• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
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.
 

A ECNALG

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
138
Location
Orange County, California, USA
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?)
 

randian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
380
Location
Phoenix, AZ
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.
 
Top