Shot In The Dark: Private Data

May 17, 2005

Private Data

In today's Strib, Kevin Duschere reveals that Zachary Ourada, the Nye's shooter, was a permit holder:

The homicide, Minneapolis' 18th of the year, has drawn special attention because Ourada is believed to be the first Minnesota gun permit holder charged with murder since the state's 2003 permit-to-carry law went into effect. The law required sheriffs to issue permits to people trained to use a pistol safely and not prohibited from owning firearms.

Two questions:

Concealed Carry permit data is supposed (under the new law, and presumably under the pre-2003 law that is in force until the Legislature passes the MPPA again, probably later this week) to be private. Ourada has a post-2003 permit, but I am unsure if the data on post-2003 permits was/is private under the pre-2003 law. Anyone? I can recall seeing stories about other people, before 2003, who had problems with their carry permits. Long question short: Is this data supposed to be getting splashed about the media? Lawyers?
How did Kevin Duschere of the Strib get this information?

I'll be asking about this all up and down the food chain. Feel free to leave any info you have in the comments.

UPDATE: A high-ranking figure at Concealed Carry Reform Now of Minnesota wrote me offline with an answer:

All PERSONAL data about permit holders is indeed private (jusy like your medical records), but it is NOT the MCPPA that makes it so; it is a statute that is part of the Data Privacy Act. The affect is that antigun groups cannot get lists of names and addresses of permit holders to publish in their newsletters, etc.

However, once a permit holder is charged with a crime, he/she is now part of the criminal justice system, and LIMITED information may be made available to the public via law enforcement (whether or not the accused had a permit, where issued, tec. but NOT personal data such as address, etc.)

Upon adjudication of the case, if the person is convicted, his/her record is now PUBLIC record, and available to just about anyone.

The purpose of this system is to prevent wholesale "fishing expeditions" yet allow information about those who have been actually charged and convicted of crimes.

Bottom line: your data is private, but the antigun types' claim that "we can't find out if permit holders commit crimes" is false.

In other words, "It depends".

Posted by Mitch at May 17, 2005 12:33 PM | TrackBack

Comments

Ourada had the permit on him at the time of his arrest.

All I've seen about the permit is the issuing authority and the expiration date - both of which are printed on the permit.

Posted by: jdege at May 17, 2005 11:40 AM

I was at the Twins game on Saturaday with a friend and we were discussing the Nye's shooting. My friend mentioned that Ourada had a permit at that time. Apparently Ourada was bragging that he had a gun and the permit at Jitters (Across the street from Nyes) after he had been kicked out of Nyes. Also you could see the holster for the gun when he is pulled from the river in the video. I didn't ask his source but assume it was local TV news.

So there probably has not been a leak. Which would explain the reason the Strib says "believed to be a permit holder" ie it isn't verified by an official source due to the fact that it is private data.

Posted by: Nick Frank at May 17, 2005 11:45 AM

Sorry - bad quote "believed to be the first MN..." my fault.

Posted by: Nick Frank at May 17, 2005 12:03 PM

These things are going to happen. I'm sure that hundreds of Minnesotans move from sanity to insanity every week. Sooner or later, one of them is going to have a gun and a gun permit, or more likely a car and a drivers license. This is not a reason to stop issuing one of those documents any more than the other.

Posted by: RBMN at May 17, 2005 01:08 PM

I just came from Billy's funeral. He had a lot of friends and will be greatly missed. My prayers are with his family and closer friends.

It is ridiculous that the media is turning him in to an anti conceal and carry poster child. One case does not a trend make. There have be dozens of shootings from people without a permit and it sounds like this guy would have had a gun CC permit or not.

Billy lived as a gentle giant and died protecting the patrons of Nyes. I hope that his legacy stops there, not with some stupid knee-jerk reaction from our media and state legistature.

Posted by: Barry H at May 17, 2005 02:36 PM

Re: Barry H at May 17, 2005 02:36 PM

My condolences to the friends and family of Billy Walsh. Someday in Minnesota, if it hasn't already happened more than once, a Billy Walsh will have his life saved by an observant permit holder, by doing no more than brandishing his legal gun in the sight of a would-be killer.

Posted by: RBMN at May 17, 2005 03:04 PM

Has anyone yet reported what this murderer's past "minor scrapes" with the law have been? The only specific reported by the Strib was a alcohol possession charge as a minor. If that is the extent of it, this killer may indeed be a rarity; the murderer who does not exhibit previous propensity for violence. On the other hand, if this guys minor scrapes have been a couple of petty public intoxication charges, well, might not such a history be reasonable grounds for denying a permit? I don't know how the old law was crafted, or how the new one is, but it strikes me as reasonable proposition that someone who has a propensity for public drunkeness has forfeited their right to carry a concealed weapon.

Posted by: Will Allen at May 17, 2005 06:10 PM

Has anyone yet reported what this murderer's past "minor scrapes" with the law have been? The only specific reported by the Strib was a alcohol possession charge as a minor. If that is the extent of it, this killer may indeed be a rarity; the murderer who does not exhibit previous propensity for violence. On the other hand, if this guy's "minor scrapes" have been a couple of petty public intoxication charges, well, might not such a history be reasonable grounds for denying a permit? I don't know how the old law was crafted, or how the new one is, but it strikes me as a reasonable proposition that someone who has a propensity for public drunkeness has forfeited their right to carry a concealed weapon.

Posted by: Will Allen at May 17, 2005 06:11 PM

So this is the first time that anyone with a gun permit has been charged with murder in two years.

How many murders have occured in MN during that time? What is the number CC permit holders as a percentage of the population? Can somebody with math skills better than mine work out the correlation (or anti-correlation): statistically how much more or less likely is a permit holder to be charged with murder compared to an average citizen?

Posted by: Gideon at May 18, 2005 03:12 AM

I heard on the Sunday 10:00pm local news, that Mr. Ourada had two prior DUI convictions. I believe it was Channel 11, but not certain. It sounded as if the convictions were prior to receiving his permit, but the facts in the report were very cloudy. I thought I heard somewhere in the report that they weren't clear whether his permit was CC or just an ownership permit. However, the inuendo was very clear, "see how bad conceal and carry is...they're giving permits to chronic DUI offenders".

Posted by: Barry H at May 18, 2005 09:25 AM

RE: RBMN

Thanks, and I agree completely.

Posted by: Barry H at May 18, 2005 09:34 AM

I support conceal/carry permits. Actually, I think the permits themselves are excessively regulatory, that it should be assumed that a law-abiding citizen can carry a concealed weapon without being licensed, but I am willing to put up with the licensing process. I see no problem, however, with removing that right from people who have more than one alcohol-related offense on their criminal record.

Given the low threshhold for DUI these days, it certainly doesn't take much for one alcohol-related offense, but if somebody doesn't take enough precaution to avoid the second, well, it may be best if such person isn't handling a firearm in public.

Posted by: Will Allen at May 18, 2005 10:30 AM

I have no problem screening for things like multiple DUI's. In fact, it seems like a good idea for exactly the reason Will Allen stated. My problem was that although DUI angle was valid, the factual portions of the report were very mushy. A friend, who just watched the same story called and asked me to interpret. I had to confess that I was a little lost myself.

Posted by: Barry H at May 18, 2005 12:59 PM

Is it not a fact that this crime was committed in the heat of the moment? If this guy didn't have a gun on him at the time that Mr. Walsh would still be living? Maybe speculation, but not to be ignored completely, regardless of your own personal political beliefs.....

Posted by: john at May 25, 2005 08:28 AM

I KNOW ZACK AND I AM SURE THAT THERE ARE TWO SIDES TO EVERY STORY TO SAY THAT THIS SHOOTING WAS THE FAULT OF GUN PERMITS OR THE BOUNCER OR EVEN DRINKING IS SPECULATION AT THIS POINT LET THE TRIAL DETERMIN WHAT WENT WRONG BEFORE YOU PUT THE BLAME ANYWERE, ZACK IS A GOOD KID AND LIKE I SAID I AM SURE WE ARE NOT GETTING ALL THE FACTS IF THE SYSTEM WORKED THAT WAY WELL THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR A TRIAL, LETS REMEMBER HE ALSO HAD A FAMILY..

Posted by: WEEZZY at May 26, 2005 07:37 AM

Posted by: WEEZZY at May 26, 2005 07:38 AM

I knew Zach as well. Sure, he does have a family and a very nice and normal family. They are very successful, kind, loving people. He on the other hand was not. He was a rotten apple. His actions are no reflection on his family. They are are like night and day to Zach. He was a walking time bomb. I personally am so happy that I will never have to see him ever again in my life, or for many years. He is a bad person and should never see the light of day. He love to intimidate people and was SCARY. He deserves everything he gets.

Posted by: JDW at June 3, 2005 09:31 AM

You just may see him again....sooner than you think. He posted bail. He is free for now. Scary. I am ashamed to say that Zach is one of my friends. I've known him for about 12 years. As a teenager Zach was adventerous and fun to have around. He and I lost touch about three years ago after our lives took us in opposite directions. We had recently reunited and the last time I saw Zach he was in my basement with a couple of friends we went to school with. At one point Zach showed me he was armed. I felt very unsafe and wary of his actions. I asked him why he needed it and told him that he probley would end up getting shot or killing someone. I hate guns. Anyone can shoot a gun. But are you Bad ass enough to fight fists to cuffs? Zach acted so crazy that night I wasent surprised when I heard the news two months later. That guy who was in my basement and at Nye's that night was not the "friend" that I knew. God Bless Billy and his Fam and God bless Zach's sweet parents and brothers who now have to live in his stupid shadow. What were you thinking Zach, my Friend.

Posted by: brd at June 11, 2005 08:34 PM

This is cool, you have to try it. I guessed 10212, and this game guessed it! See it here - http://www.funbrain.com/guess/

Posted by: Allison Trump at February 16, 2006 04:46 AM

We recommend you to visit excellent funny videos site. qY0ptan0x

Posted by: funny videos at July 16, 2006 03:56 AM

We recommend you to visit excellent george washington site. qY0ptan0x

Posted by: george washington at July 16, 2006 04:40 AM

We recommend you to visit excellent gifts site. qY0ptan0x

Posted by: gifts at July 16, 2006 05:12 AM

We recommend you to visit excellent get right site. qY0ptan0x

Posted by: get right at July 16, 2006 05:19 AM

We recommend you to visit excellent guitar tabs site. qY0ptan0x

Posted by: guitar tabs at July 16, 2006 06:45 AM