REPORT: California AG Leaks Names, Addresses, and Assault Weapons Registry o Gun Owners In The State

Status
Not open for further replies.
In the interest of preserving the CA DOJ's own words, I'll put this here. It is accurate as of this posting:

Based upon the press release it seems like the portal was put out there to increase “public transparency” and allow for data driven research to be done using info from CCW permits, assault weapons records, etc.

I first assumed the “leak” was a goof but their press release makes it seem like the portal worked as intended. It turns out it was a terrible idea and now they have to figure out how to spin it.
 
The original post said the AG leaked names. There was no leak. The Attorney General Rob Bonta put the private information of the gun owners on the AG web site. It was all to "to Increase Transparency and Information Sharing"
What if, out of transparency, someone posted when the AG Rob Bonta was leaving for vacation. What if protesters ransacked his home. Rob Bonta would not only carry a concealed gun, he's have armed guards follow him everywhere.
 
Yeah, there was no "leak" and they can't even claim they were hacked. Done intentionally, 100% out of spite...a big double bird for all you fine folks in the P.R.CA.

Hopefully all the security officers protecting those idiots were outed too. I do wonder if the VP was on that list as well, or if she's been removed since she "got rid of" her gun.
 
Last edited:
They can sue, but to do so will accomplish nothing. The state's courts will, not surprisingly, side with the state.
 
Weird these leaks happen in states that are notoriously anti gun. I remember when all the permit holders in NYC were put on blast with names and addresses posted online. I don't think there is any legal recourse as the state can just say "we were hacked" and blame a criminal.
 
While I find this regrettable and preventable I still support the concept of requiring concealed carry permits.

I'm also highly suspicious as to whether this was intentional or not.
While I find this regrettable and preventable I still support the concept of requiring concealed carry permits.

I'm also highly suspicious as to whether this was intentional or not.
Well 25 states don't agree with your opinion.
 
I don't believe where I am there is anything such as a gun ownership record. I have a list, but I don't think anyone else has one for me. Maybe they have records of purchases etc. , but I'm not obligated to update a registry or anything if I sell them, and there's no requirement of paperwork for a private sale.

Can't see it going over to publish people private ownership of anything. That could be an incentive for criminals to figure out who has what, and if you happen to have a substantial collection of say Winchester collectibles, a criminal might think you are likely to have a nice collection of other valuables too, jewelry, gold bars, high end electronics. It just isn't any of anyone's business.

IMHO half the home security in the country, is just the notion that the homeowner could have a gun and nobody knows who does or who doesn't. If there was a list of high end homes that did not have a firearm, and that list was reliable .. boy, you sure just put a target on those homes for break ins.
No government Federal or State should be allowed to know what law abiding citizens have guns.
 
Last edited:
I seem to vaguely remember a .gov person in CA saying they should do this a couple years ago.

In the name of safety, of course. So people know who their dangerous neighbors are (and harass)

I think it was discussed on calguns back then.
 
What is this?


I googled it but couldn't find it.
@Mk-211 nailed it. Federal civil rights statute.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983

Check here.

The Civil Rights Act of 1871 is a federal statute, numbered 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that allows people to sue the government for civil rights violations. It applies when someone acting "under color of" state-level or local law has deprived a person of rights created by the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes

I seem to vaguely remember a .gov person in CA saying they should do this a couple years ago.

In the name of safety, of course. So people know who their dangerous neighbors are (and harass)

I think it was discussed on calguns back then.
I think you're right. I remember that.
 
Just to be sure the internet does not forget:
CA DOJ said:
Wednesday, June 29, 2022
Contact: (916) 210-6000, [email protected]
SACRAMENTO – The California Department of Justice has announced that personal information was disclosed in connection with the June 27, 2022 update of its Firearms Dashboard Portal. Based on the Department’s current investigation, the incident exposed the personal information of individuals who were granted or denied a concealed and carry weapons (CCW) permit between 2011-2021. Information exposed included names, date of birth, gender, race, driver’s license number, addresses, and criminal history. Social Security numbers or any financial information were not disclosed as a result of this event. Additionally, data from the following dashboards were also impacted: Assault Weapon Registry, Handguns Certified for Sale, Dealer Record of Sale, Firearm Safety Certificate, and Gun Violence Restraining Order dashboards. DOJ is investigating the extent to which any personally identifiable information could have been exposed from those dashboards and will report additional information as soon as confirmed.

“This unauthorized release of personal information is unacceptable and falls far short of my expectations for this department,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “I immediately launched an investigation into how this occurred at the California Department of Justice and will take strong corrective measures where necessary. 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. I am deeply disturbed and angered.”

On the afternoon of June 27, 2022, DOJ posted updates to the Firearms Dashboard Portal. DOJ was made aware of a disclosure of personal information that was accessible in a spreadsheet on the portal. After DOJ learned of the data exposure, the department took steps to remove the information from public view and shut down the Firearms Dashboard yesterday morning. The dashboard and data were available for less than 24 hours.

