Sandusky Register - MATT WESTERHOLD response !!!

This forum is for discussion of general issues regarding Concealed Carry in your everyday life. This forum is not intended to be political or for discussing legislation.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Dseckt
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 5:56 am
Location: Perkins Township, Ohio

Sandusky Register - MATT WESTERHOLD response !!!

Post by Dseckt »

Here's a link to the Registers response to why he did what he did.
Please leave a comment there.. He wants the NRA and OHIOCCW to back off...

http://sanduskyregister.com/articles/20 ... 678645.txt
User avatar
MeanStreaker
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 4086
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:34 pm
Location: Dayton, OH

Post by MeanStreaker »

Let's keep pressuring those advertisers! Money is the only thing that will change Mr. Westerhold's mind.

I sent emails to everyone yesterday and plan to call today.

(and I left a comment.)
Last edited by MeanStreaker on Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." --Thomas Paine
Mad Duck
Posts: 975
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Preble County
Contact:

Post by Mad Duck »

Posted to Comments:
I am not ashamed to have my CHL, but it really is no one's business.
Mr Westerhold I'm sure would like the records (Most were gained I'm sure funded by public money in some form) of his education etc published, as we have a right to know weather he is fit to be an editor. Grades attendance etc, That way we could be sure weather his words were worthy of our time.
By the way sir I am the NRA & now I will not back off.
User avatar
Paul_K
Posts: 501
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Cuyahoga Co.

Post by Paul_K »

By all means - all of us should post a comment. I was glad to do so.
TunnelRat
Deceased
Deceased
Posts: 9710
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:31 am
Location: Toledo

Post by TunnelRat »

WESTERHOLD: It's about the secrets, not about the gun owners

No, sorry Mr. Westerhold, but it’s about the guns. You have made your anti-gun stance very clear, time and time again – not least of all by your actions at your previous paper. It is rather that you published this list of gun-owners as a self-serving political statement.

This is a battle the Register never sought, but would have been irresponsible to have ducked.

Granted this is a battle the Register would never have sought. It likely never occurred to you that law-abiding citizens would and could fight back against your improper and ill-conceived actions.

Your irresponsibility came in publishing a list of the law-abiding citizens in order to make a political statement that otherwise has no legitimate journalistic purpose.

Now, the National Rifle Association and the Ohio Concealed Carry group

That would be the Ohioans for Concealed Carry, thank you very much. We manage to get your name straight, perhaps you could manage to get ours right -- though facts have never been your strong suit.

have begun an organized campaign to harass the newspaper’s advertisers

No, sorry, wrong again. We have encouraged folks to let your advertisers know the sort of biased political bile you have been serving up -- and that your advertisers have been supporting. That is not called harassment; it's called the reasonable response of concerned citizens.

because the Register took a stand against government secrecy.

So you keep repeating, but you have yet to make your case. It looks much more like an attempt to embarrass and discomfit some citizens who have exercised their rights under law.

The Ohio law exempts all information about the program from the public record and only journalists are allowed to see the names of residents who have been granted licenses to carry concealed weapons.

Indeed, this record-keeping loophole was demanded by Ohio's powerful Media-lobby. Otherwise Concealed Carry License information would be kept private, even as Drivers License information is kept private.

On Sunday, the Register posted the name, age and county of residence for each of the nearly 2,700 area residents who have been granted a concealed handgun license.

Including, perhaps, the name, age, and county of residence of every battered woman who had made the decision to arm herself in order to protect her family against a stalker,

Providing a "shopping list" for every criminal who is on the lookout for a household where firearms might be stolen,

And satisfying the anti-gun posture of an irresponsible editor who perhaps hoped to embarrass private citizens before their employers and landlords.

These are citizens whom sheriffs in each of the five counties of the Register’s circulation area deemed to be law-abiding and upstanding. They went through a firearms training program and passed criminal background checks.

They are indeed law-abiding. Statistics have shown that citizens who are licensed to carry concealed firearms are significantly and noticeably less likely to commit a crime than is the general population. In fact, we are much less likely to commit a crime than are the police.

