California Releases Personal Info on CCW

[BarryLee]

The California Attorney Genral released a list of all concealed carry permit holders including names, addresses, ages. This was done as part of an effort at "transparency". I believe the information has now been taken down but is it possible the information was copied first. What groups might find this helpful? How might: The Media, Anti-gun Groups or even criminals take advantage of this? Do you think the release was a "mistake" or might this have been done intentionally?

https://ktla.com/news/california/nam...fice-confirms/

[Jim Watson]

I am sure it was done on purpose to generate fear and hate.

I think it would be instructive to compare that list with a list of persons putting out anti statements, though.

[Spats McGee]

I'd have a hard time believing that this was accidental, unintentional, coincidental, etc. At best, I think it was done to scare and shame gun owners. At worst, I think it was done in the hopes of getting a few killed.

[NJgunowner]

Let's get one thing straight, I seriously doubt it was an effort to get anyone killed and suggesting as much is irresponsible. And you'd need to be a special kind of stupid to attack someone you know is armed.

It is a scare tactic though. Hey you want your concealed carry license that's fine... but we're going make your information public because your neighbors should know your armed and scary!

If they can't stop you from carrying one way, they'll try to ostracize you or scare you into compliance another way.

[ballardw]

I would wonder if there were any geographic "holes" where no permits are shown but you might expect some to be present.

[zukiphile]

When CCW was new in my state, the identities and addresses were a public record. It was copied by the state's largest paper and published by an antagonistic journalist.

Publishing what people have in their homes creates targets for theft which can be an incentive for home invasion.

There is no benign motive for it.

[CarpeDiem]

I read today that the vast majority of people on the list were judges, politicians and big political donors.

[OPC]

My take is that this was done mostly in response to the recent SCOTUS decision in NY so as to discourage new applicants.

[ghbucky]

While the media is covering this as a 'breach' the actual CA DOJ says nothing of the sort:
https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releas...ansparency-and

“Transparency is key to increasing public trust between law enforcement and the communities we serve,” said Attorney General Bonta. “As news of tragic mass shootings continue to dominate the news cycle, leaving many with feelings of fear and uncertainty, we must do everything we can to prevent gun violence. One of my continued priorities is to better provide information needed to help advance efforts that strengthen California’s commonsense gun laws. Today’s announcement puts power and information into the hands of our communities by helping them better understand the role and potential dangers of firearms within our state.”

DOJ seeks to balance its duties to provide gun violence and firearms data to support research efforts while protecting the personal identifying information in the data the Department collects and maintains. Data-driven research plays a critical role in keeping Californians safe by informing and shaping our commonsense gun laws. With today’s announcement, Attorney General Bonta is improving accessibility and functionality of the existing firearms database with expanded information in a comprehensive data dashboard. The dashboard includes data from the past decade when available on the following subjects:

Dealer Record of Sales
Gun Violence Restraining Orders
Carry Concealed Weapons Permits
Firearms Safety Certificates
Assault Weapons
Roster of Certified Handguns

It wasn't until the Fresno Sheriff's office received reports from other sheriffs that this portal was taken down.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by NJgunowner

Let's get one thing straight, I seriously doubt it was an effort to get anyone killed and suggesting as much is irresponsible. And you'd need to be a special kind of stupid to attack someone you know is armed.....

I don't doubt it one bit. I think the only thing the antigunners hate more than guns, is gun owners.

You expect criminals to make the smart move?
https://www.dailywire.com/news/man-s...med-with-knife

https://www.wlbt.com/2021/08/18/3-pl...iss-pawn-shop/

https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/w...rob-gun-range/

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/...range-84117048

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/multi...b05fe694f296ad

Need I continue?

[NJgunowner]

And you think telling people the state of California is trying to get them killed is the correct thing to do? You REALLY think the attorney general of California sat down and said, hey lets make this information public, it might get some of them killed off and scare the others!

That asinine and ridiculous. I doesn't help in any way other than to prove to them that we're all a bunch of conspiracy nuts.

Need I continue?

[44 AMP]

I think the only thing the antigunners hate more than guns, is gun owners.

And the fact that they dare not give us the physical thrashing they believe we deserve, because, well...you know,,, we've got guns!
and they might get shot if they try...

Not sure just where to put that on their list, but its got to be up there around the top.

I seem to remember something similar in Florida a while back, but if I remember right, it wasn't the govt putting out the names and addresses of CCW holders, it was a reporter (who got the info via a freedom of info filing or something like that). Don't know if the rest of the story is true or not, but according to the story, someone else put the reporter's name & address on the net, along with where he worked and everyone else who worked there.
The CCW holders list disappeared real fast after that...

Let's get one thing straight, I seriously doubt it was an effort to get anyone killed and suggesting as much is irresponsible. And you'd need to be a special kind of stupid to attack someone you know is armed.....

I think was an effort to try and keep people from being killed. Especially criminals.

And yes, it does take a special kind of stupid to attack someone you know is armed. Now look at the other side of the coin. The list that tells you who is likely to be armed ALSO tells you who is NOT.

