View Full Version : Progressive/Democrat Oregonian calls for outing CCW holders

12-15-2008, 7:13 PM

Public Information about Public Guns

By Gordon Merseth, Community Writer December 15, 2008

The argument that hiding the identity of concealed gun carriers for their own protection seems counter-intuitive

Sheriff Raul Ramirez’s guest opinion, “The right to know ends at the holster” published in the Thursday December 11th Oregonian puzzles me a bit.

He begins by correctly saying, “Sunshine and transparency are central to American democracy, as is the oversight role of the media.” No truer statement can be made in defining one of the core values of a system based on democratic principles. Transparency, particularly involving the actions of our public officials is tantamount to good government. Fortunately, officeholders who don’t believe in following the law regarding openness will find themselves at the pointed end of a District Attorney’s pen as evidenced by Illinois Governor Blagojevich.

Ramirez goes on to say, “But that doesn’t mean that every public record should be subject to review by all who request it.” This is where the issue grays. Those of us who feel that the identity of concealed weapon permit holders should remain public are not asking for ‘every’ public record to be open. Our legislatures have provided laws and subsequent regulations addressing these issues; secrecy is appropriate when dealing with social security numbers, tax filings, public bank account numbers and all sorts of things that, falling into the wrong hands invites crime.

Apparently, those with a legitimate need for a gun permit do not want their name and address and the fact that they carry a weapon to become publicly known. They argue that disclosure would defeat the purpose of the permit, the whole point of which is to allow an individual to be safely and legally armed without public display of the firearm. They say that this information should be deemed private and to do otherwise invites trouble, whether it be aggression directed at a permit holder or a burglar in search of firearms.

This is the argument I don’t understand. It seems that if a person wishes to be secure by carrying a firearm, they would want everyone to know that they are armed. What better defense than to have would be muggers or robbers know you are armed? Muggers or robbers may not be the brightest people on the planet, but it seems that even they would pick their victims from among those of us who are unarmed.

To carry it a step farther, I would imagine that people who receive a concealed weapon permit would want it announced in the papers and on line so that everyone, friend and foe alike know they are armed. I know I would. What better deterrent could there be?

If the argument that hiding the identity of concealed gun carrier is for their own protection seems counter-intuitive, what do you suppose is the real reason they want to be anonymous? A little paranoia perhaps. ...

He prattles on, and he misses / deliberately ignores the issues of folks with restraining orders or that burglars would deliberately target homes known to possess firearms, a source of quick wealth from an empty home. Or a guarantor of an invasion / hostage style crime, with hardened criminals willing and able to murder as part of their crime.

A few minutes on Google provides both his business name and location and the block he lives on. He ought to receive special notice for his ignorance and sick political ideology.

12-15-2008, 7:25 PM
The idiot is totally blind to the reasons for CCW.

Following the lines of the typical "Progressive" - picking something that has absolutely no effect on his life, yet is important to others and tries his best to ruin it for all. ME ME ME - like a whiny school child.

12-15-2008, 7:31 PM
It appears that he is seeing through the eyes of someone who is already very much on the public radar, but that doesn't mean that his thoughts have any merit.

I'm not familiar with this writer, but his reasoning fits very well since "Progressive/Democrat" is practically a euphemism for communist. We all know how the hard left feel about guns in the hands of the commoner.

12-15-2008, 7:39 PM
Perhaps someone should suggest publishing a list of all the households who don't have any means of self protection other than 911.

12-15-2008, 8:28 PM
To maybe turn his ahead around and get it back on straight - maybe we should offer the analogy of publishing undercover police officer's name, address, and picture. They are public employees, surely the public should know who and where they are. :eek:
Then, maybe he'd understand that many CCW holders wish to remain private; and alive.

12-15-2008, 8:34 PM
crap like this i is just another reason liberal media always fails... How progressive!

Captain Evilstomper
12-15-2008, 8:50 PM
i wonder if this guy would appreciate pics of his house, along with times that he is at work and his wife/children are home alone and defenseless. that's all public knowledge as well, and about as relevant for the public forum.

12-15-2008, 8:53 PM
Thought they were private, and carrying them concealed is precisely designed to keep them away from the overly nervous representatives of the general public. UNless guns are collective propety now :)

12-15-2008, 8:54 PM
i wonder if this guy would appreciate pics of his house, along with times that he is at work and his wife/children are home alone and defenseless. that's all public knowledge as well, and about as relevant for the public forum.

The people have the right to know :p

12-15-2008, 9:38 PM
The real reason Gordon wants CCW license holders "outed" is so society can punish for actions/activity the government can not. I suspect he would like society, or at least those that are more "enlightened", to shun those that choose to CCW.

Annie Oakley
12-15-2008, 9:57 PM
Two possibilities occurred to me as I was reading his commentary. He is either not allowed to carry, or chooses not to carry a concealed firearm, which of course is his choice. In either case it is easy to rebut his argument with a counter argument that others who do not carry are equally protected through an umbrella effect, because privacy means that criminals do not know who is carrying a concealed gun. I hope someone brought that point to his attention even if he didn't comment on it.

12-15-2008, 11:35 PM
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift, about 300yrs ago.

There's nothing rational or reasonable about the cretin's position. It is purely an irrational outburst of his own fear, projected upo others, demanding restraint on others.

12-16-2008, 12:49 AM
If you found an e-mail address, too, invite him very nicely to read this thread (without mentioning why or anything else).
No reasoning. Just let him know, he's a loser. Reasoning is when all parties have a chance. He doesn't have enough true data, obviously.

12-16-2008, 5:48 AM
This has been ongoing since the OR school teacher took the school district to court because she was not allowed to carry while working despite a real and legitimate threat from her former husband.

Decision (http://fights4rights.com/doe/2007-11-09_CircuitCourt_Opinion.pdf)

The same judge (Jackson County Circuit Judge G. Philip Arnold) ruled that the Medford Mail Tribune had a right to the CHL information. He said something like "there is no expectation of privacy when you fill out a government form". Since then many editors have jumped on the "outing" bandwagon.

The sheriff that issued my CHL requested that I take part in an online request to keep my information private.

Story here. (http://www.forestgrovenewstimes.com/news/story.php?story_id=122638150273410500)

There is an appeal pending that will decide the privacy issue.

12-16-2008, 9:37 PM
Sounds like the perfect time to start a campaign for unregulated CCW in Oregon. Everyone can carry, permit requirement dropped, certain ex-cons found in possession outside their home are the only ones charged with a crime (if they currently have a 2nd waiver by statute).

12-18-2008, 8:16 PM
Post the CCW's personal info, but not the Sherriff's personal info. Everyone knows LEO's deserve 'special' rights and protections not afforded to us ordinary citizens.

12-19-2008, 5:13 AM
Post the CCW's personal info, but not the Sherriff's personal info. Everyone knows LEO's deserve 'special' rights and protections not afforded to us ordinary citizens.

In this case, it is the Sheriffs that are fighting the disclosure. I say post post any and all information the Judge has ever put on a government form. Hooray for the Sheriffs.