Advertisement

All Those Secret Holsters

Share

It comes as no particular surprise that state Sen. H. L. Richardson (R-Glendora) will not rest until there is a holster under every shoulder and a weapon in every holster. The surprise is that so many other senators seem ready to go along with his dream.

At issue is a loophole in the 1968 Public Records Act that until last October let law-enforcement agencies shield from the public their lists of people with permits to carry concealed weapons. The state Supreme Court closed the loophole, ruling that a blanket refusal to disclose at least some of the information on such lists violated the act.

Now a bill sponsored by Richardson that would open the loophole again has won approval in the California Senate twice, and is poised for a final and binding vote--perhaps today.

Advertisement

The bill is bad legislation, the worst aspect of which is that it would violate the intent of the law that it seeks to amend. As the author of the act, former Assemblyman William T. Bagley, said in 1968, its “basic philosophy . . . is that the burden is upon the governmental agency to show that a given record should not be made public.”

As the practice of shielding such lists made its way up through the courts, law-enforcement agencies argued that disclosing even the namesof people who are allowed to carry concealed weapons would increase their risks because criminals would plan attacks against them more carefully. But, as one brief arguing for disclosure put it, that was conjecture, not the sort of evidence required to violate the spirit of the law. It was, the brief said, equally valid to speculate that knowing that their quarry was armed might in fact scare criminals off.

The fundamental issue in the case of Richardson’s SB 1192 is not concealed-weapons permits but the arbitrary sealing off of the public from records showing how its government does business. Officials can always find a reason to withhold information. The state Public Records Act simply requires that it be a good reason. The law should stand as it is.

Advertisement