Ohio newspaper publishs names and addresses of gun owners

[Yahoshua]

Sandusky Register Editor Matt Westerhold Declares War on Gun Owner Privacy

In spite of many state legislators, county sheriffs and even Governor Strickland himself attempting to talk sense into him, Sandusky Register Editor Matt Westerhold has launched an all-out assault on the privacy and security of over 2,600 concealed handgun license holders in several Northern Ohio counties.

Citing a phantom "right to know", Westerhold, editor and self-appointed public records watchdog at the Register, published the list of CHL-holders from Erie, Huron, Ottawa, and Sandusky counties.

EDITOR'S NOTE: The decision to make the lists available to readers was made by the Register's managing editor. All inquiries should be directed to 419-609-5866 or mattwesterhold@sanduskyregister.com

Please oblige Mr. Westerhold by submitting a letter to the editor on this issue.

Matt Westerhold transplanted his anti-concealed-carry agenda from his former job at the Elyria Chronicle-Telegram, where he also ordered the publishing of law-abiding CHL-holders' names. More information on Westerhold will be made available in the coming days.

The "logic" behind his latest attack on gun owners' privacy was expressed in a June 10 editorial entitled "Taking aim at the public record".

Likening the decision to bear arms for self-defense to marriage licenses, court-related divorce records, political donations and salaries of public officials, the editorial argues that concealed handgun license information should be public record. The editorial repeats a tired, false allegation that "in its present form, the conceal-carry law provides no public checks and balances to assure the gun program is being carried out responsibly." (The editorial omits any mention of the statistics which Ohio's 88 county sheriffs present to the Ohio Attorney General's office four times per year.)

In other Register coverage of this action, Seneca County Sheriff Tom Steyer is quoted as saying "I don't understand why news media would want to publish this information."

The editorial asserts that "this isn't about a newspaper's right to know...It's about the public's right to know. It's about open government." But according to a Columbus Dispatch poll conducted in 2005, two-thirds of respondents said other Ohioans have too much access to personal information about them. The number of people who think more access is needed stood at just 37%. And 66% said they believe too much personal information is available to the public. (The poll also indicated Ohioans are more interested in records related to the activities of law-breakers than in personal information about their neighbors.)

More specifically, the Dayton Daily News conducted its own poll in 2005 on whether or not readers believe concealed handgun license records should be available to the public. Of the DDN readers who responded, 87% were against making the records public information.

It is clear that Mr. Westerhold should dispense with the "it's for the public" rhetoric. The public is firmly against his actions, as his letters-to-the-editor box no doubt by now attests. (His response to one such letter was limited to this snide remark: "Thank you for your thoughtful comments about your support for secrecy in government. If you would like to discuss this in more depth, please fell free to call me."

(Judging by his political cartoon on the subject, depicting a journalist pointing the loaded gun of CHL records at his own head, Register political cartoonist Don Lee seems to understand the public's sentiments on this subject far better than his editor)

The history of this fight goes back to late 2003, when then-Governor Bob Taft and the Republican controlled Ohio Legislature caved in to cries from the news media. An eleventh-hour modification to HB12, Ohio's original concealed carry law, allowed journalists access to the information to address their assertions of a need for "checks and balances". Far from being used for what the proponents claimed, the unpopular provision which became known as the media access loophole, was instead exploited by openly anti-gun editorial boards as a means of intimidation against gun owners.

The 126th General Assembly (2005-2006) saw several attempts to remove the media access loophole, which again received opposition from then-Governor Taft. The Ohio House of Representatives, in a 93-1 vote, sent House Bill 9, containing a provision which would have closed the loophole, to the Senate. In late December of 2006, however, Republicans in the Senate watered down the language addressing the loophole before sending the bill to Governor Taft.

At the time, the Buckeye Firearms Association website noted that passage of HB9 marked "the first attempt by the General Assembly to clarify its intent in giving journalists access to the records. [When the law becomes effective], the burden will be, as it has always been, on the media to honor the will of the General Assembly, and to prove they want the information only for the purposes they originally claimed (verifying training and background checks were being properly conducted), and not as a means of gaining access to foster a wholesale publishing of the list."

