Representative Kim Thatcher: Ruling revives gun laws in 2011

New Ruling Calls for Reload of Gun Legislation for 2011
By State Representative Kim Thatcher,

Recently the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that Sheriffs across Oregon must disclose information about Concealed Handgun License (CHL) holders under the state’s public records law.

After the ruling, Representative Kim Thatcher said,”this only re-affirms my determination to change state law to protect the privacy of gun owners in Oregon. Clearly, disclosure of the names of CHL holders not only jeopardizes their safety, but also defeats the whole idea of a “concealed” weapon.” Thatcher plans to re-introduce legislation in 2011 which would only allow CHL information to be shared with law enforcement or the courts.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 06:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 5 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Dan Estes

    Thanks for all your hard work, Kim. I really appreciate your willingness to stand up for gun owners, CHL holders, and the Second Amendment in general.

  • Wayne Brady

    Thank you for working on this issue. I think gun owners should be protected. I see no reason for exposing the identity of a whole group of people to possible harassment or worse.

  • John in Oregon

    The precedent here should be of great concern to all Oregonians. Essentially the court held that a state database of licensed citizens for the purposes of the state’s public records law is a public record.

    For those that oppose an individual right to own a weapon this may seem a victory. But think it through. The state, county and cities have many such databases. Licensed tradesman, licensed alarm permit holders, licensed drivers and much more.

    Sensitive personal information that most citizens think should be protected. Would you want someone to be able to access your personal information that is on file with the state?

    A simple FOIA process should be sufficient. A process in which the requester would have to justify the request on a case by case basis for particular individuals based on the specific circumstances which justify the request.

    Didn’t we have that discussion about DMV records?

  • nathan crawford

    Thank’s Kim;
    Alright people wakeup!!! Donot look at this or anything else the goverment doe’s !!! with the attitude it’s ok it’s not that big adeal !!! We’ve done this for year’s, and look where it’s gotten us. Everytime you give the goverment alittle you have to give up a portion of your freedom, it’s not a fair trade. It’s time to kick them out of your house. No More Little Thing’s.
    Nathan z crawford

  • Duane Edgerton

    Whatever the requirements of the public records law, it should be the same
    for firearms owners as it is for vehicle owners. Moreover, the liabilities
    and penalties for misuse of the information should be the same. If the
    restrictions on the firearms database need to be tightened up, then the same
    should apply to the DMV database.

    The problem really is the gang of media scum who want to access the database in
    order to harass firearms owners by “exposing” them. The law should render those
    who publish the information unconditionally liable for all consequences of its
    subsequent misuse. (Believe me, that will have a “Chilling Effect” on all the
    sniveling little “reporters” who think harassing CCW holders is “fun”.) The
    same should apply with the DMV database (for instance, as might be the case with
    leftist eco-fruits trying to harass SUV owners.)

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)