Judge OKs Naming Some Holders of Gun Permits

Seeking to balance individuals’ privacy rights against public-records laws, a Superior Court judge on Thursday approved limited public access to concealed-weapon permits issued by the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department.

In his ruling, Judge Richard Huffman expressed concern that many of the more than 2,500 San Diegans who hold gun permits could be endangered if their names were publicly disclosed. Therefore, a “name-by-name review” is necessary, the judge added, to determine which permit holders are entitled to privacy because of personal safety considerations and which names should be made public.

4 Classes of Holders

After reviewing a random sample of 226 of the county’s concealed gun permits, Huffman divided the permit holders into four categories. The identities and other information about individuals in three of those categories--law-enforcement officials, business people and persons who carry guns because they have received threats--will remain private, Huffman ruled.

The only names that will be disclosed under Huffman’s ruling are those of persons who fall in the fourth category--individuals who obtained a concealed-weapon permit solely for their own personal protection.

Huffman’s ruling came in a lawsuit filed by the San Diego Union and Tribune after Sheriff John Duffy refused to make the concealed-weapon permit files available for public inspection, despite a California Supreme Court ruling last year that the permits are public record.

Hal Fuson, general counsel of Copley Press Inc., publisher of the Union and Tribune, described Huffman’s ruling as “a good news-bad news sort of thing.”

Decision Due on Appeal

“The bad news is that we didn’t get nearly as much information as we believe we’re entitled to,” Fuson said. “On the other hand, the sheriff had been telling us we weren’t entitled to anything, and Judge Huffman certainly corrected his thinking on that. We’re gratified that the judge at least agreed with us that these things are not the great monumental secret that Sheriff Duffy had made them out to be.”

A decision on whether to appeal Huffman’s ruling probably will be made within a week, Fuson said.

Fuson argued that Huffman misinterpreted last year’s state Supreme Court decision, which stated that public review of the concealed-gun permits would help “ensure that public officials are acting properly in issuing licenses for legitimate reasons.”

“We think that means that all the permits are public record, period,” Fuson explained.

Huffman, however, described the state high court’s decision as vague, emphasizing that while the ruling declared the gun permits to be public documents, it also “tells me to balance the privacy rights of individuals.”

In his attempt to balance those competing factors, Huffman established varying guidelines for each of the four categories of permit-holders. For example, the judge ruled that the names of law-enforcement authorities such as judges, lawyers and reserve police officers will not be released, but that general descriptions of their positions will be disclosed.

The names of business people, who Huffman said composed the largest of the four groups, also will not be made public because they often carry cash, jewelry or other valuables that might make them susceptible to an attack. As a further precaution, the names of those individuals’ businesses also will remain private, Huffman said.

Similarly, neither the names nor other information about persons who carry concealed weapons because they have received threats will be released under Huffman’s ruling.

Security Guards and Dealers

All individuals who do not fall into any of the three protected categories were grouped into the fourth classification, which includes people who contend that they need to carry a gun for personal protection. The names of people in that group, which includes security guards and gun dealers, as well as their reasons for having a gun, will be made public, Huffman ruled. The disclosure of those names, Huffman added, would not endanger the individuals involved.

Huffman also agreed to give individuals whose names would be released under his order two weeks to submit statements explaining why they oppose having their names made public.

After last year’s Supreme Court ruling, Duffy contacted 2,676 local concealed-weapon permit holders to inquire whether they objected to having the information on the documents made public. The names of 130 people who did not object were released last month, and Huffman drew his random sample from the remaining 2,546 names.

Assuming that his ruling is not overturned, Huffman said that his review of each of the remaining names would take several days.

Huffman’s ruling affects only existing concealed-weaponspermits. Therefore, any attempt by the news media or others to review files pertaining to future permits could precipitate another legal challenge, the judge noted.