Sandusky Register publishes names of CCP holders
- Thread starter jpr9954
- Start date
- Status
BS. Anonymity IS a factor that discourages crime. If every criminal knew where every gun was, they could pick and choose their victims based on that information. This doesn't just include concealed carry. Every time a bad guy breaks into a house, he has to wonder if there is someone in there with a gun. The anonymity of guns helps both those that have them and those that don't. Further, a list tells the bad guy where the guns are... in case they want to attempt to take them. How can that be good for anybody?
Anonymity must be preserved, or the bad guys get a leg up on the good guys.
OCJ
Member
From Buckeye Firearms
Why don't we all contact the bank pointing this out?
Why don't we all contact the bank pointing this out?
ServiceSoon
Member
This is like a mini revolution happening. But hey, this guy started it with the two classes of society nobody deserves privacy bull crap.
You're running in circles.
Public knowledge of one's gun possession can't be both a deterrent and a magnet to criminal activity.
You can't have it both ways.
In your world, a burglar picks up the newspaper and says, "Gee, I think I will rob Arty Jones today, because he has guns in the house, according to this list."
(Although the list says NOTHING about guns in the house-- but a gun on a person-- big difference, people.)
Meanwhile, his buddy and fellow burglar is picking up the paper and saying, "Gee, I think I will rob Arty Jones' neighbor, who is NOT on the list, because she is apparently unarmed and thus an easier target."
Nope, don't buy it.
Those lists say NOTHING about who is armed in the house and who is not armed in the house. All it states is who owns concealed permits.
Thousands and thousands of people everywhere keep a loaded gun in the house for protection who do not have concealed carry. I think the bad guys know this.
The only reason I am nit-picking this is because we need to be careful about over-stating how guns make us all safer. I know not all of us do that, but the collective majority do from time to time. That is the collective attitude I hear on many pro-gun rights forums.
Like I said, I agree with the other reasons, but not this one.
I think I'd have to hear from a few convicts on the matter rather than argue about it "logically" all week long in the forums.
Even if there is a small chance the list will increase attacks on either the CCW permit holders or the ones not on the list, then it should not be published just to prove some "power of the press" point. (Think of the children.) Therefore, arguing about it is just.. well, you know.
Even if there is a small chance the list will increase attacks on either the CCW permit holders or the ones not on the list, then it should not be published just to prove some "power of the press" point. (Think of the children.) Therefore, arguing about it is just.. well, you know.
pdowg881
Member
There was a newspaper article in my town about a guy that stole or something from the convenience store. The two 18yo girls that were interviewed say: We are the only ones here after 9 all week, and if they steal stuff we won't stop them because we are all alone. Hopefully no criminals read the local paper. They should have just put an ad in the paper that welcomes all criminals after 9pm all week.
It seems like people don't realize that advertising certian information isn't always beneficial to one's safety. But I'm not sure someone would knowingly try to attack or rob an armed person because it makes the criminals job much tougher.
It seems like people don't realize that advertising certian information isn't always beneficial to one's safety. But I'm not sure someone would knowingly try to attack or rob an armed person because it makes the criminals job much tougher.
uhm, to me the obvious danger in publishing names isn't just that they may target your house to get guns. If you are a bad guy who has it out for John Smith, or you were planning to rob John Smith, then you read he has a CCW, maybe you still go after John Smith, only now you just shoot him outright, because after all, he has a gun, and you don't want to take any chances.
I guess I am confused, what is their justification for publishing these names again?
I guess I am confused, what is their justification for publishing these names again?
G36-UK
Member
Probably nothing. Not that it matters, I doubt anything could justify this.
Is anyone here on their lists? I hope you can take them to court.
A better arguement would be that some people are CCW holders because of a specific confirmed threat against them. Whether that be an Ex-Spouse(mostly men, I'll admit), boyfriend, stalker, insane cousin, whatever.
These people may have moved and are now hiding from said stalker. Now the paper just went and printed their name and addres...
These people may have moved and are now hiding from said stalker. Now the paper just went and printed their name and addres...
Flyboy
Member
Sure I can. Burglar 1 robs Arty Jones because he knows there's something worth his trouble to steal (guns, and don't tell me that a concealed carry permit isn't a good indication of gun ownership). Burglar 2 is more risk-averse, and prefers a softer target, even if the payoff may not be as large.
Seriously, it's not rocket science.
Jeff said:
It may not say who/how many people in the house are armed, but it indicates at least one person is. As such, the list would be a good list of houses to avoid for nighttime/home invasion burglaries. While many other people are armed that don't carry, the list would weed out some of those who are almost certainly armed. If you were a bad guy, would you want to storm into a house where you knew at least one person there had a CCP? Or would you rather take your chance at a house where there's less of a chance they will be armed?
Or, if they want a gun, they could use the list plus a phone book, and call the house during the day to see if anyone answers, then break in while the occupants are at work or whatever. While it's true the CCP holder might only have one gun on their person, a large portion of the general public seems to think we're all gun nuts. Whether or not that's a misconception, most people would probably assume that where there's one gun there's more.
That argument is similar to the anti-SUV drivers who complain they are at a safety disadvantage, should an accident occur, because they drive smaller vehicles.
Well then, don't complain because of your CHOICE in vehicles, and don't complain because of your choice of being armed or not.
Empower yourself.
We keep missing the larger picture in all of this. People invade and plunder other people's homes because they are desperate. Simple.
Some on this board might have us believe that because there is some "mystery" as to who is armed (based on CCW lists--which say NOTHING about guns in the house) and who is not armed, that burglars will not burglarize homes.
Obviously, this is false, because burglaries are quite commonplace. Everywhere.
Then such false reasoning would lead us to believe that making public the information as to who carries endangers all of us-- permit holders or not.
False premises all the way around.
Linda
Member
Thank you for your service to our country Hacker!! I very much appreciate what you are doing to protect our freedoms.
I would be more than happy to post our articles here.
Linda
Member
Article #1
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3816.html
Sandusky Register Editor Matt Westerhold Declares War on Gun Owner Privacy
Posted on Monday, June 25 @ 15:06:27 EDT by cbaus
By John Salyers and Chad D. Baus
In spite of many state legislators, county sheriffs and even Governor Strickland himself attempting to talk sense into him, Sandusky Register Editor Matt Westerhold has launched an all-out assault on the privacy and security of over 2,600 concealed handgun license holders in several Northern Ohio counties.
Citing a phantom "right to know", Westerhold, editor and self-appointed public records watchdog at the Register, published the list of CHL-holders from Erie, Huron, Ottawa, Sandusky and Seneca counties.
Click on 'Read More' for the entire commentary.
EDITOR'S NOTE: The decision to make the lists available to readers was made by the Register's managing editor. All inquiries should be directed to 419-609-5866 or [email protected]
Please oblige Mr. Westerhold by submitting a letter to the editor on this issue.
Matt Westerhold transplanted his anti-concealed-carry agenda from his former job at the Elyria Chronicle-Telegram, where he also ordered the publishing of law-abiding CHL-holders' names. More information on Westerhold will be made available in the coming days.
The "logic" behind his latest attack on gun owners' privacy was expressed in a June 10 editorial entitled "Taking aim at the public record".
Likening the decision to bear arms for self-defense to marriage licenses, court-related divorce records, political donations and salaries of public officials, the editorial argues that concealed handgun license information should be public record. The editorial repeats a tired, false allegation that "in its present form, the conceal-carry law provides no public checks and balances to assure the gun program is being carried out responsibly." (The editorial omits any mention of the statistics which Ohio's 88 county sheriffs present to the Ohio Attorney General's office four times per year.)
In other Register coverage of this action, Seneca County Sheriff Tom Steyer is quoted as saying "I don't understand why news media would want to publish this information."
