- Messages
- 297
- Reactions
- 36
I attended the <broken link removed> 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:
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.
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;
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:
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.
