You’ve just arrived at work, interested in coffee more than conversation, and a coworker enters, setting her purse down – BOOM! A gun explodes, bullet flies, nearly hitting you – Where are you? The sheriff’s office, where everyone is armed? A rural factory where busting-off a few rounds after work isn’t uncommon? No, you’re a nurse at St. Charles Medical Center and this actually happened a little over one month ago. No one was injured and the incident went unpublicized, but the nurse with the concealed handgun is no longer employed at the hospital. Everyone knows why.
She brought a ballistic umbrella in case of rain.
Others are doing the same and, at the Deschutes County Sheriff’s office, dozens of citizens are attending classes to exercise their 2nd Amendment Right. There’s another right that’s not being talked about, at least not in concealed carry classes, and that is the public’s right to know if your coworkers and neighbors are carrying a gun under their coat or in their handbag. It’s a pretty well-established right in other places where law enforcement folks acknowledge that information isn’t covered by exemptions to public records laws. But not in Oregon. Here sheriffs, including our own, are testing their right to withhold that information while at the same time dolling out permits by the dozen.
“What is the purpose of seeking a Concealed Handgun License?” asks Sergeant Dan Bilyeu, 50 years old, solidly built with short dark hair and friendly blue eyes; a handgun rests comfortably at his side. A few hands come up among the 35 or so attending the Concealed Handgun License (CHL) class Sergeant Bilyeu is leading.
“For myself, for personal protection,” answers a man in his late twenties. He is clean cut, wearing a blue polo and intense expression. “When I go camping with my family I want to take my gun along and not worry about always having it in view.”
The woman sitting down the table from me has platinum blonde hair, red acrylic nails and bracelets that jangle on her wrists as she offers, “I go riding in the mountains a lot, alone.”
A couple in their early-30s sits together in the front row; the male half speaks first, “To keep myself out of trouble.” He is wearing a thick plaid coat and a baseball hat that shields his eyes from where I sit, but his smile is unmistakable as he adds, “I carry my gun in my pickup and sometimes forget to have it in the open.” The female half of the couple nods then tenders, “Personal protection for me, I would rather be proactive than reactive, and I’ve been in situations where I felt threatened.” She is thin and strawberry blonde, wearing a turquoise top. As the class continues, three hours locked in the Deschutes County Sheriff’s office, these two will come to dominate the audience participation portion.
Skipping through several frames of his PowerPoint presentation, Sergeant Bilyeu comes to the “Exemptions” page. Clearly addressing the main demographic in the room – two long rows of Caucasian males in the rear – he makes it clear that a valid hunting or fishing license allows you to carry a concealed handgun as long as you are on your way to or from a sporting event. Pausing, he then jokes, “There’s a smell test associated with this exemption.”
Other exemptions include recreational vehicles (which are considered residences) and horses (as long as the handgun is in the saddlebag, not readily accessible) but a horse is not considered a vehicle. Also, hiding a handgun to avoid theft is not illegal. Subjectivity reigns, as reinforced by Sergeant Bilyeu: There is a dichotomy between the spirit and intent of the law. However subjective, Sergeant Bilyeu urges the class to comply with any reasonable requests that an officer may make.
This much is clear: Even if you have a CHL, you can’t carry a weapon into a Federal building, court, or post office. CHLs are state-issued, and Federal law trumps Oregon. “Concealed handgun licenses are flagged on your driver’s license,” Sergeant Bilyeu states, then stresses, “Does everyone understand this?”
In my mind, this is the turning point of the class. We are about to move from a factual presentation, conceal and carry law and exemptions, to a presentation of licensee rights. Reminiscent of 2nd Amendment entitlements, the one thing lacking is a reality check: Simply because one signed up and attended this class, is he or she proficient and responsible with his or her firearm? We’ll never know; three hours of class for $25, then $65 to apply for a CHL – but no written or shooting range test, hands-on demonstrations, nor real-life scenarios other than oral. $90 in total fees, a PowerPoint presentation, then a thorough criminal history check – That’s what is required to obtain a CHL in Deschutes County, Oregon.
“We’re not worried about the people that went through the formal training and jumped through the hoops. It’s the people that didn’t,” Sergeant Paul Garrison will tell me later.
Oregon is one of 36 “shall-issue” states, meaning that a CHL will be issued to an individual without discretion if this class is attended, fees paid, and prior felonies and other red flags (recent restraining orders etc.) aren’t found during the criminal background check. Among the majority of states, Oregon’s “shall-issue” status is at odds with nine other “may-issue” states that use discretion on a case-by-case basis before issuing a CHL. Only Wisconsin and Illinois don’t have any form of concealed-carry licensing, though Wisconsin allows “open carry” in most situations and Illinois in rural areas. The 2nd Amendment right to have a firearm is now being reaffirmed in our nation’s capital, with Washington D.C.’s 30-year ban overturned by the Supreme Court last week in a 5-4 decision. Meanwhile, Vermont is the most lax when it comes to carrying a gun, allowing residents and visitors to conceal whenever, wherever, for whatever reason. Yet Vermont is also consistently rated as one of the “safest sates” in the U.S, explaining why it is the poster-child for proponents of CHLs.
Chad Ramsey, Senior Associate Director of State Legislation and Politics for The Brady Campaign, told me over the phone, “Oregon has a long way to go in enacting sensible gun laws. Oregon simply doesn’t do a good enough job in making sure people who shouldn’t have guns don’t get them.”
Once a debate over Federal vs. State laws and regulations, gun ownership is an individual’s right, as underscored by the Supreme Court decision overturning of the ban on firearms in Washington D.C. State controls over CHLs are minimal, limited to background checks and flagging of drivers’ licenses; Deschutes County Sheriff Larry Blanton may offer whatever programs he wants – including forgoing an actual shooting test. He also gets to decide whether you can find out if your neighbor, your coworker or the guy sitting next to you in traffic is carrying a gun under his jacket.
The Source filed a State Public Records request to obtain this information and received a letter from Sheriff Blanton in response, which states that the “exact number of permits currently issued in Deschutes County is 6,671. There have been 84 concealed handgun license permits denied or revoked in 2006/2007.” Adding that “Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office declines to disclose to you the names and addresses of concealed handgun licensees pursuant to the State Public records law.” We then turned to the Oregon State Police, who were much more forthcoming.
