PDA

View Full Version : Senate Bill 819


blazeaglory
10-07-2011, 1:16 PM
The vast information in the DROS system is akin to registraion and this bill looks innocent enough up front but upon further review...What I didnt know is that Verizon is responsible for implementing the program used for the DROS system also knows as the Consolidated Firearm Information System. Now the 2008 Dangerous Weapons Control Law would allow "those entities" specified in, and pursuant to, subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 11105, through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, for the purpose of determining if persons are armed and prohibited from possessing firearms to basically cross reference persons found guilty of felonies. Under the Armed & Prohibited Persons Systems program The Attorney General shall establish and maintain an online database to be known as the Prohibited Armed Persons File. The purpose of the file is to cross-reference persons who have ownership or possession of a firearm on or after January 1, 1991, as indicated by a record in the Consolidated Firearm Information System, and who, subsequent to the date of that ownership or possession of a firearm, fall within a class of persons who are prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm.

Now this is what upsets me is that the DROS systems or Consolidated Firearm Information System gives whatever government agency access to personal records since 1991. They use the excuse that it is to check on purchases made by felons before they became felons and then to follow up with that felon to make sure that person no longer has the gun they purchased. THATS NOT WHAT BOTHERS ME. THE LESS FELONS WITH GUNS IS FINE BY ME but what upsets me is the vast information that verizon and the DROS system contains. That information basically is almost the same thing as registration. If they can check all the way back to 1991 and determine the name address and type of gun that is bull****!

Here is where I got the info

Here is the verizon site
http://www.verizonbusiness.com/resources/factsheets/fs_operational-maturity-assessment_en_xg.pdf

Here is the government site
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12010.php

Librarian
10-07-2011, 1:35 PM
DROS has been in effect in California for a long time -- 1924 (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Time_Line_of_California_Firearms_Laws#Dealer.27s_R ecord_of_Sale_.28DROS.29.2C_1924).

For handguns, yes, it is registration - it associates particular handguns by make, model and serial to particular individuals by name and address (at least - Driver License number as well for more modern records).

darthnugget
10-07-2011, 2:05 PM
I would not worry about it. I used to work at this division at Verizon for many years and assisted in the design and implementation of the systems there. The people there have extensive background checks and know that all of the data is highly sensitive. Also I would consider them good Americans and some are on this forum. I would trust them with my personal data.

This group probably already had your information as well because one of the other California projects that they had was your DMV information for your vehicle registration and SMOG.

curtisfong
10-07-2011, 2:13 PM
Also I would consider them good Americans and some are on this forum. I would trust them with my personal data.

I'm sure what you say is true. The problem is, we are all depending on that to STAY true.

Look at the AT&T wiretap scandal. I personally knew several people who were working there at the time, and they were 100% good people. But all it took was a few bad apples who gave into government demands to deploy ubiquitous, undetectable, *100% deniable* wiretap equipment. My company makes a product that was being evaluated for this purpose. In the RFC meetings, we were told it was for "testing and debugging" but anybody with half a brain could tell it was for capturing *terabytes* at a time of live cell phone traffic (and sending it offsite - gee i wonder where, in REAL TIME), not for "testing".

The few "good" people still there were forced to look the other way and pretend that it wasn't all complete bull. Mark Klein is a hero in my book. Too bad he got the finger and failed.

Did I mention *deniability* was deliberately built into the RFC?

Think carefully on that before you trust Verizon or anybody else with your data.

blazeaglory
10-07-2011, 9:36 PM
What gets me is the fact that the information still exists passed a certain number of days or months. Once a purchase or PPT or whatever has been DROS'd the information should drop out of the system after a certain amount of time and the fact that it doesnt is akin, to an extent, a "mini regulation". You know what I mean?

I always thought DROS information was destroyed after a certain number of days.

