Category: Gun Fearing Wussies

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Born again Cynic! Cops Gun Fearing Wussies You have to be kidding, right!?!

FedEx and UPS Help Feds Track Gun Sales, State Attorneys General Say New shipping policies seen as attempt to ‘bypass warrant requirements’ and create gun registry By Kevin Stocklin

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, together with 17 other state attorneys general, are asking shipping companies UPS and FedEx to explain their newly implemented policies to track and record Americans’ firearms purchases and disclose whether these policies have been coordinated with the Biden administration.

In letters sent on Nov. 29 to FedEx CEO Raj Subramaniam and UPS CEO Carol B. Tomé, Knudsen and his co-signers wrote that the shipping companies’ policies “allow your company to track firearm sales with unprecedented specificity and bypass warrant requirements to share that information with federal agencies.”

“What both of these companies are saying is that they’re doing this so they can better cooperate with law enforcement,” Knudsen told The Epoch Times. “That’s all fine and well, until you find out that that’s a violation of federal law.”

Based on reports from gun stores, Knudsen’s letter states, FedEx and UPS are now requiring federal firearms license holders to provide details of each shipment to the shipping companies, including the contents and recipient, allowing them “to create a database of American gun purchasers and determine exactly what items they purchased.

Citing the new policies, the letter states: “Perhaps most concerning, your policies allegedly allow FedEx [and UPS] to ‘comply with … requests from applicable law enforcement or other governmental authorities’ even when those requests are ‘inconsistent or contrary to any applicable law, rule, regulation, or order.’ In doing so you—perhaps inadvertently—give federal agencies a workaround to federal law, which has long prevented federal agencies from using gun sales to create gun registries.”

“The ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] is hoping they’re not going to have a warrant problem,” Knudsen said. “They could just go get this information from UPS and FedEx.”

FedEx and UPS’s new gun-tracking policies follow efforts by Visa, Mastercard, and American Express to also monitor purchases from gun stores, with the intention of handing that information over to federal law enforcement. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the federal government from conducting searches of U.S. citizens without a warrant and “probable cause” that a crime was committed.

Increasingly, however, banks, credit card companies, and now shipping companies are conducting those searches on the government’s behalf.

The letter demands that the shipping companies respond within 30 days, clarifying their policies and explaining whether or not they acted in coordination with the ATF or any other government agency. It also asks them to clarify a reported “gag order” under which they directed gun shops not to disclose the terms of this policy to the public.

Possible Collusion?

The two letters to UPS and FedEx were virtually identical because the policies the companies implemented appear to be strikingly similar, raising the additional issue of possible collusion between companies that hold an oligopolistic position in shipping. Collusion in restraint of trade has long been illegal under U.S. antitrust laws, including the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.

“It’s either collusion, they’re working together, or what I suspect is, it’s probably originating out of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, or the Biden administration,” Knudsen said. His letter recommends that the shipping companies “consider taking actions to limit potential liability moving forward, including the immediate cessation of any existing warrantless information sharing with federal agencies about gun shipments.”

If the shipping companies don’t answer his questions within 30 days, Knudsen said, “I’ll probably start with an actual formal civil investigative demand where we’ll ask for some documentation. That’s short of a subpoena and an actual lawsuit, but, ultimately, if they don’t want to cooperate, a lawsuit is where we’re going to end up.”

In response to the letter, FedEx told The Epoch Times in a statement that “FedEx is aware of the letter from the state attorneys general. We are committed to the lawful and safe movement of regulated items through our network.”

UPS responded that it “has not bypassed any laws to provide customer information to the Biden administration or federal agencies related to the shipment of firearms. UPS will only provide information about our customers or shipments when required to do so by law, such as in response to a subpoena or a warrant.”

UPS “will respond to the letter sent by several state attorneys general to answer their questions and clarify misinformation. UPS will continue to abide by all applicable laws in providing service for firearm shipments,” it stated.