Congratulations, Deschutes County! We are the most pistol-packing county in Oregon! 2.7% of Oregonians have CHLs (101,642 total statewide) while 4.1% of Deschutes County residents do. Multnomah County has the most
CHLs, 10,590, but per capita, only 1.8% of its residents have CHLs. Sherman County exceeds Deschutes County in CHLs per capita, 4.7% vs. 4.1%, but Sherman County’s 1,855 total residents with 89 CHLs couldn’t hold us off for long. Another interesting discovery while digging into CHLs are discrepancies between state vs. county records – The Oregon State Police showed 6,156 CHLs issued in Deschutes County as of Thursday, June 26, 2007, while Sheriff Blanton’s letter, dated June 24, 2007, shows 6,671. Since 84 CHLs have been “denied or revoked” in 2006/2007, the discrepancy of 515 CHLs is rather difficult to explain.
If Deschutes County has 515 CHLs issued that the State Police are unaware of, for whatever reason, and Sheriff Blanton won’t release the names and addresses of those with CHLs, how do we know? Will we only know when too late? Road rage, a domestic dispute, don’t we have the right to know who’s packing? Our Sheriff “declines to disclose” this public information, so we’ll just have to wait, hope. Until a gun goes off…
Sheriff Blanton has other reasons for not disclosing the names, despite the law and our official Public Records request. Reached by phone, Sheriff Blanton explained his rationale for refusal, citing concerns such as the possibility of home invasion and identity theft, saying, “I don’t see any good that would come from releasing names and addresses of CHL holders.”
But, when asked about the 6,671 CHL holders in Deschutes County, Sheriff Blanton prefaced his answer with “Knock on wood,” then afforded, “We haven’t had any issue with anyone trying to affect an arrest as a CHL holder.”
Sheriff Blanton couldn’t fully explain the discrepancy between his number of CHLs and the Oregon State Police’s, saying only that Deschutes County takes 30-40 applications a month and time time to get the information to the state. Also, the number changes routinely, due to revocations after arrests, etc. Still this doesn’t explain Sheriff Blanton’s office reporting 515 more CHLs for Deschutes County than the State Police are aware of – Given 30-40 applications and a total of 84 revoked or denied CHLs since 2006, it would take nearly two years for the Sheriff’s and State Police’s numbers to synch.
Nonetheless, Sheriff Blanton supports the CHL training. “People are going to own handguns anyway, and the class is a good way for us to tell people about the law and gun safety.”
If our Sheriff’s reasons to refuse to release CHL information and differing statistics behind CHLs confuse, maybe outrage, so too do indiscriminate policies. “Local control” may have cost Oregon 2 points on The Brady Campaign’s scorecard, but it remains a hotbutton issue in the bigger battle over gun rights and CHLs.
Consider the case of Shirley Katz, a teacher at South Medford High School with a CHL, who made national headlines last fall when she insisted on bringing her Glock 9mm handgun to school. Her ex-husband, Gerry Katz, has denied acting violently towards her and says he isn’t a threat to her or students, but Shirley got a restraining order and continues to insist that she needs her Glock. The school district has a policy against concealed firearms, though, and Ms. Katz was notified of possible disciplinary actions or termination of her employment as a teacher if she continued carrying. So she sued; the case hit the press and created a firestorm around the right to carry a concealed handgun in schools. Debating whether the district’s banning of concealed firearms in schools was mere “policy” (thus overridden by Oregon CHL laws) or an actual “ordinance,” Jackson County Circuit Court Judge G. Phillip Arnold denied Katz’s preliminary injunction against the Medford School District on November 9, 2007.
In deciding and arguing as such, Judge Arnold sidestepped the bigger debate over CHLs. State vs. Federal, 2nd Amendment rights of individuals vs. overall public safety. Ms. Katz is appealing the decision, as is Sheriff Mike Winters, who lost his attempt to refuse to release the names of CHL holders in Jackson County to The Mail Trubune. Still Katz cites that he restraining order against her ex-husband has lapsed and hints at a much larger argument for her appeal: Forget school policy vs. state law and the definition of “ordinance.” Instead focus on fear. Calls to Ms. Katz weren’t returned as of press-time, but she framed her new argument in an interview with the Associated Press in March 2008: “Since my case first emerged, we’ve seen six or seven more cases where students were either wounded or injured or killed. It hasn’t stopped. It’s not going to stop until security at school becomes a priority.”
Where Ms. Katz got her statistics from remains in question, but she has made powerful new allies. Ms. Katz at least went through classes (in a Sheriff’s office no less, hardly the preferred meeting place for serial killers and violent persons intent on a rampage) paid the fees and had a criminal background check before being issued a CHL. Her appeal won’t be heard for months but, given the Supreme Court’s new precedent for gun ownership in Washington D.C., she will probably be packing by the fall.
If I had brought my umbrella today it wouldn’t have rained.
That’s the argument being made by proponents of CHLs and less gun control. Essentially, in order to stop another Columbine or Virginia Tech shooting rampage, we need a well-armed populace: If one citizen with a gun was there, they argue, that other citizen with a gun would have been stopped. Hypothetical at best, such arguments are, quite frankly, as silly as others pro-gun groups try to make.
“Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives” on www.gunowners.com offers a cacophony of arguments against gun control. “A citizen in the Sunshine State is far more likely to be attacked by an alligator than to be assaulted by a concealed carry holder.” and “Armed citizens kill more crooks than do police.” Using stats both dated and deceptive, far-right pro-gun groups depend on the abstract. And fear. Rape is a calling cry, as well as “anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times for self-defense.”
But there are facts that these groups fail to mention. Like how violent crime has been falling for a decade, with minor, recent blips, and another 1.4% decrease in 2007, according the FBI report released on June 9, 2008. Nor do they mention Mark Wilson of Tyler, Texas, a citizen with a CHL, who ended up dead after trying to stop a shooter outside a courthouse. The battle over gun rights may be more local, individual, but pro-gun groups are now going international. Earlier this year a gunman attacked students at Jerusalem’s Mercaz Harav Seminary and an enrollee with a licensed handgun, Yitzhak Dadon, shot the assailant, ending the melee and a possible bloodbath.
“Yitzhak Dadon is a hero,” offered Alan Gottlieb in a press release as chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), followed by the rather ridiculous, “What a pity someone like Mr. Dadon was not in class last April at Virginia Tech. What a tragedy that anti-gun extremism would keep him from attending class at Northern Illinois University. He would never be allowed to teach at Columbine High School, hold a job at Trolley Square in Salt Lake City, or go shopping at Omaha’s Westroads Mall.”
Yes, you heard Mr. Gottleid right: One student in Jerusalem shot a gunman so five rampages could have been stopped in America – if not for “anti-gun extremism.”
