PDA

View Full Version : Ventura County Star on CGF Lawsuit


the_quark
10-20-2010, 5:35 PM
http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/oct/20/gun-group-sues-ventura-county-sheriff-to-obtain/

Be interesting to see if they're really planning on fighting...

Havoc70
10-20-2010, 5:42 PM
Brooks sounds like he is, stating that releasing the good cause statements could put applicants privacy at risk. The comments thus far are positive for CGF, though.

RRangel
10-20-2010, 5:43 PM
The Sheriff is doing exactly what past sheriffs and chiefs have done. That is to claim that the pertinent data is exempt. How convenient. These people know how close they are to losing.

Shotgun Man
10-20-2010, 6:00 PM
the text:



[LEFT] 2010 Ventura County Star. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. (http://www.calguns.net/privacy/)


Read more: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/oct/20/gun-group-sues-ventura-county-sheriff-to-obtain/#ixzz12x0GiOlg

- vcstar.com


Let's not violate other people's copyright, shall we? // Librarian


I know I wouldn't want my info released. While I realize why it is being done, I cannot get behind this case. I think all this info should be private.

N6ATF
10-20-2010, 6:10 PM
Read the article you just quoted. Everything other than good cause will be kept private. Once again, the government is trying to scare people with lies.

wildhawker
10-20-2010, 6:10 PM
Shotgun, we do, too. We're not publishing names, only the redacted statements. The Sheriff's arguments are specious and simply a tactic to avoid their obligations under established law.

I would love to see CCW info totally exempt - *after* the licensing authorities' discretion is removed (e.g. Sykes).

Shotgun Man
10-20-2010, 6:20 PM
Read the article you just quoted. Everything other than good cause will be kept private. Once again, the government is trying to scare people with lies.

I did the read the article. The names, occupations, etc. have been disclosed. CGF is asking for the good cause statements, agreeing to limited redactions.

Wildhawker, I understand your position. This is an unpleasant result of discretionary issue. The very unpleasantness of it may play into mandatory issue.

I understand CGF may not plan on publishing certain info. However any news agency can make a similar request and publish it.

Gray Peterson
10-20-2010, 6:27 PM
the text:


I know I wouldn't want my info released. While I realize why it is being done, I cannot get behind this case. I think all this info should be private.

The application itself states that the information is public record. People's names will not be posted in terms of good cause in the carry project.

N6ATF
10-20-2010, 6:32 PM
However any news agency can make a similar request and publish it.

Some have in the past, some will in the future, they established the legal precedent after all.

Past and future news agency abuse is no reason to not support CGF's proper case.

wildhawker
10-20-2010, 6:37 PM
Shotgun,

Yes, some newspapers have done just that (IIRC Sacramento Bee not too long ago). We sincerely hope that the legislature will address these deficiencies and create a uniform shall-issue system which fully respects the privacy of applicants and license-holders very soon. Even better would be for the state to take on that responsibility and unburden the 500+ political subdivisions with the authority or obligation to administer the CCW program. I think our initiative will cause some very candid conversations among the licensing authorities and California officials to occur. Until they make it right, we'll be happy to make their actions (painfully) public and available for public scrutiny.

bwiese
10-20-2010, 6:50 PM
It would be VERY easy for Ventura Cty sheriff to provide properly redcated CCW records - with no association between name/address or specific biz and the actual 'good cause' reason for issuance.

A redacted good cause statement might end up as:

"Dr. Smith XXXXX travels between home at 1234 Main St, Northern Ventura
zip 98765 and his office at 123 First St in west Oxnard zip 98123 between 5pm
early evening and 1AM shortly after midnight Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays
three days per week.He has access to pharmaceuticals at clinic pharmacy including
Schedule II and III drugs such as Percocet and Oxycodone."

That offers a good enough profile in broad enough area to be nonspecific in terms of not increasing risk, and yet suitable for comparison with issuance (or lack thereof!) for others similarly situated.

That the sheriff is worried about safety exposure is laudable. That the sheriff would think a gun organization would publish details or risk CCWers safety is laughable and thus demonstrates his concerns are political only.

That the sheriff complains about budget is irrelevant. Public records are part of open government. Non-individually identifiable good cause statements can be masked sufficiently to avoid individual or subgroup identification; if that takes a bit of secretarial work, that's his dept's duty.