“The policies set forth by FedEx and UPS are troubling, to say the least,” Mark Oliva, public affairs director of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, told The Epoch Times. “They carry with them serious risk of privacy concerns for law-abiding gun owners, and Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen is correct to be wary of how this information is to be used.

“We know that pressure was applied to these common carriers by antigun Democratic senators and the result was these new policies. It does seem rather coincidental that the Biden administration and certain elected officials that have been frustrated in instituting extreme gun control measures are suddenly and curiously seeing big businesses doing exactly what they are not allowed to do by law.”

Knudsen was asked why the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, which is tasked with protecting consumers against corporate collusion, is taking no action against what appears to be a coordinated effort by the shipping companies to target the firearms industry.

“I think there’s probably pressure from the White House to not do that, which is why you’re seeing AGs in states like Montana that have joined me to push back on this. If the federal government isn’t going to do their job, we’ll step in and make them do it.”

He said that gun shops are being targeted not only by credit card and shipping companies but by insurers as well.

“I’m aware of a number of FFL brick-and-mortar gun shops, and also some retailers that are just middlemen in Montana, that have been denied property-casualty insurance on their business property simply because they’re in the firearms industry.”

Kevin Stocklin

Kevin Stocklin
Kevin Stocklin is a writer, film producer, and former investment banker. He wrote and produced “We All Fall Down: The American Mortgage Crisis,” a 2008 documentary on the collapse of the U.S. mortgage finance system.
Categories
Gun Fearing Wussies Gun Info for Rookies

Some Red Hot Gospel there!

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Gun Fearing Wussies

Except it would be a Revolver!

May be an image of text that says '5 REASONS WHY I OWN A FIREARM 300-/10 1.1 2. DON'T 3. NEED 4. A 5. REASON'

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Born again Cynic! Cops Gun Fearing Wussies

City knew for years about lead concerns at shooting range, but did little to warn workers of danger By Allyson Blair

HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) – Gun owners on Oahu are still without a public range as a probe into possible lead contamination at Koko Head Shooting Complex continues ― and new details emerge about what the city knew.

Two months ago, the range closed abruptly after tests showed nearly everyone who worked there had elevated lead levels. Hawaii News Now has learned it’s not the first time range staff were found to have a concerning amount of lead in their blood, and that the city was informed of the issue.

Reports and interviews revealed the Honolulu Department of Parks and Recreation did little to protect its workers or educate them about potential hazards at the shooting range.

‘It wasn’t anything serious’

Former range employee Chris Wong said the concerns about lead at the range date back years.

Wong has been shooting for more than three decades, including competitively.

“I have a love for the sport. I believe it’s a right for everyone to be able to have their firearm,” he said. “And I wanted to be involved in the safety aspect of it.”

It’s what inspired the former Kalihi Valley Neighborhood Board chairman to become a firearms instructor. And in 2013, he started working part-time as a range officer at the Koko Head Shooting Complex.

Two years later, Wong says his boss told him he might want to see a doctor.

“I was notified by a co-worker ― my supervisor at the time ― that his lead levels were elevated. So he suggested I go get checked. And when I checked they were elevated,” Wong said.

RELATED: Oahu’s only public shooting range closed indefinitely as probe into possible lead contamination begins

He says he was kind of shocked “because I do take precautions.”

Although Wong says he never experienced symptoms, it took one year for his lead levels to get back to normal. Not long after getting those initial test results, Wong got another job with the city.

But before he left, Wong said, “I did notify verbally some of the people in Parks and Recs.”

When asked how the Department of Parks and Recreation responded, “It was almost like, ‘Well, good thing you’re transferring.’ That’s it. It wasn’t anything serious.”

It’s unclear what if anything was done with the information about Wong’s health.

When Hawaii News Now asked the city how many former Koko Head Shooting Complex employees had elevated lead level, a spokesperson responded via email “to the best of our knowledge” there was only “one” prior to 2022.

City waited weeks to confirm lead concerns

It’s an issue the Department of Parks and Recreation wasn’t initially forthcoming about.

In mid-September, officials abruptly closed the complex two weeks ahead of a planned berm renovation project.