They should be proud to be exercising their second amendment rights,
Indeed, and most of us are. However, there are always irresponsible persons in the media to attempt to inflame public opinion against the exercise of our rights. Whatever pride I may have, sir, is surely none of your business.

and I believe most of them aren’t as enraged with the Register’s decision to exercise its first amendment rights in publishing the information as is the NRA, which demands secrecy.


I am the NRA. The NRA is no all-powerful Gun Lobby, as you like to portray them. Rather the NRA is the voice for so many of us otherwise voiceless citizens. You have a newspaper to express your views, I only get to speak with my co-workers at the water cooler, or with my neighbors over the fence.

I am not "enraged" as you put it, but I am deeply offended by your actions and the NRA and Ohioans for Concealed Carry have given me a chance to make my voice heard.

We posted the information as a public service to readers who want to know who among them has been licensed to carry concealed weapons.
I doubt it. Where has there been a clamor to know about this? Where are all the letters to the editor and letters to your sponsors about this?

Sorry, you are merely venting your personal opinion in accordance with your own political views. Your opinions reflect New York City much more than northern Ohio.

The lists have garnered more than 5,200 views since they were posted; Obviously, a large number of readers wanted to know.

At least several of those views were my own, looking to see whether you have listed the names of my friends and colleagues. Most of the rest of the views have been by like minded citizens aghast at what you have done.

But we weren’t looking for this fight.

No, you thought we would just roll over as your media bulldozer invaded our rights and our privacy. You are not only biased, but you are a coward. You would not have begun this fight if you thought we would fight back.

In March, Erie County Sheriff Terry Lyons filed a lawsuit asking a judge to determine whether he should comply with a request from a newspaper in Cincinnati to release the list. In early June, Common Pleas Judge Tygh Tone ruled the law clearly stated the list should be released.
Legal experts called Lyons’ lawsuit bogus and termed it an attack on the state’s public records law. If citizens who ask for public records are forced to answer to a lawsuit when making a request, the availability of public information becomes severely diminished.


Oh? Try asking to see my income tax information, or my drivers license information. Do you see someone stalking children in front of a school? Try getting any information based on the license plate! Such things are private!

My personal information is personal and private. The law is in place specifically because there are irresponsible newspaper editors who enjoy rummaging through the public's underwear drawer and publishing the results.

The Register received the information after Tone’s ruling and it would have been irresponsible not to make it available to readers who have no other way to get it.

Please explain why that would have been irresponsible. The Ohio State Legislature very clearly limited the right to peruse these records to responsible journalists for legitimate journalistic reasons.

For example, when there is a gun crime, it is the public's right to know whether the offender had a license to carry that firearm. Ohio has had a concealed carry law in place since 2004, yet I have yet to find even ONE article in ANY Ohio newspaper that points out that the criminal did NOT have a license. Yet the media dances in the streets to find even one licensed person who commits a crime.

We have taken no stand against the right of qualified residents to carry concealed weapons.

Forgive me, sir, for pointing out that you are not just a coward, you are also a liar. Nearly every article and every editorial you have printed exhibits a strong bias against firearms in general and licensed citizens in particular.

We do, however, have a strong stand against the state keeping secrets from those it governs, and codifying that secrecy into Ohio law.

There are no "secrets" being kept here. The law clearly provides a loophole for responsible journalists.

The demand by the NRA and others that the information be exempt from the public record means there are no checks on whether the program is being properly administered.

Please explain how publishing en masse a list of law-abiding citizens contributes to the proper administration of the law.

While it is true sheriffs are directed to carefully review the process, that’s no guarantee.


You are quite correct. There have even been instances recently in which our very law enforcement officers have been found involved in terrible crimes. There are indeed no guarantees where mortal men are involved. Nor does publishing a list of licensed gun owners provide any guarantees.

Just look back to the Register’s coverage earlier this year concerning Sheriff Lyons’ inability to properly execute arrest warrants.
In January, there was a backlog of more than 600 arrest warrants the sheriff had not served. At least two of those were orders that had been issued years earlier to arrest child rape suspects, and deputies were unable to show that any effort had ever been made to arrest the men.


And did the Register print the list of 600 arrest warrants, showing the names, ages, and county of residence...?

Lyons, either through incompetence or staffing issues, effectively gave these men who allegedly raped children a free pass.