The editorial asserts that "this isn't about a newspaper's right to know...It's about the public's right to know. It's about open government." But according to a Columbus Dispatch poll conducted in 2005, two-thirds of respondents said other Ohioans have too much access to personal information about them. The number of people who think more access is needed stood at just 37%. And 66% said they believe too much personal information is available to the public. (The poll also indicated Ohioans are more interested in records related to the activities of law-breakers than in personal information about their neighbors.)
More specifically, the Dayton Daily News conducted its own poll in 2005 on whether or not readers believe concealed handgun license records should be available to the public. Of the DDN readers who responded, 87% were against making the records public information.
It is clear that Mr. Westerhold should dispense with the "it's for the public" rhetoric. The public is firmly against his actions, as his letters-to-the-editor box no doubt by now attests. (His response to one such letter was limited to this snide remark: "Thank you for your thoughtful comments about your support for secrecy in government. If you would like to discuss this in more depth, please fell free to call me."
(Judging by his political cartoon on the subject, depicting a journalist pointing the loaded gun of CHL records at his own head, Register political cartoonist Don Lee seems to understand the public's sentiments on this subject far better than his editor)
The history of this fight goes back to late 2003, when then-Governor Bob Taft and the Republican controlled Ohio Legislature caved in to cries from the news media. An eleventh-hour modification to HB12, Ohio's original concealed carry law, allowed journalists access to the information to address their assertions of a need for "checks and balances". Far from being used for what the proponents claimed, the unpopular provision which became known as the media access loophole, was instead exploited by openly anti-gun editorial boards as a means of intimidation against gun owners.
The 126th General Assembly (2005-2006) saw several attempts to remove the media access loophole, which again received opposition from then-Governor Taft. The Ohio House of Representatives, in a 93-1 vote, sent House Bill 9, containing a provision which would have closed the loophole, to the Senate. In late December of 2006, however, Republicans in the Senate watered down the language addressing the loophole before sending the bill to Governor Taft.
At the time, the Buckeye Firearms Association website noted that passage of HB9 marked "the first attempt by the General Assembly to clarify its intent in giving journalists access to the records. [When the law becomes effective], the burden will be, as it has always been, on the media to honor the will of the General Assembly, and to prove they want the information only for the purposes they originally claimed (verifying training and background checks were being properly conducted), and not as a means of gaining access to foster a wholesale publishing of the list."
The Register's extensive coverage of Westerhold's decision to "out" law-abiding CHL-holders notes that Erie County Sheriff Terry Lyons filed a lawsuit earlier this year, contending the complexities of the statute made it impossible to lawfully provide the list of names to a journalist. The Register notes "that suit was shot down June 4, however, when Erie County Common Pleas Judge Tygh Tone ruled the law allowed for journalists to receive the information." Similar suits challenging the media access loophole from Sheriffs in other counties are pending.
During his gubernatorial campaign, Democrat Ted Strickland told voters he supported legislative efforts to close the loophole. Unlike his Republican predecessor, who reversed course on concealed carry after getting elected, Strickland told the Register he still believes these records should remain private.
From commentary written by Register editor Matt Westerhold:
Gov. Ted Strickland supports a secrecy provision in the state's concealed weapons law because he believes Ohioans are better off not knowing who or how many people are licensed to carry hidden guns.
Westerhold is flat-out lying when he asserts that current law prohibits knowledge on "how many people are licensed to carry", and certainly incorrect to suggest Governor Strickland "believes Ohioans are better off not knowing" same.
"Knowledge of who possesses a concealed carry permit may put permit holders at risk of theft attempts," according to a reply from Strickland's office to questions about the secrecy provision. "(It) may also put those who are not permit holders in greater danger because criminals could know they are not carrying a weapon to defend themselves."
State Rep. Chris Redfern, D-Catawba Island Twp., also supports the secrecy provision, saying there was no compelling reason the government should release the information.
"There is no reason to know who is a concealed carry holder and who is not in this state," Redfern said, adding that the secrecy provision has nothing to do with open government. "These are private citizens who've attended private training, passed background checks and received their permit."
Redfern, also chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party, said his support of the current law has nothing to do with politics or pressure from the gun lobby.
...Strickland and Redfern both said they are satisfied with the secrecy provision and do not intend to introduce legislation to repeal it.
The wording of the Register's story here is misleading. Strickland and Redfern were never in support of "current law" - the media access loophole passed in 2004 - Strickland spoke out against it and Redfern voted to reform it. What Strickland and Redfern are indicating is that they are interested in seeing how the modifications in HB9 work before moving for further changes. (The timing of the Register's data grab show that this was not a true test of the new loophole language passed in HB9.) [This paragraph has been updated to reflect the latest information.]
The Register offers nothing but snide commentary for Strickland and Redfern's refusal to agree with its position, saying "we know you're both too bright not to understand this, and we're very disappointed you don't have the courage to stand up and do the right thing."
But in "Gun advocates have praise for Strickland and Redfern", the Register quotes Ashley Varner, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association, as saying that both men are listening to their constituents.
The only reason the NRA has any power in Ohio is we have a lot of members who care about protecting their Second Amendment rights," she said.
Varner said newspapers that publish the names and county of residence of concealed handgun permit holders are putting innocent people at unnecessary risk.
"There are women who are hiding from abusive husbands or boyfriends," she said. "These are single women who may have been who may be afraid of stalkers, people who have been attacked previously and are threatened with repeat attacks."
"People with licenses are the most law-abiding citizens in our country," she said. "Less than 2 percent are involved in criminal activity. Criminals do not go through background checks to obtain guns."
The fallout from this action has barely begun, but it will no doubt be far-reaching. Already, subscribers are blogging on the Register's website about canceling subscriptions, and at least one local business, Windjammer Restaurant in Marblehead, has forced the Register to remove their paper machines from the premises because of this violation of privacy.
[UPDATE: We have been notified that B+B Auto Service & Custom Exhaust in Sandusky, has notified the Register to end all advertising.
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3816.html
Sandusky Register Editor Matt Westerhold Declares War on Gun Owner Privacy
Posted on Monday, June 25 @ 15:06:27 EDT by cbaus
By John Salyers and Chad D. Baus
In spite of many state legislators, county sheriffs and even Governor Strickland himself attempting to talk sense into him, Sandusky Register Editor Matt Westerhold has launched an all-out assault on the privacy and security of over 2,600 concealed handgun license holders in several Northern Ohio counties.
Citing a phantom "right to know", Westerhold, editor and self-appointed public records watchdog at the Register, published the list of CHL-holders from Erie, Huron, Ottawa, Sandusky and Seneca counties.
Click on 'Read More' for the entire commentary.
EDITOR'S NOTE: The decision to make the lists available to readers was made by the Register's managing editor. All inquiries should be directed to 419-609-5866 or [email protected]
Please oblige Mr. Westerhold by submitting a letter to the editor on this issue.
Matt Westerhold transplanted his anti-concealed-carry agenda from his former job at the Elyria Chronicle-Telegram, where he also ordered the publishing of law-abiding CHL-holders' names. More information on Westerhold will be made available in the coming days.
The "logic" behind his latest attack on gun owners' privacy was expressed in a June 10 editorial entitled "Taking aim at the public record".
Likening the decision to bear arms for self-defense to marriage licenses, court-related divorce records, political donations and salaries of public officials, the editorial argues that concealed handgun license information should be public record. The editorial repeats a tired, false allegation that "in its present form, the conceal-carry law provides no public checks and balances to assure the gun program is being carried out responsibly." (The editorial omits any mention of the statistics which Ohio's 88 county sheriffs present to the Ohio Attorney General's office four times per year.)
In other Register coverage of this action, Seneca County Sheriff Tom Steyer is quoted as saying "I don't understand why news media would want to publish this information."
