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 > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-16-2022, 12:29 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,887
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default Brandeis v Bonta, 2022, SDC SC: AB173 release of PII, PI issued

1-28-2022

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

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

Quote:
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.”
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

Last edited by curtisfong; 10-16-2022 at 12:44 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-16-2022, 12:31 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,887
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

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".
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

Last edited by curtisfong; 10-16-2022 at 12:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-16-2022, 12:32 PM
Loiterer's Avatar
Loiterer Loiterer is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: IE
Posts: 56
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This was research by the state.

Just checking to see if firearm owners are paying attention.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-16-2022, 1:18 PM
yacko yacko is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 433
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loiterer View Post
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....
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-16-2022, 1:29 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,887
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yacko View Post
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.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-16-2022, 2:44 PM
yacko yacko is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 433
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
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.....
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-16-2022, 2:47 PM
DentonandSasquatchShow's Avatar
DentonandSasquatchShow DentonandSasquatchShow is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Southern California
Posts: 935
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Better late than never I suppose.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-16-2022, 4:46 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,887
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yacko View Post
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.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-16-2022, 5:22 PM
yacko yacko is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 433
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-16-2022, 9:02 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Nevada City, CA
Posts: 2,587
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

I'm glad all the children got to hear this frontier gibberish
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-17-2022, 11:16 AM
Texas Boy's Avatar
Texas Boy Texas Boy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 804
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
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?
__________________
...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-17-2022, 2:19 PM
Loiterer's Avatar
Loiterer Loiterer is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: IE
Posts: 56
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-17-2022, 2:38 PM
scarbubu scarbubu is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 46
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default ugh oh

...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
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-17-2022, 4:09 PM
NorCalBusa NorCalBusa is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,425
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Judge blocks California law allowing gun owners’ personal information to be shared wi

Oct. 17, 2022

Quote:
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!]

Last edited by NorCalBusa; 10-17-2022 at 4:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-17-2022, 4:15 PM
M76's Avatar
M76 M76 is offline
Git-R-Done
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Git-R-Done City
Posts: 5,152
iTrader: 102 / 100%
Default

bonta is so slimy, he leaves a trail when he walks
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunndeal View Post
Stop digging.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrassCase View Post
I only buy fireworks from Three Finger Willie over at One Eyed Jack's Fireworks.
iTrader

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1884858
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-17-2022, 4:17 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 910
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-17-2022, 4:24 PM
DolphinFan DolphinFan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,458
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

How about that, Article 1 Section 1 actually being supported by a CA court.
Does the states interest outweigh out inalienable rights?
Apparently not
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 5:59 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy