It's rather lengthy and contains lots of repeated verbiage but I didn't see anywhere in it penalties for unauthorized access or leaking of the PII collected. It lists the purpose for collecting the data, what they intend to use it for, and states it cannot be used for purposes other than those listed in the bill but without consequences for violating those provisions, there's little reason for the organizations who are given access to this data to treat it with respect and secure it appropriately.
Voting history is explicitly not public record because it would lead to voter intimidation. This is the same reason why people are concerned about this legislation.
One more way PII can be leaked, now enriched with another piece of data: gun ownership. Yet, it’s going to cause zero reduction in gun violence and illegal firearm possessions. So it penalizes legal gun ownership.
If facebook and pornhub can leak pii, rest assure this will be leaked. Every neighbor and your friends, colleague, employer and gangsters would be eager to find out who has gun at home. What will happen next will be a no-brainer.
But that might just by design, shame and penalize those oppressed. End game will be nobody dare to legally own a gun, just like in mexico today, a gun "free" country. How did that work out?
This is exactly what gun rights advocates have been saying would come, should owners have to register with the state. All this is going to do is punish and put law abiding citizens at risk. I'm sure politicians will be exempt from having their data shared.
We are witnessing the circulation of mass shame lists designed to deprive people of their livelihood. Whether or not you agree that the people on these lists deserve to be hurt for their political opinions, many innocent people are also being caught in the crossfire. This legislation will have a similar effect.
> Whether or not you agree that the people on these lists deserve to be hurt for their political opinions, many innocent people are also being caught in the crossfire.
Not sure if your choice of words is very unfortunate or if there's a sarcastic undertone; because in the US there seem to be way too many innocent people that are caught in the literal crossfire of gun violence. Finding ways to address this with legislation seems, from my non-American point of view, only reasonable - and yes, of course it will also affect and limit people that did not contribute to gun violence; what would your solution be, enforcing it only for people who already committed a crime, so essentially when it's too late to inconvenience them?
The vast majority of firearms that are used in crimes are obtained illegally, and thus will not be subject to these lists. The data on this is widely available. This legislation is purely a punitive political measure.
Illegal guns are former legal guns. S&W doesn't run a factory that only sells to criminals -- those legal guns are diverted to criminals, via the generally lax attitudes of American gun owners.
Indeed. If every gun were registered, and the gun owner (or gun store, or gun manufacturer, whoever last had the registration) faced personal financial/criminal liability when one of their registered guns was used improperly, it would make people take their guns a lot more seriously.
This is already a thing. I had a rifle stolen some time ago. Shortly thereafter shootings occurred on a freeway nearby with a rifle with the exact caliber as mine. The ATF and DEA were at my house for a chat. Luckily for me, the person that stole my rifle was caught and imprisoned and forensics verified that my firearm did not match the one used in the shooting. I was also lucky I saved the docket number from the Sheriff when I reported it stolen.
I have since left California and moved to a state where everyone is heavily armed. Now my rifles are pea-shooters in comparison to what everyone else around me has. Firearm crime is a very rare occurrence here.
If you are attempting to say that stricter guns laws lead to more firearm deaths, you would be quite wrong. California has one of the lowest rates per capita in the US. This law needs some improvements for sure, but here are the CDC stats for the lowest 10 states (columns are deaths, population, and rate per 100k):
Delaware (10) 93 973,764 9.6
Iowa (19) 294 3,155,070 9.3
Minnesota (27) 465 5,639,632 8.2
California (06) 2,945 39,512,223 7.5
Connecticut (09) 190 3,565,287 5.3
Rhode Island (44) 48 1,059,361 4.5
Hawaii (15) 62 1,415,872 4.4
New Jersey (34) 368 8,882,190 4.1
New York (36) 804 19,453,561 4.1
Massachusetts (25) 247 6,892,503 3.6
I don't count suicides. My state has a high alcohol consumption rate and high suicide rate (loneliness).
Including only homicide, california is 3.19 per 100k and my state is 2.51 per 100k. Sadly I can't get it to drill down to my county. They also do not include justifiable homicide as a data point.
Everybody else counts suicides. Also, not knowing your state I am willing bet there are confounding factors. The vast majority of firearm homicides are in urban areas.
I am not going to be able to get the exact same figure as you since the way the search form is set up it is pretty easy to get slightly different numbers. But the only state from the last 3 years of data that would seem to fit your comment is Minnesota. Obviously if you move away from some of the largest metropolitan areas in the US crime rate goes down. But that does not even matter. California still falls in the bottom 8 states despite having several large, difficult metro areas, and the highest percentage of its population living in urban areas of any state, at 95%. In contrast, Minnesota is at 17th, with 73.3%.
