Opinion ID: 2511852
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Scope of the statutory exception creating confidentiality within NRS 202.3662

Text: The parties dispute the scope of NRS 202.3662, which governs the [confidentiality of information about [an] applicant for [a concealed firearms] permit and [a] permittee. Haley argues that because an application for a concealed firearms permit and information related to the applicant are confidential under NRS 202.3662, any information generated in a permit that is derived from the application would remain confidential, including the name of both the applicant and the ultimate permittee. Therefore, Haley maintains that the district court properly applied NRS 202.3662 when it determined that the permit and the name of the permit holder were confidential. We disagree. We recognize that NRS 202.3662 clearly and unambiguously creates an exception to the general rule that concealed firearms permit records are public. However, we have not addressed whether the confidentiality provisions of NRS 202.3662 extend to the name of the permittee or records of investigation, suspension, or revocation of issued permits; therefore, resolution of this appeal requires this court to interpret the statute. NRS 202.3662 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 1. Except as otherwise provided . . . (a) An application for a permit, and all information contained within that application; and (b) All information provided to a sheriff or obtained by a sheriff in the course of his investigation of an applicant, are confidential. 2. Any records regarding an applicant or permittee may be released to a law enforcement agency for the purpose of conducting an investigation or prosecution. 3. Statistical abstracts of data compiled by a sheriff regarding permits applied for or issued pursuant to NRS 202.3653 to 202.369, inclusive, including, but not limited to, the number of applications received and permits issued, may be released to any person. The only affirmative grant of confidentiality appears in subsection 1 of NRS 202.3662. This subsection, by its terms, extends the protection of confidentiality only to applications, information within the applications, and information related to the investigation of the applicant. The statute is notably silent, however, as to whether the name of a permittee, or records generated as part of an investigation, suspension, or revocation of the permit, are confidential. Additionally, Nevada's concealed firearms statutes repeatedly recognize a difference between an applicant and a permittee. NRS 202.3662(2) (Any records, regarding an applicant or permittee may be released. . . .); NRS 202.3657(3) (The sheriff shall deny an application or revoke a permit if he determines that the applicant or permittee: . . . .); NRS 202.3657(4) (The sheriff may deny an application or revoke a permit if he receives a sworn affidavit . . . that the applicant or permittee has or may have committed an offense . . . .); compare NRS 202.3665(1) (If a sheriff who is processing an application for a permit receives notification . . . that the applicant has been:. . . .), with NRS 202.3665(2) (If a sheriff who has issued a permit to a permittee receives notification . . . that the permittee has been: . . . .). Haley makes two arguments to extend to permittees the limited grant of confidentiality for applicants in NRS 202.3662(1). First, he suggests that the Legislature must have intended subsection 1 to apply to both applications and permits because, in providing for the release of statistical abstracts of data to any person, subsection 3 of NRS 202.3662 expressly refers to permits applied for or issued and the number of applications received and permits issued. Second, he argues that because permits grow out of applications and applications are confidential, permits must be confidential too. We disagree. Whatever merit Haley's arguments might have if we were to read NRS 202.3662 in isolation from the Act, they fail in light of the explicit rules of construction stated in NRS 239.001, which says that open records are the rule, and that exceptions to the rule are narrowly construed: 1. The purpose of this chapter is to foster democratic principles by providing members of the public with access to inspect and copy public books and records to the extent permitted by law; 2. The provisions of this chapter must be construed liberally to carry out this important purpose; and 3. Any exemption, exception or balancing of interests which limits or restricts access to public books and records by members of the public must be construed narrowly. Given this unmistakable declaration of purpose, we cannot credit Haley's argument that the reference to permits issued or applied for in subsection 3 broadens the grant of confidentiality in subsection 1 from applications to permits. If the Legislature had intended post-application information about a permit's status to be confidential, it could and would have stated that, but it did not. Despite Haley's argument that the identity of a permittee is confidential because it is the same name as an applicant, which is confidential, the narrow construction of confidentiality required by the Act and the Legislature's distinction between an applicant and a permittee, does not extend a statutory grant of confidentiality for an applicant to a permittee. The status of an applicant changes to that of a permittee when the permit issues as demonstrated by the concealed firearms statutory scheme and the plain omission of post-permit records from confidentiality in NRS 202.3662. According to the Act's rules of construction requiring a narrow interpretation of any exception to openness and the Legislature's failure to explicitly grant confidentiality to a permittee, we must conclude that the name of a permittee and post-permit records of investigation, suspension, or revocation of a concealed firearms permit are not explicitly contained within the scope of the confidentiality exception of NRS 202.3662(1).