Back in Bend, discharging a firearm is banned. This dates back decades but the original, rigid language “No person other than an authorized peace officer shall fire or discharge any gun or other weapon…” has been relaxed over the years. In 1990 the ordinance was amended to include two new caveats: “It shall be a defense to a prosecution… that the person was acting in defense of life or property…” and that “the person was test firing or discharging the weapon, as a necessary part of the person’s lawful business operations, at a firing range…” Essentially, it’s a Class A misdemeanor to discharge a weapon, unless defending your life or property, or discharging a weapon…
CHLs make holders exempt from such city ordinances state-wide, however ambiguous. And it is the proof of training element – fulfilled by the three-hour class with Sergeant Bilyeu – which makes this possible. This exemption also extends to policies that prohibit firearms in public buildings and schools. Except South Medford High School, it seems. Our CHL class being held in a county building only adds to the ambiguity – Though there is a clear sign upon entering stating that the possession of firearms is prohibited, it isn’t enforceable to those with CHLs.
“I trust you guys with this information,” Sergeant Bilyeu says to us in summation, offering advice on transporting a concealed weapon once we are licensed to do so. He urges us to buy a holster with a secure clip, and discourages fanny packs or purses that can be easily forgotten on the back of a chair at a restaurant or movie theatre. There is liability and responsibility that comes with the CHL, that’s the closing message.
And it’s over, a CHL commencement of sorts. All 35 of us can now pay $65 and apply for a CHL, be legally carrying a concealed firearm in a month or so, assuming we pass the criminal background check. So we left, into the quiet night, somewhat ready to carry an umbrella in case of rain.
ย
In Oregon, efforts to keep criminals and other dangerous people from “easily obtaining guns” continue to disappoint. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence does an annual scorecard of states’ performance based on five categories. Of the total 100 points available Oregon earned only 18: 0 points for the “Child Safety” category (requiring locks, preventing juvenile purchases etc.) and 0 points for “Ban Military Style Assault Weapons.” Without a ballot initiative to close the gun show loophole in 2000 (wildly approved by voters 62%-38%) Oregon would have fared far worse. The 5 out of 35 points Oregon earned for the “Curb Firearm Trafficking” category highlights how far the state still has to go. The one highpoint is the 6 of 10 available points earned in the “Guns in Public Places and Local Control” category – being a “shall-issue” CHL state, Oregon automatically loses 2 points, while “local control over firearm regulations allowed” also cost another 2 points. However dour, Oregon ranks in the middle of the pack: Kentucky and Oklahoma are the worst, tied with 2 of 100 total possible points; Utah earned 4 points, Idaho 6, and Washington State tied Oregon with 18. Tying or exceeding our neighboring states in preventing gun violence may seem comforting until we look south: California scored the most points of any state with 79 out of 100.
This article appears in Jul 3-9, 2008.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
This “story” is under the NEWS heading. To me, it reads like OPINION, not news. There is nothing in this story that is new at all and the opinions expressed clearly come with a point of view.
Please tell us what journalism school your writers attended.
Where is this ‘right’ of the public to know if you or I are carrying a concealed firearm legally during normal, peaceful daily activities? I know of no such right to this effect. We are all born with the inherent right to defend ourselves and bear arms and you should begin to accept that or better yet, practice it. It will make you a better citizen. If there is a problem and the police are called, they can find out if a person is legally or illegaly armed or your employer can do a background check through driver’s license records and learn what they need to know about their employees prior to employment. Beyond that it none of your business what I may or may not have in my possession. The good people who go through the process to obtain a concealed handgun license are not the ones you need to worry about. Criminals do not care about laws, no gun signs (in other words ‘victims only here’) or any other passive measure to feel good about one’s security. We all have a right to live, that’s why many obtain their CHLs even though we all pray we never have to use it. You obviously put a lot of thought and effort into this piece and it is one of the better anti-gun editorials I’ve seen. Nice try but perhaps your energies would be better put to use researching the criminals out there and how we can identify and stop their activity.
As a proud Oregon resident and Washington County CHL holder, this story is a major disappointment. If you think is so important to know if I carry a gun or not, I think it’s important you inform me of your prior medical history. After all if we are going to drive in a car together I don’t need you driving should you have a heart attack; after all that directly affects MY safety. Likewise, when your house is being robbed I will sit by and wait until the police arrive so as not to upset you with the sight of my gun. And when you have that heart attack, rather than assisting you I will sit by and wait for the EMS to arrive. Because we all know that emergency services will be there in time to save you life. There is no reason to teach our children CPR or First Aid, all they need to know is how to dial 911. Same with protection, why should I be able to protect myself when all I need to do is call 911? The police are always close by, especially in rural Eastern Oregon. Next time report the real News and not your opinion. After all, its a known fact that CPR saves lives; hate to tell you, so do CHL holders.
Despite what Steve and Embarrassed may want to believe, there is no “right to privacy” when it comes to concealed carry permits. The local sheriff is hiding behind a court case that went against his counterpart in Jackson County where the judge ruled that the sheriff had to hand over the list of concealed carry holders. The sheriff there has chosen to appeal that ruling — a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. Unfortunately, our sheriff is taking the same route. But it’s not up to the sheriff to weight whether he thinks the public’s right to know outweighs a handgun owners perceived right to privacy. And the argument that people will somehow target gunowners for home invasions is beyond ludicrous. Regardless neither one of those arguments qualify as public records exemptions — the only legal reason to legally deny a public records request. Embarrassed likens CHL info to medical records — apples and oranges. No one chooses to get diabetes or hypertension. And to the best of my knowledge, local governments do not collect private medical information. So those records wouldn’t ever fall under the category of “public records” CHL’s on the hand are issued by the government and the records, as such, are maintained by the government. A big difference.
And as far as embarrassed comments about burglary. I’m just relieved to know that you aren’t sitting outside my house with a loaded handgun waiting to Dirty Harry a cat burglar. It’s more like you’d waste a friend of mine coming over to borrow a fishing rod out of my garage.
So editor, out of curiosity, why do you need the information on who has concealed carry permits? What does this information do for you? Are you going to come to my house and stage a peaceful protest on my front lawn? Also, if we are going to discuss public issued licenses, why don’t you share with us your MVR (motor vehicle record). After all, that is a government issued ID. But states do a darn good job of keeping that information private. I don’t see you protesting the licensed drivers out there with DUII’s. Unfortunately drunk drivers kill more people each year than responsible, law abiding gun owners. Because RESPONSIBLE, LAW ABIDING gun owners DO NOT HARM people. They PROTECT themselves.
