Oregon’s open public records law was a fine idea when it was enacted in 1973. Over the ensuing 35 years, though, special interests have carved out so many exceptions that the law now has more holes in it than Bernie Madoff’s account books.
And as if that isn’t bad enough, the state legislature wants to carve another one.
State Rep. Kim Thatcher (R-Keizer) and other lawmakers are backing HB 2727, a bill that would make all records pertaining to concealed weapons permits exempt from the open records requirements. The ostensible reason for it, Thatcher said, is to protect the holders of such permits from “stalkers, identity thieves and people who could otherwise do them harm.”
There is, of course, no evidence whatsoever that concealed-carry permit holders have been subjected to any of that nasty stuff. In fact, if the NRA’s argument that carrying a gun (or guns) protects people from criminals, we’d think folks who are packing would WANT as many people as possible to know it.
Why should concealed-carry permits be a matter of public record? The big reason isn’t to know who’s carrying, or may be carrying, a firearm, but rather to know who gets a permit and how.
Oregon is a “shall-issue” state, meaning that county sheriffs have to issue a concealed-carry permit to anybody who asks for one and is able to meet certain minimal qualifications. As the Source reported last July, there were 6,671 permits in Deschutes County at that time.
Or maybe there were only 6,156. That’s the number the Oregon State Police gave us. The larger number was what Sheriff Larry Blanton gave us.
The discrepancy made us wonder how accurate the record-keeping on concealed-carry permits was. Unfortunately we couldn’t check it out because Blanton – in defiance of state law – refused to reveal the identities of the county’s permit holders. His reason? “I don’t see any good” that would come from doing it.
If HB 2727 becomes law, sheriffs won’t even have to make up lame excuses for not releasing such information. There will be no way for the public to know who has, or doesn’t have, a concealed weapon permit.
What’s much worse, there will be no way for the public to know whether their local sheriffs are doing a competent, honest, conscientious job of deciding who gets a permit. Did somebody who shouldn’t have gotten a permit receive one because of a bureaucratic screw-up – or because he’s the sheriff’s hunting buddy? Did somebody who should have been issued a permit get turned down through an oversight – or because he’s the sheriff’s political or personal enemy?
We’re not insinuating here that our local sheriff, or any other sheriff in Oregon, is dishonest or incompetent. But dishonesty and incompetence in public officials have, regrettably, been known to occur. And the best protection against it is to make public officials conduct public business in the clear light of day.
HB 2727 is not about protecting the rights or safety of concealed-carry permit holders. It’s about protecting the asses of sheriffs in case they make a mistake – or worse. It deserves THE BOOT.
This article appears in Mar 19-25, 2009.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
The county has no say so at all in the issuing of CCW Permits. It used to be that the sheriff’s from the individual countys had final authority in the issuing of Concealed Carry Weapons Permits, that is to say you could pass all the necessary background checks and your local sheriff could still deny you if he felt you didn’t have a good enough reason to need a CCW. The process now takes that decision (which could be biased) away from the individual sheriff’s and puts it into the hands of the state. The background check that is done is more in depth that the one performed when a firearm is purchased and that check is done using the FBI’s criminal background check system. With all this being said I still don’t see that the public has a need to know who has and who doesn’t have a CCW Permit. More over the State hasn’t been able to get a workable system for sex offender tracking. Deschutes County has over 300 registered sex offenders but if you go to the state web site to see if one of them is in your area you would be hard pressed to find one that lives within 10 miles because the only ones that they put on there is the violent ones.
This article definitely has a liberal spin. I support HB 2727, because everyone deserves to have their privacy. It is no one else’s business who has a permit to carry a concealed weapon. As a matter of fact, I consider the 2nd Amendment my carry permit.
I imagine the author of this article also supports more stringent gun control laws.
If you are ever assaulted, I can guarantee that there will not be a policeman there to help you in time. The police will come, and investigate the crime which may be murder, and you may be dead. It would be in all our best interest if all law abiding citizens carried a gun. The crime rate would be extremely low if this were the case.
First there is no good reason to make public concealed weapons permits. The article is anti-gun slanted in it’s tone. First there should not even be a permit to carry law. We don’t need one. There is no sane reason to even require a law. Law abiding citizens should not have to prove they are capable of carrying A CONCEALED weapon. Criminals should be required to get a permit. Now that would do some good.
They carry them without permits. I would rather know which one of them is carrying then a law a biding citizen. I am not afraid of the lawful citizen just the criminals.
Why not spend your time writing about something that actually would do some good.
I’m so sick and tired of people thinking they have the right to know everything, and control everyone! Where does it stop? a click on the keypad: divorces, foreclosures, liens, bankruptcies, home loans, gun owners, whats next? Actually EVERY American has a permit to carry! It’s called the 2nd amendment. “right to bear”, NOT “right to own”. It’s right up there with another little amendment, “right to free speech” Or should we legislate that also? Lets start worrying a little more about ourselves, and get rid of the “I don’t like it so you can’t do it” mentality!
That’s total garbage.
You know why there are so many exemptions to state FOIA laws? Thats because people’s personal information is on those government documents.FOAI laws were written with the intent to shine light on government to protect the citizenry, not shine the light on citizens.
Statistics released from the governing body of concealed weapons permits are one thing, just having the list because you are the press is something totally different.
How about you publish the entire list of Nurses who work in your state.
