Barba v. Bonta - California gun owner privacy case

Welcome to the Precious Metals Bug Forums

Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more. You can visit the forum page to see the list of forum nodes (categories/rooms) for topics.

Please have a look around and if you like what you see, please consider registering an account and joining the discussions. When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!

pmbug

Your Host
Administrator
Benefactor
Messages
13,574
Reaction score
4,241
Points
268
Location
Texas
United-States
...
In California, considerable personal information is required to purchase firearms or ammunition. This information is collected by CAL/DOJ. With passage of Assembly Bill 173 two years ago, CAL/DOJ now shares this information with the California Firearm Violence Research Center at UC Davis for non-law enforcement purposes. This has never been done before.

“It was an outrage when California lawmakers added this requirement to the state penal code,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “so we immediately sued to protect the privacy of millions of law-abiding gun owners in the state. AB 173 amounted to a radical change to the privacy previously afforded to California gun owners, and this cannot possibly be legal or constitutional.

“As we note in our brief,” he continued, “California assured gun owners for more than two decades their personal identifying information would only be used by CAL/DOJ and other government officials for law enforcement purposes. But with passage of AB 173, the Legislature went back on its word because the private social scientists at UC Davis wanted the data, which they can now share with other researchers. Gun owners were never informed of this change, let alone provided an opportunity to consent to this invasion of privacy.
...

 
Back
Top Bottom