Editor, first, thanks for posting my comments. Second, you are correct about the Oregon laws as they are today in regards to CHL records. Ideally, there would be no requirement for a CHL to begin with but there is so, we just need to change the law so that those records are kept private like in some other states. What is your purpose in obtaining that information and what do you intend to do with it anyway? Expose CHL holders within their community? Why? What purpose does that serve since they are acting within the law and exercising a right? You know of an incident that ocurred at St. Charles but you don’t state if the person was arrested or even convicted of anything. Perhaps she was defending herself lawfully and was fired for violating employer policy. There’s a big difference between the two. I don’t think it is fair to report on an incident such as this and create the impression someone was unlawful (they might have been but nobody knows at this point in your editorial). It gives the impression you have some kind of agenda and are trying to shape public opinion.
I love the move to Canada argument. Thanks for introducing that one. As far as embarrassed’s question — the beauty of public records is that I don’t need a reason to see them. I just need to ask. Do you think you should have to explain why need a box of nails at the hardware store? or to whom and where you will be mailing when you buy stamps? Does the cable guy need to know what stations you’re going to be watching when he hooks up your box?
With all due respect, maybe you ought to start answering our questions here, editor. We are your customers who pick up the news magazine, read it and spend our money at your advertiser’s businesses. We may even be advertisers. If you want numbers for statistical purposes fine. More than that and you can expect opposition.
With all due respect Steve, when you post up to a site you are the content. You are the on-line news magazine. Congratulations Steve you are now a published author/blogger. You can’t have an idea in a democracy without opposition, so let it be said that I doubt very seriously that anyone expected an article about the trend in old ladies shoes, let alone guns not to have “opposition.” Look on any website where there is commentary and you’ll find “opposition.” I do not own a gun, and I can tell you, I would love to know who in my neighborhood is lethal. I would not let my children play at their house.
Gadfly, why don’t you ask your neighbor directly if they have firearms in the house? Why do you have to go this route? By the way, you don’t need a CHL to have a firearm in the home so, what’s the point of these records for that purpose? You could also inform your kids of what to do around firearms in a strange location, like get the heck out of there and inform a trusted adult if he finds one unsecured.
Editor,
Why you are correct about CHL vs Medical Records, I think CHL vs DMV records should be about correct. So if you don’t mind publishing your DMV records, or all DMV records for all people in Oregon, then I don’t have an issue with your request.
We all know that driving is not a “right” and causes much more death and damage then guns CHL or no CHL.
Also, please don’t site the Brady campaign, it is a very intellectually dishonest group.
Steve –
You can rest assured that I have had a discussion with my children about what to do around guns. And, I suspect you are not really serious about me strolling through the neighborhood asking my neighbors about their weapons. I’d much rather just log-on and find out so I can steer clear.
Gadfly, with all due respect you make a rather bold claim that those who own guns are lethal. Even though they might not have a concealed carry license, I would be willing to bet anything, your children have played in a house where there were guns. Especially if you live in Central/Eastern Oregon. And unless I am mistaken, you and your children have lived your lives happily never knowing that fact, and to this day you still don’t know who of your acquaintances owns guns… Here is the thing, not all gun owners are stereotypical. And the ones that have concealed permits, rarely let you know. I promise you, “someone” in your daily life has/owns/shoots/ and possibly carries a gun. The odds are against you my friend. Only an ignorant person would see otherwise.
Gadfly, unfortunately, even if you could log on to see if I own a gun the thing you will never see is a log of criminals who own a guns. Why? Because they are criminals. They do not submit themselves to background checks and fingerprinting. THEY BREAK THE LAW. And while I KNOW I am in a registered government database, I have no problems with that because I KNOW I will NOT be committing any crimes. And if I should, the police will know EXACTLY who I am and where to find me. If only all criminals were as sneaky and deadly as I…
Embarrassed –
Don’t get me wrong – I didn’t use “lethal” as a derogatory term. It’s a fact. And, I agree with you, I have no doubt that my children have been in environments where they were around lethal weapons. I just want to know, and a website that posted that information would be awesome.
Gadfly, I was serious about you asking your neighbors if they have weapons in their home. This is obviously something very important to you and I find it hard to understand why you wouldn’t want to simply ask. Please explain. Also, I appreciate your honesty with the intentions of the CHL holder information but say you get your online database where anyone can click away and learn who has firearms and who doesn’t (really only the information you’ll get is who has a CHL, which is probably only maybe 10% of all gun owners). I’ll assume your intentions with this information are just so you can avoid gun owners since you don’t want to be around them. I don’t really want to be around people who hate guns either so, win-win for both of us, right ๐ Anyway, if I’m a bad guy I can also look at this database and see if that good looking babe might have a gun or not before deciding to victimize her or I know that a CHL holder isn’t likely to have just one gun so, when he’s away at work I’ll just invite myself in and steal what he left behind. CHL holders are not violating the law and all you need to do to make sure your kid isn’t in a home with firearms is ask the owners beforehand. You don’t have the right to keep a CHL holder out of a public place or find out/label one there so on that one, you’re just going to have to live with it in Oregon. Happy Independence Day!
Well you have proven again that you and the liberal left are out of it. Who gives a S— about the Brady Campaign??? When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!!!!
I’m a pacifist, I own a gun. I don’t intend on hurting anything other than beer and soda bottles from 80 feet away(deadeye)
Bravo to The Source for having the courage to print this piece. It seems the many pro-gun posts here miss the point: Why isn’t our Sheriff keeping accurate track of CHLs? For people so eager to wave the flag and claim 2nd Amendment Rights, don’t forget the 1st: Freedom of the Press, speech, and our right to KNOW!
If all who have CHLs are so upstanding, then they should have no problem with the information being made public. Fight the good fight, Source! I think many share my opinion and hope you get this important information disclosed – But for now we have to stay quiet because we don’t know who’s packing, or if they’re having a good day or not.
If the Sheriff won’t disclose this information, what else will he claim exemption? Quotas for DWIs or tickets to help Bend’s bad economy? Your cousin, arrested by a cop with a grudge?
This is why the Founding Fathers made free press and speech the 1st Amendment, and all others secondary.
Thanks, Source!
Big truck, big gun. Little you-know-what. ๐
Sgt. Bilyeu made you understand that there’s a liability and responsibility that comes with a CHL. I would believe he meant it’s up to the individual to know how to safely handle a handgun and when and when not to use it. Your story ends…”So we left, into the quiet night, somewhat ready to carry an umbrella in case of rain.”
The majority of folks that want to gain a CHL are presumed to have handled a firearm before. Most have a certain proficiency with a handgun. I’m not saying weather I do or do not have a CHL myself. That’s on a “need to know” basis and you don’t have a need to know.