The editorial asserts that "this isn't about a newspaper's right to know...It's about the public's right to know. It's about open government." But according to a Columbus Dispatch poll conducted in 2005, two-thirds of respondents said other Ohioans have too much access to personal information about them. The number of people who think more access is needed stood at just 37%. And 66% said they believe too much personal information is available to the public. (The poll also indicated Ohioans are more interested in records related to the activities of law-breakers than in personal information about their neighbors.)
More specifically, the Dayton Daily News conducted its own poll in 2005 on whether or not readers believe concealed handgun license records should be available to the public. Of the DDN readers who responded, 87% were against making the records public information.
It is clear that Mr. Westerhold should dispense with the "it's for the public" rhetoric. The public is firmly against his actions, as his letters-to-the-editor box no doubt by now attests. (His response to one such letter was limited to this snide remark: "Thank you for your thoughtful comments about your support for secrecy in government. If you would like to discuss this in more depth, please fell free to call me."
(Judging by his political cartoon on the subject, depicting a journalist pointing the loaded gun of CHL records at his own head, Register political cartoonist Don Lee seems to understand the public's sentiments on this subject far better than his editor)
The history of this fight goes back to late 2003, when then-Governor Bob Taft and the Republican controlled Ohio Legislature caved in to cries from the news media. An eleventh-hour modification to HB12, Ohio's original concealed carry law, allowed journalists access to the information to address their assertions of a need for "checks and balances". Far from being used for what the proponents claimed, the unpopular provision which became known as the media access loophole, was instead exploited by openly anti-gun editorial boards as a means of intimidation against gun owners.
The 126th General Assembly (2005-2006) saw several attempts to remove the media access loophole, which again received opposition from then-Governor Taft. The Ohio House of Representatives, in a 93-1 vote, sent House Bill 9, containing a provision which would have closed the loophole, to the Senate. In late December of 2006, however, Republicans in the Senate watered down the language addressing the loophole before sending the bill to Governor Taft.
At the time, the Buckeye Firearms Association website noted that passage of HB9 marked "the first attempt by the General Assembly to clarify its intent in giving journalists access to the records. [When the law becomes effective], the burden will be, as it has always been, on the media to honor the will of the General Assembly, and to prove they want the information only for the purposes they originally claimed (verifying training and background checks were being properly conducted), and not as a means of gaining access to foster a wholesale publishing of the list."
The Register's extensive coverage of Westerhold's decision to "out" law-abiding CHL-holders notes that Erie County Sheriff Terry Lyons filed a lawsuit earlier this year, contending the complexities of the statute made it impossible to lawfully provide the list of names to a journalist. The Register notes "that suit was shot down June 4, however, when Erie County Common Pleas Judge Tygh Tone ruled the law allowed for journalists to receive the information." Similar suits challenging the media access loophole from Sheriffs in other counties are pending.
During his gubernatorial campaign, Democrat Ted Strickland told voters he supported legislative efforts to close the loophole. Unlike his Republican predecessor, who reversed course on concealed carry after getting elected, Strickland told the Register he still believes these records should remain private.
From commentary written by Register editor Matt Westerhold:
Gov. Ted Strickland supports a secrecy provision in the state's concealed weapons law because he believes Ohioans are better off not knowing who or how many people are licensed to carry hidden guns.
Westerhold is flat-out lying when he asserts that current law prohibits knowledge on "how many people are licensed to carry", and certainly incorrect to suggest Governor Strickland "believes Ohioans are better off not knowing" same.
"Knowledge of who possesses a concealed carry permit may put permit holders at risk of theft attempts," according to a reply from Strickland's office to questions about the secrecy provision. "(It) may also put those who are not permit holders in greater danger because criminals could know they are not carrying a weapon to defend themselves."
State Rep. Chris Redfern, D-Catawba Island Twp., also supports the secrecy provision, saying there was no compelling reason the government should release the information.
"There is no reason to know who is a concealed carry holder and who is not in this state," Redfern said, adding that the secrecy provision has nothing to do with open government. "These are private citizens who've attended private training, passed background checks and received their permit."
Redfern, also chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party, said his support of the current law has nothing to do with politics or pressure from the gun lobby.
...Strickland and Redfern both said they are satisfied with the secrecy provision and do not intend to introduce legislation to repeal it.
The wording of the Register's story here is misleading. Strickland and Redfern were never in support of "current law" - the media access loophole passed in 2004 - Strickland spoke out against it and Redfern voted to reform it. What Strickland and Redfern are indicating is that they are interested in seeing how the modifications in HB9 work before moving for further changes. (The timing of the Register's data grab show that this was not a true test of the new loophole language passed in HB9.) [This paragraph has been updated to reflect the latest information.]
The Register offers nothing but snide commentary for Strickland and Redfern's refusal to agree with its position, saying "we know you're both too bright not to understand this, and we're very disappointed you don't have the courage to stand up and do the right thing."
But in "Gun advocates have praise for Strickland and Redfern", the Register quotes Ashley Varner, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association, as saying that both men are listening to their constituents.
The only reason the NRA has any power in Ohio is we have a lot of members who care about protecting their Second Amendment rights," she said.
Varner said newspapers that publish the names and county of residence of concealed handgun permit holders are putting innocent people at unnecessary risk.
"There are women who are hiding from abusive husbands or boyfriends," she said. "These are single women who may have been who may be afraid of stalkers, people who have been attacked previously and are threatened with repeat attacks."
"People with licenses are the most law-abiding citizens in our country," she said. "Less than 2 percent are involved in criminal activity. Criminals do not go through background checks to obtain guns."
The fallout from this action has barely begun, but it will no doubt be far-reaching. Already, subscribers are blogging on the Register's website about canceling subscriptions, and at least one local business, Windjammer Restaurant in Marblehead, has forced the Register to remove their paper machines from the premises because of this violation of privacy.
[UPDATE: We have been notified that B+B Auto Service & Custom Exhaust in Sandusky, has notified the Register to end all advertising.
Linda
Member
Article #2
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3823.html
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? (Who will guard the guardians?)
Posted on Tuesday, June 26 @ 18:05:00 EDT by buckeyefirearms
In a recent editorial, the Sandusky Register argued that ALL government information should be public and appears to support the idea that government shouldn’t be able to keep some information private. This argument is a red herring, designed to mask an anti-gun political agenda that involves targeting citizens who have a legal concealed handgun license (CHL) by publishing their name, age, and county of residence.
Government makes decisions all the time to keep government information private if there is a chance that publishing that information could harm citizens. For example, a Social Security Number is government information, but it is kept private to avoid identity theft. Those who have obtained a restraining order from a government entity, such as a court, are not subjected to having a new address or phone number published in order to protect the victim.
The argument for open government records is the public’s “need to know.” But the public has no need to know when it comes to legally concealed weapons by law abiding citizens. And since there is a precedent for protecting citizens by keeping certain information private, there is no reason to publish this information in a newspaper.
But since the Sandusky Register argues that ALL government information should be public, and that this information is fair game for publication, it is time to put this theory to the test.
Buckeye Firearms Association has decided to use publicly available records to obtain information about Matt Westerhold, the editor of the Sandusky Register, and publish that information. We are not doing this to be vindictive, but instead seek to draw attention to the real issues - namely how easy it is for an editor with a grudge to abuse public records, and how one Consitutional right is being treated far differently in Ohio from all others.
Click 'Read More' for the entire story.
Certain members of Ohio’s Main Stream Media (MSM), including Register Editor Matt Westerhold, have appointed themselves sole guardians of Ohio’s Public Records, unilaterally using their bully-pulpit to decide what is and what is not in the public’s interest.
These extremists are not content for government records to include those things that actually impact governmental operations, such as open meetings, open debate, advance notice of legislation and hearings, transparent spending and budgeting, access to documents and reports directly relied upon in the legislative and executive process. No - these guardians take the position that ANY piece of paper or electron that touches a governmental body is fair game (including names and home addresses of minors who attend public pools; names and home addresses of anyone who happens to work for the government, even those fleeing an abusive former spouse; and, of most interest to our readers, information on those who chose to exercise their statutory and Constitutional right to defend themselves by carrying a gun for defense).
