Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Seattle City Attorney, Peter Holmes wants CPL info pubic?

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by gogoDawgs, Mar 19, 2013.

  1. gogoDawgs

    gogoDawgs Federal Way, WA Active Member

    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    36
    I attended the Sunshine Committee 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:

    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 public 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:

     
  2. Dave Workman

    Dave Workman Western Washington Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    2,387
    Nicely done, Nick.

    Seattle wants to pull a Westchester New York on CPL holders here and everybody knows it.
     
  3. gogoDawgs

    gogoDawgs Federal Way, WA Active Member

    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    36
    Let's just say that Senator Roach let Holmes know she was onto him and so did I. I may have been more diplomatic then Sen. Roach, but Holmes had the Sunshine on his agenda.
     
    kumabear17 and (deleted member) like this.
  4. meener777

    meener777 King County Active Member

    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    139
    Awesome. I would love to see more strengthening of our rights in response to all the nonsense being bandied about.
     
  5. gogoDawgs

    gogoDawgs Federal Way, WA Active Member

    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    36
    Yes, while it is assumed that the law pertains to both the applications AND the license and the DOL interprets it as such. Simply adding two words: "and license" to the current law would eliminate any misinterpretation.
     
  6. gogoDawgs

    gogoDawgs Federal Way, WA Active Member

    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    36
    Video of the committee hearing... starting at 49:55

    TVW v3
     
  7. meener777

    meener777 King County Active Member

    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    139
    Watched the video. Seriously awesome. Thank you very much for doing this. I thought Senator Roach was fantastic. :p
     
    Nimh and (deleted member) like this.
  8. 8ball

    8ball WA Quit talkin' and start chalking!

    Messages:
    977
    Likes Received:
    224
    Thanks for speaking up Nick, and for bringing this to everyone's attention. :thumbup:
     
  9. Morpheus

    Morpheus Columbia Gorge Anyway, back on the farm.

    Messages:
    1,113
    Likes Received:
    589
    Based on the video currently the Washington CPL has ambiguity between the application and licence its self? That is kind of screwy. So what, you could get the list of permits but not the applications or some such nonsense?

    Wow, talk about loony tunes.

    Now they want to make it all public? Really? Arg. I'm not sure who the woman in the video was but she was kind of spot on... Why are they discussing this at all? :)
     
  10. pchewn

    pchewn Beaverton Oregon USA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    289
    The current law seems right and clear. The INFORMATION (name, address, etc...) on the application (or license) MAY be released to LAW ENFORCEMENT.

    So the information that you give them may NOT be released to the public, only to law enforcement.

    IF we are forced to apply for CPL CHL, then the information should not become public. [I personally disagree that we should have to get permits to carry concealed, but that is a different argument.]
     
    kumabear17 and (deleted member) like this.
  11. Dave Workman

    Dave Workman Western Washington Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    2,387
  12. gogoDawgs

    gogoDawgs Federal Way, WA Active Member

    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    36
    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
     
  13. gogoDawgs

    gogoDawgs Federal Way, WA Active Member

    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    36
    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. March 19, 2013 Sunshine Meeting. 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
    Open Government Ombudsman

    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
     
    kumabear17 and (deleted member) like this.
  14. gogoDawgs

    gogoDawgs Federal Way, WA Active Member

    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    36
    Ask MRSC: February 2013


     
  15. svxr8dr

    svxr8dr Vancouver, WA OathKeeper #004404

    Messages:
    502
    Likes Received:
    171
    As far as I'm concerned Peter Holmes has made a direct threat against the safety and well being of my family and home.
     
  16. Suge206

    Suge206 Seattle Active Member

    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    163
    I don't really care if anyone knows I have a CPL. I also can't help but giggle that you misspelled public as pubic TWICE.
     
  17. svxr8dr

    svxr8dr Vancouver, WA OathKeeper #004404

    Messages:
    502
    Likes Received:
    171
    Because trying to publicly shame gun owners (and put their safety and property on the line) as done in NY State could never happen here so it's totally worth a grammar nazi post
     
  18. duane black

    duane black Washington Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    849
    Likes Received:
    411
    gogoDawgs

    Your testimony is SPOT on. When I moved to Washington I wasn't even planning on carrying a concealed weapon. I got my CPL from Clark County just so I could bypass the 5 day wait, after the movie theater attack I changed my mind and carry everywhere I legally can, at least one gun. :D

    This information should remain private, period. There is absolutely no reason for this information to be made public. I made a post a while back about just how many CPLs are out there, I think alot of people would be surprised to know that we have nearly 3 times per capita than Texas.

    What is Holmes reason behind this ? I suspect so " they " can demonize us. It's actually interesting to analyze the thought process. Liberals want to discriminate against a entire group of people whom are practicing a constitutionally protected civil right.
     
  19. Nightcrawler

    Nightcrawler Snohomish County, WA Active Member

    Messages:
    202
    Likes Received:
    113
    King County Sheriff John Urquhart is already on record as saying he will not divulge the information, in accordance with WA State law. Last I checked, Seattle was in King County.
     
  20. Suge206

    Suge206 Seattle Active Member

    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    163

    no, I just don't care who knows I have guns. trust me, I am in circles where it's NOT cool to have AR's and a cpl but I am who I am so they can suck it if they don't like it.


    and funny misspellings are not grammer issues nor am I a Nazi. I have a limited grasp on grammer as it is.