Letter From Attorney General / LAPD Regarding Recent Purchase

[SirGlockALott]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The city attorney should not have your information if you have not committed a crime and have your name and info on a list to send you out a letter and what do they do with that list after the letters are sent out, hummm?

I am sure the letter could also be used later in prosecutions for negligent storage of a firearm, negligent discharge of a firearm, ETC., because they can now say you new better, we sent you out a letter.

I am sure that there are some civil rights violations being committed by the City of Los Angeles, DOJ, State, LAPD, ETC.. This is a scare tactic, straight out intimidation. Send that letter back. Do not open it and write below the return address: Return to sender.

[Dutch3]

There is a bill in the current session, AB 1020, that would expand the letter program statewide. Authors are Bonta and Skinner.

Currently, the bill appears to be dormant, sitting in ASM Appropriations.

[SirGlockALott]

Super!

[SirGlockALott]

More tax payers money going to waste!

[TacFan]

i get these all the time. they go right to the shredder. I waste less time than they do on it.

[lastinline]

Can this be some type of legal violation that could subject DOJ to monetary damages? My thought leans to a release of confidential information, a severe violations of a persons privacy, etc. Any of our more legal-savy members wish to comment?
My goal would be to inflict costs on both L.A. City and DOJ. The more we can cause them to be forced to spend the better.

[mopeddog]

I got that letter the two times I bought a gun in Orange County but never for the guns I buy in LA county. I keep a copy in my car and show it to friends who are thinking about buying a gun and tell them it is meaningless to them.

[CWDraco]

This is the first in Cali that I'm hearing of

So basically registration is already being abused

So lets send letters to people that dros guns reminding them that they should dros guns..wtf

has been since 1994... before that I wouldnt know...I was Military overseas and not in the loop.

[Untamed1972]

This letter is extremely lame, and provides no meaningful new information to responsible gun owners. All it does is make law-abiding gun purchasers feel like borderline criminals for exercising their constitutional rights. To the extent that this is by design, this really is a form of intentional harassment. I have no doubt that another intent of this letter is to have on record the fact that it was sent, so that it can be introduced later in a criminal prosecution to show that the gun owner was "on notice," and was thus "willful and intentional" rather than merely "negligent or reckless" should he or she run afoul of the laws related to otherwise legal, constitutionally-protected gun ownership. Doesn't L.A. have any real crime to focus its limited resources on at this time?

Unless the letter was sent registered mail and a signature required for pick-up or was hand delivered by a process server.....good luck getting it introduced as evidence.

[wildhawker]

The bill AB 1020 is dead in approps.

The letters are being investigated. It's possible the city has the DOJ mail them in order to not share the purchaser data.

-BC

[Untamed1972]

Can this be some type of legal violation that could subject DOJ to monetary damages? My thought leans to a release of confidential information, a severe violations of a persons privacy, etc. Any of our more legal-savy members wish to comment?
My goal would be to inflict costs on both L.A. City and DOJ. The more we can cause them to be forced to spend the better.

You purchased a gun and filled out paperwork, knowing that info would be input into a Gov't database which is accessible to Gov't LE/Court agencies. So the info wasn't "released" to anyone who does not already legally have access to it. Same goes with the privacy issue.

At best, depending on how the law is written, they may be violating some aspect of the law by using the database for purposes other than those connected to a legitimate criminal investigation. Just like a LEO can't just sit there and run names of famous people or some chick he is interested in for the hell of it.

[smith629]

I wonder what response, if any, one might receive by drafting a letter warning them of their responsibilities to support and defend the Constitution (second amendment inclusive) and the consequences of civil litigation should they overstep their authority.

If I get one of these from my county I'll certainly do this.

[USMCM16A2]

Letter from **** Face Feuer.

Folks,



I get these all the time, either "Return to Sender" or **** canned. Feuer can blow it out his Borat looking Communist, twinkle toed, coook zucker ***. A2

[bobbodaggit]

Umm, how about a suit under 42 U.S.C Section 1983, for 1st Amendment retaliation for the chilling effect of exercising your Second Amendment rights in buying a handgun - and throw in the Bane Act for grins, any takers?

[Dutch3]

You purchased a gun and filled out paperwork, knowing that info would be input into a Gov't database which is accessible to Gov't LE/Court agencies. So the info wasn't "released" to anyone who does not already legally have access to it. Same goes with the privacy issue.

I fill out the forms, knowing my information is going to provided to my FFL, BATFE and CA DOJ for the purpose of purchasing a firearm. Nothing else. Nowhere do I see anything indicating the information is also going to be provided to my local municipality within 48 hours, nor am I authorizing such a disclosure.

Yes, I realize the information may be requested and obtained by law enforcement within the scope of a criminal investigation, but purchasing a firearm is not a crime.

Sending intimidating letters with covertly obtained information should be a crime and probably is.