If these self-appointed guardians cross the line between what is in the public interest and that which is abusive, who is it that takes the guardians to task? Who will guard the guardians of the records? The Ohio General Assembly has proven woefully unequal to the task. Not once, but twice.
Persons who have chosen to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense (CHL-holders) have done nothing to subject themselves to publication in “news”papers like the Sandusky Register. Let us be clear - this is NOT about publishing public records, (although there is a larger debate on what should and should not be a public record). This is about MSMs feeling that one fundamental, individual right is properly restrained, licensed, regulated and/or revoked while simultaneously chastising people for going through the process to exercise that right.
There logically is no difference in insisting that persons who wish to exercise their Constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense need training and background checks, and that the MSM needs access to make sure the wrong people are not exercising the right, and saying that the state should train and license journalists so we can make sure they are not abusing the right. There is no logical division.
Taken to its logical conclusion, the Sandusky Register feels that the government should license those who preach on Sunday as well as those who editorialize on Monday. What about those who write their representatives for the redress of grievances, such as those inflicted on gun owners by Editor Westerhold? Should we publish lists of those who pray on Friday or multiple times per day while facing a certain geographic direction? Dare they suggest that those adults who obtain an abortion should get a license? Would Editor Westerhold be publishing a “just aborted” list? Why not? The fact is, newspapers would never publish a "these people prayed on Sunday" list, and people would be outraged to suggest that it should be done. The right to bear arms for self-defense is no different.
Public records belong to the true guardians - to you, the public. There is no abstract 4th branch of government, the MSM. And you, the public, through your elected representatives, have decided certain information, such as the personal information about those applying for and obtaining a CHL, should NOT BE MADE PUBLIC. Indeed, the CHL list is NOT A PUBLIC RECORD by statute, and no other exercise of a fundamental right is licensed or listed in the state of Ohio.
Only it doesn’t matter that you decided this, because Editor Westerhold does not agree with you, he thinks he knows better than you, and he has a newspaper at his disposal.
So we are putting his theory to the test. The government holds a wealth of information about Mr. Westerhold, including his home address, license plate information, and divorce records. All is government information, and thus, according to his argument, fair game for publication.
As a public service to our readers, we are in the process of packaging up a public records report on Editor Westerhold. We are currently weighing how much of the information to make public on our website. Here is a preview:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Public Records:
Editor Matt Westerhold, born on November **, 1958, owns 322 Deepwood Lane, Amherst, Ohio 44001. Matt purchased this house on April 28, 2005 for $124,900 and borrowed $123,920 from Union National Mortgage Company to finance the purchase.
Here is a picture of his house.
It is not clear if Matt actually lives in this house, because he claims a residence in Sandusky, Ohio.
Interestingly, this picture (obtained, of course, from public record) appears to show Matt’s blue 2003 Chevy Tracker in the garage, license plate # DA*3816 (*redacted for privacy concerns). Matt was operating this vehicle on September 1, 2006 in Oberlin when the Ohio State Highway Patrol pulled him over for speeding. Matt was cited for failure to wear a seat belt and was warned about his speed.
It is unclear from the public records if his status as a member of the MSM played a role in the warning versus a citation for speed, and unlike concealed carry license holders, no quarterly reports are forwarded to the Attorney General on the number of MSMs who violate Ohio’s laws and/or have their driver’s license suspended or revoked.
In addition to the sharing of these public records, we feel it is our obligation to issue this call to political action:
Contact your Senator and Representative today and demand that they immediately and permanently close the media access to those who exercise the right to self-defense. While you have them on the phone, ask that they establish a statutory cause of action for any license holder that is harmed by the media tipping off the criminals that they might be armed. Telephone communications are preferred over email. Click here to access House & Senate phone numbers. Click here to email your State Representatives & Senators.
Cancel your subscription to The Sandusky Register. Call 1-800-466-1243 and ask for their circulation department. If you have a business that sells their paper, cancel your merchant account and ask that they stop bulk delivery or remove their machines from your property.
Contact 5 gun owners (if you are reading this article on our website, use the Send to a Friend feature at right) and ask them to also perform steps 1, 2 and 3 above.
Related Stories:
Sandusky Register Editor Matt Westerhold Declares War on Gun Owner Privacy
It's About The Privacy & the Sandusky Register Secretly Employing Sex Offenders
What is the harm in publishing lists of concealed handgun license holders?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALERT!! COMING SOON!! HOW THE SANDUSKY REGISTER USES A LOOPHOLE IN THE LAW TO HIRE AND SEND REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS TO YOUR DOOR IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3823.html
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? (Who will guard the guardians?)
Posted on Tuesday, June 26 @ 18:05:00 EDT by buckeyefirearms
In a recent editorial, the Sandusky Register argued that ALL government information should be public and appears to support the idea that government shouldn’t be able to keep some information private. This argument is a red herring, designed to mask an anti-gun political agenda that involves targeting citizens who have a legal concealed handgun license (CHL) by publishing their name, age, and county of residence.
Government makes decisions all the time to keep government information private if there is a chance that publishing that information could harm citizens. For example, a Social Security Number is government information, but it is kept private to avoid identity theft. Those who have obtained a restraining order from a government entity, such as a court, are not subjected to having a new address or phone number published in order to protect the victim.
The argument for open government records is the public’s “need to know.” But the public has no need to know when it comes to legally concealed weapons by law abiding citizens. And since there is a precedent for protecting citizens by keeping certain information private, there is no reason to publish this information in a newspaper.
But since the Sandusky Register argues that ALL government information should be public, and that this information is fair game for publication, it is time to put this theory to the test.
Buckeye Firearms Association has decided to use publicly available records to obtain information about Matt Westerhold, the editor of the Sandusky Register, and publish that information. We are not doing this to be vindictive, but instead seek to draw attention to the real issues - namely how easy it is for an editor with a grudge to abuse public records, and how one Consitutional right is being treated far differently in Ohio from all others.
Click 'Read More' for the entire story.
Certain members of Ohio’s Main Stream Media (MSM), including Register Editor Matt Westerhold, have appointed themselves sole guardians of Ohio’s Public Records, unilaterally using their bully-pulpit to decide what is and what is not in the public’s interest.
These extremists are not content for government records to include those things that actually impact governmental operations, such as open meetings, open debate, advance notice of legislation and hearings, transparent spending and budgeting, access to documents and reports directly relied upon in the legislative and executive process. No - these guardians take the position that ANY piece of paper or electron that touches a governmental body is fair game (including names and home addresses of minors who attend public pools; names and home addresses of anyone who happens to work for the government, even those fleeing an abusive former spouse; and, of most interest to our readers, information on those who chose to exercise their statutory and Constitutional right to defend themselves by carrying a gun for defense).
If these self-appointed guardians cross the line between what is in the public interest and that which is abusive, who is it that takes the guardians to task? Who will guard the guardians of the records? The Ohio General Assembly has proven woefully unequal to the task. Not once, but twice.
Persons who have chosen to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense (CHL-holders) have done nothing to subject themselves to publication in “news”papers like the Sandusky Register. Let us be clear - this is NOT about publishing public records, (although there is a larger debate on what should and should not be a public record). This is about MSMs feeling that one fundamental, individual right is properly restrained, licensed, regulated and/or revoked while simultaneously chastising people for going through the process to exercise that right.
There logically is no difference in insisting that persons who wish to exercise their Constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense need training and background checks, and that the MSM needs access to make sure the wrong people are not exercising the right, and saying that the state should train and license journalists so we can make sure they are not abusing the right. There is no logical division.
