Medford Mail Tribune Sues for Concealed Carry List (Updated)

Submitted by LynnS on Thu, 10/18/2007 - 3:06pm.

Over at Editor & Publisher we learn the Medford Mail Tribune is suing the Jackson County Sheriff. It wants a copy of the county's concealed carry list:

The paper is trying to learn how many teachers hold such licenses.

The issue arose out of other another suit, in which a high school teacher challenged the Medford School District's ban on employees bringing guns on school property. The Mail Tribune has looked into the matter as a school security issue.

Responsible for the handgun license list, Sheriff Winters denied a request, first made over a month ago, for the list, citing reasons of privacy and safety, according to an account in yesterday's Mail Tribune. Calling the list a public record, the newspaper maintains that refusal to disclose it is illegal, adding that other sheriffs' offices have turned over such documents.

Reporter Paris Achen quoted Editor Bob Hunter as saying, "This is information bought and paid for by the public, and the public has a right to it."

The Mail Trib points out in its suit that WWeek and the O have gotten similar records from Multnomah County. The paper also says it has no intention of publishing the list.

Update: If I'd been paying more attention to my RSS feeds I'd know that Nick Budnick had this over at OGRE two days ago and points to Paris Achen's original story at the MailTrib.

Submitted by Tv_Viewer on Thu, 10/18/2007 - 4:22pm.

Quick question: if the paper isn't going to publish the list then why do they need it? The statement that they want it but aren't going to publish begs the question: What the heck are they going to do with it.

Submitted by Anonymous Source (not verified) on Thu, 10/18/2007 - 4:39pm.

Ahhh, maybe what the first SENTENCE of the post indicated:

"The paper is trying to learn how many teachers hold such licenses."

Sweet Chocolate Jesus, when did folks stop reading??????

SCJ

Submitted by Tv_Viewer on Thu, 10/18/2007 - 8:45pm.

I didn't stop reading. I wanted to know why the paper wanted the info if they aren't going to publish the names. If they wanted to know how many teachers have permits why don't they just ask that question rather than asking for a list of names.

Submitted by Anonymous Source (not verified) on Thu, 10/18/2007 - 7:09pm.

The reporter will write a story saying "X" number of teachers have concealed carry permits.. It just won't publish the actual names of the teachers. I think that's reasonable. The story gives the public some useful information without violating the privacy of the teachers.

Submitted by mek42 (not verified) on Thu, 10/18/2007 - 5:56pm.

"The paper is trying to learn how many teachers hold such licenses."

Then why not use FOIA to ask for the number of permits that give Occupation: Teacher and the total number of permits?

Submitted by LynnS on Thu, 10/18/2007 - 7:11pm.

But apparently it wouldn't be the Medford Mail Tribune Way.

Though to be fair, FOIA requests these days are anything but easy.

-----
Lynn Siprelle * Fairy Blogmother

Submitted by Anonymous Source (not verified) on Fri, 10/19/2007 - 10:21am.

LynnS wrote:
But apparently it wouldn't be the Medford Mail Tribune Way.

Though to be fair, FOIA requests these days are anything but easy.

-----
Lynn Siprelle * Fairy Blogmother

The so-called "easy way" wouldn't be the Oregon public records law way. Despite the best efforts of some members of the state legislature to water the law down, it still doesn't allow public officials to pick and choose what they release, or to whom they release it.

(Yes, FOIA requests are difficult these days, but Oregon's laws apply in this case, and they are designed to make all records completely open unless they fall under a still-limited range of exceptions.)

Submitted by LynnS on Fri, 10/19/2007 - 12:01pm.

I don't pretend to know anything about public records law. I was just being snarky. *hangs head, scuffs dirt with toe* sorry...sniffle...

-----
Lynn Siprelle * Fairy Blogmother

Submitted by Anonymous Source (not verified) on Sat, 10/20/2007 - 9:09am.

LynnS wrote:
I don't pretend to know anything about public records law. I was just being snarky. *hangs head, scuffs dirt with toe* sorry...sniffle...

Yeah, well, that's okay. The comment wasn't so much directed at the former Ms. Useful/Cool (yes, this insider's fond memories go back to the days of Unix, command lines, et. al.) as it was the overall tone of the thread. I mean, crap, here are supposed media insiders utterly failing (at least judging from the general tenor of their comments) to recognize how broadly open our state's public records law is by its very design.

