John Caniglia Plain Dealer Reporter A gun-rights group critical of journalists who have published lists of conceal-and-carry permit holders is now seeking the same information. Jeff Garvas, president of Ohioans For Concealed Carry Inc., has asked the state's sheriffs for -- and in some cases has received -- the names and addresses of the permit holders, citing his role as a journalist. The group, which lobbies in Columbus, produces a newsletter and has a Web site. Under the law, only journalists -- not the general public -- can obtain the information but they cannot copy it. The requests highlight the increasingly murky definition of journalists in the age of the Internet. "You have to wonder why they are doing this," said Bob Cornwell, the executive director of Buckeye State Sheriffs' Association. "Is it for recruitment? Is it for notification -- that there are people like you living nearby? We just don't know."

What the hell?  This should be private information.  A "pro gun" group shouldn't be out taking advantage of the very rule they tried to defeat .  

I'm appalled that an allegedly "pro gun" organization would do this.  Shame on Jeff Garvas.  Shame.

Linky


ETA:  Because of this unconscionable act, I predict a:

Maybe the dude from OFCC is trying to get the names to prove the point that the term 'journalist' is a farce?  

What qualifies a 'journalist' access to the list?  It is either publicly available information or it is not.  Can a 'journalist' get BMV info on a license plate search?  Those are public records, right?

No matter what, I don't want my information out there.  I feel that my privacy has been violated.  I smell a fundraising attempt more than anything.

Didn't HB 347 fix that access problem?  Didn't HB 347 give CHL holders the ability to opt out of public access?

Wasn't it attached to a different bill?  

This is from the OFCC forum

Hey folks I just read this thread and I can't respond to it in the detail that it deserves at the moment (just paged by work) I will be posting a comprehensive story tonight along with a lawsuit that was filed today that will be a bit more revealing. To whet your appetites mull over the phrase "unconstitutionally vague"... The Cincinnati Enquirer was refused a list today because of us. -jeff

Why would anyone here believe the CPD would write a story that was actually true about 2A stuff?

I think we should just wait and see what the reason really is. If it is a bad thing then
we can rake Jeff over the coals.

Quoted: Maybe the dude from OFCC is trying to get the names to prove the point that the term 'journalist' is a farce?   What qualifies a 'journalist' access to the list?  It is either publicly available information or it is not.  Can a 'journalist' get BMV info on a license plate search?  Those are public records, right?

Thats exactly what it is...I'm sure Jeff is not trying to get names to run a membership drive.

height=8

Quoted: This is from the OFCC forum height=8 Hey folks I just read this thread and I can't respond to it in the detail that it deserves at the moment (just paged by work) I will be posting a comprehensive story tonight along with a lawsuit that was filed today that will be a bit more revealing. To whet your appetites mull over the phrase "unconstitutionally vague"... The Cincinnati Enquirer was refused a list today because of us. -jeff

Put your boots on, it is going to get deep!

OFCC's attempt to build their database of Ohio CHL holders (probably for the primary purpose of soliciting donations and memberships) was shot down a few weeks ago.  To claim that their attempt somehow prevented the Enquirer's Gregory Korte from obtaining the list is an attempt to distract the reader from the disappointing double standard exhibited by OFCC.


Pete.

Quoted: Quoted: This is from the OFCC forum Hey folks I just read this thread and I can't respond to it in the detail that it deserves at the moment (just paged by work) I will be posting a comprehensive story tonight along with a lawsuit that was filed today that will be a bit more revealing. To whet your appetites mull over the phrase "unconstitutionally vague"... The Cincinnati Enquirer was refused a list today because of us. -jeff Put your boots on, it is going to get deep! OFCC's attempt to build their database of Ohio CHL holders (probably for the primary purpose of soliciting donations and memberships) was shot down a few weeks ago.  To claim that their attempt somehow prevented the Enquirer's Gregory Korte from obtaining the list is an attempt to distract the reader from the disappointing double standard exhibited by OFCC. Pete.

Do you mind revealing what kind of axe do you have to grind against OFCC?

height=8

Quoted: Do you mind revealing what kind of axe do you have to grind against OFCC?

I'll admit to having a somewhat cynical opinion of OFCC leadership, but the actions by OFCC are very disappointing, and potentially very damaging to the pro-gun cause.  I'm not grinding an axe.  For if that was my true intention, then I would have made OFCC's efforts public a couple of weeks ago.  Instead, I was hoping their efforts would go unnoticed so that the pro-gun cause was not harmed.

Suppose I turn this discussion around and ask about your motivations in this thread?

How about this, instead of trying to change the focus of this discussion to me or you, let's stick to the thread topic and examine  the issue, determine the potential consequences, and figure out how to mitigate the fallout.  We are all supposed to be on the same side here.

Credibility, integrity, and trust are huge issues with the legislators, and we need to be squeaky clean whenever we are working with them on legislative issues.  Do a search on OFCC's website for all of the articles they published blasting the Media Access Loophole.  Then they turn around and try to exploit it.  The anti-gunners will be the first ones to point out this double standard to the legislators in Columbus in an effort to destroy the credibility of the pro-gun movement.  Unfortunately, that is a significant problem we are now forced to deal with.


Pete.

Pete, what do you care if OFCC gets names for a fundraising drive?

The law that anybody claiming reporter status can get a list if CHL holders is bullshit in the first place.

But if any ole Joe claiming journalism can get the list, then I sure as hell am not worried about OFCC because I doubt they will be publishing it in a newspaper like the rest of the assholes posing as reporters have done and continue to do.