Kharn
10-20-2010, 6:54 PM
the text:
I know I wouldn't want my info released. While I realize why it is being done, I cannot get behind this case. I think all this info should be private.You don't want stuff like this released after being redacted?
"Personal protection" (the jackpot)
"Carrying diamonds between airport and my store at _______ ______ __"
"A previous boyfriend, _____ ______, who I have a restraining order against lives within 2 miles of my house"
"I am a reserve police officer"
"I own ______'s Gun Store"
etc

I would love to get my hands on that information for Maryland, its the meat of equal protection lawsuits and big court victories. Once you show one person filled in the entire good clause section of the form with just the two words 'personal protection' the sheriff MUST issue to anyone else that writes those same words.

HowardW56
10-20-2010, 7:03 PM
I did the read the article. The names, occupations, etc. have been disclosed. CGF is asking for the good cause statements, agreeing to limited redactions.

Wildhawker, I understand your position. This is an unpleasant result of discretionary issue. The very unpleasantness of it may play into mandatory issue.

I understand CGF may not plan on publishing certain info. However any news agency can make a similar request and publish it.

CBS has.... see CBS Inc. v. Block 42 Cal.3d 646, 725 P.2d 470, 230 Cal.Rptr. 362 (1986)

This is the California Supreme Court case that says the information is PUBLIC RECORD... It's ok to redact the names and addresses...

The sheriff doesn't get to ignore case law, just because he doesn't like it.

the_quark
10-20-2010, 7:09 PM
The sheriff doesn't get to ignore case law, just because he doesn't like it.

And you'd think a law enforcement officer, of all people, would understand that.

HowardW56
10-20-2010, 7:11 PM
And you'd think a law enforcement officer, of all people, would understand that.

It doesn't apply to them, just ask them.....

Paul S
10-20-2010, 7:36 PM
It is simply an obstructionist move on the part of Sheriff Brooks. He can afford to bow his back and go to court. After all, Ventura County Counsel's deputies are paid whether they are actively engaged in a court scheduled case or quietly doing research in the law library.

Also please consider that the Sheriff knows well...that ANY of the some 1200 records he speaks of which simply has "personal and property protection" as the Good Cause reason, sinks his ship as far as limiting what his department will accept as Good Cause.

Shotgun Man
10-20-2010, 7:38 PM
It is simply an obstructionist move on the part of Sheriff Brooks. He can afford to bow his back and go to court. After all, Ventura County Counsel's deputies are paid whether they are actively engaged in a court scheduled case or quietly doing research in the law library.

Also please consider that the Sheriff knows well...that ANY of the some 1200 records he speaks of which simply has "personal and property protection" as the Good Cause reason, sinks his ship as far as limiting what his department will accept as Good Cause.

I would expect Ventura to farm this out to outside counsel.

Shotgun Man
10-20-2010, 7:42 PM
Let's not violate other people's copyright, shall we? // Librarian
We're not allowed to quote news articles?

I cannot quote the text of an article on the Brady Bunch site?

I guess, but crazy. Maybe CGF should be challenging this. (Kinda kidding. CGF should only challenge quoting a news article in a case that affects their interests.)

Lulfas
10-20-2010, 7:58 PM
Let's not violate other people's copyright, shall we? // Librarian
We're not allowed to quote news articles?

I cannot quote the text of an article on the Brady Bunch site?

I guess, but crazy. Maybe CGF should be challenging this. (Kinda kidding. CGF should only challenge quoting a news article in a case that affects their interests.)

You can use short quotes. I believe the limit I've seen in other places was 200 characters?

CHS
10-20-2010, 8:09 PM
Let's not violate other people's copyright, shall we? // Librarian
We're not allowed to quote news articles?

I cannot quote the text of an article on the Brady Bunch site?


You can't quote the entire article verbatim. That's blatant copyright infringement.

You can quote bits of it, or say, the opening paragraph. That's stuff that's all covered under fair use. But the complete article is right out.

And yes, it even applies to the Brady's.

CCWFacts
10-20-2010, 8:19 PM
You can use short quotes. I believe the limit I've seen in other places was 200 characters?

There's no hard-set limit. Ultimately it's a question that could be decided in civil court and would depend on many factors, such as the context, the purpose of the copying (scholarly research? filler in a magazine?), and many other things.

