Medford Newspaper Sues To Get Names Of Gun Owners

[brien]

This is an interesting development in Medford Oregon with regard to the ownership of firearms.


Oregon Firearms Federation

MEDFORD NEWSPAPER SUES TO GET NAMES OF GUN OWNERS

As you may have heard, the Medford Mail Tribune has sued to get the names of concealed handgun license holders. This action was taken as a result of the lawsuit brought by a Medford teacher against the Medford school district. As you know, teacher Shirley Katz was suing to be allowed to carry her defensive firearm to work at Medford High School. The Mail Tribune, which has repeatedly editorialized that licensed, trained adults should NOT be allowed to carry firearms on school property, believes that one of the ways to promote its anti-gun agenda is to intimidate gun owners by demanding that the Sheriff turn over the names of license holders. What possible purpose this would serve, beyond invading the privacy of the most law abiding residents of Oregon, remains a mystery. But the Tribune's Editor, Bob Hunter is determined to proceed. Jackson County Sheriff Mike WInters has so far refused, correctly pointing out the dangers this would present. “We were reluctant to hand over the names because we don’t want to make it easier for anybody who would use the information for harm in terms of credit card fraud or identity theft." Winters said. Editor Bob Hunter believes that he has the right to those names for whatever purpose he chooses to use them. "This is information bought and paid for by the public, and the public has a right to it.” But of course, that's not true. The public did not buy and pay for this information. The information was paid for by the fees license holders are forced to pay to exercise a "right." But Bob goes on “It’s important for news media to take a stand on something like this because if public information is withheld in this way it will diminish the amount of public information the public is allowed to see,” The truth is, whether it is legal for the press to obtain these names or not, (and attorneys have recently informed us it may NOT be legal) the only purpose being served is to chill the rights of gun owners. It would be no different if we published the home addresses and phone numbers of Tribune staff and hid behind the First Amendment. (Which we will do if they continue this senseless exercise.) While the Sheriff should be applauded for his efforts to protect license holders,Bob Hunter and the Mail Tribune and its advertisers should know that it's wrong to promote their anti self-defense crusade by threatening the privacy of gun owners. You can contact Hunter by e-mail here bhunter@mailtribune.com or by regular mail and phone here: Mail Tribune P.O. Box 1108 111 N. Fir St. Medford, OR 97501 541-776-4411

So, should the newspaper be allowed to publish the names of permit holders or do those permit holders have a "right to privacy" that should be protected by the government that isssues the firearms permits? Also, do you see this as a dilberate attempt by the newpaper to promote intimidation upon permit holders and single them out for either ridicule or harrassment from non firearms holding citizens?

Personally, I could care less who knows I have firearms and permit to carry a concealed firearm. As long as they don't know when I am carrying, doesn't bother me.

[Keith Hamburger]

Just another reason why it is wrong to require a permit to own or carry a firearm. If a list of names could be used against someone, in any way, for exercising their rights, that list should never exist.

We have to thank the NRA for giving in to various gun regulations throughout the years for this sort of development.

Keith

[Milton Bradley]

I agree with Keith, there should never even be a list.


This part got my attention...

But Bob goes on "It's important for news media to take a stand on something like this because if public information is withheld in this way it will diminish the amount of public information the public is allowed to see"

Yeah, "the news has to take a stand on something", other than the government, or manufactured news, or the big corporations.


This is a blatant example of Liberal bias in the media if you ask me. Demonize the gun owners, because their the real problem in society. :rolleyes:

[Osborn F Enready]

Another person chiming in with Keith....

Also, that was well said Milton.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention Brien.

[brien]

Thanks guys. I am somewhat surprised no one has raised the issue of her lawsuit suing the school system so she is allowed to carry in school b/c she fears for her safety from her estranged husband.

If the husband should show up at the school looking to hurt, or even kill her, just what is the school's plan to protect her? Call the cops???

[Osborn F Enready]

They will probably call the cops, if their lucky, and nobody is dead by then.

[Autolykos]

I'd like to present a related hypothetical situation.

Let's say we lived in a society with no State. In this example, the school in question would be a private organization. The Sheriff's Office would be replaced by multiple insurance providers. Of course, the newspaper would still be privately owned.

So instead of the newspaper suing the Sheriff's Office, it would have to... what? Ask the insurance providers for the names of their clients with concealed-carry permits*. There could be no hope for a lawsuit, since there would be no law in the traditional sense. Could the newspaper appeal to any other agency? Not directly, I think. From what I see, withholding the names of internally-licensed concealed-carriers does not entail fraud, theft, destruction of property, assault, rape, murder, or anything else that I consider malum se.** The only chance the newspaper would have is if it had a full-disclosure contract with every insurance provider in question. I think such a proposition would be unlikely, to say the least.

Where does that leave us? Essentially, in an anarchist society, the newspaper would be unable to (nonviolently) extract the names of concealed-carriers from their respective insurance providers. All it could do is resort to moral proclamations against concealed-carry.

Even in a statist society (i.e. a society with any form of State), the grounds for such a lawsuit would likely be nonsense. What harm is the Sheriff's Office doing against the newspaper? It seems unlikely that the newspaper, as a private organization, could legally represent "the public" more than the Sheriff's Office can. Therefore, I'm at a loss to explain the legal grounds for the newspaper's lawsuit in reality.

- Rob


* I am assuming that such permits would exist with the insurance providers for full-disclosure purposes.

** Latin for "bad in itself". In legal theory, this is opposed to malum prohibitum, "bad by fiat".

[brien]

Where does that leave us?