Think that would not have an effect on some criminals targeting priority??
Hmmm, lets see...oh 1601 W. Maple is on the gun permit list....ah, but 1604 W. Maple is NOT! Hmmm decisions, decisions...

The stated intent of a published gun permit list might be "transparancy" the actual effect would be to help create a safer work environment for crime.

I think people too stupid to recognize that should not be in positions of authority where they can make those levels of decisions. And I think people who DO recognize that, and go ahead and do it anyway are WORSE.

You won't find it in today's news, but if you're old enough (and paid attention at the time) you might remember something that happened some years back in Florida, after they relaxed their permit/carry requirements.

Overall crime went down, but crimes against tourists went UP, a lot. Bad guys were specifically targeting people in cars with out of state license plates. Seems that the bad guys were pretty sure tourists wouldn't be armed, but couldn't tell which state residents might be.

[KyJim]

I cannot attribute homicidal intent to the California AG's office for the release of this information. I can imagine, however, someone may have released the data to "out" those politically incorrect enough to own guns. Never mind that it provides a list of targets for thieves. The thieves would almost certainly avoid a high-risk home invasion and, instead, break in while residents are out of the home.

Added: I first learned of the leak/breach from a prosecution-oriented blog when I clicked on a link from the blog. The blog post is at https://www.crimeandconsequences.blog/?p=6947. The release of data involved a lot more than the possibly inadvertent release of names and addresses.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by NJgunowner

And you think telling people the state of California is trying to get them killed is the correct thing to do? You REALLY think the attorney general of California sat down and said, hey lets make this information public, it might get some of them killed off and scare the others!

That asinine and ridiculous. I doesn't help in any way other than to prove to them that we're all a bunch of conspiracy nuts.

Need I continue?

That's not what I said. I think it's entirely possible that some crackpot beaurocrat did exactly that, either with or without the AG's express permission. Possibly with the AG's wink-and-nod, but maybe not.

You think it's a coincidence that this just happens to happen less than a week after Bruen? Given the gun control history of CA (and IL, NY, NJ, etc.), that's the idea I'd call asinine and ridiculous.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

....And yes, it does take a special kind of stupid to attack someone you know is armed. Now look at the other side of the coin. The list that tells you who is likely to be armed ALSO tells you who is NOT....

It also tells crooks where the guns are likely stored. Guns are a very hot item for theft, easily sold. If a halfway smart crook had just one buddy at an alarm company, it wouldn't be that hard to figure out someone on the list who's on vacation.

[ghbucky]

The release of data involved a lot more than the possibly inadvertent release of names and addresses.

I posted the link and press release from the CA DOJ that makes it perfectly clear that they had every intention of making that info public. They specifically state they were publicly releasing it.

[Spats McGee]

In the interest of preserving the CA DOJ's own words, I'll put this here. It is accurate as of this posting:

Originally Posted by California Department of Justice, June 27, 2022

Monday, June 27, 2022
Contact: (916) 210-6000, [email protected]
Releases 2022 Firearms Dashboard Portal through DOJ’s OpenJustice Platform

SACRAMENTO — California Attorney General today announced new and updated firearms data available through the California Department of Justice (DOJ)’s 2022 Firearms Dashboard Portal. The dashboard is accessible though DOJ’s OpenJustice Data Platform. The announcement will improve transparency and information sharing for firearms-related data and includes broad enhancements to the platform to help the public access data on firearms in California, including information about the issuance of Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) permits and Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs).

“Transparency is key to increasing public trust between law enforcement and the communities we serve,” said Attorney General Bonta. “As news of tragic mass shootings continue to dominate the news cycle, leaving many with feelings of fear and uncertainty, we must do everything we can to prevent gun violence. One of my continued priorities is to better provide information needed to help advance efforts that strengthen California’s commonsense gun laws. Today’s announcement puts power and information into the hands of our communities by helping them better understand the role and potential dangers of firearms within our state.”

DOJ seeks to balance its duties to provide gun violence and firearms data to support research efforts while protecting the personal identifying information in the data the Department collects and maintains. Data-driven research plays a critical role in keeping Californians safe by informing and shaping our commonsense gun laws. With today’s announcement, Attorney General Bonta is improving accessibility and functionality of the existing firearms database with expanded information in a comprehensive data dashboard. The dashboard includes data from the past decade when available on the following subjects:

Dealer Record of Sales
Gun Violence Restraining Orders
Carry Concealed Weapons Permits
Firearms Safety Certificates
Assault Weapons
Roster of Certified Handguns

Among the changes are more in-depth analysis of GVROs, which are now displayed at both the state and county level. According to the dashboard, GVROs issued in California over the past five years have increased from 104 issued statewide in 2017 to 1,384 issued statewide in 2021 — a 1,231% increase over a five-year period. Attorney General Bonta is a proponent of GVROs as a key tool in helping to prevent gun violence. The research supports this strategy. This year, University of California Davis published a report indicating that GVROs prevented approximately 58 mass shootings in California between 2016 and 2018.