But as BDSmchs says, copying the entire thing is right out.

Librarian
10-20-2010, 8:46 PM
Let's not violate other people's copyright, shall we? // Librarian
We're not allowed to quote news articles?

I cannot quote the text of an article on the Brady Bunch site?

I guess, but crazy. Maybe CGF should be challenging this. (Kinda kidding. CGF should only challenge quoting a news article in a case that affects their interests.)

There is this sleazy law firm, which shall go nameless here, that is suing bloggers and other on-line sites for unauthorized use of copyrighted material. That makes things somewhat immediate - but it's always been illegal to post/repost whole articles without written permission. Bits of an article or other work for criticism (or mockery!) are OK as 'fair use', but the actual amount covered under 'fair use' is not determined.

Thus, as a habit, we should be posting links to articles that seem appropriate, and perhaps the title and a first-paragraph topic sentence.

An approachable discussion of the issue is at http://aboutweblogs.com/content/view/31/1/

N6ATF
10-20-2010, 9:42 PM
Crap, I was never sure so probably half of my quotes are of entire articles... I was just thinking about this because of Sleazy Law Firm v SAF.

socal2310
10-20-2010, 9:46 PM
It is simply an obstructionist move on the part of Sheriff Brooks. He can afford to bow his back and go to court. After all, Ventura County Counsel's deputies are paid whether they are actively engaged in a court scheduled case or quietly doing research in the law library.

Also please consider that the Sheriff knows well...that ANY of the some 1200 records he speaks of which simply has "personal and property protection" as the Good Cause reason, sinks his ship as far as limiting what his department will accept as Good Cause.

Let's not forget that courts rarely move in a manner that could be called "hasty." I fully expect Brooks to stall long enough to make it Dean's problem.

Ryan

hoffmang
10-20-2010, 10:02 PM
Let's not forget that courts rarely move in a manner that could be called "hasty." I fully expect Brooks to stall long enough to make it Dean's problem.

Ryan

No and Yes. PRA cases are specifically set up to move faster. However, that doesn't mean that the election will not be over before we get a ruling.

This effort has never been about politics, though I suspect some sheriffs think it is. We just want to get the records in the hands of future applicants as soon as possible.

-Gene

yellowfin
10-20-2010, 10:17 PM
^ Their side of the matter is political, so of course they'd label ours as such.

AndrewMendez
10-20-2010, 10:18 PM
Shall we get back on topic?

This is only a cheap stalling method. They will be sued, lose, and find some other road block for us to break thru.

tiki
10-20-2010, 10:31 PM
We're concerned about costing the taxpayers $14k redacting the info, so we are going to drop $200k to fight it.

Rossi357
10-20-2010, 10:33 PM
^ Their side of the matter is political, so of course they'd label ours as such.

I would say there is nothing wrong with having a political agenda. All of our state representatives have taken it to an art form.
I do favor the legal agenda.

vintagearms
10-20-2010, 11:19 PM
I know Brooks and his staff. If they were using their own money, this wouldn't be an issue. With him its a us vs them situation which is complete BS. I'm glad the VCstar didnt make it a hit piece about CCW though.

yakmon
10-20-2010, 11:39 PM
if i had a CCW and the sherrif had to release my ccw data, the only thing i'd want released was my good cause, no name, no address, no workplace address, no phone number, no email address, no nothing. it's my assumption ( yes i know what they say about assuming anything) that CGF knows this.

Code7inOaktown
10-20-2010, 11:52 PM
I did the read the article. The names, occupations, etc. have been disclosed. CGF is asking for the good cause statements, agreeing to limited redactions.

Wildhawker, I understand your position. This is an unpleasant result of discretionary issue. The very unpleasantness of it may play into mandatory issue.

I understand CGF may not plan on publishing certain info. However any news agency can make a similar request and publish it.

The names of CCW holders have been published many times in the past by various publications. However, information is power. By keeping this information secret for "privacy" reasons, they can hide that only the sheriff's posse has a CCW or that Feinstein or Boxer have CCWs (just examples.) I strongly believe in the antiseptic nature of a bright light on public records. For example, voting records used to be fairly open. Today, it's difficult to access easily. You can see the advantage of this in places such as Chicago, where they would like the dead to vote and vote often.

