Ventura County Star on CGF Lawsuit

[the_quark]

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/oct/20/gun-group-sues-ventura-county-sheriff-to-obtain/

Be interesting to see if they're really planning on fighting...

[Havoc70]

Brooks sounds like he is, stating that releasing the good cause statements could put applicants privacy at risk. The comments thus far are positive for CGF, though.

[RRangel]

The Sheriff is doing exactly what past sheriffs and chiefs have done. That is to claim that the pertinent data is exempt. How convenient. These people know how close they are to losing.

[Shotgun Man]

the text:

[LEFT]

Read more: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/oct/...#ixzz12x0GiOlg

- vcstar.com

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

I know I wouldn't want my info released. While I realize why it is being done, I cannot get behind this case. I think all this info should be private.

[N6ATF]

Read the article you just quoted. Everything other than good cause will be kept private. Once again, the government is trying to scare people with lies.

[wildhawker]

Shotgun, we do, too. We're not publishing names, only the redacted statements. The Sheriff's arguments are specious and simply a tactic to avoid their obligations under established law.

I would love to see CCW info totally exempt - *after* the licensing authorities' discretion is removed (e.g. Sykes).

[Shotgun Man]

Read the article you just quoted. Everything other than good cause will be kept private. Once again, the government is trying to scare people with lies.

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.

[Gray Peterson]

the text:


I know I wouldn't want my info released. While I realize why it is being done, I cannot get behind this case. I think all this info should be private.

The application itself states that the information is public record. People's names will not be posted in terms of good cause in the carry project.

[N6ATF]

However any news agency can make a similar request and publish it.

Some have in the past, some will in the future, they established the legal precedent after all.

Past and future news agency abuse is no reason to not support CGF's proper case.

[wildhawker]

Shotgun,

Yes, some newspapers have done just that (IIRC Sacramento Bee not too long ago). We sincerely hope that the legislature will address these deficiencies and create a uniform shall-issue system which fully respects the privacy of applicants and license-holders very soon. Even better would be for the state to take on that responsibility and unburden the 500+ political subdivisions with the authority or obligation to administer the CCW program. I think our initiative will cause some very candid conversations among the licensing authorities and California officials to occur. Until they make it right, we'll be happy to make their actions (painfully) public and available for public scrutiny.

[bwiese]

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.

[Kharn]

the text:
I know I wouldn't want my info released. While I realize why it is being done, I cannot get behind this case. I think all this info should be private.

You don't want stuff like this released after being redacted?
"Personal protection" (the jackpot)
"Carrying diamonds between airport and my store at _______ ______ __"
"A previous boyfriend, _____ ______, who I have a restraining order against lives within 2 miles of my house"
"I am a reserve police officer"
"I own ______'s Gun Store"
etc

I would love to get my hands on that information for Maryland, its the meat of equal protection lawsuits and big court victories. Once you show one person filled in the entire good clause section of the form with just the two words 'personal protection' the sheriff MUST issue to anyone else that writes those same words.

[HowardW56]

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.

CBS has.... see CBS Inc. v. Block 42 Cal.3d 646, 725 P.2d 470, 230 Cal.Rptr. 362 (1986)

This is the California Supreme Court case that says the information is PUBLIC RECORD... It's ok to redact the names and addresses...

The sheriff doesn't get to ignore case law, just because he doesn't like it.

[the_quark]

The sheriff doesn't get to ignore case law, just because he doesn't like it.

And you'd think a law enforcement officer, of all people, would understand that.

[HowardW56]

And you'd think a law enforcement officer, of all people, would understand that.

It doesn't apply to them, just ask them.....