Wouldnt it be nice to know that all the nurses in Oregon are properly licensed to do their job? That affects everyone right? What about Doctors and Lawyers? See those licenses that are granted by the state are exempt from FOIA requests. Why Are you holding permit holders to a different standard.
Permit holders are no different. Your “right to know” stops where my right to privacy as guranteed by the 14th amendment begins.
You have no rights to my privacy. It is concealed that makes it my privacy. It is not exposed, it is not an open carry permit, I don’t need one of those I can do that nearly whenever and wherever I want. You are safer with me around concealed than you are without me around concealed. If I or any of the other 6000+ CWP holders were in the Costco parking lot and witness to the knife point carjacking, or any other of the numerous violent crimes lately, there would be one less victim to report about. Spin this any way you like, as your liberal readers will do, call it a victim swap thats fine, but I would far rather cal the “suspect” the injured party than the intended victim!!!
Here we go again. It doesn’t take a gun to shoot holes in your logic – it has plenty of it’s own.
First, the deterrent effect is because someone with criminal intent can never be sure that a particular person or group is prepared to defend themselves. Of course publicizing this information would give that criminal all the information they need to negate the deterrent.
Second, the “who gets and how” argument. You answer that yourself – Oregon is a Shall Issue state. Who gets one is anybody that applies and meets the criteria established by law. If, as you say, your intent is actually not to know who is carrying specifically then you already know all you need in that regard.
Third, like I pointed out last time, the public has no right to review personal medical records either. How can we be sure that our doctors are “doing a competent, honest, conscientious job”? Your retort to that was simply that those records are protected by law. Well, now that might just get changed so that concealed carry permit holders identities are protected the same way.
Even a generous interpretation of your arguments supports only review of the process with personal information redacted. Which, coincidentally, is exactly what the bill says. I’ll copy it below for your reference.
SECTION 1. { + A public body as defined in ORS 192.410 may not disclose records or information that can be associated with the identity of a current holder of, or an applicant for, a concealed handgun license unless:
(1) The disclosure is necessary for criminal justice purposes;
or
(2) A court enters an order in a pending civil or criminal case directing the public body to disclose the records or information. + }
What is the relationship between a concealed weapon permit holder and a well-regulated militia which is necessary for the security of a free state?
Easy, just open carry. Then there is no problem.
In the matter of the slight discrepancy you’ve found in the number of reported conceal/carry permits in Deschutes County, I think ‘yawl are biting at this pizza from the wrong end. Consider for a moment the trouble with manditory auto insurance, reportedly
ignored, for whatever reason, by upwards of twenty percent of the motoring population. For whatever reason, ignored.
It has long been my understanding that one of the requirements of a conceal/carry is to place the application before a court or administrative review for adjudication of a threat real or perceived. While I’m sure it’s within the realm of statistical probability that Chester the Child Molester, Dippy the Dope Dealer or Ivan the Investment Broker would as likely be granted a permit as Roger the Restaurateur or Paul the Plumber, the statistical likelihood of Chester, Dippy or Ivan actually applying for one is incredibly low. While I personally have nothing to fear of Chester the Molester, Dippy the Doper or Ivan the Investor, we as a greater community do, and as a community should have nothing to fear of Roger the Restaurateur’s or Paul the Plumber’s need, real or perceived.
The question begging answer is not how many are packin’ with a permit, but how many are packin’… without a permit.
[yes, one of the aforementioned “occupations” has been unfairly demonized]
If one is concerned about the safety of the community they should worry about those who carry a gun without a ccw permit. If the concern is who is being issued a ccw permit, then that should be taken that up with legislation concerning the issue. It is a matter of privacy. The public is not privy to any medical records one may possess (not even family), only those who need the information to care for those individuals may have access. The same can be said for a concealed weapon. As long as people are going through the proper channels (as far as legality) and are held accountable, they should have some privacy.
It is my understanding that when a Oregon police officer makes a car stop the Oregon state DMV database is flagged to let the officer know if the registered owner of the vehicle has a CCL. When a walk-up drivers license identity check is performed the officer is informed if the Oregon DMV issued license holder has a CCL.
Now this allows the police officer access to critical and timely information about the potential presence of a concealed weapon, in the vehicle or on the person. This is not a bad thing, sets the stage, keeps the involved parties informed and makes for polite communication.
What if every citizen acted as if every other citizen was in possession of a loaded concealed weapon at all times? How polite would our society be? What would the violent crime aggression rate be with an armed and ready citizenry prepared to respond? How about the word gets out that anyone at anytime may be armed? What does that social mentality do for polite and courteous interaction in this society? There was a time when gun safety, gun handling and live fire was taught in school, what happened to change that? Guns visible and invisible serve a very useful function in our society in acting as a curb on criminal and rude behavior. Police officers carry guns openly and the general public makes the guns and response with guns a part of the Police officer’s responsibility. If every citizen acted as if every other citizen were armed, how polite a society would we be? How polite and accurate would government be in delivering services to the citizens of this nation? Educate, inform, arm these are the basis of gun control and having an enlightened citizenry.
What would you have done being armed in the presence of two Taliban flogging a young girl?
Wow, that seems a little sketchy. How to get a concealed carry permit should be a little more more safe than that. It sounds like in Oregon, anyone can eke a permit!
The people that are worried about concealed weapons holders are so ignorant to the real world it is almost pathetic. People like you are the ones that will be running to these people when it hits the fan. Thieves and murderers do not run out to get permits you silly boy.