Ventura County Star on CGF Lawsuit

[yakmon]

if i had a CCW and the sherrif had to release my ccw data, the only thing i'd want released was my good cause, no name, no address, no workplace address, no phone number, no email address, no nothing. it's my assumption ( yes i know what they say about assuming anything) that CGF knows this.

[Code7inOaktown]

I did the read the article. The names, occupations, etc. have been disclosed. CGF is asking for the good cause statements, agreeing to limited redactions.

Wildhawker, I understand your position. This is an unpleasant result of discretionary issue. The very unpleasantness of it may play into mandatory issue.

I understand CGF may not plan on publishing certain info. However any news agency can make a similar request and publish it.

The names of CCW holders have been published many times in the past by various publications. However, information is power. By keeping this information secret for "privacy" reasons, they can hide that only the sheriff's posse has a CCW or that Feinstein or Boxer have CCWs (just examples.) I strongly believe in the antiseptic nature of a bright light on public records. For example, voting records used to be fairly open. Today, it's difficult to access easily. You can see the advantage of this in places such as Chicago, where they would like the dead to vote and vote often.

[AndrewMendez]

if i had a CCW and the sherrif had to release my ccw data, the only thing i'd want released was my good cause, no name, no address, no workplace address, no phone number, no email address, no nothing. it's my assumption ( yes i know what they say about assuming anything) that CGF knows this.

If the County sent the CGF your personal information, it would be kept confidential. When they post everything online, they WILL NOT POST ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION!!

[gotgunz]

If the County sent the CGF your personal information, it would be kept confidential. When they post everything online, they WILL NOT POST ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION!!

What if I don't want them knowing?

Weather they keep it confidential is not the point... my personal info is none of their business.

[dantodd]

What if I don't want them knowing?

Weather they keep it confidential is not the point... my personal info is none of their business.

If you don't want them knowing then don't apply or sign any papers that say "THIS IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT and subject to disclosure"

[wildhawker]

What if I don't want them knowing?

Weather they keep it confidential is not the point... my personal info is none of their business.

It's not personal info at all. Anyone can investigate you and acquire the same information through other channels.

My response to a similar sentiment:

It is not our intention to "out" our own people. We do, however, fully intend to out those government officials who use illegal policies and discriminatory practices to separate the citizens in their jurisdictions from their fundamental, inalienable rights.

You said, "ALL of our personal info is none of your business". Your statement is summarily incorrect. I direct your attention to the very form all applicants are required to fill out and submit signed under penalty of perjury:

Public Disclosure Admonition

I understand that I am obligated to be complete and truthful in providing information on this application. I understand that all of the information disclosed by me in this application may be subject to public disclosure.

pp. 3

Section 8 – Certification and Release of Information

I hereby give permission to the agency to which this application is made to conduct a background investigation of me and to contact any person or agency who may add to or aid in this investigation.

I further authorize persons, firms, agencies and institutions listed on this application to release or confirm information about me and statements I have made as contained in this application.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law and pursuant to the Public Records Act (Government Code section 6250 et seq.), I understand that information contained in this application may be a matter of public record and shall be made available upon request or court order.

I hereby certify under penalties of perjury and Penal Code section 12051(b) and (c), that the answers I have given are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that I understand and agree to the provisions, conditions, and restrictions herein or otherwise imposed.

pp.14

More, excerpts from CBS, Inc. v. Block:

Implicit in the democratic process is the notion that government should be accountable for its actions. In order to verify accountability, individuals must have access to government files. Such access permits checks against the arbitrary exercise of official power and secrecy in the political process.

Disclosure statutes such as the PRA and the federal Freedom of Information Act were passed to ensure public access to vital information about the government's conduct of its business. If the press and the public are precluded from learning the names of concealed weapons' licensees and the reasons claimed in support of the licenses, there will be no method by which the public can ascertain whether the law is being properly applied or carried out in an evenhanded manner.

The trial court granted injunctive relief permitting access to most of the licenses. This relief is inadequate in light of the purpose for which the information was sought. Without the applications which accompany the licenses and which set forth the reasons why a license is necessary, the public cannot judge whether the sheriff has properly exercised his discretion in issuing the licenses.

As to the issue of law enforcement permits and disclosure, I direct your attention to Cal. Govt. Code Section 6254(u):

(1) Information contained in applications for licenses to
carry firearms issued pursuant to Section 12050 of the Penal Code by
the sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a municipal
police department that indicates when or where the applicant is
vulnerable to attack or that concerns the applicant's medical or
psychological history or that of members of his or her family.
(2) The home address and telephone number of peace officers,
judges, court commissioners, and magistrates that are set forth in
applications for licenses to carry firearms issued pursuant to
Section 12050 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 peace officers,
judges, court commissioners, and magistrates that are set forth in
licenses to carry firearms issued pursuant to Section 12050 of the
Penal Code by the sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a
municipal police department.

(emphasis added.)

I find it perplexing that you attack me and others with threat of a lawsuit but have no trouble with a similar investigatory action in a neighboring county. Your hypocrisy is as ugly as your entitled attitude.

