Bloggers stand up to Ohio Newspaper over CCW

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Publicola

Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2003
Messages
226
Location
Colorado
In the nasty & excruciatingly long CCW law that Ohio just passed there's a provision for journalist to gain access to information about individual CCW permit holders.

An Ohio newspaper - the Cleveland Plain Dealer - has promised to publish this info as soon as it gets it & urges other papers to do the same.

KeepAndBearArms.com has promised to post the personal info of every staff member it can find at any paper who does so.

Ravenwood, The Smallest Minority & myself (among others) have decided a shot across the bow is appropriate, so we've published the info of the Editor of the Cleveland Plain Dealer on our respective blogs.

Hit the links below to find out all the specifics, including links to the text of the law itself (139 pages) & the statements made by the Cleveland Plain Dealer about publishing CCW permit holders' info.

http://www.ravnwood.com/archives/002587.shtml#002587

http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2004_01_04_smallestminority_archive.html#107376426961164200

http://publicola.blogspot.com/2004_01_11_publicola_archive.html#107383340554450302
 
We in Ohio probably are getting screwed to some degree regarding the media involvement in this new CCW bill. And when I read it I was pissed. But since I know the media runs this country, I understood why. And watch the lawyers get involved somehow with their greedy, slimmy, cold, crooked hands. Show them a flaw in the law and they say, SHOW ME THE MONEY!
 
Sent an e-mail. Talk about "sore losers" (Cleveland Plain Dealer).

Read all the firearms blogs I can, including yours and the other two. Keep up the good work!
 
Hearing "media" scream in protest, at the publication, on an open forum, of personal data dealing with their staff people and or editors, would not surprise me in the least.

It's a case of "whose ox was being gored", or perhaps "what goes around, comes around". Of course, there is always,"do as we say, not as we do".

Let's see those oxen gored, those "sacred cows" led to the slaughter house, it cannot happen to soon, from where I sit.
 
I wrote the editor of the Plain Dealer and he sent me a reply that said the reason they are going to publish the information is because they believe it is inequitable that only journalists are allowed to see the information and that if the "media" can get to it, then the whole citizenry should be able too.
I replied saying that the debate about whether it should be public information aside (it shouldn't) that the paper's actions would be taken as an attack against lawful permit holders.
BSR
 
BowStreetRunner:

Re your post, "media" should not be able to avail itself of a listing of Permit Holders. As for the rest of it, the comment from The Plain Dealer, firstly, assuming that you had an actual response from the editor, I suspect that that was somewhat unusual. Secondly, it just goes to show their two-facedness, which of and in itself, should be nothing new.
 
I'm half leaning towards an idea put forward in another thread on this....

Get a group together to buy add space in a competing paper. Maybe a 1/8 or 1/4 page in a slow issue? Every week or so, put in a little profile...

A nice smiling headshot, Dr so & so, active in Kiwanis, Rotary, and the 50BMG Shooters Society, wife, 2.3 kids, 2 dogs and a cat, an upstanding member of the community, a good neighbor, and CCW permit holder.

Plain but attractive face, Ms. lastname. single mom, 1 kid. Active in PTA, works full time to support her kid, volunteers at the animal shelter on weekends. Good and loyal person, a good neighbor, and CCW permit holder.

I think you get the idea. They would have to be really careful just how much personal info about whom they put out there, but it could definitely send a message.
 
alan,

i wouldnt doubt that the reply was from an assistent or even some form reply they set up to deal with all the complaints about the issue

I told him I thought the data shouldnt be available in the first place

I guess thats why we can't fathom them doing this, they think that CCW permit info should be available for EVERYONE about EVERYONE

:::::::are you a convicted felon? why yes! well step on up and see who carries a gun and who doesn't!:::::::
 
Amish_Bill:

Sounds like an interesting idea, if you could get the people involved to go along. By the way, I would make absolutely certain that I had permission from the involved individuals, in writing, before I caused ANYTHING ABOUT AN INDIVIDUAL to be published
 
What is a blog ?

Whatever it is, I love the idea.
Keep up the good work.
It is high time we started going on the offense.
 
blog = weB LOG

Which are pretty much any free form postings on a website, as opposed to a bulletin board where there are topics posted and responses.


I think the whole board of the paper and editorial staff are "musts" for posting. The ordinary reporters/columnists can always be done latter. It is those in charge who must have their noses rubbed in it.

