Attorney General Bonta Releases Name, DOB, and Address of CCW Holders
oag.ca.gov
oag.ca.gov
Consider an absurd second order effect where, if it's true that you're less likely to be robbed by being on this register, it encourages more people to buy guns, even if it means they don't have to use them.
This seems intended just to shame and intimidate lawful gun owners (in response to the SCOTUS ruling?).
[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-28/man-set-alight-guns-s...
Guns may be “easy to liquidate” (not sure if that’s actually the case) but surely selling Xboxes and MacBooks on eBay is just as profitable?
I’ve had a house burgled, two cars broken into, and know several victims of violent crime and still can’t relate even a little bit to the anxiety expressed here or the idea that any of those encounters would have turned out better with an extra gun around.
I don’t mean to challenge your point of view, just to note how huge the divide is between how people fundamentally conceive of this stuff.
Most Americans can't wrap their heads around the possibility that they're being burgled by someone who
a) is in need of cash b) is not interested in killing, torturing, raping or maiming the victim c) would ideally like to get in and out for a quick financial win
Where I live (Australia) our burglary rate is 5x greater per capita than America. And yet our "murdered by burglar rate" is effectively nil, much like it is in the states. But there are scores of yanks that will talk about their need to have a firearm for home defence to ensure their family isn't murdered by someone who's most likely looking for a bit of cash for a drug fix.
When a person, or persons, decide to break the social contract, there's no telling to what degree they will exceed the boundaries of the law.
A criminal has already demonstrated that they are unwilling to be bound by the rules of civil society.
Are you willing to bet your children's life that their criminal behavior will be limited to that which you deem to be a nuisance, rather than your families' lives?
I'm not.
Which ofc is why I have an intense fear of jaywalkers.
> When a person, or persons, decide to break the social contract, there's no telling to what degree they will exceed the boundaries of the law.
I disagree. if the above was true the mailbox baseball (remember, a federal offense) to mass murderer pipeline would be much better documented. Also, the vast majority of burglars are non-violent offenders, not blood thirsty home invading rapists.
> A criminal has already demonstrated that they are unwilling to be bound by the rules of civil society.
I think it's more that they're willing to bend the rules of civil society to meet a personal want or need, and they would most likely evaluate that as a risk/reward proposition like any other person does when entering into a risky activity.
>Are you willing to bet your children's life that their criminal behavior will be limited to that which you deem to be a nuisance, rather than your families' lives?
>I'm not.
Interestingly this is the exact conclusion that was presented to me the last time I had this discussion. And my response is the same now as it was then.
Statistically speaking you are much more likely to have a family member die from that firearm in your home you claim is there for protection when compared to the threat of the hypothetical burglar you are protecting your family against.
I think this depends a lot of where you are.
Most of the statistics I've seen has fairly overwhelming support for preventative effects of being armed.
Also, handguns are one of the most powerful forces for equality we've had in modern history.
A smaller woman or man is no longer dependent on a stronger person for defense. Guns are a great equalizer.
As Heinlein said, "An armed society is a polite society".
Approximately 10k homicides with firearms in 2019: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
In 2019, there were 28 live shooter incidents with 12 meeting the definition of “mass shooting.” In total, active shooters claimed 247 lives that year: https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents...
Compare that with this report from the Obama administration: http://nap.edu/18319
Annually, firearms in America are used in self defense between 500k and 3M times (real page 26, labeled as 15). Taking these numbers as true, the rate firearms are used in self defense vs. homicide is between 50x and 300x. Americans are substantially more likely to defend themselves with a firearm than to be unlawfully killed by one. They are substantially more likely to defend themselves with a firearm than to be killed in a mass shooting.
[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2012/12/26/168075748...
Original was 'Attorney General Bonta Releases New Firearms Data to Increase Transparency and Information Sharing'. They absolutely leaked data by failing to secure it properly via tableau, but the headline as written here implies that this was done deliberately. I looked at it last night, you wouldn't have known about it unless you were digging through the page source looking for ways to scrape it.
Negligent at best, possibly deliberate at worst. But that doesn't justify the false impression created by this headline.
Bonta is ultimately responsible as he's head of the AG's office, but the not-unreasonable premise of the page was just publishing longitudinal statistical data. Unless litigation reveals he asked the front-end devs to make it happen, it's negligent rather than deliberate.
and also apparently anyone who had simply applied
In hindsight I am glad I took the path I did. Things are getting weird(er). Politics are really starting to impact citizens in ways I had not imagined would happen in my lifetime. Surely these events are eroding what little trust and confidence people have in their governments? I am seeing too many "Ooops did I leak that?" events and blaming cloud configuration errors. It's a broken record at this point and I am not buying it.
