7 ms·

> The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LACSD) committed wholesale abuse of sensitive criminal justice databases in 2023, violating a specific rule again

by rdtsc 2y ago

> The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LACSD) committed wholesale abuse of sensitive criminal justice databases in 2023, violating a specific rule against searching the data to run background checks for concealed carry firearm permits So for the concealed carry there is a background check involved, but it has to be done in a certain way, and the police instead were being more "thorough" and were digging through more databases than they were supposed to? I guess they do have access to those databases, but are only supposed to check them if they suspect a crime was committed. What's the personal motivation there? It seems like they were going out of their way to be more "thorough", wouldn't it save them time and grief not to check more than needed. Is some higher political figure asking them to be more "thorough". I don't quite get the whole picture. Of course, they broke the law, but just wondering about their motive.

pc86 2y ago
It is an ideologically driven belief that "dirty civilians" don't deserve firearms, and any reason to deny them access should be used.
- lukan 2y ago
  This is not about the right to have firearms, but the right to carry them concealed, which is not exactly the same.
  - pc86 2y ago
    To "bear" means to carry. "You may have this firearm but you cannot carry it in a manner which is fit for purpose anywhere other than your own private property" is a pretty tough sell to anyone who believes in the second amendment.
    - sandworm101 2y ago
      But that would comport with the 2nd's militia concept: guns owned and kept for militia use in times of emergency, not everyday carry.
      - pc86 2y ago
        I'm happy to get into a 2A debate (as funny as it sounds it is a hobby of mine!) but it seems like a tangent for this thread specifically. I'll just say that this definition of "militia" is completely incorrect in the historical context in which it was written. The next thing you'll say is that "well-regulated" means regulated by the government which is also 100% incorrect. Militia is the people - it's everyone, individually. Well-regulated means well-functioning, fit for purpose. In order for individual people to be fit for militia/defensive service, they cannot be deprived of their right to make, purchase, own, use, and/or carry firearms. My favorite quote related to this: "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." - George Mason, address to Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        > I'll just say that this definition of "militia" is completely incorrect in the historical context in which it was written. That's also true for the definition of arms. You can define "militia" as "all the of-age white males" if we get to define "arms" as "muskets". Fair trade!
        pc86 2y ago
        I'm happy to debate or discuss this in good faith but this isn't a good faith argument. "Arms" meant (means) state-of-the-art, military-level hardware. The muskets that civilians had in their homes were as good or better than what you'd be issued by the burgeoning American military, to the extent that you were issue anything and weren't just expected to bring your own. Throughout all of American history, perhaps with the exception of nuclear arms and vehicles like tanks and submarines, firearms research and development has occurred in private industry and made its way into the military later.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        > The muskets that civilians had in their homes were as good or better than what you'd be issued by the burgeoning American military... Probably not cannons and grapeshot, though.
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    You're not wrong but with all the other laws surrounding firearms in public and in vehicles not being able to have a concealed carry permit is a huge practical impediment to exercising one's rights.
- th0ma5 2y ago
  Probably also Wilhoit's law some too "There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." So not only do some people not get the right to own a gun effectively, but specifically certainly kinds of people arbitrarily.
  - pc86 2y ago
    Yeah I would be very interested in the demographic makeup of those people who were checked in this database compared to those who weren't. Maybe cross-referenced with who accepted/reviewed/received their application. Maybe nothing but perhaps very interesting.
  - psunavy03 2y ago
    There has been documented corruption and abuse in basically every state that uses a "may-issue" firearms permit scheme that allows official "discretion" about "suitability," as opposed to a "shall-issue" one where issuing a permit is mandatory to anyone who meets the qualifications.
    - favorited 2y ago
      California has been a shall-issue state since 2022, when Bruen made may-issue unconstitutional.
      - potato3732842 2y ago
        Theoretically all states are shall issue because of that case. In practice they just went from handing out definitive "no, you can't, because I feel like it" denials as was their discretion to soft denial via bureaucratic runaround.
andrewla 2y ago
I think the most likely good faith version of this is that the LACSD wants to prevent people that are bad actors from obtaining the licenses. Where this touches on abuse are people who are not convicted of any particular criminal offense related to firearms, or people that have had negative contact with the LACSD. So on the "positive" side this might allow them to prevent a person who they strongly believe is a gang leader but has not been convicted of any offense from obtaining a permit. On the "negative" side this might be people like defense attorneys, anti-police activists, or private investigators who have a tendencious relationship with the police from obtaining such a permit. Or in some cases maybe even people who have simply had a negative interaction -- filing reports critical of officers, etc., who are being spitefully targetted. The law attempts to strike a balance between the concerns and law enforcement overreach and exists for a reason.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
varenc 2y ago
The CLETS database LACSD used includes non-conviction records, investigative records, gang affiliations, and other data that aren’t part of the proper background check process. For example, if you were arrested but never charged, or if you’re a known gang member without any convictions, those records would be in CLETS but not in the system they’re legally supposed to use for concealed carry permits (CCPs). State law doesn’t allow this kind of non-conviction information to be used in CCP decisions, so this was an overreach. (previously you had to be of "good moral character" and have "good cause" to get a CCP, but these have been replaced with objective criteria) You could argue that having more information might lead to better decisions on who gets a permit, but that’s not what the law allows—and letting police pull extra data whenever they feel like it creates obvious risks of abuse.
bbarn 2y ago
The issue at hand is despite federal rulings forcing all states to have some level of "shall issue" concealed permits, and laws on the books, California's process has left it to county sheriffs to follow the evaluation criteria. Some, like San Bernardino, practically rubber stamp them if you pass the background checks. Others, like Ventura, Riverside, LA, etc. try their hardest to find ways to reject them - even circumventing the law to do so. They've also tried to implement strong arm policies like "We will notify your employer you have a license" knowing most large employers in California are fairly liberal and anti-gun and might look at that negatively to try to dissuade people from even exercising the right.
- rdtsc 2y ago
  Aha, that's the kind of nuance I was missing. Something just didn't add up. One would like to believe these are all just hard-working officers, going above and beyond their "call of duty" to keep the guns out of "bad citizens'" hands, but that seemed a little too naive of an idea.
- renewiltord 2y ago
  And others still, like Santa Clara County, have the sheriff sell them for personal enrichment. Ah, but I should not allege falsehoods like that. They simply have those who donated to the sheriff's campaign get them at 90%+ and those who didn't at less than 10%. Once this was identified, she retired and gets to keep her multi hundred thousand dollar pension. A $200k annual pension is worth about $3m.
potato3732842 2y ago
CC permits and anything firearm related winds up having to do elaborate song and dance routines to avoid being unconstitutional. Searching the crappy DB that only contains stuff they're allowed to care about instead of searching the good DB that they use when they really want to find dirt on someone falls into that category.
marxisttemp 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangs_in_the_Los_Angeles_County_Sheriff's_Department https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangs_in_the_Los_Angeles_Count...