And the Register, either through incompetence, staffing issues, or outright political bias gave the 600 a free pass, yet found the time to list those who have worked to keep the law..

Deputies did track down one of the suspects after the Register published a series of stories about the warrants, but by this time the child victim was unwilling to testify.
What could be more important than arresting child rapists? If the sheriff can’t prioritize that, why would anyone believe he can properly administer a gun program? Access to public records provides the opportunity for that review.


Fair enough! Where are the lists of child rapists? Where are the lists of felons? Where are the lists of drunk drivers?

Why does the Register overstep the bounds of decency, and perhaps even the law, in order to discomfit law-abiding citizens, while giving a free pass to those who show contempt for our legal system?

Residents who have obtained concealed carry licenses should be proud they have been granted that privilege and absolutely unashamed that they have the courage it takes. They also should be unashamed that information should be part of the public record.

I am proud, sir, and unashamed. That still doesn't make any of my private information any of your damned business!

And the NRA should just back off.

Sorry, Mr. Westerhold, but your strawman tactics aren't going to work this time. First you blame the legislature for providing privacy protection for law-abiding citizens, then you blame the NRA for speaking up on our behalf when you violate those provisions.

You are the culprit here, sir. It is you who should "just back off". Your resignation is called for. Show some guts for once and resign.
TunnelRat

"Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States." ~ McDonald v. Chicago

When your only tools are a hammer and sickle, every problem starts to look like too much freedom.
MySQLQuery
Posts: 2003
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:21 am
Location: Delaware County, Ohio
Contact:

Post by MySQLQuery »

Crossposted from the SR forums.

From the article here
This is a battle the Register never sought, but would have been irresponsible to have ducked.
No, you have it wrong. You were irresponsible to do so to begin with. You knew good and well, what you were getting into. You ran a poll, you knew no one wanted the lists posted. You ran a story about posting the lists, which in and of itself created a severe amount of responses. YOU KNEW THIS WAS GONNA HAPPEN.
Now, the National Rifle Association and the Ohio Concealed Carry group have begun an organized campaign to harass the newspaper’s advertisers because the Register took a stand against government secrecy.
Harass? Nope. Just the community you {inappropriate language} off, is letting them know, that since you refuse to do the right thing, we're left with no choice but to boycott your advertisers. Seems, from your whining, that it is working. And, in the process, I've met a couple really cool people.
The Ohio law exempts all information about the program from the public record and only journalists are allowed to see the names of residents who have been granted licenses to carry concealed weapons.
So, you do admit you have probably committed a crime, either in obtaining, or releasing these lists, or, at the very least, broken the law? Good, first bit of honesty I've heard out of you so far.
These are citizens whom sheriffs in each of the five counties of the Register’s circulation area deemed to be law-abiding and upstanding. They went through a firearms training program and passed criminal background checks.
And, yet, I haven't seen a SR article proclaiming that you've found EVEN ONE, that shouldn't have a license.
They should be proud to be exercising their second amendment rights, and I believe most of them aren’t as enraged with the Register’s decision to exercise its first amendment rights in publishing the information as is the NRA, which demands secrecy.

We posted the information as a public service to readers who want to know who among them has been licensed to carry concealed weapons. The lists have garnered more than 5,200 views since they were posted; Obviously, a large number of readers wanted to know.
Bull, Matt. You posted those lists to INTIMIDATE others out of getting a CHL. You quite possibly also may have intended for harm to come to us, by recklessly doing this. This had NOTHING to do with 'providing a public service' YOUR OWN POLL TOLD YOU NO ONE WANTED YOU TO DO THIS.

And, of course, the lists have generated over 5200 views. 2700 Ohioans, were likely looking to see if they were on. I'm sure more than a couple also went to show their lawyers. There ya go, jerk.
But we weren’t looking for this fight.
Oh really? Again, you KNEW this was gonna happen. You KNEW what you were doing was going to create a HUGE backlash. Don't whine about it now.
The Register received the information after Tone’s ruling and it would have been irresponsible not to make it available to readers who have no other way to get it. We have taken no stand against the right of qualified residents to carry concealed weapons.
Nope, you've got it the wrong way round. YOU WERE IRRESPONSIBLE, TO RELEASE THE LISTS. Again, your own poll showed, that no one wanted you to post them. No one wants to know, nor cares, who carries a concealed handgun. The couple that do, can't come up with a good reason as to why it is ANY of their business. Just admit it, you either did this, to endanger the pubic, to intimidate CHL holders, or, as a fun way to quit and take the paper down with you.

