Wow, how is this Constitutional?
https://www.courthousenews.com/judg...rnia-from-releasing-gun-owners-personal-info/
https://www.courthousenews.com/judg...rnia-from-releasing-gun-owners-personal-info/
Judge refuses to block California from releasing gun owners’ personal info
- Thread starter Aim1
- Start date
- Status
Um. Because you would need to prove that the sharing of the information is designed to have a chilling effect on people excessing the right. That is difficult to do in this case.
The Texas abortion law is a good example because it’s easier to understand. The law doesn’t ban abortion in the sense that the police are going to come arrest you. But it opens care providers up to civil liability creating a chilling effect on providers willingness to offer the service in the state. The correlation between being sued for doing something and not doing that thing is a clear and easy connection for a court to make.
in this case though it’s more complicated, you need to show that providing this information “for research purposes” would stop people who would have bought a gun from buying a gun as a direct consequence.
to do this you need to be able to show #1 they would have bought a gun if not for this, #2 they didn’t buy a gun, #3 the reason they didn’t buy a gun was because of the sharing of information……
and even if you can prove all of that you are still only half way there. It’s a tall order to stop a state from passing laws that “may” have an effect of your rights but not directly infringe on them.
if you could prove the state was doing it explicitly to have a chilling effect on people exercising their rights that would be really helpful in a case like this.
TL;DR it’s complicated
The Texas abortion law is a good example because it’s easier to understand. The law doesn’t ban abortion in the sense that the police are going to come arrest you. But it opens care providers up to civil liability creating a chilling effect on providers willingness to offer the service in the state. The correlation between being sued for doing something and not doing that thing is a clear and easy connection for a court to make.
in this case though it’s more complicated, you need to show that providing this information “for research purposes” would stop people who would have bought a gun from buying a gun as a direct consequence.
to do this you need to be able to show #1 they would have bought a gun if not for this, #2 they didn’t buy a gun, #3 the reason they didn’t buy a gun was because of the sharing of information……
and even if you can prove all of that you are still only half way there. It’s a tall order to stop a state from passing laws that “may” have an effect of your rights but not directly infringe on them.
if you could prove the state was doing it explicitly to have a chilling effect on people exercising their rights that would be really helpful in a case like this.
TL;DR it’s complicated
SunnySlopes
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,224
I used to live there. Sometime around 2003? There was a shooting on a k-alifornia beach. Two campers were murdered by some animal with a Marlin Camp Carbine 45.
The police went to all the area FFLs and "requested" their 4473s. They were looking for buyers of the Marlin. Every FFL complied. (This was in the Sacramento Bee.)
The police then went to all the owners of the Marlin and "requested" the guns for testing. Every owner complied. It accomplished nothing.
But I realized then that my "confidential" info is not confidential. If you've ever filled out a 4473, you're on their radar. I'm just glad so many millions of new gun owners have joined the fraternity. If Mad Max ever becomes a reality, it makes the JBT's job (of tracking us down) a little bit harder.
The police went to all the area FFLs and "requested" their 4473s. They were looking for buyers of the Marlin. Every FFL complied. (This was in the Sacramento Bee.)
The police then went to all the owners of the Marlin and "requested" the guns for testing. Every owner complied. It accomplished nothing.
But I realized then that my "confidential" info is not confidential. If you've ever filled out a 4473, you're on their radar. I'm just glad so many millions of new gun owners have joined the fraternity. If Mad Max ever becomes a reality, it makes the JBT's job (of tracking us down) a little bit harder.
It seems to me that the state of California will do whatever it can to prevent it's citizens from exercising their second amendment rights. They are passing right by socialism on the way to communism or worse.
Just a view point from someone who does not live in CA.
Just a view point from someone who does not live in CA.
The US Constitution does not apply in California and any other "May Issue" state. Law abiding gun owners are public enemy #1. You can expect more infringements if you live in a "May Issue" state.
I don't think U Haul prices leaving CA are going to come down anytime soon.
I don't think U Haul prices leaving CA are going to come down anytime soon.
Archie
Member
"A District Court Judge..." deciding a PSDR California law is no doubt the 9th District Court. Known as the 'reversible 9th'; famous for the overwhelming (more than any other district) number of decisions reversed by SCOTUS as not in line with the U. S. Constitution.
Business as usual.
Business as usual.
Riomouse911
Member
I do live in Ca and you’re absolutely correct.
This used to be a wonderful place for hunting, gun makers, shooting, etc. .
Not anymore…. not even close.
Stay safe..
I assume that the data collection will start last Sept, or maybe the first of this year? I am asking as a former Californian…. The data collection is particularly chilling in CA as ammo purchases are also tracked and regulated.
And yes, I was born, raised, and lived there most of my life. I retired early and left when I saw Newsome was going to be the next gov. Not trying to be political, but I am trying very hard to prevent my current state from turning into CA.
