Dispatch/Blade editorials reveal media misunderstanding about CHL records

With each newspaper editorial expressing journalists' misgivings with the pending changes to the media access to concealed handgun license (CHL) records loophole, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the Cleveland Plain Dealer isn't the only newspaper to fail to read legislation before editorializing on it.

Last week, in an editorial entitled "Idea misfires: Pending law on conceal-carry records is confusing and should be amended", the Columbus Dispatch incorrectly referred to Ohio's CHL records as "public records":

The solution is simple: Open the files to the public the same as all public records. (emphasis added)

The next day, a Toledo Blade editorial entitled "Fix gun-records law"" put it this way:

Last year's lame-duck legislature, showing the same penchant for secrecy that has become all too familiar in the Bush White House, decided that weapon permits, access to which had already been restricted to journalists and limited to name, age, and county, could still be considered public if journalists could view the records, even if they were not allowed to be copied. (emphasis added)

The fact is, however, that the Ohio law specifically states that the CHL list is confidential - NOT A PUBLIC RECORD. With two major Ohio newspapers publishing this same error on their editorial pages, it is obvious that the writers at these newspapers are either:

a) ignorant of the law, and in need of correction by informed readers, or

b) aware of and misinforming their readers about the law because they disagree with it.

In either case, it is up to their readers to hold them accountable to the facts.

Click 'Read More' for complete details on Ohio's media access to concealed handgun license-holder records, and let's get to writing those letters to the editor!

The argument that is frequently presented when newspapers editorialize on the need to make CHL records public is that ALL government information should be public, or that government shouldn’t be able to keep some information private. To wit, from the Blade editorial:

Our opposition to both the original concealed-carry legislation and subsequent watering down that struck down home-rule ordinances in Toledo and other Ohio municipalities is well known. This, however, is not about guns; it is about the public's right to have access to "public" records.

This argument is a red herring, designed to mask an anti-gun political agenda that involves targeting citizens who have a legal 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.

Indeed, 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. And here is the proof:

§ 2923.129 (B) (1) Notwithstanding section 149.43 of the Revised Code, except as provided in division (B)(2) of this section, the records that a sheriff keeps relative to the issuance, renewal, suspension, or revocation of a license to carry a concealed handgun or the issuance, suspension, or revocation of a temporary emergency license to carry a concealed handgun, including, but not limited to, completed applications for the issuance or renewal of a license, completed affidavits submitted regarding an application for a temporary emergency license, reports of criminal records checks and incompetency records checks under section 311.41 of the Revised Code, and applicants’ social security numbers and fingerprints that are obtained under division (A) of section 311.41 of the Revised Code, are confidential and are not public records. (emphasis added)

Read it again - especially you editorial writers who are lurking here, or those who plan on writing them a nice letter:

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

This portion of the statute is not new - it has been law in Ohio since the concealed carry law first became law in 2004. 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.

And yet the editorial writers continue to write the opposite. Are these elitist media-types ignorant of the law, or deliberately misinforming their readers? Consider the ramifications if the latter:

Mr. Editor does not agree with the decision of The People, and he works at a newspaper, so he believes his opinion is the only one that matters. Contrary to the legislative and deliberative process and result, Mr. Editor choses to unilaterally make public that which is conclusively not public with the turn of a page or the click of a mouse. In short, certain members of Ohio’s Main Stream Media (MSM) 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. 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, Mr. Editor 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 Mr. Editor? 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 Mr. Editor 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.

In conclusion, 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.

The New Media Access Loophole

So desperate are these extremists to maintain their ability to abuse these public records that they are now arguing over the language of the new law, with the Toledo Blade calling on the law's effective date of September 29 to be rescinded:

It would be better to hold off enactment of this provision until the General Assembly can figure out what "copying" entails. Hopefully, it will have the sense to see that the broadest interpretation is the only choice if records are to be truly open.

Once again, we are presented with a red herring argument.