Librarian
10-07-2011, 11:09 PM
Hardly 'mini' - straight out Penal Code: 12073 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/12073.html) (a) As required by the Department of Justice, every dealer
shall keep a register or record of electronic or telephonic transfer
in which shall be entered the information prescribed in Section
12077.
and 12077 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/12077.html) (b) (1) For handguns, information contained in the register or
record of electronic transfer shall be

the date and time of sale,
make of firearm,
peace officer exemption status pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 12078 and the agency name,
dealer waiting period exemption pursuant to subdivision (n) of Section 12078,
dangerous weapons permitholder waiting period exemption pursuant to subdivision (r) of Section 12078,
curio and relic waiting period exemption pursuant to subdivision (t) of Section 12078,
California Firearms Dealer number issued pursuant to Section 12071,
for transactions occurring prior to January 1, 2003, the purchaser's basic firearms safety certificate number issued pursuant to Sections 12805 and 12809,
for transactions occurring on or after January 1, 2003, the purchaser's handgun safety certificate number issued pursuant to Article 8 (commencing with Section 12800),
manufacturer's name if stamped on the firearm,
model name or number, if stamped on the firearm,
if applicable, serial number,
other number (if more than one serial number is stamped on the firearm),
any identification number or mark assigned to the firearm pursuant to Section 12092,
caliber, type of firearm,
if the firearm is new or used,
barrel length,
color of the firearm,
full name of purchaser,
purchaser's complete date of birth,
purchaser's local address, if current address is temporary,
complete permanent address of purchaser,
identification of purchaser,
purchaser's place of birth (state or country),
purchaser's complete telephone number,
purchaser's occupation,
purchaser's sex,
purchaser's physical description,
all legal names and aliases ever used by the purchaser,
yes or no answer to questions that prohibit purchase including, but not limited to, conviction of a felony as described in Section 12021 or an offense described in Section 12021.1,
the purchaser's status as a person described in Section 8100 of the Welfare and Institutions Code,
whether the purchaser is a person who has been adjudicated by a court to be a danger to others or found not guilty by reason of insanity,
whether the purchaser is a person who has been found incompetent to stand trial or placed under conservatorship by a court pursuant to Section 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code,
signature of purchaser,
signature of salesperson (as a witness to the purchaser's signature),
salesperson's certificate of eligibility number if he or she has obtained a certificate of eligibility, name and complete address of the dealer or firm selling the firearm as shown on the
dealer's license,
the establishment number, if assigned,
the dealer's complete business telephone number,
any information required by Section 12082,
any information required to determine whether or not paragraph (6) of subdivision (c) of Section 12072 applies,
and a statement of the penalties for any person signing a fictitious name or address or for knowingly furnishing any incorrect information or for knowingly omitting any information required to be provided for the register.

(2) Effective January 1, 2003, the purchaser shall provide his or
her right thumbprint on the register in a manner prescribed by the
department. No exception to this requirement shall be permitted
except by regulations adopted by the department. And PC 12076 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/12076.html) says (a) (1) Before January 1, 1998, the Department of Justice
shall determine the method by which a dealer shall submit firearm
purchaser information to the department and the information shall be
in one of the following formats:
......
(3) On or after January 1, 2003, except as permitted by the
department, electronic transfer shall be the exclusive means by which
information is transmitted to the department. Telephonic transfer
shall not be permitted for information regarding sales of any
firearms.


Dealers must follow 12073. They must collect the info as described in 12077. They must transmit it to the State as required in 12076.

And PC 11106 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/11106.html) says (c) (1) The Attorney General shall permanently keep and properly
file and maintain all information reported to the Department of
Justice pursuant to the following provisions as to handguns and
maintain a registry thereof:
See also the wiki -- http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Firearms_registration

Shotgun Man
10-08-2011, 12:30 AM
Hardly 'mini' - straight out Penal Code: 12073 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/12073.html) and 12077 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/12077.html) And PC 12076 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/12076.html) says

Dealers must follow 12073. They must collect the info as described in 12077. They must transmit it to the State as required in 12076.

And PC 11106 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/11106.html) says
See also the wiki -- http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Firearms_registration

I don't remember ever disclosing my occupation. Do they ask?

blazeaglory
10-08-2011, 10:39 AM
Damn I didnt know it was so extensive.