Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-17-2013, 6:03 AM
DartFrog DartFrog is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 91
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default 2013 AB 134 Logue and Mansoor The California Public Records Act: applications for li

This is actually a good one. Omits from public record requests information regarding CCW owners information.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/...ntroduced.html
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." Thomas Jefferson

Last edited by DartFrog; 01-17-2013 at 6:18 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-17-2013, 6:12 AM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,161
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DartFrog View Post
This is actually a good one. Omits from public record requests information regarding CCW owners information.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery
This is good only from the perspective that it could prevent public distribution of licesees personal information, but if there isnt transparency in obtaining other application information, it could be used to stymie efforts to discover accepable good cause. I will have to read through it to see if it is limited to just contact information.


http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/...ntroduced.html
__________________

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-17-2013, 6:27 AM
GrizzlyGuy's Avatar
GrizzlyGuy GrizzlyGuy is offline
Gun Runner to The Stars
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Northern Sierras
Posts: 5,469
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
This is good only from the perspective that it could prevent public distribution of licesees personal information, but if there isnt transparency in obtaining other application information, it could be used to stymie efforts to discover accepable good cause. I will have to read through it to see if it is limited to just contact information.


http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/...ntroduced.html
It seems that it does only apply to the disclosure of address and telephone number. Name, good cause statement, outcome of the application (approved/denied), etc. can still be disclosed:

Quote:
(2) The home address and telephone number of prosecutors,
public defenders, peace officers, judges, court commissioners, and
magistrates
applicants that are set forth in
applications for licenses to carry firearms issued pursuant to
Section 26150, 26155, 26170, or 26215 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 prosecutors,
public defenders, peace officers, judges, court commissioners, and
magistrates
licensees that are set forth in
licenses to carry firearms issued pursuant to Section 26150, 26155,
26170, or 26215 of the Penal Code by the sheriff of a county or the
chief or other head of a municipal police department.
It is basically just extending the option to not release home address and telephone number (when such disclosure "would endanger the safety of a person") to all licensees and applicants, rather than only when the licensee or applicant is a prosecutor, judge, LEO, etc.
__________________
Gun law complexity got you down? Get the FAQs, Jack!


Last edited by GrizzlyGuy; 01-17-2013 at 6:30 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-17-2013, 6:34 AM
AyatollahGondola's Avatar
AyatollahGondola AyatollahGondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,168
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
This is good only from the perspective that it could prevent public distribution of licesees personal information, but if there isnt transparency in obtaining other application information, it could be used to stymie efforts to discover accepable good cause. I will have to read through it to see if it is limited to just contact information.


http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/...ntroduced.html
The way I read it is that it ADDS all permittees in place of judges, prosecutors, magistrates, etc that were previously exempted from release of that info.
I'm quite unsure as to the future of this one. Maybe the democrat and republican heirarchy are on the same page as this because it returns the permit process to a more elitist, covert state. We're talking about a governming body that outlaws public display of firearms. Adding a bill that further de-publicizes something about firearms could easily find co-signors in the statehouse.
But, there is also a possible overreach on there behalf, placing mere gun permittees on equal ground with judges, prosecutors, etc. That may ruffle enough feathers from higher up to kill this one or force a change

An address is one of the few direct identifiers available though to tell similar named persons in a county apart. The phone number is really not something that should be disclosable, but something to positively ID the holder

Last edited by AyatollahGondola; 01-17-2013 at 6:37 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-20-2013, 10:38 PM
Markinsac Markinsac is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 563
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The bill has been amended and referred back to Sen Judiciary committee.

It now exempts names, home addresses, and phone numbers from being released.

While it does keep the newspapers from potentially publishing information like what has happened in other states, it does limit the ability of groups like the CalGuns Foundation from analyzing applications for compliance with statutes for issuance.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-20-2013, 11:19 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,719
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Markinsac View Post
The bill has been amended and referred back to Sen Judiciary committee.

It now exempts names, home addresses, and phone numbers from being released.

While it does keep the newspapers from potentially publishing information like what has happened in other states, it does limit the ability of groups like the CalGuns Foundation from analyzing applications for compliance with statutes for issuance.

Our primary interest in analysis is the good cause statement. In the past we've asked for info with personally-identifying info redacted.

And even the GC statement can have some tolerable redactions/masking.
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-21-2013, 12:00 AM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

That's not quite right. We do seek all information in the application in as un-redacted form as we can reasonably force.

-Brandon

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Our primary interest in analysis is the good cause statement. In the past we've asked for info with personally-identifying info redacted.

And even the GC statement can have some tolerable redactions/masking.
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-21-2013, 5:29 PM
nicki's Avatar
nicki nicki is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,118
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default CBS vs Block?

Isn't there the issue of "CBS vs Block", a California Supreme court ruling on this?

Wouldn't that limit what could be sealed from a public records act request as long as CCW permits are issued on a "may issue" basis?

Nicki
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:09 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.