| OFCC Raises Awareness of Media Access Loophole |
|
|
|
| Written by Jeff Garvas | |
| Thursday, 15 March 2007 | |
|
A story, Pro gun journalist' seeks lists of permits was recently published by The Cleveland Plain Dealer that reports on Ohioans For Concealed Carry's attempt to further study the current media access loophole that exists in Ohio law permitting journalists to obtain the personal information of those that have obtained an Ohio Concealed Handgun License (CHL). What the Plain Dealer didn't tell you is that OFCC has requested the same information that journalists request from Ohio Sheriffs for three reasons, including an effort to end the journalist loophole either through legislative reform or the courts. The primary driving force behind this effort was to perform statistical analysis on a dataset of those that have received CHLs. To date, no one has undertaken such a project despite countless news media outlets having the authority to do something along these lines. Unlike anything the news media has done we feel such an analysis would truly benefit the public interest, a key requirement when requesting the information. By the end of the day Thursday a lawsuit was filed in The Court of Common Pleas in Clermont County by a County Assistant Prosecutor in response not only to our request, but a last minute request by the Cincinnati Enquirer seeking the entire list of license holders before HB9 goes into effect was denied, for now, as well. We feel that this information would serve the CHL community and our vigilant cause to further refine Ohio's concealed carry laws to be more effective. For example, OFCC maintains that the number of women and the elderly that receive CHLs is vastly under-estimated. We constantly propose to our advocates and opponents alike that these citizens need access to self-defense tools more than anyone. We know that it would be very influential if we had hard data to back up the popularity of CHLs with women and older Ohioans when we approached legislators. We know that anecdotal analysis of the small percentage of those who would respond to a survey would be meaningless. We also want to be able to draw conclusions based on where these demographics are throughout the state. OFCC has heard from many women that come right out and tell us, "I wish I could protect myself. However, I won't apply for a license because I do not want my age published in The Cleveland Plain Dealer. It's embarrassing." The analysis will allow us to produce hard facts rather than those anecdotes when speaking with legislators. A secondary motivation is that OFCC wants to know more about the current process in which journalists receive the private information of Concealed Handgun Licensees so that we can compare/contrast the effectiveness of a new law that goes into effect at the end of this month. We've learned quite a bit more than we can reveal at this point - but suffice it to say that the system is not working. We're seeking a baseline so we can measure the effects of the new procedure and create legislative proposals that further fix the onerous media access loophole, or quite frankly, completely justify eliminating it. Regular readers of our news stories will have seen many reports on how some journalists have chosen to misuse their privileged access. When the Ohio Legislature passed our concealed carry laws in 2004, Governor Bob Taft insisted that a "check and balance" system be put in place so that journalists could ensure that Sheriffs are not issuing licenses to criminals and those that fail the rigorous CHL background check. The private information of licensees was never to be public record and the media knows it. Before a packed Statehouse committee, Representative Jim Aslanides, the most vocal champion of concealed carry legislation in the Ohio Legislature, warned those present that if the media abused their privilege, the Legislature would assuredly take it away. The Plain Dealer has been the most onerous offender and blatantly publishes an exhaustive and complete list of every law-abiding citizen that has been issued a state Concealed Handgun License. In the three years since the law went into effect, we have only seen the media mention that a CHL was involved during a righteous self-defense shooting. We have never seen a media outlet report that someone did NOT have a CHL during the more common criminal shootings that plague our streets and mandate that honest citizens have the means to defend themselves. Later this month, Ohio House Bill 9 will take effect and limit the disclosure of this personal information to the media. This change will force journalists to physically visit a Sheriff's office to view the private information of licensees. The journalist will be able to take notes, but will not receive an entire list, as the Sheriff is prohibited from maintaining such a list. This is a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done. It’s also why we timed our requests to every Sheriff so recently – its technically the last opportunity to do what we’re doing without visiting every Sheriff’s office in Ohio on their terms. It is the longstanding goal of OFCC to protect the private information of Concealed Handgun Licensees and remove the media access loophole altogether. We knew our access would raise general awareness about the vulnerability of private, personal information. The Plain Dealer's coverage of our effort and the subsequent litigation described further below are proof that we've achieved that. We achieved some success on this issue with the help of the last General Assembly, but the slight tweaks to the law are not sufficient. Opt-out provisions were eliminated in the Senate. Completely throwing out the loophole was never seriously considered. As the media has continually broken their word and misused their privilege, the Legislature must act to stop the dangerous and morally reprehensible act of publishing private information. At best, these actions merely ostracize and harass licensees. At worst, it provides a shopping list to criminals