Taken to its logical conclusion, the Sandusky Register feels that the government should license those who preach on Sunday as well as those who editorialize on Monday. What about those who write their representatives for the redress of grievances, such as those inflicted on gun owners by Editor Westerhold? Should we publish lists of those who pray on Friday or multiple times per day while facing a certain geographic direction? Dare they suggest that those adults who obtain an abortion should get a license? Would Editor Westerhold be publishing a “just aborted” list? Why not? The fact is, newspapers would never publish a "these people prayed on Sunday" list, and people would be outraged to suggest that it should be done. The right to bear arms for self-defense is no different.
Public records belong to the true guardians - to you, the public. There is no abstract 4th branch of government, the MSM. And you, the public, through your elected representatives, have decided certain information, such as the personal information about those applying for and obtaining a CHL, should NOT BE MADE PUBLIC. Indeed, the CHL list is NOT A PUBLIC RECORD by statute, and no other exercise of a fundamental right is licensed or listed in the state of Ohio.
Only it doesn’t matter that you decided this, because Editor Westerhold does not agree with you, he thinks he knows better than you, and he has a newspaper at his disposal.
So we are putting his theory to the test. The government holds a wealth of information about Mr. Westerhold, including his home address, license plate information, and divorce records. All is government information, and thus, according to his argument, fair game for publication.
As a public service to our readers, we are in the process of packaging up a public records report on Editor Westerhold. We are currently weighing how much of the information to make public on our website. Here is a preview:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Public Records:
Editor Matt Westerhold, born on November **, 1958, owns 322 Deepwood Lane, Amherst, Ohio 44001. Matt purchased this house on April 28, 2005 for $124,900 and borrowed $123,920 from Union National Mortgage Company to finance the purchase.
Here is a picture of his house.
It is not clear if Matt actually lives in this house, because he claims a residence in Sandusky, Ohio.
Interestingly, this picture (obtained, of course, from public record) appears to show Matt’s blue 2003 Chevy Tracker in the garage, license plate # DA*3816 (*redacted for privacy concerns). Matt was operating this vehicle on September 1, 2006 in Oberlin when the Ohio State Highway Patrol pulled him over for speeding. Matt was cited for failure to wear a seat belt and was warned about his speed.
It is unclear from the public records if his status as a member of the MSM played a role in the warning versus a citation for speed, and unlike concealed carry license holders, no quarterly reports are forwarded to the Attorney General on the number of MSMs who violate Ohio’s laws and/or have their driver’s license suspended or revoked.
In addition to the sharing of these public records, we feel it is our obligation to issue this call to political action:
Contact your Senator and Representative today and demand that they immediately and permanently close the media access to those who exercise the right to self-defense. While you have them on the phone, ask that they establish a statutory cause of action for any license holder that is harmed by the media tipping off the criminals that they might be armed. Telephone communications are preferred over email. Click here to access House & Senate phone numbers. Click here to email your State Representatives & Senators.
Cancel your subscription to The Sandusky Register. Call 1-800-466-1243 and ask for their circulation department. If you have a business that sells their paper, cancel your merchant account and ask that they stop bulk delivery or remove their machines from your property.
Contact 5 gun owners (if you are reading this article on our website, use the Send to a Friend feature at right) and ask them to also perform steps 1, 2 and 3 above.
Related Stories:
Sandusky Register Editor Matt Westerhold Declares War on Gun Owner Privacy
It's About The Privacy & the Sandusky Register Secretly Employing Sex Offenders
What is the harm in publishing lists of concealed handgun license holders?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALERT!! COMING SOON!! HOW THE SANDUSKY REGISTER USES A LOOPHOLE IN THE LAW TO HIRE AND SEND REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS TO YOUR DOOR IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linda
Member
Article #3
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3823.html
It's About Privacy (& the Sandusky Register Secretly Employing Sex Offenders)
Posted on Wednesday, June 27 @ 14:46:30 EDT by buckeyefirearms
By Ken Hanson
Sandusky Register Editor Matt Westerhold, apparently with a straight face, published an editorial today entitled “It’s about the secrets, not about the gun owners”. Apparently hoping we forgot his history at the Elyria Chronicle-Telegram, where he attacked gun owners' privacy in similar fashion, Mr. Westerhold bemoans that he did not seek this fight, but at the same time he would be irresponsible to duck it.
Sorry, Mr. Westerhold, it is very much about the gun owners and their rights to privacy.
Mr. Westerhold openly concedes that Ohio law says that concealed carry lists are not public records. Think about that for a moment. The people, by and through their elected officials, have determined, as a matter of law, that these lists are not public records and the release of these lists is not in the public interest. Not some administrative agency trying to shield their meetings or who they meet with, not some bureaucrat trying to hide the fact he gave a no-bid contract to his brother-in-law, not a renegade school board member trying to change curriculum… The people, by and through their elected representatives, made a decision. Those who exercise a right, like praying, writing an idiotic editorial or obtaining an abortion, are not required to face public scrutiny. These are not public records, and their release is not in the public interest. So Sayeth The People.
Mr. Westerhold does not agree with that decision, and he works at a newspaper, so his opinion is the only one that matters. Contrary to the legislative and deliberative process and result, Mr. Westerhold gets to unilaterally make public that which is conclusively not public with the click of a mouse.
Click 'Read More' for the entire commentary.
Mr. Westerhold’s editorial is full of clever (?) middle school logic class tactics:
“It's about secrets”
(Secrets are bad, evil, vile things. Privacy is good, wholesome and honorable. Substitute “privacy” for “secret” and reread his editorial.)
“Gun owners should be proud of their choices”
(In order to be proud of our choice we have to agree with Mr. Westerhold’s unilateral veto of the decision of The People. We all know if we are not proud of something we are ashamed of it. Since we do not agree with Mr. Westerhold it necessarily means we are ashamed of our decision.)
“We posted it as a service to our readers.”
(Really? What, exactly, was that service? Could you articulate it please? How many of your readers demanded this service versus how many were outraged by it? Details, please.)
“It would have been irresponsible not to make this information available.”
(Really, in what way? Spell out how it would be irresponsible to abide by the will of The People as expressed through their elected representatives. Once again, Mr. Westerhold, your arguments are conclusory.)
“Gun owners have begun a campaign to harass the newspaper’s advertisers.”
(Oh come on, even you don’t believe that, Mr. Westerhold. When you spew your drivel it is free speech; when gun owners exercise their rights of expression and tell your financial investors what they think about your “service to your readers” it is harassment?)
Finally, since no newspaper article on publishing concealed carry license lists would be complete without comparing the gun owners to sex offenders, Mr. Westerhold spends the balance of his editorial lamenting the poor job the Sheriff is doing on cracking down on sexual offenders and the sexual offender registry. Because, you know, gun owners should be treated like sex offenders.
I believe Mr. Westerhold has now hit the anti-gun cycle:
Red Herring
Non Sequitur
Appeal to Ridicule
Gun owners by insinuation are the same as Sex Offenders
As an interesting aside, Mr. Westerhold has presented himself an opportunity to demonstrate just how much of an anti-secret crusader he is. We took great interest in reading in the Register about all the trouble the county is experiencing with registered sex offenders. Fortunately, Mr. Westerhold can now make a huge difference in this fight.
Upon information and belief, Buckeye Firearms Association has documented that the Sandusky Register employs at least one registered sex offender, either on a contractor basis or as an employee. Of greater concern is the fact that the Sandusky Register’s main office appears to be within 1,000 feet of several schools. Even more shocking, part of this person’s duties appear to include making numerous deliveries throughout Sandusky and surrounding areas in the dead of night. The Sandusky Register’s subscribers have no way of being able to check and see if the paper is sending this sexual offender to their house or neighborhood in the middle of the night.
