YUBA CITY (CBS13) – The Sutter County Sheriff is alerting concealed carry weapons holders after a public records request prompted him to release some of their information.

Sheriff Brandon Barnes says the San Francisco Chronicle recently put in the request for information about CCW permit applications and permit holders.

The sheriff says he “personally” declined to release much of the information requested, but was advised by the county counsel to provide some data. CCW permit numbers, the names of permit holders, and the dates of issue and expiration have been released.

Exactly what the Chronicle is using the information for has not been stated, according to the sheriff’s office.

On Tuesday, the sheriff’s office posted the letter they will be sending out to CCW permit holders in the coming weeks.

In response to the sheriff’s decision to publicize the Chronicle’s request and to notify CCW permit holders, San Francisco Chronicle Editor In Chief Audrey Cooper issued the following statement:

“I am deeply disturbed by how some sheriffs have handled a routine request for public information from a respected and established news outlet. As a result, they have put our journalists in personal danger for their own political gain.

“It is a journalist’s job to investigate trends, and we do not intend on publishing personal information of private citizens. Unfortunately, the sheriffs sought to play up distrust in media when it became clear that they cannot deny access to public information.”

Cooper later added the newspaper would refine its Public Records Act request out of concern for their reporter’s safety. His name will be removed. Cooper will instead use her name in the Chronicle’s request for the data.

Sheriff Barnes says he will alert CCW permit holders if any more information is requested.

Comments (13)
  1. juerro says:

    The statement from the Chronicle is a deception and attempt to deflect..why the hell would anyone, especially a reporter from a media outlet go around gathering information on CCW holders, and then claim a sheriff put that journalist in danger for political gain, when the simple fact is that that reporter and paper were seeking to publicize that information for ratings and viewership, for their own gain; fanning flames of deception and creating some issue or problem where there was none so they can create controversy for their own attention. This bs has got to stop.

    1. NorCalSpring says:

      I so agree with you.

  2. Dennis says:

    If they need numbers only then they should just report numbers not names.

  3. tenpercentfirearms says:

    No one is threatening or endangering your reporter. CCW holders are not out to get you. Fake news.

  4. bobdog says:

    A “respected and established news outlet”? Really?

    What do you moral busybodies want with CCW data from another state? Why don’t you deal with the litany of problems in your own city and leave other people alone?

  5. NorCalSpring says:

    Number Statistics okay, Names, City, Zipcode, Permit Numbers, Initial Dates, Expiration Dates, Reason for Denial, etc – NOT OKAY.

  6. Carolyn Mathas says:

    I write trend pieces regularly albeit not on this subject. However, for a trend piece, why would you need names along with other information. There’s no good reason. Thank you sheriff for notifying and continuing to notify if this goes further.

  7. Henry says:

    “…we do not intend on publishing personal information of private citizens…”

    Why should we assume, or even believe, that? Mainstream news outlets as a class could never be called unbiased on the subject of firearms ownership, and other “respected and established news outlets” have done PRECISELY this:

    Civitas Media chain, 2014
    The Sidney Daily News (Ohio), June 2004
    Cleveland Plain Dealer, July 2004
    Gillette News-Record (Wyoming), March 2001
    Fort Collins Coloradoan, February 2000
    Middlesex News (MA), June 1994

    “Here are the permits issued through June 30 to residents of Ashtabula, Cuyahoga and Erie counties. Tomorrow, The Plain Dealer will publish permits issued to residents of Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage and Summit counties. These lists – sorted by permit holders’ county of residence – will be published periodically.”

    I don’t care how “respected and established” you are — the exercise of my constitutional rights is none of your business.

    1. NorCalSpring says:

      I so agree with you!!

  8. Hutch says:

    So, lets play this out a little bit. You have had a long work day, and arrive home, only to find activists in your yard; flamed by an article written by this “respectable” media outlet, likely brandishing signs depicting you of being one of those non trustworthy gun owners; and clearly a threat to their safety……..what do you do? I know that you would want to club them like a baby fur seal – but what would you really do? These activists really have nothing to do but target people; people that are practicing their constitutional rights. I have some concern that now that my name, ccw #, issue/expire date, county of residence is now in the hands of a media outlet, that clearly has an agenda, things will turn ill. Any of you see this as a possibility?

  9. Chris Ewens says:

    I wouldn’t mind if the public knew my name, but then I teach people to use guns to protect themselves, so everyone in my area of California knows I carry regardless. Over the years, I have qualified many residents of the SF Bay Area with second homes elsewhere who would not want anyone knowing that they carry, not neighbors, not co-workers, no one.

  10. Tio Nico says:

    All DECENt states have prohibitions in their laws regarding disclosing the personal data of anyone who has a Mother May I Card to carry a firearm with them. Why? Safety. Two ways. Don’t put a target on the back of a normal gun owner, first. Don’t broadcast the addresses of places that are certain to have guns inside. Thieves would rather find firearms than money. I don’t truct the Chron one tiny bit. They are as aoccupt as their new AtG

  11. Louis A Pontarelli says:

    This is a Red Flag tool.

Leave a Reply to Carolyn Mathas Cancel reply