Bill which would shine light of openness on Media Access Loophole requests opposed by Ohio Newspaper Assoc.

by Chad D. Baus

The Gongwer News Service is reporting that HB328, introduced by Rep. Joseph Uecker (R-Loveland) to force journalists who want access to concealed handgun license-holders' private information to seek the permission of a court in a public hearing, has drawn the ire of open-records advocates and applause from members of the gun-rights community.

The measure would require journalists to obtain a court order to view information on concealed carry licensees. A legal hearing would allow for testimony on the issue. Currently, CCW records held at county sheriff's offices are off limits to the public but can be viewed by journalists as long as they do not record details. They are prohibited from taking notes while viewing records.

The bill is a response to several newspapers in recent years that published information on records of concealed carry licensees, including public officials. Rep. Uecker, a concealed carry and National Rifle Association instructor and former police officer, said in an interview that publishing CCW information on licensees could expose permit holders to danger, including privacy violations and the threat of property theft.

The threat of stolen firearms is of particular concern because many violent street crimes are committed with stolen weapons, Mr. Uecker said.

The Buckeye State Sheriff's Association has not weighed in on the issue. BSSA Executive Director Robert Cornwell said the organization will evaluate the bill next month.

The Cincinnati Enquirer is the first of what no-doubt will be many Ohio newspapers to editorialize against Uecker's bill, saying "What's truly troubling is that these legislative antics turn the fundamental premise of Ohio's open records law on its head. Public records are supposed to be open by default, the state Supreme Court has said repeatedly, with exceptions to be clearly defined and limited."

But under O.R.C. § 2923.129 (B) (1), Ohio law specifically states that the CHL list is confidential - not a public record:

"The records that a sheriff keeps relative to [concealed handgun licenses] ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND ARE NOT PUBLIC RECORDS." (emphasis added)

Uecker told Gonger News Service that a newspaper's recent printing of public officials who are concealed carry licensees re-ignited the debate. State Rep. Ron Maag, one of the co-sponsors of HB328, was among those whose confidential information was released by the newspaper.

Uecker is quoted as saying that he had been working on the legislation for some time.

"It kind of resurrected the whole issue again and I just felt the timing was appropriate to go ahead and...bring up the argument again."

"So, on one hand people say, 'well then what's the big deal?' To me, anytime one person has been outed or wronged, that's an affront on our constitutional rights."

The Ohio Newspaper Association opposes the bill. Executive Director Dennis Hetzel said it sets a bad precedent in public records law while putting judges and reporters in precarious situations while doing their jobs.

"It puts judges in very, very uncomfortable positions of essentially playing editor. They're not editors," he said. "And it violates a real, fundamental premise of most open records laws around the country, which is that you should not have to state a reason to see a public record."

"The perceived harm that openness can cause is anecdotal and unproven ... (and) is outweighed by the need for this to be as open and public as any other record."

Hetzel failed to explain why the Ohio Newspaper Association believes a publicly-announced hearing held in an open courtroom would be less open than journalists being able to go to a sheriff's office and obtain the confidential information in secret. In point of fact, this bill would bring a high level of openness to journalists' secretive requests made under the Media Access Loophole - the kind of openness the ONA generally claims to be in favor of. Ohio CHL-holders have a right to know who is trying to access their confidential information, and should be able to provide testimony as to why that information should continue to be protected.

The Gongwer article goes on to say the bill has been assigned to the House Criminal Justice Committee but hearings have not yet been scheduled. Mr. Uecker told Gongwer he hopes to work with interested parties and committee members to refine criteria judges would consider to determine if a journalist's request to view concealed carry records is permissible.

In 2006, the Ohio legislature attempted to clarify its intent in giving journalists access to the records via passage of House Bill 9, which allowed journalists to view, but not copy, the list. Opponents of the change complained that the law did not define what the words "view" and "copy" mean, and ultimately it took an opinion from the Ohio attorney general's office to ensure that journalists understood that the provision prohibits a journalist from making a reproduction by any means, other than through his own mental processes, of the information the journalist is permitted to view under that statute. Even with that, however, we warned that HB9 would likely prove to be an insufficient fix.

Now that still more Ohioans have had their confidential information exposed, without even an attempt to explain how publishing the private, personal information serves the public interest, perhaps the General Assembly will finally agree it is time to hold journalists accountable by allowing them to obtain the information only after proving a public interest need in open court.

Click here to read HB328 in its entirety.

Chad D. Baus is the Buckeye Firearms Association Vice Chairman.