Gibbons’ gun permit weighed
RENO -- A lawyer for a Reno newspaper urged the Nevada Supreme Court on Tuesday to open some records concerning Gov. Jim Gibbons' concealed weapons permit, arguing confidentiality provisions extend only to information on an application, not documents or actions after a permit is issued.
"The statute is not a blanket rule of confidentiality for any and all records that relate to a concealed firearm permit," Scott Glogovac, representing the Reno Gazette-Journal, argued before the court in Carson City.
Washoe County Deputy District Attorney Nathan Edwards countered that the Legislature intended to keep documents private when it enacted confidentiality clauses for concealed weapons in 1997.
Justices took the arguments under advisement.
The newspaper last year sued Washoe County Sheriff Mike Haley when he refused to discuss the status of Gibbons' firearms permit.
The newspaper sought information on Gibbons' permit after the governor acknowledged surrendering it when it was revealed he hadn't completed the required training for nine handguns he owns.
Haley ultimately revoked the certification of the firearms instructor who signed off on the training.
Gibbons has said he has since completed the required training and has a valid permit for all his weapons.
Washoe District Judge Janet Berry in May 2008 rejected the newspaper's lawsuit, ruling the legislative intent was to protect the identity of concealed weapon permit holders.
"The court can't treat the governor any differently," she said.
On Tuesday, Glogovac conceded that applications and investigations by law enforcement officials of applicants are confidential, but he also argued that Berry overstepped the law's parameters.
"Nothing in this statute mentions confidentiality for the permits themselves ... or documents that would discuss or address the status of the permit or any kind of action taken in respect to a permit," Glogovac said.
State public records laws require a narrow confidentiality interpretation that would allow for disclosure of the documents, he said.
Edwards countered that revealing any information contained on an application, including a person's name, would violate the confidentiality mandate.