Unfortunately, due to a loophole in Ohio’s sexual offender registration law, we cannot search these sexual offender public records by employer or employer address. The Sandusky Register can come to the rescue, as they have special access to this information, and can use their special access to make this information public as a service to their readers.
As Mr. Westerhold pointed out in his story on gun owners (?), “What could be more important than arresting child rapists?” We agree, and we agree it is troubling there is this drastic backlog of sexual offense investigations. The Sandusky Register is in a unique position to do something about this by using their special access to make this non-public record a public record, just like they did with the concealed carry lists.
At press time, the Register had not returned phone calls or emails inquiring about how many sexual offenders they have under their employ.
We call upon the Sandusky Register to immediately publish, on their website in electronic format, the name and home address of every employee, contractor, carrier and contract carrier who works for them. The Register should do this as a service to its readers so the public can determine just how many sex offenders The Register employs, and whether the offenders are being sent to our neighborhood or past the schools right next to the Register’s offices.
Attorney Ken Hanson is Buckeye Firearms Association Legislative Chair and author of The Ohio Guide to Firearm Laws.
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3823.html
It's About Privacy (& the Sandusky Register Secretly Employing Sex Offenders)
Posted on Wednesday, June 27 @ 14:46:30 EDT by buckeyefirearms
By Ken Hanson
Sandusky Register Editor Matt Westerhold, apparently with a straight face, published an editorial today entitled “It’s about the secrets, not about the gun owners”. Apparently hoping we forgot his history at the Elyria Chronicle-Telegram, where he attacked gun owners' privacy in similar fashion, Mr. Westerhold bemoans that he did not seek this fight, but at the same time he would be irresponsible to duck it.
Sorry, Mr. Westerhold, it is very much about the gun owners and their rights to privacy.
Mr. Westerhold openly concedes that Ohio law says that concealed carry lists are not public records. Think about that for a moment. The people, by and through their elected officials, have determined, as a matter of law, that these lists are not public records and the release of these lists is not in the public interest. Not some administrative agency trying to shield their meetings or who they meet with, not some bureaucrat trying to hide the fact he gave a no-bid contract to his brother-in-law, not a renegade school board member trying to change curriculum… The people, by and through their elected representatives, made a decision. Those who exercise a right, like praying, writing an idiotic editorial or obtaining an abortion, are not required to face public scrutiny. These are not public records, and their release is not in the public interest. So Sayeth The People.
Mr. Westerhold does not agree with that decision, and he works at a newspaper, so his opinion is the only one that matters. Contrary to the legislative and deliberative process and result, Mr. Westerhold gets to unilaterally make public that which is conclusively not public with the click of a mouse.
Click 'Read More' for the entire commentary.
Mr. Westerhold’s editorial is full of clever (?) middle school logic class tactics:
“It's about secrets”
(Secrets are bad, evil, vile things. Privacy is good, wholesome and honorable. Substitute “privacy” for “secret” and reread his editorial.)
“Gun owners should be proud of their choices”
(In order to be proud of our choice we have to agree with Mr. Westerhold’s unilateral veto of the decision of The People. We all know if we are not proud of something we are ashamed of it. Since we do not agree with Mr. Westerhold it necessarily means we are ashamed of our decision.)
“We posted it as a service to our readers.”
(Really? What, exactly, was that service? Could you articulate it please? How many of your readers demanded this service versus how many were outraged by it? Details, please.)
“It would have been irresponsible not to make this information available.”
(Really, in what way? Spell out how it would be irresponsible to abide by the will of The People as expressed through their elected representatives. Once again, Mr. Westerhold, your arguments are conclusory.)
“Gun owners have begun a campaign to harass the newspaper’s advertisers.”
(Oh come on, even you don’t believe that, Mr. Westerhold. When you spew your drivel it is free speech; when gun owners exercise their rights of expression and tell your financial investors what they think about your “service to your readers” it is harassment?)
Finally, since no newspaper article on publishing concealed carry license lists would be complete without comparing the gun owners to sex offenders, Mr. Westerhold spends the balance of his editorial lamenting the poor job the Sheriff is doing on cracking down on sexual offenders and the sexual offender registry. Because, you know, gun owners should be treated like sex offenders.
I believe Mr. Westerhold has now hit the anti-gun cycle:
Red Herring
Non Sequitur
Appeal to Ridicule
Gun owners by insinuation are the same as Sex Offenders
As an interesting aside, Mr. Westerhold has presented himself an opportunity to demonstrate just how much of an anti-secret crusader he is. We took great interest in reading in the Register about all the trouble the county is experiencing with registered sex offenders. Fortunately, Mr. Westerhold can now make a huge difference in this fight.
Upon information and belief, Buckeye Firearms Association has documented that the Sandusky Register employs at least one registered sex offender, either on a contractor basis or as an employee. Of greater concern is the fact that the Sandusky Register’s main office appears to be within 1,000 feet of several schools. Even more shocking, part of this person’s duties appear to include making numerous deliveries throughout Sandusky and surrounding areas in the dead of night. The Sandusky Register’s subscribers have no way of being able to check and see if the paper is sending this sexual offender to their house or neighborhood in the middle of the night.
Unfortunately, due to a loophole in Ohio’s sexual offender registration law, we cannot search these sexual offender public records by employer or employer address. The Sandusky Register can come to the rescue, as they have special access to this information, and can use their special access to make this information public as a service to their readers.
As Mr. Westerhold pointed out in his story on gun owners (?), “What could be more important than arresting child rapists?” We agree, and we agree it is troubling there is this drastic backlog of sexual offense investigations. The Sandusky Register is in a unique position to do something about this by using their special access to make this non-public record a public record, just like they did with the concealed carry lists.
At press time, the Register had not returned phone calls or emails inquiring about how many sexual offenders they have under their employ.
We call upon the Sandusky Register to immediately publish, on their website in electronic format, the name and home address of every employee, contractor, carrier and contract carrier who works for them. The Register should do this as a service to its readers so the public can determine just how many sex offenders The Register employs, and whether the offenders are being sent to our neighborhood or past the schools right next to the Register’s offices.
Attorney Ken Hanson is Buckeye Firearms Association Legislative Chair and author of The Ohio Guide to Firearm Laws.
Linda
Member
Article #4
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3823.html
What is the harm in publishing lists of concealed handgun license holders?
Posted on Thursday, June 28 @ 18:06:38 EDT by buckeyefirearms
By Ken Hanson
By publishing lists of persons who have obtained concealed handgun licenses, newspapers such as the Sandusky Register have taken private, non-public record information and made it public. Specifically, because of their actions, the general public may now know who owns and may or may not carry a gun. Additionally, the general public now knows who is not carrying a gun in their day to day activities.
Beyond the fact that the Register has now made public that which statutorily was not to be public, what harm can come from this? Buckeye Firearms Association previously brought you the story of a prison guard who was tracked down by a former inmate by using a concealed carry license list published in the local paper. However, beyond this explicit example, the general public remains largely unaware of just how much harm can come from this.
So, as a service to our readers, we have prepared an example by using Sandusky Register Editor Matt H. Westerhold. We have selected him simply because the paper has pointed to him as the one “responsible” for the decision to publish the lists. However, it would have been just as easy, and valid, to do it with Register publisher Doug Phares or Register owner David Rau (or, for that matter, decision-makers at the Cleveland Plain Dealer, NBC24 Toledo, the Lorain Morning Journal, the Sidney Daily News, the Toledo City Paper, the Troy Daily News and the Warren Tribune-Chronicle, who have also irresponsibly acted to release this private information on at least one occasion in the past).
Click 'Read More' for the entire commentary.
