Category: California
BELLEVUE, WA — -(AmmoLand.com)- A California appeals court panel has unanimously denied a request from state Attorney General Rob Bonta for an immediate stay of an injunction in a case brought by the Second Amendment Foundation in a challenge of the state law allowing the state Department of Justice to share personal information about firearms owners with private researchers.
Bonta claimed the law, AB 173, “does not create a serious invasion of privacy.” The trial court disagreed, granting a preliminary injunction to the plaintiffs, thus placing a hold on the enforcement of the information-sharing law. The case is known as Barba, et.al. v. Bonta.
Second Amendment Foundation is joined in the lawsuit by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., California Gun Rights Foundation, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Orange County Gun Owners PAC, Inland Empire Gun Owners PAC, and a private citizen, Ashleymarie Barba. They are represented by attorneys Bradley A. Benbrook and Stephen M. Duvernay with the Benbrook Law Group, PC in Sacramento.
“We’re delighted the appeals court panel unanimously rejected Bonta’s effort to set aside the preliminary injunction because the privacy of California gun owners is important, even if he thinks otherwise,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Bonta is determined to supply gun owner information to biased researchers who, we believe, will use it to promote additional restrictions on their Second Amendment-protected rights.”
Gottlieb dismissed arguments by Bonta that the researchers take steps to protect identifying information about gun owners.
“That’s not the point,” Gottlieb said. “The point of our challenge is that this information is being shared at all, especially with non-government entities. This isn’t just about Second Amendment rights. California’s law clearly threatens the privacy rights of gun owners.”
The lawsuit was filed because of a change in the California Penal Code that required the state DOJ to share private information on millions of gun owners in the state, with the California Firearm Violence Research Center and others.
About Second Amendment Foundation
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 720,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
WAS YOUR PRIVATE INFORMATION LEAKED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE?
IF SO, PAY ATTENTION TO THIS URGENT ALERT AND UPDATE
REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED? On June 28, 2022, it was reported that California gun owners had been put at risk by the Attorney General’s office after a new “dashboard” disclosed the personal data of CCW holders and applicants for the past ten years, as well as those on the Assault Weapons Registry, plus the entire Dealer Record of Sale database and those on the Gun Violence Restraining Order list.
WHAT STEPS WERE IMMEDIATELY TAKEN? Gun Owners of California as well as other Second Amendment groups immediately got to work informing gun owners of this egregious and illegal release of private data, and began to collect information as to what would be the most effective way to hold the DOJ responsible. Research on how to proceed with a class action lawsuit was set in motion and it was ultimately determined that this path would not stand up in court as the damages from the leak would vary between affected individuals.
WHAT IS THE STATUS NOW? An out-of-state Second Amendment group filed a class action lawsuit last summer, but this was recently dropped, which means that there is no legal action currently being pursued against the DOJ for the release of confidential data.
THESE ARE THE NEXT STEPS FOR THOSE WHOSE DATA WAS LEAKED: We know – this is frustrating, but it is important. If you want to protect your right to pursue legal action in the future, it is imperative that you fill out an Administrative Claim Form (link to form below). An Administrative Claim Form puts the state on notice that a claim may be filed.
DOES THIS MEAN I WILL BE OBLIGATED TO PURSUE LEGAL ACTION? NO, it simply preserves your right should you want to pursue it in the future.
WHAT GOC RECOMMENDS: As infuriating as this is, this is the most appropriate legal recourse at this time. We strongly believe every single person whose confidential data was leaked to the internet and beyond should protect their future interests and fill out the form. There is a cost of $25 and there is no binding obligation, but it is important that the State of California hears from all of us. This is a small cost to pay to preserve your rights.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIM FORM MUST BE FILED BY DECEMBER 27, 2022. It is self-explanatory, is fillable online and includes details where to send it.