that now know where firearms are kept and opens up the homeowner to a greater likelihood of burglary. Law enforcement officers continually report that the presence of firearms, drugs, or large sums of cash will always be a target to criminals due to the ease of disposal on the black market. We understand that some naysayers don't accept the indisputable statistics available that show that those licensed to carry a handgun for self-defense are the most law-abiding citizens of any state. Anti-gun advocates say that a "check and balance" needs to be present to ensure the background checks are working. That is fine. We do not object to a reasonable balance. However, it has become very clear that the media access loophole is no longer a viable option. The journalists have broken their word and have only misused their privilege. OFCC feels that we can bring more attention to the vulnerability of this private information to the public. We believe that our longstanding practice of bringing news to our supporters via our printed newsletter, website, and semi-monthly Firearms Freedom Podcast most certainly means we are members of "the media". Obviously, many Sheriffs agreed as they honored our request without question. To be honest, we did not think there would be immediate results and raising further awareness was a "stretch goal". In fact, we’ve learned more from this endeavor than we ever imagined was taking place. Information we believe will lead to the end of the journalist loophole in one way or another. We had hoped to complete as much records acquisition as possible to present to the legislature the fact that if we were capable of pulling this off – what is to stop anyone else? It’s our belief that the statute is so horribly vague that virtually anyone with a pen and paper could claim to be a freelance journalist and they wouldn't be stretching the imagination. Taking that argument to the legislature and taking proof that you accomplished it are two different things. Eventually taking it to court if necessary was within our long-term goals, but recent events have expedited that avenue of reform and opened up opportunities to us that we considered a last resort. When Sheriff Al Rodenberg of Clermont County, a huge friend of Ohio’s gun owners, received our request he forwarded it on to his County Prosecutor’s office, which in turn contacted us. They advised us that they intended to file a declaratory judgment to determine if our attempts to define ourselves into the broad journalists definition were justified, all the while protecting the interests of their Sheriff. It's important to note that Clermont County has not flat our refused our request, but instead has worked with us because they neither wished to agree nor disagree with our interpretation of the statute. This in and of itself creates another complex question: Does the Sheriff have the authority to determine who is or is not a journalist or must he comply with every request much like a temporary emergency license affidavit? Unlike the statutory process to deny a concealed handgun license applicant there is no written means of denial for a journalist request. Today The Clermont County Sheriff's Office seems to be poised to not release private information until a court determines a handful of significant constitutional issues – and relieves the Sheriff from the potential from what are serious concerns. Since our request was received by the Sheriff’s office The Cincinnati Enquirer submitted a similarly worded request and, from what we can tell, was delayed in the same fashion we were. In fact, the Clermont County Prosecutor’s Office has filed a complaint for declaratory relief with the Court of Common Pleas in Clermont County, Ohio and named both Ohioans For Concealed Carry and The Cincinnati Enquirer as Plaintiffs in the matter along with Governor Ted Strickland and Attorney General Marc Dann, in their official capacities. When challenging the constitutionality of a statute the Attorney General must be notified, as it is their obligation to defend the actions of the legislature and the Ohio Revised Code. Clermont County has written an extensive argument against the journalist loophole’s vague nature while explaining that, should the Sheriff make a decision he is open to criminal charges or a mandamus action by a requesting party demanding he fulfill the request. In other words, if you’re an Ohio Sheriff you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Further, Clermont County is challenging that the journalist loophole violates the 1st, 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution. If the Sheriff were to reveal information to someone who is later deemed not to be a journalist he could be criminally charged and subject to civil litigation – conversely if he reveals the information to a journalist who in turn reveals the information to the public at large no criminal charges take place. But the argument in the end for us boils down to just who is a journalist and why are they allowed access to these lists for blanket publication. From the complaint: ….Sheriff Rodenberg further challenges the constitutionality of both subsections (B)(2) and (E) of 2923.129 as void for vagueness as it is unclear from the legislation who qualifies as a “journalist.”If this challenge to the statute is successful, it's possible that the entire journalist loophole could be closed permanently as a result of the legislature’s vague definitions and OFCC's efforts to define itself into the journalist loophole. Then, our goal would be to convince the legislature to not act. This is a task that is far easier to accomplish than passing a law to read exactly as you wish. If these challenges by Clermont County do not succeed, our efforts have also allowed us to gather overwhelming evidence that proves the many failures of the journalist loophole. The definition is far too broad and the legislature must act to resolve this problem once and for all by completely prohibiting the release of data to anyone, much as Florida recently did. |