Many citizens in Jackson County, Oregon, are upset over a recent court decision authorizing, under Oregon’s public records law, the release of names and other personal information about concealed weapons permit holders.

The decision stems from a case brought before the Oregon court after the Medford News Tribune newspaper filed a public records request regarding a story about a school teacher who wanted to bring a concealed gun to her school. The paper was originally denied its request, and took the case to the state legislature in order to obtain the information they wanted.

Even though the teacher was originally told by administrators that bringing the gun was against school policy, the district had a difficult time enforcing the decision due to the Oregon law that all matters involving concealed weapons fall under the jurisdiction of the state legislature. But the school ended up being able to enforce the rule and resolving the case without having to go through the arduous court process anyway, because bringing the weapon onto school property is a violation of the teachers’ employment agreement.

Sheriff Mitch Southwick of Baker county who currently serves as president of the Oregon Sheriff’s Association, is against the ban and has filed an appeal to the court decision. He finds that the public records law contains an exemption for not releasing names when doing so could “pose safety and security risks” to individuals.

All Oregon sheriffs, in addition to many state residents, feel that allowing the release of such personal information poses several risks. In addition to concerns about being targeted by gun thieves, since gun owners’ information would be released to the public, Southwick said permit holders are concerned that making their personal information readily available would also make them vulnerable to identity theft.

Legislators in favor of this court decision and of releasing permit holders’ private information take this stand for several reasons. They believe that people who get concealed weapons do so for reasons other than personal security, and that it is risky having people carry weapons in public. Roxanna Swann of the Baker County Democrats believes that weapons permit holders “should be on somebody’s list somewhere. We’re all human. None of us is perfect. If you are packing a concealed weapon, you could use it.”

But Sheriff Southwick finds that people actually do carry concealed weapons for “security and safety.” In order to obtain an Oregon permit, you must first submit to an extensive background check, submit a fingerprint, and take a course on gun control and safety.

Southwick and other critics of the decision also point to the fact that gun permit holders actually have a much lower crime rate than the rest of society. Florida provides the example that in the 10 years between 1987 (when it enacted similar laws and restrictions to Oregon regarding permit applications and restrictions) and 1997, out of the 350,000 permits issued only one permit holder was convicted of homicide. The same study found that if all American’s behaved as these gun permit holders, America would have the lowest homicide rate in the world.

And in response to the complaint that permit holders need to have their name on a list somewhere, Southwick points out that they already do. Police officers upon pulling a car over or making an arrest are able to check immediately whether or not the person in question is legally permitted to carry a concealed weapon. The police also keep a database of permit holders’ finger prints.

So Southwick believes that if the state and law enforcement agencies have access to these records and people carry the weapons only for personal safety and security, which is indicated by the drastically lower crime rates commit by permit carriers, there is no need for these records to fall into the hands of the public and media. Whether or not one supports gun rights and the second amendment in the first place is a whole other question and issue altogether; this is one of the right to privacy and safety for those who already own weapons and choose to follow the legal process to carry them responsibly.

It seems innapropriate to release these records to the public due to one already resolved case when the consequences, which include putting permit holders’ information in the hands of gun thieves, is one of the most likely consequences. Police and law enforcement officials already have direct access to these records and are able to act whenever there is some sort of security risk posed by one of these citizens. I see little good which can come from releasing this information to the media and public unless the invasion of privacy and security without just cause is now considered to be a good thing. And if so, then go Patriot Act!