http://www.startribune.com/suspect-shot ... 470684043/
Again with the disclosure...
>The worker who opened fire did have a state-issued permit to carry a firearm, but such licensing is not required when the gun is on the premises for protecting a place of business, Kvam said.
I can maybe understand releasing a person's permit status when it would be relevant to the charges that were or were not filed. (The shooting in Rochester, for example.)
But here, when they admit it has no bearing on the case, what is the rationale?