Cal. releases private infromation of 100K citizens after Supreme Court Ruling

[ciaban2.0]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wire...ublic-85968102

The California Department of Justice on Wednesday acknowledged the agency wrongly made public the personal information of perhaps hundreds of thousands of gun owners in up to six state-operated databases, a broader exposure than the agency initially disclosed a day earlier.


Names, dates of birth, gender, race, driver’s license numbers, addresses and criminal histories were exposed for people who were granted or denied permits to carry concealed weapons between 2011 and 2021, the department said. Social Security numbers and financial information were not disclosed.

[ciaban2.0]

From a journalistic standpoint, I don't like the framing of this article, saying they "wrongly made person info available" is a subjective opinion on the part of the author.
Who is saying what happened is wrong? And WHY is it wrong?

You could say it was illegal, because making this info available is illegal, but wrong and right are subjective terms.

[catman]

This could make for a large lawsuit against the state. It will be interesting watching this.

[dbroncos78087]

Beyond the obvious personal nightmare, I do wonder why there would be any licenses for guns when the person has criminal history. Those people should not be permitted to have guns.

[catman]

Beyond the obvious personal nightmare, I do wonder why there would be any licenses for guns when the person has criminal history. Those people should not be permitted to have guns.

If current laws are followed, there should not be any.

[dbroncos78087]

If current laws are followed, there should not be any.

I don't think that's true. Because there would be no ability to process a permit for someone with a criminal history if that were the case. Like the system literally wouldn't allow it.

[valade16]

Beyond the obvious personal nightmare, I do wonder why there would be any licenses for guns when the person has criminal history. Those people should not be permitted to have guns.

They should not be, but in this instance we also have to ask whether we should go after anyone exposed by this leak given that had this not happened we wouldn’t know about it.

[natepro]

They should not be, but in this instance we also have to ask whether we should go after anyone exposed by this leak given that had this not happened we wouldn’t know about it.

I'd think it would be considered fruit of the poisoned tree, since it was a state action that caused the exposure.

[ciaban2.0]

Beyond the obvious personal nightmare, I do wonder why there would be any licenses for guns when the person has criminal history. Those people should not be permitted to have guns.

In california your required to give a bunch of personal info if you want to *apply* for a licences to carry.

Also, not all crimes are the same, someone who is convicted of domestic abuse, and someone who is convicted of DUI both have criminal histories, but that doesn't mean the person with the DUI should never be allowed to own a gun.
Same with hacking, same with wire fraud. etc etc.

[ciaban2.0]

They should not be, but in this instance we also have to ask whether we should go after anyone exposed by this leak given that had this not happened we wouldn’t know about it.

What do you mean?

[valade16]

What do you mean?

Generally, if the government releases information they were charged with securing and through that information it is discovered you are committing some crime, the government cannot then prosecute you for that crime based on that information leak.

As Natepro said, it falls under the doctrine of Fruit of the Poisonous Tree (which holds that evidence illegally obtained is inadmissible).

[ciaban2.0]

Generally, if the government releases information they were charged with securing and through that information it is discovered you are committing some crime, the government cannot then prosecute you for that crime based on that information leak.

As Natepro said, it falls under the doctrine of Fruit of the Poisonous Tree (which holds that evidence illegally obtained is inadmissible).

I see what you mean, but all of this is info that they got from people voluntarily giving the govt to apply for something.
If they were denied a permit it doesn't mean they broke a law. Cal doesn't give many out and in some counties, you need written permission from the County Sheriff to get one, which creates a problem with cronyism and nepotism.

[goingfor28]

Beyond the obvious personal nightmare, I do wonder why there would be any licenses for guns when the person has criminal history. Those people should not be permitted to have guns.

We actually agree on something. Any present or former criminal should absolutely not be allowed to own or possess a firearm.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[ciaban2.0]

We actually agree on something. Any present or former criminal should absolutely not be allowed to own or possess a firearm.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

Really? Someone with a DUI shouldn't be allowed to EVER own a gun?

I understand if they have a conviction for violent crimes. But there are a lot of white collar crimes out there.

[dbroncos78087]

Really? Someone with a DUI shouldn't be allowed to EVER own a gun?

I understand if they have a conviction for violent crimes. But there are a lot of white collar crimes out there.

While DUI isn’t inherently violent, it is potentially fatal. So yea I absolutely think people who commit DUI should have their rights severely limited.