by rdtsc 2y ago

pc86 2y ago

It is an ideologically driven belief that "dirty civilians" don't deserve firearms, and any reason to deny them access should be used.

lukan 2y ago
This is not about the right to have firearms, but the right to carry them concealed, which is not exactly the same.
- pc86 2y ago
  To "bear" means to carry. "You may have this firearm but you cannot carry it in a manner which is fit for purpose anywhere other than your own private property" is a pretty tough sell to anyone who believes in the second amendment.
  - sandworm101 2y ago
    But that would comport with the 2nd's militia concept: guns owned and kept for militia use in times of emergency, not everyday carry.
    - pc86 2y ago
      I'm happy to get into a 2A debate (as funny as it sounds it is a hobby of mine!) but it seems like a tangent for this thread specifically. I'll just say that this definition of "militia" is completely incorrect in the historical context in which it was written. The next thing you'll say is that "well-regulated" means regulated by the government which is also 100% incorrect. Militia is the people - it's everyone, individually. Well-regulated means well-functioning, fit for purpose. In order for individual people to be fit for militia/defensive service, they cannot be deprived of their right to make, purchase, own, use, and/or carry firearms. My favorite quote related to this: "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." - George Mason, address to Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        > I'll just say that this definition of "militia" is completely incorrect in the historical context in which it was written. That's also true for the definition of arms. You can define "militia" as "all the of-age white males" if we get to define "arms" as "muskets". Fair trade!
        pc86 2y ago
        I'm happy to debate or discuss this in good faith but this isn't a good faith argument. "Arms" meant (means) state-of-the-art, military-level hardware. The muskets that civilians had in their homes were as good or better than what you'd be issued by the burgeoning American military, to the extent that you were issue anything and weren't just expected to bring your own. Throughout all of American history, perhaps with the exception of nuclear arms and vehicles like tanks and submarines, firearms research and development has occurred in private industry and made its way into the military later.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        > The muskets that civilians had in their homes were as good or better than what you'd be issued by the burgeoning American military... Probably not cannons and grapeshot, though.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  You're not wrong but with all the other laws surrounding firearms in public and in vehicles not being able to have a concealed carry permit is a huge practical impediment to exercising one's rights.
th0ma5 2y ago
Probably also Wilhoit's law some too "There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." So not only do some people not get the right to own a gun effectively, but specifically certainly kinds of people arbitrarily.
- pc86 2y ago
  Yeah I would be very interested in the demographic makeup of those people who were checked in this database compared to those who weren't. Maybe cross-referenced with who accepted/reviewed/received their application. Maybe nothing but perhaps very interesting.
- psunavy03 2y ago
  There has been documented corruption and abuse in basically every state that uses a "may-issue" firearms permit scheme that allows official "discretion" about "suitability," as opposed to a "shall-issue" one where issuing a permit is mandatory to anyone who meets the qualifications.
  - favorited 2y ago
    California has been a shall-issue state since 2022, when Bruen made may-issue unconstitutional.
    - potato3732842 2y ago
      Theoretically all states are shall issue because of that case. In practice they just went from handing out definitive "no, you can't, because I feel like it" denials as was their discretion to soft denial via bureaucratic runaround.

