California "accidentally" releases list of CCP holders

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Doubt this list will make any difference one way or another. Lots of people who are not CCW have guns at home. Lots.

It was unauthorized and not public information. So, yes... it makes a difference.

And, it was much larger than initially reported.

The California Department of Justice on Wednesday acknowledged the agency wrongly made public the personal information of perhaps hundreds of thousands of gun owners in up to six state-operated databases, a broader exposure than the agency initially disclosed a day earlier.

Rob Bonta, the Democrat who heads the agency and is running for reelection in November, said he was “deeply disturbed and angered” by the failure to protect the information his department is entrusted to keep. He ordered an investigation and promised to fix any problems.

“This unauthorized release of personal information is unacceptable and falls far short of my expectations for this department,” he said.

The California Rifle and Pistol Association noted that the release came days after the U.S. Supreme Court threw out New York’s requirement that those seeking to carry concealed weapons provide a reason. That also derailed California’s similar requirement, though state lawmakers and Bonta are working to impose new requirements.

The association said the “unconscionable” release included information on law enforcement officials including judges, as well as others who had sought permits “like rape and domestic violence victims.”

Names, dates of birth, gender, race, driver’s license numbers, addresses and criminal histories were exposed for people who were granted or denied permits to carry concealed weapons between 2011 and 2021, the department said.

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/california/personal-info-on-california-gun-owners-wrongly-made-public/2932963/

“It is infuriating that people who have been complying with the law have been put at risk by this breach,” said the Butte county sheriff, Kory Honea, the president of the California State Sheriffs’ Association, adding that sheriffs were concerned about potential risks to permit holders.

Advertisement

Bonta pledged to “take strong corrective measures where necessary” in response to the exposure.

“The California department of justice is entrusted to protect Californians and their data. We acknowledge the stress this may cause those individuals whose information was exposed,” Bonta said.

The department plans to notify those affected by the breach, he said, and provide credit monitoring services.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/30/california-gun-owners-data-breach

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Doubt this list will make any difference one way or another. Lots of people who are not CCW have guns at home. Lots.

It was unauthorized and not public information. So, yes... it makes a difference.

And, it was much larger than initially reported.

The California Department of Justice on Wednesday acknowledged the agency wrongly made public the personal information of perhaps hundreds of thousands of gun owners in up to six state-operated databases, a broader exposure than the agency initially disclosed a day earlier.

Rob Bonta, the Democrat who heads the agency and is running for reelection in November, said he was “deeply disturbed and angered” by the failure to protect the information his department is entrusted to keep. He ordered an investigation and promised to fix any problems.

“This unauthorized release of personal information is unacceptable and falls far short of my expectations for this department,” he said.

The California Rifle and Pistol Association noted that the release came days after the U.S. Supreme Court threw out New York’s requirement that those seeking to carry concealed weapons provide a reason. That also derailed California’s similar requirement, though state lawmakers and Bonta are working to impose new requirements.

The association said the “unconscionable” release included information on law enforcement officials including judges, as well as others who had sought permits “like rape and domestic violence victims.”

Names, dates of birth, gender, race, driver’s license numbers, addresses and criminal histories were exposed for people who were granted or denied permits to carry concealed weapons between 2011 and 2021, the department said.

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/california/personal-info-on-california-gun-owners-wrongly-made-public/2932963/

“It is infuriating that people who have been complying with the law have been put at risk by this breach,” said the Butte county sheriff, Kory Honea, the president of the California State Sheriffs’ Association, adding that sheriffs were concerned about potential risks to permit holders.

Advertisement

Bonta pledged to “take strong corrective measures where necessary” in response to the exposure.

“The California department of justice is entrusted to protect Californians and their data. We acknowledge the stress this may cause those individuals whose information was exposed,” Bonta said.

The department plans to notify those affected by the breach, he said, and provide credit monitoring services.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/30/california-gun-owners-data-breach

The state should post this information on their website with addresses. Also copy the police so they know to go in with weapons hot to these addresses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Doubt this list will make any difference one way or another. Lots of people who are not CCW have guns at home. Lots.

