Brandeis v Bonta, 2022, SDC SC: AB173 release of PII, PI issued

[curtisfong]

1-28-2022

https://www.saf.org/wp-content/uploa...laint-File.pdf

https://www.saf.org/second-amendment...owner-privacy/

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a lawsuit in San Diego County Superior Court against California Attorney General Rob Bonta, challenging the constitutionality of a recently-enacted section of the state Penal Code requiring the state Department of Justice to share private information on millions of gun owners in the state, with the California Firearm Violence Research Center and others.

Joining SAF in this action are the Firearms Policy Coalition, California Gun Rights Foundation, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Orange County Gun Owners PAC, Inland Empire Gun Owners PAC and Doe Brandeis, a private citizen. They are represented by attorneys Bradley A. Benbrook and Stephen M. Duvernay with the Benbrook Law Group, PC in Sacramento. The lawsuit is known as Brandeis v. Bonta.

The lawsuit contends disclosure of personal information about California gun owners under provisions of Assembly Bill 173, passed by the Assembly last year, violates their privacy rights, which are specifically protected by the state constitution. This information sharing also violates provisions of Proposition 63, the ammunition background check measure passed by voters back in 2016, which specified that personal information was to remain confidential, and shared “only for law enforcement purposes.”

“This is clearly an attempt violate the law, and the constitutional privacy rights of California gun owners for reasons we could only begin to imagine,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This proves once again that gun prohibitionists are willing to trample on laws they previously passed with a new law that violates the rights of gun owners for the alleged purpose of so-called ‘research,’ the nature of which seems dubious at best.

“In their zeal to treat California gun owners as second- or even third-class citizens, anti-gunners in Sacramento forget that those citizens have rights including the right to privacy,” Gottlieb added. “More than 4 California million gun owners have a reasonable expectation that their personal information is protected by the law and the state constitution. We will not stand idly by while their privacy is violated under the guise of research that has nothing at all to do with law enforcement.”

[curtisfong]

10-14-2022

http://www.sandiego.courts.ca.gov/v3...ventId=2884008

Preliminary Injunction barring California Department of Justice from turning over gun owner data to a certain third party organization in the name of "research".

[Loiterer]

This was research by the state.

Just checking to see if firearm owners are paying attention.

[yacko]

Originally Posted by Loiterer

This was research by the state.

Just checking to see if firearm owners are paying attention.

UC Davis is not a state. Its an institution. A mental institution....

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by yacko

UC Davis is not a state. Its an institution. A mental institution....

He's saying it was the Legislature seeing what they can get away with.

Not sure I agree. The Legislature knows it can get away with literally anything. The 9th will rubber stamp everything they do until SCOTUS actually issues a real smackdown. These singular GVRs obviously are not the end of the war.

[yacko]

Originally Posted by curtisfong

He's saying it was the Legislature seeing what they can get away with.

Not sure I agree. The Legislature knows it can get away with literally anything. The 9th will rubber stamp everything they do until SCOTUS actually issues a real smackdown. These singular GVRs obviously are not the end of the war.

ah... but no. They want to give it to davis and davis can turn it over to other organizations like vpc and the brady bunch among others.

Im sure only good things would come from this.....

[DentonandSasquatchShow]

Better late than never I suppose.

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by yacko

ah... but no. They want to give it to davis and davis can turn it over to other organizations like vpc and the brady bunch among others.

I have no idea what this has to do with my response.

[yacko]

Originally Posted by curtisfong

I have no idea what this has to do with my response.

The state can give it to uc davis. Then they can also share it with other organizations for 'research' remember? the info doesnt just stay at davis.

So- it isnt a state conducted study- it is a state authorized study that goes into the hands of multiple non state employee entities.

but yeah, the ca gubmint allowed this- if thats what you mean. We all know that already.

[Drivedabizness]

I'm glad all the children got to hear this frontier gibberish

[Texas Boy]

Originally Posted by curtisfong

10-14-2022

http://www.sandiego.courts.ca.gov/v3...ventId=2884008

Preliminary Injunction barring California Department of Justice from turning over gun owner data to a certain third party organization in the name of "research".

Nice. But given UC Davis and who knows who else already has this data (not to mention the whole world due to the website incident), what does the injunction really mean? I didn't read through the entire document, but does it place those who might have already received the info on notice and bar them from using the info?

[Loiterer]

I think it is more like their pants have slipped down exposing their professional crack, so now they are told to pull their pants back up.

[scarbubu]

...any wagers on how long we have till we see "gun owner" registry identification websites show up online?

It'll be another tab on the "sex offender" sites The data is already out there

[NorCalBusa]

Oct. 17, 2022

A state law providing the names and other identifying information of gun owners in California to researchers studying the effectiveness of gun-violence restraining orders has been blocked by a judge, who says it may violate the owners' privacy rights.

The information, which also includes the addresses, phone numbers, fingerprints and any criminal records of the more than 4 million Californians who own firearms, is collected by the state attorney general’s office, which uses it for background checks on purchases and for studies of the relationships between gun ownership, homicides and suicides.

The new law allows researchers to make their findings public but prohibits public release of any identifying information about gun owners. But gun organizations immediately sued the state, saying the disclosure of owners’ personal information to researchers was a “severe privacy intrusion” that violates the right to privacy approved by California voters in 1972. On Friday, San Diego County Superior Court Judge Katherine Bacal issued an injunction halting any further release of gun owners’ names to researchers while the case continues.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...n-17515713.php



[thanks whoever moved this to the existing thread!]

[M76]

bonta is so slimy, he leaves a trail when he walks

[Foothills]

Its sad that my first thought was that the AG already transferred the data, then leaked more data to the public - anticipating that they would lose the case.

[DolphinFan]

How about that, Article 1 Section 1 actually being supported by a CA court.
Does the states interest outweigh out inalienable rights?
Apparently not