Buck
BSRancher
County limits firearms info
Permit policy appears to violate law
Responding to the newspaper's request to review concealed weapon permit applications by the 2,180 county residents holding active permits, Deputy County Counsel Dennis Tilton imposed lengthy restrictions on what information the county would release, citing concerns that information on the applications such as birth date could be used for identity theft. Other requests made at the same time had mixed results. Court precedent and state law allows the public access to almost all of the information contained in a concealed permit application with narrow exemptions. The state Legislature exempted from disclosure where and when an applicant is vulnerable to attack and an applicant's medical and psychological history. It also exempted home addresses and telephone numbers of peace officers, judges, court commissioners and magistrates. All other information, including birth date, address carrying a weapon, are public. Even in the application itself, applicants are informed that all the information may be publicly disclosed. "I'm not denying you are entitled to some information, but I don't think we are being too restrictive," Tilton said Thursday. "I realize this is new ground, but that is the position the sheriff wants to take." A sheriff's spokeswoman responded to a request for comment by Penrod by referring the newspaper to Tilton. Redacting sensitive information to protect the privacy and general vulnerabilities of permit holders would take months, said Tilton, who did offer to hand over names, cities of residence and years of birth to someone who asked within two weeks. He also said if someone had specific information about a permit holder, he could confirm some of it. The deputy county counsel said a 1986 California Supreme Court decision that ruled permit applications are public documents with limited exemptions was outdated. He said he believed any new challenge would back the county's position. But public-record experts blasted his response. "This is a brazen disregard of the law, and if the citizens of San Bernardino County treated the law like county counsel, there would be anarchy," said Jim Ewert, legal counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Association. "The public needs to know how the system works. Are permits going to people who give campaign contributions to the sheriff or to friends of (the Board of) Supervisors?" Ewert said it's impossible to determine the effectiveness of issuing permits without relevant information such as birth dates and the reasons for carrying a concealed weapon. A county sheriff or city police chief may issue a permit where "good cause" exists. Tilton said the Sheriff's Department conducts thorough background checks for all holders, and currently 2,180 permits are active. He also said all who obtained permits "received them for personal protection." Terry Francke, the general counsel for Californians Aware, an advocacy group, ripped the county's written response to the public-records request. He warned that accurate and specific information is essential for the media, and the absence of it could eventually hurt news gathering. "If identity theft is the catchall reason to keep information from the public, and it seems to work, more government officials will move toward the `so sue me' spectrum," Francke said. The county is also flouting Proposition 59, said Richard McKee, president of Californians Aware. Approved by voters in 2004, the proposition tacked on an amendment to the state Constitution that declares government officials must broadly construe the people's right of access and narrowly construe limits to those rights. "This is clearly a public record, but like other records, public officials treat them like they're private," McKee said. It's one reason why the advocacy group is pushing a bill, AB 2927, by Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, McKee said. One section would provide for penalties, including monetary awards, if a court finds a public agency's unlawful failure to provide access to records was due to bad faith. The fine would have to be paid by agency officers or employees who denied the request. The bill is currently in the Assembly. Other public records requests turned aside by county counsel included those for: The top 10 overtime earners in the Sheriff's Department in 2005 because no overtime documents exist. Travel and credit expenses for Penrod from March because the sheriff's expenses had not been handed in yet. The Sheriff's Department complied with a request for the top 10 earners, with rank and pay scale only. STILL SECRET: THE GUMPORT REPORTS San Bernardino County supervisors have promised to release Los Angeles attorney Leonard Gumport's investigative reports into former 3rd District chief of staff Jim Foster's acquisition of surplus county land and the county's purchase of a $28 million High Desert jail, but not before the District Attorney's Office completes its review of the Foster investigation. District attorney's officials, who have already finished with the jail investigation, say the review could take months, which means the jail report may not be made public until after the June election. To submit your own request for the reports, contact the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at (909) 889-0200, County Administrative Officer Mark Uffer at (909) 387-5418 or Board of Supervisors Chairman Bill Postmus at (909) 387-4830. | ||||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment