4473 background check atf
Shutterstock
Previous Post
Next Post

Last fall, California’s oleaginous governor signed a bill into law that allows the distribution of personal information of the state’s gun buyers with academic researchers. Researchers like gun control advocate Garen Wintemute who runs the UC Davis California Firearm Violence Research Center, a producer of anti-gun “research” used to back efforts to limit Second Amendment rights.

Sharing California gun owners’ personal data is a situation that’s ripe for abuse. And given the state’s record of doxxing gun owners, it puts law-abiding citizens at risk. That’s why a group of gun rights orgs sued to block the data dumps. And the state’s abysmal record played into San Diego Superior Court Judge Katherine Bacal’s decision. As she wrote . . .

Defendant responds plaintiffs cannot establish irreparable harm because the personal identifying information has already been shared with researchers as recently as November of 2021. Opp. at 17. Yet this does not account for the potential ongoing and future harms that could occur by continuous use of the information. Additionally, although the most recent sharing of plaintiffs’ personal identifying information occurred in November of 2021, this does not necessarily mean that future requests for data would not occur in the interim. 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. See ROA # 85 at 5. Accordingly, plaintiffs have shown that the balance of harms weighs in favor of issuing the injunction. (emphasis added)

Judge Bacal has issued an injunction blocking the distribution of the information. Here’s the Firearms Policy Coalition’s press release . . .

Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that San Diego Superior Court Judge Katherine Bacal has issued a preliminary injunction in its lawsuit challenging California Assembly Bill 173, which requires the state’s Department of Justice to share the personal identifying information of millions of gun and ammunition owners with other parties for non-law-enforcement purposes. The ruling in Barba v. Bonta, which was affirmed by the judge in full, can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“Defendant responds plaintiffs cannot establish irreparable harm because the personal identifying information has already been shared with researchers as recently as November of 2021. Yet this does not account for the potential ongoing and future harms that could occur by continuous use of the information,” wrote Judge Bacal in her ruling. “Additionally. . .this does not necessarily mean that future requests for data would not occur in the interim . . .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. Accordingly, plaintiffs have shown that the balance of harms weighs in favor of issuing 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,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “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.”

FPC is joined in this lawsuit by the Second Amendment Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Orange County Gun Owners PAC, and Inland Empire Gun Owners PAC.

Individuals who would like to Join the FPC Grassroots Army and support important pro-rights lawsuits and programs can sign up at JoinFPC.org. Individuals and organizations wanting to support charitable efforts in support of the restoration of Second Amendment and other natural rights can also make a tax-deductible donation to the FPC Action Foundation. For more on FPC’s lawsuits and other pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on InstagramTwitterFacebookYouTube

 

Previous Post
Next Post

24 COMMENTS

  1. Losing in court is not enough…I want to see the sneaky scumbags behind such sleazy Gun Control schemes tarred and feathered. Or shoot them out of a circus canon into a brick wall, etc. Ouch.

      • That was my proposed solution to illegal immigration; catapults and trebuchets to fling them back into Mexico. I would be glad to include politicians at no extra charge.

        • And don’t forget lawyers. This would be an excellent use for one of those “go fund me” projects!

  2. Based on the number of losing cases with his name on them, I’m beginning to wonder if Bonta has done anything legal!

    • Too late. It already did this past June. Pretty much the entire database, including all CCW info as to all persons, including judges and police officers, who have been issued one, as well as information as to all gun owners who have registered firearms in the last 22 years.

      • Then claimed it was all an accident, when they literally did it on purpose with this tantrum as the response to NYSRPA v. Bruen.

        5 year old mentality in governance, such a great thing.

  3. Come and take them, wether you are foreign, or domestic, the lead doesn’t care. I am quite prepared to die, so please no replies about how they’ll kill you bro. I’m old and stove up so I don’t care. Resist one world government, repent and turn away from your sins, confess Christ.

  4. Ok. Another supposed “win” at a low level court. Now the appeals. This is what “lawfare” looks like, and the Dims have money and time on their side. Our “side” has proven inept, or at least faint-hearted, at the long march. And where are the billionaire 2A supporters on our “side”?

  5. This ruling should have included forbidding the information released/leaked earlier from being used by these anti-gun so called ‘researchers’. But its already in their hands and now there is nothing that keeps them from using it anyway they want or further passing it around.

    • Whoopity shit doodle… is there some way to magically erase the lists that they already downloaded and are available for distribution from “unrelated” sources ? There should have been a PAINFUL fine leavied per name released.

  6. oleaginous:
    adjective
    1.
    rich in, covered with, or producing oil; oily or greasy.
    “fabrics would quickly become filthy in this oleaginous kingdom”
    2.
    exaggeratedly and distastefully complimentary; obsequious.
    “candidates made the usual oleaginous speeches in the debate”

    Figure I’m not the only one who had no idea what that meant.

  7. Personal information such as? There is NO personal information that cannot be accessed and that Judge is ignorant in he thinks there is.
    Where you live, how much you have in the bank . National Insurance details, pension detrails, addresses, school records, life, birth, death, marriage and divorce, every CARD transaction, ever CHECKING transaction, auto mobiles transactions driving licenses, dog license, gun licenses, hunting licenses, Cell phone records, Email tracking, AMAZON tracking, finger printing, DNA records Border Crossings, Passport controls, Foreign tavels, ANPR, interstate surveillence cameras, FLIGHT MOVEMENT RECORDS, electoral rolls, traffic violations, CRIMINAL records, Medical records, Insurance records, propery ownership records I could go on but you get the idea. They are all out there for those that need to know.

  8. So is there any penalty for the DOJ or “researchers” who go ahead and violate a court order and release the firearms owner info anyway? Any penalty for the release of info that has already occurred? The massive data breach of CCW info that “accidentally” happened, ooops sorry about that, rest assured that we take protection of your personal information seriously and if it happens again we will say oooops sorry again and that will make it all better. Even if these folks get fined in court, they don’t pay it, the taxpayers (you) pay it.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here