The Register's extensive coverage of Westerhold's decision to "out" law-abiding CHL-holders notes that Erie County Sheriff Terry Lyons filed a lawsuit earlier this year, contending the complexities of the statute made it impossible to lawfully provide the list of names to a journalist. The Register notes "that suit was shot down June 4, however, when Erie County Common Pleas Judge Tygh Tone ruled the law allowed for journalists to receive the information." Similar suits challenging the media access loophole from Sheriffs in other counties are pending.

During his gubernatorial campaign, Democrat Ted Strickland told voters he supported legislative efforts to close the loophole. Unlike his Republican predecessor, who reversed course on concealed carry after getting elected, Strickland told the Register he still believes these records should remain private.

From commentary written by Register editor Matt Westerhold:

Gov. Ted Strickland supports a secrecy provision in the state's concealed weapons law because he believes Ohioans are better off not knowing who or how many people are licensed to carry hidden guns.

Westerhold is flat-out lying when he asserts that current law prohibits knowledge on "how many people are licensed to carry", and certainly incorrect to suggest Governor Strickland "believes Ohioans are better off not knowing" same.

"Knowledge of who possesses a concealed carry permit may put permit holders at risk of theft attempts," according to a reply from Strickland's office to questions about the secrecy provision. "(It) may also put those who are not permit holders in greater danger because criminals could know they are not carrying a weapon to defend themselves."

State Rep. Chris Redfern, D-Catawba Island Twp., also supports the secrecy provision, saying there was no compelling reason the government should release the information.

"There is no reason to know who is a concealed carry holder and who is not in this state," Redfern said, adding that the secrecy provision has nothing to do with open government. "These are private citizens who've attended private training, passed background checks and received their permit."

Redfern, also chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party, said his support of the current law has nothing to do with politics or pressure from the gun lobby.

...Strickland and Redfern both said they are satisfied with the secrecy provision and do not intend to introduce legislation to repeal it.

The wording of the Register's story here is misleading. Strickland and Redfern were never in support of "current law" - the media access loophole passed in 2004 - Strickland spoke out against it and Redfern voted to reform it. What Strickland and Redfern are indicating is that they are interested in seeing how the modifications in HB9 work before moving for further changes. (The timing of the Register's data grab show that this was not a true test of the new loophole language passed in HB9.) [This paragraph has been updated to reflect the latest information.]

The Register offers nothing but snide commentary for Strickland and Redfern's refusal to agree with its position, saying "we know you're both too bright not to understand this, and we're very disappointed you don't have the courage to stand up and do the right thing."

But in "Gun advocates have praise for Strickland and Redfern", the Register quotes Ashley Varner, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association, as saying that both men are listening to their constituents.

The only reason the NRA has any power in Ohio is we have a lot of members who care about protecting their Second Amendment rights," she said.

Varner said newspapers that publish the names and county of residence of concealed handgun permit holders are putting innocent people at unnecessary risk.

"There are women who are hiding from abusive husbands or boyfriends," she said. "These are single women who may have been who may be afraid of stalkers, people who have been attacked previously and are threatened with repeat attacks."

"People with licenses are the most law-abiding citizens in our country," she said. "Less than 2 percent are involved in criminal activity. Criminals do not go through background checks to obtain guns."

The fallout from this action has barely begun, but it will no doubt be far-reaching. Already, subscribers are blogging on the Register's website about canceling subscriptions, and at least one local business, Windjammer Restaurant in Marblehead, has forced the Register to remove their paper machines from the premises because of this violation of privacy.

Source: http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3816.html

[geetrue]

Another reason to go over the state line for something ... it use to be alcohol.

Now it's a gun ... get your fngers off my gun.

[Heibges]

That's messed up. That guy is an idiot.

But in all fairness, the "Protected by Smith & Wesson" sign probably gave them away anyway.

[Reaves]

I can see it now,

Criminal 1: Hey Jim, we need to get an unregistered/stolen gun to whack this guy.
Criminal 2: Hey here's a list of people we can steal one from.

