Doesn’t share, gets booted. There could be as many as 6,671 Deschutes County citizens walking around legally with concealed handguns. Or maybe there are only 6,156. We have no way of knowing, because the Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office gave us the first number and the Oregon State Police gave the second.
We also have no way of knowing who those 6,671, or 6,156, people are because Sheriff Larry Blanton won’t release the county’s list of holders of concealed-carry permits, even though that information is a public record.
Newspapers in other parts of the state, including The Oregonian, have gotten such lists from other sheriffs. But when we asked Blanton for the Deschutes County list he politely but firmly told us no, claiming such information is exempt from disclosure under the state’s public records law.
Why do we want to know? Well, in the first place, that question is beside the point – the point is that we have a right to know, which is clearly spelled out in the law. And that right belongs not just to reporters, but to everybody. As the law states: “Every person has a right to inspect any public record of a public body in this state, except as otherwise expressly provided” under the statute.
But aside from that, there are at least a couple of good reasons why we – and the public – should have the information.
Oregon’s concealed-carry law – one of the most permissive in the nation – has been in force for about a decade. How well is it working locally? Is it doing a good job of screening out criminals and whack jobs? (The fact that, according to Blanton’s own data, 84 permits were denied or revoked in 2006-’07 seems to hint that at least a few slip through.) How good is the record-keeping? The discrepancy between the sheriff’s number and the OSP’s is reason enough to worry about that.
We’re not completely clear on this, but Blanton appears to be resting his case on two paragraphs of the law that exempt “information of a personal nature … if the public disclosure thereof would constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy” and “information submitted to a public body in confidence and not otherwise required by law to be submitted, where such information should reasonably be considered confidential.”
We don’t see how releasing the names on the concealed-carry list would be an unreasonable invasion of anybody’s privacy or why people who applied for permits should reasonably have expected their names to be kept secret. But we do see how exposing sloppy record-keeping, laxity or favoritism in issuing permits could embarrass a sheriff.
In Klamath County, where the sheriff took the same stance as Blanton, a district court judge has ruled that the Medford Mail-Tribune was entitled to the list. That decision is under appeal; hopefully, the case will end in a definitive Oregon Supreme Court ruling that concealed-carry lists are not exempt.
In the meantime, here’s THE BOOT to Sheriff Blanton and his secret list of 6,671, or whatever, names.
This article appears in Jul 31 – Aug 6, 2008.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
I don’t understand why it’s so important for you to know who has a concealed weapons permit? What possible difference in your daily life could it possibly make. You should be more worried about the CRIMINALS that are unlawfully carying concealed guns as they are alot more likely than me to try and cause harm with it. I have mine for personal protection and for that of my family, nothing more. It’s none of your business what my name is…………
I agree with the previous post. What purpose could possibly be served by obtaining the list? Also, before I believe a word of your opinion of the statute, I would like to read the statute, in its’ entirety. Also, a few judges’ interpretations and opinions included in the work would have been helpful. I am of the opinion that this story (or non-story) was merely the work of a wanna-be journalist who has a personal beef with Sheriff Blanton. Dude, find a real issue to cover.
You just keep proving how bad you are!!
“I don’t understand why it’s so important for you to know who has a concealed weapons permit?”
That question is answered in the fifth paragaph.
“Also, before I believe a word of your opinion of the statute, I would like to read the statute, in its’ entirety.”
Look it up — it’s on line.
Just think if you had the list and published it the
criminals would know where to get more guns so mind
your own bussiness and let law abiding citizens alone
and yes I have guns and never comitted a crime.
Sorry HBM, but you still haven’t convinced me. The fifth paragraph says nothing compelling whatsoever as to why a reporter like you would need to know who is on the list. How well the CCW statute is working is more of a police issue and probably not something for a person with your limited credentials to meaningfully evaluate. Remember, every person on that list had to follow a specific process and undergo reasonable scrutiny to obtain that permit. You are not the person to judge the success or failure of that program. Why not do a story about the ease with which one can obtain a weapon at a gun show?
No, HBM, the question is NOT answered in the fifth paragraph. Just because you think you have the right to know is not the reason you want to know or why you poke about, looking for ways to screw people over. No one ever does anything without a reason. A right is not a reason. A right just sits there. Reasons cause actions. You have a purpose, an action, in mind for obtaining information that can only do harm to the CHL holder. Statistically, the police have a higher crime rate per capita then CHL holders, which you already know, assuming, and it’s a very large assumption, that you have a brain with which to investigate this issue. Why don’t you investigate the police first, if public safety is your current red herring? What possible good for 6000 some odd are you planning? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that when the Central Oregon Daily KOS goon squad wants personal information, it is for a degenerate low life asshole reason.