AndrewMendez
10-20-2010, 11:53 PM
if i had a CCW and the sherrif had to release my ccw data, the only thing i'd want released was my good cause, no name, no address, no workplace address, no phone number, no email address, no nothing. it's my assumption ( yes i know what they say about assuming anything) that CGF knows this.

If the County sent the CGF your personal information, it would be kept confidential. When they post everything online, they WILL NOT POST ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION!!

gotgunz
10-21-2010, 12:58 AM
If the County sent the CGF your personal information, it would be kept confidential. When they post everything online, they WILL NOT POST ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION!!

What if I don't want them knowing?

Weather they keep it confidential is not the point... my personal info is none of their business.

dantodd
10-21-2010, 1:03 AM
What if I don't want them knowing?

Weather they keep it confidential is not the point... my personal info is none of their business.

If you don't want them knowing then don't apply or sign any papers that say "THIS IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT and subject to disclosure"

wildhawker
10-21-2010, 1:23 AM
What if I don't want them knowing?

Weather they keep it confidential is not the point... my personal info is none of their business.

It's not personal info at all. Anyone can investigate you and acquire the same information through other channels.

My response to a similar sentiment:

It is not our intention to "out" our own people. We do, however, fully intend to out those government officials who use illegal policies and discriminatory practices to separate the citizens in their jurisdictions from their fundamental, inalienable rights.

You said, "ALL of our personal info is none of your business". Your statement is summarily incorrect. I direct your attention to the very form all applicants are required to fill out and submit signed under penalty of perjury:

Public Disclosure Admonition

I understand that I am obligated to be complete and truthful in providing information on this application. I understand that all of the information disclosed by me in this application may be subject to public disclosure.pp. 3

Section 8 – Certification and Release of Information

I hereby give permission to the agency to which this application is made to conduct a background investigation of me and to contact any person or agency who may add to or aid in this investigation.

I further authorize persons, firms, agencies and institutions listed on this application to release or confirm information about me and statements I have made as contained in this application.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law and pursuant to the Public Records Act (Government Code section 6250 et seq.), I understand that information contained in this application may be a matter of public record and shall be made available upon request or court order.

I hereby certify under penalties of perjury and Penal Code section 12051(b) and (c), that the answers I have given are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that I understand and agree to the provisions, conditions, and restrictions herein or otherwise imposed.pp.14

More, excerpts from CBS, Inc. v. Block:

BIRD, C.J.

Are the press and public prohibited from obtaining the information contained in the application for and the license to possess a concealed weapon under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code, 6250 et seq., hereafter the PRA or the Act) even though this information was open to public inspection from 1957‐1968 and the Act did not specifically exempt this information from disclosure?[1]

This case arose when CBS, Inc. (CBS) filed a request under the PRA, in July of 1983, to inspect and copy the applications submitted to and licenses issued by the Los Angeles County Sheriff authorizing the possession of concealed weapons. CBS sought the information in connection with an investigation of possible abuses by officials in the exercise of their statutorily delegated discretion to issue licenses for concealed weapons. (See Pen. Code, 12050.)

Implicit in the democratic process is the notion that government should be accountable for its actions. In order to verify accountability, individuals must have access to government files. Such access permits checks against the arbitrary exercise of official power and secrecy in the political process.

While some of the holders of concealed weapon licenses may prefer anonymity, it is doubtful that such preferences outweigh the "fundamental and necessary" right of the public to examine the bases upon which such licenses are issued. It is a privilege to carry a concealed weapon.

Furthermore, there is a clear and legislatively articulated justification for disclosure — the right of the public and the press to review the government's conduct of its business. Public inspection of the names of license holders and the reasons the licenses were requested enables the press and the public to ensure that public officials are acting properly in issuing licenses for legitimate reasons. Defendants' conclusion that White v. Davis precluded disclosure would obliterate the fundamental right of the press and the people to have access to "information concerning the conduct of the people's business." ( 6250.)

It is possible, of course, that certain information supplied by individual applicants may under certain circumstances entail a substantial privacy interest. For example, the records may contain intimate information concerning an applicant's own or his family's medical or psychological history. In such special cases, the confidential information may be deleted.

The interest of society in ensuring accountability is particularly strong where the discretion invested in a government official is unfettered, and only a select few are granted the special privilege. Moreover, the degree of subjectivity involved in exercising the discretion cries out for public scrutiny. For example, the Sheriff of Orange County has issued over 400 licenses; in Los Angeles County only 35 licenses have been issued. Ostensibly, both sheriffs are applying thesame statutory criteria for granting or denying these licenses. The apparent discrepancy indicates that something may be amiss. If the information on which the decision to grant can be kept from the public and the press, then there is no method by which the people can ever ascertain whether the law is being fairly and impartially applied.

Further, the historical treatment of concealed weapons licenses undermines the defendants' claim that the holders have an expectation of privacy regarding such records. From 1957 to 1968, these licenses were open to public inspection pursuant to Penal Code section 12053.[13]In the year following the enactment of the PRA, Penal Code section 12053 was amended to delete this language. The change was made to ensure that these public records would be governed by the new Act. (See Stats. 1969, ch. 371, 44, pp. 904-905 in conjunction with 62 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 595, 600 (1979).) It is important to note that the Legislature did not create an exemption, express or implied, for concealed weapons licenses. It did so for many other types of public records. ( 6254.)

Disclosure statutes such as the PRA and the federal Freedom of Information Act were passed to ensure public access to vital information about the government's conduct of its business. If the press and the public are precluded from learning the names of concealed weapons' licensees and the reasons claimed in support of the licenses, there will be no method by which the public can ascertain whether the law is being properly applied or carried out in an evenhanded manner.

The trial court granted injunctive relief permitting access to most of the licenses. This relief is inadequate in light of the purpose for which the information was sought. Without the applications which accompany the licenses and which set forth the reasons why a license is necessary, the public cannot judge whether the sheriff has properly exercised his discretion in issuing the licenses.

As to the issue of law enforcement permits and disclosure, I direct your attention to Cal. Govt. Code Section 6254(u):

(1) Information contained in applications for licenses to
carry firearms issued pursuant to Section 12050 of the Penal Code by
the sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a municipal
police department that indicates when or where the applicant is
vulnerable to attack or that concerns the applicant's medical or
psychological history or that of members of his or her family.
(2) The home address and telephone number of peace officers,
judges, court commissioners, and magistrates that are set forth in
applications for licenses to carry firearms issued pursuant to
Section 12050 of the Penal Code by the sheriff of a county or the
chief or other head of a municipal police department.
(3) The home address and telephone number of peace officers,
judges, court commissioners, and magistrates that are set forth in
licenses to carry firearms issued pursuant to Section 12050 of the
Penal Code by the sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a
municipal police department. (emphasis added.)

I find it perplexing that you attack me and others with threat of a lawsuit but have no trouble with a similar investigatory action in a neighboring county. Your hypocrisy is as ugly as your entitled attitude.

One man's "unnecessary request" is another man's struggle for liberty. I fully support your right to protest the government's policy as relates to CCW permit disclosure under the Public Records Act. If you feel strongly about the issue, you might consider writing your elected Senator and Assemblymember and tell them to create a fair and equal "shall issue" system, and amend Cal. Govt. Code 6254(u) to fully exempt all permits and applications from the California Public Records Act.

Until then, as former Chief Justice Rose Bird so poignantly stated, "the degree of subjectivity involved in exercising the discretion cries out for public scrutiny".

-Brandon

Go after LA County. They're the one's not issuing any permits. I have a CCW in Ventura County. ALL of our personal info is none of your business. One of us is in law enforcement and this information is protected for a reason. If my family is put in jeopardy due to your aggressive non necessary request for this personal information, I will sue you personally and corporately. I respectfully ask you to drop the request for the personal information as reported in the Ventura County Star dated 10/20/10.

the_quark
10-21-2010, 3:54 AM
if i had a CCW and the sherrif had to release my ccw data, the only thing i'd want released was my good cause, no name, no address, no workplace address, no phone number, no email address, no nothing. it's my assumption ( yes i know what they say about assuming anything) that CGF knows this.

You don't have to assume anything; we've explicitly said (including in that article) that we don't want that information, and if they gave it to us, we wouldn't release it without further redacting it.

wash
10-21-2010, 7:54 AM
I was glad to see a fair coverage of this story in the Ventura County Star. It's a good article.