The dashboard also provides links to a variety of supplemental resources such as reports, applications, legal information, and Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), among other resources. The release of the expanded data and information continues Attorney General Bonta’s commitment to make the data more accessible to the public. In April 2021, Attorney General Bonta announced that his office would begin sharing additional data with gun violence researchers to help better inform policy choices within California.

California continues its efforts to advance laws and policies that save lives and prevent gun deaths. In 2021, California saw a 37% lower gun death rate than the national average. According to the CDC, California’s gun death rate was the 44th lowest in the nation, with 8.5 gun deaths per 100,000 people – compared to 13.7 deaths per 100,000 nationally, 28.6 in Mississippi, 20.7 in Oklahoma, and 14.2 in Texas. California’s gun death rate for children is also lower than other states, and is 58% lower than the national average.

Attorney General Bonta stands with partners throughout the state to continue preventing gun violence strategically and aggressively by:

Advocating for commonsense gun laws including by sponsoring Assembly Bill 1594 to increase accountability for the firearm industry, working to strengthen federal laws to protect the public from ghost guns, and successfully defending California’s laws to prevent gun violence;
Seizing guns from prohibited persons in the Armed and Prohibited Persons System, and through multiagency sweeps in the Bay Area and Los Angeles County, conducting operations targeting individuals attempting to illegally purchase guns, and collaborating with local law enforcement partners;
Ending the sale of illegal firearms through litigation against ghost gun retailers, and by putting a stop to the sale of illegal assault weapons in Orange County; and
Improving transparency by expanding gun violence-related data the California Department of Justice releases to researchers.
The 2022 Firearms Dashboard Portal can be viewed here.

# # #

[44 AMP]

This year, University of California Davis published a report indicating that GVROs prevented approximately 58 mass shootings in California between 2016 and 2018.

I'm sorry, but this kind of BS always leaves me scratching my head. Just where in hell do they get data for that? Did they have 58 people make statements that they were going to do a mass shooting and didn't, because of a GVRO???

I doubt it.

What else could be proof positive? Nothing I can see from my chair.
Stating "possibly prevented" or "likely prevented". I could accept that as their opinion. Stating that GVROs did prevent x# mass shootings as an established and provable fact? No. I just don't buy it.

I don't think any such proof exists, or could possibly exist, outside of the heads of the people who stand to make $ doing a study.

[101combatvet]

Originally Posted by Jim Watson

I am sure it was done on purpose to generate fear and hate.

I think it would be instructive to compare that list with a list of persons putting out anti statements, though.

I seem to recall this was tried intentionally in PA or NJ a few years back.

[BarryLee]

While this may not have been done with the intent of causing physical harm it was a form of Government supported Doxing. It was intended to shame, inconvenience, impact careers, destroy relationships, etc.

[NJgunowner]

I'm not arguing that their intent was somehow beneficent. It was definitely a volley launched in our direction. I think their intent was to say, if you get a CC license we're going to let all your neighbors know so they can shun you!

I just draw the line at anyone suggesting "At worst, I think it was done in the hopes of getting a few killed."

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by NJgunowner

I'm not arguing that their intent was somehow beneficent. It was definitely a volley launched in our direction. I think their intent was to say, if you get a CC license we're going to let all your neighbors know so they can shun you!

I just draw the line at anyone suggesting "At worst, I think it was done in the hopes of getting a few killed."

Well, then, I'll ask this: Do you think:

(a) It is completely impossible that some frothing-at-the-mouth antigunner in the DOJ (the main office of which is in Sacramento) published the information to punish gun owners in retaliation for the Bruen decision?

or

(b) Do you just think we ought not to say it out loud?

[ghbucky]

I'm curious how much more info was made public. We are worked up over the CC holder's personal info, but consider:

Dealer Record of Sales
Gun Violence Restraining Orders
Carry Concealed Weapons Permits
Firearms Safety Certificates

If you got a safety certificate, were you doxed?
Was your purchase from a CA FFL outed? So now anyone can know you bought a 9mm handgun?

[NJgunowner]

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

Well, then, I'll ask this: Do you think:

(a) It is completely impossible that some frothing-at-the-mouth antigunner in the DOJ (the main office of which is in Sacramento) published the information to punish gun owners in retaliation for the Bruen decision?

or

(b) Do you just think we ought not to say it out loud?

I don't think anyone at DOJ sat there with the specific idea getting anyone killed. This villainizing extremes the far left and right are making up in their heads is why we have so many problems in this country. Enough!

I'm fairly sure they never got much farther than scare, shame, shun. Hey these guys carry guns, you should avoid them! And hey if an employer see's it and let's you go, that'll work. Murder... not likely.

[zukiphile]

I'm fairly sure they never got much farther than scare, shame, shun. Hey these guys carry guns, you should avoid them! And hey if an employer see's it and let's you go, that'll work. Murder... not likely.

I guess if I had to choose between being governed by deadly malice or mere negligence, I'd choose the careless master.

It does point to why it isn't paranoid to resist giving the state more information or allowing it to compile more information. They'll do something with it, and it won't be for your benefit.