Some people hold opinions on pre-crime approach to crime. Some would even argue that creating lists of potential troublemakers, dissidents, and all around problematic characters is.. not noted for great results throughout history.. including that of US. I personally hold this really controversial opinion that crime should be addressed when crime is committed. Doing it before it is committed breaks the fabric of reality and/or common sense.
The US still has said lists(eg. No fly list and sexual offenders lisssst); are you just more okay with having some people on a precrime list than others?
I can't speak for the person you're replying to, but I'm against any No Fly lists, both for the pre-crime aspect and for the the opaqueness with which its implemented.
Sex offenders, by definition, have committed a crime. So that's not really a pre-crime list. Although, sure, some people may not belong on those lists, and it's pretty life-ruining for them.
Your point reads a bit like this: "These injustices exist that you should be against, so why are you supportive of them?"
And I am really uncomfortable with those as well. I am not sure why you would assume I accept those lists and not others for some reason.
No fly list in particular is an abomination. That said, given that Delta is creating a its own version ( and asking other cartel members to join ), soon we may be revisiting this conversation.
The amount of crimes committed with firearms seems to generally correlate with the ease of access to firearms. Trying to make it less convenient to obtain and own firearms, and this includes registration thereof, generally reduces the amount of firearms in circulation, implicitly also reducing the amount of crimes committed with them.
It's like seatbelt-laws, yes, they infringe your personal liberty to do however you pleases, but they also generally help to reduce accidents and, implicitly, reduce cost for society (and not just in terms of money).
Again; from my outsider-point-of-view, that the US even has to have these kinds of discussions seems so weird to me. There are way too many people dying in the US because of the absurd amount of guns, not trying to address this with legislation (as every other advanced nation managed to do) seems outright absurd.
Precisely. Can't wait for employers to include this in their background checks and deny employment if you own a gun.
I was going to write a statement saying "I hope they sue and the state of CA is held liable for damages" but then the gravity of that sentence hit me. Why do private citizens wanting to simply enjoy a constitutional right have to go to such lengths to do so?
What even if they win the suit? The information is out there legally right now and any one who wishes to use that information to target or harass law abiding citizens is going to be free to do so.
I can already picture some public health official explaining to CNN viewership that denying employment because of gun ownership is "technically legal because gun owners are not a protected class." Further, I can picture the countless numbers of individuals repeating that factoid on Twitter and in real life like it's some cheatcode to winning the argument.
The risk is always the same. Regular people who happen to own guns will eventually have access to that property removed. Actual criminals won't care, because they don't follow the law. It is an old dance, but it placates specific demographic, who is more scared of a tool than of government power.
Gun ownership can be politicized. Let’s not be naive. You would not want to be a known gun owner in some social circles of Alameda County, just as much as you wouldn’t want it to be publicly known that you are LGBTQ+ in Calaveras County.
Privacy is an important right for good reasons.
I don’t own a gun and tend to dislike them. But I work with perfectly fine, sane and normal people who do own guns, and shouldn’t have to be subjected to the judgments of the crowds, just as much as I’ve worked with perfectly fine, sane and normal LGBTQ+ who shouldn’t be subject to the judgments of the crowds.
Yes he is, and it seems like you’re upset by that.
But his comparison in the context of the fundamental human right to privacy is valid. You have a right to not publish a list of what you own, and you also have a right to not publicly declare your sexuality.
Gun ownership is a choice whereas sexuality and gender identity generally are not. I agree that privacy is important and that there are sensible gun owners out there but this is a poor way to frame the argument.
If an extra-governmental criminal were to get access to the data and wanted to go steal some specific property they would have an efficient seed dataset to be combined with for example MyLife data which lists addresses and family members given a name to go on holiday with.
Hypothetically speaking, say we just assumed that basically everything the gun rights advocates are predicting is going to come to pass. Does it matter?
I'm making a guess here that the gun control advocates come in 2 flavours:
1) People who are scared of being shot, and prioritise that fear highly.
2) People who are committed to maintaining the status quo, and don't want there to be even a hypothetical potential for meaningful opposition to the police (such people, though relatively rare, are common in government).
I doubt either of those groups cares about the arguments being made by gun advocates, so I'm not sure what difference it would make if the gun advocates were right about everything.
So you self identify two groups and further assume the logical leanings of those groups and thus you have an argument, you think?
Wow, dude. This is HN. I'd expect more intelligence. And before you begin typing out a response saying "What have i missed, please correct me". . .this is not a forum for babysitting people.