The comments seem to be heavily in our favor except for one CGF basher that brought up Gpal for no reason and a couple hoplophobes.

The hoplophobes think we are gun nuts. If they could have seen our group after Nordyke they would have been quite surprised. They have no idea who they are talking about.

Glock22Fan
10-21-2010, 9:16 AM
I am not arguing for this, but if we did have addresses we can catch the sheriffs who issue CCW's to their good friends who reside outside the county. Yes, this does happen. Usually revoked the moment the Sheriff realizes Billy Jack (or anyone else, perhaps) has seen that application.

Obviously, addresses should be kept confidential and not generally published.

N6ATF
10-21-2010, 9:21 AM
I was glad to see a fair coverage of this story in the Ventura County Star. It's a good article.

The comments seem to be heavily in our favor except for one CGF basher that brought up Gpal for no reason and a couple hoplophobes.

The hoplophobes think we are gun nuts. If they could have seen our group after Nordyke they would have been quite surprised. They have no idea who they are talking about.

Gun nuts don't sue. They become vice president and birdshot their friends in the face. :p

Victim disarmers only have libel and slander left...

M. D. Van Norman
10-21-2010, 11:29 AM
I bet that Jim March is getting a kick out of all this. :p

the_quark
10-21-2010, 12:24 PM
I am not arguing for this, but if we did have addresses we can catch the sheriffs who issue CCW's to their good friends who reside outside the county. Yes, this does happen. Usually revoked the moment the Sheriff realizes Billy Jack (or anyone else, perhaps) has seen that application.

Obviously, addresses should be kept confidential and not generally published.

Strictly speaking what we want here is ZIP codes, which (in California, anyway) will get us the county.

But, at the end of the day, I think that's less important to us right now than the good cause statements.

Glock22Fan
10-21-2010, 12:26 PM
Strictly speaking what we want here is ZIP codes, which (in California, anyway) will get us the county.

But, at the end of the day, I think that's less important to us right now than the good cause statements.

You are right, and I agree with you on priorities.

ocspeedracer
10-21-2010, 12:33 PM
Let's not violate other people's copyright, shall we? // Librarian
We're not allowed to quote news articles?

I cannot quote the text of an article on the Brady Bunch site?

I guess, but crazy. Maybe CGF should be challenging this. (Kinda kidding. CGF should only challenge quoting a news article in a case that affects their interests.)

anything posted for free on the interweb is not/ can not be copyrighted or enforced if someone else on the interweb re-publishes.

Funtimes
10-21-2010, 12:47 PM
It would be VERY easy for Ventura Cty sheriff to provide properly redcated CCW records - with no association between name/address or specific biz and the actual 'good cause' reason for issuance.

A redacted good cause statement might end up as:

"Dr. Smith XXXXX travels between home at 1234 Main St, Northern Ventura
zip 98765 and his office at 123 First St in west Oxnard zip 98123 between 5pm
early evening and 1AM shortly after midnight Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays
three days per week.He has access to pharmaceuticals at clinic pharmacy including
Schedule II and III drugs such as Percocet and Oxycodone."

That offers a good enough profile in broad enough area to be nonspecific in terms of not increasing risk, and yet suitable for comparison with issuance (or lack thereof!) for others similarly situated.

That the sheriff is worried about safety exposure is laudable. That the sheriff would think a gun organization would publish details or risk CCWers safety is laughable and thus demonstrates his concerns are political only.

That the sheriff complains about budget is irrelevant. Public records are part of open government. Non-individually identifiable good cause statements can be masked sufficiently to avoid individual or subgroup identification; if that takes a bit of secretarial work, that's his dept's duty.


Man ****... do you know in Hawaii I get charged per half hour just for them looking for the documents, charged more for them redacting or editting. And charged for copies
I wonder if there is something wrong in the law that I get charged for all this.

tango-52
10-21-2010, 12:49 PM
anything posted for free on the interweb is not/ can not be copyrighted or enforced if someone else on the interweb re-publishes.

Really? Tell that to the law firm in Las Vegas that is suing bloggers over copyrights on newspaper articles. Even the Second Amendment Foundation has been named in one of those suits.

racerguy180
10-21-2010, 12:56 PM
We're concerned about costing the taxpayers $14k redacting the info, so we are going to drop $200k to fight it.