It was unauthorized and not public information. So, yes... it makes a difference.

And, it was much larger than initially reported.

The California Department of Justice on Wednesday acknowledged the agency wrongly made public the personal information of perhaps hundreds of thousands of gun owners in up to six state-operated databases, a broader exposure than the agency initially disclosed a day earlier.

Rob Bonta, the Democrat who heads the agency and is running for reelection in November, said he was “deeply disturbed and angered” by the failure to protect the information his department is entrusted to keep. He ordered an investigation and promised to fix any problems.

“This unauthorized release of personal information is unacceptable and falls far short of my expectations for this department,” he said.

The California Rifle and Pistol Association noted that the release came days after the U.S. Supreme Court threw out New York’s requirement that those seeking to carry concealed weapons provide a reason. That also derailed California’s similar requirement, though state lawmakers and Bonta are working to impose new requirements.

The association said the “unconscionable” release included information on law enforcement officials including judges, as well as others who had sought permits “like rape and domestic violence victims.”

Names, dates of birth, gender, race, driver’s license numbers, addresses and criminal histories were exposed for people who were granted or denied permits to carry concealed weapons between 2011 and 2021, the department said.

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/california/personal-info-on-california-gun-owners-wrongly-made-public/2932963/

“It is infuriating that people who have been complying with the law have been put at risk by this breach,” said the Butte county sheriff, Kory Honea, the president of the California State Sheriffs’ Association, adding that sheriffs were concerned about potential risks to permit holders.

Advertisement

Bonta pledged to “take strong corrective measures where necessary” in response to the exposure.

“The California department of justice is entrusted to protect Californians and their data. We acknowledge the stress this may cause those individuals whose information was exposed,” Bonta said.

The department plans to notify those affected by the breach, he said, and provide credit monitoring services.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/30/california-gun-owners-data-breach

By what law is it unauthorized and not public information?

[Anonymous]

Where in the Constitution does it say your carrying of concealed weapons may not be made public?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FOIA

This happened in a state government so FOIA doesnt count. At the federal level, releasing certain aspects of this information would be a violation of the Privacy Act.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where in the Constitution does it say your carrying of concealed weapons may not be made public?

I’m glad that you acknowledge the Constitution *does indeed* guarantee people the right to carry (bear) weapons.

Although I suspect you didn’t realize you were acknowledging that when you made your post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where in the Constitution does it say your carrying of concealed weapons may not be made public?

I’m glad that you acknowledge the Constitution *does indeed* guarantee people the right to carry (bear) weapons.

Although I suspect you didn’t realize you were acknowledging that when you made your post.

They didn’t imply that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where in the Constitution does it say your carrying of concealed weapons may not be made public?

I’m glad that you acknowledge the Constitution *does indeed* guarantee people the right to carry (bear) weapons.

Although I suspect you didn’t realize you were acknowledging that when you made your post.

I never said it didn't. But I will point out it says "well regulated" which 2A fans need to acknowledge.

And you didn't answer the question. And while we're on the 2A, where does the Constitution specifically say you have the right to carry concealed arms? There was no such thing in the founder's time. The concept of carrying concealed carry doesn't even show up in history until the 1870s.

[Anonymous]

How do you have the right to privacy while carrying a gun but a woman does not have any right to privacy while carrying a pregnancy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where in the Constitution does it say your carrying of concealed weapons may not be made public?

It is California law. AB 173

In September 2021, California enacted AB 173. This law allows for the disclosure of highly sensitive information, including a gun owner’s name, address, place of birth, phone number, occupation, driver’s license or ID number, race, sex, height, weight, hair color, eye color, and even their social security number and types of firearms that they own to universities and any “bona fide research institute.” In January, NRA filed suit in Doe v. Bonta to stop this attack on gun owner privacy.

