I tell you this, if the paper publishes the names and addresses of the CCW holders in Nevada, I will publish the names and addresses of the reporters and editors of the new papers on the net.http://www.rgj.com/article/20090602/NEWS/90602059/-1/news1802Nevada justices consider secrecy of concealed weapons permits
BY MARTHA BELLISLE • mbellisle@rgj.com • June 2, 2009
A lawyer for the Reno Gazette-Journal urged the Nevada Supreme Court on Tuesday to allow public scrutiny of concealed weapons permits, arguing that a district judge’s ruling saying the permitting process should be confidential was in error.
Advertisement
“Nothing in the statute mentions confidentiality for the permit itself,” Scott Glogovac said during arguments on the appeal of Judge Janet Berry’s ruling last year against the newspaper’s request for information about Gov. Jim Gibbons’ permit application
.
Deputy District Attorney Nathan Edwards told the justices the statute prohibits public access to applications for concealed weapons and to investigations pertaining to those applications. Once a person is identified on an application, everything that follows must be sealed, he said.
“The statute does not say that information in the application becomes publicly accessible once the applicant becomes a permittee,” Edwards said.
Chief Justice James Hardesty said the court would take the case under advisement and rule later.
The newspaper sued Washoe County Sheriff Mike Haley, who oversees the concealed weapons process, after he refused to disclose the status of Gibbons’ firearms permit. A month before, the governor admitted he had surrendered his permit because he had failed to complete the required training for his nine pistols.
Berry ruled in favor of Haley, saying the Legislature wrote the confidentially statute in 1997 to protect the identity of permit holders.
The newspaper appealed, because the public has the right to know whether the state is following safety procedures for concealed firearms, Executive Editor Beryl Love said.
“The lower court’s ruling, in our opinion, went against the fundamentals of our state’s open records law,” he said after the hearing. “When a judge gives blanket protection to information, rather than make narrow exceptions for privacy, we need to challenge that.”
During Tuesday arguments, Glogovac told the court that any exceptions to Nevada’s Public Records Act, which ensures government accountability, should be “narrowly construed” in favor of disclosing public information.
(2 of 2)
If the Legislature had wanted all aspects of the concealed weapons permit process closed to the public, it would have done so, he said. Instead, lawmakers limited the closure to the application.
If portions of the permit contained sensitive information, the court could redact those sections, while still releasing the records, he said.
Edwards disagreed, saying the statute was “an extensive confidentiality provision” intended to protect the identity of the applicant.
Several justices questioned the prosecutor’s reasoning.
“Once you grant the permit, is it a separate issue?” Justice Michael Douglas asked.
“The statute does not say once the permit is granted that it’s not confidential,” Edwards responded.
“Point to me where it says that,” Douglas said.
Justice Kris Pickering asked what would happen if a person’s permit was revoked because of information disclosed after the application process, such as a conviction or the submission of false information.
“Is the revocation protected?” she asked. “Where do you draw the line?”
Edwards said it would be sealed because it would be part of the investigation.
If the Legislature had wanted all aspects of the concealed weapons permit process closed to the public, it would have done so, he said. Instead, lawmakers limited the closure to the application.
If portions of the permit contained sensitive information, the court could redact those sections, while still releasing the records, he said.
Edwards disagreed, saying the statute was “an extensive confidentiality provision” intended to protect the identity of the applicant.
Several justices questioned the prosecutor’s reasoning.
“Once you grant the permit, is it a separate issue?” Justice Michael Douglas asked.
“The statute does not say once the permit is granted that it’s not confidential,” Edwards responded.
“Point to me where it says that,” Douglas said.
Justice Kris Pickering asked what would happen if a person’s permit was revoked because of information disclosed after the application process, such as a conviction or the submission of false information.
“Is the revocation protected?” she asked. “Where do you draw the line?”
Edwards said it would be sealed because it would be part of the investigation.