If your true purpose is moral, ethical, centered, balanced and above reproach, why don’t you spell it out for us? I won’t hold my breath…
It is apparent that when leftist elitists go after a self created issue that is not a societal issue, they are attempting to advance their personal political agenda. Open one myopic eye to a mere slit and it is clear that the least troublesome, the very least criminally mischievous element of our society, is CHL holders. Because this is an aberrant organ of the lunatic left, presumably their goal, their agenda, is to cause problems for legal gun owners in any way they can. They clearly are actively searching for a way to fuck us over. The goal of the left is to ultimately disarm the populace while simultaneiously and schizophrenically being soft on crime and doing less than nothing to disarm criminals, or reduce criminal behavior. Reflect for a moment, that with all the real crime in society, they CHOOSE to pursue, commit time and resources, to a non-issue like this! Duh?
When the elitist takes a position, adopts a methodology, that is designed to create more victims, the goal is obviously to eventually gain control of those victims. There is no other rational reason to do it.
Left wing elitists view an unarmed populace as defenseless sheep to be herded at will…by them. This has been a stated goal of the left for years. When wannabe elitist control freaks like this editorial board imagine themselves to be THE CHOSEN shepherds, and bring out the attack dogs…RESIST!!!
Sheriff Blanton has my total support. Thank you, sir!
the source has really lost whatever credibility it had by continuing to pursue this crusade against a non-existent problem…the supposed problems with the system are pure speculation. keep tilting at windmills and give yourself the boot for once.
“How well the CCW statute is working is more of a police issue and probably not something for a person with your limited credentials to meaningfully evaluate.”
In other words we should just take the word of the sheriff (or other law enforcement authority) when he tells us the record-keeping is impeccable, no bad guys are getting permits and there’s no favoritism shown in handing out permits — is that what you’re saying?
Sorry, I can’t buy it.
I’m not saying there ARE problems — I’m saying that without access to the records we have know way of knowing IF there are problems. And I’m not saying Blanton is a bad sheriff, but there are such things as bad sheriffs. In fact we had one of ours go to jail not that far back.
“No, HBM, the question is NOT answered in the fifth paragraph. Just because you think you have the right to know is not the reason you want to know”
Evidently you have trouble with counting, so I’ll quote it for you:
“But aside from that, there are at least a couple of good reasons why we â ” and the public â ” should have the information. Oregonâ ™s concealed-carry law â ” one of the most permissive in the nation â ” has been in force for about a decade. How well is it working locally? Is it doing a good job of screening out criminals and whack jobs? (The fact that, according to Blantonâ ™s own data, 84 permits were denied or revoked in 2006-â ™07 seems to hint that at least a few slip through.) How good is the record-keeping? The discrepancy between the sheriffâ ™s number and the OSPâ ™s is reason enough to worry about that.”
“the supposed problems with the system are pure speculation.”
And what we don’t know won’t hurt us, eh?
HBM: Like James Lahm said, HBM, the fifth paragraph doesn’t list any reasons. You can repeat the same drivel until the cows come home, but it doesn’t make it a valid reason. Red herring bullshit is still red herring bullshit. Were those really your paltry reasons, you pathetic pinheads need to take up another line of work.
we finaly get a sheriff worth his salt in office and TSW is giving him the boot over this?? How myopic and unbalanced this desire to ‘get whats coming to us’ is.
Another example of manufacturing ‘news’ where there really isnt any thing worth knowing. Lets say the sheriff released those documents. TSW peruses the list and views persons personnaly known to TSW employees. Said employees now have another perspective of the known individual, a perspective that may or may not taint personnal interaction with a CCW holder.
Regarding the accusations concerning discrepencies in the STATE list and the County list, When has there ever been total ‘cooperation’ amoungst the various state govenmental agencies? Think the OSP has enough time to fool around looking for 50 names on one list and not another?
CCW here in Deschutes County has a long and strong history of personnal responsibility without the need for a ‘rag’ demanding to know their names in the past, What public safety and good can TSW foresee this list being released expect to paint a big bullseye on those peaceably and lawfully authorized to carry handguns for personnal defense??
Deschutes County carried the highest per-capita CCW in Oregon for a long time before TSW was even in existence and it functions with minimal problems. A background check is performed before a CCW is isssued to an aplicant by the issuing law office. Does TSW believe that a law enforcement office can make up the law as it sees fit? Modify the Constitution to make special exceptions for ‘favoritism’? Adhere to only the laws they feel ‘apply’? I dont think that is the case with CCW and I resent TSW printing such innuendo about our state laws and county law enforcement officials. Its serves to illuminate the ration of BS TSW regularly panders off as ‘news’ when in reality TSW articles are nothing more than eitorials shouted from a bullhorn on the corner by some ‘the end is near’ long haired Jesus look alike.
