Sidney Daily News and Shelby Co. Sheriff maintain they committed no crimes

June 12, 2004
Sidney Daily News

Calls for state and local investigations have followed publication Tuesday in the Sidney Daily News of a list of concealed-carry permit holders as released by Shelby County Sheriff Kevin O'Leary.

The publication of addresses was listed as illegal by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and by Ohioans For Concealed Carry.

The former organization headquartered in Bellevue, Wash, has called for Attorney General Jim Petro to investigate the release, stating that there is no provision to release street addresses of licensees.

Ohioans for Concealed Carry also lambasted the newspaper, claiming publishing anything at all is illegal.*

Responding to inquiries on Friday, O'Leary said language in the new law is confusing and open to interpretation. He said the Buckeye State Sheriffs Association will discuss how to proceed with the law at a meeting next week.

Daily News Executive Editor Jeffrey Billiel stood by publication of the names of permit holders as a matter of public interest.

"There are many people in the community who feel they have a right to know who may be carrying a concealed weapon," Billiel said. "That is why we requested access to the list, which is permitted under the law."

Billiel said the newspaper "will defer to the sheriff and prosecuting attorney whether or not address will be reported in future listings."

O'Leary issued the following statement regarding releasing the names of permit holders:

"The complaints received focus specifically on the full addresses which were provided upon written request (by the newspaper). The law states, "Upon written request to the sheriff and signed by a journalist, the sheriff shall disclose to the journalist the county of residence of permit holders."

"I believe this verbage is convoluted, vague, and open to interpretation and could be construed specifically as the name of the county or the full address at which the permit holder resides inside the county. It would have been more clear and specific if the lawmakers had specified the name of the county and no included the word 'residence.'

"The law also states that the journalist shall state that disclosure of the information sought would be of the public interest. This raises the issue of putting a concealed-carry holder's right of privacy against the right of non-holders to know who is carrying."

"Both issues put the sheriffs of Ohio in a position in which journalists, concealed-carry advocates and the common citizen must make their own interpretations and second-guess (the law).

"I have requested Bob Cornwell of the Buckeye State Sheriffs Association to address the 'county residence' issue next week at our monthly board meeting to see if a decision can be made to bring some clarity and consistency to this issue.

"Overall, concealed carry has gone well at our office and it seems most complaints about my decision to give out the full addresses have come from outsiders. I have received only one phone call from a permit holder, of the 87 listed in the article. I will reconsider my decision after the Buckeye State Sheriffs Association meeting next week."

Shelby County Prosecuting Attorney Jim Stevenson said Friday he received a report from Ohioans for Concealed Carry and is not certain what course of action he will follow.

Stevenson said he will first talk to O'Leary to determine exactly what has occurred.

"It's a brand-new statute. We need to look at it to see if there are different ways to interpret the language. Right now the focus should be on what can and cannot be done."

Stevenson said the incident is more in the form of an inquiry now, rather than an investigation.

Citing Ohio Revised Code 2923.129 (B) (1), the Concealed Carry group's website highlighted the words "No person shall release or otherwise disseminate the information."

Not highlighted was the opening of the section, which states, "Upon a written request made to a sheriff and signed by a journalist on or after the effective date of this section, the sheriff shall disclose to the journalist 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...

The conclusion of the section states 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.

Commentary:
*OFCC has never "claim[ed] that "publishing anything at all is illegal." This is an absolutely false statement.

The newspaper also misled its readers by suggesting that Ohio Revised Code 2923.129 (B) (2) was not also included (not 'highlighted') in OFCC's June 9 story on this matter. In fact, this section was listed BEFORE our commentary on 2923.129 (B) (1). Also notably absent from this Sidney Daily News article is any mention of the possibility that the newspaper committed a felony by publishing these addresses.

We have contacted the editor of this newspaper to request an immediate retraction.

It is apparent this newspaper and Sheriff O'Leary are both under the impression that there is a legal "right to know" who chooses to bear arms for self-defense. We would enjoy it if they would attempt to show us just what part of the Constitution gives anyone such a "right to know" such private information. We ourselves are quite certain about the law which gives Ohioans a right to bear arms for self-defense.

If Sheriff O'Leary or Prosecutor Stevenson believes the words "county of residence" are convoluted, vague and open to interpretation, we are certain they must also be confused about such complexities as what the meaning of "is" is.

"County of residence" is used in law every day, and never does it equate to "home address." As yourself this: when filling out a goverment document, and you are asked for county of residence, have you, even once, been confused and written anything other than the name of the county you live in?

As for the newspaper, let us all remember that the reason Bob Taft and the Ohio Newspaper Association gave as to why public records for concealed handgun license-holders were necessary was as a check and a balance to make certain the sheriff was following the law regarding background checks. Did the Sidney Daily News purpose to accomplish this?

If the pretext for obtaining these names and addresses from Sheriff O'Leary
had been to sleuth out applicants that should not have qualifed for a CHL, the appropriate/professional way to accomplish this would be to have assigned reporters the task of investigating.

Instead, the paper has already admitted the pretext was NOT to provide a means for confirming proper licensing, as per Taft's stated intent, but was it instead just so the SDN could continue their practice of
printing "things" they deem to be of public interest. Would that pass the test as far
as the intent of the legislators?

Certainly not.