Civitas Media fights to retain ability to develop database of CHL-holders (and they're not alone )

In early, 2014, I exposed an internal email proving that Civitas Media, which owns some 88 newspapers in 12 states - including 38 here in Ohio - was discussing the use of "public records act requests" to "build state-by-state databases that list those who have the right to carry" firearm licenses.

My article quickly went viral. Soon after being picked up by DailyCaller.com, DrudgeReport.com added a link to the DailyCaller.com piece. I was eventually interviewed by Fox News and the resulting article was posted as the top story at FoxNews.com.

Less than 24 hours after my original article was published, and despite having spurned my earlier requests to provide much in the way of public comment concerning the status of plans to create this database, Civitas Media issued a statement saying that the company "never had any plans or intentions of publishing in print or online lists of holders of 'conceal and carry' permits" and would not "develop databases of permit holders."

Civitas had done what it took to get Fox News, with whom I had actually taped a segment for Megyn Kelly, off their back. The "Kelly File" segment never ran. But just a year and a half later, it is now obvious that Civitas Media hasn't done away with their intentions to obtain concealed handgun license (CHL) -holders' confidential information.

In 2012, Civitas Media purchased the Lima News, a newspaper which has a long history of editorial support for the right to bear arms. In fact, in 2006, the newspaper published an op-ed in favor of closing the media access loophole (MAL) which allows journalists to view Ohio CHL-holders' confidential information.

Lawmakers again are looking at Ohioans who carry concealed weapons. Legislators want either to restrict who can access the now-public lists of permit holders or close access to them altogether.

Closing the lists altogether makes sense. It’s not a popular opinion among newspaper people (the Ohio Newspaper Association, which this paper belongs to, opposes shutting off the lists).

Certainly, keeping public records open is important in a free society, but owning and carrying a gun isn’t sufficient reason to have your name and address kept on file for anyone to access.

Defining rights and privileges is important to this debate. You shouldn’t have to license yourself in order to exercise a freedom. It’s another thing if you look to take advantage of a privilege such as driving.

Now that Civitas Media owns the newspaper, however, the Lima News is singing a different tune. From an editorial published June 28, 2015:

People who have read The Lima News for years know of its long history of supporting the rights of gun owners.

Thus, they may be shocked that we are asking Ohio Gov. John Kasich to use his line-item veto to ensure journalists access to the names of concealed carry permit holders. Language was slipped into the budget bill at the last minute that tightened restrictions.

Indeed, readers who are unaware that the small-town newspaper is now owned by a national media conglomerate that does not share their values may be "shocked," but the rest of us could see it coming a mile away. Civitas Media is at it again, and this time, they have help.

You see, the editorial published by the Lima News wasn't written by anyone at that newspaper, despite the fact that it is published without the proper citation. As I perused the predictable plethora of "sky is falling" editorials addressing the closing of the MAL in the budget bill, I took note of several editorials that were calling on Governor Kasich (R) to use his line-item veto pen and leave the journalists' loophole open.

When I looked closer, I noticed that the exact same language was used in three different newspapers - this one from the Lima News, this one from Ashtabula's Star-Beacon, and this one from the Akron Beacon Journal. The following is published word-for-word in all three newspapers, but neither Civitas Media's Lima News nor the Star-Beacon cited the author, who turns out to be none other than Dennis Hetzel, executive director of the Ohio Newspaper Association:

There are times when it is necessary and in the public’s best interest for journalists to ask if someone has a concealed carry permit.

For example, in the case of a shooting, a reporter might ask these questions: Did the shooter have a concealed carry permit? If so, was it proper and legal? And, if it wasn’t issued appropriately, why was the permit not revoked as the law requires? These are the kinds of questions good reporters ask – and may no longer be possible to ask under Ohio law.

That is why the Ohio Newspaper Association, joined by the Ohio Association of Broadcasters and the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police, believe it was wrong for the state legislature to throw the secrecy shroud over another government activity by eliminating the limited access to this information. It is why the ONA urges Gov. Kasich to use his line-item veto power to restore the current language in the law.

The provision is in the massive budget bill, House Bill 64, headed to the governor’s desk. (You might wonder why such a provision was tossed into the budget bill late in the game, but that’s a subject for another day.)

To explain how we got here, it’s important to debunk myths about this information. Ohio sharply limits the access of journalists to this information already. Reporters can’t take notes or copy the permits; nor do they see specific street addresses. This prevents media outlets from publishing or posting long lists of permit holders – an initiative by a few media outlets that sparked controversy around the country.

Efforts to block even that limited access flared in 2011 after the Middletown Journal published a story in which a reporter checked to see if local elected officials had carry permits. This article has been used as “evidence” that the media simply seeks to sensationalize and invade the privacy of legal gun owners.

I urge the people with concerns to actually read the story. It’s legitimate by any standard of good journalism. It couldn’t have been more “fair and balanced.”

The story came at a time when there was a debate in the wake of the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona about elected officials being able to arm and protect themselves in public settings. Several state legislators were interviewed — and even posed for a photo at a shooting range. Local officials who had permits were interviewed on the record.

The story also contained what has to be one of the most memorable quotes of 2011 from Rep. Ron Maag, who said, “The reason I carry a gun is because I can’t carry a cop.”

One is left to wonder why the Star-Beacon and Civitas Media's Lima News published this op-ed as if it was their own? Did they think it would carry more weight with their readers than if they knew the truth - that it was an op-ed written by a biased outsider?

Hetzel has provided previous comment to newspapers writing about the move to close the MAL once and for all, and, like his editorial, his comments have been full of misinformation and distraction.

In his editorial, which has likely been distributed to all ONA member newspapers in hopes that more will publish it, as did these three, Hetzel suggests that "a reporter might ask these questions: Did the shooter have a concealed carry permit? If so, was it proper and legal? And, if it wasn’t issued appropriately, why was the permit not revoked as the law requires?"

The problem is, if the reporters do ask such questions, readers never are told about it. I've read a large amount of media coverage about issues involving the criminal misuse of firearms, and NOT ONCE EVER have I seen a report that says, "the gang banger that did the drive-by did not have a concealed handgun license," or "the stabbing victim who was robbed at knife-point had not obtained a concealed handgun license and was thus unable to protect themselves."

Instead, in the vast majority of cases where the media access loophole was used, it was used to harass and intimidate law-abiding Ohioans.

Hetzel has been quoted as saying "once government decides to create a record, the law in Ohio couldn’t be clearer that it is an open record unless there is a compelling reason to close it.” He neglects to mention that CHL records have been considered confidential, and not a public record (see O.R.C. § 2923.129 (B) (1)), since the day Ohio's concealed carry law was first passed. Only journalists have ever had access to the confidential information.

​If the ONA loves openness so much, perhaps Hetzel could explain why, in 2011, he and the ONA opposed a bill that sought to shine the light of openness on journalists who were requesting access to this confidential information. What's good for the goose, right? But no, the ONA opposed openness in that instance because this fight isn't about openness.

This fight has always been about an anti-self-defense, anti-gun rights elitists in the media seeking to harass and intimidate those who are simply choosing the best tool possible to keep themselves and their families safe.

The media have never used their privileged access to this confidential information for the reasons they claimed it was needed, and Gov. Kasich will be ending a long and sad chapter in the history of Ohio's concealed carry law when he signs HB 64 - with the MAL fix - into law.

Chad D. Baus is the Buckeye Firearms Association Secretary, BFA PAC Vice Chairman, and an NRA-certified firearms instructor. He is the editor of BuckeyeFirearms.org, which received the Outdoor Writers of Ohio 2013 Supporting Member Award for Best Website.