One man's "unnecessary request" is another man's struggle for liberty. I fully support your right to protest the government's policy as relates to CCW permit disclosure under the Public Records Act. If you feel strongly about the issue, you might consider writing your elected Senator and Assemblymember and tell them to create a fair and equal "shall issue" system, and amend Cal. Govt. Code 6254(u) to fully exempt all permits and applications from the California Public Records Act.

Until then, as former Chief Justice Rose Bird so poignantly stated, "the degree of subjectivity involved in exercising the discretion cries out for public scrutiny".

-Brandon

Go after LA County. They're the one's not issuing any permits. I have a CCW in Ventura County. ALL of our personal info is none of your business. One of us is in law enforcement and this information is protected for a reason. If my family is put in jeopardy due to your aggressive non necessary request for this personal information, I will sue you personally and corporately. I respectfully ask you to drop the request for the personal information as reported in the Ventura County Star dated 10/20/10.

[the_quark]

if i had a CCW and the sherrif had to release my ccw data, the only thing i'd want released was my good cause, no name, no address, no workplace address, no phone number, no email address, no nothing. it's my assumption ( yes i know what they say about assuming anything) that CGF knows this.

You don't have to assume anything; we've explicitly said (including in that article) that we don't want that information, and if they gave it to us, we wouldn't release it without further redacting it.

[wash]

I was glad to see a fair coverage of this story in the Ventura County Star. It's a good article.

The comments seem to be heavily in our favor except for one CGF basher that brought up Gpal for no reason and a couple hoplophobes.

The hoplophobes think we are gun nuts. If they could have seen our group after Nordyke they would have been quite surprised. They have no idea who they are talking about.

[Glock22Fan]

I am not arguing for this, but if we did have addresses we can catch the sheriffs who issue CCW's to their good friends who reside outside the county. Yes, this does happen. Usually revoked the moment the Sheriff realizes Billy Jack (or anyone else, perhaps) has seen that application.

Obviously, addresses should be kept confidential and not generally published.

[N6ATF]

I was glad to see a fair coverage of this story in the Ventura County Star. It's a good article.

The comments seem to be heavily in our favor except for one CGF basher that brought up Gpal for no reason and a couple hoplophobes.

The hoplophobes think we are gun nuts. If they could have seen our group after Nordyke they would have been quite surprised. They have no idea who they are talking about.

Gun nuts don't sue. They become vice president and birdshot their friends in the face.

Victim disarmers only have libel and slander left...

[M. D. Van Norman]

I bet that Jim March is getting a kick out of all this.

[the_quark]

I am not arguing for this, but if we did have addresses we can catch the sheriffs who issue CCW's to their good friends who reside outside the county. Yes, this does happen. Usually revoked the moment the Sheriff realizes Billy Jack (or anyone else, perhaps) has seen that application.

Obviously, addresses should be kept confidential and not generally published.

Strictly speaking what we want here is ZIP codes, which (in California, anyway) will get us the county.

But, at the end of the day, I think that's less important to us right now than the good cause statements.

[Glock22Fan]

Strictly speaking what we want here is ZIP codes, which (in California, anyway) will get us the county.

But, at the end of the day, I think that's less important to us right now than the good cause statements.

You are right, and I agree with you on priorities.

[ocspeedracer]

Let's not violate other people's copyright, shall we? // Librarian

We're not allowed to quote news articles?

I cannot quote the text of an article on the Brady Bunch site?

I guess, but crazy. Maybe CGF should be challenging this. (Kinda kidding. CGF should only challenge quoting a news article in a case that affects their interests.)

anything posted for free on the interweb is not/ can not be copyrighted or enforced if someone else on the interweb re-publishes.

[Funtimes]

It would be VERY easy for Ventura Cty sheriff to provide properly redcated CCW records - with no association between name/address or specific biz and the actual 'good cause' reason for issuance.

A redacted good cause statement might end up as:

"Dr. Smith XXXXX travels between home at 1234 Main St, Northern Ventura
zip 98765 and his office at 123 First St in west Oxnard zip 98123 between 5pm
early evening and 1AM shortly after midnight Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays
three days per week.He has access to pharmaceuticals at clinic pharmacy including
Schedule II and III drugs such as Percocet and Oxycodone."

That offers a good enough profile in broad enough area to be nonspecific in terms of not increasing risk, and yet suitable for comparison with issuance (or lack thereof!) for others similarly situated.

That the sheriff is worried about safety exposure is laudable. That the sheriff would think a gun organization would publish details or risk CCWers safety is laughable and thus demonstrates his concerns are political only.

That the sheriff complains about budget is irrelevant. Public records are part of open government. Non-individually identifiable good cause statements can be masked sufficiently to avoid individual or subgroup identification; if that takes a bit of secretarial work, that's his dept's duty.

Man ****... do you know in Hawaii I get charged per half hour just for them looking for the documents, charged more for them redacting or editting. And charged for copies
I wonder if there is something wrong in the law that I get charged for all this.