ccw

[pokerace]

Are you people up to date on this info.

Weakened Concealed Handgun License Confidentiality Bill Moves

to the Senate Judiciary Committee

Please Contact State Senator Floyd Prozanski!



Last week, the Oregon House passed a weakened version of House Bill 2727, a bill which had started out as NRA-backed Concealed Handgun License confidentiality legislation that exempted records of CHL applicants and licensees from public disclosure.



The House Judiciary Committee amended the measure to allow those records to be released under court order, or if the sheriff of the county where the records are maintained is presented "clear and convincing evidence" that disclosure would be in the public interest. NRA-ILA will continue working to improve the language of the bill and bring it back closer to its original intent. The bill now moves to the Senate Judiciary Committee.



Please contact committee chairman State Senator Floyd Prozanski (D-4) at 503-986-1704 or [email protected] and urge him to amend HB 2727 to offer greater privacy protection for CHL applicants and licensees.

Read More

 

[tionico]

bumping to front.... this one is serious. Privacy for CHL holders is a MUST.... if I were an Oregon resident I'd be calling this guy and staking my claim.....

 

[Gunner3456]

I dunno what's best. Right now some think that ccw permit info is public info and the Medford Mail Tribune sued for the list under the open records law. The Jackson County Sheriff refused, and that case hasn't been decided yet.

This law is to stop that court case, as I understand, and make the records private.

I'm not sure why a judge couldn't cause a record to be released or a sheriff for that matter "if there's a compelling reason."

It's a lot better than what we have now.

I would like to at least have them define "compelling reason" because I don't always trust people's judgment.

$.02

 

[tionico]

I'm not sure why a judge couldn't cause a record to be released or a sheriff for that matter "if there's a compelling reason."

It's a lot better than what we have now.

I would like to at least have them define "compelling reason" because I don't always trust people's judgment.


now THERE'S the rub...... WHO defines "compelling reason" and on what standards? Which is why this new law still retains a serious element of danger. I can see some liberal sheriff deciding that the "public have a right to know... after all, aren't those gun totin characters a lot like the registered sex offenders? Its for the safety of the citizens.....". I believe that would come close to the "logic" (pardon an ill use of the term) of the local newspaper wanting the records. My hat's off to the sheriff refusing to release sensitive private information. And I hope anyone here living in Jackson County has ended their subscription to the Mail Tribune, and told them why....... Medford used to be a fairly redneck/logger town, such that the outcry against that paper for trying such a move would have been deafening twenty years back....

 

[Gunner3456]

I'm not sure why a judge couldn't cause a record to be released or a sheriff for that matter "if there's a compelling reason."

It's a lot better than what we have now.

I would like to at least have them define "compelling reason" because I don't always trust people's judgment.


now THERE'S the rub...... WHO defines "compelling reason" and on what standards? Which is why this new law still retains a serious element of danger. I can see some liberal sheriff deciding that the "public have a right to know... after all, aren't those gun totin characters a lot like the registered sex offenders? Its for the safety of the citizens.....". I believe that would come close to the "logic" (pardon an ill use of the term) of the local newspaper wanting the records. My hat's off to the sheriff refusing to release sensitive private information. And I hope anyone here living in Jackson County has ended their subscription to the Mail Tribune, and told them why....... Medford used to be a fairly redneck/logger town, such that the outcry against that paper for trying such a move would have been deafening twenty years back....

Yeah, I agree wholly. The only reason I didn't cancel my subscription to the Mail Tribune is because our pets need a fresh supply of paper regularly to poop and pee on.

 

[JumpWing]

What exactly is the benefit of publicly disclosing these records?

 

[Gunner3456]

What exactly is the benefit of publicly disclosing these records?

Well, our sheriff told the Mail Tribune to shove it and it's in court, so obviously he saw no benefit.

His actual reply was to the effect that it would put the ccw people in danger by revealing who has guns.

Gotta like his stance there...

 

[darkminstrel]

Well, our sheriff told the Mail Tribune to shove it and it's in court, so obviously he saw no benefit.

His actual reply was to the effect that it would put the ccw people in danger by revealing who has guns.

Gotta like his stance there...

That right there is the reason it should be confidential. Want to keep illegally owned weapons off the street? Don't tell the frakking criminals where to steal them from!