Drop the 'state secrets' act, please. No one buys it.
Residents who have obtained concealed carry licenses should be proud they have been granted that privilege and absolutely unashamed that they have the courage it takes.

They also should be unashamed that information should be part of the public record.
Sarcasm? Now the process DOES take a lot of courage, since you've chosen to print 'gun shopping lists' for the area's criminal element. And, it is NOT a privilege, it is a RIGHT.
And the NRA should just back off.
Showing our true colors, already? No, the NRA should get MORE involved.

The only positive thing I can see coming from this whole fiasco, is that NOW you've made the citizenry aware, of exactly why we can't trust you with this information. I can see soon, the journalist loophole being slammed shut soon, as happened in Florida, and Texas, and elsewhere.

Then again, WE THOUGHT THAT WAS THE CASE WHEN HB9 PASSED.

Now, we've come to the part of my posts, that I'm sure you've come to expect. Folks, we need your help. Please, first thing, contact your legislators, and let them know we need stronger laws against this sort of reckless behavior. If you do nothing else, PLEASE do that!

Also, if you'd like to know how you can further help, please visit http://ohioccw.org.
Last edited by MySQLQuery on Wed Jun 27, 2007 9:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Where's the best place to apply for your CHL?
Find out at http://ccwhen.com!
The world is cold, but, bold men take action.
BIG SHAFE
Posts: 985
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 1:38 pm
Location: Hilliard, OH

Post by BIG SHAFE »

I posted some comments.
If its about the secrets, why do you feel the need to put citizens in harms way? State your opinion but do not do the public a disservice by putting them at risk. If you are so into "anti-secrecy" publish all your public information. Are you not proud to be an American? You talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?
Does anyone have a list of contact info for all the advertisers? I will definitely send my comments to them.
MySQLQuery
Posts: 2003
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:21 am
Location: Delaware County, Ohio
Contact:

Post by MySQLQuery »

Thread here! Vote early, vote often! :)
Where's the best place to apply for your CHL?
Find out at http://ccwhen.com!
The world is cold, but, bold men take action.
MySQLQuery
Posts: 2003
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:21 am
Location: Delaware County, Ohio
Contact:

Post by MySQLQuery »

TR, I felt like CLAPPING, after I read your post!

Great work!!!!
Where's the best place to apply for your CHL?
Find out at http://ccwhen.com!
The world is cold, but, bold men take action.
TunnelRat
Deceased
Deceased
Posts: 9710
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:31 am
Location: Toledo

Post by TunnelRat »

MySQLQuery wrote: TR, I felt like CLAPPING, after I read your post!
Please feel free...
TunnelRat

"Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States." ~ McDonald v. Chicago

When your only tools are a hammer and sickle, every problem starts to look like too much freedom.
BIG SHAFE
Posts: 985
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 1:38 pm
Location: Hilliard, OH

Post by BIG SHAFE »

MySQLQuery wrote:TR, I felt like CLAPPING, after I read your post!

Great work!!!!
I second that. :D
sbleile
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 11:18 am
Location: Norwalk, Oh
Contact:

Post by sbleile »

Not that you need it, but I'll give a third!!!


*CLAPPING!!*
Scott

----------------------------
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guns defend people from people with smaller guns!!"
oldmic
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 1518
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 9:07 am
Location: Mason

Post by oldmic »

*Standing and clapping* - the crowd goes wild! Very well said, TR!
Whirlwind06
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:50 am
Location: North East Ohio

Post by Whirlwind06 »

One hand clapping ;)
jacksnack

Post by jacksnack »

These same points were quipped by Mr Westerhold yesterday during our discussion:


http://ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.php?t=11622.

The reasoning used appears as a front to hide the true issues he refused to acknowledge in our conversation.

So I think it is safe to say:

"Matt, the members here don't buy into it either."
Post Reply