CA DOJ Leak of CCW and Firearm Purchaser PII

[OldGeek]

Originally Posted by NorCalBusa

Except by its existence, you've been identified as a gun(s) owner. Kind of a Sears Catalog for gun thieves.

More like "suicide by homeowner" where I live. Even the few tweekers we have know that country folk take the 2nd amendment and castle doctrine serious.

[Aragorn]

Originally Posted by 92E2

That would be complete radio silence.

Not even a single response to the original inquiry email.

Same with me. Disappointing.
At least acknowledge we are alive.

[92E2]

November 18th update from CRPA - URGENT: You Must Act Now to Protect Your Right to Sue Over the DOJ Data Leak!

There is a limited amount of time to act! YOU NEED TO FILE AN ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIM FORM BY DECEMBER 20TH!

https://crpa.org/news/blogs/urgent-y...doj-data-leak/

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by 92E2

November 18th update from CRPA - URGENT: You Must Act Now to Protect Your Right to Sue Over the DOJ Data Leak!

There is a limited amount of time to act! YOU NEED TO FILE AN ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIM FORM BY DECEMBER 20TH!

https://crpa.org/news/blogs/urgent-y...doj-data-leak/

Why should I have to pay the State of California a $25 fee to tell them that they unlawfully released my private information to the public thereby violating my CA right to privacy and causing me some yet to be determined damage. Why would not a draft complaint sent to the CA AG as a claim presented suffice?

[SharedShots]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

Why should I have to pay the State of California a $25 fee to tell them that they unlawfully released my private information to the public thereby violating my CA right to privacy and causing me some yet to be determined damage. Why would not a draft complaint sent to the CA AG as a claim presented suffice?

I know that more of a rhetorical question but:

because they said so. The same reason why an IA can demand you disclose to others you are applying (not yet having done so) to obtain letters of recommendation to prove your GMC and thus also tell those people you own or plan to own guns and ammunition. It doesn't stop there because you'll need to pay a lot more than $25 to do that (apply) and based only on the IA's discretion, one person can cause your denial and forfeit of the money paid not because you are prohibited but because one person simply decided in their own mind you shouldn't be allowed to carry.

But wait, many of those crying about the info disclosure have no problem being part of the support system that created the problem and many hold themselves on a higher plane than those who do not.

People need to get it straight, trust those who do not trust you, pay for that, go along with it, support it financially for a personal privilege benefit and then cry when they disclose your info? That makes sense to anyone?





.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by SharedShots

I know that more of a rhetorical question but:

My first question may be rhetorical but the second one is not.

because they said so. The same reason why an IA can demand you disclose to others you are applying (not yet having done so) to obtain letters of recommendation to prove your GMC and thus also tell those people you own or plan to own guns and ammunition.

While I had a CA CCW prior to and when I moved to Idaho, I was never asked to prove my GMC or for letters of recommendation. The closest is Oregon asked for the names of references but issued me my Oregon CHL without ever contacting the relatives I listed. The persons I listed were all close relatives that already know I have guns and carry.

It doesn't stop there because you'll need to pay a lot more than $25 to do that (apply) and based only on the IA's discretion, one person can cause your denial and forfeit of the money paid not because you are prohibited but because one person simply decided in their own mind you shouldn't be allowed to carry.

That is speculation because my CA IA never asked for evidence of GMC. Nor did my ID IA my WA IA or the State of Utah ask such questions. And, CA will not be asking such question because my Idaho residency blocks me from applying for a CA CCW, at least until the State of California is successfully sued for infringing on the right to travel of persons in my situation.

But wait, many of those crying about the info disclosure have no problem being part of the support system that created the problem and many hold themselves on a higher plane than those who do not.

Not sure what support system you are referring to but I doubt that I am or was part of it.

People need to get it straight, trust those who do not trust you, pay for that, go along with it, support it financially for a personal privilege benefit and then cry when they disclose your info? That makes sense to anyone?

.

Not sure who you think I may have trusted or supported financially but I can say it could not have been those who released any of my information.

[GetMeCoffee]

Originally Posted by 92E2

November 18th update from CRPA - URGENT: You Must Act Now to Protect Your Right to Sue Over the DOJ Data Leak!

There is a limited amount of time to act! YOU NEED TO FILE AN ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIM FORM BY DECEMBER 20TH!

https://crpa.org/news/blogs/urgent-y...doj-data-leak/

CRPA is providing a template based off of one of their cases (here). Unfortunately this is not as easy as copy/paste, but still very helpful. The details of the claim are specific to this claimants circumstances, so you'll need to modify it for your own situation.

Hopefully everyone affected will fill this out and give Bonta a big fat inbox for the Christmas holiday. If you come up with a good generic statement for any of the narratives, please share!

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by GetMeCoffee

CRPA is providing a template based off of one of their cases (here). Unfortunately this is not as easy as copy/paste, but still very helpful. The details of the claim are specific to this claimants circumstances, so you'll need to modify it for your own situation.

Hopefully everyone affected will fill this out and give Bonta a big fat inbox for the Christmas holiday. If you come up with a good generic statement for any of the narratives, please share!

None of this goes to Bonta.

The application is to the Department of General Services, Office of Risk Management. The State is self-insured, and this is their claim agent.

[GetMeCoffee]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

None of this goes to Bonta.

The application is to the Department of General Services, Office of Risk Management. The State is self-insured, and this is their claim agent.

Wouldn't they reach out to his department and at ask him to brief them on the claims made? I know my insurance company would...

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by GetMeCoffee

Wouldn't they reach out to his department and at ask him to brief them on the claims made? I know my insurance company would...