HAHAHA

If you don't want them knowing then don't apply or sign any papers that say "THIS IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT and subject to disclosure"

Is it just me or is that common sense!!!!

Librarian
10-21-2010, 1:01 PM
anything posted for free on the interweb is not/ can not be copyrighted or enforced if someone else on the interweb re-publishes.

So, if Joe steals it from Bill, and I steal it from Joe, that makes it OK?

Joe retains whatever copyright he had before the theft; serial violations are not OK. But enforcement may, indeed be difficult.

The answer is: get permission first. I deleted a thread a month or so ago, and PM'd the poster; he DID get permission from the author, copy to me and in the repeat post.

Kharn
10-21-2010, 1:12 PM
I followed Jim March's efforts sevevral years ago, I remember he was unable to obtain the good cause data because it was considered the investigator's notes. What has changed since then to allow this effort?

Maestro Pistolero
10-21-2010, 1:23 PM
Another check-mark in the column for constitutional carry. There is no way I should have to sacrifice my privacy rights in order to exercise my 2A rights.

That said, there is no-one I would trust more with this info than Calguns, and I will be happy to see the suit win in short order.

Rossi357
10-21-2010, 1:24 PM
That is BS about costing the taxpayers $14,000 for redacting information on the forms. The people who do it are already getting paid. They don't hire new people to do this.

wildhawker
10-21-2010, 1:26 PM
I followed Jim March's efforts sevevral years ago, I remember he was unable to obtain the good cause data because it was considered the investigator's notes. What has changed since then to allow this effort?

http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/953/cgfbanner.jpg

and

http://hoffmang.com/firearms/emoticons/guraanimate1.gif

Glock22Fan
10-21-2010, 1:34 PM
http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/953/cgfbanner.jpg

and

http://hoffmang.com/firearms/emoticons/guraanimate1.gif


Yes, Jim should have won. However he didn't have the cash, the backing or the organization to prevail. Now we have.

What happened after CBS v. Block was that sheriffs searched for a way to avoid revealing the Good Causes they had approved. They decided that if the Good Cause wasn't actually a part of the form but was instead orally conveyed to an officer who wrote it down, then it wasn't covered by PRAR's and CBS v. Block. In other words, a deliberate sneaky attempt to get around disclosure.

BigDogatPlay
10-21-2010, 1:39 PM
anything posted for free on the interweb is not/ can not be copyrighted or enforced if someone else on the interweb re-publishes.

Not true, at all.... just because they choose to publish it on the web does not open it to free and unfettered use. The body of statutory and case law is growing on it.

As example, a certain business unit of a certain newspaper in a certain large city in Nevada is making a ton of money by suing bloggers and chat sites for re-publication of material that the newspaper specifically claimed copyright of on it's "free" web site.

They launched at least a couple of cases just recently out of re-publication of copyrighted material of news stories of a certain incident that happened at a certain warehouse store in that certain city earlier this year.

the_quark
10-21-2010, 1:47 PM
Wrong. There are ZIP codes that are split across county lines. It's not common, but it does happen.

One of the best ways to find out about this is to contact the nearest DMV office. Their computer system assigns the county (that they encode as a number between 1 and 58) based on a lookup table from the ZIP code. For those ZIP codes that are split between counties, DMV desk staff needs to hand-correct the default assignment. This makes a significant difference if the two counties have different sales tax rates (which can also happen with cities that have different sales taxes), or if the two counties are in different air quality district jurisdictions (meaning different smog check programs). For this reason, DMV staff tend to be (painfully?) aware of these ZIP codes.

Thanks for the correction. I know in some places a ZIP code doesn't definitively get you into a state. I'd thought in California it was cleaner, but I guess I was mistaken.

bwiese
10-21-2010, 2:04 PM
Thanks for the correction. I know in some places a ZIP code doesn't definitively get you into a state. I'd thought in California it was cleaner, but I guess I was mistaken.

Nevertheless, these situations are likely 'outliers' anyway...

The preponderance of issuance will most likely not be on 'crossover' zipcodes, and the troublesome issuing variances (issuance vs denial) will likely fall on these zips either.

We may also luck out if there's ZIP+4...

wash
10-21-2010, 2:11 PM
I could care less if there is zip+4 or anything else, I just want to find the good cause statements that work.