For more detailed information and instructions, you can call Gun Owners of California at (916) 984-1400 or click on the following link: https://crpa.org/wp-content/
If you are, however, interested in pursuing an immediate lawsuit against the Department of Justice for this extraordinary violation of privacy, the legal team at Michel and Associates have provided a draft legal complaint HERE.
Remember, the deadline to preserve your right to sue the Department of Justice is December 27, 2022.
Here is the forms for it Grumpy
https://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/dgs/fmc/dgs/orim006.pdf
The high demand has left many departments unable to keep up, including in Contra Costa County, where sheriff’s department spokesman Jimmy Lee says the surge in applications has been overwhelming.
Prior to this decision, the Contra Costa Sheriff’s Office would typically receive about 20 concealed carry weapon applications each month, which would be processed by one employee, Lee said.
Since the decision in June, the Sheriff’s Office has been receiving “several hundred” applications a month and now has a backlog of over 1,000 applications.
The reason why applications were so low before the Bruen decision is simple; folks knew they stood little chance of being approved. Contra Costa County had about 500 active concealed handgun permits before the Supreme Court decision was handed down; an absurdly small number considering more than 1-million people call the county home. And some gun owners in the county say that even after the Bruen decision, it doesn’t feel like much has changed.
Scores of hopeful applicants recently resorted to Reddit and online forums to complain about the situation in Contra Costa, while arguing that officials there should do more to hasten the application process. Many complained that they’ve received few responses from sheriff’s offices to even the most basic inquiries about the process.“There’s a lot of miscommunication and misunderstanding with the actual process because the information on the sheriff’s website is so vague,” said Alex Urikh, 21, of Walnut Creek. He accused the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office of “dragging their feet,” while lamenting that other gun owners across the state had experienced similar delays.
Other Bay Area-counties are seeing similar delays. The East Bay Times reports that there are currently about 1,500 applications waiting to be processed in Alameda County, where only 300 residents possessed a carry permit before the Bruen decision was handed down. Lt. Ray Kelly with the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office says the department is now considering letting local police departments handle applications in the hopes they might be processed in a more timely fashion.
Simply put, the sheriff’s office doesn’t have the resources to handle the crushing demand for permits, Kelly said. Of the roughly 1,500 applications received by the agency, only about a couple dozen have been granted due to the paperwork and bureaucratic difficulty of processing each request, he said.“We’ve never seen this number before,” said Kelly, adding that other law enforcement agencies in the Bay Area have encountered similar increases. “It’s a massive change in the way we do business, based on the Supreme Court ruling.”In contrast, the Contra Costa Sheriff’s Office said Thursday it plans to hire a sergeant and at least one more specialist to help process applications. Exactly when that backlog will begin to ease, however, remains unclear. The agency did not respond to messages seeking how many permits it had approved since the Supreme Court’s ruling in June.
SCOTUS warned in the Bruen decision that while “shall-issue” licensing laws were constitutional, if they resulted in lengthy delays for approvals or tacked on outrageously high fees in an attempt to dissuade citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights then those policies could rightfully be called into question.
Given the glacial pace of issuing gun permits in these California counties (San Francisco, for example, has received just 65 carry applications since June but has yet to approve a single one), it might be time to haul these officials into court to force them to comply with the Bruen decision. A right delayed is a right denied, and there are thousands of Californians right now who are being deprived of a fundamental civil right because of the toxic mix of government bureaucracy and anti-gun ideology.
This week council members invoked the nuclear option after a pair of businesses applied to open up gun shops in the city, voting unanimously to impose a 45-day ban on gun shops while city attorneys investigate whether the city can make that ban permanent; a tactic that other anti-gun locales are likely to adopt… at least until courts step in.
One of the proposed gun shop locations is at Roosevelt Plaza, which is near Roosevelt Elementary School.
Katie Gaets, a parent who serves as Pastor of Woodside Road United Methodist Church in Redwood City, was among those who spoke in support of the ordinance at Monday’s council meeting.
“Just today a teenager was convicted of killing four people in a school shooting and two more people died in a school shooting in St. Louis,” Gaets said.