During an April 5 hearing in the Doe v. Bonta case, the California DOJ acknowledged that there are civil remedies for the leak of the sensitive gun owner data at issue in the case, and even the potential for criminal prosecution. The representative for the DOJ stated,

We acknowledge that the information is confidential. AB 173, I think, is quite clear that the information can’t be shared publicly. It’s our position that, if there is a disclosure, that those whose information is disclosed would have various remedies including – there might be criminal implications for someone who disclosed the information knowingly. There is civil remedies under various state laws. And so the information is confidential…

The court then asked about the DOJ’s understanding regarding the standard of proof necessary for obtaining a civil remedy for a state agency’s breach of confidential information. Both the court and the DOJ appeared to acknowledge that mere negligence in disclosing confidential information would give rise to a civil remedy.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20220629/california-leaks-personal-data-of-carry-permit-holders

California AB 173

Existing law outlines the procedures for agencies to follow in the collection, maintenance, and dissemination of personal information, as defined, in order to protect the privacy of individuals. Existing law generally prohibits an agency from disclosing any personal information in a manner that would link the information disclosed to the individual to whom it pertains. Existing law permits the disclosure of that information to the University of California or a nonprofit educational institution, under specified conditions.

https://openstates.org/ca/bills/20212022/AB173/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where in the Constitution does it say your carrying of concealed weapons may not be made public?

It is California law. AB 173

In September 2021, California enacted AB 173. This law allows for the disclosure of highly sensitive information, including a gun owner’s name, address, place of birth, phone number, occupation, driver’s license or ID number, race, sex, height, weight, hair color, eye color, and even their social security number and types of firearms that they own to universities and any “bona fide research institute.” In January, NRA filed suit in Doe v. Bonta to stop this attack on gun owner privacy.

During an April 5 hearing in the Doe v. Bonta case, the California DOJ acknowledged that there are civil remedies for the leak of the sensitive gun owner data at issue in the case, and even the potential for criminal prosecution. The representative for the DOJ stated,

We acknowledge that the information is confidential. AB 173, I think, is quite clear that the information can’t be shared publicly. It’s our position that, if there is a disclosure, that those whose information is disclosed would have various remedies including – there might be criminal implications for someone who disclosed the information knowingly. There is civil remedies under various state laws. And so the information is confidential…

The court then asked about the DOJ’s understanding regarding the standard of proof necessary for obtaining a civil remedy for a state agency’s breach of confidential information. Both the court and the DOJ appeared to acknowledge that mere negligence in disclosing confidential information would give rise to a civil remedy.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20220629/california-leaks-personal-data-of-carry-permit-holders

California AB 173

Existing law outlines the procedures for agencies to follow in the collection, maintenance, and dissemination of personal information, as defined, in order to protect the privacy of individuals. Existing law generally prohibits an agency from disclosing any personal information in a manner that would link the information disclosed to the individual to whom it pertains. Existing law permits the disclosure of that information to the University of California or a nonprofit educational institution, under specified conditions.

https://openstates.org/ca/bills/20212022/AB173/

That's a totally different animal. It's a sensitive PII issue. Details like social security number cannot be released for anyone whether they are carrying a gun or not. But the mere fact of whether or not someone applied for a carry license or didn't should not be protected info.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How do you have the right to privacy while carrying a gun but a woman does not have any right to privacy while carrying a pregnancy?

This is what is most astounding. The right wing is up in arms over the privacy of gun owners being breached but doesn't give a damn about womens' privacy being breached.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you have the right to privacy while carrying a gun but a woman does not have any right to privacy while carrying a pregnancy?

This is what is most astounding. The right wing is up in arms over the privacy of gun owners being breached but doesn't give a damn about womens' privacy being breached.

When a list of women who have had abortions, along with their addresses, phone numbers, criminal histories, driver's license number and other identifying information, we can chat.

[Anonymous]

If they have done nothing wrong why are they so upset? You conservatives better get use to it because that new Supreme Court is all for state powers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you have the right to privacy while carrying a gun but a woman does not have any right to privacy while carrying a pregnancy?

This is what is most astounding. The right wing is up in arms over the privacy of gun owners being breached but doesn't give a damn about womens' privacy being breached.

When a list of women who have had abortions is released, along with their addresses, phone numbers, criminal histories, driver's license number and other identifying information, we can chat.

edited