Ever since Oregon’s public records law was passed some 40 years ago, special interests have been nibbling holes in it. This week, with the help of Rep. Judy Stiegler of Bend, the legislature bit off another chunk.
Stiegler issued a press release on Monday talking about her role in the passage of HB 2727, a bill that would create an exemption from the law for information about holders of concealed handgun licenses (CHLs).
Sheriffs in counties across Oregon, including Deschutes, have been simply flouting the public records law and refusing requests by reporters for information about concealed-carry permits. This legislation essentially throws a cloak of legality over what the sheriffs have been doing illegally.
To be fair, the bill isn’t as bad as it could have been. It doesn’t unconditionally conceal CHL records from the public eye, as the sheriffs and the gun lobby wanted. But it says such records can be disclosed only “upon a showing by clear and convincing evidence that the public interest requires disclosure.” The sheriffs will decide whether a request for disclosure meets that test; if they say no – as they’re virtually certain to do 99% of the time – whoever made the request will have to go to court.
Stiegler’s bill also gives the holder of a CHL the right to argue why the record shouldn’t be made public, and to be notified whenever somebody requests the record.
The core premise of Oregon’s public records law is that records should be available to the public unless there’s a clear and convincing reason why they shouldn’t be. HB 2727 turns that principle upside down.
But there are practical as well as principled reasons why this is a bad bill. Without access to CHL records there’s no way for the public to judge whether a sheriff is doing a fair, impartial and competent job of deciding who gets such permits.
And what about a woman who might like to know whether her abusive ex-husband or some guy who’s been stalking her is likely to walk up to her someday and pull a 9-mm Beretta? Shouldn’t she be able to find out without going through a long, expensive court battle and having to confront the abuser or stalker?
It’s disappointing that Judy Stiegler, who was elected as the more progressive candidate, took this stand. She says she “tried to take a really bad bill and make it better,” but she sacrificed the vital principle of open government for the sake of a bill that, in essence, is no better than the old one.
So here’s THE BOOT to Stiegler, along with the hope that the state Senate – or, failing that, Gov. Ted Kulongoski – will BOOT this bill into oblivion.
This article appears in May 7-13, 2009.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
“But there are practical as well as principled reasons why this is a bad bill. Without access to CHL records thereâ ™s no way for the public to judge whether a sheriff is doing a fair, impartial and competent job of deciding who gets such permits.”
===
A sheriff does not decide who gets permits; by Oregon law, the sheriff has to give the applicant a permit unless there are a very limited number of exceptions (ex: previous felony). It is not like the sheriff interviews each applicant and then decides “Yep, this fella is an okay fella”.
“And what about a woman who might like to know whether her abusive ex-husband or some guy whoâ ™s been stalking her is likely to walk up to her someday and pull a 9-mm Beretta?”
===
Do you think that abusive ex-husbands or stalkers would bother with a CHL if they wanted to “pull a 9mm Beretta”? Hmm, I think not. People who break laws against their ex’s are not likely to follow laws about handgun possession or other laws.
“Shouldnâ ™t she be able to find out without going through a long, expensive court battle and having to confront the abuser or stalker?”
===
Nope, she should not. Because then the ex-husband would also be able to know if she has a CHL and could be carrying concealed. Better to keep this info private.
Using your logic, all health records should be public record. Shouldn’t I be able to find out if my neighbor or co-worker has an infectuous disease so I can protct myself and family??
Criminals do not go through the headaches of getting permits to carry a handgun concealed. An abusuve ex-spouse is not going to bother going to get a CHP, if they have been abusive before what makes you think they are going to go get a permit to be legal ? In Oregon it is legal to carry a handgun exposed almost everywhere. It is because of handgun carring citizens that you are safe in this country. Quit whinning.
Yeah, then you could pull your piece on them, Jed. Scare the flu right out of them, tough guy.
Yeah he must be violent because he is a gun owner.Great argument, who needs real logic. If the person has priors like that he wouldn’t be eligable for a concealed weapons permit. Most criminals find no use in doing things the legal way. If you have any possible hints of violence on your record they are likely to deny you the permit. We shouldn’t create laws on theoretical situations, lets see some data on real ones.
I know people denied for misdemeanors, but there not felonies.
This “newspaper” has totally misinterpreted this bill. They may want to try actually reading it. Yes, the original bill protected CHL holders’ privacy. The amended bill does not. Not in any way. Stielger amended it so it has no meaning whatsoever. Please JUST READ THE BILL. Your moronic comments about an abused woman who might face a stalker ignore the reality that with or without a CHL a stalker can misuse a gun. But what about the abused woman who leaves her abuser and then gets a CHL to defend herself and her daughters? Should her abuser not only have access to the fact that she has a CHL, but also her new address? That’s what you are advocating.
And what about a woman who might like to know whether her abusive ex-husband or some guy whoâ ™s been stalking her is likely to walk up to her someday and pull a 9-mm Beretta? Shouldnâ ™t she be able to find out without going through a long, expensive court battle and having to confront the abuser or stalker?
***************
So I find out my ex has a CHL. So what? What bearing does that have on anything?