“One of the ways we can take a clear and definitive stance of no against such violence, is by taking a clear and definitive step away from firearms dealers in our local community.”
You don’t send an anti-violence message by making it harder for legal gun owners to protect themselves, which is exactly what this gun store ban does. California law already requires every would-be gun owner to go through a background check and twiddle their thumbs for ten business days before they’re allowed to take possession of their newly-purchased firearm, and every time they go and purchase ammunition they’re subjected to additional background checks.
If criminals obeyed the law, these restrictions might actually make a difference. Instead, according to the FBI California had the most active shooter incidents of any state in the Union last year. The real message that Redwood City’s proposed gun store ban sends is that city council members are willing to bend the knee to anti-gun activists at the expense of the rights of the law-abiding.
Unfortunately, as we discuss on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, Redwood City isn’t alone in trying to curtail gun purchases. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is also considering a laundry list of new restrictions on current and future gun owners and gun store proprietors, and other communities across the state are taking aim at gun shops that are already in existence. In Torrance, for instance, the owner of Red Rifle Ltd. was originally given approval to move his shop from an industrial part of town to Torrance’s upscale Old Town neighborhood before activists complained and convinced the city’s Planning Commission to rescind the permit they issued to the store.
Now store owner Jack Brandhorst is appealing that decision, arguing that the city’s claim the shop is “incompatible” with the other businesses in Old Town doesn’t fly, and that there’s no reason in state or local law to prohibit the move to a better location.
“Red Rifle is a legal, reputable, long standing business that is not prohibited from opening in Downtown Torrance by any law, statute or rule,” Brandhorst wrote in his appeal, which was filed with a $750 fee on Oct. 11. “Thus, legally we should be allowed to move our boutique to Downtown Torrance.”Brandhorst said in an interview that his store will only serve to elevate the area, with its high end products, personable customer service and smithing services. He said he takes stringent safety precautions, including all mandatory background checks, requiring customers complete a 30-minute gun safety lesson, requiring customers with children to purchase a safe, and securing all ammunition in store.Former Councilwoman Maureen O’Donnell, one of the four residents who filed the initial appeals, said she remains steadfast in her belief that Old Town Torrance is not a safe location for a gun store.“The gentleman is within his rights to appeal and we will go again and present our case before the council as we did before the (Planning) Commission,” she said.“I think that the commission’s decision is the correct one,” she added. “I hope that the City Council will see the reasonableness of that decision and our position.”O’Donnell also said that there are already 12 licensed firearms dealers in Torrance and that regardless of the safety precautions taken by the store, the owner cannot know a person’s true intent in purchasing a weapon.
If that’s her argument then I don’t know how O’Donnell would be okay with any gun being sold anywhere in Torrance, whether in the tony Old Town neighborhood or the grimiest part of town. Regardless of her hostility towards the right to keep and bear arms, it is a right that we’re talking about here, and one that by necessity includes the right to acquire a firearm as well as the right to keep and carry it for self-defense.
As many gun control restrictions are ruled unconstitutional in the wake of the Bruen decision, look for more anti-gun locales to set up as many hurdles as possible for new and existing gun store owners to navigate.
It might be restrictive zoning ordinances limiting gun stores to just a few acres of land in undesirable locations, as we’ve seen in Torrance, or it could be an outright ban on gun stores like the one Redwood City council members are hoping to permanently impose, but either way we have some major legal fights brewing over buying and selling the arms we have the right to keep and bear.
00:00
/
22:18
California’s attempt to stop people from building their own firearms can move forward.
That’s the decision federal district judge George H. Wu, a George W. Bush appointee, delivered late last week. Wu determined the Second Amendment’s text does not cover the building of firearms, ruling against gun-mill maker Defense Distributed (DD) in its challenge of AB 1621. The judge argued California’s law banning the possession of unserialized firearms, as well as parts or specific tools used to make them, does not run afoul of gun-rights protections under the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision.
