CA DOJ OAG "CCW"/LTC Statistics... GONE!

[Paladin]

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/statistics.php

I used "CCW" since that is the abbreviation the OAG uses. See:

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/faq.php

I guess they didn't get the memo from Gene yet....

[wildhawker]

Yep.

New data is coming. I wonder why?

-Brandon

P.S. I have it already. It will be published at CGF soon.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/statistics.php



I used "CCW" since that is the abbreviation the OAG uses. See:

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/faq.php

I guess they didn't get the memo from Gene yet....

[Librarian]

Well, geez, that's disappointing.

Use their web form at http://ag.ca.gov/contact/complaint_form.php?cmplt=PL to ask for it.

I just did. Perhaps a few polite requests might get it restored. Or, maybe reading all the requests will reduce the time for other mischief.

ETA ... or, not.

But do be aware that DOJ will often answer fairly straightforward information requests. Their contact methods via the web have changed over the years, but there always is some way.

I guess I write them about twice a year. Sometimes I get little packages of info, sometimes I get a phone call in return. Occasionally, no response at all.

[wildhawker]

PLEASE DON'T DO THIS. New data is forthcoming.

-BC

Well, geez, that's disappointing.

Use their web form at http://ag.ca.gov/contact/complaint_form.php?cmplt=PL to ask for it.

I just did. Perhaps a few polite requests might get it restored. Or, maybe reading all the requests will reduce the time for other mischief.

[Connor P Price]

Come on Librarian... such the trouble maker.

[Librarian]

Come on Librarian... such the trouble maker.

Oh, DOJ usually gives me what I ask for; I'm so reasonable about it.

But if it's already coming up (I didn't see Brandon's post before I went to the website), there's no use in being overly enthusiastic.

[wildhawker]

I want to note that my concern isn't about Librarian's single request, but for burdening the staff with unnecessary requests. DOJ is facing budget cuts and reduced staff; however, their obligation to respond to records requests survives such conditions. Their upper-level attorneys and managers are truly good and competent people and the last thing we need or want to do is add to their plate and take away from time they could be working on issues for us.

-Brandon

[Connor P Price]

I apologize if my above comment was received as anything other than an innocent joke. Just having some fun.

[Librarian]

I apologize if my above comment was received as anything other than an innocent joke. Just having some fun.

Good heavens, Connor! I never thought anything else. No apology needed. If that came across as grumpy it is I who should apologize for poor choice of words.

[Paladin]

Yep.

New data is coming. I wonder why?

-Brandon

P.S. I have it already. It will be published at CGF soon.

If it shows a significant increase in LTCs/CCWs, I hope the anti MSM (local, if not national) picks up on it. Why? Because I truly believe that even anti coverage of this story will get more people to apply. Many gunnies in CA don't even know that CA is May Issue. Plus, w/the release of -- what is it, hundreds of thousands (?) -- prisoners in CA about to happen and cut backs in LEOs, even many on the fence re the RKBA will consider it. That will make the figures even "worse" (in the antis' minds), for next year, making for another news story then -- this could snowball! By then, assuming Obama doesn't replace 1 of the Heller 5 w/an anti, we should have Shall Issue and have entered the Promised Land (a land where we have the RKBA promised to us by the Founders of this nation), so the numbers of LTCers will really take off after that.

Their upper-level attorneys and managers are truly good and competent people and the last thing we need or want to do is add to their plate and take away from time they could be working on issues for us.

[HowardW56]

Connor & Librarian both are so insulting to the other members and are major troublemakers here...

Come on Librarian... such the trouble maker.

Oh, DOJ usually gives me what I ask for; I'm so reasonable about it.

But if it's already coming up (I didn't see Brandon's post before I went to the website), there's no use in being overly enthusiastic.

I apologize if my above comment was received as anything other than an innocent joke. Just having some fun.

Good heavens, Connor! I never thought anything else. No apology needed. If that came across as grumpy it is I who should apologize for poor choice of words.

[Flopper]

Yep.

New data is coming. I wonder why?

-Brandon

P.S. I have it already. It will be published at CGF soon.

[Tripper]

Well, since the congressman said the other day (in reference to release of the criminals)
semi-quoting from memory, the link isnt handy
"Now is the time to get a dog, and alarm and a gun"
not necessarily in that order
seems that would rack up the stats

[CCWFacts]

But do be aware that DOJ will often answer fairly straightforward information requests.

Yes, me too. They were very helpful when I requested the 1974 Informal Letter CCW opinion. The BoF was very helpful with getting me a copy of AW registration papers.

PLEASE DON'T DO THIS. New data isare forthcoming.

Looking forward to seeing the new improved numbers!

[Crom]

Well, geez, that's disappointing.
...
But do be aware that DOJ will often answer fairly straightforward information requests...

I was rather amused in that the last inquiry to the DOJ I had resulted in a return phone call and through the course of our conversation the DOJ rep. recommended that in the future I find "CalGuns" on the internet and ask them first because they know what they are talking about and it would be faster.