IT IS CRITICAL THAT THE READER UNDERSTAND THAT THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PUBLIC RECORDS LAWS. It is clear that the information we gathered is public record, and concealed carry law has nothing to do with this. We readily concede that all of the information we used is available now, and anyone can find this type of information on a neighbor with very little effort. The difference is that the bad guy would have no reason to target person X instead of person Y for this type of scrutiny. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS EXAMPLE IS THAT THE SANDUSKY REGISTER HAS IDENTIFIED A LIST OF VICTIMS FOR SOMEONE WHO HAS AN INTEREST IN GUN OWNERS OR CONCEALED CARRY LICENSEES. OTHERWISE, THE BAD GUY HAS NO REASON TO TARGET PERSON X OVER PERSON Y.
So the first step for a bad guy is that a person is brought to their attention as a victim by having their name published in the paper. For the concealed handgun license holders, there would be no alternative method to identify them as a target. Now, someone who has a grudge has a list of targets/victims, and the ONLY reason they have a list of targets/victims is because of the newspaper’s unilateral action. But for the Register’s actions, there is no ability to specifically target a licensee. For us, we will pretend Mr. Westerhold was on this list and thus a bad guy is now targeting him.
Now that the target has been identified, (again, keep in mind the only reason the person is identified as a target is the paper has identified the person as a gun owner/someone who carries a concealed handgun) we turn to the wonders of public records and the Internet.
It is very easy to determine that Mr. Westerhold has gone to pretty significant steps to insure that his own personal information is not public. In fact, having his name and county of residence (such as was published on the Sandusky Register's list of CHL-holders) would have saved us significant work. Running general searches will not yield a home address or phone number for him.
We do learn that he owns 322 Deepwood Lane in Amherst, Ohio. However, a quick search reveals that Mesh*** Elsw*** has the phone service there, and she claims to be a renter of Mr. Westerhold and states that Matt does not live there. Turning to the County Recorder, we see that Mr. Westerhold’s mortgage with Union National is a residential mortgage, not a commercial/rental property mortgage. If we were vindictive, we could contact the bank and let them know that Mr. Westerhold is now allegedly renting the property out to a renter, since that is potentially a default under the residential mortgage allowing the bank to foreclose the mortgage.
We also easily learn that Mr. Westerhold was cited into Oberlin Municipal Court for failure to wear a seatbelt and given a warning for speeding. We see he drives a 2003 Blue Chevy Tracker license plate DA*3816. A bad guy now has a car to look for around the Register’s parking lot if he wants to find him.
The real goldmine for the person who intends to cause harm to Mr. Westerhold is his Dissolution. With little effort we find his date of birth is 11/**/1958 and his Social Security number is 2**-56-6***. We also see his prior employment history and yearly salary. Having his full name, date of birth, social security number, prior employer, prior salary and current employer and a guess at his salary, combined with knowing from the Dissolution that he has/had an Auto Loan with XYZ bank and knowing his current mortgage amount and details, it would be child’s play for a bad guy to open up credit accounts and commit various other acts of identity theft against him.
More seriously, for the hardcore bad guy, these public records (per the Dissolution settlement) show that Matt has a pre-teen child who resides with his ex-wife. Reviewing the child support worksheet and the financial affidavits, we see that no tuition or school payments are listed, so it is a relatively high percentage bet that the child is a public school student. We see from the worksheet that mom has custody, so the child almost certainly is the residential parent for school purposes. From further public records, we see the marriage license from Mr. Westerhold’s ex-wife a year after the dissolution, and we already knew her date of birth, social security number and recent employer from the Dissolution. With very little effort we find ex-wife’s residence and now are relatively sure of which public school his pre-teen child goes to simply by checking the auditor’s maps for this residence for school districts. A check of the school website will show us the bus schedule for that particular school and that street or address, so we will almost certainly, with little effort, know which bus the child rides and what time it picks up/drops off. Further, most public libraries keep copies of the local school yearbooks in the reference section. Even if that is not the case, it is going to be fairly easy to get the yearbook and probably get a picture of the child for identification purposes.
Chilling, isn’t it?
How many individuals were listed in the Sandusky Register simply because they also have minor children and wished to exercise a constitutionally protected right to help ensure their children's safety? Apparently, Editor Matt Westerhold never gave it a thought.
Again, any person can do this type of stalking/abuse against any other person right now. Ohio's concealed carry law has nothing to do with these types of records being public. The point is, why would someone do this and how would they choose their victim? The bad guy has to be given motivation and has to have a reason to target a particular person for this type research/abuse. The bad guy is not going to randomly draw names out of the phone book and do this - there is no motive.
Identifying the victims provides the missing piece of the puzzle. Whether the person hates gun owners, wants to steal a gun or wants to verify that a store he is going to rob does not have concealed handgun licensees working there, the Sandusky Register has performed this service for the bad guy.
This is the true “public service” that the Register is providing its readers. The information they gathered has never been used in news reporting. You do not see their crime coverage saying “Johnny Crackhead stuck up a liquor store. He did not have a concealed handgun license.” Newspapers like the Register use the lists as an ends, not a means. They publish the lists with no intent of the list being used for anything other than harm to the gun owner. Whether the licensee gets fired, gets evicted or gets targeted for crime is not material to the Register.
THE ONLY USE FOR THESE LISTS IS TO TARGET AND VICTIMIZE GUN OWNERS, AND THE SANDUSKY REGISTER KNOWS THIS.
Creating victims - that is the public service the Sandusky Register is providing to their readers.
Attorney Ken Hanson is Buckeye Firearms Association Legislative Chair and author of The Ohio Guide to Firearm Laws.
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3823.html
What is the harm in publishing lists of concealed handgun license holders?
Posted on Thursday, June 28 @ 18:06:38 EDT by buckeyefirearms
By Ken Hanson
By publishing lists of persons who have obtained concealed handgun licenses, newspapers such as the Sandusky Register have taken private, non-public record information and made it public. Specifically, because of their actions, the general public may now know who owns and may or may not carry a gun. Additionally, the general public now knows who is not carrying a gun in their day to day activities.
Beyond the fact that the Register has now made public that which statutorily was not to be public, what harm can come from this? Buckeye Firearms Association previously brought you the story of a prison guard who was tracked down by a former inmate by using a concealed carry license list published in the local paper. However, beyond this explicit example, the general public remains largely unaware of just how much harm can come from this.
So, as a service to our readers, we have prepared an example by using Sandusky Register Editor Matt H. Westerhold. We have selected him simply because the paper has pointed to him as the one “responsible” for the decision to publish the lists. However, it would have been just as easy, and valid, to do it with Register publisher Doug Phares or Register owner David Rau (or, for that matter, decision-makers at the Cleveland Plain Dealer, NBC24 Toledo, the Lorain Morning Journal, the Sidney Daily News, the Toledo City Paper, the Troy Daily News and the Warren Tribune-Chronicle, who have also irresponsibly acted to release this private information on at least one occasion in the past).
Click 'Read More' for the entire commentary.
IT IS CRITICAL THAT THE READER UNDERSTAND THAT THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PUBLIC RECORDS LAWS. It is clear that the information we gathered is public record, and concealed carry law has nothing to do with this. We readily concede that all of the information we used is available now, and anyone can find this type of information on a neighbor with very little effort. The difference is that the bad guy would have no reason to target person X instead of person Y for this type of scrutiny. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS EXAMPLE IS THAT THE SANDUSKY REGISTER HAS IDENTIFIED A LIST OF VICTIMS FOR SOMEONE WHO HAS AN INTEREST IN GUN OWNERS OR CONCEALED CARRY LICENSEES. OTHERWISE, THE BAD GUY HAS NO REASON TO TARGET PERSON X OVER PERSON Y.
So the first step for a bad guy is that a person is brought to their attention as a victim by having their name published in the paper. For the concealed handgun license holders, there would be no alternative method to identify them as a target. Now, someone who has a grudge has a list of targets/victims, and the ONLY reason they have a list of targets/victims is because of the newspaper’s unilateral action. But for the Register’s actions, there is no ability to specifically target a licensee. For us, we will pretend Mr. Westerhold was on this list and thus a bad guy is now targeting him.
