie form Oregun or some leftist newspaper reporter. Wouldn't that be a hoot!

Perhaps a class action lawsuit by all of the out of state CHL holders will be necessary as it would relate to a federal violation of my 4th amendment rights.
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
I am very curious to how this will affect an out of state CHL holder. I live in the Seattle area and would love to be contacted by some hippie form Oregun or some leftist newspaper reporter. Wouldn't that be a hoot!

Perhaps a class action lawsuit by all of the out of state CHL holders will be necessary as it would relate to a federal violation of my 4th amendment rights.

I don't think the Sheriff is "done" yet. I suspect that he'll "comply" with the LETTER of the order but somehow do it in a way that both protects the CHL holders AND pisses off the newspapers and court....but is totally legitimate. That is, of course, if he can figure out a way to do that. He seems like this fight is worth while to him.
 
Top