As per Substitute House Bill 9, the media access loophole language was changed as follows:

(2) Upon a written request made to a sheriff and signed by a (a) A journalist, on or after the effective date of this section April 8, 2004, the may submit to a sheriff shall disclose to the journalist a signed, written request to view the name, county of residence, and date of birth of each person to whom the sheriff has issued a license or replacement license to carry a concealed handgun, renewed a license to carry a concealed handgun, or issued a temporary emergency license or replacement temporary emergency license to carry a concealed handgun under section 2923.125 or 2923.1213 of the Revised Code, or a signed, written request to view the name, county of residence, and date of birth of each person for whom the sheriff has suspended or revoked a license to carry a concealed handgun or a temporary emergency license to carry a concealed handgun under section 2923.128 of the Revised Code. The request shall include the journalist's name and title, shall include the name and address of the journalist's employer, and shall state that disclosure of the information sought would be in the public interest. If a journalist submits a signed, written request to the sheriff to view the information described in this division, the sheriff shall grant the journalist's request. The journalist shall not copy the name, county of residence, or date of birth of each person to or for whom the sheriff has issued, suspended, or revoked a license described in this division.

HB9 specifically changed the disclosure of licensee information by Sheriffs. Pre-HB9, Sheriffs were to provide a copy of the record to the journalist. Post-HB9, the journalist may only “view” the record, and specifically may not “copy” the record. The Blade notes that some are questioning what the words “view” and “copy” mean?

When interpreting statutes, words are to be given their plain English, every day meanings. In this case, the General Assembly used easy to understand words. “View” means just that, view, inspect, review i.e. they may read the record. “Copy” is similarly easy to understand. In the context of § 2923.129(B)(2), “copy” is used as a verb. Turning to the dictionary, the verb usage of “copy” is synonymous “reproduce.” In other areas of the Revised Code, when specific forms of “copy” were intended, modifiers were added to “copy” such as: “transcribed copy” “exact copy” “written copy” etc. In this case, just the general form of “copy” was used, which clearly indicates that all forms of reproduction were intended to be included. Some examples of “copy” that would qualify as reproduction would be: photograph of a record, photocopy of a record, hand copying the list, videotape of a record, orally reading a record into a recording device such as a tape recorder, cell phone, mp3 player etc.

While the intent of the fix was to prevent the media from obtaining and publishing entire lists, it is a clearly a mistake to allow the burden to remain on the anti-gun media to honor the will of the General Assembly. When it originally passed HB9, the Ohio House overwhelmingly (by a 93-1 vote!) passed a bill containing language that would have to allowed people with CHLs to protect their personal information from the media. Sadly, the amendment was stripped out by Republicans in the Ohio Senate.

Now that we have a governor who would support entirely eliminating journalist access to these confidential records, it is time for legislation that, at a bare minimum, would allow CHL-holders who believe the release of their information would compromise their safety to prevent the media from gaining access to their confidential records. Better yet, let's send Governor Strickland the bill he really wants to sign.

Much of the information provided above has been compiled from previous articles on this website, with the respective authors' permission.

Other recent editorials on the subject:

Dayton Daily News: Courts don't exist to cover for chickens

The current law says only journalists can learn the names of those who can hide a gun in their car or under their coat. And they only are told names, ages and what county a person lives in. Reporters, for instance, can't learn home addresses or information about the kinds of guns a holder has. The new law piles on, adding that journalists may not copy these records. ...At the end of the month, sheriffs aren't going to know what to do. They could get sued whichever way they turn — and lawsuits ultimately cost the public money. ...[The] law is the problem, and it needs to be fixed. Punting to the courts — when the statute is indefensible — is using judges for political cover. That's an abuse of institutions that have better things to do than bail out cowardly politicians.

Tiffin Advertiser-Tribune: Public record law should be rewritten

State legislators need to rewrite the law. When they do, they should grant access to concealed-carry records to all members of the public.

Warren Tribune-Chronicle: Conceal carry permit law needs clarity

A new law will go into effect Sept. 29. But the new law inserts a twist: Journalists still can see the names — but cannot make copies of the lists. ...The Tribune Chronicle’s approach will be that reporters can write down the names but not make electronic duplicates. Our intention is to continue publishing those names in the newspaper. ...State legislators clearly need to rewrite the law. When they do, they should grant access to concealed-carry records to all members of the public or eliminate the permits and records process.

Willoughby News-Herald: Lawmakers make mess on CCW permit access

Unless lawmakers clean up their mess, the Ohio Supreme Court may be forced in the future to insist elected leaders use far more precision on this critical element of the concealed-carry weapons bill. ...It may require a lawsuit with judges demanding lawmakers clarify public access to concealed-carry weapons permits.