Havoc70
10-21-2010, 2:14 PM
I'm guessing since the applicant now fills out section 7 (the Investigator's notes), it should be subject to disclosure, yes?

wildhawker
10-21-2010, 2:41 PM
I'm guessing since the applicant now fills out section 7 (the Investigator's notes), it should be subject to disclosure, yes?

It is subject to disclosure, with some limited exceptions for specific types of data. The new standard application form itself was created and applied in a manner the law enforcement community (DOJ, Sheriffs, Chiefs of Police) thought would function as a work-around to the CPRA and APA.

IGOTDIRT4U
10-21-2010, 3:26 PM
If you don't want them knowing then don't apply or sign any papers that say "THIS IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT and subject to disclosure"

Beat me to it.

dantodd
10-21-2010, 3:46 PM
I'm guessing since the applicant now fills out section 7 (the Investigator's notes), it should be subject to disclosure, yes?

This is why most SO/SD's ask you to not fill in the "good cause" section of the application before going into the first interview.

As others have pointed out, this was a direct attempt to avoid CBS v. Block disclosure. Any judge will see through this.

Too Slow
10-21-2010, 3:55 PM
As a name on that list, here are my thoughts:

I knew going in that my name could be public. I don't know why however as I'm not real excited about the potential for friends/neighbors to come up to me and say "so you packing today?" Why not just let me carry it on my hip?However, it is what it is.

I have no issue with having my GC being examined on an anonymous basis. However, it clearly needs to be seperated from my personal information. I would have to see exactly how this would be done to support this.

I want none of my background info released. The sheriff knew things about me that I didn't know. The report on me must have been 30 pages long. Don't ask exactly what, but trust me. Someone with this knowledge could cause me a great deal of ID theft/fraud etc.

Obviously, I support CCW. I think we must just be very careful about how things get disclosed. I trust CGF, but I'd hate to see some precedent where another entity has broader access as a result of this and next thing you know I have Brady people camped out at my front door or worse at my business.

Then, I might have to shoot one;)

greasemonkey
10-21-2010, 3:56 PM
This is why most SO/SD's ask you to not fill in the "good cause" section of the application before going into the first interview.

As others have pointed out, this was a direct attempt to avoid CBS v. Block disclosure. Any judge will see through this.

In the same way that if one permit is issued for "self defense" GC, what if a permit is issued with a blank GC on the application itself? (Due to verbal GC or written on a separate sheet) Does that mean that no GC statement is required and permits should be issued to anyone not prohibited?

leelaw
10-21-2010, 3:59 PM
What if I don't want them knowing? Then you won't be applying for a CCW, which has a public information disclosure plastered right across it.

I don't like or advocate a "trust us" attitude in regards to any entity having information about someone*; however, in regards to public information you will sign away the information contained within a CCW by entering it into the public domain.

*A matter of general preference, and not a commentary on CGF

dantodd
10-21-2010, 4:01 PM
In the same way that if one permit is issued for "self defense" GC, what if a permit is issued with a blank GC on the application itself? (Due to verbal GC or written on a separate sheet) Does that mean that no GC statement is required and permits should be issued to anyone not prohibited?

My personal belief is that any desire to carry is at least as strong of "good cause" as no comment is. However; when you bring your GC in on a separate piece of paper the interviewer is supposed to write your GC in the "interviewers notes" section. This is how some sheriffs are attempting to avoid disclosure.

dantodd
10-21-2010, 4:04 PM
As a name on that list, here are my thoughts:

I knew going in that my name could be public. I don't know why however as I'm not real excited about the potential for friends/neighbors to come up to me and say "so you packing today?" Why not just let me carry it on my hip?However, it is what it is.

I have no issue with having my GC being examined on an anonymous basis. However, it clearly needs to be seperated from my personal information. I would have to see exactly how this would be done to support this.

CGF is asking for no more information than any person in CA could get. However; when Brandon posts the pdf files with the "good causes" that the various sheriffs are accepting he is releasing no names as those are not pertinent to our goals.

The sheriff is still more than happy to release your name etc. but are trying to protect the GC's that they are issuing for.

J.D.Allen
10-21-2010, 4:14 PM
Right. The fact that the GC is precisely what they are trying to avoid disclosing is kind of telling don't you think?