• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

2017 HB174 FIREARM RECORDS PROTECTION AMENDMENTS

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
A little more useful info...and some chum to attract the inevitable pet troll.

HB174 by Val K. Potter, http://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/HB0174.html , makes certain records private, such that they cannot be disclosed to the media or others.

Under federal law, when a person buys multiple guns at the same time, the gun dealer must provide notice of that transaction to the local chief peace officer (usually sheriff or chief of police). This bill protects these records from public disclosure so the media can't do a GRAMA request to find out who bought more than one gun at a time. This bill will provide the same type of privacy to these records as State law provides to records of permit holders.

In some States, the media has used open records laws to get lists of persons with carry permits (or even purchase/ownership permits where such are required) and then published names and addresses as an attempt at intimidating gun owners. Utah law prevents this as our carry permits are "private" records not subject to public disclosure.

This is a good bill that ought to be supported.

Charles
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,980
Location
here nc
quite humorous you know at how well trained you actually have become mate...

can't even put out information civility without playground name calling accompanying your post...

truly sorry mate, you haven't realized these outbursts you constantly engage in distracts from the message presented and completely destroys your post's message to your audience as well as your overall credibility.

being a rooster is kinda fun and has been for quite awhile.

ipse
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,998
Location
White Oak Plantation
Makes little sense to me. Does the record destruction part contradict the private record part? Or, does the private record part only apply during the 15 day period? What of the good faith clause? If a beauraucrat releases the data to the public how can that be excused?
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Makes little sense to me. Does the record destruction part contradict the private record part? Or, does the private record part only apply during the 15 day period? What of the good faith clause? If a beauraucrat releases the data to the public how can that be excused?
Federal law requires that the CLEO be notified, but apparently does not require any (or only very short term) retention of the record on the part of the CLEO. Federal law is also silent on whether these records are public or protected/private.

Utah State law presumes that (most?) all records generated by government officials are releasable and must be retained unless explicit direction to the contrary is applied to any specific type of record. EG. our carry permits are explicitly defined as protected/private records not subject to GRAMA (Government Records and Access and Management Act, the State version of the federal FOIO) requests.

What this bill does, is provide legal clarity and definition for these records that get created when FFLs comply with the federal law, but that are State records. Under the bill, the records are protected/private while they exist, and are to be destroyed within a modest and reasonable time frame.

The intent is that it is not the media or public's business who might have purchased more than one gun at a time. FFLs comply with federal law by notifying the CLEO of the multiple purchase. As a result, the CLEO now has a State record that this bill defines as protected/private and that must be destroyed at a reasonable date.

I hope this makes more sense.

Charles
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,998
Location
White Oak Plantation
Federal law requires that the CLEO be notified, but apparently does not require any (or only very short term) retention of the record on the part of the CLEO. Federal law is also silent on whether these records are public or protected/private.

Utah State law presumes that (most?) all records generated by government officials are releasable and must be retained unless explicit direction to the contrary is applied to any specific type of record. EG. our carry permits are explicitly defined as protected/private records not subject to GRAMA (Government Records and Access and Management Act, the State version of the federal FOIO) requests.

What this bill does, is provide legal clarity and definition for these records that get created when FFLs comply with the federal law, but that are State records. Under the bill, the records are protected/private while they exist, and are to be destroyed within a modest and reasonable time frame.

The intent is that it is not the media or public's business who might have purchased more than one gun at a time. FFLs comply with federal law by notifying the CLEO of the multiple purchase. As a result, the CLEO now has a State record that this bill defines as protected/private and that must be destroyed at a reasonable date.

I hope this makes more sense.

Charles
Yes it does, thanks. Sorry, I misread the relevant section I was referring to.
(5) Chief law enforcement officers and their employees who act in good faith when acting within the scope of their duties are immune from liability arising from any act or omission in making a certification as required by this section. Any action taken against a chief law enforcement officer or an employee shall be in accordance with Title 63G, Chapter 7, Governmental Immunity Act of Utah.
Why would the legislature immunize a state/county/municipal employee for violating the requirements of this statute? Is there some effort to address this?
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Yes it does, thanks. Sorry, I misread the relevant section I was referring to.
Happy to be of help.

Why would the legislature immunize a state/county/municipal employee for violating the requirements of this statute? Is there some effort to address this?
The paragraph of concern to you is existing law. It is not being affected. Addressing government immunity is beyond the scope of the proposed legislation. While altering government immunity is arguably a worthy effort, it is a much bigger fight than simply protecting the privacy of law abiding gun owners who buy more than 1 gun at a time.

I do note that the immunity is only for those who make an innocent mistake, while acting in good faith. Even here, action against the official can be taken in accordance with Utah's governmental immunity act.

Charles
 
Last edited:
Top