A city news release cited a staffing shortage but failed to mention the closure was due to the majority its employees having elevated levels of lead in their blood.

After a month and a half of questioning, parks officials finally admitted nine out of 10 staff who were tested had lead levels above the normal range.

HNN has since learned the city has been aware of lead contamination at the range for at least 20 years.

A 2001 report showed extreme levels of lead pollution at the rifle, pistol, silhouette, trap skeet and SWAT ranges. Of the 20 soil samples taken, 15 tested above state regulatory guidelines.

[Read the 2001 report on lead levels at the shooting range by clicking here.]

To give you an idea how toxic it was, the report showed four of those samples contained about 100 times more lead than what the state considers safe for a residential area.

Eight years later, in a separate memo, the state Department of Health outlined seven recommendations the city could implement to reduce potential lead exposures.

Those measures included posting signs, advising everyone at the facility to wash their hands frequently, and to avoid eating and drinking while at the range.

But of the seven recommendations the state Health Department made, the city Parks Department only fully followed through with two of them. Those include posting warning signs to alert nearby hikers of the active range and providing dust protection to workers tasked with disturbing potentially contaminated soil during clean-ups.

Health officials also advised the city to keep its berms “well-maintained” to reduce the creation of fine lead particles.

Over the past two decades, the city says it’s encapsulated the backstop just once ― back in 2014.

The same year the Parks Department confirms a former range worker was diagnosed with elevated lead levels.

In 2020, the City also conducted a cleanup of the range firing line, utilizing a consultant expert in the field of environmental hazard construction remediation.

Range closed indefinitely

Honolulu Mayor Rick Blangiardi told Hawaii News Now there’s no timeline for reopening the range.

“We’re not going to let people back there unless it’s safe,” he said.

He added:

“I don’t know when it’s going to reopen to be honest with you. There’s a lot that has to go into that because that had been going on for a long time with respect to use of the range and what was compiled there and what has to be cleaned up.”

Wong, the former range officer, said he has no interest in suing the city but chose to speak out because he wants to see the lead issue abated and the public park reopened as soon as possible.

He said it’s not right to permanently close Oahu’s only public range for reasons that could have been prevented.

“To have the range shut down, it’s an infringement of rights,” Wong said.

The city did confirm it has hired necessary the environmental consultants.

“We are awaiting the recommendations from the above-mentioned consultant before proceeding with the berm renovation project,” the city said, in a statement.

“We understand the environmental concerns of the neighboring community, and also recognize the shooting complex’s importance to the local firearms community, as this location is the only public shooting range on Oahu. We appreciate their patience while we work with these advisors to make necessary improvements to ensure the shooting complex can once again operate safely upon its reopening.”

Meanwhile, city officials say all Koko Head Shooting Complex workers have been reassigned to work at other parks.

Health officials say casual range users shouldn’t worry too much about lead exposure if they follow safety guidelines.

Those include:

  • Washing your hands and face with soap and water after shooting.
  • Changing clothes before you leave the range.
  • And washing those items separately from everything else.

It’s also advised not to eat, drink or smoke while shooting.

IN FULL:
Categories
Gun Fearing Wussies

CBS News freaks over armed teachers in Texas By Tom Knighton

AP Photo/ Rick Bowmer
The state of Texas has a reputation for guns. That’s clearly a holdover from the Old West reputation that permeates so much of the state.

So, it’s unsurprising that it’s a state that allows school districts to permit armed teachers in the classroom.

And it seems CBS News finds that something worthy of concern.

Since January, 50 people have been killed and 122 injured in at least 152 incidents of gunfire on school grounds across the U.S. To respond to the threat of such attacks, some districts — in at least 29 states that allow it — have taken the controversial step of authorizing school staff, other than security guards, to carry firearms on campus. Texas is one of those states.

 

In the aftermath of the shooting in Uvalde that killed 19 children and two teachers, Texas Republicans have urged schools to arm up and “harden the target.” But Texas state laws regulating armed staff are sparing, allowing school districts to decide for themselves the type, and amount, of training school staff need to carry guns on campus.

…

According to the Texas Association of School Boards, “school districts can grant written permission for anyone, including designated employees, to carry firearms on campus” under Texas Penal Code 46.03, but the law does not lay out standards for training.

The only thing a school employee needs in order to carry a firearm on campus is a license to carry, which requires a background check and a proficiency demonstration. Otherwise, individual districts determine the amount and type of additional requirements, which can include active-shooter training courses and psychological evaluations.

And it seems that the fact that Texas doesn’t have a lot of regulations over how this works is a problem.

Which is hilarious because the people who tend to think that also have an issue with preemption, claiming that local communities know their own needs better than the state and should be permitted to handle those issues as they see fit.

Apparently, that doesn’t apply to the school boards.

That’s what gets me about this. Well, that and the fact that this breathless concern revolves around a non-issue.

We don’t know how many armed teachers there are in Texas, but what we don’t hear about are incidents with them. For all the fearmongering among activists and the media about armed teachers, they’re remarkably lacking in hard evidence of this being a problem.

Oh, they try, mind you:

Despite these efforts to arm teachers, Sonali Rajan, a school violence researcher at Columbia University, says there’s no evidence that it makes schools safer.

“There is no science available at the moment, absolutely none, that shows that arming teachers would either deter gun violence from happening to begin with, nor would it deter or reduce the lethality of a shooting once it was occurring,” said Rajan. “There is evidence that shows very clearly and very definitively that the increased presence of firearms leads to increased firearm violence and firearm related harms.”

The fact that there’s “no science available” is a pretty good indicator, at least to me, that it works. We’ve seen how the science on this stuff is so heavily slanted it’s not even funny.

That also goes to the vague argument that “the increased presence of firearms leads to increase firearm violence.”

See, if this were a legitimate problem, we’d have countless anecdotes of teachers flipping out and shooting people or something, only we don’t. What we do have are the occasional incident where no one gets hurt but do indicate a cause for concern, but are so scattered and rare that they represent a non-issue overall.

So, they just make claims about guns in general and assume that this applies to teachers as well.

That’s simply not the case.

Armed teachers can and will save lives. Just their mere presence is something a would-be shooter has to take into account.

It’s only a matter of time before we’re writing about one that didn’t and got himself killed by an armed educator, whether it be in Texas or elsewhere, and that will be a good day to see these people contort themselves trying to explain it away.

——————————————————————————–           Out here in the Peoples Republic of California. I was amazed by the fact of how many of my fellow teachers have a good knowledge of guns. That and how many of them had one or two in their cars. I of course would never do such a thing myself. (Coughs Bullshit!) Grumpy

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Gun Fearing Wussies

From Splendid Isolation – Some Insanity from Texas

It seems as though some of the Terminally-Deluded think that Beto O’Rourke won the Texas governor’s election, given their list of gun control legislation to be proposed in the 2023 Texas legislative session:
  • House Bill 22, House Bill 106, House Bill 284 & House Bill 324 requiring the REPORTING OF LAWFUL SALES of certain firearms and magazines to state and/or local law enforcement — not gonna happen
  • House Bill 76 CRIMINALIZING the failure of a victim of gun theft to report having his or her firearms stolen — are you kidding me?
  • House Bill 88 & House Bill 447 further TAXING the sale of firearms and/or ammunition and firearm accessories — higher taxes?  in Texas?
  • House Bill 110, House Bill 146 & House Bill 308 BANNING private firearm transfers at gun shows — LOL no
  • House Bill 123 & House Bill 136 red flag GUN CONFISCATION legislation requiring surrender of firearms without due process — nope
  • House Bill 129 & House Bill 565 RAISING THE MINIMUM AGE for purchase of semi-automatic rifles — not a chance
  • House Bill 155 & House Bill 236 BANNING private firearm transfers between certain family members and friends, requiring FFLs to process these transactions that would include federal paperwork for government approval at an undetermined fee — stomach’s starting to hurt, here
  • House Bill 197 BANNING the sale or transfer and possession of standard capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds — was that a unicorn I just saw?
  • House Bill 179, House Bill 216 & House Bill 244 RESTRICTING long gun open carry, with limited exceptions — maybe in hospitals… nah, not even
  • House Bill 298 establishes a 3-day WAITING PERIOD for firearm sales — like in California?
  • Senate Bill 32 BANNING the sale or possession of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms — we do not live on the Planet Manhattan.
Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Gun Fearing Wussies

Why indeed!