So I find out my ex has a CHL. So what? What bearing does that have on anything?
********************************
IF you’re an abuser your ex is much better off if you don’t know about the CHL…. Element of supprise. The bottom line is that we HAVE the RIGHT to defend ourselves, and we HAVE the RIGHT to be private (quiet) about it. I for one will NEVER own ANY registered weapon.
Bad guys don’t go through the hoops to follow the law, just the good guys, why bust the balls of the good guy?
It is these socialist liberal progressives which are removing more of our freedom and liberties granted by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So the question is, why are they doing it? Clearly, the socialist libertal progressives’ idealogy includes removing all rights of the citizenry so that the government can control everything in our lives. They are so insecure about their power control that they do not want citizens to have rights to carry or even own guns because we have the Constitutional right to rebel against that form of government to regain control of our God given freedom and liberty.
once again, the source has no idea what it’s talking about. A sheriff does not have any influence on whether or not he or she can issue a CHL as long as the applicant meets the criteria in the O.R.S., that’s why Oregon is called a “shall-issue” state. The law enforcement agency shall issue, without injecting and subjective criteria or personal bias. AND…a woman afraid of her ex- would likely get a restraining order first. Knowing about a CHL doesn’t mean a thing. as others have mentioned, someone intent on doing wrong is unlikely to go through the proper channels. plus, a CHL is not the same as a record of purchase for a firearm or a firearm licence….it doesn’t confirm or deny ownership of any firearms. Honestly, know what your’e talking about before you print it. I’m a liberal and I’m embarrassed by the lack of knowledge by the “good” newspaper in town.
OG has completely missed the point. There are more than two dozen criteria that a sheriff is supposed to examine before issuing a permit. Without knowing who is getting a license, we have no idea if the sheriff is doing his or her job. As for your other argument, it’s so flawed that it’s not even worth addressing. But I’ll say this, if it were true. Then no licensed driver would ever have a speeding ticket. Because no law-abiding licensee would ever violate the law, right?
Seriously, the internet may assist you dim bulbs with research, but it’s done nothing for your thinking skills. Stick to target practice. This isn’t your game.
“Without knowing who is getting a license, we have no idea if the sheriff is doing his or her job.”
—
Is that really true? “I just want some oversight.” And at the expense of privacy? Based upon an earlier comment, “Yeah, then you could pull your piece on them, Jed. Scare the flu right out of them, tough guy,” I find that difficult to believe.
—
In this case, your right to information does not outweigh another’s right to privacy, irregardless if you fly it under the banner of accountability.
In this case, your right to information does not outweigh another’s right to privacy, irregardless if you fly it under the banner of accountability.
Really, I’d like to know what your legal basis of this concept of “right to privacy” is. In the few cases that courts have actually construed a right to privacy (it’s certainly not mentioned in the constitution, it’s been very narrowly defined).
The republicans and their bills are the reason our guns laws are so screwed up. The Brady Bill was formed, initiated and passed by the republicans. Next we got the brilliant Patriot Act which was also a republican bill which states that private citizens can have their guns taken away at any time the leaders wish to dis arm the population.
Further the sneaky republican party usually tires to put it on a bill made up by democrats as on the bill there may be many issues to vote on so they can blame em liberals. The reality is that the republicans are the main anti gun campaigners as they wish to take away all of the arms so they will have a nice submissive society to dictate and rule over.
Look it up and find out that every point I have brought up is true. Even Rush and Sean Hannity know this to be true as they actually have some brains to know this to be true.
Having gun permits be public record is public record and according to the freedom of information act, it should be a right for someone to look up to see if someone has a gun permit. Who cares? What is the big deal?
“Bad guys don’t go through the hoops to follow the law, just the good guys, why bust the balls of the good guy?” (One of many variants on the same argument).
This argument is so ridiculous it almost isn’t worth answering, but I’ll answer it anyway.
In the first place, it’s not always easy to tell the “good guys” from the “bad guys” in advance.
In the second place, just because somebody breaks one law does not mean he breaks all laws. As Rbergundy puts it so well, if your argument is logical, “then no licensed driver would ever have a speeding ticket” — or run a stop sign, or drive drunk, or park in a handicap zone, etc.
In the third place, every gun owner is a “law-abiding gun owner” until he commits his first crime.
“So I find out my ex has a CHL. So what?”
So you might want to cross to the other side of the street when you see him coming or lock the door when you see him pull into your driveway.