1st amendment _ “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”
“sickofgunsinco” the first amendment has nothing to do with a “right” to knowledge.
All of you have missed the main point of concealment. It is the fact that, when concealed, the bad guys don’t know you are packing. If the Source can find out the name and address of who is packing… so can all the other assholes… the advantage obviously goes to those concealing in a confrontation… The source would like to tell all the other assholes who is packing…object being to put them in more danger…just to advance their far left anti constitutional liberal university instilled ignorant brainwashed bias.
Also, CHL’s are less criminal as a group, statistically, than are the police… so you are safer being in the company of a CHL holder than you are around a cop who is carrying, whether in or out of uniform. Think about it…
This opinion piece disguised as “news” is a joke. It is full of exaggerations and incomplete facts. Other than anti-gun fear mongering, what’s the point? The authors sound like spoiled children after they are told no, they can’t have something. None of the “problems”, starting with the nurse (Since itรข โขs not stated, I doubt she even had a CHL), that the authors describe would change if names and addresses of CHL holders were released. They just wanna know.
I hope Sheriff Blanton sticks to his guns.
“And the argument that people will somehow target gunowners for home invasions is beyond ludicrous.”
You’re correct about that, editor. Home invasions of known gun owners would be practically zero. The criminals know they are likely to get their behind shot. That is the essence of the threat deterrent that gun ownership provides society.
However, making a list of people who have CHLs (and therefore are gun owners) available to the public is a mistake and an invasion of privacy. Simple logic dictates that those people will be targets for home and vehicle break ins when they are away.
If all handgun license info must be handed over then I feel all DMV info for all persons in the state of oregon should avail. to all also. Hell if we are going to provide a list of wherever all the guns are then we may as well have a list as to where we can get them back! And just think if the punks know us card holders have guns then they probley will go after these folks on the DMV list that work at these nice clean newspaper jobs!
Little Pat
Jackson County Res. -BTW Good job Mike for apealing IT!
Oh one more thing I was 10 min behind a dude who robbed a 7 eleven the other night. Think about this would you like your daughter or wife to have to wait after calling 911 for the tweaker to comeback before the LEO has the time To respond? Or have a trained Professional with a ccw permit instruct him to disarm or die?
Or how about the lady a month ago who called me and is barley 5 foot tall and told me she called our sheriffs dept and was told that all officers were out on cases and they would send one when they could? Did I mention it was a burgery in progress? she arrived before the police and took pictures- when the cops got their they were gone and so was every last thing she had left of her familly who had passed away……What if these guys decided they didn’t like her taking Pics? Do ya think just maybe she might have recovered some of her stuff if she would have had a gun in her hand and pointing at the ground? (At the ground because its unlawfull to endager even a crimnal unless someones LIFE is in danger-Not Property) I know they would have quit loading their three trucks….
And yes the sherriff has the pics and no she has not recovered anything.
“a gun explodes”…gee nothing like a little sensationalism. guess what, even the best trained law enforcement officers have accidental discharges…regrettably. But nobody makes the argument that they shouldn’t have guns. I”m not really sure what this “story” was about. although there are some interesting questions. However, the number one thing about a “concealed” weapon, is nobody is supposed to know you have it. The supposed “right to know” doesn’t really hold any water…there is no such thing a a “right to know” just because YOU want to know. That’s a bit of a stretch. Quite frankly, I’m more interested in whether or not my neighbors over-water their lawns than if they own a gun or a CHL/CCW. Why is it that whenever the media tries to do a story on firearms they set out to prove something they already have formed an opinion on? I’ve never seen such a thinly veiled opinionated piece that is offered as news. Sure there are numbers that say crime is dropping, but are there numbers that say CHL’s cause any harm, except in your own mind? The Source is looking for problems where they don’t exist. No, there was no hands-on range firing during the CCW class I took. The class focused almost exclusively on when and when not to use deadly force. The class taught by Sgt. Harry Brizee (ret.) was excellent and the emphasis on knowing the law and knowing whether or not carrying is right for each individual…serious stuff. I’m satisfied that those that have taken Sgt. Brizee’s class have their heads screwed on straight, if not before taking the class, definitely after leaving it. I may or may not have actually purchased a hangun and obtained my CCW license after taking the CCW class. But you know what? It’s none of your business.
For a period of time I was employed as a cash cattle buyer for an Oregon meat packing company. It eventually became known that I routinely carried large amounts of money. This was in a time when CHL’s were harder to come by, but I had one because of my job. Once, near Butte Falls, I was ran off the road, into the ditch, by a tattoo laden skin head type who jumped out of his truck wielding a baseball bat and demanded my moo-la stash. Having a bad hip, I didn’t feel I could outrun a younger dude, even with a Louisville Slugger as incentive. As he hauled back on the bat to presumably crack my head open, I yarded out my Browning 9mm auto, which I carried inside my belt under my shirt. Surprise, surprise! It was truly amazing to see just how fast a Nazi can become Born Again! This was before cell phones and I had a Ham radio in my vehicle… another Ham answered my distress call and alerted the Proper Authorities, who soon arrived. My bat slinging buddy did some serious jail time. Many years later, near Beaverton, I was on the receiving end of a road rage incident with a pistol packing lunatic who didn’t have a CHL and now never will.
These two widespread incidents have taught me that unexpected encounters with Bad Guys can occur at any moment. I pack my Sig P220 .45 auto with me wherever I go and I carry an extra clip. I fervently hope I never have another incident as long as I live. My CHL has saved my life, or serious injury, twice. There were no police around during either incident. Like it or not, we are responsible for our own ass. Statistically, we are more likely to suffer a serious assault, than we are likely to have our house burn down. Most of us would never consider letting our fire insurance lapse, yet most of us take no effort to protect ourselves and our loved ones. Which is more valuable, our house or our ass?
Having a CHL and being proficient with the sidearm of your choice is no guarantee…but, if you find you or your loved ones life hanging in the balance, would you rather have one or not? Answer truthfully. Having a chance, even if small, at continued life is always preferable to certain death… in my book.
Research after research indicates that the more law abiding citizens pack guns, the less crime there is. The evidence supporting this dynamic is overwhelming. The liberal elitist pussies who refuse to admit the obvious are in serious denial. But then, that is part of their unrealistic elitist control freak culture…
This is a bias hit piece. Perhaps the reason crime has been diminishing over the past 10 years is because of broader carry laws and shall issue states?
Why do you want to know who is carrying? So, as you state, you know how that person should be treated? Do you treat people poorly who do not carry? Are only people who have mortal threat capability worthy of decent, polite, civilized treatment?