OK the chances of that happening are rather slim but my main point goes back to an occurance in Melbourne last week. 3 people were shot in the city by a member of the Hells Angels bikey gang leaving one dead. In Australia and Victoria in particular we have extremely strickt gun laws. Only sports shooters can have a pistol that is limited to 10 bullet clips. These people must be part of a sporting shooters association and participate regulary in events or their license will be void. Yet this guy had an ILLEGAL firearm and shot three people.

I'm not exactly a pro gun extremist, America is very lax in some states imo BUT we have 2 rifles and a shotty at my house and all I can say it is not the people with legal firearms who should be hounded. Criminals will always get illegal weapons as is proof from the events I previously mentioned. People talk of crimes of passion where a licensed gun owner shoots someone, well that happens WITHOUT guns i'm afraid.

This guy has breached peoples rite to privacy and he replies "Thank you for your thoughtful comments about your support for secrecy in government"??? Go get your tin hat you conspiracy knob, he is nothing but a moron.

[Heibges]

Originally Posted by Reaves

I can see it now,

Criminal 1: Hey Jim, we need to get an unregistered/stolen gun to whack this guy.
Criminal 2: Hey here's a list of people we can steal one from.

OK the chances of that happening are rather slim but my main point goes back to an occurance in Melbourne last week. 3 people were shot in the city by a member of the Hells Angels bikey gang leaving one dead. In Australia and Victoria in particular we have extremely strickt gun laws. Only sports shooters can have a pistol that is limited to 10 bullet clips. These people must be part of a sporting shooters association and participate regulary in events or their license will be void. Yet this guy had an ILLEGAL firearm and shot three people.

I'm not exactly a pro gun extremist, America is very lax in some states imo BUT we have 2 rifles and a shotty at my house and all I can say it is not the people with legal firearms who should be hounded. Criminals will always get illegal weapons as is proof from the events I previously mentioned. People talk of crimes of passion where a licensed gun owner shoots someone, well that happens WITHOUT guns i'm afraid.

This guy has breached peoples rite to privacy and he replies "Thank you for your thoughtful comments about your support for secrecy in government"??? Go get your tin hat you conspiracy knob, he is nothing but a moron.

A big part of the problem with gun violence in the United States is capitalism.

These small gun companies, making shoddy guns, who sell them on the basis of them being cheaper than your Smith & Wessons and Sturm Rugers, and are easily obtainable by criminals.

These cheap guns have flooded the market in mass numbers, are often resold because they have no real value like a nice gun will to its owner, and these are the guns you always hear the cops complaining about.

In gunowning families, once a gun comes in, it does not go out. It's like adopting a new baby.

[Reaves]

Originally Posted by Heibges

These cheap guns have flooded the market in mass numbers, are often resold because they have no real value like a nice gun will to its owner, and these are the guns you always hear the cops complaining about.

Cheap guns that are easily obtainable. I'd agree with the cops on that one.

[Heibges]

Originally Posted by Reaves

Cheap guns that are easily obtainable. I'd agree with the cops on that one.

Yep, and at pawnshops and gunshows too. I'm going to venture a guess that most gun owners buy just about every gun they own from the same local gunshop owner.

When they show us a punk carrying an $850 S&W automatic pistol on Law and Order, that's just not grounded in reality. I wonder if they charge the gun companies to have criminals use their guns, like they would Coke to have detectives drinking a.....Coke.

[Reaves]

Originally Posted by Heibges

When they show us a punk carrying an $850 S&W automatic pistol on Law and Order, that's just not grounded in reality. I wonder if they charge the gun companies to have criminals use their guns, like they would Coke to have detectives drinking a.....Coke.

:rotfl:
Sos did u's see dat mofo on csi with da P-38? I's juz GOTZ 2 pop sum caps wid it.

[Heibges]

Originally Posted by Reaves

:rotfl:
Sos did u's see dat mofo on csi with da P-38? I's juz GOTZ 2 pop sum caps wid it.

Have you seen "Jackie Brown"? There is a great scene at the beginning where Samual L. Jackson, who is a gun smuggler, is talking about how clients always want the gun they see in the movies.

[Tchocky]

Aye, but Ordell doesn't know what he's talking about

I don't buy the argument that he put those people in danger by producing this list, it looks like a list to stay away from. But I don't really understant why this was published. Unecessary, regardless of intent.

