Court Opinion

ID: 9789338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:34:50.498502+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:21.899638
License: Public Domain

GOLDEN, J.,
specially concurring.
[¶ 23] The Court holds that in three subsections of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-8-104 (Lexis 1999), the concealed weapons law, as well as from “the very purpose” of that law, the Wyoming legislature inferentially designated that the list of citizens given concealed weapon permits is privileged or confidential and, therefore, not a public record which must be disclosed to the public. Further, the Court concludes that the Wyoming legislature’s 2001 amendment, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-8-104(bb) (LexisNexis 2001), which expressly declares that the list of concealed weapon permit holders is not a public record, “must be seen as merely a clarification of the legislature’s original intentions.... ” Because I disagree with the Court’s analysis, but think that the 2001 amendment applies to Frans-cell’s request, I concur in the result of the Court’s opinion.
[¶ 24] In the Wyoming Public Records Act, the legislature has declared that the term “public records” does not include documents made or received by any agencies of the state in connection with the transaction of public business if the documents are made “privileged or confidential by law.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16^4-201(a)(v) (Lexis 1999). Over the years this Court has consistently maintained that it liberally construes the Act in favor of disclosure and narrowly construes exceptions. Houghton v. Franscell, 870 P.2d 1050, 1052 (Wyo.1994). I am inclined to think that exceptions to disclosure, like exceptions to liability (immunity), must be expressed, not implied. The legislature has shown over the years in different areas that it knows how to word express exceptions. In fact, within § 6-8-104(g), in which the Court claims to find an implication of confidentiality for the requested list, the legislature used obvious language to except from disclosure the written comments of a chief of police: “Submitted comments shall not be considered a public record.” It would have been easy for the legislature to use like language *1234in subsection (g) or subsections (n) and (z) of § 6-8-104 had the legislature intended to except the requested list from disclosure. That it did not is dispositive for me.
[¶ 25] Let me say a few words about “the very purpose” of the concealed weapons law. The Court identifies that purpose to be concealing the identity of concealed weapon permit holders from general public knowledge. I am' not so sure. As I shall explain, I am more inclined to think that the law’s purpose is to protect the law-abiding citizen and the public from the violent crimes which have become all too prevalent in today’s society. Once upon a less crime-ridden time, many states, including Wyoming,1 had laws that prohibited an individual from carrying a concealed weapon. Clayton E. Cramer and David B. Kopel," “Shall Issue”: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws, 62 Tenn. L.Rev. 679, 681 (1995). Such laws were “designed to prevent a person with a weapon from taking some undue advantage over an unsuspecting adversary who is not aware that the person is carrying a weapon.” Dorelus v. State, 747 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla.1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). Stated in a slightly different way, secondary authority informs us that the object of the prohibition was “clearly that of protecting the public by preventing an individual from having on hand a weapon of which the public is unaware, and which might be used by that individual in a fit of passion.” 79 Am.Jur.2d Weapons and Firearms § 8 (1975).
[¶26] In Wyoming, in 1957, the legislature established a “discretionary issue” procedure under which county sheriffs in their discretion could issue permits to carry weapons to “travelers, merchant police, private detectives, or other persons who may be required by their work, vocation or profession to carry a weapon or weapons.” 1957 Wyo. Sess. Law ch. 201, § 1; Wyo. Stat. § 6-239 (Michie 1957). Factors bearing on the sheriffs exercise of discretion were the applicant’s general reputation and previous criminal record; the sheriff could revoke an issued permit at any time if the sheriff believed that the permitee’s conduct was contrary to the best interests of the state or its subdivisions. Id. In 1994, the Wyoming legislature dramatically changed the law. 1994 Wyo. Sess. Law ch. 41, § 1. The legislature abolished the “discretionary issue” system and replaced it with the “shall issue” system we have today which vests in the state attorney general the authority to issue concealed weapon permits. Id. Thus, Wyoming joined the growing number of states that have facilitated more liberal issuance of permits. John C. Lenzen, Liberalizing the Concealed Carry of Handguns by Qualified Civilians: The Case For “Cari'y Reform,” 47 Rutgers L.Rev. 1503, 1504 n. 4, 1506-07 (1995). According to some, “[c]arry reform is a legislative movement in which the states are unequivocally rejecting the assumption that civilians are incompetent to carry handguns in preparation for the lawful resistance of criminal aggression.” Id. at 1507. It has been reported that
empirical evidence from those states with liberal concealed carry laws strongly suggests that carry reform ... [does] not threaten public safety. Other data indicate that more prevalent concealed carry may be a powerful weapon in the fight against violent crime in two ways: (1) empowering individuals to defend against violent crime; and (2) deterring the commission of violent crimes in general.
Id. at 1513. And, it has been said that “[t]aken as a whole, [the] evidence suggests that more widespread and well-publicized concealed carry may reduce the rates of violent crime by deterring criminal behavior.” Id. at 1514. Moreover, it has been said that “the available evidence suggests that gun ownership among potential crime victims has as much, if not more, of an effect on violent crime than the activities of the entire criminal justice system.” Id. at 1536.
[¶27] In the final analysis, whether the validity of these reports, evidence, data, and statements is borne out in the long run remains to be seen. But it cannot be doubted that the. pendulum of public policy, as declared by the legislatures of the carry reform *1235states, has swung over the century from protecting the public by preventing an individual from carrying a weapon to protecting the law-abiding individual and the public from violent crimes by permitting the law-abiding individual to carry a weapon. And, given that dramatic swing of the pendulum, I am more inclined to think that the true purpose of the current concealed weapon law is one of protecting the law-abiding citizen and the public from violent crimes which have become all too commonplace in our contemporary times.
[¶ 28] Let me say a few words now about the applicability of the 2001 amendment to Franscell’s request. Because the Court decided this case on a different ground, it did not address the issue whether the 2001 amendment, by which the legislature expressly designated the requested list not to be a public record, applied so as to preclude disclosure. The parties did address that issue, and I shall, albeit briefly, because I think that that amendment applies in this case. Pagel, the custodian of the requested list, relied on the 2001 amendment as an alternative ground for non-disclosure. The amendment, which was expressly retroactively applicable to concealed weapon permit records, became effective February 20, 2001, before the entry of the district court’s order of March 21, 2001, requiring Pagel’s disclosure of the requested list to Franscell. In their respective legal briefs on this point and related points, Pagel and Franscell thrust and parry concerning whether the district court decided the case on February 1, 2001, the date of the hearing, or on March 21, 2001, the date of the court’s order, and whether the legislature can alter the outcome of a case by changing the law retroactively. I shall not go into the details of the respective arguments on these several points; it is, I think, a close call. I am more inclined to conclude, however, that Pagel has the better legal position. Therefore, I would hold that the legislature’s 2001 amendment, with its express designation that the requested list is not a public record, is dispositive. Because the legislature designated that the requested list is not a public record, Pagel need not have disclosed it.

. Before statehood in 1890, a Wyoming Territorial law prohibited carrying concealed weapons. 1890 Wyo. Terr. Sess. Laws ch. 73, § 96. Upon statehood, this became state law. 1890 Wyo. Sess. Laws ch. 35, § 1. It remained law until amendment in 1957. 1957 Wyo. Sess. Laws ch. 201, § 1; Wyo. Stat. § 6-239 (Michie 1957).