AG office wants CPL info to go public?

[gogodawgs]

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?

I was told that when you fill out the application at the locality a copy is sent to the DOL, firearms division. They retain a copy. In addition a copy is retained by your local police/sheriff. Therein lies the problem, whether the city of Seattle or Timbuktu interprets it differently.

 

[Alpine]

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.

Yeah I'll throw one in, should be interesting to see their response, I'll put it up when I get one. If they give it out that's a huge potential lawsuit. I'm surprised the 2AF hasn't tried this already.

Thanks for posting a link to the video. It was awesome to see Roach roast that political hack Holmes.

I liked how she kept pushing to see evidence that any requests were made in writing and they kept sputtering.

 

[jt59]

Yeah I'll throw one in, should be interesting to see their response, I'll put it up when I get one. If they give it out that's a huge potential lawsuit. I'm surprised the 2AF hasn't tried this already.

Thanks for posting a link to the video. It was awesome to see Roach roast that political hack Holmes.

I liked how she kept pushing to see evidence that any requests were made in writing and they kept sputtering.

Would you apply here?

http://www.seattle.gov/police/contact/publicrequestunit.htm

 

[gogodawgs]

Reply from Bruce Tanaka

RE: Sunshine Committee

From:​

Tanaka, Bruce (DOL)

To:​

Nick

Date:​

March 20, 2013 7:23:58 AM



Senator Roach was right, there has been no upheavals about this exemption until recently. DOL abides to what the law says, although sometimes not very clear our interpretation of what the law says is in agreement with your interpretation.

Thank you Nick,

Bruce Tanaka

---

From: Nick [xxxxxxxxx@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 6:44 PM
To: Tanaka, Bruce (DOL)
Subject: Sunshine Committee



Mr. Tanaka,

Thank you for your kind words today in regards to my testimony in front of the Sunshine Committee. I look forward to any other assistance I can give the committee in regards to CPL's and public records/public disclosure.

I do suspect that the issue is already covered in state law as RCW 42.56.240 says:

"(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; "

The information on the applications is identical to the application, however, strengthening the wording may be advantageous.

Regards,

Nick Smith

 

[Freedom1Man]

Good work Nick.

 

[slapmonkay]

That was a good watch. Good job Nick, Thank you.

 

[Dave Workman]

I spoke to Pam Roach. She's not backing down...

Roach rips possible erosion of state gun owner privacy

Republican State Senator Pam Roach furiously ripped what she sees as an attempt to expose Washington State gun owners to privacy invasions during a meeting Tuesday of the Public Record Exemptions Accountability Committee, also known as the “Sunshine Committee.”

http://www.examiner.com/article/roa...on-of-state-gun-owner-privacy?cid=db_articles


Nicely done there Nick!

 

[gogodawgs]

Nick – I appreciate your testimony to the committee. I wish more citizens like you had attended. Perhaps the committee is not doing an adequate job of advertising its meetings and agendas. Please let me know if you have any suggestions.

We received only ten emails from citizens with similar concerns as you. Those emails are provided in a link on the sunshine committee’s website on its agenda. http://www.atg.wa.gov/page.aspx?id=31052. I am attaching them for your review.

Your interpretation of the RCW below is the current position of the Department of Licensing (and I agree with it). The information, whether it is on the application or license, is exempt and should remain confidential. It may be necessary to strengthen the wording as I am concerned that some counties do not interpret the law as you and I. There seems to be ambiguity among municipal attorneys. The Municipal Research and Services Center of WA released a recent e-newsletter on the issue and concluded that the names and addresses of permit holders are not exempt.

As I said during the meeting, I am a member of the NRA. My personal perspective is that the recent shootings in the news across the nation reflect a societal decay, and that is not a reason to attack gun rights or to invade the privacy of concealed carry permit holders. I too have a daughter and I teach her about individual responsibility and respecting others.

Let’s stay in touch.

Sincerely,

Tim Ford
Open Government Ombudsman
Assistant Attorney General for Government Accountability

Attorney General of Washington
1125 Washington St, SE
Olympia, WA 98504
(360) 586-4802
timf@atg.wa.gov
http://www.atg.wa.gov/OpenGovernment/Ombudsman.aspx

DISCLAIMER: This email is subject to public disclosure pursuant to Ch 42.56 RCW. This email is not intended or offered to provide legal advice or legal representation by the Office of the Attorney General to any recipient.



From: Nick [mailto:xxxxxxxxx@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 6:39 PM
To: ATG MI AGO Ombudsman
Subject: Sunshine Committee



Mr. Ford,

Thank you for your kind words today in regards to my testimony in front of the Sunshine Committee. I look forward to any other assistance I can give the committee in regards to CPL's and public records/public disclosure.

I do suspect that the issue is already covered in state law as RCW 42.56.240 says:

"(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; "

The information on the applications is identical to the application, however, strengthening the wording may be advantageous.

Regards,

Nick Smith

 

[gogodawgs]

Nick

I agree that the language you highlight is key – if the permit were disclosable, why would it need to authorize law enforcement to obtain the “information”?

The problem arises because the courts always err on the side of disclosure and have been very firm that there is no such thing as an implied exemption. So I think clarification would be very helpful, especially because there are jurisdictions disclosing these records.

