Comments

1
Sounds like an invasion of privacy to me! Your paranoia is your problem - you shouldn't have access to information that personal just because you like to worry.
2
I've always had a question about 'concealed weapons permits,' though. Are people allowed to carry unconcealed weapons? If it's in plain sight, do you not need a permit?
3
My hands are registered in five counties.
4
@Reymont in most of Oregon, no, you do not need a permit for open carry. Portland and Beaverton (and a few other cities) do make it illegal, but it is still legal for anyone with a CHL to open carry in any city, as the cities are not allowed to preempt this portion of state law.

@Sarah Your hoplophobia aside, if CHL records are indeed made public, it opens the door to burglars having a checklist of homes to break into with almost absolute knowledge that they can steal a gun. This is a bad idea. Also, consider the abused spouse who gets a CHL, and whose name and address appears in public, just as they're trying to hide from their ex.
Also, this is exactly why we have a legislature. As much as I disagree with the court's ruling, it was correct based on the law. If we don't like it, it's our responsibility to change the law, and in this case, the legislature is doing exactly that. We're not basing state law on the refusal of a sheriff to turn over public records, we're making a change based on a court ruling that interpreted the law differently than was expected.
5
@Famous Original Rey: Yes, and no.

"Firearms may be openly carried in cars without any license except where localities have made open carry illegal; however, an Oregon concealed handgun permit holder is exempt from all local open carry bans. To our knowledge, only the cities of Portland, Beaverton, Tigard, Oregon City, Salem, and Independence have passed loaded firearms bans encompassing all public places."
http://www.opencarry.org/or.html




6
Excellent points Fla im!
7
@Flaim "It opens the door to burglars having a checklist of homes to break into with almost absolute knowledge that they can steal a gun."

I think you have your talking point backwards: it allows burglars to know which homes DON"T have a gun and therefore, rob those people.


"This is a bad idea. Also, consider the abused spouse who gets a CHL, and whose name and address appears in public, just as they're trying to hide from their ex."

Also, won't this make it less likely that the abusive spouse would not mess with her if he knew she was packing heat?
8
What happened to guns owners feeling empower by owning guns? Now CHL holders are scared that the bogeyman is going to get his hands on this list and know that you own a gun.

That being said, gun owners and women (who have had an abortion) deserve a measure of privacy, period. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/24/o…
9
@Flaim- you can open carry in Portland, but it can't be loaded.

It is also illegal to use nerf guns in the city of Portland.

See city code: 14A.10.010(I): "Firearm: a pistol, revolver, gun, rifle, or other mechanism, including a miniature weapon, which projects a missile or shot by force of gunpowder or any other explosive, by spring or by compressed air."

Because nerf guns use compressed air and lauch a 'missle' that's a lot of crimes going down at a typical 10 year old's birthday party or playdate.

See the various crimes commited by nerf gun (and real gun) users under the city code here:

http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/inde…


10
@Smirk -- Go to Pink Pistols and take a gun training class it should help with you fear.

The Oregon also has subsidized womens skeet training programs that are great short vacations.

As long as to keep the gun in an exposed holster and clips in your back pocket you are legal but the Portland Police will still give you crap and make to sue to get the weapon back. The same with knives in general.
11
AFRAID of guns? And even more so of gun owners? seriously? Why would you be afraid of those who have decided to have a background check, go through training and take on the responsibility of carrying a weapon for self protection? Criminals are the ones you have to worry about, and trust me, they will NOT get a permit. A few have mentioned about the obviously problems, for one, criminals know where there are weapons. They can stalk a house, wait for owners to leave and break in to steal weapons, since they obviously can't get them legally. What it also does is notify where there are NOT weapons. So those homes, they can just do a home invasion when you are there, because you will have no means of protecting yourself. I personally do not care if you know if I carry, but as an overall practice, it's a bad thing. Some criminals are smart enough to use that data for evil. My biggest concern though would be for those that do NOT have a permit and would be targeted out as easy prey. My suggestion is find a friend who you trust, and have them take you to a range and see why some of us like to target shoot, and lose the irrational fear you have. It might even make you a more informative and believable writer.
12
who has a concealed weapons license is none of your business. just because you'd like to know doesn't mean you should know.

While it's really easy to get a license in Oregon, you still have to meet some criteria before they give you one:

1. Citizen of the US or legal resident alien with at least 6 months continuous residency.
2. 21 or older.
3. Not a convicted felon.
4. Not convicted or found guilty of a misdemeanor.
5. No outstanding warrants for your arrest or free on any form of pretrial release.
6. Demonstrates competence with a handgun per ORS 166.291(f).

So basically you need to be a competent adult non-criminal. That doesn't sound like the kind of person I should have the right to personal information about.

If someone meets the standards that we've set up to carry a concealed weapon responsibly, I think they've earned the right to some privacy too. I mean, what's the point of hiding something if you're required to tell everyone about it, right?

Publishing this list would only tell you about the people with guns that you don't have to worry about anyway. There are tons of non-licensed concealed weapons on the street every day that this list wouldn't expose. Those are the ones you need to be concerned about.