“Though it leads with a recognition of the primacy of Bruen’s ‘plain text’ point, DD seeks in its opening brief to jump ahead in the analysis to a historical/tradition assessment (and to jump ahead in Bruen to that decision’s discussion of how to conduct such an assessment),” Judge Wu wrote in his ruling rejecting a request for a preliminary injunction against the law. “But it has effectively attempted to avoid the necessary threshold consideration – does the ‘Second Amendment’s plain text’ cover the issue here? No, it plainly does not. AB 1621 has nothing to do with ‘keep[ing]’ or ‘bear[ing]’ arms.”
The decision presents a novel interpretation of the standard for reviewing gun laws set in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires judges to strike down laws that implicate Second Amendment rights unless they match a historical analogue from the founding era. Wu is among the first federal judges to grapple with the new test and possibly the first to determine the text of the amendment only covers owning and carrying guns, not making or selling them. If his approach to reading the scope of what activities are protected by the Second Amendment as relatively limited becomes influential among other judges, it could result in them upholding many modern restrictions.
Judge Wu argued Defense Distributed skipped passed the textual analysis of what the Second Amendment protects and, ultimately, undermined its case.
“Under DD’s own characterization of the Penal Code provisions introduced via AB 1621, what is at issue here is a ban on ‘self-manufacture of firearms’ and a prohibition on ‘the sale of the tools and parts necessary to complete the self-manufacturing process,’” he wrote. “Try as you might, you will not find a discussion of those concerns (or any such ‘right(s)’) in the ‘plain text’ of the Second Amendment.”
However, Defense Distributed disputed Judge Wu’s contention. Cody Wilson, the company’s founder, described the judge’s conduct in the case as “unprofessional” and “cynical.” He noted California’s law does directly implicate owning guns, not just building them.
“What’s crazy is AB 1621 in California is about keeping and bearing arms,” Wilson told The Reload. “Literally, it defines a number of things as firearms under California Penal Code, and it restricts if you can possess and transfer them.”
He said there might be more to argue about when it comes to how far Second Amendment protections extend to gun making. But he accused Judge Wu of side-stepping the core issues at play in the company’s case against California, which he said were identical to those in Bruen.
“We’ve challenged a number of sections 1621 that defined things as firearms,” Wilson said. “I didn’t choose to do it that way; the California legislature decided to say everything which can become a gun in California is a firearm that you can’t have unless it has a serial number. Well, I don’t know what else to say. There’s clearly a second amendment application to be made here and a historical inquiry to make. Maybe the secondary questions about CNC machines and the right to manufacture are more interesting at the outer bounds of Bruen or something. But a lot of what we challenge is obviously firearm regulation of the same type in Bruen.”
Judge Wu is among the only federal court judges to uphold a 21st Century gun regulation in the wake of Bruen. His ruling is in stark contrast with U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika, who blocked Delaware’s “ghost gun” ban earlier this year. Judge Wu appeared to acknowledge that his approach to Bruen differs from how other federal judges have approached the issue. However, he accused his piers of cherry-picking from Bruen to reach preferred outcomes.
“DD – and apparently certain other courts – would like to treat the Supreme Court’s Bruen opinion as a ‘word salad,’ choosing an ingredient from one side of the ‘plate’ and an entirely-separate ingredient from the other, until there is nothing left whatsoever other than an entirely-bulletproof and unrestrained Second Amendment,” Wu wrote. “That is not how precedent works; it is not even how language works (let alone salad, in most instances).”
Defense Distributed’s attempt to block SB 1327, a law that allows California to seek legal fees from plaintiffs in gun cases even when those plaintiffs prevail on some of their claims, was denied by Judge Wu. He did not examine the merits of the law, though, instead relying on California’s word they would not pursue legal fees in the DD case.
“Defendants have made clear that they ‘have informed [DD] that they will not seek attorneys’ fees or costs from [DD] or its attorneys pursuant to [Section 2 of SB 1327] in connection with this action,’” Judge Wu said. “Given Defendants’ statements in documents filed with the Court, it is almost certain that any later court considering a contrary plan would hold Defendants to their word under principles of judicial estoppel.”