If you're going to comment on a complex topic like Gun Control, you are expected to familiarize yourself with the pro and cons at least by doing a little bit of due diligence in googling around and reading up on the forums representing the two sides.
A drive by comment with an authoritative take such as yours should be better informed and constructed with more logic.
Fair enough. So say hypothetically speaking, say we just assumed that basically everything the gun rights advocates are predicting is going to come to pass. Why does it matter?
Labouring the point a little bit, the initial post wasn't an argument. It was an (admittedly awkward) longform question with a basic intent of "this is what I'm thinking, it doesn't seem very well thought out, where are the soft spots?". Telling me I'm not intelligent doesn't really give me a lead on what to do next.
Telling you you're posing a question in an unintelligent way is the first point. The direct reason why is you're making up your own facts and then further adding inference to the groups you've identified.
The "next steps" here are to consider if this is the approach that helps answer your question. I suggest it does not. Further, you could consider if you're in a position to have an authoritative take as you've done here without doing the due diligence on the arguments as i've called out.
The question mark does nothing to further the debate. It is premised on your expectation for someone else to do your reading assignment for you. Please, do better.
Try. Try reading up. Try seeing the arguments on both sides, BEFORE doing drive by comments with such a simplistic and irresponsible of condensing the positions of a serious debate into a "So what?" comment.
Group 3: People who don’t want to live in a society where violent thugs use murder or threats of murder to impose their will upon their neighbors, and are tired of seeing their compatriots die easily preventable deaths, in numbers vastly exceeding any other developed country.
Any actual lawyer want to confirm exactly what this law does? I read the text and I’m actually not sure, and one shouldn’t as a rule trust the submitter’s title as a summary on a politically-loaded topic without verification.
In particular, when is this information collected and by whom?
The assembly's analysis seems to provide the TL;DR:
Clarifie the process and parameters of disclosure of specified information to the California Firearm Violence Research Center at UC Davis by the Department of Justice (DOJ) for research or statistical activities. The DOJ may at its discretion, also disclose specified information, to other nonprofit bona fide research institutions that are accredited by the United State Department of Education or the Council for Higher Education Accreditation for the study of violence prevention in the matter prescribed. Requires that any material identifying individuals to only be used for research and statistical purposes and prohibits reports or publications derived from the material from identifying any specific individuals. Requires DOJ to establish procedures for these requests and allows researchers to be charged reasonable fees related to their requests
1. There's going to be a California-state-government-run list of gun owners. People who buy a gun or have it transferred to them get added to it. Not reporting a transfer is a crime.
2. When someone gets a restraining order against someone else, they can request information on whether said person is on the list and which/how many weapons they have. They are then allowed to use that information as they like. Law enforcement will be able to check whether someone is on the list.
3. There will be a second list of people ineligible to own a gun for various reasons. These are primarily the people who the state expects to fail a background check (which is required for purchase as I understand it). Anyone selling or transferring a gun will have to ask the registry whether the person they are transferring to is on the blocklist. Not doing so is a crime.
4. There will be a third list, which is the correlation of people who are on the first list and on the second list. This is a list of people who have firearms but would not be allowed to acquire firearms now. This list can be shared with universities and "bona fide research institutions".
As someone who lives in a place where gun ownership is not normal or tolerated for the most part, this is all really weird to me, so I'm not able to evaluate the significance of it, but this is what it says.
52 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 108 ms ] threadPrivacy matters. For everybody. Yes, even the people you hate.
But that might just by design, shame and penalize those oppressed. End game will be nobody dare to legally own a gun, just like in mexico today, a gun "free" country. How did that work out?
Not sure if your choice of words is very unfortunate or if there's a sarcastic undertone; because in the US there seem to be way too many innocent people that are caught in the literal crossfire of gun violence. Finding ways to address this with legislation seems, from my non-American point of view, only reasonable - and yes, of course it will also affect and limit people that did not contribute to gun violence; what would your solution be, enforcing it only for people who already committed a crime, so essentially when it's too late to inconvenience them?
I have since left California and moved to a state where everyone is heavily armed. Now my rifles are pea-shooters in comparison to what everyone else around me has. Firearm crime is a very rare occurrence here.
Including only homicide, california is 3.19 per 100k and my state is 2.51 per 100k. Sadly I can't get it to drill down to my county. They also do not include justifiable homicide as a data point.
I am not going to be able to get the exact same figure as you since the way the search form is set up it is pretty easy to get slightly different numbers. But the only state from the last 3 years of data that would seem to fit your comment is Minnesota. Obviously if you move away from some of the largest metropolitan areas in the US crime rate goes down. But that does not even matter. California still falls in the bottom 8 states despite having several large, difficult metro areas, and the highest percentage of its population living in urban areas of any state, at 95%. In contrast, Minnesota is at 17th, with 73.3%.
Sex offenders, by definition, have committed a crime. So that's not really a pre-crime list. Although, sure, some people may not belong on those lists, and it's pretty life-ruining for them.
Your point reads a bit like this: "These injustices exist that you should be against, so why are you supportive of them?"
No fly list in particular is an abomination. That said, given that Delta is creating a its own version ( and asking other cartel members to join ), soon we may be revisiting this conversation.
It's like seatbelt-laws, yes, they infringe your personal liberty to do however you pleases, but they also generally help to reduce accidents and, implicitly, reduce cost for society (and not just in terms of money).
Again; from my outsider-point-of-view, that the US even has to have these kinds of discussions seems so weird to me. There are way too many people dying in the US because of the absurd amount of guns, not trying to address this with legislation (as every other advanced nation managed to do) seems outright absurd.
I was going to write a statement saying "I hope they sue and the state of CA is held liable for damages" but then the gravity of that sentence hit me. Why do private citizens wanting to simply enjoy a constitutional right have to go to such lengths to do so?
What even if they win the suit? The information is out there legally right now and any one who wishes to use that information to target or harass law abiding citizens is going to be free to do so.
Privacy is an important right for good reasons.
I don’t own a gun and tend to dislike them. But I work with perfectly fine, sane and normal people who do own guns, and shouldn’t have to be subjected to the judgments of the crowds, just as much as I’ve worked with perfectly fine, sane and normal LGBTQ+ who shouldn’t be subject to the judgments of the crowds.
But his comparison in the context of the fundamental human right to privacy is valid. You have a right to not publish a list of what you own, and you also have a right to not publicly declare your sexuality.
Sex acts being a choice or not is irrelevant.
Why human lose memory after merely two generations every single time in the history?
I'm making a guess here that the gun control advocates come in 2 flavours:
1) People who are scared of being shot, and prioritise that fear highly.
2) People who are committed to maintaining the status quo, and don't want there to be even a hypothetical potential for meaningful opposition to the police (such people, though relatively rare, are common in government).
I doubt either of those groups cares about the arguments being made by gun advocates, so I'm not sure what difference it would make if the gun advocates were right about everything.
Wow, dude. This is HN. I'd expect more intelligence. And before you begin typing out a response saying "What have i missed, please correct me". . .this is not a forum for babysitting people.
If you're going to comment on a complex topic like Gun Control, you are expected to familiarize yourself with the pro and cons at least by doing a little bit of due diligence in googling around and reading up on the forums representing the two sides.
A drive by comment with an authoritative take such as yours should be better informed and constructed with more logic.
Labouring the point a little bit, the initial post wasn't an argument. It was an (admittedly awkward) longform question with a basic intent of "this is what I'm thinking, it doesn't seem very well thought out, where are the soft spots?". Telling me I'm not intelligent doesn't really give me a lead on what to do next.
The "next steps" here are to consider if this is the approach that helps answer your question. I suggest it does not. Further, you could consider if you're in a position to have an authoritative take as you've done here without doing the due diligence on the arguments as i've called out.
The question mark does nothing to further the debate. It is premised on your expectation for someone else to do your reading assignment for you. Please, do better.
Try. Try reading up. Try seeing the arguments on both sides, BEFORE doing drive by comments with such a simplistic and irresponsible of condensing the positions of a serious debate into a "So what?" comment.
Hope that helps.
In particular, when is this information collected and by whom?
1. There's going to be a California-state-government-run list of gun owners. People who buy a gun or have it transferred to them get added to it. Not reporting a transfer is a crime.
2. When someone gets a restraining order against someone else, they can request information on whether said person is on the list and which/how many weapons they have. They are then allowed to use that information as they like. Law enforcement will be able to check whether someone is on the list.
3. There will be a second list of people ineligible to own a gun for various reasons. These are primarily the people who the state expects to fail a background check (which is required for purchase as I understand it). Anyone selling or transferring a gun will have to ask the registry whether the person they are transferring to is on the blocklist. Not doing so is a crime.
4. There will be a third list, which is the correlation of people who are on the first list and on the second list. This is a list of people who have firearms but would not be allowed to acquire firearms now. This list can be shared with universities and "bona fide research institutions".
As someone who lives in a place where gun ownership is not normal or tolerated for the most part, this is all really weird to me, so I'm not able to evaluate the significance of it, but this is what it says.