O’ course the gun nuts will say that what you should do instead is get your own .45 and shoot it out with him, Dodge City style. Yee-haw!
the cool thing about being a newspaer on a crusade and harping on an issue repeatedly, and not even pretending to be objective or impartial about the issue or even knowing the basics of an issue…you never have to admit your wrong. You can just perpetuate misconceptions of the law and continue to throw out preposterous scenerios and what if’s. No, I’m not a gun nut. I actually disagree with a lot of how the NRA perpetuates fear and hysteria in the name of defending the 2nd amendment. the point is, things aren’t black and white when it comes to gun rights and how we understand the legitimate rights of law abiding gun owners and the real concerns about crime and access to guns. But, it sure helps if you know what you’re talking about, and the source has time and again illustrated a complete lack of real knowledge on the subject of CHL’s and how they are obtained or how firearms are obtained and the theory and practice of how current gun laws work. Zero credibility. Bravo.
rbergendy:” Without knowing who is getting a license, we have no idea if the sheriff is doing his or her job.” We have no reason to believe they aren’t doing their job. let’s just accuse all of law enforcement of not following the law while we’re at it, just in case there is a discrepency. if we apply your same logic to other govt. agencies…we can’t assume they are doing their jobs either, so let’s open up all their records in the name of the public interest. there are so many agencies that deal directly with public health and safety…even more so than the sheriff’s dept…ODOT, health dept., food safety…oh my god! we better pour over all their records in case they didn’t do their job! You are more paranoid than the gun lobby for heaven’s sake, if that’s even possible. yes, by all means let’s presume every aspect of government and law enforcement is corrupt or inadequate because it’s in the public interest. with your smarts, you should be a shoe-in for a job at the Source. if you think my logic is flawed, you’re not exactly a MENSA candidate either.
the driver’s license argument…lame and innaccurate. You took my point completely out of context…I guess newspapers like doing that sort of thing and rbergundy, again, you’d be great hire at the source seeing as you did the same…you misunderstood my point entirely..first of all I wasn’t the one who brought up the preposterous domestic dispute scenario which is what I was referring to…nobody is going to say to himself, i’m going to stalk and kill my ex- so I’m going to get a CHL first. Nobody here is arguing that a CHL is foolproof and will prevent future bad acts, but rather habitual criminals aren’t known for jumping through legal hoops because they are so conscientious. A CHL application is a background check, and a very thorough one at that, to make sure someone’s prior conduct or mental history does not disqualify them from this status as a CHL holder. Nobody is claiming it’s a magic crystal ball. The fact still remains that the source has not done the least bit of reporting on this subject. it’s all conjecture and what-if’s and hysteria. Has there ever been an incident where a CHL holder misused their status in this state and it gave the slightest hint that there was some widespread fishyness going on at the sheriff’s office? it’s a non-issue…and it’s only an issue because the source continues to promote it every other issue. For once, it would be nice to see real issues discussed about the forces in our society that drive people to crime, alienation and hopeless where they end up resorting to violence…rather than creating fake issues about guns. for heaven’s sake…were’ not even talking about the availability of gun purchase with CHL’s…we’re talking about people being properly licensed to carry a firearm on their person or in their vehicles without other people knowing…that would be the privacy part if you still don’t get it.
“the cool thing about being a newspaer on a crusade and harping on an issue repeatedly, and not even pretending to be objective or impartial about the issue or even knowing the basics of an issue.”
Here’s an equally great trick, OG, pretending to refute an argument without any facts or actual line of reasoning. You’ve given us a perfect example of the ad hominem. Use your trusty internet to look it up. I think you’ll recognize most of your tool box right there.
Personal attacks aside, I have yet to see one convincing argument for disclosure of CHL holders. Some arguments cited by the original editorial actually support non-disclosure. They are the same reasons why federal law protects disclosure of driver’s licenses.
I would find it interesting if Uber Marxist Fascist Socialist Commie America hater hypocrite HBM could find an example of CHL-ers running amok. Nationwide, CHL holders have fewer felonies per person than the police. As usual, The Source and HBM have their fuzzy heads stuffed way up their nether regions.
The Source wants access to CHL information to publicly reveal who holds a permit to increase that person’s personal danger by removal of the element of surprise…which is the primary reason to carry concealed. A concealed weapon is worthless if the ‘bad guy’ knows you have one. The Source knows that. The Thousand Miles to the way out far left idiots don’t want anyone to have a gun. Guns scare the shit out of mealy mouthed scumbag freedom robbing liberals. If the country is disarmed, these Great American Destroyers presume they will have an easier time enslaving the rest of us.
It’s all about Power and Control. Ask the Chimp in Chief, Obama. It’s easier to round up and exterminate those that cannot defend themselves than it is to deal with a well armed militia.
The ultimate liberal goal is to wipe their ass on the Constitution. This is but one skirmish down that road. Resist!
“Uber Marxist Fascist Socialist Commie America hater hypocrite HBM”
Hot DAMN! That’s one of the most impressive compound insults I’ve ever seen!
Congratulations, you inbred knuckle-dragging harelipped flag-waving gun-worshiping pseudo-patriotic troglodyte!
“The ultimate liberal goal is to wipe their ass on the Constitution.”
Your boys Bush and Cheney beat us to it. Constitution was nothing but a soiled piece of toilet paper after they got through with it.
LD–
Are you serious? This has got to be some kind of parody that reinforces Left Wing prejudices and embarrass Republicans and Conservative thinkers (it’s not an oxymoron, HB)! These rants can’t be taken seriously by anyone. Racial epithets, childish name calling, and juvenile posturing make up the bulk of the Delbert commentary. These are not responses–just asinine ramblings from someone’s keyboard. If he’s serious, he needs help, not a continued forum. WTF!