It leaves us with the fact that the newspaper has no more ground(s) than you or I to obtain these names.

I can't think of one legal reason for the newspaper to lay claim to this information.

[adam10312]

That guy Bob said: "if public information is withheld in this way it will diminish the amount of public information the public is allowed to see".

This is just funny. If public information was not public information than public information would not be public information. That is what he said. What he should be doing is explaining how that list is public information.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: brien It leaves us with the fact that the newspaper has no more ground(s) than you or I to obtain these names. I can't think of one legal reason for the newspaper to lay claim to this information.

Newspapers, and other media outlets, however, feel that they have an absolute right to any information they want. Their belief is that the press can report on anything and anyone at any time and that no one has the right to withhold anything from them.

[Winter wind]

This is not an uncommon way of getting around the right to "free association"
While it is my stance that guns should not be handed out to the average citizen, I don't like the precedent this sets. What if someone then sues to see the membership of something like a LBGT group. There was a law in the 1950s or 1960s that was struck down as unconstitutional to force "terrorist groups" such as the AFL-CIO to turn over membership records.

However, the government still should have this data, if only because it helps with crime fighting.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Winter wind This is not an uncommon way of getting around the right to "free association" While it is my stance that guns should not be handed out to the average citizen, I don't like the precedent this sets. What if someone then sues to see the membership of something like a LBGT group. There was a law in the 1950s or 1960s that was struck down as unconstitutional to force "terrorist groups" such as the AFL-CIO to turn over membership records. However, the government still should have this data, if only because it helps with crime fighting.

The media idiots are not the government and there is no valid reason for the government to have this data unless law enforcement is investigating a particular case and they get a warrant from a judge (based on probable cause related specifically to the person or group being investigated).

[Winter wind]

Some body of data about guns should always be available to law enforcement without the need for a judge. If you know it was XXX weapon sold by XXX shop, the law enforcement should not have to wait for a judge to give a warrant.
Plus, what could the government do with the information that would be bad? they know you have a gun? so?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Winter wind Some body of data about guns should always be available to law enforcement without the need for a judge.

Why?

If you know it was XXX weapon sold by XXX shop, the law enforcement should not have to wait for a judge to give a warrant.

Why? It's none of their damned business what business sold which weapons to whom - unless it is directly relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation AND they get a warrant!

Plus, what could the government do with the information that would be bad? they know you have a gun? so?

The government is not to be trusted! What could they do? When you unamerican leftitsts finally get your gun bans passed, the government could storm gun owners' homes and confiscate the guns.

If you want a police state, go live in Cuba!

[Winter wind]

The government is not to be trusted! What could they do? When you unamerican leftitsts finally get your gun bans passed, the government could storm gun owners' homes and confiscate the guns.

Yah, cause giving information to the government means that the Bill of Rights is tossed out the window. The government won't do that, I'm absolutely sure. Because if they did, the outcry would be enormous. They wouldn't dare, politicians aren't that dumb.

Why? It's none of their damned business what business sold which weapons to whom - unless it is directly relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation AND they get a warrant!

The warrant takes time, and in law enforcement, time is something that is very critical. Its the bureaucracy I'm trying to eliminate.

Oh and I live in Hong Kong where having a gun will get you a long prison sentence and in China (mainland) a gun will get you the death penalty. I don't know if this is related but Hong Kong has a much lower crime rate per capita. Same with Japan.

[brien]

Their belief is that the press can report on anything and anyone at any time and that no one has the right to withhold anything from them

.

They may think this, but the truth is if someone wishes to withold information from them, the newspaper can go screw themselves.

[brien]

Oh and I live in Hong Kong where having a gun will get you a long prison sentence and in China (mainland) a gun will get you the death penalty. I don't know if this is related but Hong Kong has a much lower crime rate per capita. Same with Japan.

So, you are stating that even with the DP as a consequence for having a firearm, people still use them, correct? So the consequence of the penalty therefore, has nothing to do with the crime, correct? Otherwise, there would be no gun crime at all.

It is the certainty of getting caught in a crime that will discourage the crime, not the penalty.

As for strict gun control in China or Japan, only two groups have guns, police / military and criminals. I feel sorry for the citizens left with no immediate protection for themselves.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Winter wind Yah, cause giving information to the government means that the Bill of Rights is tossed out the window. The government won't do that, I'm absolutely sure. Because if they did, the outcry would be enormous. They wouldn't dare, politicians aren't that dumb.

The government has already thrown out bits and pieces of the Bill of RIghts with the Patriot Act.

The warrant takes time, and in law enforcement, time is something that is very critical. Its the bureaucracy I'm trying to eliminate.

Too bad! The rights of citizens outweigh the alleged "needs" of law enforcement.

Oh and I live in Hong Kong where having a gun will get you a long prison sentence and in China (mainland) a gun will get you the death penalty. I don't know if this is related but Hong Kong has a much lower crime rate per capita. Same with Japan.

There is no evidence that the second amendment to the American Constitution results in higher crime rates. Besides, if you make guns illegal and someone wants a gun bad enough he's going to find a way to get it.

[brien]

The government has already thrown out bits and pieces of the Bill of RIghts

Bill of Rights, Void where Prohibited by Law.

Besides, if you make guns illegal and someone wants a gun bad enough he's going to find a way to get it.

There are over 200 million legal firearms in this nation. If the government made them all illegal in one fell swoop, I can't imagine the consequences. Anyone who thinks this can happen, isn't familiar with the Volstead Act and the consequences of the 18th Amendment.

[Osborn F Enready]

Brien, Chancellor, just so you know, WinterWind is from China and has no concept of individual rights.