AG office wants CPL info to go public?

[sudden valley gunner]

I've thought of it, but then I always feel this irresistible urge to add the O on the end anyway...

That can work too...

Obsessive Compulsive Dis Order....

 

[Bill Starks]

Thanks for the address and the info all. Hope to see you down there. Anyone know of a good coffee shop OC friendly in the area I'll probably arrive early and will need a cup to get me going.

The Starbucks downtown, while not close, has been friendly in the past. (possibly 5-6 block walk). From the capitol buildings walk east to the fountain, turn left, walk and you will see it on your right.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

The Starbucks downtown, while not close, has been friendly in the past. (possibly 5-6 block walk). From the capitol buildings walk east to the fountain, turn left, walk and you will see it on your right.

Deros & I have been in that Starbucks several times OC with the Cops getting their coffee, one female Cop said excuse me as she squeezed by on her way out the door, that is all the drama I have to report.

Its down hill from the capitol and that makes it uphill on the way back its a good walk unless you have some physical limitations.

 

[jt59]

So, the discussion on the release of info (from Nicks original post), was predicated on passage of background checks having an impact on the application of FOIA requests on CPL licenses and info....



"There is legitimate worry that if the Legislature passes a bill to require universal background checks and the exemption is lifted, the private information of law-abiding gun owners could be easily obtained including addresses, employment history,..."

Since none of the legislation is in play, is there a different legitimate worry, that we are worried about?...current rule and application should still apply, no?



J

 

[gogodawgs]

All exemptions to the public disclosure act are subject to periodic review. This is 9.41.070's turn.

 

[jt59]

All exemptions to the public disclosure act are subject to periodic review. This is 9.41.070's turn.

Subject to public comment? or are we making a show of (force)?

....I answered my question...they do, at the end.

 

[gogodawgs]

I am on my way

 

[gogodawgs]

Wow!

I attended the hearing this morning and here is what I found out.

Periodically the Sunshine committee reviews some 400 exemptions to the Public Disclosure Act.

The question of whether CPL's should continue to be exempt was introduced by....wait for it.... Seattle City Attorney Peter Holmes. (Who is up for election) And obviously the City of Seattle has been at war with law abiding gun owners. (Parks Ban, Preemption) Holmes introduced this review on the following two premises:

1) Is there a public interest in the exempt information that outweighs any interest in non-disclosure?

2) If the Committee were to recommend any repeal of this exemption, should the exemption remain in place for certain individuals who have concealed pistol lecense, and who are also participants in the Address Confidentiality Program, established by RCW Chapter 40.24 (available to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking)?

Committee member, Ramsey Ramerman (Assistant City Attorney, City of Everett) pointed out that the law exempts the "application" for concealed pistols but not the license itself.

[h=2]RCW 42.56.240[/h][h=1]Investigative, law enforcement, and crime victims.[/h]

The following investigative, law enforcement, and crime victim information is exempt from public inspection and copying under this chapter:

(4) License applications under RCW 9.41.070; copies of license applications or information on the applications may be released to law enforcement or corrections agencies;

Therefore, it is alleged that some jurisdictions have been interpreting this to only include the application.

Bruce Tanaka (DOL, firearms division) was there to express that while there have been discussion and requests for release of CPL information, it is the DOL's stance that it is protected. That interpretation seemed to be the same for Committee member Timothy Ford (Assistant Attorney General). However, most everyone on the committee did see that there could be an alternative interpretation (by those on the anti side) that the license itself is not protected from PDR. Please note that no one at the hearing had any evidence of such requests. Senator Roach was in attendance and asked flat out for any written requests or examples of exposure of CPL's.

I would agree that by the plain language of the text of the law that "license's" appear not to be protected, further examination imply's that the legislature intended for both to be protected from public disclosure. I noted in my testimony that both the Senate and the House voted unanimously for this protection and surely they did not intend for their to be a loophole to expose CPL holders to pubic scrutiny. Everyone on the Committee seemed to agree. In addition, I was questioned and others seemed to agree, that perhaps a fix of the language would strengthen the language to additionally protect CPL holders.

After the hearing on CPL's I was approached by the Chair, Michael E. Schwab, if I wanted to be contacted if this subject was to be discussed in the future. I gave him my information and will be involved. He was sympathetic to CPL information being made public and even pulled out his wallet to show me that he has a CPL.

The following is the testimony I provided:

Nick Smith, Tacoma ~ Statement against, March 2013

The purpose of the Public Records Act is to scrutinize the government, not the public. The PBA is to keep an open, transparent and honest government. The PBA is to root out government fraud and waste, to expose wrongdoing by government agencies and government employees.

PREAMBLE
We, the people of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this constitution.
ARTICLE I
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

Rights as stated in Article I Section 1 seem to be under assault, whereas it is the behavior of government actions that require scrutiny.

Our state is a shall issue state, meaning that it meets strong constitutional rights requirements thus ZERO subjective input is needed for issuance of a concealed pistol license. If we compare that to religion it would be like saying we would need government employees determining whether I could attend bible study. Nonsense.

Furthermore, I personally know deputies in the state of Washington who have CPL's. I have worked in a firearms store and personally witnessed police officers who have CPL's. Why? The reason is that in order to buy a pistol AND bypass the 5 day waiting period, you must possess a valid CPL. Do we want to have officer's personal information exposed? (read 9.41.070) Of course not! And the citizens expect the same protections as civilian law enforcement. Neither do we want to see a new exemption for law enforcement that they deserve some special privilege in their handgun purchases. Noted: WASPC does not have a position on this item.