This concept is the essence of Robert Heinlein’s famous quote, “An armed society is a polite society.” Folks are much more polite to each other and think about their actions much more carefully when everyone is armed.
The entire concerned argument over concealed carry and who is carrying is rather silly considering there is no law in Oregon prohibiting open carry, as Oregon has always been an open carry state, and no CHL required (except to carry open or concealed in the Bend city parks one needs a CHL). The authors complaining about CHL records being released so they can know who is carrying is moot because anyone who meets the requirements for owning a handgun may open carry it as they wish with no CHL or training.
Open carry of a firearm is a basic right, recognized (not “authorized”, rights pre-exist government and their protection is enshrined in the constitution) by both federal and Oregon State government. Concealed carry is a privilege allowed by state governments. People have to remember that back in the day only criminals concealed their weapons and polite, honorable citizens open carried.
The 2nd amendment is what keeps all the others around.
That was an awful lot of ink basically lamenting the fact that you can’t access the names of everyone with a CFL at will, without ever making a clear case for why you ought to be able to, or what benefit to you or society at large might come from knowing. I read the piece to the end waiting for the authors to make that point, but it never came. ?
Also, I’ve had an experience with a highly intoxicated home intruder. I didn’t confront the offender with a firearm, but my wife backed me up with a handgun from the other side of the living room while I ran the bozo out of the house. It was good to know that if it didn’t go well for me, my pregnant wife could still protect herself. Happily no one got hurt.
A key point being missed: all you anti-gun advocates are pissing on your own boots. If or when the bad guys know who is legally entitled to shoot back, they will simply target the rest of you sitting ducks.
Also, ask yourself – honestly – if you would be against concealed weapons when Seung-Hui Cho went desk to desk capping students at Virginia Tech? Wouldn’t you have been more than glad if your fellow student had drawn down on Cho before he’d gotten to you?
Or, if your daughter was at the Appalachian School of Law in 2002 when Peter Odigizuha started shooting, would you have denied Tracy Bridges and Mikael Gross their concealed firearms before they pointed their legal firearms at Odigizuha and “encouraged” him to drop the murder weapon?
Cowardly bad guys target “no-gun” zones such as schools, shopping malls, etc. because they know most people can’t shoot back. If you want to be one of them, fine. I don’t.
>>Big truck, big gun. Little you-know-what. ๐
hey…where’s the rest of my comment? you only posted what I was quoting from the previous post…..
H.B. Your comment wasn’t edited. It simply didn’t come through. You’ll need to re-post. Thanks.
So, it has been well over a decade since we as citizens gained the right to carry. Then, mass hysteria resulted, touting an end to all things good and pure. You guys are a little over a decade late. Old news. I see you survived.
Thanks, editor..I’ll avoid the funky brackets that probably mess with the HTML..as I was saying, Bung’s “big truck, big gun. Little you-know-what” comment is an ignorant stereotype. I took a CCW class myself and there were both men and women from ages 20 to 60-something. Gun owners are as likely to drive a Prius as much as a Suburban. Gun owners don’t always fall neatly into the right-wing conservative category, nor do others fall neatly into the liberal tree-hugger category either. People like Bung need to grow up discuss the issues. And, contrary to what you might think, there are no running gun battles in the street or people playing Dirty Harry as a result of Oregon’s reasonable and sensible CCW laws.
What a crappy article. Guns explode… on their own????
The author writes as though having a CHL will allow people to become criminals. A CHL is only a license to carry a handgun concealed. It provides exemption from no other laws. It is not a license to kill, nor is it a deputization, nor a permit to commit raod rage. The people who commit criminal acts always have and always will carry guns illegally, because they are criminals with no respect for the law. CHL holders are certified good guys and gals approved by the state. The process of obtaining a CHL shows that those who get them possess a willingness to obey the law. Anyone can carry a gun concealed illegally. CHL holders choose to obey the law and carry legally with the proper license.
Don’t forget, in Oregon any legal gun owner can carry a gun openly in public. We only choose to conceal them to keep them hidden from the bad guys and those who might feel irrational fear knowing they are among armed citizens.
Great posts! All I can add to this is to say it’s nobody’s business if I have a CHL. Concealed means hidden and that should include hiding the fact that I have a CHL. Personally, I’d much rather legally carry my .357 in a holster on my hip. It would be the concealed ones you couldn’t see you’d have to worry about.
Let me get this straight:
You posters want your guns.
You don’t want anyone to know you have a CHL.
Your Sheriff isn’t accurately reporting the number of CHLs to the State Police.
When/If the State Police stop you they don’t know you have a CHL or pistol on your hip.
Whatever happens you still think you deserve your guns.
You suck.
Move to Idaho or Michigan where militias are welcome.
Nothing happens here – have fun shooting bottles on the backhill. And praying for the apocalypse.
You suck.
I’m building an atomic reactor in my backyard. It’s my right. Don’t worry, you can trust me with it.
Thanks Source.
Sorry your web site posters are idiots. This was the best investigative journalism piece I’ve read in far too long.
It just goes to show you what a “rag” of a publication this left wing newspaper really is. Number one, you do not know the facts surrounding the weapon discharge that occurred at the hospital, I’m certain of that because I do. Second, if proves that the media shouldn’t have the right to these records because they obviously want them for the wrong reason and are not responsible enough with the information. Third, the Sheriff’s discrepancy in the “numbers” is an irrelevant point. To make an argument on this doesn’t make any sense or add any benefit to this article. There is no good reason to publish the list of CHL holders like myself, only disadvantages to those who hold the license. It’s obvious that this publication just wants to expose license holders because they have a “perceived” right to do so and no good reason. One good thing has come out of this for me; I now know what I’m going to use as a fire starter for my campfires in the future, this publication because it’s obviously not balanced and fair. Law obiding citizens that take the time and spend the money for the CHL permit are not the ones you need to worry about, it’s the drug addicted tweakers that break into your house or try to attack you. These are the ones without the permits. There are plenty of reliable statistics that support this. Get a clue!
It’s nice to see Your Neighbor resorting to name calling and stereotyping. NOt all gun owners are waiting for the apocalypse. NOt all of us are weekend warrior militia types either (not that there’s anything wrong with that). Anyone who has a CCW permit knows very well that if they ever have to use a firearm to wound or kill someone in self-defense, they are going to get sued by somebody. You can count on it. Nobody wants to kill anybody. It’s a big deal. CCW holders take the responsibility seriously, but apparently it’s all a big joke to you. Good luck with the insults. If you have any actual issues to discuss, you might want to give that a try. As far as being pulled over by law enforcement? Although not required to by law, I will volunteer verbally to an officer that I am a CCW holder and have a weapon either concealed in the vehicle or on my person to avoid any misunderstandings. Allowing the officer to feel safe during the conversation and being cooperative is part of being a good citizen and responsible CCW holder, regardless if we are obligated to do so or not.
