Jonathan Bandler

jbandler@lohud.com

The Journal News/lohud is entitled to the names and addresses of pistol permit holders in Putnam County who did not opt out of the public database of gun licensees, a state appellate court has ruled.

The Appellate Division rejected Putnam County’s appeal of a state judge’s 2014 ruling that the county must disclose the names and addresses of any pistol-permit holders who did not opt out of the database.

"We applaud the open records victory after a hard-fought battle," said Traci Bauer, who joined The Journal News/lohud as executive editor in 2015. Despite the access, The Journal News has no plans to revisit the information on gun permits, Bauer added.

Because the ruling was unanimous, Putnam could only challenge it if it gets permission from the state Court of Appeals. Putnam County Executive MaryEllen Odell and County Clerk Michael Bartolotti said in a joint statement Friday they would seek to appeal.

"I am committed to not providing these records which not only is an invasion of privacy but also places all of our residents, gun owners and non-gun owners alike, in harm's way," Odell said.

In December 2012, The Journal News/lohud filed Freedom of Information Law requests for the pistol permit records in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties. Westchester and Rockland provided the information. Putnam denied the request and a subsequent appeal.

In January 2013, state lawmakers passed a series of gun-control measures, the NY-SAFE Act, that included a provision allowing permit holders to opt out of the public database.

Permit holders had four months to decide whether to opt out. When the period ended, the newspaper filed new FOIL requests for information on the permit holders who remained in the database. Putnam again denied the requests and another appeal. The county argued that access to the records would be an “unwarranted invasion of personal property” and could endanger people.

After the newspaper sued to get the information, acting state Supreme Court Justice Robert Neary ruled in March 2014 that the county had to provide the data because the SAFE Act “unequivocally directs the public disclosure of names and addresses of license holders who did not choose to seek an exemption.”

The four-judge appellate panel this week affirmed the ruling on different grounds. It found that Putnam could not sustain its arguments for why the records should be exempt from FOIL requirements. They rejected the county’s contention that the newspaper wanted the records in order to solicit business and that disclosure would be “offensive and objectionable to a reasonable (person) of ordinary sensibilities.”

Twitter: @jonbandler