New CA law allows to pull identifying info of gun owners from state registry
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Privacy matters. For everybody. Yes, even the people you hate.
Not sure if your choice of words is very unfortunate or if there's a sarcastic undertone; because in the US there seem to be way too many innocent people that are caught in the literal crossfire of gun violence. Finding ways to address this with legislation seems, from my non-American point of view, only reasonable - and yes, of course it will also affect and limit people that did not contribute to gun violence; what would your solution be, enforcing it only for people who already committed a crime, so essentially when it's too late to inconvenience them?
I have since left California and moved to a state where everyone is heavily armed. Now my rifles are pea-shooters in comparison to what everyone else around me has. Firearm crime is a very rare occurrence here.
Delaware (10) 93 973,764 9.6
Iowa (19) 294 3,155,070 9.3
Minnesota (27) 465 5,639,632 8.2
California (06) 2,945 39,512,223 7.5
Connecticut (09) 190 3,565,287 5.3
Rhode Island (44) 48 1,059,361 4.5
Hawaii (15) 62 1,415,872 4.4
New Jersey (34) 368 8,882,190 4.1
New York (36) 804 19,453,561 4.1
Massachusetts (25) 247 6,892,503 3.6
Including only homicide, california is 3.19 per 100k and my state is 2.51 per 100k. Sadly I can't get it to drill down to my county. They also do not include justifiable homicide as a data point.
I am not going to be able to get the exact same figure as you since the way the search form is set up it is pretty easy to get slightly different numbers. But the only state from the last 3 years of data that would seem to fit your comment is Minnesota. Obviously if you move away from some of the largest metropolitan areas in the US crime rate goes down. But that does not even matter. California still falls in the bottom 8 states despite having several large, difficult metro areas, and the highest percentage of its population living in urban areas of any state, at 95%. In contrast, Minnesota is at 17th, with 73.3%.
Sex offenders, by definition, have committed a crime. So that's not really a pre-crime list. Although, sure, some people may not belong on those lists, and it's pretty life-ruining for them.
Your point reads a bit like this: "These injustices exist that you should be against, so why are you supportive of them?"
No fly list in particular is an abomination. That said, given that Delta is creating a its own version ( and asking other cartel members to join ), soon we may be revisiting this conversation.
It's like seatbelt-laws, yes, they infringe your personal liberty to do however you pleases, but they also generally help to reduce accidents and, implicitly, reduce cost for society (and not just in terms of money).
Again; from my outsider-point-of-view, that the US even has to have these kinds of discussions seems so weird to me. There are way too many people dying in the US because of the absurd amount of guns, not trying to address this with legislation (as every other advanced nation managed to do) seems outright absurd.
I was going to write a statement saying "I hope they sue and the state of CA is held liable for damages" but then the gravity of that sentence hit me. Why do private citizens wanting to simply enjoy a constitutional right have to go to such lengths to do so?
What even if they win the suit? The information is out there legally right now and any one who wishes to use that information to target or harass law abiding citizens is going to be free to do so.
Privacy is an important right for good reasons.
I don’t own a gun and tend to dislike them. But I work with perfectly fine, sane and normal people who do own guns, and shouldn’t have to be subjected to the judgments of the crowds, just as much as I’ve worked with perfectly fine, sane and normal LGBTQ+ who shouldn’t be subject to the judgments of the crowds.
But his comparison in the context of the fundamental human right to privacy is valid. You have a right to not publish a list of what you own, and you also have a right to not publicly declare your sexuality.
Sex acts being a choice or not is irrelevant.
Why human lose memory after merely two generations every single time in the history?
I'm making a guess here that the gun control advocates come in 2 flavours:
1) People who are scared of being shot, and prioritise that fear highly.
2) People who are committed to maintaining the status quo, and don't want there to be even a hypothetical potential for meaningful opposition to the police (such people, though relatively rare, are common in government).
I doubt either of those groups cares about the arguments being made by gun advocates, so I'm not sure what difference it would make if the gun advocates were right about everything.
But that might just by design, shame and penalize those oppressed. End game will be nobody dare to legally own a gun, just like in mexico today, a gun "free" country. How did that work out?
In particular, when is this information collected and by whom?
Clarifie the process and parameters of disclosure of specified information to the California Firearm Violence Research Center at UC Davis by the Department of Justice (DOJ) for research or statistical activities. The DOJ may at its discretion, also disclose specified information, to other nonprofit bona fide research institutions that are accredited by the United State Department of Education or the Council for Higher Education Accreditation for the study of violence prevention in the matter prescribed. Requires that any material identifying individuals to only be used for research and statistical purposes and prohibits reports or publications derived from the material from identifying any specific individuals. Requires DOJ to establish procedures for these requests and allows researchers to be charged reasonable fees related to their requests1. There's going to be a California-state-government-run list of gun owners. People who buy a gun or have it transferred to them get added to it. Not reporting a transfer is a crime.
2. When someone gets a restraining order against someone else, they can request information on whether said person is on the list and which/how many weapons they have. They are then allowed to use that information as they like. Law enforcement will be able to check whether someone is on the list.
3. There will be a second list of people ineligible to own a gun for various reasons. These are primarily the people who the state expects to fail a background check (which is required for purchase as I understand it). Anyone selling or transferring a gun will have to ask the registry whether the person they are transferring to is on the blocklist. Not doing so is a crime.
4. There will be a third list, which is the correlation of people who are on the first list and on the second list. This is a list of people who have firearms but would not be allowed to acquire firearms now. This list can be shared with universities and "bona fide research institutions".
As someone who lives in a place where gun ownership is not normal or tolerated for the most part, this is all really weird to me, so I'm not able to evaluate the significance of it, but this is what it says.