Certainly with the information from 9.41.070 mentioned above, identity theft must be a strong consideration. We know that the instant this information comes available it will be permanently ingrained in the internet, yet provides no compelling argument for its release.

Furthermore, why would the government desire to release the information of where a highly sought after piece of personal property be kept? Releasing the addresses of gun owners is just a road map to theft.

And finally not the vote for the passage of SHB 6148, it was unanimous! (96-0, 44-0). 1988 provided a fairly non toxic year for firearms rights. Any change in this law would certainly be considered only one thing, an attack on a political class.

 

[Alpine]

Thanks for attending and testifying Gogo. I wanted to go but couldn't get off of work to do it.

I did spend the last week calling up every single committee member, and I was happy that most of them knew what had happened in New York.

I'm glad that they are preemptively going over the possible problem between "application" and the actual permit, that could be bad for us later if it's not nipped in the bud right now.

 

[gogodawgs]

Thanks for attending and testifying Gogo. I wanted to go but couldn't get off of work to do it.

I did spend the last week calling up every single committee member, and I was happy that most of them knew what had happened in New York.

I'm glad that they are preemptively going over the possible problem between "application" and the actual permit, that could be bad for us later if it's not nipped in the bud right now.

Thanks. Alpine would you send a public records request to the City of Seattle asking for CPL information? I am now very curious as to their response.

 

[squeezeplae]

Thanks GOGO it was a nice show. You brought up all the concerns I had. I was the guy in the back with the leather coat. I also have to say I had a short conversation with MR. Tanaka outside the building and he is also a CPL holder and agreed with all you had to say, he does not want any information concerning the CPL or application to be public record.

 

[gogodawgs]

Thanks GOGO it was a nice show. You brought up all the concerns I had. I was the guy in the back with the leather coat. I also have to say I had a short conversation with MR. Tanaka outside the building and he is also a CPL holder and agreed with all you had to say, he does not want any information concerning the CPL or application to be public record.

I made eye contact and nodded, you should of introduced yourself at the recess.

 

[MKEgal]

the private information of law-abiding gun owners could be easily obtained including addresses, employment history, even medical records

That's the answer, right there. No records=nothing to produce.

The less the gov't demands we provide to access services or exercise rights, the less there is to be wrongfully released. I am aghast that there are states requiring people to give access to their medical records in order to get a carry license!

You, a private person, are asking me, a private person, to directly provide you with records which may or may not exist.
Do I have to explain the vast differences between that and public government records to you?

So doing an open records request to the IRS to get tax info on someone (including SSN) would be OK, and they'd have to provide it, but the person wouldn't have to provide it directly. Makes sense.

CPLs are not a public government record as they do not relate to actual operations of the government nor is the name of a holder of legitimate concern to any member of the public

Bingo. Keeping track of how many are issued, denied, etc., would be keeping track of gov't activity. Aggregate records. Personal data about licensees, OTOH, has nothing to do with gov't operations.

Can you ask the Census Bureau for the address of every household with members under or over a particular age? Of course not.

Probably can, but they could only provide it for households 100 years ago. (Not sure it's actually 100 years, but it's some outrageously long time designed so that no info on living people is released.)

surely they did not intend for there to be a loophole to expose CPL holders to pubic scrutiny.

:shocker: I know what you meant, but it's funnier this way. :lol:

 

[jt59]

Good job Nick...

Any other testimony from the peanut gallery?

 

[gogodawgs]

Good job Nick...

Any other testimony from the peanut gallery?

Not really, they brought the assistant city attorney from Seattle forward... he didn't say much as Sen Roach made a good show...

Bruce Tanaka of the DOL, firearms division, also spoke but he was pretty much on the side of keeping it private....

I should be invited to future discussion of this matter.

I am very suspect of the motives after finding out it originated for review under the Seattle City Attorney's office...

 

[jt59]

It's why we have to keep paying attention....and need to do so in a more organized fashion.

 

[gogodawgs]

Video of hearing...

http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2013031063

starting at 49:55

 

[rapgood]

RCW 42.56.240

Investigative, law enforcement, and crime victims.

The following investigative, law enforcement, and crime victim information is exempt from public inspection and copying under this chapter:

(4) License applications under RCW 9.41.070; copies of license applications or information on the applications may be released to law enforcement or corrections agencies;

I may be mistaken, but the way I read it, I rather think that the "or information on the applications" precludes disclosure of CPL holders' information and the CPL itself, since the information on the CPL is derived from the CPL application.

 

[gogodawgs]

I may be mistaken, but the way I read it, I rather think that the "or information on the applications" precludes disclosure of CPL holders' information and the CPL itself, since the information on the CPL is derived from the CPL application.

Yes. That is how Bruce Tanaka at the DOL and also how I interpret this. Remember it is the city of seattle attorneys office that prompted review and all smaller cities rogue interpretations. However they were unable to show any real evidence of these requests.

 

[mikeyb]

I'm on board with neither the application nor license being available to Johnny Public. Basic privacy.

In regards to the bit about the licenses not being expressly exempted, I have a simple question. Does the state actually have copies of our licenses? They have our applications. When you go to the DMV for your driver's license, they make one on the spot for you. Similar (yet slightly longer) process for the CPL, yes?