5 ms·

New CA law allows to pull identifying info of gun owners from state registry

59 points by andyxor 5y ago

Mountain_Skies 5y ago
It's rather lengthy and contains lots of repeated verbiage but I didn't see anywhere in it penalties for unauthorized access or leaking of the PII collected. It lists the purpose for collecting the data, what they intend to use it for, and states it cannot be used for purposes other than those listed in the bill but without consequences for violating those provisions, there's little reason for the organizations who are given access to this data to treat it with respect and secure it appropriately.
- CodeWriter23 5y ago
  On the contrary, this law is entirely about leaking such information to select NGO’s.
- loeg 5y ago
  Why shouldn't it be public record, like voter registration and property records?
  - chroem- 5y ago
    Voting history is explicitly not public record because it would lead to voter intimidation. This is the same reason why people are concerned about this legislation.
    - loeg 5y ago
      It is public record which elections you voted in -- not who you voted for. E.g., http://www.soundpolitics.com/voterlookup.html http://www.soundpolitics.com/voterlookup.html
  - donw 5y ago
    Why do you not have your full name, home address, phone number, and political affiliations in your HN profile? Privacy matters. For everybody. Yes, even the people you hate.
  - david38 5y ago
    For one, voter registration doesn’t encourage theft. Knowing the location of light portable weapons you can commit crimes with is bad.
YeBanKo 5y ago
One more way PII can be leaked, now enriched with another piece of data: gun ownership. Yet, it’s going to cause zero reduction in gun violence and illegal firearm possessions. So it penalizes legal gun ownership.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  Worse, it will actually entice people to consider owning 'undocumented' gun.
- irl_chad 5y ago
  I wonder if ‘home_has_gun’ will be a useful feature in an ML model lmfao
- bitcuration 5y ago
  If facebook and pornhub can leak pii, rest assure this will be leaked. Every neighbor and your friends, colleague, employer and gangsters would be eager to find out who has gun at home. What will happen next will be a no-brainer. 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?
Justin_K 5y ago
This is exactly what gun rights advocates have been saying would come, should owners have to register with the state. All this is going to do is punish and put law abiding citizens at risk. I'm sure politicians will be exempt from having their data shared.
- subhro 5y ago
  Genuinely curious, what do you contemplate/would law abiding citizens be punished for and what is the risk?
  - chroem- 5y ago
    We are witnessing the circulation of mass shame lists designed to deprive people of their livelihood. Whether or not you agree that the people on these lists deserve to be hurt for their political opinions, many innocent people are also being caught in the crossfire. This legislation will have a similar effect.
    - Shacklz 5y ago
      > Whether or not you agree that the people on these lists deserve to be hurt for their political opinions, many innocent people are also being caught in the crossfire. 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?
      - chroem- 5y ago
        The vast majority of firearms that are used in crimes are obtained illegally, and thus will not be subject to these lists. The data on this is widely available. This legislation is purely a punitive political measure.
jimmckin1 5y ago
But who is watching Ca.gov?
paxys 5y ago
I'm sure this info will never be used for any nefarious purpose..
setpatchaddress 5y ago
Any actual lawyer want to confirm exactly what this law does? I read the text and I’m actually not sure, and one shouldn’t as a rule trust the submitter’s title as a summary on a politically-loaded topic without verification. In particular, when is this information collected and by whom?
- healsdata 5y ago
  The assembly's analysis seems to provide the TL;DR: 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 requests
- Kliment 5y ago
  I am not a lawyer, but here's my summary: 1. 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.
ajay-b 5y ago
So before committing a crime against someone, you can check to see if they have a gun?

59 points by andyxor 5y ago

It's rather lengthy and contains lots of repeated verbiage but I didn't see anywhere in it penalties for unauthorized access or leaking of the PII collected. It lists the purpose for collecting the data, what they intend to use it for, and states it cannot be used for purposes other than those listed in the bill but without consequences for violating those provisions, there's little reason for the organizations who are given access to this data to treat it with respect and secure it appropriately.

CodeWriter23 5y ago
On the contrary, this law is entirely about leaking such information to select NGO’s.
loeg 5y ago
Why shouldn't it be public record, like voter registration and property records?
- chroem- 5y ago
  Voting history is explicitly not public record because it would lead to voter intimidation. This is the same reason why people are concerned about this legislation.
  - loeg 5y ago
    It is public record which elections you voted in -- not who you voted for. E.g., http://www.soundpolitics.com/voterlookup.html http://www.soundpolitics.com/voterlookup.html
- donw 5y ago
  Why do you not have your full name, home address, phone number, and political affiliations in your HN profile? Privacy matters. For everybody. Yes, even the people you hate.
- david38 5y ago
  For one, voter registration doesn’t encourage theft. Knowing the location of light portable weapons you can commit crimes with is bad.

YeBanKo 5y ago

One more way PII can be leaked, now enriched with another piece of data: gun ownership. Yet, it’s going to cause zero reduction in gun violence and illegal firearm possessions. So it penalizes legal gun ownership.

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
Worse, it will actually entice people to consider owning 'undocumented' gun.
irl_chad 5y ago
I wonder if ‘home_has_gun’ will be a useful feature in an ML model lmfao
bitcuration 5y ago
If facebook and pornhub can leak pii, rest assure this will be leaked. Every neighbor and your friends, colleague, employer and gangsters would be eager to find out who has gun at home. What will happen next will be a no-brainer. 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?

Justin_K 5y ago

This is exactly what gun rights advocates have been saying would come, should owners have to register with the state. All this is going to do is punish and put law abiding citizens at risk. I'm sure politicians will be exempt from having their data shared.

subhro 5y ago
Genuinely curious, what do you contemplate/would law abiding citizens be punished for and what is the risk?
- chroem- 5y ago
  We are witnessing the circulation of mass shame lists designed to deprive people of their livelihood. Whether or not you agree that the people on these lists deserve to be hurt for their political opinions, many innocent people are also being caught in the crossfire. This legislation will have a similar effect.
  - Shacklz 5y ago
    > Whether or not you agree that the people on these lists deserve to be hurt for their political opinions, many innocent people are also being caught in the crossfire. 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?
    - chroem- 5y ago
      The vast majority of firearms that are used in crimes are obtained illegally, and thus will not be subject to these lists. The data on this is widely available. This legislation is purely a punitive political measure.

jimmckin1 5y ago

But who is watching Ca.gov?

paxys 5y ago

I'm sure this info will never be used for any nefarious purpose..

setpatchaddress 5y ago

Any actual lawyer want to confirm exactly what this law does? I read the text and I’m actually not sure, and one shouldn’t as a rule trust the submitter’s title as a summary on a politically-loaded topic without verification. In particular, when is this information collected and by whom?

healsdata 5y ago
The assembly's analysis seems to provide the TL;DR: 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 requests
Kliment 5y ago
I am not a lawyer, but here's my summary: 1. 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.

ajay-b 5y ago

So before committing a crime against someone, you can check to see if they have a gun?