Ventura County Star on CGF Lawsuit

[tango-52]

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

Really? Tell that to the law firm in Las Vegas that is suing bloggers over copyrights on newspaper articles. Even the Second Amendment Foundation has been named in one of those suits.

[racerguy180]

We're concerned about costing the taxpayers $14k redacting the info, so we are going to drop $200k to fight it.

HAHAHA

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"

Is it just me or is that common sense!!!!

[Librarian]

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

So, if Joe steals it from Bill, and I steal it from Joe, that makes it OK?

Joe retains whatever copyright he had before the theft; serial violations are not OK. But enforcement may, indeed be difficult.

The answer is: get permission first. I deleted a thread a month or so ago, and PM'd the poster; he DID get permission from the author, copy to me and in the repeat post.

[Kharn]

I followed Jim March's efforts sevevral years ago, I remember he was unable to obtain the good cause data because it was considered the investigator's notes. What has changed since then to allow this effort?

[Maestro Pistolero]

Another check-mark in the column for constitutional carry. There is no way I should have to sacrifice my privacy rights in order to exercise my 2A rights.

That said, there is no-one I would trust more with this info than Calguns, and I will be happy to see the suit win in short order.

[Rossi357]

That is BS about costing the taxpayers $14,000 for redacting information on the forms. The people who do it are already getting paid. They don't hire new people to do this.

[wildhawker]

I followed Jim March's efforts sevevral years ago, I remember he was unable to obtain the good cause data because it was considered the investigator's notes. What has changed since then to allow this effort?

and

[Glock22Fan]

and

Yes, Jim should have won. However he didn't have the cash, the backing or the organization to prevail. Now we have.

What happened after CBS v. Block was that sheriffs searched for a way to avoid revealing the Good Causes they had approved. They decided that if the Good Cause wasn't actually a part of the form but was instead orally conveyed to an officer who wrote it down, then it wasn't covered by PRAR's and CBS v. Block. In other words, a deliberate sneaky attempt to get around disclosure.

[BigDogatPlay]

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

Not true, at all.... just because they choose to publish it on the web does not open it to free and unfettered use. The body of statutory and case law is growing on it.

As example, a certain business unit of a certain newspaper in a certain large city in Nevada is making a ton of money by suing bloggers and chat sites for re-publication of material that the newspaper specifically claimed copyright of on it's "free" web site.

They launched at least a couple of cases just recently out of re-publication of copyrighted material of news stories of a certain incident that happened at a certain warehouse store in that certain city earlier this year.

[the_quark]

Wrong. There are ZIP codes that are split across county lines. It's not common, but it does happen.

One of the best ways to find out about this is to contact the nearest DMV office. Their computer system assigns the county (that they encode as a number between 1 and 58) based on a lookup table from the ZIP code. For those ZIP codes that are split between counties, DMV desk staff needs to hand-correct the default assignment. This makes a significant difference if the two counties have different sales tax rates (which can also happen with cities that have different sales taxes), or if the two counties are in different air quality district jurisdictions (meaning different smog check programs). For this reason, DMV staff tend to be (painfully?) aware of these ZIP codes.

Thanks for the correction. I know in some places a ZIP code doesn't definitively get you into a state. I'd thought in California it was cleaner, but I guess I was mistaken.

[bwiese]

Thanks for the correction. I know in some places a ZIP code doesn't definitively get you into a state. I'd thought in California it was cleaner, but I guess I was mistaken.

Nevertheless, these situations are likely 'outliers' anyway...

The preponderance of issuance will most likely not be on 'crossover' zipcodes, and the troublesome issuing variances (issuance vs denial) will likely fall on these zips either.

We may also luck out if there's ZIP+4...

[wash]

I could care less if there is zip+4 or anything else, I just want to find the good cause statements that work.

[Havoc70]

I'm guessing since the applicant now fills out section 7 (the Investigator's notes), it should be subject to disclosure, yes?

[wildhawker]

I'm guessing since the applicant now fills out section 7 (the Investigator's notes), it should be subject to disclosure, yes?

It is subject to disclosure, with some limited exceptions for specific types of data. The new standard application form itself was created and applied in a manner the law enforcement community (DOJ, Sheriffs, Chiefs of Police) thought would function as a work-around to the CPRA and APA.

[IGOTDIRT4U]

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"

Beat me to it.