Wilson believes the way California wrote the bill opens it up to broad legal scrutiny. He said he’s just concerned about finding a judge in the Ninth Circuit who will, in his view, abide by the standard set down by the Supreme Court.
“California has multiplied the number of things that are firearms that they regulate the possession and transfer of,” he said. “So, they’ve actually expanded the scope of the Second Amendment themselves. Historical analysis can now be applied to components of firearms because of California. I just can’t find, you know, an actual judge to actually apply the law right.”
Wilson said Defense Distributed is exploring an appeal against the decision.
California must stop sharing the personal identifying information of the state’s gun owners with academic researchers, a state judge has ruled.
San Diego Superior Court Judge Katherine Bacal issued a preliminary injunction against California’s Assembly Bill 173 on Friday. Judge Bacal noted that allowing the law to remain in effect while the case continued sufficiently threatened the privacy rights of California gun owners.
“Accordingly, plaintiffs have shown that the balance of harms weighs in favor of issuing the injunction,” she noted in her order.
The injunction represents a win for gun-rights advocates in their fight against the state’s attempts to share gun owners’ identifying information for outside research. The state already collects extensive data on gun and ammunition purchases–including an ammo registry. California’s practices make it an outlier, but one with the potential to be copied by other blue states seeking tighter gun laws. The successful injunction suggests advocates may be successful in permanently stopping the state from sharing that data with non-law enforcement entities and quash the potential for other states to follow California’s lead.
Assembly Bill 173, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom (D.) last September, directed the Attorney General to disclose personal information on gun purchasers to the California Firearm Violence Research Center at UC Davis. The information includes details such as the buyer’s name, address, date of birth, what they purchased, when and where they bought it, and more. It also authorized the center to share the information with any other “bona fide research institution.”
The now-blocked law is not the only time California officials have garnered controversy over how they handle gun owners’ private data. Earlier this June, The Reload broke news that the California Department of Justice had inadvertently leaked the names, racial identifications, home addresses, dates of birth, and permit classifications of the state’s concealed carry permit holders during a botched rollout of its 2022 Firearms Dashboard Portal. That information was made publicly available for download for several hours before eventually being scrubbed from the website. The state has since offered credit monitoring to all those it believes were affected by the leak.
Judge Bacal cited this incident as an example of the potential harm faced by gun owners if AB 173 were allowed to stay in effect.
“Defendant responds plaintiffs cannot establish irreparable harm because the personal identifying information has already been shared with researchers as recently as November of 2021,” she said. “Yet this does not account for the potential ongoing and future harms that could occur by continuous use of the information. Furthermore, and while this motion has been pending, a massive data breach reportedly occurred that leaked personal identifying information from the firearm databases for concealed carry applicants in or about June of 2022.”
A coalition of gun-rights groups, including the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), filed suit against the law in state court in January. The groups celebrated the injunction.
“The California government has proven time and time again that it can’t be trusted with the private personal information of its residents,” Bill Sack, FPC Director of Legal Operations, said in a press release. “Today’s ruling reinforces what FPC has been arguing all along; that you needn’t be forced to open your front door to immoral government intrusion in order to exercise your fundamental rights.”
California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D.) told The Reload that despite the ruling, he planned to continue defending the law in court.
“We are disappointed in this decision,” he said. “Research and collaboration would help protect our communities from gun violence and save lives. We will continue this fight in court.”
UPDATE 12:58 AM EASTERN 10-18-2022: This piece has been updated to include comment from Attorney General Bonta’s office.
Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco recently sent out a notification to concealed carry holders in the county alerting them to a public records request from Viacom-CBS for “the names of all people with concealed carry permits.” Bianco says that after the request was received, the department reached out to attorneys to “determine if their were any valid exceptions the department could use” in order to prevent handing over those names to the media. According to Bianco, an “outside legal analysis” determined that the California Supreme Court ruled all the way back in 1986 that if media outlets request this information, “public agencies must disclose the full names of concealed weapons permit holders.”