Quoted: Quoted: Do you mind revealing what kind of axe do you have to grind against OFCC? I'll admit to having a somewhat cynical opinion of OFCC leadership, but the actions by OFCC are very disappointing, and potentially very damaging to the pro-gun cause.  I'm not grinding an axe.  For if that was my true intention, then I would have made OFCC's efforts public a couple of weeks ago.  Instead, I was hoping their efforts would go unnoticed so that the pro-gun cause was not harmed. Suppose I turn this discussion around and ask about your motivations in this thread? How about this, instead of trying to change the focus of this discussion to me or you, let's stick to the thread topic and examine  the issue, determine the potential consequences, and figure out how to mitigate the fallout.  We are all supposed to be on the same side here. Credibility, integrity, and trust are huge issues with the legislators, and we need to be squeaky clean whenever we are working with them on legislative issues.  Do a search on OFCC's website for all of the articles they published blasting the Media Access Loophole.  Then they turn around and try to exploit it.  The anti-gunners will be the first ones to point out this double standard to the legislators in Columbus in an effort to destroy the credibility of the pro-gun movement.  Unfortunately, that is a significant problem we are now forced to deal with. Pete.

Unlike you, I am willing to wait and see if OFCC does what OFCC says they will do.

I do not belong to them, if that matters to you.

Quoted: Pete, what do you care if OFCC gets names for a fundraising drive? The law that anybody claiming reporter status can get a list if CHL holders is bullshit in the first place. But if any ole Joe claiming journalism can get the list, then I sure as hell am not worried about OFCC because I doubt they will be publishing it in a newspaper like the rest of the assholes posing as reporters have done and continue to do.

+1  I'm far less worried about OFCC getting a list than the newspapers getting the list with the intention of posting the names to the public. The OFCC always seemed like a stand-up group and I'm sure they have some plan in mind.

While I do not think they are trying to do any harm, Would they sell me a list if I offered $50,000 "to help the cause"? How safe is that info? (I guess that is a stupid question since it is already in the papers.)

We've been fighting to and winning keeping CHL holders info private. There is no reason to request this private info from the sheriffs if compiling statistics is the real goal. Simply going to the Ohio AG website can give anyone access to CHL figures.

I am a member and wish OFCC well but they employ some counterproductive tactics.    

OFCC had a strategy in place to fight the terrible media access loophole.  Thanks to their recent efforts, they may have found a way to close the loophole for good.  The Cincinnati Enquirer recently asked for a complete list to publish and the Clermont County Sheriff's Office denied them based on the awareness that OFCC raised in these efforts.

They posted a story on their main page.  There was no evil intent...

www.ohioccw.org/content/view/3841/83/

height=8

...What the Plain Dealer didn't tell you is that OFCC has requested the same information that journalists request from Ohio Sheriffs for three reasons, including an effort to end the journalist loophole either through legislative reform or the courts. The primary driving force behind this effort was to perform statistical analysis on a dataset of those that have received CHLs... A secondary motivation is that OFCC wants to know more about the current process in which journalists receive the private information of Concealed Handgun Licensees so that we can compare/contrast the effectiveness of a new law that goes into effect at the end of this month... Today The Clermont County Sheriff's Office seems to be poised to not release private information until a court determines a handful of significant constitutional issues – and relieves the Sheriff from the potential from what are serious concerns. Since our request was received by the Sheriff’s office The Cincinnati Enquirer submitted a similarly worded request and, from what we can tell, was delayed in the same fashion we were. In fact, the Clermont County Prosecutor’s Office has filed a complaint for declaratory relief with the Court of Common Pleas in Clermont County... Further, Clermont County is challenging that the journalist loophole violates the 1st, 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution... If this challenge to the statute is successful, it's possible that the entire journalist loophole could be closed permanently as a result of the legislature’s vague definitions and OFCC's efforts to define itself into the journalist loophole...

Edited to add: some relevant sections from OFCC's story

Quoted: OFCC had a strategy in place to fight the terrible media access loophole.  Thanks to their recent efforts, they may have found a way to close the loophole for good.  The Cincinnati Enquirer recently asked for a complete list to publish and the Clermont County Sheriff's Office denied them based on the awareness that OFCC raised in these efforts. They posted a story on their main page.  There was no evil intent... http://www.ohioccw.org/content/view/3841/83/

Well, I think I'll hold off on any judgement.  I'm worried that this could blow up, but we'll see.

height=8

Well, I think I'll hold off on any judgement.

No offense to anyone here as I'm certainly new (going to buy my first AR within a couple weeks), but I'm not sure why anyone would take a different stance than that and be initially negative...  Especially since the plan yielded good results waaaay sooner than even OFCC expected (in regards to the Enquirer not getting an entire list to publish from the Clermont Sheriff).

Sometimes, after tactics fail for three years to close the media loophole, you have to think outside the box to get something done.  JMHO of course.

height=8

Quoted: height=8 Quoted: height=8 Quoted: This is from the OFCC forum height=8 Hey folks I just read this thread and I can't respond to it in the detail that it deserves at the moment (just paged by work) I will be posting a comprehensive story tonight along with a lawsuit that was filed today that will be a bit more revealing. To whet your appetites mull over the phrase "unconstitutionally vague"... The Cincinnati Enquirer was refused a list today because of us. -jeff Put your boots on, it is going to get deep! OFCC's attempt to build their database of Ohio CHL holders (probably for the primary purpose of soliciting donations and memberships) was shot down a few weeks ago.  To claim that their attempt somehow prevented the Enquirer's Gregory Korte from obtaining the list is an attempt to distract the reader from the disappointing double standard exhibited by OFCC. Pete. Do you mind revealing what kind of axe do you have to grind against OFCC?

I smell United Patriots!