Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Assembly Bill Would Exempt Certain Officials From Records Requests Of Gun Permits

  1. #1
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287

    Assembly Bill Would Exempt Certain Officials From Records Requests Of Gun Permits

    This assemblyman wants to keep us in the dark about which public officials have gun permits issued to them. Makes perfect sense. You don't want your constituency to know just how duplicitous the government is.

    AB 2221, as introduced, Block. Public records.
    (1) The California Public Records Act requires state and local
    agencies to make public records available for inspection, subject to
    specified criteria, and with specified exceptions. The act
    specifically requires state and local law enforcement agencies to
    disclose certain information to the victim of an incident, including,
    but not limited to, the name and address of another person involved
    in the incident. The act also requires state and local law
    enforcement agencies to disclose certain information regarding
    complaints or requests for assistance and arrests, and excludes from
    this disclosure requirement specified information about victims of
    certain crimes. The act additionally excludes from disclosure certain
    information contained in applications for licenses to carry firearms
    submitted by peace officers, judges, court commissioners, and
    magistrates.
    This bill would specifically require state and local law
    enforcement agencies to disclose the name and address of a suspect,
    rather than a person, involved in an incident. This bill would also
    revise the disclosure requirements applicable to state and local law
    enforcement agencies relating to and about victims, including, but
    not limited to, prohibiting the disclosure of identifying information
    about a victim at the victim's request. This bill would add
    prosecutors and public defenders to the list of professionals whose
    firearm license applications are not fully required to be disclosed
    as public records.
    This bill would make technical changes to these provisions.
    (2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse
    local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
    state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
    reimbursement.
    This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates
    determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state,
    reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these
    statutory provisions.
    Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
    State-mandated local program: yes.

  2. #2
    Regular Member A ECNALG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    138
    What ?!

    They don't actually mean to say that society is safer when criminals don't know who's armed, do they ?!


    (Or is it just that select individuals are safer when they can defend themselves against criminals who don't know that they are armed?)

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    391
    I'd bet that this is an attempt to block "equal protection" lawsuits. Pro-gun litigators in CA have have good success against a number of counties arguing that giving certain people carry permits for "self defense", but not others, violates "equal protection". Basically, may-issue does not confer absolute discretion on the part of the issuing authority. By removing certain persons from the public records they frustrate discovery for such lawsuits.

  4. #4
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by randian View Post
    By removing certain persons from the public records they frustrate discovery for such lawsuits.
    I believe in many of the counties where this might be relevant, this effort is already too late.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •