By kgw.com Staff and Associated Press

An Oregon court ruling could force sheriffs offices statewide to release full lists of all the people in the state with concealed carry gun permits.

Some permit holders say the information is private. They worry if the permits are made public they could become targets of thieves or criminals.

This all started in Medford. The newspaper there, The Mail Tribune, sued the Jackson County sheriff's office for the release of the full list of concealed carry permit holders.

The Jackson County case stems from the 2007 case of a Medford teacher with a concealed handgun license who wanted to bring a handgun onto school property for personal security reasons.

The sheriff refused, claiming that information was private. A Jackson County circuit court judge disagreed and ordered the sheriff to release the names, ruling that people have to document that the license is for security reasons to avoid public records law.

Should the names of people who own concealed weapons in Oregon be revealed?

And now other counties are warning permit holders they might have to do the same.

Washington County's sheriff will ask 10,000 holders of concealed handgun licenses whether they want their names made public if it is requested as an Oregon public record.

Sheriff Rob Gordon said he believes that people obtain these licenses as a security measure, which would keep their names private.

On Friday, Washington County license holders will get letters asking them if they obtained the license for security reasons, and whether they want their information kept confidential.

Michael Knoetig is considered an expert on Oregon's concealed handgun laws. He even teaches a course on the laws and says he’s had to schedule extra classes -- enrollment has doubled.

Knoetig also says he himself carries a weapon.

"It's a subcompact gun. It is small enough to go in the pocket," he says.

No one's more concerned about the pending court ruling, which could require sheriff's deputies to release full lists of all concealed carry permit holders.

"Why does anybody out there need to know that I can carry a firearm?" Knoetig asks.

Washington County sheriffs say they will continue the fight to keep the records private.

“We have received requests in the past which we have denied because we feel it is protected information," Sgt. Vance Stimler said.

The sheriff will send a letter to each permit holder asking if they want their information released.

“Most of them were in favor of keeping their information protected," Stimler said. "If they feel the need to protect themselves and be secure than they should have the right to have that information protected."

But the court's decision could force the sheriff to release it anyway, and Stimler acknowledges his office must follow those orders. And Knoetig says that means criminals or others would know there’s a gun in the house.

"If a bad person wanted to steal guns he would already know Michael's house maybe is a good place to go," Knoetig said.

Many worry the ruling will make targets of those who've followed the law in carrying a gun.

The Jackson County sheriff has appealed the decision to the Oregon Court of Appeals, which will likely hear the case next spring. It could order the records released then.

If each applicant wants his or her information private, then Oregon law will allow Washington County to reject a request for names of license holders, Stimler said.

The Multnomah County Sheriff's Office will confirm that a person has a concealed handgun license if someone calls with a name, said Deputy Paul McRedmond, public information officer. They approve public record requests for general release of names on a case-by-case basis.

In Clackamas County, the sheriff's office will release the information for properly made requests, said Detective Jim Strovink, public information officer.

Both counties are considering Washington County's idea and plan to discuss whether they will implement something similar.

The main argument put forth by gun owners is that if a list of names is made public of all those who carry concealed weapons, is that it will invite crime against that person. Huh? I've always been told that the presence of a gun in the household makes that household safer. Now you're saying that if the public learns you carry concealed that this will be an invitation for someone to attack you? This seems like backwards logic to me.

outlaw concealed weapon permits,Come on, how many people really need to pack heat around anyway???????????

Lars does

Yes, but Lars needs to with all the people that listen to his show I'm sure there is someone out there half cocked that would like to pick him off....

Getting back to my point, I want to know how you are more at risk if the public knows you carry concealed? I don't buy that argument as a reason not to let the public know who's playing amateur cop. If this is true, it invalidates everything the NRA stands for.

Vit, I see this as a conundrum also. Pro-gun folks argue that more guns in the hands of 'law-abiding citizens' will have a chilling effect on crime. In fact, some have argued for laws requiring gun ownership, which would effectively identify everyone as a gun owner.

Yes, this is confusing.

In the first place, if one is packing concealed heat, they're theorectily somewhat of a fraidy cat. To oppose revealment confirms that theory.

I read that article and may have missed it - but WHY is this information being requested to be made available to anyone? How would anyone use that information legally? ( I don't buy the " It'll make me a target." argument as a legitimate one. Perhaps it is. But that speaks more about the paranoia than anything I've read that would substantiate a claim like that ). I don't even follow how knowing which teachers have a permit would do ANYthing for ANYone.

I think it smacks of a way to just being irritating to gun owners - that seems to be the primary motivating factor.

"Getting back to my point, I want to know how you are more at risk if the public knows you carry concealed."

Vitalogy, what they are saying is that if the crooks know you have firearms in the house they are more likely to target that house for a robbery.

It would be the same principle for some one that had a big jewelry collection or a valuable coin collection. If that info is published, it just invites the criminals to target that residence.

I don't really care if they publish my name, just don't publish my address.

I agree with CJ. It's just another way to harass gun owners.

They tried to do this out east somewhere and the courts shot it down.

Wait a second. So what you're saying is that public knowledge that someone is armed makes them more at risk? Why carry a gun then? Why would a criminal target an armed person or an armed household? That argument makes no sense. The NRA has always told us that guns deter crime. Now you're saying they attract it?

That's not what I said.

I didn't say someone being armed.

I said publishing names and address of CCP holders makes their house more inviting to criminals to break in and steal the guns.

As I said before, if they published a list of people with high value items, that would give a criminal the more incentive to target that house.

Besides, its NOBODY's damn business (other than the issuing juristiction) who has or does not have a CCP.

That's the whole point of "concealed". Nobody knows that the weapon is there.

If you saw me out in public, you'd have no idea whether I was carrying or not.

What possible good could come from publishing that info?

I'm sorry, but I still don't buy the argument that publishing names and addresses of gun owners would invite criminals to break in. If I was a criminal, I would avoid those houses. I think it comes back to the paranoia these people usually have.

As far as being nobody's business, I see it as a public record. Same thing as owning property.

Can anyone name one reason to make this information public?

Owning property and who is your neighbor I can make a case for. I can't for concealed permit holders. I cannot think of one reason. I'm not saying there isn't one. But I haven't heard one yet. Has there been one reason listed yet that I've missed? The closest I can find is " It would let us know who has them." But then what would you DO with that information? OK - my teacher has concealed weapon permit...now what?

Am I missing something obvious?

But as far as making me a target for criminals, I doubt that. I haven't checked, but public knowledge allowed to criminals that declare a persons ability to defend themselves ( " I have a dog." I have an alarm system." " I have a sign that says I have a gun - but I really don't have one." etc ) those kinds of public declarations, I do not believe incite more crime upon those individuals. Put it this way, I would be VERY surprised.

I think the closest I could come up with that is that a criminal may use that information to determine who does NOT have a concealed weapons permit. Heck, I may apply for one and never even own a gun. That's how backwards this train of thought is. Much in the same way an " Alarm " sticker in a persons window who doesn't actually own a system, all things being equal, gives pause to potential robbers and such. Right? Is that not true?

Which brings me back to the beginning; What purpose would this information serve? Specifically. Not rhetorical. I haven't even read what the STATED purpose would be. But it seems enough for some to have it implied VERY loosely. And I don't buy that one bit. I'm all full of that these inplications that fall apart when they card stand on their own without needing to use another example that does NOT apply in the same way ( Land Ownership ). I don't think it even falls into a " Slippery Slope " frame.

And I can't even agree with Vit - " As far as being nobody's business, I see it as a public record." Well, that's exactly the purpose of this intended law or statute or whatever it is; To determine if it IS the same. But with any argument you could make for the proprety issue, I cannot think of ONE that correllates to gun ownership. Not even loosely.

Although I do find it very interesting that gun sales have shot up by a LOT since Obama's Primary win and on through the general election. And I may be talking out my ass on this - but I suspect there is more of a mindset of " This is a great excuse to show Obama that he will not take my gun...and I get a new gun out of the deal...and I feel righteuos for doing it now." Fine. Feel that way for those and a million other reasons. Nobody wants to take your gun away to the degree which is...here comes that word again...IMPLIED by you. And all those people who own guns currently, do you think it being known they own a gun attracts an attack of some sort?

Someone will have to show me the stats on that.

People who own a gun vs people who have a concealed permit vs people who don't own a gun; Who is attacked more?

Can anyone name one reason to make this information public?

Think about this: People that think they NEED a concealed weapon are either 1) having delusions or 2) are indeed facing a substancially higher threat of gunplay -- (cops or thugs).

As a innocent bystanding citizen, wouldn't YOU want to know who to stay the hell away from because, after all, gunplay usually results in unintended outcomes.



So unless you're a cop, guns need to be worn in visibly obvious holsters. Any other reason means you're chickenshit.

Let's be clear that we are talking about concealed weapons permits, not gun ownership.

With that clarification, I can think of several reasons why someone would want to know who has been approved for a permit.

1. I would like to know who in my neighborhood has one so I can make sure I avoid them.

2. I would like to know if any of my fellow employees has one so I can make sure to avoid them (and report them to HR since guns are not allowed at work).

3. I would like to know if any of my clients has one, so I can be more aware of who I'm working with.

4. I would like to know if any teachers at my kid's schools has one so I can make sure they are not sneaking one onto school property.

5. I would like to know if any households where my kid may hang out at has one so I can make sure my kid no longer goes there.

Since the permit holder has to register with the local sherrif's office to obtain a permit, I see this as a public record which the public should have a right to access if they so choose. The reason being? A person carrying a gun is statistically more dangerous than a person who is not.

I'm starting to think that the real motivation for wanting these full lists to be released is starting to become clear by reading between the lines of the posts on this thread: There are people who don't like the concept of concealed carry licenses, and they are looking at these lists as a way of rendering the concealed carry licenses impotent. The threat of these lists being released, in my opinion, is also being used as an opportunity to make those who don't agree with this proposal to appear like kooks. It is purely political. Note: I do not have a concealed carry permit.

Is gun ownership a matter of public record? I have no idea.

Gun ownership is not a matter of public record (although I think it should be) but a person with a concealed weapons permit is since they have to register with the county, just like a corporation does.

I don't think its political. People that have concealed weapons are chickenshit. If its political, then you made it political.

I've always supported the right to own arms (rifles) but the behavior of gun owners keep me second guessing.

---

quote:

I don't think it's nice, you laughin'. See, my mule don't like people laughing. He gets the crazy idea you're laughing at him. Now if you apologize, like I know you're going to, I might convince him that you really didn't mean it . . .

---

Vitalogy, you should just ask those people if they have a concealed weapons permit.

I mean no disrespect, but I don't see how publishing of lists of people with concealed carry permits could be anything other than politically motivated. What some folks might see as measures to enhance safety (referring to Vitalogy's list of 5 ways he might use the information) could also be construed as ways of ostracizing and harassing people. I think that this is about putting pressure on people who have these licenses or who may be thinking about getting them.

Lars Larson is probably doing a lot more to hurt than to help the cause of concealed carry. He is putting forth the stereotype that the people who get these licenses are doing it for purely ideological reasons or because they think "it's cool" to do so. What about, for instance, a woman who gets one of these licenses because she is worried about having to walk down poorly lit streets on dreary days like today to get to the bus stop or to get home? Is that the kind of person that you would want to avoid? Is that the kind of person who is likely to want to play "amateur cop?" Is she chickenshit?

By the way, I have some friends who have concealed carry licenses, and I don't even think about the fact that they might be carrying guns unless the subject is brought up. I don't feel any more or less safe around them when I am conscious of their possession of a concealed carry permit.

I know one person with a concealed permit. Has a hair trigger and a wee bit paranoid.

Really, hundreds of millions of people make do. These people find safer alternatives. And frankly, if a thug is first on the draw, can a frighten gunowner consistantly outwit someone who has planned the whole caper?

Here's a bit of sobering news from today . . . somewhere they're thinking of stopping off duty police officers from carrying weapons because they're getting arrested for DWI and carrying guns. In one city 28 examples.

Can one carry a concealed weapon drunk?

A good article yesterday in the Oregonian.

http://www.oregonlive.com/editorials/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1226712 313191960.xml&coll=7

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hcF_r58opkeM5sJgdf92RmRQVpjgD9 4HQG3O0

A father arrested after his 6-year-old daughter was fatally shot in their Washington state home allegedly told authorities he had been drinking double shots of vodka while cleaning his guns.

Good times! A clean gun and a dead daughter. Another former law abiding gun owner is headed to jail while a family member goes 6 feet under.

I'm still waiting for a case where a legal gun was used in self defense against a bad guy.

Hmm?

Watch the cons turn this into "They are trying to take away our guns". To tell you the truth, I don't care if you know I have a gun or not. I personally want people to know if I have a gun and I want them to wonder if I have it, would I use it and I probably would. Come into my house and see what you get and yes, if I was Lars, I'd carry a rod and HE doesn't seem to be concerned with people knowing it.

I want to know who has guns and who doesn't too. And that includes me telling others gladly.

Of course everybody against this will bring up the "Red Dawn" scenario.

Ask the Swiss about that. Heard an interesting fact on the Hartman show. In that country, every able bodied male is part of the military, and they have guns, just in case.

Seems to me that's a good countermeasure that supports the idea of knowing who is who.

I'm still waiting for a case where a legal gun was used in self defense against a bad guy.

Skep, I've posted numerous stories. If you'd like, I can post some more.


Missing; it’s really none of yours or anyone's business if I or your neighbor has guns in our house.

If I feel so inclined to mention it in passing or in a conversation with you, then it's my choice.

Should we have to post a list of who has a bow and arrows too? They kill just as effectively.

How about anybody that has a kitchen knife over 4" long must go through safety training and have a license for that knife?

I don't know if there are statistics comparing them, but I'd bet that there are an equal number of stabbings as shootings.

It's the liberal mentality of "We must control everything" and "The government must regulate everything because they know better that we do" that F's up this country.

We need to get rid of booze and cars. FAR more people are killed by drunk drivers that by firearms every year. Many of them by people who have multiple DUI convictions on their records.

Remember: Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns

Actually it is.

We know who has cars, we know who has explosives, we know who is in posession of high technology secrets, etc...

Guns are dangerous things. We have the right to own them, I think people should own them, if they choose, but I also think they need regulation the same as we do for other things that present an inherent danger to the public interest.

Sorry man.

It's not a free for all.

Also, SCOTUS is going to support that kind of regulation. They as much as said so when they affirmed that gun ownership is an individual right. They stated at the same time that it also was not unlimited.

The implication there is that having rights comes with responsibilities. One of those, with guns, is to make sure we keep those guns under good control.

Agreed on booze!

Frankly, I think vices should be sold as natural substances only. No selling of them by anybody period. You want booze, smokes, etc...? Grow it, or buy the tools to do so, or buy it in it's raw form.

Booze is man made, so it would have to be produced and very strongly regulated, or produced by those interested in consumption.

And those opinions are not a slam on you as a gun owner. I'm sure you are a good one. No worries.

What we need to do is make damn sure others are good owners, taking both the responsibility seriously, as well as protecting their rights. I'm for both.

Unlawful gun owners, then become targets and they should be targets for increased efforts to cut their numbers.

If we don't start setting the social norm that guns are a technology worth more than passing consideration, then we will continue to struggle with lots of naive and ignorant gun owners.

When people know you have something dangerous, there is a nice added pressure to do your best to handle it in the very best and most ethical of ways.

Call it a check and balance.

On the other hand, if the social norm is that nobody cares, then the reality will be that nobody cares and that is unacceptable.

They can pass all the regulations they want, publish the names of anybody that owns more than a BB gun and that still isn't going to do squat for reducing crime.

That's what people don't understand.

Do you really think that Julio and Rastus are going to buy their guns at a gun store or gun show?

No. They are buying their guns from some gang banger who either stole the guns or obtained them from someone who stole them and he's selling them out of the trunk of his car in a dark alley.

How is publishing my name or making me license my guns going to stop Juan from shooting Rufus for banging his girl?


Edit Add: And NO it isn't any of anyone's business if I choose to have a gun in my house.

Guns are not something to be feared. They are something we need to be aware of and set good norms and expectations around the use of them, ownership of them, sale of them, etc...

And yeah, maybe it isn't. That will eventually end up in the courts. For now, it's a debate and I think contributing my part to it is as acceptable as you contributing yours!

The license and education that would go with it, would over time see generations of people with the better norms set, meaning we have fewer Julio's out there.

Working to address why people enter crime will help too. Lower the squeeze and cut the risk people are seeing right now, and we will see less crime.

You know the same points apply to cars. How does licensing my car help prevent Bob the drunk, or Joe the street racer from doing their thing?

A few ways?

Everybody has education surrounding the use of the car. (this is my biggest reason for supporting more aggressive registration and education efforts --does not have to be a license, but I think it would work better with one)

It's more difficult to obtain, drive and insure cars, if you are not licensed.

Being caught without the license has a stiffer penalty than with.

There is a greater degree of traceability on these things. If somebody owns a gun, and they know others know it, they are going to be a better shepard of it than otherwise. Just common sense.

If the gun is stolen, lost, etc... they have a strong incentive to report that to avoid being dragged into the process when their gun gets used in a criminal way.

Right now, if a gun gets lost, it's just lost! That's a huge loop hole for the distribution of them that needs to be closed.

Also, we have lots of people buying them that are uneducated about them. That's in need of fixing too.

We've established that people have a right to them, unless they've done something criminal that would trump that. This means we also need to regulate and insure that the responsibilities are addressed right along with affirming the rights.

That's my only beef with this whole thing. I like guns, have owned guns, use guns, and have been educated about guns. Same for the kids.

At this time, we don't own guns, because we don't need to. No worries there. I think I did my part setting expectations and norms. Problem is there are a whole lot of people not doing this and that creates a whole lot of problems we don't need to have.

Some problems will persist. That's how it is. That is not an excuse to just ignore being able to fix the ones that may not persist however.

If solutions are brought to the table, that appear to have a solid shot at working, I'm gonna look at every one of them. It's the responsibility that comes with the right that I'm after, not the right itself.

That's how it has always been with me, and I was very glad to see SCOTUS affirm that position as being the correct one.

What's gonna have to happen (and I think it will happen) is various things are gonna be tried. Some will work, some will fail. Those will end up in the courts over the next 20-50 years, and we will sort out what the responsibilities are, and how best to manage them.

Don't care how that shakes out. Only care that we do it.

I wouldn't be opposed to a nationwide rule/law that says you have to take and pass a firearms safety class and upon passing you get a card stating so.

This would allow you to purchase any firearm you wish with the following age restriction; 18 for a long gun and 21 for a hand gun. (that's the age restrictions currently in place)

No limits on the quantity or type.

I'd also like to see a nationwide concealed carry permit so that I don't have to have a WA, OR, ID, UT, etc, CCP for each state.

It could have some pretty stringent requirements and background checks as well as qualifying with the gun before it's issued.

But that would be it. No registration other than what is currently in place when you buy a gun.

Again, it's no ones business but mine if I choose to keep a gun or guns in my house.

"Should we have to post a list of who has a bow and arrows too? They kill just as effectively."

No they don't. When's the last time you heard someone being killed by a bow and arrow? Guns are much more efficient which is why they are are the weapon of choice. And let's remember, a ton of gun deaths occur OUTSIDE of a crime being committed because guns are typically in the hands of idiots.

because guns are typically in the hands of idiots.

This is the problem with you damn liberals. You take a few bad examples and extrapolate it to mean everybody.

I blame the anti-gun media for a lot of this but being narrow minded kool-aid drinkers of the "Government Knows Best" mind set is also a big part of the problem.

The only time an issue is correct is if it fits your liberal ass agenda.

Vitalogy, you seem like a fairly intelligent person from reading a lot of your other posts, but then you make a stupid comment like that and it just goes to show how narrow your view of reality is.

It also solidifies why I have never nor will I ever support the Democrats platform.

Bill, re-read what I wrote. I don't have a narrow view of reality. I've seen the evidence. Does the word "typically" mean anything to you? I don't think someone like you falls into the "typically" crowd, but lets face the facts. It's not just a few bad examples, there's a lot of them. Daily. People like you are the exception, not the rule, and because of the danger guns pose to society, I'd prefer we have less guns than more in circulation. When you combine more guns with more idiots, well, you can do the math.

Typically means to me "most".

If you take the percentage of gun owners vs the percentage of idiots that do stupid crap with guns (like the dip stick that shot his daughter while doing vodka shots) you'll find it is very low.

Sure there are idiots, but that goes for everything in life.

Has anyone ever done that study?

We might be surprised, if we consider all gun owners, as in those people who happen to have a gun.

It's also worrysome that we can't actually do that kind of study. (or maybe we can, let's hope somebody has a link) Why? Because we don't really know where the guns are, nor do we know who has them, or what their education level is.

Anybody who has a gun, absolutely at a minimum, needs to demonstrate they know the score where using them SECURING them, and engaging in the trade of them is concerned.

This just isn't one of those free for all kinds of things, just like cars, explosives, some substances, lock smith tools and a whole host of other things we know absolutely can and will be abused.

If that annoys you (and it does me), blame it on the morons! They are why we have many of the regulations we do. Fact of life.

Stats that I cannot find;

Number of all gun owners that have used ( brandished or discharged ) their gun in legitimate self defense.

Number of gun owners that have caused unintentional injury with weapon.

Number of gun owners that have a concealed weapons permit.

Number of permit holders that have brandished or discharged their weapon in legitmate self defense.

Number of permit holders that have caused unintentional injury by discharging their weapon.

If anyone keeps using analogies like cars or alcohol, you may have a better chance of convincing me about the similarities or differences just as soon as there is full disclosure on how many of these scenarios will be openly shown. Like cars and alcohol. Those stats are available in many forms. None of them are hidden or claimed to be " private information."

By the way, the spell=check function on this site is terrible. I can deal with it - but it sucks.

as in those people who happen to have a gun

If there were to be a study done, you couldn't count the gang bangers that have guns, because it's a known fact that they are up to no good with them.

Oh no - quite the opposite; I would demand they were counted. That was a particularly weak attempt at whatever you werre trying to insinuate.

But since you brought it up, I would be happy with just legally registered handgun stats.

I wasn't trying to insinuate anything.

Counting the gang bangers would skew the study because it's a given that they are not "law abiding" gun owners.

If you counted them, then you'd also have to account for the fact that a fair majority of gun owners have multiple weapons. You'd have to take that into account too.

CJ, You might be able to fine the 2nd one on the CDC's web site. I know they have some gun statistics on it.

I don't know about the others. Maybe I'll poke around and see what I can find in my spare time.

Not going to have much of that until the 2nd week in DEC. I'm going to be spending every spare minute turning pens. I need to make 100+ by Friday after Thanksgiving for the Christmas Bazaar!

Agreed on the spell checker!

Me too.

"Some permit holders say the information is private. They worry if the permits are made public they could become targets of thieves or criminals."

I had to stop right there.
Any 'criminal' who would intentionally target someone who is packin,is a Freaking Moron.

I had to stop right there.
Any 'criminal' who would intentionally target someone who is packin,is a Freaking Moron.

I don't think anybody is worried about someone targeting (no pun intended! well, maybe a little!) someone who is carrying.

What I'm concerned about is someone watching my house and breaking in when I'm not there.