Concealed weapons debate gets personal in Carson City

[RamboLiberal]

Carson City — When it comes to themselves, state lawmakers opt for the least transparency.

Many legislative documents aren’t subject to the state open records law. Lawmakers’ deliberations are, in many cases, exempt from the open meeting law. And when it comes to deciding whether information on concealed weapons permits should remain public, several lawmakers appeared Monday to base their position on how the release of such information would affect them personally.

Holding the first hearing on Assembly Bill 143, which would make secret the names of weapons permit holders, the lawmakers said they think access to the information poses a safety problem for permit holders despite arguments to the contrary. They used their experiences to back up their argument.

“It was put in the press that certain elected officials had CCWs and our addresses are out there,” said Assemblyman William Horne, D-Las Vegas. “I think your arguments for not having confidentiality falls flat, in my opinion, on that.”

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/mar/01/concealed-weapons-debate-gets-personal/

Story that sparked this from August 2010

The Sun obtained the names of all permit holders in the state’s most populous counties, Clark and Washoe, but elected not to publish the names unless the permit holders agreed to on-the-record interviews.

Indeed, debate has raged in many states as courts have weighed the public’s right to know who the government has granted permits to carry hidden weapons against individuals’ desire to keep it secret.

The recent Nevada Supreme Court decision, prompted by a 2007 Reno Gazette-Journal investigation into Gov. Jim Gibbons’ fraudulent application for a permit, has unleashed a backlash in Northern Nevada.

(A friend of Gibbons, who is a weapons instructor, signed the required form stating that the governor had demonstrated proficiency on each weapon for which he was issued a permit. In fact, Gibbons had only demonstrated he was proficient on seven of the nine pistols he was granted permits to conceal.)

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/aug/15/why-your-friends-might-be-packing/

[HopeHoops]

1. "Permits? We don' need no stinkin' permits."

[Katya Mullethov]

2. Concur

We are in agreeance .

[HopeHoops]

3. I don't have permits for mine - then again, I don't carry them in public.

[jpak]

4. Permits are public documents and anyone should have access to them - esp. college profs.

democracy

freedom

yup

[friendly_iconoclast]

5. Public health records are public documents and anyone should have access to them

We need to know who has dangerous STDs (HIV, gonorrhea, syphilis, viral hepatitis).

They are a threat to the community.

[jpak]

6. Ok

:D

[rl6214]

7. YUP, we need to have released the names of every

woman that has had an abortion and every doctor that has performed one.

YUP

YUP

YUP

[Katya Mullethov]

9. Can we get that in a searchable format on the internet ?

I have a right to know where all the loose women might be .

Just as a concealed carry list can be used to inform myself as to what maniacal madmen I should avoid , a list of abortees should be pretty close to a list of whores .

[Euromutt]

10. I have counter-suggestion in the same spirit

Namely, that anyone who requests such information will be required to first provide identifying information (including but not limited to name, DoB, PoB, height, weight, home address and vehicles registered to that person) which will be recorded by the agency in question, and relayed to any and all individuals about whom that person inquires.

After all, if you supposedly have the right to look snoop into people's business, it seems only fair that they have the right to know you've been snooping.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

8. Let's compromise... We won't object to making the permit records public information if

if we can also have the option to carry concealed without a permit as well - just like Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, and soon Wyoming.

[Hoopla Phil]

11. I like the way Texas went about this.

The records are by definition subject to the Texas Open Records Act sooooo - In asking for the information Texas said that you have to provide the Name of the person being inquired on and that persons current address. That stopped any of the "blanket" info from being requested.

IIRC, Texas has sense exempted CHL lists from the TORA.