CCW- record confidentiality

[NorCalBusa]

San Francisco Sheriff announced the first CCW was approved. 15 minutes later, a reporter had the name, address and work location of the person it was for- and published all that information. News agencies are known to ask for entire databases of CCW holders under formal requests- some get it, some good Sheriff push back and don't give it.

I think it's time for CRPA to play a little "offense" and work the legislative room for a specific new law that makes this personal information confidential, protects law organizations from releasing it- and the individuals releasing it a felon. It puts people's lives, their families, friends and co-workers lives at enormous risk and there is no putting that Jenie back in the bottle.

Whatever the media's data need may be, they can be satisfied with anonymized aggregates of information- no need for specific individuals.

Story here; https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...n-17752254.php

Snippet as its paywall;

For the first time since a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office approved a resident’s application to carry a concealed weapon, known as a CCW permit.

“We can confirm we did approve our first CCW permit Friday,” said Tara Moriarty, a department spokesperson. The applicant is ***** *** (I obscured the name), who works at an automobile body shop in the Tenderloin.

[XDJYo]

Bastidges.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[XDJYo]

I’m guessing he loses his job over this. Family and kids will get harassed as well if not lose their job of place at school.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jeepergeo]

It would be a shame if the reporter were Doxx'd.

[NorCalBusa]

I added the story link to post #1

[lastinline]

Again, this is what happens when government is allowed to require a permission slip to exercise a constitutional right. The police department, the state, and all those skin flute players in the media up there have no issue with destroying the lives of those who dare to even attempt to defend themselves.

[squeeze]

I live in SF. This divulgence of personal information to the public is exactly why I will not be applying for a CCW. Even if they were handing them out with a 10 minute wait. No way!

[9Cal_OC]

Originally Posted by squeeze

I live in SF. This divulgence of personal information to the public is exactly why I will not be applying for a CCW. Even if they were handing them out with a 10 minute wait. No way!

Guess they can’t squeeze anything outta you

[Foothills]

Originally Posted by Jeepergeo

It would be a shame if the reporter were Doxx'd.

At a minimum the reporter should be asked if they intend to doxx domestic violence victims who apply for a permit and publish their addresses so their abusers can find then again.

[rrr70]

About a month ago Alameda released to the Bay Area News personal info of people why APPLIED for CCW.

[XDJYo]

Originally Posted by squeeze

I live in SF. This divulgence of personal information to the public is exactly why I will not be applying for a CCW. Even if they were handing them out with a 10 minute wait. No way!

All it takes is one time. Just like last year(?) when they released the database and then said ‘oops, my bad’. Bastiges.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CSACANNONEER]

Guys, this is PUBLIC INFORMATION. Sure, I hate the fact that my info is out there but, I also like the fact that we have transparency in our government. Without this info being public info, we would have never been able to prove how corrupt certain IAs have been. So, would you rather have transparency or corrupt Sheriff's and Police Chiefs who only issue to friends, family and political doners?

[XDJYo]

Originally Posted by CSACANNONEER

Guys, this is PUBLIC INFORMATION. Sure, I hate the fact that my info is out there but, I also like the fact that we have transparency in our government. Without this info being public info, we would have never been able to prove how corrupt certain IAs have been. So, would you rather have transparency or corrupt Sheriff's and Police Chiefs who only issue to friends, family and political doners?

I'd rather have government that doesn't need to be coerced to obey the law/constitution at the expense of the private citizens it is supposed to serve.

[NorCalBusa]

Originally Posted by CSACANNONEER

Guys, this is PUBLIC INFORMATION. Sure, I hate the fact that my info is out there but, I also like the fact that we have transparency in our government. Without this info being public info, we would have never been able to prove how corrupt certain IAs have been. So, would you rather have transparency or corrupt Sheriff's and Police Chiefs who only issue to friends, family and political doners?

That's my point. We need to go offense on this and get a law passed that takes permit holders out of public access.

[CSACANNONEER]

Originally Posted by NorCalBusa

That's my point. We need to go offense on this and get a law passed that takes permit holders out of public access.

So, you would prefer a system where the IA will issue to friends, family and political doners without the transparency which ended up catching several IAs in recent years? Yea, again, I don't like my personal info out there but, just like any freedom, it comes with costs.

[Paul S]

As disconcerting as the release of CCW information upon request by the media truly is it is based on this court case.

Court Rules Sheriff Must Show Data on Gun Permits
November 26, 1986|JERRY HICKS | Times Staff Writer
Orange County Sheriff Brad Gates, who for years has refused to disclose information in concealed-weapons records, must make the applications and permits available for public inspection, a state appellate court ruled Tuesday in Santa Ana.
The 4th District Court of Appeal's decision was based on a state Supreme Court ruling six weeks ago in a similar case involving Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block.

[NorCalBusa]

My point is to pass new law making it confidential.

[XDJYo]

Originally Posted by NorCalBusa

My point is to pass new law making it confidential.

That will do nothing. They don’t obey the law. Just look at the 2A and how it is treated in this state. It is shameful. If they want to release it, they will.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CSACANNONEER]

Originally Posted by NorCalBusa

My point is to pass new law making it confidential.

So, you are against government transparency? Are you really for systems that make it easy for government corruption? Are you related to Sheriff Laurie Smith?

[Capybara]

Isn't all of this moot for most of us anyway thanks to Bonta's doxxing all of us? Hasn't this horse already left the barn? For a new applicant, might matter more, but to all of us who have carried for a while, doesn't matter, isn't all of our info is already out there?

[XDJYo]

Originally Posted by Capybara

Isn't all of this moot for most of us anyway thanks to Bonta's doxxing all of us? Hasn't this horse already left the barn? For a new applicant, might matter more, but to all of us who have carried for a while, doesn't matter, isn't all of our info is already out there?

^^^This. Also, didn't the leak also include other info as well-i.e. firearms purchaser info, registered AW info etc?

Like I said, they don't care about the law. What happens if they do pass that law and they STILL release the info? Sue the govt? Yeah right. Like that will only take 2 weeks to resolve. And what will be the outcome? Oh, $30 credit monitoring service (which most people already have on their credit card accounts for free). And, you wind up on yet ANOTHER list with that service?

What a crock of schtick.

[NorCalBusa]

Originally Posted by CSACANNONEER

So, you are against government transparency? Are you really for systems that make it easy for government corruption? Are you related to Sheriff Laurie Smith?

Two similar replies a week apart...mad cow?

I wrote what I am for- that's locking down personal information for CCW holders. If there's a bona fide need, get a warrant.

All your other speculation seems a random thought flow.

[Jeepergeo]

Originally Posted by CSACANNONEER

Guys, this is PUBLIC INFORMATION. Sure, I hate the fact that my info is out there but, I also like the fact that we have transparency in our government. Without this info being public info, we would have never been able to prove how corrupt certain IAs have been. So, would you rather have transparency or corrupt Sheriff's and Police Chiefs who only issue to friends, family and political doners?

Federal, state, and local agencies are far, very far from being transparent. They keep secret all sorts of things including law enforcement body cam video, police misconduct investigation information, names of everyone on the government dole that responded to the Jan 6 event or was involved before or after, voting integrity information, copies of ballots, and much, much more. And when they do release, so often the data is redacted.

So yeah, I do believe that most data should be released, and some data should be kept confidential or redacted to remove data that could put people in harms way.

[nick]

Originally Posted by CSACANNONEER

So, you would prefer a system where the IA will issue to friends, family and political doners without the transparency which ended up catching several IAs in recent years? Yea, again, I don't like my personal info out there but, just like any freedom, it comes with costs.

I would prefer a system that's shall issue or constitutional carry, so it has no such causes for concern to begin with. And private, yes.

[lastinline]

Originally Posted by nick

I would prefer a system that's shall issue or constitutional carry, so it has no such causes for concern to begin with. And private, yes.

When you allow government (as did SCOTUS under Bruen) to require a permit to exercise a constitutional right, this whole crock of dog crap is what you end up with. Think of all the grief that could have been spared had the court made it a true constitutional carry.

[CSACANNONEER]

Originally Posted by NorCalBusa

Two similar replies a week apart...mad cow?

I wrote what I am for- that's locking down personal information for CCW holders. If there's a bona fide need, get a warrant.

All your other speculation seems a random thought flow.

So, you are unable to see the bigger picture? What you are advocating for is ripe for misuse, abuse and corruption. History has proven that. Sure, no one likes their info to be public but, are you really willing to give up the freedom of being able to access government information under the guise of personal safety? If so, Ben Franklin has an opinion of you that you don't want to hear.

As far as obtaining a warrant goes, was there enough evidence to get a warrant for Sheriff Smith? I don't think so until the FOIA produced it. You appear to be alright with that instead of outing a corrupt government agency.

[DolphinFan]

I see a civil rights violation.
Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution explicitly states we have the inalienable right to PRIVACY.

[DolphinFan]

Exercising your inalienable enumerated right is NOT public information.
I’d the state wants a list of people who MAY carry, then I suggest a box on the DROS stating so.
Otherwise, I have no incentive to apply for a permit to exercise a right that does not require government permission.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by DolphinFan

Exercising your inalienable enumerated right is NOT public information.
I’d the state wants a list of people who MAY carry, then I suggest a box on the DROS stating so.
Otherwise, I have no incentive to apply for a permit to exercise a right that does not require government permission.

I agree that the 2A recognizes that there is a right to carry arms. However, I can think of a few good reasons to apply for a permit to exercise that right. First, so you are not compelled to defend yourself in a court of law in a State that has chosen to ignore your right to carry, with the possible result of being incarcerated.

[Ron Jeremey]

Originally Posted by DolphinFan

I see a civil rights violation.
Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution explicitly states we have the inalienable right to PRIVACY.

Which you waive when you apply for a CCW.