When they go low, we go lower, baby!
This is consistent with how FOIA and CCW laws interact in most states. For example, here's NY's explanation of how SAFE and FOIL interact[1].
[1]: https://safeact.ny.gov/protect-your-privacy-foil-exemption
Their state counterparts are explicitly excluded. Why? Because there's no obvious public interest in them. This is in contrast to firearms, where I have a public interest in knowing whether my neighbor has the ability to shoot me the next time I make a complaint about him.
If the number of shootings where a CCW holder has shot a neighbor over a complaint is substantially smaller than the number of cases where a CCW holder has not shot a neighbor over a complaint, doesn't this just serve to make holding a CCW intimidating in a way that most CCW holders neither want nor need? Most directly relevant to your public interest argument, is the rate of people shooting neighbors over a complaint substantially higher among CCW-permit holders than non-CCW-permit holders?
Is the claim you're making that 1.7 million CCW permit holders have shot another neighbor over a dispute?
The first result I got from your search query was this
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-tehama-county-shoo... (archive https://web.archive.org/web/20210718215711/https://www.latim...)
> Neal fired eight rounds into a Ford F-250 occupied by a mother and her son who were headed to school. The boy suffered non-life-threatening wounds, but the mother was seriously injured, Johnston said. The mother, who had a concealed carry permit, pulled out her own handgun but was unable to fire it before Neal drove away, Johnston said.
CCW permits are neither of these: you opt into them, and they reflect no amount of privation while being entirely in the public interest.
See above for the public interest: people engage and escalate disputes all the time, believing that the other party is unwilling or at least incapable of conveniently murdering them. CCWs change that calculus; it's in my best interest as a member of the public to know whether my neighbor might murder me rather than merely being angry at a dispute.
If you are pretending you want constitutional open carry, we’ll, that’s pretty funny I suppose. Because you definitely don’t.
Scalia is extremely explicit about this in District of Columbia v. Heller[1]:
> Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.
[1]: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290...
Carrying is not brandishing. Hot take there!
Did you really just try and cherry pick Heller vs DC to pretend carry is not protected? Read the words you posted...
prohibitions have been upheld.
And the hilarious next sentence Scialia uses that restores the context to tried to omit:
The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire-arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Yes, a state can prohibit for felons, mentally ill, etc. If you stopped reading the rest of the opinion, and didn't go on to read McDonald v Chicago 2010, this still implies that a state will allow concealed carry for law abiding citizens.
The two options are:
1. You are hard-line and wrong, where all the states with concealed carry now including CA, HI, NJ, MD that will issue permits are respecting civil rights.
2. Everyone has it wrong but you!, in which case, this is surely frustrating.
Either way... Concealed carry exists and shall-issue is now the minimum law of the land. More states going to constitutional carry every year.
Turns out your desire convince people using frantic posts and omissions doesn't actually change anything. Crazy huh?
EDIT: Here is a cool gif that shows states over time. It'll now need to be updated to remove all the may-issue states.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Right_to...
Here are two points I've made, both of which I think are defensible:
* SCOTUS has repeatedly recognized that the Second Amendment does not reflect an absolute right to either own or employ guns however individuals would like. In particular, SCOTUS has recognized that both the states and the Federal Government have rightfully and reasonably regulated concealed firearms, and that there is no constitutional threat to such regulation as long as it does not constitute prohibition. The Federal precedent for such regulation goes back to 1897 and is not meaningfully adapted by either McDonald 2010 or Bruen 2022 (which both preserve "shall issue," like you've mentioned).
* There is a reasonable public interest in knowing who receives a CCW permit, one that is not impeded by the current "shall issue" standard. That public interest complements the current privacy standards under most states' FOIA/FOIL-style laws. You can see above and adjacent comment threads for why I think this is.
People engage and escalate disputes all the time, believing that the other party is unwilling or at least incapable of conveniently murdering them. Cars change that calculus; it's in my best interest as a member of the public to know whether my neighbor might murder me rather than merely being angry at a dispute.
1. Criminals can see which houses to avoid burglarizing.
2. Criminals can see where to find weapons to steal when owners are away.
3. Stalkers can easily find their victims home who may be carrying for self defense.
4. Will the addresses of every police officer be published too? They carry a gun at all times, even off duty in most cases.
Is the reddit thread.
Jokes aside, this is inexcusable. There is no safety claim here, just revenge and fear for anyone that would dare to apply.
According to the site before it went down, SF had 11 permits issued. Next year it will be in the hundreds. The AG will try to deny as many as possible, but it’s over, may issue is dead.
This is clearly vindictive, just as much as the sex offender registry is 90%+ vindictive.