Now that the target has been identified, (again, keep in mind the only reason the person is identified as a target is the paper has identified the person as a gun owner/someone who carries a concealed handgun) we turn to the wonders of public records and the Internet.
It is very easy to determine that Mr. Westerhold has gone to pretty significant steps to insure that his own personal information is not public. In fact, having his name and county of residence (such as was published on the Sandusky Register's list of CHL-holders) would have saved us significant work. Running general searches will not yield a home address or phone number for him.
We do learn that he owns 322 Deepwood Lane in Amherst, Ohio. However, a quick search reveals that Mesh*** Elsw*** has the phone service there, and she claims to be a renter of Mr. Westerhold and states that Matt does not live there. Turning to the County Recorder, we see that Mr. Westerhold’s mortgage with Union National is a residential mortgage, not a commercial/rental property mortgage. If we were vindictive, we could contact the bank and let them know that Mr. Westerhold is now allegedly renting the property out to a renter, since that is potentially a default under the residential mortgage allowing the bank to foreclose the mortgage.
We also easily learn that Mr. Westerhold was cited into Oberlin Municipal Court for failure to wear a seatbelt and given a warning for speeding. We see he drives a 2003 Blue Chevy Tracker license plate DA*3816. A bad guy now has a car to look for around the Register’s parking lot if he wants to find him.
The real goldmine for the person who intends to cause harm to Mr. Westerhold is his Dissolution. With little effort we find his date of birth is 11/**/1958 and his Social Security number is 2**-56-6***. We also see his prior employment history and yearly salary. Having his full name, date of birth, social security number, prior employer, prior salary and current employer and a guess at his salary, combined with knowing from the Dissolution that he has/had an Auto Loan with XYZ bank and knowing his current mortgage amount and details, it would be child’s play for a bad guy to open up credit accounts and commit various other acts of identity theft against him.
More seriously, for the hardcore bad guy, these public records (per the Dissolution settlement) show that Matt has a pre-teen child who resides with his ex-wife. Reviewing the child support worksheet and the financial affidavits, we see that no tuition or school payments are listed, so it is a relatively high percentage bet that the child is a public school student. We see from the worksheet that mom has custody, so the child almost certainly is the residential parent for school purposes. From further public records, we see the marriage license from Mr. Westerhold’s ex-wife a year after the dissolution, and we already knew her date of birth, social security number and recent employer from the Dissolution. With very little effort we find ex-wife’s residence and now are relatively sure of which public school his pre-teen child goes to simply by checking the auditor’s maps for this residence for school districts. A check of the school website will show us the bus schedule for that particular school and that street or address, so we will almost certainly, with little effort, know which bus the child rides and what time it picks up/drops off. Further, most public libraries keep copies of the local school yearbooks in the reference section. Even if that is not the case, it is going to be fairly easy to get the yearbook and probably get a picture of the child for identification purposes.
Chilling, isn’t it?
How many individuals were listed in the Sandusky Register simply because they also have minor children and wished to exercise a constitutionally protected right to help ensure their children's safety? Apparently, Editor Matt Westerhold never gave it a thought.
Again, any person can do this type of stalking/abuse against any other person right now. Ohio's concealed carry law has nothing to do with these types of records being public. The point is, why would someone do this and how would they choose their victim? The bad guy has to be given motivation and has to have a reason to target a particular person for this type research/abuse. The bad guy is not going to randomly draw names out of the phone book and do this - there is no motive.
Identifying the victims provides the missing piece of the puzzle. Whether the person hates gun owners, wants to steal a gun or wants to verify that a store he is going to rob does not have concealed handgun licensees working there, the Sandusky Register has performed this service for the bad guy.
This is the true “public service” that the Register is providing its readers. The information they gathered has never been used in news reporting. You do not see their crime coverage saying “Johnny Crackhead stuck up a liquor store. He did not have a concealed handgun license.” Newspapers like the Register use the lists as an ends, not a means. They publish the lists with no intent of the list being used for anything other than harm to the gun owner. Whether the licensee gets fired, gets evicted or gets targeted for crime is not material to the Register.
THE ONLY USE FOR THESE LISTS IS TO TARGET AND VICTIMIZE GUN OWNERS, AND THE SANDUSKY REGISTER KNOWS THIS.
Creating victims - that is the public service the Sandusky Register is providing to their readers.
Attorney Ken Hanson is Buckeye Firearms Association Legislative Chair and author of The Ohio Guide to Firearm Laws.
Westerhold Backs Out
Last Monday I had a 40-minute telephone conversation with Matt Westerhold, the editor of the paper.
He agreed to appear as a guest on my radio show, which airs today.
We reconfirmed with him this week that he would appear, and he agreed.
Later in the week, Mr. Westerhold decided to pull out. Citing the stories in the Buckeye Firearms web site, he said he did not want to appear on the live, call-in, radio show.
Therefore, today, I'll report on my conversation with Westerhold. In our conversation, he explained his thinking about why he chose to publish the names of the permit holders. He also exposed his bias in interesting ways.
I invite THR members to join in the conversation to give their take on the damage done by publishing the names of permit holders. This particular topic will begin at 1:06pm Central time. You can listen on the internet at www.kbnp.com as well as other sites.
Should be interesting. Oh, the call-in number is 1-866-825-5486.
Last Monday I had a 40-minute telephone conversation with Matt Westerhold, the editor of the paper.
He agreed to appear as a guest on my radio show, which airs today.
We reconfirmed with him this week that he would appear, and he agreed.
Later in the week, Mr. Westerhold decided to pull out. Citing the stories in the Buckeye Firearms web site, he said he did not want to appear on the live, call-in, radio show.
Therefore, today, I'll report on my conversation with Westerhold. In our conversation, he explained his thinking about why he chose to publish the names of the permit holders. He also exposed his bias in interesting ways.
I invite THR members to join in the conversation to give their take on the damage done by publishing the names of permit holders. This particular topic will begin at 1:06pm Central time. You can listen on the internet at www.kbnp.com as well as other sites.
Should be interesting. Oh, the call-in number is 1-866-825-5486.
Linda
Member
Oh my gosh, sure wished I seen this post this morning before I started my CCW class. Would have loved to have had our leaders from Buckeye Firearms on the show.
Thanks for the publicity!
Thanks for the publicity!
Black Adder LXX
Member
This may not be of help, but here's a copy of an email I sent to the Oreilly Factor:
It would be cool if this could get some national embarassment for that <insert favorite synonym for retard here> Westerhold.
It would be cool if this could get some national embarassment for that <insert favorite synonym for retard here> Westerhold.
This seems to fit the mold. These types do not realize that passive-aggression is a two-way street. It's interesting that he is willing to publish private information on a group or community of people, but balks when it is on a personal level. It all makes sense in their world I guess.
Again, he probably feels like he is being unfairly silenced while trying to bear witness. He doesn't realize that he's just annoying. And wrong.
Carl N. Brown
Member
Some people get a carry permit in response to a credible
death threat and have moved and changed addresses as
well. Publishing their names and even just county of
residence serves no legitimate need of the public but does
endanger them.
Long term tracking of Texas carry license holders has shown
that non-permit holders are 5.7 times more likely to commit
crimes than permit holders. The Sandusky Register should
publish the names and addresses of all the non-CCP holders
in Ohio, if they really want to do a service to the public.
death threat and have moved and changed addresses as
well. Publishing their names and even just county of
residence serves no legitimate need of the public but does
endanger them.
Long term tracking of Texas carry license holders has shown
that non-permit holders are 5.7 times more likely to commit
crimes than permit holders. The Sandusky Register should
publish the names and addresses of all the non-CCP holders
in Ohio, if they really want to do a service to the public.
- Status