Your Neighbor–when the source does their next cover story entitled, “the boogeyman is coming” be sure to get extra copies for yourself. It’s not the “gun nuts” who are paranoid. It’s you who is apparently the one spooked by fear. CHL holders merely want to be able to protect themselves if their lives were ever threatened, or simply store or transport their firearms in their vehicles when hunting, fishing, camping, whatever…with less hassles or risk of running afoul of the law. There’s nothing insidious about it.
After reading the article and reviewing the application for a CHL, I noticed that the application contained personal information. Given the fact that the รข Lรข ย in CHL stands for license. Exactly what or why is this to be considered รข public informationรข ย? I really am not seeing how this information falls into a public records request. If the information were given over, what safeguards would be put in place to guard the data? I think the sheriff made the correct decision in not delivering the names and addresses.
Making lists like that sound very reminiscent of some jack booted thugs from our not to long ago past.
The 2nd amendment is a part of our constitution. To those who do not like our constitution there are alternatives for you, this is a free country, please by all means feel free to exit the country.
Neighbor,
Thank you for your insightful information, but please leave the discussion to the adults who are actually able to hold an intelligent discussion and refrain from name calling…
This is not a news report, but a opinion… The general public does not need to know who has a concealed handgun license. Just remember one thing about a gun unlike any other tool, if used correctly and safely you have nothing to worry about, but if used incorrectly it could hurt you or someone else.
Wow. Even my hometown paper, Willamette Week would probably reject this piece. The writing is stuttering and thin, the facts play fast and loose with the truth.
Additionally, you are a moron.
Say someone mugs you at gunpoint. What do you do, call the police?
Sheep.
It sounds like the woman who had a Negligent Discharge in her purse likely didn’t have the gun in a holster. It’s a poor idea to have a loaded firearm loose in a bag with other stuff, just for that reason, and also: how are you going to find it in a hurry if you need it?
NOBODY has a “Right” to know if I am legally carrying a firearm, not even a Law Enforcement Officer (they have POWERS, not RIGHTS). They may know I have a CHL, but I am not required to tell them if I am armed. If they know I have a CHL, they already know I am a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record, what do they have to fear from me?
So what if the State Police has a different count of the CHL holders than the county? This is probably because people move, and the CHL holder just has to notify the new County. The County is not required to notify the State.
I go through the daily hassle of carrying a handgun, not because I’m afraid, not because I want to be a hero, but because I believe that the lives of myself and my family are the most important things in the world to me, and I am being a responsible husband and father by choosing the best way to defend these lives.
That is INFINITELY more important to me than your paranoid little desire to “feel” safer by knowing who has a concealed handgun. You have no right or need to know.
Typical left wing B.S.
One accidental discharge in 20 years of armed citizens in Oregon. Over half of you voted for shooting unarmed citizens overseas, what’s your problem?
Brad and Rachel, I don’t want to insult you on your breaking news report, but rather give you tips for your follow up:
Maybe some real facts involving CHL holders and the crimes they have commited.
Interviews with Law Enforcement Officers, pros vs. cons of the CHL.
And most importantly, plug-in the Prius, kick off your Birkenstocks, sit down criss-cross-applesauce, pour a big cup of green tea and take some time for some introspection. Would you rather know how many people have LEGALLY gone through the process to own and carry a handgun. OR would you like to spend your fantastic journalism abilities to “investigate” the amount of weapons that are floating around this state un-registered OR owned by convicted felons.
To me I have no need to know if my neighbor owns a gun or 50 guns. Doesn’t matter to me. I don’t plan on pissing this guy off to the point of needing to know. I understand that in the Liberal Tree Hugging state that I reside in some people will want to know but Why?
If I am walking down the street guess who I am more afraid of YOU driving your Prius, not the guy walking next to me with a concealed weapon. What is really more dangerous a 3000 lbs vehicle or 15 bullets tucked into a waistband?
If you have a felony or a history of violence you will not get a CHL. If you do drugs you cannot get a CHL. If an officer makes a traffic stop and the driver is flagged as a CHL holder, they know that the driver doesn’t have a felony or a history of violence and they don’t do drugs…
I would be much more interested in knowing which of my neighbors have a felony or history of violence than which ones have a CHL. I feel that it is more important to know which neighbors have a domestic abuse incident on their record than a CHL. I would rather know about the neighbors with mental issues than than which ones have CHLs. I would rather know which neighbors allow their kids to play violent video games than which ones have CHLs.
Are you aware of how often a CHL holder has used their gun to commit a violent crime in Oregon? Never…
I haven’t ever been arrested. I don’t drive under the influence. I am a polite driver that has received only 1 speeding ticket in 22 years of driving. I have a high credit rating. I have had the same job for 13 years and owned my current home for 8 years. I haven’t ever had a mental health problem. I am a very responsible, boring person. I have a CHL. Every single gun in my home is locked in a safe.
CHL holders are statistically safer than non CHL holders. Worry about the people that are actually doing something wrong rather than the ones that haven’t.
I could not find anything about the woman that discharged her weapon at work. One incident should not be cause to take away all CHLs. Should we ban alcohol because someone drove drunk? Making alcohol illegal would significantly reduce auto accidents, road rage and domestic violence.
Criminals get nothing more than a slap on the hand or a short time-out when they do something wrong. The victims are ignored while groups of people try to figure out how they can help criminals rather than punish them.
Just another example of Central Oregons own “Drive-By Media” passing off thier opinion as valid news and not the progressive left wing BS it really is.
Wow…the editor of your paper makes the Eugene Register Guard seem like conservative doctrine! While their argument may be that any fool can own a gun; I would submit that it is far more dangerous for any fool to be an editor!
Citizens of Deschutes County unite and run this imposter journalist out of town! That much misinformation and blatant ignorance is dangerous!
I see a lot of misunderestanding and ignorance on display here. Show me the proof that armed, law abiding gun owners who have been vetted by the police, are a threat to the community. While we’re at it, will the person who claimed a “right to know,” show me where that right is written? Search as I might, I don’t see that one in the First Amendment.
Puh-leeease! This has to be the most poorly written, unintelligent article that I have seen in quite some time. I teach Firearm Safety and CHL classes in Lane County and my personal goal is to arm EVERYONE who has a desire to carry a gun! Yes, I offer and supply extra training for those who want it, and I always recommend tactical training, but contrary to the popular left-wing belief, the Second Amendment is NOT open for interpretation. We have a God-given, constitutional right to self protection…and whether or not someone has training doesn’t change that FACT! If you don’t like it, then by all means, TRY to change it. You live in a great country that allows you to do so.
