In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
UT: Release Gun Opinion (11/29/2001)
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Release Gun Opinion Wednesday, November 28, 2001 So why all the secrecy? Utah Atty. Gen. Mark Shurtleff wrote an unsolicited opinion to Gov. Mike Leavitt declaring that a rule banning state employees with concealed-carry permits from bringing their weapons into the workplace violates state law. The opinion, apparently, reiterates what legislative attorneys had already said three years ago. Yet, Shurtleff refuses to release his opinion, citing attorney-client privilege. Attorney-client privilege only applies when litigation is pending. Shurtleff has not mentioned any official challenges to the rule, so why not let the public know what legal reasoning supports public employees packing heat? The issue is particularly important since the next step toward withdrawal of the rule is a public comment period. The public can't make informed comments without knowing the legal reasoning behind the rule change. The attorney general is legal counsel for the governor. He has a general duty to protect his client's confidentiality. But he is also an elected official whose records are public information under the Government Records and Management Act. Shurtleff issued an unsolicited opinion. That opinion is reviewable by the public under GRAMA unless it is related to litigation. The opinion is, similarly, not protected by the attorney-client privilege. Moreover, whatever harm the attorney general fears from releasing his opinion must be minimal given the general consensus between the attorney general and the legislative counsel regarding the ban on weapons. Since the Legislature also has asked the attorney general for an official opinion, which will be public information, Shurtleff's original opinion for the governor hardly merits the claimed confidentiality. The issue is an important one for the public. Whatever side a person is on in the gun debate, the public has a right to know if its employees are permitted to carry concealed weapons to work. There is no legitimate excuse for hiding the legal reasoning of the state's counsel from those who will be impacted: public employees and the public at large. The news is out, the rule banning weapons is on the path to deletion. If the public is expected to comment on the change in a meaningful manner, Shurtleff must explain the reasons for the change. Release the original opinion to the public. http://www.sltrib.com/11282001/opinion/152767.htm