Ohio Sheriff Releases CHL Holders' Addresses - Newspaper Prints List

Don't think a lawsuit is proper here. Any judgement would probably have to be paid by the county. All in the county would suffer.
Click to expand...

If I were a concealed carry license holder in that county, I'd have filed a law suit for millions of dollars by now. Let those who failed to exercise good judgement in choosing the sheriff pick up the tab for his criminal behavior.
 
My initial gut instinct on the matter is that public records are public records and should be public records. Doesn't the public own this information? Obviously, some information concerning minors and such should probably be restricted and protected, but other than a few types of documentation, I do not see how so many "public documents" can be kept from the public.

With that said, what this sheriff did is outrageous to me, especially considering his stand on the CHL issue and his vengful intent.

To me, and I'm sure to many other TFL'ers, there should not be a CHL required in the first place and therefore no public record in the second place!

It amazes me how much we struggle with issues that are only issues because we the people did not struggle with the previous issues that led to these issues.

Sorry for the rant, but it burns me up, this garbage! :mad:
 
I posted an excellent responce for the sheriff instead of a lawsuit but it wasn't well received by the mods. :D
 
So y'all need to put the names & addresses of the Sheriff and folk down at the newspaper on fliers and plaster them all over your local Section 8 housing project. :D
 
Kaboom wrote:
Don't think a lawsuit is proper here. Any judgement would probably have to be paid by the county. All in the county would suffer.


Greatest liklehood, in the event of a law suit and an award against the county, is that the counties insurance carrier would be the source of any actual monies paid. Of course, the counties premium might go up a bit, but that's another matter.

As to an action against the sheriff, as an individual, if his action or antics were found to be "outside the scope of his duties", he might well be on his own, re defending himself, and paying any judgements that might be issued against him, in the event that he lost.

In any event, during the last election, whenever that was, the voters, who might well have been aware of his position, chose to elect him to office, or return him thereto. Therefore, since he is "their monkey", let them feed him.
 
Hey guys. This is my first post here. I'm a regular at GlockTalk.
Sorry if I missed it, but here is the editor and Sheriff's info that was posted by another GT member. I called the Sheriff today and had a talk with him(See the details below). Please call him at his direct office # and let him know how you feel. I'm still working on getting in touch with the editor.

Sheriff:
Sheriff Kevin P O'Leary
Home address:
1367 Gearhart Road
Sidney OH 45365
Direct office phone#: 937-498-7833


Editor:
Jeffrey Billiel
Publisher & Executive Editor
(937)498-5962
jbilliel@sdnccg.com
Home address:
17047 Dingman Slagle Rd
SIDNEY, OH 45365
937-492-8482
------------------------------------
Okay guys,
I just called Sheriff O'Leary at the office # that was published in this thread. I didn't have to go through a secretary and he answered the phone himself. We had quite a heated discussion. All I can say is, "what an a-hole". This man is so obviously against gun owners that it's sickening. That was clear.

I asked him why he felt the need to publish the addresses of CCW holders. His answer was that the wordage, "county of residence" wasn't clear enough to determine whether only the county could be listed, or the addresses as well. He said that HE made the decision to interpret the wording how he saw fit, and decided to release addresses instead of just counties. He told me to look up the word "residence" in the dictionary. I told him I knew exactly what the word meant, but the word itself wasn't in question. He said he wasn't going to sit around and argue the technicalities all afternoon.

I then told him that many people are upset about this, and he may have to argue about this with a lawyer all day, instead of me. He said that doesn't scare him one bit and he's had that threat many times. I told him, "No offense Sheriff, but you've had to argue all day with lawyers on a few occasions, haven't you?". He hesitated and said, "I won't deny that one bit".

He told me over and over that he could care less how I feel about this, because I didn't vote for him and I wasn't one of the people that had their information published. What a stand up guy

I asked him why he, a LEO, wasn't on the side of law abiding gun owning citizens, and instead on the side of anti gun journalist. He said he wasn't on anyone’s side but his own, and that he wasn't picking sides. Huh? Who elected this a-hole? He's not on the side of law abiding citizens? Okay.

I also asked him if he would mind if his personal information being published for the world to see, along with his home address. He sort of stumbled, but said he wouldn't mind at all. So I informed him that it already had been published, and told him his home address so he knew I wasn't BS'ing him. He stumbled again, and said that was fine. I thanked him for his time and that was the end of it.

I suggest EVERYONE here call Sheriff O'Leary at his office and let him know how you feel about this. 937-498-7833 Don't worry if your debate skills aren't very polished, this man has no argument, and isn't very good in supporting his ridiculous excuses.

I'm still trying to get in touch with Jeffrey Billiel.
 
Last edited:
Not sure about other states, but in Florida, LEO's can use their business address on the DL's instead of a residence.
 
"Any judgement would probably have to be paid by the county. All in the county would suffer."

Precisely. That's how the system works: Bonehead official does something boneheaded. County gets sued. County pays judgments. Taxpayers of county get steamed that they're paying for bonehead moves by official. County taxpayers vote in the next election, replacing bonehead. It's not a perfect system, but it's better than the next best kind.
 
Looking at this issue from a different direction...

I suppose the local burglars have listed those addresses as 87 places to NOT go near! Conversely, wouldn't the criminals love it if all anti's had their home addresses published? That would be like them hanging a sign out front of the house reading " I don't believe in defending myself, my family or my property "

BTW, I totally agree that it was wrong and probably illegal for the Sheriff to do this. He sounds like a real jerk. Perhaps he'd be a good candidate for VP on the democratic ticket ;)
 
Actually, the burglars know that if the case these 87 homes carefully, and break in when they are certain that nobody is home, they're apt to find a firearm or two.
 
Man either too stupid, or too unethical to be Sheriff

OFCC put up a poll a while back, here are the results:

If a state official asks for your "name, date of birth & county of residence", do you provide your:

Name, telephone number, & DOB 0.41% (3)
Name & street address 0.82% (6)
Name, date of birth & county of residence 94.82% (696)
Ques. too convoluted/vague/open to interpretation 3.95% (29)


Total Votes: 734

If the language is too "confusing", then in my estimation he's far to stoopid [sic] to hold the office of sheriff ANYWHERE.

If you'd like to vote here's the link:

http://www.ofccpac.org/modules.php?name=Surveys&pollID=26


And they had a great article about it too:
http://www.ofcc.net/article2130.html

Come on guys, we were outraged by this 3 weeks ago... let's light a fire under a few behinds and get this back in the forefront again!
 
FirstFreedom wrote:

"Any judgement would probably have to be paid by the county. All in the county would suffer."

Precisely. That's how the system works: Bonehead official does something boneheaded. County gets sued. County pays judgments. Taxpayers of county get steamed that they're paying for bonehead moves by official. County taxpayers vote in the next election, replacing bonehead. It's not a perfect system, but it's better than the next best kind.

I rather suspect that it works as follows:

1. In the event a suit was brought, and the complainant party(s) were upheld, the counties insurance carrier would pay any judgement rendered.

2. The counties premium might go up a bit, or just possibly in the case of a really egregious situation, their carrier might elect not to renew coverage, causing the county to look elsewhere, and perhaps pay an increased premium.

3. In the next election, the voters might toss out the particular "bonehead", if they remembered who had given them what sort of offense. Of course, looking at the fact that something like 95 plus % of "congress critters" who stand for reelectioin, get reelected, and these folks pull some really egregious stunts, the tossing of local bonehreads is problematic, or so it seems to me. Of course, I could always be surprised, and possibly would be here. That is another matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top