The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 30, 2022, 12:03 PM   #26
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,543
I doubt if they planned on getting anyone killed. I wouldn't put it past them to deliberately dox current CCW holders in an effort to discourage new CCW holders. Although given the CA IT department's track record, I wouldn't rule out simple incompetence either.

As far as the website goes, let's take a look at what the CA DOJ said:

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.


There's data and then there's data. It's possible that the info planned to be released is aggregate data, i.e. total number of DROS, GVRO, CCW permits issued, rather than individual personal data such as names and addresses. We'll have to see if and when the website comes back up. If it ever does.
__________________
Time Travelers' Wisdom:
Never Do Yesterday What Should Be Done Tomorrow.
If At Last You Do Succeed, Never Try Again.
natman is offline  
Old June 30, 2022, 12:17 PM   #27
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,277
Quote:
I doubt if they planned on getting anyone killed.
Would you settle for "intended to expose owners to a universally foreseen risk"?
zukiphile is offline  
Old June 30, 2022, 02:28 PM   #28
NJgunowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by zukiphile View Post
Would you settle for "intended to expose owners to a universally foreseen risk"?
Re-wording it doesn't make it acceptable.

An unintended consequence of releasing that data might very well be robbery or homicide, that's incompetence (or pure stupidity) leading to a lack of understanding consequences.

There are far more stupid people than murderous masterminds. Not that you need to be all that smart for murder.
NJgunowner is offline  
Old June 30, 2022, 03:07 PM   #29
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJgunowner View Post
....There are far more stupid people than murderous masterminds....
NOW you've found something we agree on!
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old June 30, 2022, 04:57 PM   #30
Rob228
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2010
Location: Hampstead NC
Posts: 1,450
If it wasn't California I'd agree with the possibility of it being a mistake and agree with the above comments about stupid people.

However, I was stationed in southern CA twice for a total of about 8 years and the incident that sticks out in my mind is after a break-in at our apartment (we were home, wife was awake when the door was opened and had her pistol on the coffee table in front of her, guy breaking in ran away). The deputy that showed up casually asked me if he could get the serial numbers of every firearm I had in the apartment, to which I told him that it was none of his business and...... He agreed with me that it was indeed none of his business. This was around 2011, and it sure felt like some form of attempting to create a database.
Rob228 is offline  
Old June 30, 2022, 06:28 PM   #31
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob228 View Post
If it wasn't California I'd agree with the possibility of it being a mistake and agree with the above comments about stupid people.....
The fact that it's CA is part of my problem with this, too, although I would have had the same problem with NY, IL, NJ, etc. They have such a long and rich history of harassing gun owners, and (IMHO) acting in bad faith that I have zero confidence that they'll ever deal with us fairly and honestly.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old June 30, 2022, 06:40 PM   #32
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGunowner
Quote:
Would you settle for "intended to expose owners to a universally foreseen risk"?
Re-wording it doesn't make it acceptable.

An unintended consequence of releasing that data might very well be robbery or homicide, that's incompetence (or pure stupidity) leading to a lack of understanding consequences.
You don't have to accept it, but publicly identifying CCW holders by address is a tactic that has been used in other places at other times by CCW opponents for the purpose of exposing them to the risks of making that information public and dissuading others from pursuing CCW permits.
zukiphile is offline  
Old June 30, 2022, 06:52 PM   #33
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 26,554
If I were in a charitable mood, I might accept that it was misfeasance and not malfeasance, however, when the CA ATTORNEY GENERAL makes a press release about their intentional release of the information, it is NOT a mistake, and it is NOT a "leak", it is a deliberate act.

IF, as claimed the intent was to make people safer by their being able to know who was armed, then I'd say we'd better see additional lists, with the names, work and home addresses of every cop in the state, and every armed security guard, and for good measure everyone in the CA govt as well.

After all, we can't be too safe...can we??
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old July 1, 2022, 10:03 AM   #34
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP View Post
If I were in a charitable mood, I might accept that it was misfeasance and not malfeasance, however, when the CA ATTORNEY GENERAL makes a press release about their intentional release of the information, it is NOT a mistake, and it is NOT a "leak", it is a deliberate act.
As I said above, there's a good chance the data that was supposed to be released is aggregate data, totals of the number of CCW licenses, GVROs, etc.

Would the CA DOJ deliberately release personal CCW data as a way of discouraging CCW applications? IMO, yes.

DID they deliberately release personal data? Undetermined. It's also quite possible it was a mistake.

FWIW, CA Attorney General Bonta had this to say:

Attorney General Rob Bonta said he was deeply disturbed and angered, and launched an investigation into how the breach happened.