In the coming days, the Department will notify those individuals whose data was exposed and provide additional information and resources. California law requires a business or state agency to notify any California resident whose unencrypted personal information, as defined, was acquired, or reasonably believed to have been acquired, by an unauthorized person.

DOJ asks that anyone who accessed such information respect the privacy of the individuals involved and not share or disseminate any of the personal information. In addition, possession of or use of personal identifying information for an unlawful purpose may be a crime. (See Cal Penal Code Sec. 530.5.)

We are communicating with law enforcement partners throughout the state. In collaboration, we will provide support to those whose information has been exposed.

In an abundance of caution, the Department of Justice will provide credit monitoring services for individuals whose data was exposed as a result of this incident. DOJ will directly contact individuals who have been impacted by this incident and will provide instructions to sign up for this service.

Any Californian may take the following steps to immediately protect their information related to credit:

  • Monitor your credit. One of the best ways to protect yourself from identity theft is to monitor your credit history. To obtain free copies of your credit reports from the three major credit bureaus go to https://www.annualcreditreport.com.
  • Consider placing a free credit freeze on your credit report. Identity thieves will not be able to open a new credit account in your name while the freeze is in place. You can place a credit freeze by contacting each of the three major credit bureaus:
  • Place a fraud alert on your credit report. A fraud alert helps protect you against the possibility of someone opening new credit accounts in your name. A fraud alert lasts 90 days and can be renewed. To post a fraud alert on your credit file, you must contact one of the three major credit reporting agencies listed above. Keep in mind that if place a fraud alert with any one of the three major credit reporting agencies, the alert will be automatically added by the other two agencies as well.
  • Additional Resources. If you are a victim of identity theft, contact your local police department or sheriff’s office right away. You may also report identity theft and generate a recovery plan using the Federal Trade Commission’s website at identitytheft.gov. For more information and resources visit the Attorney General’s website at oag.ca.gov/idtheft.


# # #
 
Roe vs. Wade was about an alleged right to privacy. That was overturned, so Calif. thinks there’s no more right to privacy?

I agree with the earlier poster who said this was done to intentionally harm law-abiding gun owners. I think we’re all still too stunned by it to realize the deep implications of a state government intentionally harming innocent people.
 
Now let's go back and take a closer look at the AG's statement.
CA DOJ said:
Wednesday, June 29, 2022
Contact: (916) 210-6000, [email protected]
SACRAMENTO – The California Department of Justice has announced that personal information was disclosed in connection with the June 27, 2022 update of its Firearms Dashboard Portal. Based on the Department’s current investigation, the incident exposed the personal information of individuals who were granted or denied a concealed and carry weapons (CCW) permit between 2011-2021. Information exposed included names, date of birth, gender, race, driver’s license number, addresses, and criminal history.
So even those who were denied CCW permits had their information published. It wasn't enough to punish the lawful gun owners. The CA DOJ went and punished everyone who even tried to get a permit by lawful avenues.
CA DOJ said:
Social Security numbers or any financial information were not disclosed as a result of this event.
At this point, and until proof surfaces to confirm this claim, I call BS. I don't know of any reason the .gov would have segregated this kind of information from all of the other personally identifiable information in its system.
CA DOJ said:
Additionally, data from the following dashboards were also impacted: Assault Weapon Registry, Handguns Certified for Sale, Dealer Record of Sale, Firearm Safety Certificate, and Gun Violence Restraining Order dashboards. DOJ is investigating the extent to which any personally identifiable information could have been exposed from those dashboards and will report additional information as soon as confirmed.
This is a frightening amount & kind of data to have published like this.
CA DOJ said:
“This unauthorized release of personal information is unacceptable and falls far short of my expectations for this department,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “I immediately launched an investigation into how this occurred at the California Department of Justice and will take strong corrective measures where necessary. 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. I am deeply disturbed and angered.”
Did I mention I call BS?
CA DOJ said:
....DOJ asks that anyone who accessed such information respect the privacy of the individuals involved and not share or disseminate any of the personal information. In addition, possession of or use of personal identifying information for an unlawful purpose may be a crime. (See Cal Penal Code Sec. 530.5.)
Dear AG Bonta, good luck with that....

CA Gun Owners, y'all have long fought an uphill battle that many of us in "Flyover Country" will never really understand. I wish you the best of luck going forward.
 
Roe vs. Wade was about an alleged right to privacy. That was overturned, so Calif. thinks there’s no more right to privacy? ....
And that SCOTUS decision puts us in the middle of a $64K question: Is there a federal right to privacy here? What about under the CA Constitution?
 
"I Know!
Let's Red Flag everybody on that list!!"
I don't think you were supposed to say that out loud.

Seriously, though, . . . . For years, I have predicted that at some point, the argument will be made that: (a) if you want a firearm; (b) that's a sign of violent tendencies; and (c) therefore, people who want firearms must be prohibited from having them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top