andrewla 2y ago

I think the most likely good faith version of this is that the LACSD wants to prevent people that are bad actors from obtaining the licenses. Where this touches on abuse are people who are not convicted of any particular criminal offense related to firearms, or people that have had negative contact with the LACSD. So on the "positive" side this might allow them to prevent a person who they strongly believe is a gang leader but has not been convicted of any offense from obtaining a permit. On the "negative" side this might be people like defense attorneys, anti-police activists, or private investigators who have a tendencious relationship with the police from obtaining such a permit. Or in some cases maybe even people who have simply had a negative interaction -- filing reports critical of officers, etc., who are being spitefully targetted. The law attempts to strike a balance between the concerns and law enforcement overreach and exists for a reason.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

varenc 2y ago

The CLETS database LACSD used includes non-conviction records, investigative records, gang affiliations, and other data that aren’t part of the proper background check process. For example, if you were arrested but never charged, or if you’re a known gang member without any convictions, those records would be in CLETS but not in the system they’re legally supposed to use for concealed carry permits (CCPs). State law doesn’t allow this kind of non-conviction information to be used in CCP decisions, so this was an overreach. (previously you had to be of "good moral character" and have "good cause" to get a CCP, but these have been replaced with objective criteria) You could argue that having more information might lead to better decisions on who gets a permit, but that’s not what the law allows—and letting police pull extra data whenever they feel like it creates obvious risks of abuse.

bbarn 2y ago

The issue at hand is despite federal rulings forcing all states to have some level of "shall issue" concealed permits, and laws on the books, California's process has left it to county sheriffs to follow the evaluation criteria. Some, like San Bernardino, practically rubber stamp them if you pass the background checks. Others, like Ventura, Riverside, LA, etc. try their hardest to find ways to reject them - even circumventing the law to do so. They've also tried to implement strong arm policies like "We will notify your employer you have a license" knowing most large employers in California are fairly liberal and anti-gun and might look at that negatively to try to dissuade people from even exercising the right.

rdtsc 2y ago
Aha, that's the kind of nuance I was missing. Something just didn't add up. One would like to believe these are all just hard-working officers, going above and beyond their "call of duty" to keep the guns out of "bad citizens'" hands, but that seemed a little too naive of an idea.
renewiltord 2y ago
And others still, like Santa Clara County, have the sheriff sell them for personal enrichment. Ah, but I should not allege falsehoods like that. They simply have those who donated to the sheriff's campaign get them at 90%+ and those who didn't at less than 10%. Once this was identified, she retired and gets to keep her multi hundred thousand dollar pension. A $200k annual pension is worth about $3m.

potato3732842 2y ago

CC permits and anything firearm related winds up having to do elaborate song and dance routines to avoid being unconstitutional. Searching the crappy DB that only contains stuff they're allowed to care about instead of searching the good DB that they use when they really want to find dirt on someone falls into that category.

marxisttemp 2y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangs_in_the_Los_Angeles_County_Sheriff's_Department https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangs_in_the_Los_Angeles_Count...