by Karla Kay Edwards
Within the past week we have enjoyed a big stride forward in the protection of our Second Amendment rights with the U.S. Supreme Court decision on McDonald v. City of Chicago and suffered one small stride backward in the decision Mail Tribune, Inc. v. Winters by the Oregon Court of Appeals. Both are critical legal decisions for gun rights supporters, but both will be subject to further litigation.
Just two years ago the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia Et al v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. However, the Court left the debate open as to whether or not those rights were protected from state infringements under the Fourteenth Amendment. On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court further clarified in McDonald v. City of Chicago that the right to bear arms is incorporated within the Fourteenth Amendment’s “Due Process Clause.” This means a state may not deny law-abiding citizens the inalienable right to bear arms by such means as passing laws that harass gun owners or make gun ownership excessively expensive or burdensome. However, the decision does suggest that states may be able to deny those rights in very specific circumstances, such as denying those rights to felons and the mentally unstable. This is truly a victory for freedom and a step forward for all citizens who own a gun, but many battles still must be won at the state level.
We have our work cut out for us in Oregon. On June 23 the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled in Mail Tribune, Inc. v. Winters that the names of those issued concealed handgun licenses (CHL) must be disclosed under Oregon’s public records law. The decision was no surprise, since it was based on an earlier ruling by the Oregon Supreme Court, which required the disclosure of public records unless an exemption is justified on an individual basis. Many county sheriffs already have taken steps to provide an exemption for CHL holders on an individual basis, asking them to sign a letter indicating that they are obtaining the license as a personal security measure. (As a side note: If you are a CHL holder and have not signed such a letter, I encourage you to contact your county sheriff’s office immediately). The fallacy in this Court decision is that any citizen who obtains a CHL is doing so as a personal security measure. A weapon is not truly concealed if the permit to carry it is made public.
It was not until 1989 that the issuance of a CHL was required on a statewide basis if an Oregon citizen met the criteria. Until that time the proper authority in each County determined the process a citizen used to obtain a CHL in order to exercise his or her Second Amendment right. While most states require similar permits, Vermont doesn’t require a permit for a concealed weapon, recognizing that carrying a firearm is an inherent constitutional right, and only criminals and mentally unstable citizens lose the exercise of this right. By not requiring a permit, there are no public records to disclosure.
For several years now, Oregon Firearms Federation and other pro-gun lobbyists have worked with Oregon legislators to remove the requirement to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun, arguing that it creates an unnecessary burden on both citizens and law enforcement. A law similar to Vermont’s, which provides a presumptive right to carry a firearm for all law-abiding citizens and is only revoked for those that are convicted of a crime or are mentally ill should be supported and passed by our legislature in 2011, thus eliminating any question of public disclosure.
As we celebrate a victory in the defense of our constitutional Second Amendment rights, we must continue to take diligent steps forward in the protection of those rights at every level of our government. We are “a government of the people, for the people” with the responsibility to engage in the defense of our rights when government attempts to hinder or constrain those rights. On America’s birthday over this Fourth of July weekend, we must be grateful for the foresight of our country’s Founding Fathers and the inalienable rights of which they assured every citizen of this amazing country.
Karla Kay Edwards is Rural Policy Analyst at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.
Download PDF
Meanwhile, let’s note that 97.5% of private uses of handguns are “unjustified” (http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2010/06/reality-of-handguns.html)
The chances are far, far greater that your handgun will be used to kill yourself or a member of your family than used in self-defense.
How does Karla feel about that?
Actually, the government transparency or “Sunshine Laws” grew out of the Watergate era, and are meant to make GOVERNMENT transparent to the public. They are NOT to make public the private information that citizens are required to disclose in order to exercise a right (Oregon is a “shall issue” state). Even the information we provide to obtain our Driver’s Licenses, which are a priviledge, not a right, are protected under law.
Mr. Appell’s comment is at best misleading, and at worst willful misrepresentation. Perhaps Mr. Appell was ‘spun’ by the article he cites on his blog, but I doubt it, given that he was aware of the original source for the figure – the FBI crime report. That report clearly states:
“Justifiable homicide — Certain willful killings must be reported as justifiable, or excusable. In the UCR Program, justifiable homicide is defined as and limited to:
* The killing of a felon by a peace officer in the line of duty.
* The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.’
Hence, ‘justified’ is specifically defined as ONLY killing of a felon, either in the commission of a crime or in the line of duty, and that does NOT mean ‘unjustified’ in a broader sense. Further context is provided a short time later:
“# Concerning the known circumstances surrounding murders, 42.0 percent of victims were murdered during arguments (including romantic triangles) in 2008. Felony circumstances (rape, robbery, burglary, etc.) accounted for 22.9 percent of murders. Circumstances were unknown for 35.3 percent of reported homicides. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 12.)
# Law enforcement reported 616 justifiable homicides in 2008. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 371 individuals, and private citizens justifiably killed 245 individuals. (See Expanded Homicide Data Tables 14 and 15.)’
If more than a third of homicide circumstances are ‘unknown,’ how can one say that 97.5% are ‘unjustified’? Only by twisting the truth.
1.Meanwhile, let’s note that 97.5% of private uses of handguns are “unjustified”
Bull! Private use of handguns includes: target shooting, plinking, warning off intruders (without firing), self-defense practice, etc. etc.
I would contend that 99.9% of private handgun BULLETS FIRED are “justifiable”. Just take the # of handgun bullets sold in a year and divide by the # of murders/assaults by handguns.