"This unauthorized release of personal information is unacceptable and falls far short of my expectations for this department,” Bonta said in a statement.

https://www.abc10.com/article/news/l...1-a4e0a65e0147
__________________
Time Travelers' Wisdom:
Never Do Yesterday What Should Be Done Tomorrow.
If At Last You Do Succeed, Never Try Again.
natman is offline  
Old July 1, 2022, 10:15 AM   #35
Pistoler0
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2019
Location: Conifer, CO
Posts: 609
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJgunowner View Post
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.
Not only that, but imagine the potential for discrimination for job applicants that upon a background check show up to have a CCW: school districts, colleges, liberal municipal or county jurisdictions, woke corporations, health care providers, etc.

Other areas where CCW permit holders could be discriminated against: adoption applications, volunteer organizations, rent applications.... you name it.

This is outrageous!
__________________
Life is simply an inter-temporal problem of constrained optimization.
Pistoler0 is offline  
Old July 1, 2022, 10:45 AM   #36
Maver1ck
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 30, 2022
Posts: 5
Ugh, California. So glad I moved out of there 8 years ago.
Maver1ck is offline  
Old July 1, 2022, 11:35 AM   #37
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP View Post
If I were in a charitable mood, I might accept that it was misfeasance and not malfeasance, however, when the CA ATTORNEY GENERAL makes a press release about their intentional release of the information, it is NOT a mistake, and it is NOT a "leak", it is a deliberate act.
It was a publication, not a leak.

And I'm rarely that chartible towards the .gov of The Usual Suspects of Gun Control.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old July 1, 2022, 02:16 PM   #38
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 26,554
Would it be fair to say that releasing to the public (intentionally or not) the personal information about CCW holders essentially negates the entire purpose for having a CCW?

Isn't the base purpose for having a concealed weapon CONCEALED so that the public does not know you have it??

Now, the state says that to be legal you must have their permission (via the permit), but when the state makes that information known to everyone who bothers to look, what's the point of even getting a permit, other than to make the state "happy" so you can avoid prosecution.

I don't believe that the state is acting in anyone's best interests in this matter, but, that's just me...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old July 1, 2022, 03:26 PM   #39
Doc Intrepid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 1,033
The information release was not aggregated.

It listed individual CCW holders by name. Also released:

"A California Department of Justice (DOJ) data leak Monday revealed names, addresses, ages, and other information related to the state’s concealed carry permit holders."

"The viewable information included “the home addresses, full names, and dates of birth for all of them.”"

"The Reload notes that they “reviewed a copy of the Los Angeles County database and found 244 judge permits listed in the database.”"

https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendm...ermit-holders/

I won't speculate on motive, but it is clear that this magnitude of data release was not an "accidental oversight". It was a deliberate act by someone with access to the database, much as the release of Samuel Alito's SCOTUS preliminary opinion in the Dobbs case was a deliberate act.

Whether you believe the release of this information puts CCW holders at greater risk or not - even of protestors arriving outside their homes - quite likely depends on how you vote.

Can't say much about the State acting in anyone's best interests, but its an even bet that whomever released this information was not acting in anyone's best interests.

It will be interesting to see if the State of California ever identifies who released the data, and if anything is ever done about it. That will speak volumes regarding whether the act was quietly sanctioned or not.



The Los Angeles Times reports that the leak was tied to the DOJ Firearms Dashboard.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with dignity and respect....but have a plan to kill them just in case.
Doc Intrepid is offline  
Old July 2, 2022, 12:00 PM   #40
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Intrepid View Post
The information release was not aggregated.
I agree. What I said was:

As I said above, there's a good chance the data that was supposed to be released is aggregate data, totals of the number of CCW licenses, GVROs, etc.

My take is that the Firearms Portal is supposed to show aggregate data but someone (accidentally / deliberately) released individual personal data.
__________________
Time Travelers' Wisdom:
Never Do Yesterday What Should Be Done Tomorrow.
If At Last You Do Succeed, Never Try Again.
natman is offline  
Old July 2, 2022, 04:12 PM   #41
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,171
Quote:
An unintended consequence of releasing that data might very well be robbery or homicide,
Quote:
I doubt if they planned on getting anyone killed.
Isn't that why charges like "Manslaughter" exist for those moments of absolute stupidity that a reasonable man should have known better that causes others to pay the price?
davidsog is offline  
Old July 3, 2022, 06:09 PM   #42
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
Malevolence on the part of a state actor is commonly ascribed to its rampant incompetence/ignorance. When the supposed incompetence/ignorance only ever runs in one direction, it makes far more sense to ascribe the behavior to malevolence.

After all, what is the purpose of this list? It is to share with those who seek to ban firearms from the general public in the guise of "research."
csmsss is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.15729 seconds with 10 queries