Ordinarily, I think death threats are bad form (illegal to boot), but I kinda think that anyone who sends these clowns a few will make them crap down their legs when they know their info is out there for the world to see. Let them see how it feels when they know any nut could single them out.

Another issue no one has mentioned is domestic violence or previous crime victims. What happens to the rape victim or battered wife who gets a permit to protect herself against her past attacker, only to have her previously secret and unlisted personal info out there for a future attack to be planed against her?
 
What is a blog
Click to expand...
A mixture of a cyber soap box/diary/journal/pulpit/editorial comments.
Preach to the world or just record what's on your mind.

Personally I have a mixed reaction to the media's response to the CCW.
My first reaction was outrage. The more I thought about it though, the more I decided to treat them like trolls or children throwing a temper tantrum.

CCW in Ohio is news and it's controversial.
Contorversial issues sell papers. I can see why the Plain Dealer would want to keep a controversial topic in the news.
 
Hal - I agree the media is acting like "children throwing a temper tantrum". However, in this case, the tantrum can harm the good people it is being thrown at. I applaud the action being taken against them. The same thing happened in VA when shall-issue carry was made law. The reaction quickly put a stop to the practice. As I recall, at least one paper was slapped with a lawsuit.
 
This has already worked in another way

Not long ago in regards to the lack of laws protecting us from Identity Theft people showed the danger/ease by posting politicians private info to include SSAN numbers. Suddenly more protection via new laws!
Brilliant!
BT
 
Alan - I in no way meant to publish bios of some random person. If I didn't say it clear enough, I meant that area CCW holders (and friendly non-holders) should group together and buy the add space in a competing paper to publish the blurb about a volunteer, most likely a member of the group who'se paying for it.
 
I sent a very respectful email stating that should he, or his paper, decide to publish the names of CCW in his area, I would release his name and address to those that I know in Ohio.
 
I got a response to my email from Mr. Clifton:

My email:
Mr. Clifton

By indescriminantly publishing the names of CCW holders in the Cleveland
area, you make them more of a target to those who may wish to steal their
weapons. As such, I think it only fair that should you willfully endanger
the well-being of those who have legally purchased handguns and have
completed the legal requirements for obtaining a CCW permit by publishing
their names and/or addresses in some public forum, then your name and
address should also be distributed amongst the populace.

This I shall do, in reciprocity of any action of the part of you, or your
paper, that releases these names.
Click to expand...

His response:

We believe permits to carry concealed weapons should not be exempt from the
open records laws. That would be our position on all kinds of license
information, from marriage to fishing and all stops in between. That said, we
also believe that if a record is open to one class of citizen - in this case the
media - it should be open to all citizens. To favor one group over another is
unfair and probably unconstitutional. Besides, because "media" is so broadly
defined the Ohio law would give access to permit records to anyone who worked
for a publication of any description, from news letter to underground press.
Under the Ohio concealed carry law the most disreputable journalist in the
country working for the most disreputable publication would have access to the
records but the parish priest would be denied. That makes no sense. In my view
the records should be open to all citizens or none. That's what this is about.
Obviously, you disagree that the records should be open. If they were there
would be no need to publish the names of those who have permits because the
citizen could find that out for him or her self. But as long as the legislature
creates this dual citizenship I think we have an obligation to share the
information.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I will email him my reply soon.
 
Frankly, you'll probably have to publish more than his name, address and map to affect him -- and you'll have to do more than post it on just your blog.

You could get a copy of his credit report, but does anyone know if it be a crime to mail it to all employees of the Plain Dealer as well as everyone on his street?

Also -- again check the legality of publicizing it -- see http://www.ussearch.com/consumer/index.jsp

For $40, you can get:
-Bankruptcies - All 50 States and the District of Columbia
-Tax liens
-Small Claims Civil Judgments
-State Criminal Search Includes:
• Case number and charge
• Offense, arrest, file, and disposition date
• Disposition & sentence

There are more expensive options that will get you more.
 
The guy has one point: the names should not have been made public to anyone. His 'recourse' of making them public completely is just insane. He's trying to justify this retarded position he's staked out for himself and the paper with this crazy 'equality' argument.

He sounds like he's going to fold. Keep the pressure on.