Another option would be to get the AG to issue a formal opinion, or even to have DOL issue an opinion. Neither would be absolutely binding, but would be persuasive.

Thank you for attending and your comments.

Ramsey
Ramsey Ramerman
Assistant City Attorney
City of Everett
RRamerman@ci.everett.wa.us
425-257-7009


From: Nick [mailto:xxxxxxxxx@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 6:41 PM
To: Ramsey Ramerman
Subject: Sunshine Committee



Mr. Ramerman,

Thank you for your kind words today in regards to my testimony in front of the Sunshine Committee. I look forward to any other assistance I can give the committee in regards to CPL's and public records/public disclosure.

I do suspect that the issue is already covered in state law as RCW 42.56.240 says:

"(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; "

The information on the applications is identical to the application, however, strengthening the wording may be advantageous.

Regards,

Nick Smith

 

[gogodawgs]

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact...W4BgyulwI_vt7bxRqtlC0ICBPqgLhd#LETTER.BLOCK26

If, under the Public Records Act (PRA), a person requests the names and addresses of all those individuals to which the county has issued a permit for a concealed pistol license, does a disclosure exemption or prohibition apply under RCW 9.41.129, RCW 42.56.240(4), or otherwise?


RCW 42.56.240(4) provides an "exemption" (and likely a prohibition) from disclosure for:

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;


Note that RCW 42.56.240(4) is also referenced, in relevant part, in RCW 9.41.097 (relating to mental health information received from persons seeking to possess a pistol or be issued a concealed pistol license), RCW 9.41.129 (relating to recordkeeping requirements for the department of licensing), and RCW 36.28A.060(8) (relating to tactical and intelligence information provided to the Washington association of sheriffs and police chiefs).

We think the names and addresses of such permit holders would not fall under the exemption in RCW 42.56.240(4), because that exemption relates to information in license applications under RCW 9.41.070 and not to information in permits that have been issued. Note that exemptions from disclosure are to be narrowly construed. RCW 42.56.030.

 

[slapmonkay]

Doesn't RCW 9.41.129 cover public disclosure as well?

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.129

The department of licensing may keep copies or records of applications for concealed pistol licenses provided for in RCW 9.41.070, copies or records of applications for alien firearm licenses, copies or records of applications to purchase pistols provided for in RCW 9.41.090, and copies or records of pistol transfers provided for in RCW 9.41.110. The copies and records shall not be disclosed except as provided in RCW 42.56.240(4).

Whereas 42.56.240(4) only allows for disclosure to law enforcement.

 

[Alpine]

RE: Sunshine Committee

From:​

Tanaka, Bruce (DOL)

To:​

Nick

Date:​

March 20, 2013 7:23:58 AM



Senator Roach was right, there has been no upheavals about this exemption until recently. DOL abides to what the law says, although sometimes not very clear our interpretation of what the law says is in agreement with your interpretation.

Thank you Nick,

Bruce Tanaka

---

From: Nick [xxxxxxxxx@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 6:44 PM
To: Tanaka, Bruce (DOL)
Subject: Sunshine Committee



Mr. Tanaka,

Thank you for your kind words today in regards to my testimony in front of the Sunshine Committee. I look forward to any other assistance I can give the committee in regards to CPL's and public records/public disclosure.

I do suspect that the issue is already covered in state law as RCW 42.56.240 says:

"(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; "

The information on the applications is identical to the application, however, strengthening the wording may be advantageous.

Regards,

Nick Smith

I thought so!

I wonder if Bruce will find any actual requests in writing?

The official from Everett at the meeting said he HAD requests in writing and could produce them. Are they subject to info. requests?

 

[gogodawgs]

Follow up...

The AG's office has given a written opinion favoring both the license and application to be exempt from public disclosure....

http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=88

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Fine with me. All government records should be public and very easily accessible.

Then make no exceptions for DV victims and LEO/court officers.

Or allow anyone to legally use a PMB as an address of record.

Make us all equal under the law.

 

[Alpine]

The AG's office has given a written opinion favoring both the license and application to be exempt from public disclosure....

http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=88

Acrobat can't open that file, says corrupt or something.

I never got a response to my info request...

 

[rapgood]

Acrobat can't open that file, says corrupt or something.

I never got a response to my info request...

Try here. Is the one on nwcdl?

Because Eienberry's opinion states, "We conclude, therefore, that applications for concealed weapon permits should be made available for inspection and copying."

 

[slapmonkay]

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.129

The department of licensing may keep copies or records of applications for concealed pistol licenses provided for in RCW 9.41.070, copies or records of applications for alien firearm licenses, copies or records of applications to purchase pistols provided for in RCW 9.41.090, and copies or records of pistol transfers provided for in RCW 9.41.110. The copies and records shall not be disclosed except as provided in RCW 42.56.240(4).

I guess this only applies to the Department of Licensing... Not a sheriffs office, etc...

How about 42.56.240, that seems like it would apply to all.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=42.56.240

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;

...

 

[rapgood]

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.129

I guess this only applies to the Department of Licensing... Not a sheriffs office, etc...

How about 42.56.240, that seems like it would apply to all.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=42.56.240

Yeah. The statute post-dates the AG opinion, so it is controlling (and AG opinions have no weight of law, anyway).