SHERIFF WANTS HOLDERS OF CONCEALED WEAPON PERMITS TO REMAIN PRIVATE

[DaveM55]

http://www.newswithviews.com/Gilbertson/gil102.htm

By Sheriff Gil Gilbertson
November 29, 2008

NewsWithViews.com

This Sheriff strongly believes in the Constitution and specifically the Second Amendment * the right to bear arms. I must also stress the importance to those who choose to use weapons * they do so in a responsible and safe manner.

Many of you may, or may not, have heard of a state-wide effort to disclose the names, addresses and other identifying information of licensed concealed handgun holders, which includes you.

This issue first arose in Jackson County when a Medford newspaper (Mail Tribune) requested a list of all concealed handgun license holders, in 2007. Jackson County Sheriff Michael Winters refused the request, citing a statute about the compromise of personal "security measures."

The Court ordered Jackson County Sheriff to provide the list of information about Jackson County CHL holders to the local newspaper. The Court stated there was no evidence that people get a CHL as a security measure. The case is currently on appeal to the Oregon Court of Appeals.

In short, the media (and other groups) are demanding that Sheriffs disclose your identity. The question becomes who really needs to know, and why? Is this just the media flexing their muscles? Once this information is exposed, what nefarious consequences can you anticipate? Identity theft is yet another succeeding concern to this needless exposure.

I do not know this to be true in every case, but I believe people seeking out and acquiring concealed handgun licenses do so for their security whether for business, personal, or family safety. In any case, I also assume they do not wish that information to become public. This is only an assumption on my part, which brings us to the purpose of this article.

I believe most, if not all, of you that obtained your CHL (Concealed Handgun License) did so as a security measure, and that you would not want everyone in the State to have your personal information * I am asking that you contact the Civil Division of the Josephine County Sheriff Office to advise us on your position in this matter.

Depending on the outcome of the Appellate Court ruling, your personal information could become public.

As your Sheriff, I will do everything within my power to protect your privacy and maintain all rights and privileges secured by the Constitution, and laws. It is therefore important you inform us of your choice as soon as possible.

[General Geoff]

...this news article is about Oregon...

[headcase]

Good post but that is in Oregon. In Pa. we have very specific statutory protection against disseminating our LTCF info....

[Evolution]

lol yea... i was thinking the same thing.

[jahwarrior72]

...this news article is about Oregon...

Good post but that is in Oregon.

i think the location is irrelevant. it's important to know that this is happening, no matter where it is. we may have laws to prevent this in PA, but have our laws stopped local municipalities from breaking the law, by making up their own? i think the problems we're currently having with preemption violations in city and county parks, and different cities passing new stolen gun laws, should be proof enough for all of you.

all it would take is one idiot councilman to read the original article, and think to himself, "gee, that idea sounds most excellent," to get the ball rolling here in PA. they'd try and do an end run around the law; do you think someone like Sheriff Deleo would protest the move? i think not. he's already proven that he holds the law in low regard. or how about Councilwoman Tonya Payne in Pittsburgh?

"Who really cares about it being unconstitutional?"

was her response to the illegality of the stolen gun law they want to pass in the city.

yeah, this happened in Oregon. it can happen here, too, if we're not careful.

[General Geoff]

i think the problems we're currently having with preemption violations in city and county parks, and different cities passing new stolen gun laws, should be proof enough for all of you.

They've yet to really be an actual problem, considering none of them have been successfully enforced before/without the laws being struck down as invalid.

[headcase]

Originally Posted by jahwarrior72

i think the location is irrelevant. it's important to know that this is happening, no matter where it is. we may have laws to prevent this in PA, but have our laws stopped local municipalities from breaking the law, by making up their own? i think the problems we're currently having with preemption violations in city and county parks, and different cities passing new stolen gun laws, should be proof enough for all of you.

all it would take is one idiot councilman to read the original article, and think to himself, "gee, that idea sounds most excellent," to get the ball rolling here in PA. they'd try and do an end run around the law; do you think someone like Sheriff Deleo would protest the move? i think not. he's already proven that he holds the law in low regard. or how about Councilwoman Tonya Payne in Pittsburgh? was her response to the illegality of the stolen gun law they want to pass in the city.

yeah, this happened in Oregon. it can happen here, too, if we're not careful.

I get your point, but remember, the statutes that relate to giving out the information on a LTCF application carry penalties, preemption violations do not....

[nepawolf]

Originally Posted by jahwarrior72

yeah, this happened in Oregon. it can happen here, too, if we're not careful.

Very true, remember that places like California don't allow more than 10 rounds in a mag or a 50 cal and even if we don't own a 50 cal or more than a 10 round mag I'm pretty sure we all are worried about regulations like that. We've got alot of people (at least here in the northeastern section of the state) coming from NY and NJ just because they like the scenery that don't like our "lax" gun laws. I moved out of NY to get away from their laws like that. A few years ago you could smoke almost anywhere (even a mall if that was OK by their rules) and not too long ago we got a smoking ban. Just because it happens elsewhere doesn't mean it can't happen here, especially if it's successful.

[nepawolf]

Also, if they make it a federal law, local or state statues and laws will mean nothing. Remember the Clinton gun ban.

[gprimr1]

I def don't want my address being known, but my car's bumper is a strong indicator that I'm carrying.

I have my Democrats for Gun Rights, and Pro-CCW Democrat stickers.