Bianco says he had no choice but to release the names of all those Riverside County residents who possess a valid concealed carry license, and in his alert to permit holders told them that he doesn’t take this matter lightly. Still, the sheriff says that because of “court precedent and a lack of protections” within the state’s legal code he was forced to hand over the information, and encouraged those “seeking a change” to state law to contact their local legislators.
I’m actually somewhat torn here. If California were a true “shall issue” state, then I don’t think there is any compelling public interest in knowing the names of those who possess a concealed carry license. In “may issue” states, however, I think the argument can be made that the subjective and arbitrary issuance of carry license is deserving of public scrutiny. Look at what’s going on in Santa Clara County, California right now, where Sheriff Laurie Smith is currently on trial in civil court on charges of corruption after allegations that deep-pocketed donors to her re-election campaign were given rarely-issued concealed carry permits in exchange for their “support”. While the powerful and well-connected were handed permits, those who didn’t have that same special relationship with the sheriff’s office were often left twisting in the wind without even a formal denial.
A former manager for a Silicon Valley security business testified at a sheriff’s civil corruption trial that he and the company’s CEO agreed to provide political donations in exchange for concealed-weapons permits.
Martin Nielsen, who implicated a Santa Clara County sheriff’s captain and others in the alleged bribery scheme, testified publicly for the first time Monday at Sheriff Laurie Smith’s trial.
He detailed how he was tasked with finding a way to get concealed-carry permits for AS Solutions security agents who were assigned to high-profile clients, the Mercury News reported. The effort followed a 2018 shooting at the YouTube campus in San Bruno in which a woman wounded three people before killing herself.
The now-defunct security company’s high-profile clients included Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Nielsen testified that he and AS Solution’s then-head Christian West agreed to financially support Smith’s 2018 reelection bid in exchange for the permits for security agents assigned to protect executives for the company then known as Facebook.
… Nielsen, testifying under a grant of immunity from criminal prosecution, said he and West arranged to donate a large sum to an independent expenditure committee backing Smith’s reelection.
“Did you come away with the understanding you would get 10 to 15 permits?” prosecutor Gabriel Markoff asked.
“Yes,” Nielsen replied.
… Nielson did not state the precise donation amount in his testimony because San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Nancy Fineman had limited what details Nielsen could give in front of the jury.
However, in past testimony, Nielsen said $90,000 was the agreed amount, though only $45,000 was ever donated. The other half was scuttled after the bribery and corruption probe got underway in 2019.
Nielsen also testified that he was unilaterally exempted by a sheriff’s captain from having to qualify under a legally required firearms proficiency test, and was instructed to obscure their association with the security company to avoid negative optics.
“They could not all be AS Solution,” he said. “Something about the fact it was a security company and it didn’t look good.”
If the powerful and well-connected are afforded access to their right of armed self-defense while the vast majority of applicants are denied, that’s a legitimate news story. Having said that, the scandal in the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department wasn’t uncovered by local media, but by the Santa Clara County D.A.’s office. While the publicly available information could have been used by news outlets to uncover the alleged shady situation in the sheriff’s office, it looks instead like it was campaign finance disclosures that actually raised suspicions of prosecutors, with the media only picking up on the scandalous allegations after a search warrant was served on the sheriff’s office.
While there’s a theoretical benefit to publicly disclosing the names of concealed carry holders in “may issue” states, in practice this leads to responsible gun owners being put at risk of burglary and theft, and may even help aid stalkers learn whether their potential victims are armed or not. Unfortunately, for now this policy is the law of the land in California, and concealed carry holders can be outed by their local media. Whether that law would withstand constitutional scrutiny in light of the test laid out by the Supreme Court in Bruen is another question entirely, however, and I hope that one or more of the 2A groups operating in the state will challenge that 1986 California court decision by using the Bruen test in the very near future.