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Gun Fearing Wussies

Turn ‘Em In or Become a Felon! Mandatory ‘Buyback’ Starting In This State by S.H. BLANNELBERRY

Schmeisser 60-round AK mags. (Photo: Schmeisser)

Gun owners in Delaware are now being forced to turn in their “large-capacity” magazines to law enforcement following the passage of the “Delaware Large Capacity Magazine Prohibition Act of 2022” in June of this year.

The new law broadly prohibits the production, sale, purchase, receipt, transfer, and possession of magazines with a capacity of over 17 rounds.

The Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security (DSHS) issued guidelines late last month along with dates, locations, and compensation for the mandatory “buyback” program.

The DSHS said that “residents are eligible to receive fair market compensation for” their LCM or large capacity magazine.

Delawareans providing valid identification for proof of residency may receive:

  • LCM 18 to 30 Rounds – $15
  • LCM 31 or greater round – $25
  • LCM Drums – $80

“This buyback program is for Delaware residents only,” states the DSHS. “The program is only intended for individuals and does not apply to wholesale, retail, manufacturers, and distributor business entities. Anonymous relinquishments will be permitted. However, no compensation will be provided.”

Violators face a misdemeanor charge for their first offense and a class E felony for subsequent offenses.

A felony conviction for the possession of an LCM would result in the permanent loss of one’s 2A rights.

There are some key exemptions. Active and retired law enforcement, members of the U.S. military, and licensed concealed carriers are excluded from the ban.

The NRA-ILA is actively suing Delaware over its magazine ban and its 2022 ban on modern sporting rifles, known as the Delaware Lethal Firearms Safety Act of 2022.

However, while gun-owning Delawareans await the outcome of the lawsuits, state officials are hoping to complete the “buyback” program by June 30, 2023 — the end of the fiscal year, according to WHYY.

Mark Oliva, the managing director of public affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearms industry trade association, lamented the present situation in Delaware.

“There was a time when Delaware was respected for standing for freedom and against restricting God-given rights. Now, the state is literally financing magazine seizures with taxpayer funds,” he told GunsAmerica via email.

“The state cannot buy back something it never owned. As a matter of intellectual honesty, state officials should call it what it is. This is a state-sanctioned seizure of magazines done to bolster President Joe Biden’s gun control agenda,” he continued.

Oliva spoke about the legal challenges the magazine ban is currently facing, especially in light of the landmark Bruen decision.

“The audacity of Delaware lawmakers to move forward with this plan is astounding. The U.S.Supreme Court ordered the U.S. Court of appeals for the Ninth Circuit to revisit its ruling upholding California’s magazine restriction law in light of Bruen,” he said.

“It’s clear that Delaware lawmakers are determined to cause as much damage as possible to the Second Amendment rights of their fellow citizens and it will be the taxpayers that find it and potentially compensate those harmed by this effort,” Oliva concluded.

Categories
All About Guns California Gun Fearing Wussies

Federal Judge Upholds California ‘Ghost Gun’ Ban, Rules Gun-Making Not Protected by Second Amendment Stephen Gutowski

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.

Categories
All About Guns Allies California Gun Fearing Wussies You have to be kidding, right!?!

California sheriff forced to disclose names of concealed carry holders to media By Cam Edwards

(AP Photo/Al Behrman, File)
California gun owners have already suffered a loss of their privacy thanks to the massive leak of information from Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office earlier this year, but now those who possess a concealed carry license in one California county have been told that the media also has access to their information.

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.