What other private information do you think the state should share with the rest of us? How about a public list of every person in the state who has been diagnosed with an incurable STD? That would be more useful to the public than a concealed weapons list... and just as much of an invasion of privacy.

13
A list of people with an incurable STD:

*Jeff
*WSH
*Graham
*Matt Davis
*Ezra (and all the other Ezras)
*Courtney Ferguson
*Olive
*Todd Mecklem
14
When has a concealed firearm in the hands of a civilian prevented a crime or helped anyone? Call the fucking police. I trust them more than I trust a wannabe Harry Callahan.

Oh wait! Independant researchers have shown that Concealed Carry Permits have no correlative or causitive affect on public safety. http://publichealthlawresearch.org/public-…

So NRA shills that've jumped into this discussion, tell us again why civilians should be allowed to harry loaded firearms in public. Do it. I double dare you to bring empirical research to the table. (PROTIP: The plural of anecdote is not data)
15
Three things graham:

First, the argument isn't about whether or not civilians should be able to carry a concealed weapon, it's about whether or not that information should be made public, so basically your argument doesn't apply here at all (and I guess the rest of my response to you doesn't really either).

Second, (i didn't read the link, I'm just going by what you've said) if "Concealed Carry Permits have no correlative or causitive affect on public safety" that would mean they've not been proven to affect public safety negatively either right?

Third, this really ignores the issue that the people that the people you need to worry about will carry whether or not they have a permit. The people with permits are the good guys/gals.

Also: People think that everyone with a concealed weapons license walks around with a hidden gun on them all the time. To be honest, I don't know anyone with a license that has EVER done that. Most people get them because it makes transporting a gun in your car a lot easier. (like to the range, or blm land to shoot targets).

The people that need to know (police etc..) if you own a gun and might have it on you, do.

I can't see any good reason for anyone else to.

16
OK, I read the link.

It says of 4 studies done on shall issue laws, "Two studies found a reduction in homicides associated with shall issue laws, but a third found mixed results across different counties and an overall increase in homicides. The fourth study, which focused on whether shall issue laws harmfully increase gun-related crime, found a statistically insignificant reduction in killings of police. In view of these findings and the limited number of relevant primary studies, the reviewers concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support the effectiveness of shall issues laws as public health interventions aimed at reducing violent crime. "

If anything, your OWN DATA seems to confirm that there's no evidence to support that the idea of letting civilians have concealed weapons is a bad thing.
17
@jeff: Why should civilians be allowed to carry concealed firearms in public? What public benefit does it create?

I'm willing to bet $1 that the administration of the concelaed carry program is not cost-covered by the fees being charged of the people receiving the permits. Essentially it's a program that creates no benefit for anyone and costs the state money. Why should we subsidize this program?
18
@Number Six Yes, that's correct for citizens without a CHL. However, the state law allowing CHL holders to carry a loaded firearm in public may not be superseded by a city law. Otherwise, if I'm carrying in Portland and a gust of wind blows open my coat and everyone sees, I'd be violating a city law while still legally carrying. So, the end result is, a CHL holder may open carry loaded in any legally-allowed area in the state, despite the local laws to the contrary.
19
@Graham Just because surveys of entire cities don't show much difference with or without the law, doesn't mean that they haven't helped some people. And two out of the three surveys said they DID seem to help, the third cited mixed results, and the forth said there were less police fatalities in areas that had them (although statistically insignificant), so if anything most evidence says these laws DO help a bit. Frankly, even if "super effective", I wouldn't expect the numbers to be too different anyway. Having a loaded weapon on you is like having iodine tablets in case of radiation. Chances are no one will EVER need the tablets, so a measure of their effectiveness to the average person in their lifetime wouldn't show any results either. But every once in a while, someone might end up in a situation where it could save a life. It's might not be a measurable statistic in the grand scheme of things, but a life is a life.

For most that choose to carry a gun, the hope (and the probability) of ever having to use it is never.

I don't know if the program is cost covered, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was. You pay to take a class, you pay for a background check. How much can those things cost to provide? Again though, it's kind of a side issue here. If that's your issue, why wouldn't you argue for higher fees, rather than arguing to abolish the whole thing?

The next part is maybe just a fundamental difference in the way we think about what the government's role should be in our lives, but I think people shouldn't be prohibited from doing things if the government can't prove that those things are detrimental to society. So even if there's no measurable benefit, if it makes the people that carry feel more secure, and the studies show that there's no measurable negative impact to society, why should they be stopped? Sounds like stripping a freedom just for the sake of stripping a freedom.

The way you asked that question seems like you think the government should only allow us to do things that benefit society. That kind of thinking would prohibit most activities people do.

I'm a fairly stereotypical Portlander. I've never not voted for a democratic president. I waited in line with everyone else to see obama at the waterfront. I ride my bike as much as I drive my car, and when I do drive, I get 45 mpg. I'm into organic and local and backyard chickens. I'm fine with my tax money going to things like public transportation, health care, bike lanes, and anything "green". I think the government has a duty and a place to provide for, protect, and nurture it's people. I don't think the government has any place telling me not to do things "just because".

From my cold dead hands.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.