- Gabe
 
Here's what I wrote to our local paper back in '99:
Sent to the editor Feb. 22, 2000
Published Feb. 28, 2000
Bad Idea

Publishing a list of Larimer County concealed handgun permit holders was not only an invasion of privacy, but also irresponsible, undermining the benefit of concealed-carry permits, and putting both permit holders and the rest of the population at increased risk. Here's why:

One of the main advantages concealed carry permits is that the entire population enjoys a reduced violent crime rate if only a minute fraction, even 1/2%, of the population carries.

This communal benefit is only possible because a criminal does not know who is armed and who is not. Unfortunately, with a published list, this anonymity is removed, and an enterprising criminal now has a de-facto list of those not armed, namely, those not on the list.

Mr. Greiling alluded to another issue: increased danger to permit holders whose names were published. Of course, we understand that a criminal would be foolish to single one of us out for a personal, violent attack, however, many permit holders own more than one gun, and since guns aren't cheap ($400 to $700 is common), these permit holders are probably financially successful. Now your list becomes a veritable directory for criminals: If you wait until we're not home, you can steal firearms and other valuables from us. Why don't you just publish a map to my house?

In an apparent effort to stereotype permit holders, you mention that only 10% are women. If I were a woman, I would now be scared: any potential rapist now knows that there is a much lower chance that I am armed.

The recurrent theme of your articles, and Cherie Trine's quotes, is one of fear, that you "would want to know if a neighbor or co-worker is armed." I honestly don't know if you keep bringing this up out of a genuine misunderstanding or in an effort to portray a negative image of permit holders, and gun owners in general.

This fear is not grounded in reality. To obtain a concealed-carry permit, a person must pass both Colorado (CBI) and Federal (FBI) background checks, have no history of substance or alcohol abuse, no history of domestic violence, no history of mental problems, and no criminal record.

In short, just about the worst thing a person can do and still obtain a concealed-carry permit is drive too fast on the way to work! Concealed-carry permit holders are upstanding, law-abiding, level-headed members of the community.

Federal civil rights legislation forbids discrimination based upon race, creed, color, sex, age, religion, national or ethnic origin, physical or mental disability, and status as a Vietnam-era veteran. Since "gun owner" or "concealed-carry permit holder" is not one of these protected classes, you have opened the door for an employer to fire an employee because she has a carry permit.

Of course, whether or not you are allowed to carry at work is a term of employment -- a carry permit does not allow you to carry on company or private property if the owners don't want you to.

There is obviously more to the debate than "my right to know if my neighbor is armed" vs. "my right to privacy." It is imperative to understand that publishing the concealed-carry permit list can decrease the safety of our community, and endanger its individual members.

Another article, also published on February 20th, was titled, "No penalty for carrying gun on CSU campus." The whole idea of "gun-free" zones is ludicrous. The only effect such laws have is to disarm those legally carrying, and advertise to criminals: "If you want un-armed victims, come here." If a criminal is planning to rob, rape, or kill, he isn't going to care whether or not it's a gun-free zone!

The police have no duty to protect any individual citizen, it's been ruled over and over again in court cases. If a rapist or killer is attacking you, he isn't going to wait for you to dial "911". Each person is ultimately responsible for her own safety. Why are you promoting an anti-self-defense view?
Click to expand...

-z
 
The problem I have is this; in publishing a wedding notice, no one is gonna harm the bride and groom to steal the toaster given them by their Aunt May. Same thing with a fishing liscense; anyone gonna go beat the guy senseless for the Zebco rod and reel he's probably got?

However, some schmuck reads about how Mr. Smith down the street just recently got a CCW permit, and the schuck thinks it would be a great idea for him and a few buddies to go pay Mr. Smith a visit...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Newspaper makes good on threat to publish CCW holder's names (merged)
2 3 4
Replies
81
Views
5K
PunkDave
P
K
  • Locked
Attn Ohio CCW Permit holders
Replies
6
Views
939
S Roper
S
J
  • Locked
OFCC Raises Awareness of Media Access Loophole
Replies
2
Views
356
Mike Harbour
M
B
  • Locked
CCW permit in ohio is now a reality.
Replies
8
Views
654
Coronach
C
T
  • Locked
Ohio "journalists" printing names of CHL holders? - Where?
Replies
0
Views
399
TheBluesMan
T
Back
Top