Today on our show we spoke with Rep. Kim Thatcher (R) Keizer, about House Bill 2727 which would allow only county sheriffs to reveal the personal information of those with concealed weapons permits. She has fought very hard for gun owner's rights and now the Eugene Register Guard has challenged the bill before it has even gotten out of the Legislature.
This past week, reporter, Jack Moran, requested ALL permit holder's private records for a story he would run.
The Lane County Sheriff: Russel Burger said "NO".
Here is a copy of his letter to the reporter:
Lane County Sheriff’s Office
Russel E. Burger, Sheriff
June 12, 2009
Jack Moran
Register Guard
3500 Chad Drive Eugene OR 97408
RE: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST OF MAY 28, 2009
Dear Mr. Moran: I am in receipt of your email requesting public records, specifically a list of all concealed handgun license holders in Lane County. We have the records you are requesting.
Earlier this year I sent a letter to all concealed handgun license holders in Lane County, asking if they wanted their personal information released to the public. A copy of that letter has been provided to the Register Guard.
A few individuals responded stating that they did not want their information to be confidential; and, I will provide copies of those responses. The vast majority of concealed handgun license holders responded that they obtained a concealed handgun license as a personal security measure and they do not want their personal information disclosed.
Regarding those responses, I am denying your request pursuant to ORS 192.501(23). The names and addresses of license holders that stated they obtained a concealed handgun license as a security measure are exempt from disclosure. I am also denying the request under ORS 192.502(2) since the release of that information would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy; and, ORS 192.502(4) as a confidential submission that is not otherwise required to be submitted.
If you are interested in obtaining a redacted copy of those responses, with the names and addresses removed, we are able to provide that to you. Those responses asking for confidentiality, numbering approximately 8,923, were sent to this office both electronically and by mail. In order to provide that redacted information, we estimate it will take approximately 80 hours of staff time, in addition to photocopying charges; and approximately 5 hours of time for our information services department to redact and provide the electronic information.
I do not believe that the public interest would be served by redacting and providing this information, since the remaining information is a simple yes or no response to two questions posed in our letter. Because of that, we will not waive the fees associated with providing a redacted copy of these records.
If you wish to obtain a redacted copy of these records, please send a written request and I will provide you an estimated cost. Upon receipt and approval by you of that estimated amount, we will provide the redacted records.
Sincerely,
Russel E. Burger Sheriff
cc: T. Turner - Undersheriff
Lane County Counsel
125 E. 8th Avenue ∙ Eugene, OR 97401 ∙ Phone: (541) 682-4150 ∙ Fax: (541) 682-3309 ∙ www.lanesheriff.org
I think the Register-Guard's actions really speak for themselves to the necessity of a comprehensive and uncompromising CHL privacy bill. There WAS such a bill, HR 2727, which passed the House by a huge bipartisan margin. Unfortunately, this bill has been held up in the Oregon Senate by those opposed to gun rights on principle. Thankfully, this sheriff has stood up for and been proactive in ascertaining the privacy desires of CHL holders and honoring the nearly 9,000 responses in favor of complete privacy.
But the fact remains that under the current laws in Oregon, he didn't have to. He could as easily have justified selling Lane County's responsible gun owners down the river.
PLEASE contact your State senators and demand that they follow the Oregon House in protecting us from these fishing expeditions and intrusions which, while doing nothing to prevent crime, punish those who seek to comply with the law.
2 comments:
What if those needed to be provided under the guise of national security? Are we not respecting privacy rights in some instances but absolutely in others? Nice double standard for a change.
You need think about it. Despite the emails, the overwhelming evidence showing global warming is happening hasn't changed.
"The e-mails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus . . . that tells us the Earth is warming, that warming is largely a result of human activity," Jane Lubchenco, who heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told a House committee. She said that the e-mails don't cover data from NOAA and NASA, whose independent climate records show dramatic warming.
Post a Comment