[Heibges]

Apparently, the list of folks with CFP's is legally obtainalbe?

[Puster Bill]

Originally Posted by Heibges

A big part of the problem with gun violence in the United States is capitalism.

These small gun companies, making shoddy guns, who sell them on the basis of them being cheaper than your Smith & Wessons and Sturm Rugers, and are easily obtainable by criminals.

These cheap guns have flooded the market in mass numbers, are often resold because they have no real value like a nice gun will to its owner, and these are the guns you always hear the cops complaining about.

In gunowning families, once a gun comes in, it does not go out. It's like adopting a new baby.

Wrong. Gun violence in the United States tracks almost exactly with where your ancestors came from.

Those of European descent (and by the way the most likely to own a gun), have homicide rates similar to that of Western Europe taken as a whole. Those of African descent (one of the least likely groups to own a gun) have the highest homicide rate.

I deduce, therefore, that homicide rates are cultural. It has nothing to do with the availability of cheap guns.

If you don't believe me, check for yourself. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have a nifty mortality tracking site here:
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html

Go ahead and check out the homicide rates for whites, blacks, hispanics, etc., and let us know what you find.

It also borders on classism and racism to blame the availability of those guns for the homicide rate in the US. Those guns are basically for the poor and disadvantaged, who shoulder the overwhelming majority of homicides. To deny them the ability to protect themselves legally, which is what legislation aimed at 'junk guns' is really about, is morally indefensible unless you deny ALL the ability to protect themselves (which is morally indefensible itself, but in a different way).


The racism part is at the root of all gun control in the US: No one talks about it, but really only the black population has a serious problem with homicide rates. So, making guns more expensive to obtain, or by making the requirements strict, you will restrict the number of black people who will own them (at least legally). Historically, laws against cheap firearms originated in the post Civil War south, as a way to prevent blacks who now had the theoretical right to own a gun from owning one. Arkansas is a perfect example: A law passed in 1881 forbade the carrying of any pistol or revolver except "any such pistol as used in the army
or navy of the United States". That meant Colt or Remington revolvers, which were generally too expensive for blacks to own. Rich whites could be armed, but poor blacks couldn't.

There was a massive change in the laws in the South after the 14th Amendment was passed, from laws that explicitly forbade blacks from owning guns, to those that while their language is race neutral, their effect is mainly against blacks. Those laws, and the court cases that arose out of them, are the basis for gun control in the United States today.

Oh, one last little historical tidbit: Do you know why 'junk guns' in the US are exclusively made in the US? Protectionism. Congress passed laws against the importation of inexpensive handguns at the behest of the gun industry, to protect their markets. That isn't capitalism.

[SUBMAN1]

THis guy just opened himself and his paper up to a lawsuit. If any tiny thing happens now that can be tied to them publishing this information, who do you think is going to be held liable?

Talk about shooting ones self in the foot! Dumb *ss!

At least the fallout will probably make this guy lose his job.

-S

[fatty]

Forgive my ignorance on the topic of firearm ownership, but isn't deterrence part of the point of owning a gun? From what I know about deterrence theory in warfare, clearly communicating your capability to back up your threats to your opponent is usually necessary for success. Doesn't it follow that a gun is most useful for keeping people out of your house if they know you have it?

I think it makes less sense to be stealing a gun from an armed man than to be stealing more profitable computers, televisions, and cameras from an unarmed man. But then again, we are talking about criminals here

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by fatty

Forgive my ignorance on the topic of firearm ownership, but isn't deterrence part of the point of owning a gun? From what I know about deterrence theory in warfare, clearly communicating your capability to back up your threats to your opponent is usually necessary for success. Doesn't it follow that a gun is most useful for keeping people out of your house if they know you have it?

I think it makes less sense to be stealing a gun from an armed man than to be stealing more profitable computers, televisions, and cameras from an unarmed man. But then again, we are talking about criminals here

Forgiven. It is best when one isn't sure or doesn't know in the event of armed conflict. Also, guns are far more valuable than most of the cheap electronics in most people houses. Guns never lose their value is why, and easily sold on any city street. Even UK's London has a thriving gun economy with handguns fetching upwards of 2000 pounds.

-S