My classes are filled with wonderful citizens ranging from 18 to 80. Most are experienced gun owners, and all of them are taking the class to comply with the legal requirement for them to obtain a CHL. They are your law-abiding friends, your neighbors and your protectors when needed. When you need help, they are the proactive members of your community that you can turn to.
This article is nothing but a washed-up, sensationalist opinion. It’s poorly researched and has no basis in fact whatsoever. Maybe you “journalists” should quit your day job. Learn some facts and quit talking out your behinds!
Looks like the “editor” has stepped out of this one.
Wow, what a terribly written article. Concealed carry has dropped the crime rate in every state that has adopted it. I would like to debate every point the writer tried to make but it appeared others have already started the process.
I have but one word of advice, the next time you write a report, make sure to really research it before you draw a conclusion. Oh yes, and it is your job to present information not try to cram your own beliefs down our throats. This kind of Journalism would be better suited for the tabloids or some ignorant pedaling blog.
If you knew anything about modern firearms, they don’t go off on their own, even modern revolvers have internal safeties. Still I always have a holster and so does everyone else that I know that have a CCW.
I’m well educated and on most subjects I would stand on the “left” but for some reason the right to bear arms was handed to the “right,” I will never understand why people started choosing sides of the isle over sides of issues.
So I now sign this as follows
Gun wielding CCW supporting,
Environmentally responsible,
Anti Bush,
Never been in trouble with the law,
Atheist.
If there’s an editor who needs to be run out of Deschutes County it’s John Costa….
“The people who carry a concealed handguns are not the type of people that are hot headed and are going use it in a fit of anger towards you.”
And you know this … how? Especially if you don’t even know WHO THE HELL THEY ARE???
The criminal background check weeds out applicants who have no prior convictions, but what about those who might have had their records expunged (e.g. they were pardoned)?
Also, remember every criminal was “law-abiding” until he committed his first crime. Just today some nut case walked into a church in Tennessee and started blasting away with a shotgun, killing two people. He had a clean record except for a couple of DUIs.
So, your big concern is knowing who has a CHL or is armed. If you did have that information, what would you do with it? Take my gun?
Get a life you ignorant bleeding heart liberals, go back to California and leave us alone.
While your arguement is lengthy, I see nothing good out of making permit holders information available to the public. It does not show increase for public safety, rather, increase risk to those who have applied for a permit. If you knew you co-work “may” be carrying, would you stop having lunch with them? Trying to scare permit holders by this letter will not affect the freedom of Oregonians.
Are you absolutely insane? You want to publish a shopping list for criminals to know what houses to hit to steal guns so they can use them to commit a crime.
Sensationalist propaganda Joseph Goebbels would be proud of! BOOM! BANG! KAPOW! You writing a screen play for the next Batman series, or did you just recently decide to try journalism?
“Hypothetical at best, such arguments are, quite frankly, as silly as others pro-gun groups try to make.”
So law-abiding citizens protecting other citizens from some crazed wacko is… “silly”? We can just as well argue that your “outing citizens” mentality is not just silly, but dangerous. Also, your comment about Virginia Tech, in my opinion, is a denigration of the poor souls who’s lives were taken that unfortunate day. Silly? SILLY?
If you can’t see that CPL holders want to protect lives, including their own, because LEO’s can’t be there in a minute or less all the time, you are truly blinded by your fear and hatred of law-abidding Americans. Shame on you.
“Yes, you heard Mr. Gottleid right: One student in Jerusalem shot a gunman so five rampages could have been stopped in America รข ” if not for รข anti-gun extremism.””
Excuse me, Dorothy. Ask the wizard for a brain ’cause your straw-man fallacy is atrocious and blatantly obvious. It’ll fool people like Neighbor, but not those who actually are rational and who are not easily disposed by emotionally feeble minded yellow journalism. How incredulous you are to be condesending about a hero who saved peoples’ lives, while malevolently giggling behind your computer at the tought of hero’s saving lives in our very own schools.
I’m not laughing…
As for thinking you have a right to see private information of law-abidding citizens that criminals could use to their advantage, why don’t you ask Rebecca Schaeffer what happens when the public can pull your information at the DMV. Oh, that’s right. She’s dead; killed by a stalker who pulled her info.
I sincerely hope that if any law-abidding American is hurt by your selfish and delusional need to feel “safe”, you, this site, and anyone else involved should be held accountable and sued in a court of law.
So, a knot-head who doesn’t know how to properly carry much less use her firearm messes up, and this “reporter” tries to indict the entire group of gun owners and CCW holders?? Tell me, do you drive a car? How about, have you EVER been to a doctor? Better check your stats sweet cheeks, you’re sounding STUPID! Prove to me that you’re really concerned about public safety by going after the truly dangerous things we face each day, and I just might listen. Until then, do yourself a favor.. shut up.
Ok, so I see alot of left-wing, right-wing mud-slinging, but the fact is, it is still an american right, and also a choice, People bash each other for the choice between a pistol in the belt, or a baseball bat behind the door or under the seat. WHO CARES! They both kill. they both should be used wisely and only when absolutely needed. You left wingers, lets say all guns are made illegal, then You will rant about the authorities carrying them. Hey right-wingers, not every one wants to be armed. its a personal choice, it should be well regulated through federal ,state and local fusion centers, but left alone otherwise.Concealed carry means nobody knows you have it so they won’t get scared at the sight of it. Out of sight, out of mind, until absolutely needed. The neighborhood doesn’t need to know because if they did , the stereotypes would fly and then every ones life sucks. The Author of this report needs to get a life and quit stirring up horseflies. Personally, My house is not protected by Brinks, its protected by Glock.
“There’s another right that’s not being talked about, at least not in concealed carry classes, and that is the public’s right to know if your coworkers and neighbors are carrying a gun under their coat or in their handbag.” Uhm, excuse me?! NO ONE has a right to know what I keep in my possession – it’s called RIGHT TO PRIVACY. I swear, this naive and biased article made me absolutely livid but the comments gave me relief to know it didn’t fool people of sound mind. Before ridiculous media like this affects policy to restrict your right to protect yourself, GET training and complete a course and GET your CHL. The actual Oregon Sheriffs Association provides training for a CHL at http://OregonCHL.org which shows that while we approve of the right to bear arms for all, we require training beforehand to prevent stupid accidents and subsequent media spins to scare us into releasing the right to protect ourselves.