Folks COULD disagree with the law, but it seems to me that there should be an implicit recognition that the law doesn't choose to whom or for what reason public records should be released; it only recognizes that they are open. Anything less (and the federal FOIA is nothing if not less than Oregon's sunshine laws) would be to suggest that the State should be able to keep secret things the People haven't chosen to keep secret.

Okay, yeah, a bit of a rant.

Submitted by LynnS on Sat, 10/20/2007 - 10:25am.

Useful/Cool? Not many people remember that. :) And the days of the command line live on! Live on, I tell you! All hail the MacOS Terminal window! ;)

On public records law: The aforementioned OGRE project is a great one to learn about/keep an eye on this stuff. I highly recommend that j-people keep up with it, better than I have.

-----
Lynn Siprelle * Fairy Blogmother

Submitted by Sean (not verified) on Fri, 10/19/2007 - 1:36pm.

The ease of the Freedom of Information Act may depend on what your intentions are and what kind of information you're looking for. I've used the FOIA multiple times to get genealogy information from the FBI and National Archives. As long as I give them enough clues to find the information, I don't have any troubles.

The only down side has been it takes about a month to get a reply.

Submitted by hasbeen reporter (not verified) on Thu, 10/18/2007 - 7:50pm.

and he seemed uncharacteristically torn on where he stands yesterday. he dug into public records a lot as a reporter, of course, and is not shy about his own hip adornment.
there are lots of legit reasons for the list to be public, including a chance to see if the sheriff is doing a good job in running the permit system. So the sheriff could -- stress could cause I know nothing about it -- be protecting his own office, not the gun toters. i think that clinches the argument on the side of public release despite the problems with it.

Submitted by answer (not verified) on Thu, 10/18/2007 - 8:17pm.

The editor today said it was because the sheriff shouldn't be able to pick and choose what public documents to release. That is not his right. The document is the property of the public and the newspaper is trying to uphold that right. Good for them.

Submitted by Anonymous Source (not verified) on Fri, 10/19/2007 - 1:23am.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.moz...

same link, but shorter:

http://tinyurl.com/29rlpt

For the real fun, be sure to click on the "Post to the message board" link about halfway down the page.

Submitted by Anonymous Source (not verified) on Fri, 10/19/2007 - 1:25am.

Oops...on previous comment, I should have noted that the "Post your thoughts" thing I mentioned is part of the first result in the Google search I linked. Crap, now it's all confusing...

Submitted by Anonymous Source (not verified) on Fri, 10/19/2007 - 10:22am.

But still I disagree with the paper (or anyone) having that list of names:

Permit holders aren't asked what they do for a living as part of the relationship with the County that issues the licenses - so the paper needs the names to compare them to the public list of teachers.

Remember that criminals FEAR permit holders that MAY be present in a public environment. When criminals know who or that no persons present are carrying, the advantage goes to the criminal.

I can count on one hand the number of people who actually know enough about this topic to discuss it intelligently. Perhaps we can find a couple here at OMI.

Submitted by Anonymous Source (not verified) on Fri, 10/19/2007 - 11:09am.

This journalism teacher thinks the Medford paper has more integrity than WillyWeek for not publishing worthless news of who carries legal guns legally.

What's next WW? Beth? Which teachers have MM cards?

That'd be fun.

And, perhaps the last thing WW ever prints.

Submitted by Rick up North (not verified) on Thu, 05/29/2008 - 6:20pm.

I was just looking through this thread and am really interested to see what happened to this request. Is anyone still following it?

Though it appears legal to request such information, one (me) wonders what useful end can result.

Students and parents get to know which teachers have permits, but still don't know who is carrying? So what happens then? Require teachers to swear oath not to carry in school?

Potential criminals review list to determine who not to confront?

Addresses posted lead to protests or vandalism from anti-gun folks?

I think this goes to the moral strength of the Medford paper. Just because they CAN do this does not mean they SHOULD. With power should come responsibility.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.
  • Voting controls can be added to this post.
  • Web and e-mail addresses are automatically converted into links.
More information about formatting options