They'll coordinate the claim, but it ain't gonna give Bonta a "big fat inbox". A damage assessment/response team led by a deputy has been running responses to this from Day 1. Bonta will get a two-line briefing.

[GetMeCoffee]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

... Bonta will get a two-line briefing.

Well I'm pretty sure that even falls outside his motivational and intellectual comfort zone. Good enough for me right now 😉

[TheSierraDrifter]

Does anyone here that has a CCW NOT get contacted by the State of California with a letter saying their information has been compromised? I'm curious if they contacted everyone on their CCW list or just those who they believe had their information compromised?

[ugimports]

Originally Posted by TheSierraDrifter

Does anyone here that has a CCW NOT get contacted by the State of California with a letter saying their information has been compromised? I'm curious if they contacted everyone on their CCW list or just those who they believe had their information compromised?

I have a few customers that never got notified, but they did validate they were compromised.

[TheSierraDrifter]

Originally Posted by ugimports

I have a few customers that never got notified, but they did validate they were compromised.

Thanks for the information, I appreciate it. Leave it to CA DOJ to leak the information, and then continue to mess up by not notifying everyone. If you don't mind me asking, how were they able to validate their information was compromised?

[gofer]

I also was not contacted. I'm guessing it's because they are big on "residence address" but not on "mailing address".

[92E2]

Originally Posted by GetMeCoffee

Wouldn't they reach out to his department and at ask him to brief them on the claims made? I know my insurance company would...

Was that a serious question ???

The PRK is one singular super majority, all protecting their own extremities. They have investigated themselves and found they have done no wrong, EVER. They won't investigate schi-yte, but they will gladly cash your [tax|applic]ation checks and shine you on.

[ar15barrels]

Originally Posted by TheSierraDrifter

If you don't mind me asking, how were they able to validate their information was compromised?

There are people here with copies of the files that can search for you in the files to see if you exist in the files.

If you have not been issued a CCW in CA from 2012 to 2021, you will not be in the file.
If you have been issued a CCW in that time period, private message me your last name, zip code and your year of birth and I'll tell you what I can find.

[madmax0]

The header listing for the dros was listed as:
"Year of Transaction Gun Types Age Groups Descent Code Gender New Used Flag Transaction Type date Dealer Id Gun Make Code Gun Type Model Name Ori Number Ori Number - Split 1 Sale Transaction Date (copy) Transaction Year Year (copy) Age Person Handgun Long & Short gun Total Long Gun"

And thats kind of a run on sentence. I figured if it was a CSV there would be commas. So what are the individual headers, for those that have the file and can read it? I'm guessing its something like this:
Year of Transaction
Gun Types
Age Groups
Descent Code
Gender
New
Used
Flag
Transaction Type
date
Dealer Id
Gun Make
Code
Gun Type
Model
Name
Ori Number
Ori Number - Split 1
Sale Transaction Date (copy)
Transaction Year Year (copy)
Age
Person
Handgun
Long & Short gun
Total Long Gun

I presume "Name" below "Model" is either associated with Model ie: "Model Name" or its a column for the name of the weapon, what I'm more curious about is the one that says "Person" below Age and above Handgun. Is this column populated with any data, even encrypted? Or is it just blank, or is it related to one of the other words and I dont have the headers correct?

TIA

[ugimports]

Originally Posted by ar15barrels

There are people here with copies of the files that can search for you in the files to see if you exist in the files.

If you have not been issued a CCW in CA from 2012 to 2021, you will not be in the file.
If you have been issued a CCW in that time period, private message me your last name, zip code and your year of birth and I'll tell you what I can find.

This is how my customers did it (calguns members)...

[TheSierraDrifter]

Originally Posted by ar15barrels

There are people here with copies of the files that can search for you in the files to see if you exist in the files.

If you have not been issued a CCW in CA from 2012 to 2021, you will not be in the file.
If you have been issued a CCW in that time period, private message me your last name, zip code and your year of birth and I'll tell you what I can find.

Thanks.

[TheSierraDrifter]

Originally Posted by ugimports

This is how my customers did it (calguns members)...

Thank you.

[7x57]

Originally Posted by ar15barrels

If you have not been issued a CCW in CA from 2012 to 2021, you will not be in the file.

I'm clearly behind on this story, but the CRPA writeup seemed to indicate that there were other databases besides CCW data: FSC, AW reg, DROS, and GVRO data. Or do those databases only hold information for people who are also CCW holders?

7x57

[madmax0]

Correct, those databases were out there as well. The CCW was the only one that had unencrypted names and addresses and thats why all the talk is about that list, because its easily read by all... but just because its not easily read doesnt mean law wasnt violated, at least the way the law actually reads.

[ar15barrels]

Originally Posted by 7x57

I'm clearly behind on this story, but the CRPA writeup seemed to indicate that there were other databases besides CCW data: FSC, AW reg, DROS, and GVRO data. Or do those databases only hold information for people who are also CCW holders?

Only the CCW database had names and addresses and birthdates that made them easy to associate entries to an identifiable person.

[WingDings]

CRPA Video Updates:
—NAOGR Class Action Lawsuit Abandoned
—CRPA Recommends Going To Their Website For A Government Claim Form (https://crpa.org/news/blogs/urgent-y...doj-data-leak/)
—12/20 Is The Deadline To File A Claim (*Note: Failure To Submit Claim By Deadline Means You Will Be Unable To Join Civil Suit vs Bonita And Sue For Damages)

[igs]

WTF now I'm getting spam text about CCW