Seattle City Attorney, Peter Holmes wants CPL info pubic?

[Dave Workman]

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

It is that sort of head-in-the-sand logic that ultimately leads to the kind of crap going on in NY and Colorado right now. "It could never happen here." Everybody thought that on Sept. 10, 2001.
They thought that on Dec. 6, 1941.

Never under-estimate the determination of anti-gunners to shame, demonize and drive gun owners off the landscape.

 

[gogoDawgs]

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.

I can understand your point of view, however, that is not everyone's point of view. It is not the point of view of the 5' 100lb, single woman who would have her information revealed. It is not the point of view of a collector who would have his address revealed. A list like this is a RAD MAP TO THEFT for gang members and other thieves.

 

[svxr8dr]

It is that sort of head-in-the-sand logic that ultimately leads to the kind of crap going on in NY and Colorado right now. "It could never happen here." Everybody thought that on Sept. 10, 2001.
They thought that on Dec. 6, 1941.

Never under-estimate the determination of anti-gunners to shame, demonize and drive gun owners off the landscape.

Sorry if my web sarcasm did not translate well. I am in total agreement on this issue with you Dave and I most appreciative of your continued hard work.

 

[Dave Workman]

Sorry if my web sarcasm did not translate well. I am in total agreement on this issue with you Dave and I most appreciative of your continued hard work.

Understood and apologies right back at you.
I've had it right up to my eyeballs with people in our own camp who are willing to trade civil rights for social issues (legal pot, whatever) and continue to help elect the people who do this to gun owners..

 

[quneur]

Related to this thread, back on the 15th I asked DOL concerning defining what 'law enforcement' actually meant; state or federal. Here was their reply and the message sent below:

Good Afternoon Sam,

Here is a link to the law I could find regarding the definition of a law enforcement agency.

RCW 10.93.020: Definitions.

Feel free to contact us with any further questions or concerns. Thank you and have a great day.

Desiree Huston
Firearms Unit
Dept. of Licensing
Business and Professions Division
360-664-6616
[email protected]

'A customer is the most important visitor on our premises. They are not dependent on us, we are dependent on them. They are not an interruption of our work, they are the purpose of it. They are not an outsider to our business, they are part of it. We are not doing them a favor by serving them, they are doing us a favor by giving us the opportunity to do so'.

--Unknown

From: Sam [mailto:xxxxx]
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 11:43 AM
To: DOL Firearms
Subject: Clarification

To Whom It Concern,

I am writing for clarifications on RCW 42.56.240 subsection (4). As it currently reads,

"(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;"

\What constitutes 'law enforcement or corrections agencies'? As you may know, the State of Missouri Department of Revenue recently has been accused of secretly sending conceal carry permit holders datatbase to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and another private firm. I am concerned this is allowed in Washington State.

I find Washington State law concerning enforcement agencies to be too broad and ambiguous. Does the term, ' law enforcement or corrections agencies' encompass only state agencies or include both state and federal? And what are the qualifying legal statues, if any, which may/may not allow this information to sent to federal agencies?

I am currently looking to apply for a CPL but am hesitant until I receive a clarification. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Sam

 

[Sun195]

Thanks for testifying on this. I see no compelling public interest to release this information, other than the potential harassment or targeting of CPL holders. Considering that the anti- side is always claiming their actions are about public safety, I fail to see how seeking to release CPL information contributes to that end.

 

[Dunerunner]

Time for Washington Citizens to sign and present a petition to reveal and make public the names and addresses of all those in the State who do not hold a CPL or Own Firearms!

 

[quneur]

Was it Bruce Tanaka that said the information can not be made public but demographic information can be made public?

How precise can the demographic be; a city block or smaller? Information on a property can be obtained from the planning department and its all public; current owner, size, liens, boundaries, etc. With two pieces of information, property location & owner and number of licenses, one could theoretically construct a mapping of CPL holders.

DOL can't give out a CPL holders information but it can give out (according to the video) how many applications per area (demographics). So, how precise can the area be?

 

[gogoDawgs]

What has been given out, is number of CPL holders by zip code.

<broken link removed>

 

[duane black]

What has been given out, is number of CPL holders by zip code.

<broken link removed>

Thank you for posting that. Why are they doing this ? I realize it doesn't have my name on the map... It seems like these folks are not going after the criminal element in any way, shape, or form. Reminds me of the current nonsense going on in Oregon where it looks like every proposed bill is going after hyper-law abiding CHL and CPL holders.

 

[gogoDawgs]

Washington law and Washington courts favor an open government. They favor disclosure over non-disclosure unless specifically outlined in law. Therefore, the disclosure of the information by zip code is not unusual nor does it reveal any personal info. The original votes in 1988 to keep information on the application private was a unanimous vote in both the house and senate chambers. Therefore, I believe it is pretty damn clear that personal information is not to be released by the state government. However, some wording in the language of the law and now some advice by a municipal services corporation (i.e. city-county municipal group) is being questioned as the New York fiasco has led for others to ask for this information.

I favor an open and transparent government, but as I have stated before, the reason is to scrutinize government and not the citizen.

 

[duane black]

I favor an open and transparent government, but as I have stated before, the reason is to scrutinize government and not the citizen.

I guess this is my issue with this whole fiasco. I'm not sure how this serves any public interest and I think we can all agree this issue wasn't pushed to scrutinize the DOL. I'm glad Washington had the foresight in 1998 to make this a more or less non-issue.

Still irks me it even happened. I am law abiding, I follow the rules. Leave me alone gun grabbers and go after the CRIMINALS.

KIRO should also allow comments on that page, that would be fun.

 

[deen_ad]

I've had it right up to my eyeballs with people in our own camp who are willing to trade civil rights for social issues (legal pot, whatever) and continue to help elect the people who do this to gun owners..

Me too!