And yes, I was born, raised, and lived there most of my life. I retired early and left when I saw Newsome was going to be the next gov. Not trying to be political, but I am trying very hard to prevent my current state from turning into CA.
mokin
Member
I feel sorry for y'all in the Golden State. The happenings there are of interest to me as Colorado seems to closely follow the trends there. I see many parallels between the states. As has been pointed out, this apparently (to many) benign law has the potential for harmful effects to some. This bears watching.
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 24,280
I don’t believe that is a consideration they use.
If they can get people that disagree to give up, leave or beat them into submission, that’s worth it.
An people want to give them control of your health care, probably based on how you answer the “guns in household” and geographic information they already have on you.
The old “if you give them an inch…”
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 24,280
That’s because the people that voted for all that BS don’t want to live with the mess they made. They liked your room, if you can’t fix it there, they will mess it up too, before moving on to the next area to ruin. They have been taught since day one they are not responsible for their own actions or results from them, so why would they change them now?
Your State is not alone though.
CapnMac
Member
My first reflex is to ask: "Why do researchers need personal contact info?"
My next thought is that CA is simply xeroxing the Firearms Purchase forms, and is too lazy/broke to redact them. (Or not redact them in ways that spoil the research datasets, like leaving the street address but redacting age/gender/race info.)
As someone who has been drug (kicking and screaming, trust me) into the depths of meta-analysis, the Generally Accepted Procedures want the dataset to have uniform reporting when you start breaking is down statistically. It does no good to do an analysis in a category, age for instance, if only 40-50% of the ages are included.
So, I grok why the researchers would want the detailed info.
Also why they might be surprised to discover that the owners of that info might object (academics who are planning on dumping addresses, names, phone numbers, height/weight info are always surprised about that).
Which brings me full circle back to the State. CA has stated that they intend to publish statistical information gleaned from all the data they collect through firearms sale and ammunition sales forms. Where is that data? Why is that "anonymized" dataset not available to "researchers"? Or, more succinctly, why do the "researchers" require a "pure" dataset.
My only answer here is incompetence. At the State level, the academic level, and thus, at the judicial level.
My next thought is that CA is simply xeroxing the Firearms Purchase forms, and is too lazy/broke to redact them. (Or not redact them in ways that spoil the research datasets, like leaving the street address but redacting age/gender/race info.)
As someone who has been drug (kicking and screaming, trust me) into the depths of meta-analysis, the Generally Accepted Procedures want the dataset to have uniform reporting when you start breaking is down statistically. It does no good to do an analysis in a category, age for instance, if only 40-50% of the ages are included.
So, I grok why the researchers would want the detailed info.
Also why they might be surprised to discover that the owners of that info might object (academics who are planning on dumping addresses, names, phone numbers, height/weight info are always surprised about that).
Which brings me full circle back to the State. CA has stated that they intend to publish statistical information gleaned from all the data they collect through firearms sale and ammunition sales forms. Where is that data? Why is that "anonymized" dataset not available to "researchers"? Or, more succinctly, why do the "researchers" require a "pure" dataset.
My only answer here is incompetence. At the State level, the academic level, and thus, at the judicial level.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,752
Is this going to be anyone who ever bought a gun in California? Regardless of whether they still live there? IAC, how is this purported to help "research"?
mokin
Member
You open with an outstanding question. I think you have done a good job of answering your question. I could go on and relate some of my experience with academics but I will keep this High Road. I think the bulk of your answer is in the first and last paragraphs. I will add that with more data, the researchers will be better able to cherry pick the data.
danez71
Member
So much wrong here.... but it's off topic of the forum.
Nice nod to Heinlein you made there.
NIGHTLORD40K
Member
Ugh, terrible book, one of his worst, IM (not so) HO. Glory Road and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress are far and away better- and of course there's Starship Troopers.....
"An armed society IS a polite society."
When you consider that so many voters in California are citizens of other countries that have no 2nd Amendment and very few other rights it makes total sense. They're in heaven compared to where they came from, and they will continue to vote for the socialists who provide them with an endless supply of free goodies. Because of their ignorance and the voting rights that they have been given California is becoming exactly what they fled from.
Last edited:
No argument there. Especially Harsh Mistress. Grok is a good word though. I do like some of his lesser known stuff. Starman Jones, Have Spacesuit--Will Travel, Farnham's Freehold......
Huh? What dose this have to do with HIPPA? Is there something about the information being provided I am missing? Because I am pretty sure HIPPA restricts covered parties from releasing your health information to 3rd parties without consent…
Buying a firearm as a consumer is no different than buying anything else from a business, and the information contained on the form 4473 "should" be covered by the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018.
This law was passed to protect the consumers personal information.
This law was passed to protect the consumers personal information.
danez71
Member
The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 is a law the affects businesses and consumers in regard to the personal information of consumers that businesses collect.
It is not applicable is this situation because this is about the State turning over the the personal information.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