The point of a CCW is to defend oneself from grave personnal injury or death in the event that a policeman might not have the time to respond to the burglar/rapist/mugger before he/she inficts deathly injury upon oneself. People I know carry a handgun everyday, Those 6,000 some odd people are not the ones committing violent crime of the kind we have seem in the past in the Downtown area. The Footbridge shooting, the poor woman assualted by a inexplicably
angry man, the homeless man kicked to death in Drake Park and a bunch of other violent criminal activities not perpetuated by qualified CCW should make the unspoken arguement.
I am a law abiding concealed handgun licensee and it makes no difference to the general public what my name is. You wont know I carry and I will hopefully never use my handgun in self defense, but I am determined to be able to defend myself and my family when tshtf, which is when you really need it.
TSW, I administer the BOOT to you and your Staff for grossly myopic writing and failure to comprehend foreseeable unintended consequences that are appearent to those of us with our feet grounded in reality and not some pie in the sky ‘news story’
I am going to demand that they release the name of people in Deschutes County who are HIV positive. After all, just like guns, it CAN be deadly when improperly handled and we have the right to know in case someone tries to cause us harm.
At least according to your confused logic.
Good point Just me. By the same token we should also have a list of everyone in Deschutes county that has been diagnosed with mental disorders or is on prescription medication to treat same.
We really need members of the media and public evaluating the effectiveness of these areas. After all most of those people are driving cars and operating other deadly machinery. We can’t just trust the judgment of those medical professionals.
RJ
I think it’s because those things that you mention are not opt in and would be discrimination, whereas gun registration is regulated by the government. Remember, there is a reported 500 person discrepancy in the record keeping. If there is that kind of mismanagement in an area as important as gun registry, what other book keeping errors could be missing. Get thee to the woodshed.
“I resent TSW printing such innuendo about our state laws and county law enforcement officials.”
There is no “innuendo.” We are not saying or even remotely implying that Larry Blanton is doing anything wrong. What we are saying is that it is possible a FUTURE sheriff could be a screw-up, and/or corrupt (hey, we’ve already had one sheriff who’s now a convicted felon) and we would have NO WAY OF KNOWING if something fishy was going on with concealed carry permits — for example, if they were being handed out to people who shouldn’t have them but were cronies of the sheriff, or maybe paid a bribe.
Why is this so hard to understand?
“By the same token we should also have a list of everyone in Deschutes county that has been diagnosed with mental disorders or is on prescription medication to treat same.”
Medical information is clearly and explicitly prohibited from disclosure under the Oregon public records law. Of course if you think that law should be changed you can try to get the legislature to change it.
HBM, just because YOU think there is a problem with the record keeping doens’t make it necessarily so. Of course there have probably been instances where someone that DID pass a thorough background invesitgation prior to obtaining a permit ended up committing a crime and should have lost that little card. But honestly, did the permit card sway the criminal to do the crime? I think not.
There are several people that lose their drivers licenses and still drive a car anyway.
However, your argument still holds no water. Do you really believe that if I have a CHP card and the whole world knows who I am because of your little “right to know” tirade that it will somehow stop me from comitting a crime?
Dude, let it go. You are not right, nor have any of your replies been. You are out gunned (no pun intended) and should find something else to research and or write about.
Here is a suggestion: Why are school buses exempt from the Oregon seat belt law? Buddy, if you can make something happen on that front, I will back you 100%
TheFireman
SatchBoogie, I was about to mention that.
It goes back to “If guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns.” The law abiding citizens in this state are NOT the ones to worry about, its the ones that HAVE committed crimes.
Thousands of people A DAY hop into their cars and drive down the street without a license or without insurance can I see this list? Who is more dangerous a person driving a 3000 pound car OR a person with a pistol?
If you want to want to research a real problem in America how about the big ones like: illegal aliens, education, or the boogey man.
It still does not make any sense to the general public that these records should be released. Honestly if you cannot convince the man in-charge of keeping you safe everyday that these records should be published, he is probably right.
He obviously knows more about the issue than you do, so leave it alone.
BTW where can I apply for this newspaper? I would love this work!
“Researching” fiction problems and writing these “editorials”…Do you get paid for this?
NObama, so very well put and eliquently stated… If you get a job for this rag, try to get me in too!
The Sheriffs office does a great job. I have lived here for 19 years and this county is safer than most. I may or may not be carrying a gun and I really keep it concealed when I do. It is no one elses business.
Carrying a gun is a legal right and we should exercise it as in the great state of illinois the Bush admin has federalized the police to start taking guns away from law abiding citizens, hence giving the criminals more power to break into homes and do home invasions. Personally I would state that if some assholes break into my house they are going to experience the true meaning of lead poisoning and be truly sorry they picked the wrong house. The point being the criminals should have to guess who is carrying guns as to keep them out of prison and in the workforce where they belong. My safety is not for sale and the Sheriffs discretion as to keep this list from the public I respect. There is no list of all of the criminals that are carrying guns?